Lawn Tennis

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 95, 16 January 1929, Page 9

Lawn Tennis

(By

"Forehand.")

NEW ZEALAND PLAYERS FURTHER REVIEWS

Last week I dealt with the excellent control of the Dominion tournament under most disheartening conditions, the advisability of restricting entries iu order to maintain a higher standard of play, and the advisability, also, of holding the tournament at a later date. I then estimated the play of the two champions, both Aucklanders, E. L. Bartleet and Miss Marjorie Macfarlane. This week I would deal with some others of the men competing. C. E. Malfroy.

That C. E. Malfroy would do well was expected. That he’would, reach the final of the men’s singles, the mixed doubles, and the semi-final of the men’s doubles, was not so generally expected. For myself, I entertained the view that he would be defeated by A. L. France. Nor, after the first round, did he have an easy run. He had to meet strong opposition in E. W. Griffiths, T. Rhodes-Williams, N. E. Sturt, A. L. France, and lastly, E. L. Bartleet. The last be succumbed to in four hard-fought sets. The season before, at Christchurch, it took Bartleet five sets to clinch matters, having lost the first two sets. Bartleet was much more fortunately placed in the draw (if conservation of energy was to be a factor), than Malfroy was. He had a bye in the first round, in the second round he met a junior, in the third a player to whom he allowed only two games of the twenty played, his real trial of strength not coming till the fourth set, when he met C. Angas. It is not suggested by this narration of facts that had the positions been reversed, Malfroy would have won the final, and Bartleet lost it. _ I do not think that for a moment. I think that at the present Bartleet has proved himself the best player in New Zealand, the only one likely to beat him being D. G. France, who; at the time the New Zealand championships were being contested, was working his wav through to the final of the Martinborough championship, which he won. .

Mnlfrov along with Angas, is unquestionably the best of our, young players. There is no one in sight, unless it be A. C. Stedman, fit to be considered in the same breath. At-the present time Malfroy has a distinct advantage over his rivals. For one sb young, he is barely twenty years of age, he plays a type of game astounding iu its maturity. To a fine stroke equipment of admirable accuracy and consistency, he adds a coolness arid headiness that one connects only with veterans that have had years of expenence in tournament play. One may see him annoyed, but one never sees him bustled. He may be said to have a distinct genius for the game. His strategy is good even where the execution may be faulty. He has a confidence m himselt that is merited by the soundness of his game and his methods. To a consistent service that is hit hard and kicks from the ground harder and with a big break, he adds an attack based on excellent placements to the lines (either straight down them or crosscourt), that w OEt often forces the opponent on the defensive. He is not always fortunate m Ins choice of times to come to the net. He is too frequently passed from that quarter. When he gets more pace on Ins drives which will give an added difficulty to their depth, he will win more ofitrnf from the het. just that little more pace to permit him to take the fullest advantage of the openings he has made bv brilliant placing, is all that is required. And that added pace must come with experience. It is not suggested that this additional pace must come from clouting the ball, but from stroking, it more fiftnly. He is very active on the court, and can cover the ground iety fast, while his sense of position play saves him from many anxious moments when the battle is on. It is sincerely to be hoped that he will not be expected in interested quarters to do too much. He is young yet, and first-class match tennis is most exacting and most exhausting to even mature men. It is not always good for one so young to be launched so suddenly on the path to fame and as,suddenly come so near to achieving it. Interested parties seeing the successes expect a constant repetition of them, and, should there be a check, are prone to instil some bitterness into the sense of defeat by their disappointment. Young players should be allowed to have their days off. Life to Suzanne Lenglen held no pleasure because she was never allowed to have her days off. She dared not lose a match. Let no one then be foolish enough to act, think, or say anything that might be the means of forcing youth to the limit to maintain a reputation and not to disappoint fondest hopes. A husbanding of resources at this .end might mean years of activity gained in the’heyday of vitality. And Malfroy is too valuable an asset to New Zealand tennis, not to be carefully looked after. Let him develop his game and his strength by natural stages rather than be forced on by the fear of disappointing others. In this world of ours one’ can be too easily., and too quickly played out. C. Angas.

He is stronger than Malfroy physically and his shots have a greater directness. There is a strength in Angus s play that is absent from Malfroy’s, but Angus lacks the headwork. Whereas Malfroy wins by skill in placement, Angas strives to win on sheer speed. Angas does not so much make the opening as cracking the ball into the first open space he sees. There is a snap about his shots altogether foreign to Malfroy. Indeed, wjiere Xlalfrov mav be said to stroke Angas hits it. That is how he has been taught. ■ His racket must have life. He, too. must have life. He cannot be a man of leisure on the court. He can never be still He is alert and keen and anxious, lie iias little time for safety tactics. The point must be either won or lost on the instant, and he will go chasing after the most difficult balls to make spectacular returns. Because of his hitting proclivities he is not so steady in his ground strokes as Malfroy. but he is a much better volley, and an incomparably bet-

ter smasher. While I think he might play better did he practise- more restraint, it is questionable whether he is built in such a way that he could practise it. He is the most confident man who ever steps on to a court to-dayl It is a confidence amounting almost to eocksureness. The wonder is that defeats do not leave him more disappointed. But he has quick recuperative powers, and he soon forgets the mistakes. Although defeated by Bartleet in straight sets, . Angas comes through the New Zealand championship with an enhanced reputation, his win with'Miss Spiers in the mixed and his great final game with. A. L. France against Bartleet and Laurenson clinching his claims as a first-class player in all departments. Malfroy and Angas have met several times now/and each time the honours have been with Malfroy.

A. C. Stedman. In striking contrast to Malfroy and Angas is A. C. Stedman (Auckland). Neither in physique, type of play, or temperament does he in any way resemble Malfroy or Angas. Stedman is tall, slimly built, who hits the ball to the corners iu a way very much like E. D. Andrews does. Like Angas he relies on the power of his strokes, but it is a more reasoned and a more reasonable force. Angas is at home anywhere on the court; Stedman, is only comfortable when from the baseline he can drive from corner to corner to keep the opponent moving, and, if possible, always on the defence. Stedman is diffident and very nervous; Angas is. neither. Had Stedman the confidence of Angas and the strategy of Malfroy he would be terrific. But the player must be taken as he is and it is futile to try and regard him' as a composite character. Stedman's drives are fine shots to take the net on, lint .unfortunately he is weak at present in volleying and smashing. New Zealand has by "no means.-yct seen the best Stedman can give., and he 'would belgiliold man .who would deny.,-him a claim to the New Zealand championship singles before his tennis career has ended. Indeed- in Malfrov. Angas and Stedman. Neiv Zealand lias three boys—they are little, more than that —of exceptional promise.;; ":.

France Bros. ‘ v < A L. and D.’G. France.; two brothers, present a problem. They have always been on the point of achieving, raiid just when everything seemed set for them they failed and disappointed their friends and supporters. It would be difficult to find two brothers more dissimilar. If the one could have some of the other’s advantages he would be a truly great player. If D. G. had A. L.’s fighting qualities..- or A. L. had D. G.’s strokes? But it is useless to pursue' vain imaginings. For -.better or worse they must be taken as they are. and people will ■be less inclined-.to* speak of them in terms of possible New Zealand champions. The opportunity came, ami thev failed to grasp it by the forelock. D. G 'France at his best is unbeatable in New Zealand. The balls flow from hi# racket as in a stream of sheer brilliance. No shadow of weakness is there to be found anvwhere. Deep, driving backhand and forehand, hard and accurate, a disconcerting. heavily cut service, perfect relieving and smashing, spectacular returns. All these and more are; seen to perfection whep D. G. France.is at his best. Then at the most unexpected moment he slumps and descends to ordinary club tennis. He has not the alertness and concentration of his brother, A. L. over a lencthv period. While A. L. cannot compare with D G. for strokes, he. is apparently better able to fix bis mind on the game to the exclusion of all else. But he is lacking ■ the finishing . ..strokes, He chops and cuts and volleys his way. about to« L winMng„PQSi.tJon and then fails because he will"not use a ffrlvertvefl tltougn he has it. -To see the two engaged in. a singles is to see a remarkable contrast in stvles One would scarcely expect A. L. to stand up to D.’ G.’s brilliance, yet he does it. and frequently he breaks up D. G. s game. Latterly neither has been deiotin„ S .time to serious training because of the claims of business. Perhaps tne difference between tha two in . t A e “P er '\ me T l mnv bp summed up iu a. sentence. , a* -l , » has the will to win the New Zealand chamffionsMp but he can’t, and D. G. can win it, but be won’t.

J. T. Laurenson. t J T Laurenson is another player who has' had his better days. At his best Laurenson was a marvel of .steadiness and sneed to retrieve difficult balls. He is still the stone wall, still the retriever, still the possessor of no formidable strokes exJept a perfect lob and a deadly smash, and marvellous fighting temperament. But iie seems not .to be able to s and the gruel nf q Inn** tournament now in singles, ne no longe? gets to the ball with the same ease in the fifth set that lie used to. and he is losing a little of his patience Nevetheless, he will be .beaten only _ by very’ best, and. if the - „ in ■ the Dominion are shglitly off form he will beat them. He used to win his matches by his V o '^ r ( , o£ t , 1 Y a 1 1 )a n°’back ibilitv to keep on putting the bail oacK where the opponent is not, thereby causin- the opponent to be always moving until he exhausts himself. He ? vo«W to - low into the net on very weak stuff, but sn nnirk is he on his feet that it most difficult to get past him. Try to lob him and he would leap in the a Jjd score with a deadly smash of remarkable power Jor a man so small. He has neither drive nor service, Tint his smashing and 10 '> bl “= and fighting qualities and powers of retrieving are seldom found in combination in the one player. Hutt Valley Tennis Ladder. The following are the positions of the of the Hutt Valley Lawn Tennis Association ladders as at January 12 1020:— Senior Men.: 1, Chapman; 2, F. Stoupe, 3. F. Eales; 4, O. Ball; 5. Bosher; b. E Stroud; 7, J. Freethy; 8, E Aitken; 9, I. Willis; 10, A. Mawson; 11, L. Lvaim; 1-, L. Cooper; 13. McMurray; 14, J. Hector, 15, G. Robertson; 16, A. Smith, 17, L. Clark, 18 Senior T Ladies: 1, P- Taylor; 2, E. Beynon. 3?Fletcher; 4,’b. Wilkie; 5, Backman; 6 V. Fraser; 7, D. Judd; 8. V. Crawford, 9 F Teel; 10, V. Dyer; 11, M. Roussell; 12, T. Carey; 13, A. Mcllvride; 14, M. Huggins; 15, I. Teal; 16, V. Willis; 17, L. "Junior Men: 1, Sneddon; 2 H Marsh; 3, T Purdv; 4, J. Clark: o, A. Henderson; 6 C. Hoddinott; 7, A. Flux; 8, C. Cross; 9, F. Manderson; 10, F. Dyer; 11, W. George, 12, L. Frier; 13, L. Usmar; 14, A. Greening: 15, R. Jenness; 16, F. Ansell; 17, L. Lughton; 18. A. Watt. „ „ Junior Ladies: 1. J. Beddingfield; 2, D. Fraser- 3. T. Tilbury; 4, E. Mutimer; 5, J I Parsons; 6, E. Biftell; 7,/T. Ell; 8 R. Callander; 9, O. McMillan; 10, M. Fleet; 11, J. Burns; 12, K. Silva; 13, J. Gccson; 14, Gamble; 15, O. Jackson; 16, R. Taylor. Wellington Provincial Tournament. At its meeting on Monday night the Management Committee of the Wellington Provincial Lawn Tenuis Association decided to extend the closing time for entries for the Wellington Provincial championships to tomorrow (Thursday) owing to the paucity of entries already received. This is unfortunate and reflects no credit on tennis players in Wellington at all. Admittedly there is a strong counter-attraction at Masterton in the shape of the North Island championship, but if that takes some of Wellington's best a chance is surely given for Wellington's, second best to excel on their owu grounds. -The truth is, Wellington players through their lack of enthusiasm, scarcely* deserve the efforts made on their behalf by an energetic committee. It is no fun for the Individuals comprising the committee to give their time to the furtherance of tennis by providing a tournament unless the players are • going to give their suppott. It Is little short of disgraceful to the thousands of players in Wellington that they so little concern themselves with their province’s most important tournament that the - committee finds , ft necessary to extend the time up to which entries may be received. It is to be hoped players will benefit by that extension. Yachting Notes will be found on Page 8.