LAWN TENNIS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 116, 9 February 1929, Page 10

LAWN TENNIS

WILDING SHIELD MATCH AGAINST CANTERBURY WELLINGTON’S . SOUND POSITION WIN FIVE OF SIX GAMES ON FIRST DAY’S PLAY Dominion Special Service. Christchurch, February 8. By winning Live out of the six matches played on the opening day of the Wilding Shield match between Wellington (challengers) and Canterbury (holders) Wellington placed themselves in an almost unassailable position at Wilding Park to-day, for to gain the victory now Canterbury will have to win all six matches to be played to-morrow. Wellington proved themselves too strong all round, and the difference was particularly marked in the doubles, the second Wellington pair being a better combination than Canterbury's first team. Perfect weather favoured the players and the courts were fast and in splendid order. Only the two enclosure courts at Wilding Park were used, and the gallery was practically filled later in the afternoon by the large attendance of spectators.

A. L. France’s Deadly Chops.

A. L. France had too many of the finer points of the game at his command when he defeated the Canterbury skipper, D. F. Glanville, in sequence sets. His game, founded on spin and cut shots, always had something to trouble Glanville and his win was the result of superior tactics allied to the ability to put the ball just where he wanted it. The stroke, however, that proved most disconcerting to the Canterbury man was a short chop which fell dead within a few feet of the net. The result was that Glanville was continually on the run and even when he was able to reach these short ones he found them very difficult to deal with. The subtle employment of spin by the Wellingtonian and those exasperating short shots eventually wore Glanville down and while a more active and speedy man would have been able to retrieve a greater percentage of balls than Glanville did still the latter’s performance was full of merit and the first set was anybody’s. Glanville drove well on both forehand and backhand in the first set and frequently had France beaten as the latter came in to the net.

T. Rhodes Williams Beats Patterson.

T. Rhodes Williams (Wellington) was just a little too severe for T. W. Patterson, and lie scored the challengers second victory after a match winch was marked by very closely-contested play, even if the tennis never rose to brilliant heights. Throughout, Rhodes Williams’s play wjis marked by sound driving, solid work in the air, and good tactics. His game carried just a little too much sting for the steady Canterbury man, and the score gives an excellent idea of the respective merits of the two men. Rhodes Williams showed himself a very neat player, and his strokes are produced with remarkable ease and grace. His forehand played with a perfectly flat racket, nearly always had Patterson guessing, so. well vtiifi the direction of his stroke covered. Ratterson played his usual steady game, and he did not spare himself in chasing his opponent’s well-placed shots. He drove well on both hands, and by no means had the worst of the volleying exchanges. wlns Brilliantly.

C. E. Malfroy showed a little too much polish for his Canterbury rival, C. Angas, and in a game-that was for the most part marked by really brilliant tennis he won out 5—7, U —u —3. Both men went lor their shots from start to finish, hitting hard and accurately, and volleying which was often dazzling, kept an appreciative gallery up to a high pitch of excitement. Both men, too, were warmly applauded for many of their retrieves of seemingly shots. Angas lost because he had not that little bit in reserve that his opponent had retained through the match. Malfroy finished by far the fresher of the two, Angas having in a large measure “done his dash in chasing possible and impossible balls to win the first set. In stroke equipment Angas was in no wise inferior to his opponent, but the latter demonstrated that he has a very old tennis head on young shoulders and his game contained more ot the finer and subtler points than did his opponentls. A case in point was Malfroy s use of the lob. He frequently left Angas standing at the net with a well-judged toss from half-court when the latter was expecting a drive to either line. Seay Registers Sole Win There was little of interest in the game between I. A. Seay and 1). G. France beyond the fact that Seay registered for Canterbury its sole win of the day. It was verv obvious that France was suffering from an “off" day for, on the form he displayed, he could never have beaten the Wellington second string, Malfroy, whose brilliant game with Angas was in marked contrast to the rather uninteresting game played between the pair on the other court. France’s usually powerful and accurateforehand far too often found the net or went out of court, while Seay was not playing with the confidence which marks his plav at his best. Both men were inclined to play for safety, although both produced many individually fine shots. The game was brightened toward the finish by Seav’s improved form and with confidence born of the knowledge that he was a set to the good Seay, bit much harder and made many profitable excursions to tho net. 1 The Doubles.

There was only one team in the picture when the .first doubles pair of Wellington met Canterbury’s second pair and won with the loss of only live games. D. G. France and Malfroy crowded the net at every opportunity, aud both were deadly in their smashing aud volleying. The play In this department was in marked contrast- to that of Glanville aud Patterson, who erred very frequently overhead, and even when they hit the ball Into the court could seldom put the ball away cleanly. Patterson was the weak link hi the combination, and he was very patchy in both volleying and in his ground strokes., France played great tennis throughout, and he continually found gaps in the Canterbury defence by pasting snots down the centre of the court. He was unerring, too, overhead. Malfroy played a clever game, and did-not miss much. The surprise of the ilay was the defeat of Canterbury's first doubles pair, I. A. Seay and C. Angus, by the Wellington second team, A. L. France aud T. Ithodcs Williams. France was the destructive factor to Canterbury’s hopes, for he gave a remarkably sound display of clever and heady doubles play. Time and time again he intercepted his opponent’s shots, cutting off drives with a dexterity which completely took the Canterbury pair by surprise. He was. very safe overhead, and he put his smashes away for sure winners every time. Rliodes-Williamt played a very good game, but hip playlacked the reliability of his partners. However, it was some very fine play on his part in the crucial third set which gave the Wellingtofiiaiis the vital lead. Angas and Seay were not happy as a doubles pair, and did not show any combination. Both played brilliantly at times, but it was in the spells between those flashes of brilliance in which the Wellington men managed to creep Into the winning position. Tliey too often allowed their opponents to catch them with balls at their feet as they advanced to the net.

RESULTS. ■Singles.

T. Rhodes-Williams (W.) beat T. W. Patterson - (C.), 6—2. 2—6, 7—5: A. L. France (W.) beat D. F. Glanville (C.), 7—5, 6—2; C. E. Malfroy (W.) beat C. Angas (C.), 5—7, 6—2, 6—2; I. A. Seay (C.) beat D. G. France (W.), 13—11, 6—2.

Doubles. »A. L. France and T. Rhodes-Willinuis (W.) beat I. A. Seay and C. Angas (C.), 6—3, 3—6. 6—3; D. G. France aud C. E. Malfroy (W.) beat D. F. Glanville and T. W. Patterson (C.), 6-2. 6-3.