IN DEFENCE OF THE DAVIS CUP

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 249, 17 July 1937, Page 6 (Supplement)

IN DEFENCE OF THE DAVIS CUP

Finding Britain’s Number Two

Four years to-day, almost to the hour, after an afternoon at the hard court championships of Great Britain, 1 wrote, in exalted mood: “We shall win the Davis Cup this year,” wrote Fred Stowe in an English paper recently.

But I was about the only fellow in the kingdom who did! Except Fred Perry, who was with me. He believed it because be was playing in it! All my friends, with one accord, commented briefly, “Hooey!” But, to the astonishment of the whole world, we did win the Davis Cup. While talking to Bunny Austin just before I wrote this,. not about tennis specifically, he said: “There are some happy fellows who, {when they reach the top of the world in whatever is their job in lite, honestly think, not 'lint they were made for the top, but that rhe top was specially fashioned for them. Not just silly swank, mind. They honestly and. .as'they think, modestly, believe it.” And no bad tiling either. You may not have known that Austin is a philosopher, but he is, and a very sound one. lie was generalising, not about tennis, but about life—but how that generalisation suits Perry! Curious, but for the last six weeks I have been “kidding” myself I was very subtle, and trying to induce that state * of mind in British lawn tennis players. Because I know Austin sometimes ; reads my stuff. So does his charming , s wife, who lias just been round to ask what dirty work I am planning now. r And they knew it all the time. > I was planning. Mrs. Austin, with a ■ disturbing fact in mind. Our public and our tennis players have been saying to themselves: “We have lost Fred Perry—and, therefore, the Davis Cup." You do not accept that as a fact, and neither do 1, but, believe me, others do. ; I believe that in Austin to-day. we '• - have the greatest player in Europe. : capable, just now, of beating anybody ( in the whole amateur world. [Budge lias now probably helped to remove that impression.] , He would give even Perry a hard run for his money. I believe that, as I ' believed we should win the Davis Cup : in 1933. I have watched Austin carefully, critically, almost antagonistically, if you get what I mean, in his play all ,Brough tile hist month. 1 have J: weighed as far as it is possible to.

weigh lawn tennis form, the comparative weakness of the opposition.

And I know that Austin is playing 23 per cent, better than he has ever done. Physically—and to this side lias always previously hung a questionlie is somewhere very near 100 per cent. If he plays the game he is doing now — and keeps as tit—Austin is quite capable of winning both his singles in the challenge round of the Davis Cup at Wimbledon in July. And we only want three successes in all to keep the trophy! Austin cannot, as Fred Perry used to try to do, play in the doubles as well. Neither of them was ever any good at that. Nor can he play the other two singles. The rules will not let him. .Further material is required. This is where you will be looking, and not unnaturally, for the nigger in the wood pile. The Lawn Tenuis Association, who have slept soundly for the last four years, have invited, but only a fortnight ago, four more players “to go into training with a view to selection for the Davis Cup"—Hughes ami Tin-key, Britain's Davis Cup doubles pair; and Wilde and Hare, who, as a pair, ran the other two close last .year. 1 watched them all at Bournemouth. Although it is not officially stated, I know that Hare is regarded also as the probable No. 2 singles player, with Hughes as a possible standby.

The claims of Tuckey, who is soldiering in Yorkshire, have apparently not been considered for the singles, but, in my opinion, he could, with practice, of which alone he is short, be 1 rained into a No. 2 who would beat either of the other two.

Whether the Lawn Tennis Association will do anything about it is extremely problematical, but Tuckey is my suggested No. 2, and Hare would then become reserve. And a. good reserve he would be. too! Finally, I say that all the defeatist talk which is going round about the Davis Cup is, for the moment, “hooey.”

Are tennis enthusiasts losing sight • of the old combination of Hughes and ' Tuckey, who have been good enough to t win against much-boosted opposition, | and can probably do so again. I As I have pointed out, we only need ■ to win three matches out of the five, i Let us at least think there is a good chance of our doing so. j