LAWN TENNIS

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 December 1929, Page 4

LAWN TENNIS

NOTES FROM ALL COURTS Grey Club will send teams down to Hokitika on Saturday to try conclusions with the main Club in the southern town. The annual fixture with the United Club will be arranged for a later date. The following note in a Wellington paper will interest those who met the Williams family during the Coast , tournament last season: “The Williams family have justly earned the reputation in tennis of being fighters to the end, and with the exception of T. S. Williams, who has broken away from the family tradition to indulge a niore versatile’ and attacking game, they are steadiness personified. But C. F.’s stteadiness in driving on the forehand (he runs round the ball rather than play a back-hand) availed him not at all against the all-round game of Roussell. Roussell, by fine, accurate driving, backhand and forehand, frequently ran Williams right out of position, and then took the net and volleyed or smashed for the winner. There is no reason why Roussell should not make rapid strides. The steadiness of Miss M. Williams had little chance against the aggressiveness and severe cut drives of Mrs W. J. Melody. When playing with the light breeze behind her Miss Williams several times completely outplaced Mrs Melody. Mrs Melody, however, even against the wind, was keeping for the most part a good length to the corners. Miss Williams made some very good volleys, but generally she was weak in this department. When Mrs Melodv had the breeze behind her

she had Miss Williams defending all the time, and while the latter returned several times the severe drives on the backhand, it was there where she was most decisively beaten. The game referred to is the first challenge match in the senior A grade of the Wellington Association jnterclub matches, which was played a week ago, between Brougham Hill and Wellington Club teams. The Roussell referred to is the New Zealand hard court junior champion. TENNIS WITHOUT STOCKINGS

“In a game like lawn tennis there can scarcely be anything but unwritten laws about such things as, for example, what players are to wear on the court. This is particularly true of the apparel of players of the fair sex.” Thus in an editorial a recent issue of “American Lawn Tennis” supports the decision of the Wimbledon authorities that in the matter of costume players could be relied on to do what was right and proper. “The ground-trailing skirts, corsets, and variegated headgear of a quarter of a century ago,” the editorial continues, “are now as archaic as the craft from which that word is de-

rived. This is an athletic age, and those who engage in games and sports take the common-sense view that their apparel should be in keeping with these avocations. There has been less change in the habiliments of the men than in those of the women. It is true that ‘flannels’ are no longer de rigueur. In nether garments ‘ducks’ are now as much used, if not as fashionable, as are the heavier and warmer flannels which the Dohertys, the Larners, the Whitmans and the others who occupied the Seats of the Mighty when the century was young—or when the previous one was in its decline —wore. As to shirts, there always was variety in their materials —and the ‘vest’ of to-day is proof that freedom of choice is the prerogative of all and sundry. About,the only thing unchanged is the adherence to white on the part of the men. Galleries —at Wimbledon, Forest Hills, Germantown, ad fin. —are still

insistent on that. Sartorially, as in so many other matters, the one-time weaker sex takes advanced ground and is a law unto itself. Skirts become shorter and shorter, and the number of other articles worn has, in many cases reached an irreducible minimum. Downright young persons disport themselves in garments that would have made our grandmothers—perhaps even oqr mothers —shriek in anguish. We met sit, or stand, and gaze at these players without batting an eye. Lawn tennis is a strenuous game, the standard of female play improves steadily, the ability to cover court swiftly is absolutely necessary. Limbs —legs and arms—must be free and unhampered, weight and bulk in female court garments are taboo; perfect frankness concerning the matter

rules, and the court of last resort is the body of girls who play the game. Thus far and no farther is the law laid down; and there is no transgressing it. At the same time the cables have been telling of Wimbledon’s reaction to sockettes, and reporting that they—that is, bare legs—would be officially banned on the famous ceutre court, and presumably on Nos. 1,2, and 3 courts, and so on down the line. Later came a statement of an official character; the governing committee at Wimbledon, after a private conference, issued a brief communique, the gist of which was that in the matter of costume the players would be relied on to do what was right and proper.

“In adopting such a course the All England Club has been wise. Once it is sought to impose restrictions, whether general or circumstantial, the way is opened to vexatious and controversial discussions and disputes. Even in this advanced age, with its deluge of flappers, common l sense continues to prevail. The girls who want ,to go on the court bare-legged \ will do so, and their sisters who prefer to wear

stockings will adhere to their preference. Only through the force of public opinion can we legislate against bare legs, shorter skirts, fewer garments. True modesty has not disappeared.”