LAWN TENNIS NOTES

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 303, 20 November 1934, Page 2

LAWN TENNIS NOTES

BRITISH RANKING LIST. DOMINION PLAYERS COMPARED. The British ranking list just published is interesting from the light it throws upon the status of our New Zealand players' in England. Naturally Perry and Austin occupy the first two places, hut tho omission of Lee from “want of sufficient data” seems inexplicable, for if lie was good enough to be elected as reserve singles player in the Davis Cup team there should be no doubt as to his position in the first four, whether he was placed above or below Hughes. In liis absence Sharpe is placed fourth as was anticipated in these columns. He had in previous years been ranked from ninth to fifth, and as he is reported to he better than ever this year his victory over Andrews in the South of England championship was apparently no fluke, though it was the first time in several meetings that he was successful. Number five on the list is the British “hope,” the nineteen-year-old C. E. Hare. Andrews beat this player at Eastbourne in a three-set match lasting over two hours, and Stedman has met him several times this season and has won each time after a hard struggle. On this line Andrews and Stedman would if eligible, be in the first six in Britain. There is not a great deal to choose between the two at present. They have met twice this season and each has won once. Malfroy is just about their equal. Malfroy won the New Zealand championship last season from fno Anrt.vi

Sproule, who had beaten Andrews in the semi-final, but when they met in the Auckland championship Andrews prevailed. Apparently Malfroy and Stedman have only met once outside of New Zealand, and that- occasion the former was the winner. Although taking the line through Hare, all our representatives would be ranked very high, both Malfroy and Stedman were recently beaten by E. C. Peters, who is only ranked at No. 7 and in previous years has never been higher than eleventh. Peters, however, is a steady player who is very hard to beat and lias the distinction of being the only Englishman who has ever beaten Tilden in a match, a feat that he nearly accomplished a second time. The fashion of shorts for women playing tennis seems likely to die out very soon. Reports from England are to the effect that they are already very little seen, but divided skirts are very popular. These, if of correct length, are quite becoming. Of the English players who were lately in this country two wore skirts of the usual pattern reaching to just below the knee. The third wore a divided skirt which would have been more becoming if it had been about three inches longer. - Skirts which are too long are not attractive in appearance, and Miss Lloyd, the captain of the N.S.W. ladies’ team which visited New Zealand last seassons, says:—“lt is the woman’s duty to look as attractive as possible oil all occasions. Shorts do not tend to that aspect,” nor as a matter of fact do over-long skirts. There is no need for women to play without sleeves. Shoulders scalded by Hie sun are not pretty. All the late English visitors, wore sleeves, and so did the American AViglitman Cup team, though they, with one exception, wore extremely short shorts. Sleeves are no hindrance to free play, and no men have ever appeared without them. As a rule men play in short sleeves or with long sleeves rolled up above the elbow, but the two greatest players that the game has seen, Tilden and H. L. Doherty, habitually nlayed in long sleeves which they did not roll up Two years ago, when Crawford was at his best, he often, if not always, omitted to roll up his sleeves.