NUNNELEY CASKET TO CANTERBURY

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 111, 4 February 1935, Page 10

NUNNELEY CASKET TO CANTERBURY

Wellington Defeated EXCITING FINALS TO WOMEN’S TENNIS Marathon Doubles Set Seldom has a team’s trophy been lost and won under more exciting conditions than the Kathleen Nunneley Casket, which Canterbury won from Wellington by seven matches to five. As tiie result of Friday’s play Canterbury had a lead of four matches to two. Ou Saturday tiie four singles were divided, Wellington winning two and Canterbury two. This left Canterbury witli a six to four lead. In order to retain the Casket Wellington required to win the two remaining doubles, and in tiie case of one of them to win in straight sets. But in order to make the doubles necessary Mrs. N. St. Clair-Dickson had to tight hard to beat Miss Edna Rudkin.

Tiie pair with the best prospects of winning their doubles in straight sets were considered to be Miss D. Nicholls and Mrs. N. St. Clair-Dickson. But when the Canterbury pair, Misses I. and T. Poole, had three set points at 5-3, and two set points again at 5-4, it seemed as though Wellington’s hopes were to be dashed. The 'Wellington pair ultimately won the set 13-11 and the next set 6-2 for the match.

All eyes were they focused on the doubles match in progress on the adjoining court between Misses F. Fernie and F. North, Wellington, and Misses M. Sherris and E. Rudkin, Canterbury. The Wellington pair had to win that match to retain the casket, and Wellington’s hopes ran high when they won the first set after being down 1-5. Although ‘losing the second set, they fought up from being down 1-4 to 5-all, and led 6-5 and had match point. They lost it and Canterbury ultimately won the set 8-6 for the match. A Champion in Form. In the first set against Miss Dulcie Nicholls, Wellington, Miss M. Sherris, Canterbury, was completely outclassed. Playing from the backline and scarcely having to move more than a few steps to the ball. Miss Nicholls was remarkably accurate in driving down the line or cross-court to the corners. In this she was helped by the fact that Miss Sherris s length was too short. The fact that so many of Miss Sherris’s balls bounced only’a little past the service line enabled Miss Nicholls to play her chop stroke which made Miss Sherris come into about the service line when she would be passed by Miss Nicholls’s next stroke. Also Miss Nicholls paid quite a deal of attention to Miss Sherris’s backhand, and her strokes carried such length and pace that the Canterbury champion outed over the nearest sideline, being unable to gain control of the ball. The second set was a vastly different story. Whereas in the first set Miss Sherris never won a game, and in fact never looked like winning one, in the seeond she appeared to be a certainty to win. It was now Miss Sherris’s turn to call the tune. Hitting hard and deep to the confers, and forcing Miss Nicholis into errors, mainly on her backhand, .Miss Sherris quickly ran into a 5-1 lead. But to get that lend she had had to worn hard and do a tremendous amount of running. , Then Miss Nicholls settled herself to the task of overhauling the lead that Miss Sherris had secured. In her method of doing so she showed herself the champion player .she is. Stroking carefully and aceflratelv, varying her drives witn chops, she had M’ss Sherris running fast from sideline to sideline, or brought her in elose with a short one and then passed her down the open space. Miss Sherris Tires. Before the match ended Miss Sherris showed signs of tiring and began to make errors into the net where before she bad been getting winners. Miss Nicholls won six games in a row to take the set 7-o for the match. In the moments of crisis Miss Nicholls showed how great is her control over the ball. Sometimes Miss Sherris’s drives rose scarcely a foot high, but Miss Nicholls consistently drove them to the corners for winners. She did not attempt to go to the net often, nor did she find it necessary to drive wit.i any great speed. By accurate placing to the corners and clever change of length she ran Miss Sherris off her legs. Mrs. N. St. Clair-Dickson. Wellington, played very much better against Miss Edna Rudkin. Canterbury, than she did on the previous day against Miss M. Sherris, although her start was as equally unpromising as her first day s play had been. Miss Rudkin jumped into her stride, and by fast services and hard driir; to the forehand corner had Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson not only on the defensive but scratching about in her efforts to return the ball. But as the match progressed Mrs. St.. Clair-Dickson became more certain of herself. In this she was helped by the fact that Miss Rpelin was no longer keeping such a consistent length. Whereas in the first set Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson was not able to get properly behind the ball to deal with Miss Rudkin's fast drives to the corners especially when Miss Rudkin was playing with the wind behind her, now that Miss Rudkin’s length was shorter Mrs.' St. Clair-Dickson was able to impart more zip to her shots. This caused Miss Rudkin to lose confidence and she commenced to make numerous errors. Also Miss Rudkin made the mistake of concentrating on Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson’s backhand, which is very strong and accurate. Mrt». St. ClairDickson. having Lad in the first set costly experience of the power of Miss Budkin’s forehand. also con ecntrrite.l on the backhand and won valuable points as the result. In the second pet she was as much superior to Miss Rudkin as Miss Rudkin had been to her in tiie first set. Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson Succeeds. After the interval Miss Rudkin, after dropping the first game of the third set. appeared as though she was going to repeat her performance of the first set. She ran into a useful i-2 lead. Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson being unable to do much more "than return Miss Rudkin's fast drives to a little past the service line. These were so much meat to Miss Rudkin, who returned them accurately down the nearest sideline for aces, or played or smashed them at angles from the net for winners

Realising that if she lost this match the casket would go to .Canterbury without the necessity for counting the double-. Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson settled down io solid play, using the lob, of which she is a remarkably accurate exponent, to keep Miss Rudkin from the net. She succeeded admirably. Nor did Miss Rudkin improve mutters by her had smashing nnd volleying. Mrs St. Clair-Dickson won four games in a row for the match Miss Rm’kin throughout that period being uncertain in tier stroking through loss ol confidence.

Miss F. Ferine. Wellington, traded some beautiful deep drives with Miss Thelma Poole, Canterbury, both forehand and backhand, but on the whole she lacked the accuracy and the control of the ball that the Canterbury player possessed Through poor footwork many of her backhand shots flew out over the side line. Miss Poole played confidently and was not afraid to go to ‘lie net from where she made numerous winning vol leys. There was never any doubt as to the ultimate result of the match. Miss Irene Poole. Canterbury, could

not deal with the cut strokes of Miss F. North, Wellington, played into the corners in the first set. In that set Miss North was very accurate both in returning the ball and in maintaining a length. A defensive game is anathema to Miss Poole, consequently in trying to drive all Miss North's strokes she made errors enabling Miss North to win the first set comfortably. Miss F. North Fights Hard. Miss North, however, had not _ been able to win the first set without doing a great deal of running about, and in tiie second Miss Poole began to play a steadier game, making sure of clearing the net, and as Miss North lost her length so Miss Poole belted the ball into the corners. Her best scoring strokes were a forehand cross-court shot to Miss North’s forehand and a backhand straight down the line. Whenever she had Miss North on the defensive she would run in and win the point by a neat volley or smash. Miss North fought pluckily but being slower'about the court she was outclassed in the second and third sets. In the third sot she was not able to win a game. Miss Poole's service was greatly superior to Miss North’s, which, when served against the light breeze, stood up as though inviting to be hit. And Miss Pooia did hit it—frequently for aces. But Miss North fought a plucky losing battle. Had the accuracy of the Misses Poole been equal to the vigour of their net attack they would have beaten Miss D. Nicholls and Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson. But their inability to smash consistently, particularly on the part of Miss Irene Poole, cost them innumerable chances. Only when they had a 5-2 lead did they falter. This was brought about mainly by the lobbing of Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson, who was called upon to bear the brunt of the Canterbury attack, which was concentrated upon her. So long as the Wellington pair elected to drive the Canterbury pair were quite their equal. Botli the Misses Poole, blit more especially Miss Thelma Poole, showed first-class anticipation of the direction Miss Nicholls or Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson intended to drive and would run along the net and win the point with a brilliant interception. Their aim was to crowd the net, from where they could not be dislodged by driving. Mrs. St. Clair-Dickson achieved the desired result by lobbing to within inches of the backline. l Three Set Points Lost. It was the lobbing combined with the Canterbury pair’s inaccurate smashing that lost them three set points at 5-3 and 40-love and again at 5-4 and 40-15. After 5- games went turn and turn about until Miss Nicholls and Mrs. St. ClairDickson won the set at 13-11. In the closing stages of the set Miss Irene Poole fell away badly in her overhead and volleying, it being only the fine work of Miss Thelma Poole that kept the set going so long. In the second set the Wellington pa.ir were definitely on top and were never seriously challenged. The closing stages of the match, the Misses North and Fernie against Misses Sherris and Rudkin, were even more exciting, for on the result of this match depended the destination of the casket. For the most part the Wellington pair played from the backline. Their aim was to try and keep the Canterbury pair from taking the net. Up t 0 a point they succeeded, and indeed had the satisfaction of seeing the Canterbury pair, Miss Rudkin especially. fall down on “sitters.” Misses North and Fernie started off with the one up and one back formation. The Canterbury pair soon found holes in tiie court through which toeend the ball careering and so ran into a 5-1 lead. Then the Wellington pair both went back to the baseline, and by accurate driving from the backhand by Miss Fernie and cut drives and lobs by Miss North, and errors through loss of confidence, on the part of Misses Rudkin and Sherrie, they climbed to 5-all and won the next two games for the set, 7-5. Mies Rudkin was making far more mistakes than Miss Sherris. Exciting Finish. The Wellington pair lost accuracy in the second set. Miss Sherris putting them in difficulties with angled placements from the net, while Miss Rudkin, whose service was also going well, gave,valuable support and made openings with deep, fast drives to the corners. The Canterbury pair continued their progress into the third set. when they led 4-1 and 5-2. Then as the Wellington pair resorted to lobbing Miss Rudkin, who unwisely had deserted the backline for the net, began to play very badly, cutting the easiest of smashes -nd netting the easiest ot vollevs. The Wellington pair, playing steadily and -profiting by mistakes, won games to lead G-5 and have one match point. They failed to get it. and the Canterbury players driving well and coming back into their form at the net. went on to win the next two games for the match. Miss Rudkin played very much better in the last three games, and it was this factor that ultimately gave Canterbury the victory. The losers were not disgraced. Both Miss Fernie and' Miss North played very steadily against a better equipped and more understanding combination. It. was a match that held the interest throughout, and was dotted with brilliant rallies by all four players. DETAILED RESULTS The following are the detailed results. Wellington players mentioned first:— Singles Miss D. Nicholls beat Miss M. Sherris, 6- 7-5. „ Mrs. N. St. Clair-Dickson beat Miss E. Rudkin. 1-6. 6-1. 6-4. Miss F. Fernie lost to Miss T. Foote. 3-6. 3-6. Miss F. North lost to Miss I- Poole, 6-4, 3-6, 0-6. Doubles Miss D. Nicholls and Mrs. N. St. ClairDickson beat Misses I. and T. Poole. 13-11, 6-2. Misses F. Fernie anil F. North lost to Misses M. Sherris and K. Rudkin, >7 : 5, 4-6, G-S.