LAWN TANNIS

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 4 November 1933, Page 8

LAWN TANNIS

“SHORTS” AND OTHER TOPICS

EXCUSES FOR FAILURES DEFEAT OF AMERICAN TEAM How often and how heartily defeated players of lawn tennis must wish that their friend's, both personal and in the Press, would not (like the unwilling guests in the parable) “begin with one accord to make excuse for their failure to fulfil the predictions of their success! It is not, of course, unknown, that players themselves have some excuse to make for their defeat (writes a -special correspondent of a London paper); but far more generally the plea comes from those who have suffered —perhaps in print —their critical judgment to be led astray, and are forced to find some reason for this instead of admitting the real plausible one. NO EXCUSES.

It is therefore all' the more satisfactory to find, just as one would have expected to find in the case of such good players and decent sportsmen as Ellsworth Vines and Wilmer Allis'on, that they offer no excuses whatever for their -defeats by H. W. Austin and F. J. Perry in the Davis Cup interzone final. In an article in “American Lawn Tennis” Vines says that the various excuses made (not by themselves) for their defeat, viz., that they were over-strained; that their game was not adapted to the French court surface; that they were badly captained; that the French crowd “put them off”; that the- ball was too soft;, that the climatic conditions were inimical —of all these excuses, or, in the colloquial and expressive American term ‘ ‘ alibis” Vines disposes in a few words. “Why not give the English players the credit ”he asks. “Our critics pass by the mto-st obvious of all reasons. Perry and Austin had been beaten in the States; but on the days of the Davis Cup match we were up against better players than we had previously beaten. They played 15 better than they had ever done in the United States. When they had to win a point they did; and that is what won for them. You may call it an upset if you like, but we were beaten through .superior play.” And Allison: “The more one looks at it and tries to analyse it, the more convinced one becomes that we were beaten .purely and simply because Perry and Austin were better tennis players.” These young men have the right spirit. I wish that all players would take their defeats as calmly, and recognise that in 99 cases out of 100’ the sole reason for those defeats is that they didn’t, play so well as their opponents. Vines and Allison have given a lesson not only to those who .play, but to- those who only sit and write;

NOT A NEW STYLE. H. W. Austin’s introduction of “shoilts” for playing in has already produced a crop of imitators. Really,, he was not the “onlic begetter” of the fashion, for Brame Hillyard used them long before Austin did; but it is Austin that everyone is either copying or about to copy. There is no doubt, whatever that “shorts” are much more comfortable to- play in and give greater ease and freedom than a damp and flapping trouser-leg. It is only the innovations that causes objection; and that objection is bound to disappear. And the men’s example is being followed by the girls. ’.On several occasions this season girls have played in shorts, though not, as yet, at Wimbledon; though in the United States women’s -championships at Forest Hills recently they were far from unknown. Apropos, I must quote the reply of a man to a girl who asked him' whether he liked the ‘ ‘ shorts” she was wearing. “I think,” said he, “that they are most becoming shorts becoming shorter?”

It is not a little curious that the very unusual incident which happened at Wimbledon, when, in the AustinSatoh match, Satoh was allowed to serve two games in succession, should have so soon been duplicated. At one of those festive gatherings which are so popular a feature of the Wimbledon fortnight, I happened to be sitting next to an American who was at some pains to point out to me that such an incident could not possibly happen in America, where all umpires were picked men who knew their job. Yet it was in America, and in the very important match in which Mrs WillsMoody beat Mrs Nuthall, that precisely the same thing occurred. And with less excuse, for a't Wimbledon it happened in the first .game of tho third set, when the umpire had had to turn over the page, and was therefore temporarily “unsighted,” whereas at Forest Hills the umpire allowed Mrs Moody 'to serve two games in succession in the middle of a set!

A BASIC RULE. There are several odd things about these happenings. One is that the players themselves never seem to notice that there is anything wrong. Another is that i*o few players appear to know “what happens now” -when the mistake is belatedly discovered. The general basic rule of lawn tennis that “whatever has been done stands,” but the mistake must be rectified as soon as possible. For example, if Ais serving when his opponent ought to have served, and wins tho first two points, making himself ” 30-love,” and then the umpire realises the mistake, and stops him, B must then serve for the rest of the game, but A’s two-pomt lead stands, and B begins to serve at “love-30.” But if A has served out of his turn, and the game has been completed before the mistake has been discovered, the game stands to the credit of whichever player has won it. B selves in the next game, and the order of service remains as changed (unless the umpire is caught napping again!). The general ignorance of the rules is emphasised' by the statement that in the Moody-Niithall match, many of the spectators thought that, as Mrs Moody had served two games running. Miss Nut hall ought to serve tlic next two! An ingenious idea, but o'ne possibly prompted by the idea that Miss Nulthall. was profiting by being served to since as long as that continued she could not present her opponent with afees ‘by doubl'e-fauJiing!