TENNIS TITLES

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 101, 23 January 1933, Page 11

TENNIS TITLES

Semi-final Matches

N.Z. CHAMPIONSHIPS

Andrews beats Angas

HRS. DYKES LOSES GAME In all events, except the mixed doubles, in the Now Zealand lawn tennis championship tournament at present being held at Miramar, the title claimants have, as a result of Saturday's play, been narrowed down to the finalists. In the men’s singles C. E. Malfroy, Wellington, beat H. A. Barnett, Canterbury, and E. D. Andrews beat C. Angas, Canterbury. Malfroy . and Andrews will play off for the championship this afternoon.

The greatest surprise of the day was the defeat of Mrs. H. M. Dykes, 'Wellington, by Miss M. Macfarlane, Auckland, in the semi-final of the women’s singles. Miss Macfarlane will now play ’Miss D. Nicholls, Canterbury, the present champion, in the final. Miss Nicholls beat Miss D. Howe, Wellington, in the other semi-final match. The finalists in the men’s doubles are D. G. Trance and A. L. France, both of Wellington, and C. E. Malfroy and .1. A. Seay, Canterbury. The women’s doubles championship will be disputed by Mrs. Dykes and Mrs. 11. F. Adams, Wellington, and Mrs. Melody, Wellington, and Miss Nicholls. There are still ’four pairs left in the mixed doubles. The boys’ singles title was won by N. F. N. Bedford, Wellington, the girls’ by Miss J. Burns, Wellington, and the intermediate by W. G. Robertson, of . Timaru. The weather on Saturday was fine, with a gusty northerly wind, which occasionally played ciueer tricks with the -ball. •' ■ • ' " -

Cue Nunueley Casket match in the contest between Canterbury and, Wellington was played during the' day. Miss Poole and Miss Rudkin, Canterbury, beat Mrs. D. G. France and Miss Whyte, 15—-b, C—<l, 6 —l, but as Wei-, lington only required six games to make its victory certain the casket will now remain in Wellington whatever the result of the one match still unplayed. At present Wellington leads by’ 6 matches to 5.

Andrews v. Angas.

The semi-final match between Andrews and An'gas was a very attractive one to watch. Both players were striking well and the rallies! were sustained, sometimes to exciting lengths. It was a battle ,of wits throughout. Neither player, relied on direct speed of shot to gain him tue point; both were striving constantly for the advantage in position, which would . enable them to finish off the rally with a placement. And it was here that Andrews showed the definite superiority which won -him the match. His beautifully-placed drives enabled him to take the iniative and work Angas across the court until the. opportunity came for that most effective forehand shot, delivered with a final 'flick of the wrist, which sent the ball un’erringly into an undefended corner. For the most part the match was played from the baseline. Angas did come into the net on occasions, but too frequently be did it on a short length ball which Andrews had no difficulty in sending straight down the line for a clear winner. Even when he did come in on a deep ball it was a dangerous business, for An--.draws, except in the eecond set, could be miraculously accurate. There were times when a passing shot to be effective had to be measured to a nicety, but he did it and sent the ball barely out of reach past Angas to land dead on the side-line. Angas too showed splendid fine control of the ball when playing a passing shot. He scored frequently, when Andrews bad been drawn in, with a cross-cut shot which passed Andrews on his backhand mid landed half-way down the side-line. He had, however, few chances to exploit these shots; Andrews much preferred To play from the back of the court, where he could exchange drives with Angas in perfect confidence of winning more duels' "than he lost, and it was only, in the last set, when in a winning position, that no came at all regularly or willingly.to the net to cut off returns, and so finish the tallies quickly. Angas began the match by dropping his own service, then taking Andrews’s, and he went on to lead 2 —l. Andrews evened to 2 —2, and broke through Angas’s ' service. He led 5 —3, but could not prevent Angas by steady play evening to . s —-5. He took Angas’s service again, and this time won his own also, to take ■ the set, 7—5. Angas held a clear advantage all through the second set. Andrews had struck a bad patch; he was netting continuously and had momentarily lost control. He was down 2—5, won his service, but could not break through Angus's and lost the set, G—3. Andrews was down o—20 —2 in the third set before he found touch again. But theu be began to play brilliantly and took five games running. He was making splendid placements, and bis passing shots were leaving Angas standing. Ho dropped another game, but took the set easily enough. t>—3. After the ten-minute interval he continued to play beautiful tennis, and went quickly to a lead of 3—o. He then drop- . .ped his service, but broke through An- . gas’s and led 4—l and 5—2. In the last game he was down 30—40, brought the score to deuce and advantage server, and served a double-fault on his first match-point. However, he gained the advantage again, and this time Angas returned the service, which was breaking awkwardly with a tremendous spin imparted, well out over the backline, thus giving a splendid match to Andrews 7—5, An Easy Win. C, E. Malfroy in the other semi-final match showed that his easy win over H. A. Barnett in the Wilding Shield competition could be repeated at will. Be was playing splendidly, and Barnett had no chance with him at all. Malfroy led s—o in each of the first two sets, which he had no trouble in taking 6—2, 6—2. Barnett did even less well in the third, and could only collect one game. The simplicity of the wiu. though not the win itself, was rather unexpected, as it was generally thought that Barnett’s ability to lob and retrieve well would keep Malfroy busy. However, Malfroy was much too sure with all bis. shots, and frequently Barnett, for all his tleetuess of foot, could not get his racket on the ball at all. or if he did, it was only to find Malfroy cut off the return neatly at the net or kill it from overhead. Surprise Results. There was a great surprise for every- . body in the semi-final of the women’s singles between Mrs. H. M. Dykes and Miss M. Macfarlane. Miss Macfarlane was hitting every ball bard, and was most consistent. It was not, however, her good play which gave her the match; she won on Mrs. Dykes’s mototonous succession of mistakes off easy balls. The first set was evenly contested, though Mrs. Dykes even theu was not playing well. Her forehand, usually such a good point-winner, was not working well, and when she came to the net to volley she netted more often than not. She led 5-—4. and lost a chance of taking the set by dropping her service. That was the last time she was in a winning position. Miss Macfarlane from this point on took full charge of the match. The next two games came to her for the get. and she went on to lead s—o in the second set.

Sirs. Dykes was very .listless and was net covering the cttnrt in anything like

her usual manner. Every time she wept for a wipner she either netted or put the ball out over the backline. Miss Macfarlane on the other hand was playing well and making a minimum of mistakes.

Mrs. Dykes made an effort whop down o—s.0 —5. and took a game with beautiful forehand drives to the corners. It was too late, however; Miss Macfarlane was going well, and won the next game for the match. The second set was a one-sided exhibition, and. without detracting from the merits of Miss Macfarlane’s play, a most disappointing display on the part of The other semi-final match was easy for Miss Nicholls. Miss Howe, although she played steadily, especially in the second set, had no counter for Miss Nicholls's severe shots, which most of the time were functioning at their best. Miss Nicholls raced through tho first set, which she won 6—o, and though Miss Howe was returning her shots much better in the second, th? issue was never in any real doubt. Tln-iUing Finisii. The real thrills of the day camo in the last set of the doubles match between D. G. France and A. L. France and N. R. C. Wilson and A. C. Stedman. The latter pair were leading s—l5 —1 and brought the score to deuce on A. L. France's service. Stedman, receiving on the righthand side, three times passed D. G. Franco at the net with beautiful shots, only to find the next point lost and the score brought back to deuep. Tho Frances saved another match point and then got the advantage. A. L. France, however, served a double-fault and for {he fifth time they had a match point against them. At a critical moment in the following rally the umpire on the adjoining court addressed tho crowd about keeping quiet while a game was in progress and this plainly put Wilson off his stroke so that yet another match point was lost. The two following points for the game went to the Frances easily and Wilson and Stedman practically threw away the next three games, making mistakes with the simplest of balls. It was a fine effort on the Frances’ part to recover as they did and go on to win the match, but Wilson and Stedman were certainly unlucky to lose, especially as in tho fourth set, when leading by two sets to one, they had held a similar lead of 5—4 and lost it to see the set go to the other pair Malfroy and LA. Seay had a comfortable wiu in the other match of the doubles semi-final against Andrews and J. N. Lowry. Seay was playing better than he had played on the previous day and was much surer overhead. Andrews did well and Lowry played very determinedly and was often very effective at the net, but they could not stand up against tho superior combination of Malfroy and Seay, who won in straight sets after a good exhibition. Women’s Doubles. Mrs. Dykes and Mrs. It. I’. Adams very nearly went down to Miss Wake and Miss Andrew, who concentrated their attack as far as possible on Mrs. Adams. Mrs. Adams was not in good form, and her shots had no sting in them. The first set went to Miss Wake and Miss Andrew 6 —4, and the second to Mrs. Dykes and Mrs. Adams 6 —o. Mrs. Dykes was driving splendidly on her forehand in this set, and Mrs. Adams got in some very effective lobs. They led 6—5 with Mrs. Dykes to serve in the third set, but lost the next two games. Mrs. Adams was now making some very weak returns on her backhand. However, they came back again and, showing Die form that won them the second set so easily, took the next three games for the match.

Miss Whyte and Miss Gould fought well in the second set of their match with Mrs. Melody and Miss Nicholls., They were down 2—5 and, after surviving two match points, pulled up to 5—5. Mrs. Melody and Miss Nicholls were playing well, however, and showed too much experience. They took the set 7—5, having won the first 6 —2 after a 4—o lead. The results of the mixed doubles matches were much as expected. There was plenty of hard hitting in the match between Andrews and Mrs. Dykes and Rhodes-Williams and Miss Poole, but the issue was never in doubt. D. G. France and Mrs. France made a great bid for the first set of their match with Malfroy and Miss Macfarlane, and only lost it 6 —B after looking very much like winning it more than once. Malfroy and Miss Macfarlane made no mistake about the second set, which they wou 6—2. The present champions, A- L. France and Miss Nicholls, were sufficiently superior to Seay and Miss Andrew- to win in straight sets. Miss Andrew was showing more consistentey in her play. The boys’ singles was won for the second time by N. F. W. Bedford, who beat J, W. Gunn, Auckland, in the final. Bedford played his usual dashing game, and was superior all round. Miss J. Burns had little difficulty in beating Miss J. Bishop, of Auckland, in the final of the girls’ singles, thus winning the title her sister held last year.

Bedford was also in the final of the intermediate singles, having put out E. F. Page in a three-set go in the semi-final. This time, however, he was narrowly defeated by W. G. Robertson, who matched Bedford’s attractive hitting with good match tactics, and won B—6 in the third set.

Results in Detail MEN’S SINGLES. Semi-finals: C. E. Malfroy beat 11. A. Barnett, 6—2, 6—2, C—l; 15. D. Andrews beat C. Angas, 7—5. 3 —6. 6—3, 6—2. WOMEN’S SINGLES. Semi-finals: Miss D. Nicholls beat Miss D. Howe, 6—o, 6 —l; Miss M. Macfarlane beat Mrs. H. JI. Dykes, 7—5. 6—l. MEN’S DOUBLES. Semi-finals: D. G. France and A. L. France beat N. K. C. Wilson and A. C. Stedman, 5—7, 6—l. 2—6, 9—7, 7 —5; C. E. Malfroy and I. A. Seay beat E. D. Andrews and J. N. Lowry, 6—4. .6—-3. 6 —l. WOMEN'S DOUBLES. Semi finals: Mrs. H. M. Dykes aud Mrs. R. P. Adams beat Jliss M. Wake and Miss JI. Andrew, 4—6, 6-0. 9—7; Mrs. W. J. Melody and Miss D. Nicholls beat Miss JI. Whyte and Miss B. Gould, 6—2, 7 —5. MIXED DOUBLES. Third round: Andrews and Jirs. Dykes beat Rbodes-Williams and Miss Poole, 6—3, 6—2; A. L. France and Jliss Nicholls beat Seay and Jliss Andrew, 6—l, 6—l; Malfroy and Jliss Macfarlane beat D. G. France anil Mrs. France, B—6. 6 —2. BOYS’ SINGLES. Final: N. F. N. Bedford beat J. W. Guun, 6—3, 6 -4. GIRLS’ SINGLES. Final: Miss J. Burns beat Miss J. Bishop, G—3, 6—l. GIRLS’ DOUBLES. Semi-finals: Jliss Drake and Miss Bishop beat Jliss A. Smith aud Jliss Dickey, 6—i, 6 1; Miss J. Burns and Jliss V. Burns beat .Miss McDonald and Miss Oakley, 6—l, 6—l. JUNIOR MIXED DOUBLES. Second round: Runout and Jliss Drake beat Goodson and Jliss Sinclair, 6—l, 6—l; Morrison and Miss J. Burns beat Fitzgerald and Miss JtcFarlaue. 6—l, 6—l. Semi-final: Morrison and Jliss J. Burns beat King and Jliss King, 6—o, 6-0. INTERMEDIATE SINGLES.

Semi-final: N. F. N. Bedford beat E. F. Page, 6—l, 6—l.

Final: W. G. Robertson beat Bedford, 2—6, G—3. B—6.

NUNNELEY CASKET.

MJss Poole and Miss Rudkin. Canterbury, beat .Mrs. D. G. France and Miss Whyte, Wellington, 3—6, 6—3, 6—l.

TO-DAY’S GAMES

Order of Play in Finals

■ The following is the order of play for the final matches in the national tenuis championships to-day;— Men's Singles, at 12.30.—C. E. Malfroy v. 15. D. Andrews.

Ladies’ Singles, •at 12.30.—Miss D. Nicholls v. Jliss JI. Jlaefarlane. Men's Doubles, at 3 p.m.—A. L. France and D. G. France v. C. E. Jlaltroy and I. A. Seay.

Ladies’.Doubles, at 2.30 p.m.—Mrs. Dykes and Mrsi Adams v. Mrs. Melody and Miss Nicholls. Mixed Doubles, at 4.30.—C. E. Malfroy and Miss Macfarlauo v. N. Wilson and Mrs. Thomson: E. D. Andrews and Mrs. Dykes v. A. L. France and Miss Nicholls. Final at 5.30 (approx.). Girls’ doubles final at 1 p.m. Junior mixed doubles at 2.30 p.m,