Untitled

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7294, 2 August 1930, Page 15

When American Ace Was at His Best—Famous Critic’s Opinion—Forty Years of Tennis — But Cochet Most Consistent Winner.

“FOLLOWERS of lawn tennis 4 have always been interested in the question of the relative skill of the champions of the past and players of the present generation,” writes J. Parmly Paret, in “American Lawn Tennis.” Prom time to time, there has spasmodically flared up fresh discussion of this ever-recurring controversy,

but we find ourselves no nearer the solution today than we were a decade ago, nor for that matter, two decades. Paret continues: “I distinctly remember that 30 years ago we were asking ourselves and our friends the same questions regarding the relative skill of the masters of those days with their predecessors. And as time goes on we are even less likely to find the answer, for the passing years necessarily dim the recollections of the players of the past and lessen the ability to draw logical conclusions from our estimates of their play. “To have lived in an atmosphere of tennis during the last generation would seem to be a necessary qualification for one who would pose as an authority on the matter, but to have played against the champions of those days would furnish even better knowledge from which to draw. Of those who did play in fast company 30 years ago, few have kept strictly up to date in their observance of modern conditions today. Obviously there is scarcely one who still plays in such fast company. If for no other reason, age would prevent. It is very easy to be misled into hallowing the days and the players that have passed into history. “The expert of today has never played against the best of 30 years ago—he was not old enough to hold a racket, if indeed he had been born then—and very few of them have even seen these former champions play. “What knowledge they have of the ‘old masters’ must be of a hearsay character, and none too reliable on. which to base a valuable opinion. “I have seen and studied nearly every great player for tho last 40 years,' and generally in the most important international and championship matches. It has been a part of my business as well as my pleasure to keep absolutely abreast of the times, and I am as anxious as anyone could be to avoid the danger of becoming antiquated, of hallowing the past at the expense of the present. “As I have watched Tilden and

Johnston and Williams, Brookes and Patterson, Cochet and Lacoste and Borotra, Richards and Kozeluh, Wilding and McLoughlin, Shimidzu and Harada and ICumagae, I have always tried to imagine myself on the court against them. The experienced player sees the ball hit, estimates its speed and direction and calculates the possibility of its being reached and returned. ‘Could I have stopped that attack?’ 1 have asked myself. ‘Could I have passed that man at the net?' Cound I have handled that service?” Then “Could Doherty? Could Larned? Could Whitman or Wright, or Ward or Alexander, or any of the masters? WHAT HILLYARD THINGS Hillyard himself was ranked in his day as one of the best players in England, and he won many championship titles botli at home and abroad; while his wife was champion of England six different years. His book, “Forty Years of First-class Lawn Tennis,” published in 1924, includes tho widest range of.observations on great players that have been put into print by anyone. Personally, I consider Hillyard the best-posted man in the world on this particular subject, because of his unusual opportunities to study and play against all of the great players of several generations, and his extremely wide and long experience. Possibly he is a trifle retroactive in that ho has a tendency to hallow the masters of the past. What Hillyard thinks on this matter is well worth considering, and 1

am therefore quoting from his book: “And yet people talk as if what they are pleased to call the ‘modern game’ is far more strenuous and exhausting. All I can say is that I’ve played lawn tennis for 40 years, and I've yet to see the man who hits harder or more accurately than S. 11. Smith; volleys better or more persistently than E. W. Lewis; or who is fleeter of foot than Ernest Renshaw, 11. L. Doherty, and half a dozen others I could name. “There is nothing new in lawn tennis, and no strokes or methods the great players of the past were not masters of, with the solo exception of the ‘American service,’ and even that was invented over 20 years ago.” During tho tour of English players through Australia two years ago, Brookes expressed some interesting opinions at a dinner given to the visiting players. In comparing the old with the new. the “old master” himself said ho thought Tilden was the finest player he had ever met, but the perfect player had not yet been found, for Tilden was not a perfect volleyer. Taking everything into consideration, he thought that Tilden was “n shade better than any other player with whom he had come in contact.” There is more pressure today in the matter of time than ever before, and the game becomes steadily more strenuous in the difficulty of reaching the bail rather than in hitting it. The older men were exhausted as much

as those of today by the long rallies, but there are breathless periods of play than that were not equalled then. This, I believe, sums up the most notable difference between the championship lawn tennis of 1930 and 1900. For sheer steadiness of play, omitting the element of speed, 11. L. Doherty was even better than Tilden, and made fewer errors than Johnston or Hunter. Dacoste is a better counterpart of Doherty than Tilden, and his defensive ability 1 would rate as

high as that of the great English master, although his attack lacks Doherty’s sting, and his volleying less effective. Probably no player in the world today has equalled the court strategy of Brookes at his best in 1905. HIGH-WATER MARK “From 1910 to 1920, the following decade, there were rising and falling stars, McLouglilin, Patterson, Johnston, Williams, Parke and Tilden, all in their turn brilliant masters. “But from 1920 on there has been a period of American ascendancy that centred around Tilden, Johnston and Richards, only to be followed by a rising French tide that swept into the forefront first Borotra, then Lacoste, and finally Cocliet, to the almost complete eclipse of the American stars with the lustre of 'the Australian and English leaders still further faded. “When wo try to pick the best from one decade and estimate the possible results if they could have met in actual leaders of other times, it becomes doubly difficult, and one must draw on his imagination in making any estimate whatsoever.' “Even at the risk of treading on controversial ground, however, ! am willing to risk the opinion that could H, L. Doherty return tomorrow to active tournament competition, and meet the best of the modern players under present conditions, assuming, of course, that he would show the same superb form of his palmy days, he would fully hold his own with any player of the last 10 years, unless it be Tilden, whose best a few seasons ago, I think, probably marked the high-water line of the game’s skill throughout the world for all time. “I believe the average of H. L. Doherty’s play was perhaps better than l’ilden’s average, but his best never reached the superb flights of Tilden’s most brilliant achievements. Darned’s average was far from the average form of either, but some of his intervals of brilliance could be placed in the same category with Tilden’s, though there were fewer of them, and ho lacked the defenco to mako his play as sound as Tilden’s. Both Cochet and Lacoste in their topmost flights should also be ranked with the best of Tilden and Doherty, and Cochet’s average tournament play probably shows the best of all time for consistent winning.”