TENNIS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 6 January 1923, Page 3

TENNIS.

v ____. The holiday season has been very interesting in the tennis world because of the N.Z. championships at Hastings and the presence there of the New South Wales ladies. This added in no small degree to the interest, especially in the ladies' events, and incidentally ;it is worth notice that, they annexed the singles and doubles, and one of , them was partnered with Sims in the ' mixed doubles. It is a matter of great regret that Miss Nancy Curtis, who held the championship of New Zealand and of New South Wales, was unable to defend her title. Miss Lance (New South Wales), who figured in each of

the three ladies' events, would have had to fight hard for the honour. The holder of the men's championship singles, Dr Laurenson, and the holders of the doubles, Goss and Greenwood, both had to acknowledge defeat. In the latter competition the play is reported to have been of the keenest. Laurenson and Ollivier had to play their best to beat Peacock and Sims, but had a runaway victory over Griffiths' and Eobson. A Wellington paper writes of the men's singles final: The final in the men's championship singles between G. Ollivier (United Club, Christchurch) j and J. T. Laurenson (Matamata, Wai-1 kato) attracted a large attendance of j onlookers, who were treated to one • hour's scientific and high-class tenuis.) Ollivier is undoubtedly a past master j at the game, and has more knowledge , and a greater variety of strokes than ! any man player in New Zealand to- j day. fault seems to be slackness, i Tnis nvas exemplified in his match against Sims in tlie semi-final on Friday. If Sims had maintained his attack in the fifth set, when he was 4—love, Ollivier's name would have been forgotten for another season. Sims, however, went to pieces. From the commencement of the match in' the final Ollivier was at his best. To j sum up the result in a few words, he j won comfortably from his conqueror of ; 1921. He made very few mistakes, and gave the onlookers a clear idea of what he can do when playing at the top of his form. Laurenson forced the play in an uphill game throughout, but in I spite of his best efforts he was unable { to make any impression on his opponent. Many critics held the view that he was not aggressive enough, that he! kept too much to the back line, and did not make use of effective overhead j work, but the true position was that j Ollivier had him on'the defensive in j every game, and did not give him an j opportunityto show the dashing tennis I he displayed in the preliminary matches. Laurenson himself admitted that he was beaten by a superior matt in every department. G. Ollivier, winner of the tennis championships of 1911, 1914 and 1919, again regained the title by outclassing Dr J. T. Laurenson, holder, in three straight sets, 6—l, 6—3, 7—5. Soon after the game started it was easily seen that Laurenson's chances were nil. i It was apparent that Ollivier was playing the best game he had played ' throughout the tournament, and Laurenson was playing one of his weakest. The holder's one chance lay in his overhead work inside the service line, but he never tried to get there, making only three smashes throughout the whole match. He stayed about the back line, playing the game which Ollivier knows from A to Z. Ollivier was superior in tactics, strategy, judgment, placing, service and forehand drive. The only two things in which Laurenson could hope to" counteract him were his backhand and wonderful overhead ' work, and the longer he stayed back the more hopeless his position became. Eight from the start Ollivier began playing with great judgment the beautiful length of his forehand drive, giving Laurenson heavy work to keep up. Ollivier kept him 'on the run from corner to corner. While Laurenson made a plucky but vain effort to cope with the hot pace set, Ollivier was making few errors, and a detailed analysis tells the story. Ollivier—First set: Nets 12, outs 9, placements 9, double faults 1. Second ' set: Nets 10, outs 16, placements 11, double faults 3. Third set: Nets 11, outs 16, placements 13, double faults 0. Laurenson—First set: Nets 16, outs 9, placements 6, double faults 1. Sec-' ond set: Nets 11, outs 14, placements 2, double faults 1. Third set: Nets 6, outs 17, placements 7, double faults 0. There were no service aces throughout, while only four games were deuced. The deadly length of Ollivier'si forehand drive and the ease and precision with which he swung the ball across from corner to corner gave Laurenson no chance to take the offensive. Laurenson momentarily raised the crowd's hopes when he captured the first game in the second set with the loss of two strokes, but Ollivier was still keeping that wonderful length, and after taking the next two games Laurenson challenged him strongly,! and roused the enthusiasm of the crowd ' by taking the next four games in convincing fashion. Ollivier was now playing very indifferently, and when the score was 5—4 it looked as if-Lau-renson would take the set, but he faded away in an unaccountable manner and Ollivier, playing with nothing like the accuracy of the earlier sets, ran to set and match. I