AUSTRALIAN PAIR OUTPLAYED IN FINAL FOR TENNIS TITLE

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23153, 16 January 1950, Page 7

AUSTRALIAN PAIR OUTPLAYED IN FINAL FOR TENNIS TITLE

(r.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 16. The defeat In the doubles of G. Worthington (New South Wales) and T, H. Warhusl (South Australia) by the New Zealand Davis Cup players, R. S. McKenzie (Wellington), and .1. E. Robson (Otago), marked the linal day of the New Zealand lawn tennis championships at Wilding Park on Saturday. Worthington, who is ranked fifth in Australia, was a little too good for Robson, the defending champion, in the men's singles (Inal. Miss M. Beverley, formerly of Waikato and now of Auckland, repeated her 1017 feat of winning the three titles. She won the doubles with the promising Otago player. Miss M. Robertson, and the mixed doubles with O. M. Bold (Hutt Valley).

After heavy overnight rain the centre courts dried out well, but they were slow and Slippery in places until the middle of the afternoon. A fairly strong south-west wind influenced the run of play, but helped to dry the courts, which played truly although not as fast as in the early rounds. The seating capacity ot the stands was fully taxed. The men's doubles final was a tactical triumph for McKenzie and Robson. It is doubtful whether any New Zealand pair have given a finer exhibition for many years, and in this match the> showed to the full the benefit of then overseas experience. Australians’ Speed In the first set it seemed that the superior speed of the Australians and their severity in volleying would decide, but the further the match went the more surely did the New Zealanders force their opponents to play the slower, chess-board type of game of which both are master. That is not to say that the game was played at a slow pace. Indeed, many rallies "eic plaved at breath-taking speed, but alter the first set the New Zealanders left their returns so close to the net that the Australians had to rally for their openings instead of going all out for a quick kill. Robson's return of service on the backhand was particularly good, and after having a bad patch with his pverhead in the early stages he finished in sunerb form. . McKenzie's game was less subtle, but in all departments it was polished and efficient. He has now won this title with three different partners. Warhurst was the best server of the four. He served a seemingly endless stream of unreturnable canon balls into either corner at, will, and much of his overhead and volleying was of a very high standard. Bids to Force race Worthington, although more dynamic in general play, was more inclined to make mistakes when trying to force the pace. _ Both Australians are very fine volleyers, and it was an outstanding performance by McKenzie and Robscn to hold them through four sets and to master them in the fifth. The last set was a tense struggle. An early service break permitted the New Zealanders to lead 4-1, but McKenzie lost his service after leading, 40-15, and the score was 4-3 instead of 5-2-The Australians equalised and the games went with the service to 5-all, where McKenzie held his service after a very long deuce game. The Zealanders confidently broke through Worthington’s service in the next game to win a memorable match. The men’s singles final was an excellent match between two fine volleyers, who made the net their constant objective from the moment that the ball was put into play by their fast services. Robson, the defending champion, was certainly not disgraced for each of the three sets was closely contested and Worthington had few of the lapses into error which had marked his play in the earlier rounds'. Robson Trailed

Worthington troubled Robson throughout with a high-kicking service deep into the backhand and although the Otago man found a part answer in sliced shots which just cleared the net and landed short in the court, forcing Worthington to halfvolley or volley upward, there was so little margin for error with this stroke that Robson was inclined to make mistakes at most critical moments. The Australian always seemed to be in command when serving. Robson found difficulty in holding his own service, especially against the wind. Robson’s forehand was also a little less reliable than the rest of his game and it certainly was not the potent weapon that his opponent used, both to open up the court for volleying attacks and to drive past Robson’s agile defence at the net.

There were few long rallies. Both hit too hard for the ball to remain in play very long, but the match was spectacular. After trailing, 2-5. in the first set, Robson fought well to 4-5, but Worthington clinched the set with some fierce serving down wind. Robson, attacking consistently at the net, had chances for a 3-1 lead in the second set. but the Australian saved a service game that was in jeopardy and went on confidently to take the set. 6-3-

Robson dropped his service against the wind in the sixth game of the third set, but played superbly to level the scores at 4-all and 5-all. However, Worthington increased the pressure to take the set, 7-5. Miss Beverley’s Consistency

The women’s singles was the first match of the day and it was played in the least favourable conditions. The courts were still heavy and the worn patches along the baseline were slippery. Miss Beverley should have been at a greater disadvantage than the lightfooted Miss Attwood, but. playing in bare feet, she seemed to be troubled less than her opponent by the uncertain footing. It was a good match marred only by rather too many weak shots by both players. Miss Beverley was the more consistent, especially in the final stages. Her forehand was always a menace to her opponent. Her backhand was well controlled and she kept down to the minimum Miss Attwood’s opportunities to attack with her own forehand drive. In the early stages Miss Beverley lost many points through trying to angle the ball short across the net with her backhand. Miss Attwood used the dropshot with much better judgment, never allowing over-use of it to spoil the element of surprise. The first set was tensely fought with Miss Attwood leading at 2-0 and 4-2, only to sec Miss Beverley fight back to even terms on each occasion. Miss Beverley had several chances of .evelling again at 5-all, but fell into errors and lost the set. Miss Attwood Impresses

The second set saw Miss Beverley playing faultlessly and Miss Attwood, after the first few games, obviously used this set to get her strokes, especially her service, into better working order. She seemed to have succeeded for she began the third set more surely, hitting some beautiful cross-court forehand drives and getting more pace from her service. She seemed to be in a winning position when she just failed to find the court with winning shots and at last Miss Beverley gained perfect, touch with her angled, backhand drives. Miss Attwood was within a point of leading 5-4, but some fine rallies in which both made great recoveries of short balls and wide deep drives ended the match in Miss Beverley s favour. Against all expectations the Canterbury sisters, Mrs. I. Hatherley and Miss T. Poole, came very close to winning the women's doubles title, which they first won 14 years ago. In an eventful and sometimes spectacular match they kept on even terms with the Misses Beverley and Robertson (who had beaten them fairly easily in the final of the Canterbury championships) right up to the last two games of the third set.

Miss Beverley was the soundest of the four players, although she unaccountably missed many easy volleys and netted forehand drives when the court seemed to be open . Her partner often showed her lack of experience by getting out of position, but she was always enterprising, hitting her forehand hard and punching her volleys and smashes. Doubles Combination The solidity of Mrs. Hatherlcy on the back line and the brilliance of Miss Poole’s volleying and smashing made a formidable combination. Miss Poole, indeed, often seemed to have the opposition mesmerised. She took outrageous liberties in going across to intercept her opponents’ drives and the latter often lost points in trying to hit into an uncovered court, probably through watching the opening instead of the ball. There were many great rallies with each player in turn making fine recoveries of seemingly impossible shots. Miss Poole's retrieving was, perhaps, the best of all. Time and again she chased a difficult ball and returned it perfectly with well-tossed lobs. The winners threw away a great chance by losing the first set from 3—o and *l—l and thereafter had to fight every inch of the way. Resuming with a set in hand in the final of the mixed doubles, which was interrupted by rain on the previous evening. Bold and Miss Beverley played without confidence or accuracy and were soon down I—4 against J. A. Barry and Miss E. C. Attwood (Auckland), There was a sudden change in the course of the match at this point. Bold found touch with his driving and volleying and Miss Beverley not only used her powerful forehand to good effect, but also volleyed with a sureness that had been lacking in her earlier matches.

Good volleying and overhead work by Barry and some fine baseline play by Miss Attwood lent keenness to the rest of the match, but they were not enough to hold Bold and Miss Beverley, who won 6—2, B—6. The men’ plate was won by P. G. Nicholls (Wellington). He beat M. A. Otway (Auckland), last year's New Zealand junior champion, in the quarter-finals and in general has played well. He was looked upon as a most pronrsiing player until he had a breakdown in health, but he seems to be coming back into top form. He has a victory over Worthington, whom he beat in a New South Wales country tournament last year. The concluding results were: MEN’S SINGLES Final.—G. Worthington (New South Wales) cl. J. E. Robson (Otago), 6—4, G—3, 7—5. WOMEN'S SINGX.ES Final.—Miss M. Beverley (Auckland) d. Miss E. G. Attwood (Auckland), 4-6, 6-0. 6—4. MEN’S DOUBLES Final. —J. E. Robson (Otago) and R. S. McKenzie (Wellington) cl. G. Worthington (N.S.W.) and T. H. Warhurst (South Australia), 3 —6, 6 —2, 5 —7, 7—5, 7—5. WOMEN’S DOUBLES Final. —Misses M. Beverley (Auckland) and M. Robertson (Otago) d. Mrs. I. Hatherley and Miss T. Poole (Canterbury), 4 —6, 6 —2, 7—5. MINED DOUBLES Final. —O. M. Bold (Hutt Valley) and Miss M. Beverley (Auckland) d. J. A. Barry and Miss E. G. Attwood (Auckland), 6—2, B—6. MEN’S PLATE Final.— P. G. Nicholls (Wellington) d. I. T. Easton (Waikato). 7 —5, I—6,1 —6, 7—5. WOMEN’S PLATE Final. —Miss F. Becroft (Auckland) d. Miss C. M. Ncave (Otago), 7—9, 7—5, 6—3.