FINALS OF MANAWATU TENNIS TOURNAMENT

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 6808, 11 January 1929, Page 8

FINALS OF MANAWATU TENNIS TOURNAMENT

C. E. Malfroy Champion Singles Title Won by Miss D. Nicholls Rain delayed the Manawatu tennis tournament games yesterday morning, players being unable to start until 10.30 a.m. by which time a stiff breeze was blowing across the courts. The finals of the championship events in the afternoon attracted a large gathering of spectators. The mixed championship doubles and handicap finals will be played this morning.

At the conclusion of yesterday 'a play, the results of which are appended, the president of the Manawatu Association (Mr. H. F. Gibbons) presented the trophies in the sections that had been decided up to that time. He took the opportunity as well to tender thanks to all who had assisted, naming specially Mrs. Haggitt, the ladies from Bulls and others who had assisted with the refreshments, the umpires and the visiting players whose presence at the tourney was appreciated. Mr. E. W. Griffiths (Auckland) returned thanks on behalf of the visitors for the courteous and hospitable manner in which they had been received by the Manawatu players. Ho also praised the Linton street courts which, he considered, were in better order than he had seen them in for some years. Cheers were given for the winners, visitors and Manawatu Association. 1929 CHAMPIONS. Men’s Singles: C. E. Malfroy (Wellington). Ladies’ Singles: Miss D. Nicholls (Wellington). Men’s Doubles: Griffiths (Auckland) and Rhodes Williams (Wellington). Ladies’ Doubles: Mrs Adams (Wellington) and Miss Myers (Wanganui). CHAMPIONSHIPS. Men’s Singles. Eourth round: Powdrell beat Griffiths. 4 —6, 6 —4, 6—2; Rhodes-Williams beat A. McDonald, 6 —2, 6—2. Semi-final: Malfroy beat Powdrell, 6—o, G —3; Rhodes-Williams beat A. C. Stedman, 9—7, 6 —4. Pinal: Malfroy (Wellington) beat Rhodes-Williams (Wellington), 6 —4, 6 —2. Ladies’ Singles. Fourth round: Mrs. Adams beat Mrs. Napier,'6—2, 6—2; Miss Myers beat Miss M. Preedv, 6—2, 11—9; Miss Gibson beat Miss Stevens, 6—4, 6—l; Miss D. Nicholls beat Mrs. Reeves, 6 —l, 6—o.

Semi-finals: Miss Nicholls beat Miss Gibson, I—6, 6—3, 6—3; Mrs. Adams beat Miss Myers, 9 —7, 6 —l. Final: Miss D. Nicholls (Wellington) beat Mrs. Adams (Wellington), 3 —6 ,7 —5, 6 —3. ■} Men’B Doubles. Third round: Lampe and Malfroy ceat B. Hooper and Swinburne, 6 —l, 6 — l. Semi-final: Charters and Stedman beat Lampe and Malfroy, 4—6, 6—4, 11—9; Griffiths and Rhodes-Williams beat J. T. McDonald and E. V. Hooper, 6-3, 7—5. Final: Griffiths and RhodesWilliams beat Charters and A. C. Stedman, 11—9. 6—3. Ladies’ Doubles. Final: Mrs. Adams and Miss ' Myers beat Mrs. Napier and Miss Ramsay, 6—2, 6—2. kixed Doubles. Third Tound: Melody and Mrs. Melody beat D. Robertson and Miss. V Nicholls, 2—6, 9—7, 6—3; J. T. McDonald and Miss Morrison beat A. McDonald and Miss Campbell, 7—5, 3—6, 6 —4; Lampe and Miss Myers beat Powdrell and Miss Dorman, 6 —l, 6 —4. Fourth round: Malfroy and Miss M. Preedy beat Procter and Miss Whyte, tl —0, 6—2; Griffiths and Miss D. Nicholls beat O'Brien and Miss Howe, 6—l, 6 —l; Lampe and Miss Myers beat McDonald and Miss Morrison, 6 —2, 6-1.-HANDICAP GAMES. Men’s Singles. Third Tound: Charters (minus 10) beat Boddy (rcc. 12), 70—66; Forbes t (rec. 5) beat Lezard (rec. 7), 60—59; j;" Fourth round: Entwistle (minus 5) ;• beat Orr (rec. 16), 65—62; B. Hooper (rec. 10) ■w'on from Powdrell (rec. 2) by default; Forbes (rec. 5) beat Charters (minus 10), 70—56. Semi-finals: Entwistle (minu3 5) beat ' B, Hooper (rcc. 10), 65 —50. Ladies’ Singles. Third round: Miss Walker (rec. 5) beat Mrs. Arneil (minus 10), 60—36; Miss D. Haggitt (scr.) beat Miss Cummerefield (rec. 12), 57—55; Miss Whyte (scr.) beat Miss Howe '(minus 5). 55—37; Miss Card (rec. 6) beat Miss Dorman (rec. 12), 50—30; Miss McCrea (rec. 15) beat Mrs. Napier (minus 4). 54 42. Fourth round: Miss McMullan (rec. 10) beat Miss Walker (rec. 5), 50 —45; Miss Whyte (scr.) beat Miss Card (rec. 6), 50—38; Miss D. Haggitt (scr.) beat Miss Campbell (rec. 20), 50—41; Miss McCrea (rec. 15) beat Miss M. Rutherford (rec. 12), 50 —45. Semi-final: Miss McCrea (rec. 15) beat Miss Whyte (scr.), 50 —47. Men’s Doubles. Third round: J. T. McDonald and R. V. Hooper (scr.) beat Millar and O’Brien (scr.), 60 —57; Lezard and Forbes (rec. 5) beat Gosnell and Blackbourn (rec. 30), 60—55; Robertson Bros. (rec. 12) beat Stedman and McDonald (rec. S), 60—49. Semi-finals: J. T. McDonald and R. V. Hooper (scr.) beat Wills and Powdrell (scr.), 60—55; Lezard and Forbes "(rec. 5) beat Robertson Bros. (rec. 12), 60-—5 l. Ladies’ Doubles. ■ Second Tound: Mrs. Arneil and Miss

Stevens (minus 7) beat Misses Card and Read (rec. 5), 57 —49. Third round: Mrs. Reeves and Miss D. Haggitt (rec. 5) beat Mrs. Arneil and Miss Stevens (minus 7), 57 —55. i Semi-finals: Misses Whyte and M. Nicholls (scr.) beat Mrs. Reeves and Miss D. Haggitt (rec. 5), 50 —46; Misses D. Nicholls and Howe (minus 10) beat Misses McMullan and Morrison (rec. 15) 60—54. Mixed Doubles. Second round: D. Robertson and Miss V. Nicholls (rec. 15) beat Procter and Miss Whyte (rec. 8), 60—53; Entwistlo and Miss Ramsay (minus 5) beat McDonald and Miss Campbell (rec. 5), 65 —56; Longmorc and Miss M. Nicholls (rec. 10) beat Young and Miss Young (rec. 18), 60—55; Orr and Miss Louis (ree. 16) won from Brown and Miss Tilley (rec. 18) by default; McMurray and Miss McMurray (rec. 22) won from Pebble and Miss Nicholls (scr.) by default; Stedman and Miss McCrea (rec. 18) won from Griffiths and Miss D. Nicholls (minus 5) by default. Third round: D. Robertson and Miss V. Nicholls (rec. 15) beat Lezard and Miss Card (rec. 8), 60—49; Entwistle and Miss Ramsay (minus 5) beat Orbell and Miss D. Haggitt (rec. 5); Orr and Miss Louis (rec. 16) beat Longmore and Miss M. Nicholls (rec. 10), 60—54; Stedman and Miss McCrea (rcc. 8) beat McMurray and Miss McMurray (rec. 22), 60—39; Brydren and Miss Heard (rec. 18) won from Entwistle and Miss Ramsay (minus 5) by default; Daniels and Mrs. Law (ree. 16) won from Miller and Miss Mackay (rec. S) by default. Fourth round: Orr and Miss Louis (rcc. 16) beat Entwistle and Miss Ramsay (minus 5), 66 —64; D. Robertson and Miss V. Nicholls (rcc. 15) beat Bryden and Miss Heard (rec. 18), 60—44; J. Stedman and Mis 3 McCrea (rec. 18) beat Daniels and Mrs. Law (rec. 16), 60—55. Semi-finals: Robertson and Miss V. Nicholls (rec. 15) beat Orr and Miss Louis (rcc. 16), 60 —55. Manawatu Championships.

Men’s singles: Daniel beat Louisson, 6—2, 6—3. Ladies’ singles: Miss Astle beat Miss Cummerfield, 6—l, 6—3; Miss Carty beat Mrs. Caldwell, 6—2, 6—o. Notes on the Play Ladies’ Championship Singles. With such a strong representation of lady players keen interest was taken in the fight for the championship, and seme fine tennis was witnessed before Miss D. Nicholls vanquished. Mrs Adams in an endurance test to win the ladies’ singles championship. Miss Nicholls was in fino form and her defeat of the Canterbury hard Courts champion (Miss Gibson) in a gruelling three-set match in the semi-final was one of the outstanding successes of the day. Miss Gibson with her powerful driving and service took the first set 6 — l, and those who had picked he* to win the championship thought the game was all over, but her opponent made a fine recovery, talcing the second set 6—3. The third set showed the best tennis of tho tournament in the ladies’ section, both players being at the top of their form. Miss Nicholls was serving with power and accuracy, and her play on both hands was deadly. Notwithstanding her opponent’s plucky fight she was not to be denied, and took the set and match, 6 —3. Miss Myers and Mrs Adams fought a dogged fight in the first set of tho other semi-final, sixteen games being played with long Tallies from the back line before the Wellington lady took the set. Mrs Adams got and held the I ascendancy in the second set by her characteristically accurate driving to the back line on both hands and ran out an easy winner, 6 — l. Mrs Adams, in having to play the final almost immediately after a strenuous semi-final, with still a doubles final in prospect, suffered from. the same disability as did Rhodes Williams and their fates were similar. However, this is a condition of tournaments from which the best players suffer invariably and it would be unjust to impute a different result had Miss Dulcio Nicholls and Mrs Adams had equal opportunities for a spell . Tho first set was dull, both standing at the baseline and exchanging long drives, with an occasional run to tho net and so “playing themselves in’’ for several games. When Mrs Adams ,after keeping the lead, ran out 6 —3, most people were prepared to see her take the next set, match and trophy, but it was not to be. Miss Nicholls began well and led 3 —l in the second set. Then Mrs Adams captured her opponent’s service, won her own and so became all square. The fifth and sixth games were keenly fought for point by point. Tho game see-sawed thereafter, each player winning her service, to 5 all. Miss Nicholls won the next after *euce had been called twice and then took Mrs Adams service, 7 —5. The duel continued in the third set, neither geting more than a game ahead, to three all. Both were feeling the strain but Miss Nicholls kept on doggedly after

everything and won the next three games, and the championship, o —6. The Doubles. The final of the ladies’ doubles was a two-set affair, in which Mrs Adams and Miss Myers dominated the court throughout, their opponents, Mrs Napier and Miss Ramsay, taking only four games. The eventual winners took the first four games of the first set, then the next two went' the other way. thanks mainly to Miss Ramsay’s side-line placements. The next two were taken by the Myers-Adams combination, 6— 2. In the second set, the latter came away again, and from 3—2, took the game to match point, won it and the title, 6 —2, 6 —2. Men’s Championship Singles. Tho semi-final in the men’s singles saw Malfroy score a somewhat easy win over Powdrell ,although the Taranaki veteran kept his youthful opponent on the run, and the play was much more strenuous than the sc-ore (6—o, 6—3) appears to indicate. The other semi-final between Rhodes Williams (Wellington) and Stedman (Auckland) produced some dazzling tennis. The Wellingtonian came into prominence at the New Zealand championship meeting in Auckland, and w-as expected to get into the semi-final here, but it was hardly anticipated that he would beat Stedman. He is a stylist, playing a fine variety of strokes with a pretty and powerful backhand. W'liilo not having the driving strength of Stedman he is a greater master of court craft, and this really won him the match. The first set ran to sixteen games before Rhodes Williams pulled it off, but in tho second, after 4-all wab called he captured Stedman’s service and then taking his ou-n won a finely contested match—one of the best exhibitions of tennis in the tournament. The final of tho men’s singles provided remarkable tennis on the part of the two “red aces” but Malfroy’s repertoire was two extensive for his opponent, who, however, pulled <A some brilliant winners that made the crowd vocal with its praise. He began brilliantly, though obviously from the first he was fighting against fatigue. The games alternated till the fourth, when Rhodes Williams took Malfroy’s service and led, 3 —l. The title-holder retaliated in the next and w-on his own service, equalising the scores. Malfroy also took the next and led for the first time, after a long rally. Rhodes Williams equalised off Malfroy but from then on, ho was in a losing position. Malfroy’s uncanny recoveries won him the next two games, 6—4. The score in tho second set is really nc- indication of the trend of play. Deucotjjvas called frequently but Malfroy made fewer mistakes and so took the first threo games, the fifth, sixth and eighth, runniug out a winner and retaining the title, 6—4, 6—2. Men’s Doubles. The doubles semi-final between Stcd-man-Chartcrs and Lampe-Malfroy provided one of the finest finishes ever seen here, and the young Aucklanders thoroughly deserved their win. With ‘set all,” there was a rather disappointing commencement of the deciding set, all four making numerous errors. Stedman-Charters led 2—love, but their opponents collared the next three games. Then 3—all, 4—3, 4—all were called. By now play had recovered and there w r ere flashes of brilliance on both sides. Five all saw Lampe-Malfroy level again and the games wmre still oven at the twelfth. Fine overhead work by the Aucklanders won them the thirteenth game, but Malfroy’s service against the wind brought the tally level once more. Stedman smashing and half-volleying beautifully and Charters smashing to the side lines kept the opposition on their toes, but after a series of brilliant rallies Lampe-Malfroy took the lead. at the seventeenth game only to lose it again ao the nineteenth. The final game saw love 40 against Lampe-Malfroy, but fighting• doggedly they won the next two points, and then the unexpected happened. Lampe played a shot that was obviously dropping out, mishit it, and put it well over the back line to lose the set and match at the twentieth Once again the veteran Palmerston partnership —McDouald and Hooper fought their way into the semi-final by sterling play and clever concerted work. • Against such powerful opposition as Griffiths and Rhodes Williams they put up a great fight in the first set, the games going to 9—7 before a decision was reached. The second set saw an easier -win for the visitors, although the score (6—l) hardly does justice to the good fight put up by the popular Linton street combination. The doubles final between ChartersStcdman and Gritlith-Rhodes Williams w-as witnessed by a large-number of spectators, but did not provide such a thrilling encounter as the semi-final which saw the Aucklanders victorious. Indeed it was hardly to be expected that this pair would sustain the h tr standard that enabled them to defeat such a powerful combination as LampeMalfroy. Tho match, however, produced some sparkling play, all. four coming up to the net for rapid-fire volleying. The fortunes see-sawed through twenty games of interesting play before Griffiths and Rhodes Williams by superior court craft took the first set. Griffiths is a clever and experienced doubles player and with such a strong partner as Rhodes Williams he was seen to great advantage, continually forcing his younger opponents out of position. Rhodes Williams displayed fine overhead work and a powerful crosscourt backhand drive. Charters again scored with smashes to the side lino and Stedman’s driving and smashing was accurate and deadly. In the second set experience triumphed over youth and pace. Griffiths took the lead at 3—2. Charters dropped his service, and Rhodes Williams winning his led 5 —2. Stedman picked up the next game, but the veteran w T as not to bo denied and clever concerted work pulled off the set, match and championship at 6—3. The win was a most popular one. Griffiths has been a visitor to Palmerston North for many tournaments and has “knocked at the door” often. Ho has a lino sense of sportsmanship and sets ai; excellent example to tho

younger players. Rhodes Williams impressed observers all through the tournament by his heady and stylish play and his success was well deserved. The Auckland pair wore certainly unlucky during the tournament after getting so close to victory in both the singles and doubles, but their many admirers prophesy a great future for them in tho best of all games.