AUSTRALIA WINS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXV, Issue 126, 14 May 1935, Page 7

AUSTRALIA WINS

DAVIS CUP MATCH New Zealand’s Hard Fight CRAWFORD’S BAD PATCH (By Telegraph-Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Received 14, 10-30 a.m.) LONDON, May 13. In the Davis Cup series at Eastbourne, Crawford and Quist (Australia) defeated Stedman and Malfroy (New Zealand), 6—3, 4—6, 6—l, 6—4. The weather was cold and dull and the attendance was far below that on Saturday. The Australians captured Malfroy’s opening service. Their unanswerable smashing from the New Zealanders’ uncertain lobs gave Australia a lead of 4 —o. Then Malfroy, who for the second time aced Crawford, won the service Malfroy’s neat cross-court back-hanu drive gave New Zealand the sixth game, but Quist's excellent volleying and smashing enabled Australia easily to take the set. While the Australians were more aggressive, the New Zealanders defended stoutly. Stedman's driving was improved and his service became stronger. Games followed service until the score was three all. Then Crawford twice double-faulted, giving the New Zealanders a lead, which Stedman’s service increased to 5—3. Malfroy held his service and tho New Zealanders deservedly won the set.

Crawford's bad patch continued into the third set, but Quist's fierce tmasfing, plus several impetuous errors by

Stedman and volleying lapses by Malfroy, gave the Australians this set, the New Zealanders being unable to hold their net positions. Unable to steer their returns out of Quist’s devastating reach, the New Zealanders were soon one to three behind in the fourth set. Then Malfroy captured his own service and Quist missed two successive volleys, equalising games at three all. The score ran to 4 —3 in New Zealand’s favour, when Stedman’s forehand drive down the line left Quist standing. Crawford then decisively took his own service and the Australians went ahead to 5—4 as a result of subtle volleys. Quist clinched the set, match and tic for Australia with a smash. The Australian Press Association comments that Quist was easily the best of the four players to-day. He rarely had a lapse from sustained smashing and reliable firm low volleying. Crawford was decidedly patchy. The New Zealanders' display in the first set was extremely poor but afterwards they fought hard although under a handicap through their inability to establish themselves at the net, nor had they the capacity for decisive volleying when they got there. Both players frequently broke down on easy drives They were not sufficiently versatile to tbrea.mi the Austialians.