The Hawera Star. TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1928. AMATEUR SPORT.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 3 January 1928, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 1928. AMATEUR SPORT.

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clock in Hawera, Manaia, Normanby. Okaiawa, Eltham, Hangatoki, Kapbnga, Alton. Huneyville, Patea, Waverley, Mokoia, Whakamara. Ohangat. Heremere. Fraser Hoad and Ararata

All is not well in. the tennis world since the playing of the championships at Christchurch. “Incidents,” as they were styled by the local newspapers, occurred on at least three occasions’ last week, leading to talk of inquiries, protests and unpleasantness generally. There has developed, apparently, a regrettable amount of feeling, in which opinion seems to lie divided between those who contend that some of the leading players are showing signs of developing “temperaments” and others who hold that the taint of professionalism has crept into the conduct of the tournament. The first “incident” occurred when the umpire of a men’s singles withdrew as a protest against one of .the players continuing long after he liad reached a stage- at which it was impossible for him .to play without suffering pain, due to an injured arm. The umpire’s summary action aroused some comment at the time, but it was nothing ,to the controversy which broke out after the withdrawal of a lady and a man player from their respective matches last Thursday. The day was a particularly hot one in Christchurch, and the player had to retire halfway through his singles on account of his feet troubling him. A little later he was called upon to appear in a doubles match, and this was held by some to be wanton' “overcrowding”, of the player in order to keep faith with the public. The retirement of the lady player from the final of the ladies ’ doubles on account of sheer exhaustion aroused opinions even more sharply divided. Her defection occurred on the same day, when the heat was intense. She had already played a gruelling singles match, one of the longest on record in ladies’ competitions, and before she had gone far in doubles she was obviously in distress. One of the spectators, who is also a prominent figure in the tennis world, went on to the court and advised tlio player to retire, and after some persuasion, in which her partner joined, she agreed to withdraw and allow the final of tlie championship in that division to go by default. Her action threw Canterbury supporters into what Mr Pepys would call a “pretty tossc,’’ for she and her partner were expected to bring the doubles title to that province. Some critics charge the association with arranging the various matches with both eyes on the “gate,” claiming that ns the only reason the authorities could have had for refusing the application which had been made previously to have the match played during a later and cooler period of the day. Others, in discussing the late appearance of a player who had to delay starting his match while he liad his feet bandaged, and in commenting upon the defection of this lady player, refer to “honourable agreements” to appear before the public at a certain hour and tlio necessity for players “training and keeping fit” so that there may be no future risk of the public which pays being disappointed. These latter commentators, of course, have nothing but the hardest things to say of the player-spectator who so forgot the true relation of match tennis to the demands of a pay-

ing public as to “interfere” and advise

~fP the lady, on humanitarian grounds, to forfeit tlie game. There may ibc every justification for the charge that some of the leading players, who knew that they had a good chance of going far towards the finals, took too much upon themselves in entering for so many divisions of the championships, but there can 'be surely nothing to justify a devotion to a game which demands that the participant should strive to continue long after it is patent to everybody that to do so entails physical suffering. The tendency to consider the interests of the public before those of the player is growing in the conduct of some of our best amateur games, and it is not good for amateurism. So long as a player, in tennis, Rugby, or any other non-professional sport, “plays the game ’ ’ in every sense of the word, that is all that should be demanded of him —or her. The public has no “rights’ ’ so far as amateur players are concerned. If, by reason of its financial support, the public’s interests become paramount in any game which is played by the participants for pleasure and not ■for profit, then some classification other than “amateur” must be found for it.