TENNIS AT INVERCARGILL.

Evening Star, Issue 15076, 7 January 1913, Page 3

TENNIS AT INVERCARGILL.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In sport it is customary to regard the veteran as the personification of pluck, self-control, and sportsmanship—a patten upon which young players may frame themselves. In the lawn tennis notes in the ‘Star’ last week “Recorder” speaks of “Veteran” Harraway, and apparently approves the action of this player, who, at the Invercargill tournament, retired owing to a difference of opinion between himself and the umpire in a singles match in which N. Cramond led the “veteran,” 6-2, 4-0 (not 3-0, as “Recorder” has it), for ihe fourth game was awarded to Craniond before Harraway retired. The retirement when defeat started him in the face was anything but the action of a veteran, and the excuse for the retirement, even bad the umpire made the mistake alleged, was anything but sportsmanlike. In effect, the loser discredited the victory of a young player who had put up an excellent fight! and sought to excuse his failure with the racquet by blaming a volunteer umpire against whom, up to that point, even Harravvav had uttered no complaint. The case is even worse, however, when it is known that the umpire’s scoring was absolutely correct its accuracy being attested by about a dozen spectators, amongst them some of the officials, including line umpire, secretary, and some members of committee “Recorder's” paragraph throughout betrays anxiety to explan-. tilings for Harrawav, for we read that against M'Doiigall and Laurenson the losers, Harraway and Hamilton, “ were worn out by previous exertions under a very hot sun ”; that the “ veteran ” was beater before he started against Cramond—“ the .heat had ic.ci a tale”; -and then follows the excuse of an alleged mistake of the umpire, dragging in to bolster up the excuse an incident m winch a game in a handicap match was restarted owing to some confusion of the score by the same umpire. In this instance " Recorder” gratuitously assumes that the defeat of the losers was due to t ie . fact that they “ could not play up to their previous standard” after their “advantage ” was taken away, but conveniently refrains from mentioning that the/ were so greatly upset that they won the first two aces when the game was restarted.—l am, etc., T , ' Racquet. January 6