ENGLAND'S BEST

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 9, 12 January 1932, Page 14

ENGLAND'S BEST

TENNIS BANKINGS

STRANGE OMISSIONS

The Lawn Tennis Association has is- v sued its ranking lists of the first ten ( . British players of both sexes. The of- t ficial classification is:— c Men: E. AY. Austin 1, F. J. Terry 2, "• Ci. P. Hughes 3, H. G. A". Lee 4, C. 11. g Kingslcy 5, H. K. Lester (i, J. S. Olliff I 7, H. F. David 8, N. Sharpe 0, E. ,T. 1] Avory 10. Women: Mrs. Whittingstall r 1, Miss Nuthall 2, Miss Mudford o, Miss <■ Bound -1, Miss Heeley 5, Mrs. Vittmann 1: ti. Miss Ridley 7, Miss C!. Sterry S, Mrs. Michell I", Mrs. Jameson 10. l; The .Ranking Committee intimate that, owing to '" insufficient dntn," they have not attempted to classify Dr. J. C. Gregory in the men's list, nor Mrs. Goiffrec, Mrs. Sliepherd-llarran, and Miss M. C. Scriven in the women's list, writes Wallis Myers in the "Daily Telegraph." Miss Scri yen's omission, let it be said at once, is most regrettable. This young player was not only the hist British survivor at Wimbledon, but among her victims at the championship meeting were two of the players included in the ".first ten," one of whom had beaten Miss Mudford. In addition, she defeated Mile. Sigart, champion of Belgium, aud Miss Ilarvcy, a former member of the Wightman Cup team. But Miss Scriven was given an even sterner test at headquarters—one that no other player of her ago and iuexperionce could have passed with greater distinction. On her first and only appearance in tho centre court she came within a few strokes of beating Mine. Mathieu, Franco's champion, who had won the British hard court title at Bournemouth in a field that included nearly all the listed ten. TWO QUESTIONS. If Miss Scriven's remarkable performance at Wimbledon—an exhibition of moral courage and tactical skill that threw into bold relief the relative failure of other British competitors— did not provide sufficient data for tho appraisers, one may ask two questions. The first is whether the committee's "data" would have been sufficient if this ex-junior champion had gono on to win tho championship—quite a possibility having regard to the qualities she revealed. ; The second question, less hypothetical, is why the Selection Committee, having obviously discovered a rich recruit, did not themselves create further opportunities for testing Miss Berivcn by including her in one or other of tlio international teams that played after Wimbledon. The failure to recognise Miss' Scriven's outstanding achievement at the championship meeting is not calculated to iuspiro the younger generation. It is certain to excite comment abroad. Apart from this, the lists may be commended as soundly judicial and judicially sound. It is never an easy task to grade individual players who nave shown a curiously varied stahdurcl of form, who lose to one opponent one. week and beat him the next, and who are asked to perform, on different surfaces of court with each event. : AUSTIN AND PERRY. Austin's superior Davis Cup record gives him pride "of place over Perry. There is, however, now the thinnest

margin between these two. Perry has made greater progress than Austin in the current year, and it is very doubtful whether any other player iv the world, not excluding the JTrench, could have gone through ao. exacting American four with only ono American ablo to lower his flag. Austin and Perry, like Tilden and Johnston and Lacoste and Cochet, will sharpen their , weapons on each other's swords. G. P. Hughes was unrauked last year because of "insufficient data," although his form was well known to competent judges. It is doubtful whether ho would defeat the best Gro- | gory or the best Lee —they have the ■ punishing drives to pierce his backhand comer —but ho had an enviable I record in the French and British hard . court championships, and, like Sharpe, L he numbered Cochet among his victims. Gregory is not ranked, despite his confident victory at Beckenham, and , his demonstration at, Wimbledon that, . if ho had been in better training, he could have defeated Hughes. Kingsley is promoted 1j Sharpe's [ place at is'o. 5. The latter, however, has been handicapped by a disloyal aukle. I Olliff is ranked below Kingsley in spite of his victory in the London champion- , ship. Lester and David have both - earned their places, and no one will . criticise the inclusion of E. J. Avory, , ono of many Cambridge players who I have come to the front in the last few j years. I Omitted by faulty judgment from the Wightman Cup singles, as the Am- £ crican championship strikingly revealr I'd, Mrs. Whittingstal! is given the top position in the women's list. She 1 failed both at Wimbledon and Auteuil, but her magnificent play at .Forest Hills justified the committee's choice. She r defeated Miss Nuthall twice during the season. ' c Of the four below Mrs. Whittingstall , none has shown any marked advance. 1 Miss Nuthall, however, as her record j. shows, is now probably our best doubles I player. Mrs. I'ittman, strangely omitted from last year's list, is certainly not overrated at No. 7. Miss Sterry'a inclusion will be welcomed.