O'CARROLL WINS MAIRTOWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP

Northern Advocate, 1 April 1946, Page 7

O'CARROLL WINS MAIRTOWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIP

The Mairtown Tennis Club's single champion for the 1945-1946 season i T. O'Carroll. In the final, he beat G. Harnett 3 6—5. 6—5. 1 The match was not notable for an; particularly fine tennis, but eacl , player was steady and placed his shot ‘ accurately. Both finalists exploiter ’ the net position to advantage. c Harnett was rather unlucky not t< annex at least a set. although O’Car 1 roll's win was thoroughly deserved. Harnett led 3 —l in the first set " Then O'Carroll reeled off three game l 2 in a row. Harnett equalised on th« 2 next and then O'Carroll clinched th( next to love. Once again the scon was evened, this time at 5—5 anc 5 O’Carroll finished off the set at 6—5. ■ O’Carroll quickly established a 3—l f lead in the second set. Harnett made : it 3—2 and a long game followed I deuce being called several times before O'Carroll sealed the issue. Both - took love games and Harnett did best ■ in the next two to even at 5—5. When the pressure was applied, however, O’Carroll made no mistake. O’Carroll's success proved that he is still a difficult man to beat. His steadiness and accuracy, coupled with a good knowledge of court craft, makes him something of a brick wall in the eyes of the opposition. Harnett’s performance, considering his lack of practice, was full of merit. He did well to reach the final, his form improving with every match. He uses a lot of top-spin and also employs a chop shot to good effect. MISS HALLIDAY’S SUCCESS The final of the ladies' handicap singles was won by Miss M. Hallidaj (-4-15), who beat Miss S. Stokes (+3-6) 9—l. In spite of her restricted style, Miss Halliday's persistent returns were too much for her opponent, who stroked well but lacked steadiness and accuracy. Miss Stokes would develop into an excellent player if she could overcome these weaknesse. Both finalists are first-year members of the club and their keenness has been rewarded with a noticeable improvement in their play. MRS SAUL’S DOUBLE WIN Mesdames Saul and Farrell were too good in the semi-final of the ladies championship doubles, and beat Mrs Robinson and Miss J. Leese. 6—l, 6—t Experience and steadiness were the deciding factors. The winners now meet Misses B. Birchall and C. Connolly in the final, and a close game is anticipated. Mrs Saul was also successful in tne semi-final of the combined doubles. Her partner was G. Harnett, and they outplayed Miss Birchall and C. Chitty to win 4—6, 6—4. 6—3.

Chitty and Mis Birchall played strongly in the first set, utilising the net to the full. Miss Birchall’s fast cross-court drives were instrumental in forcing the opposition out of position.

The pair ran to a 4—l lead in the second set, and seemed assured of victory. They then lapsed into a slower game, as nictated by Harnett and Mrs Saul and failed to hold their own from then on. Harnett and Mrs Saul took the set 6—4, and when Chitty and Miss Birchall continued on the defensive in the third set, maintained their superiority to win the match. Harnett and Mrs Saul will take some beating if they can slow the game down to their own pace. They are too accurate in this type of game. They are not so much at home against players who force the pace and keep up a constant attack.

In the final, Harnett and Mrs. Saul meet H. Berridge and Miss C. Connolly. In the semi-final of the men’s championship singles. R. C. Mullins beat J. Price, 6—3. 2—6, 6—o in a game which was much closer than the scores indicate. Both players played orthodox tennis m the first place and alternated with the service until 3 all was called. Mullins then broke through Price’s service and went on to take the s P ( 6—3. In the second set Price forced the pace the whole way and with welljudged excursions to the net had Mullins on the defensive throughout and was not unduly troubled in taking this set 6—2. In the final set, Mullins returned to the initiative and played his best tennis to give his tiring opponent no chance to reproduce hs second set effort MARATHON CONTEST In the other sem-final, a marathon contest was won by Edgar Child, wno defeated R. Carter, 6—5. 5—6. 6—3.

Carter’s heavily sliced drives to the ; corners worried Child at the outset, {but the latter, who has been playing : excellent tennis this season, after trail- ! ing 3—l in the final set. took the ofj fensive by rushing the net whenever i possible, to put away well controlled | volleys and smashes, and take the set j without the loss of another game, j Child will play Mullins in the final next Saturday. In the final of the women’s championship doubles, Miss J. McDonald and Miss M. Finlayson beat Mrs Arneil and Mrs Percy 6—2, 6—o. The latter pair are an experienced doubles combination, but they could not match i their younger opponents. The final of the men’s championship doubles was won by E. Child and C. Davidson, who defeated R. S. Finch and R. C. Mullins, 6—4, 6—3. The match was doggedly fought although it did not produce high-class tennis. The winning pair combine®! much better than theft opponents. The first set could have gone either way, but Child and Davidson opened out in the second set and the result was never in doubt. HANDICAP SEMI-FINALS Results of the semi-finals of the handicap events are:— Men’s Singles.—Mullins beat Price. 9 —B; Small beat Dyer, 9—3. Women's Singles.—Miss J. McDonald beat Miss Carter, B—s; Miss M. Finlayson beat Miss M. McDonald, 8— Men’s Doubles. —Finch and Mullins beat Dyer and Davidson, 9—5; Arnei] and Small beat Child and Child, 9 Women’s Doubles.—Misses U. and W. Williams beat Miss McDonald and B. Morland. 9—B; Mesdames Finch and Brown beat Misses Finlayson and Carter. B—4. Combined Doubles.—Davidson and Miss McDonald beat Small and Mrs. Finch. 9—B; Finlayson and Miss Griffin beat Finch and Mrs Arneil, 9—7.

ASSOCIATION LADDER CHALLENGES Interest in the Whangarei sub-asso- ! ciation’s singles’ ladders is being well j maintained. Several challenge matI ches took place over the week-end, ! and a few have still to be decided. | H. Berridge. of Matarau, who held | No. 3 position, failed to withstand his j second challenge, going down to T. | McKegg, of Matarau, 6—3, 6—l, who I was No. 4. McKegg played well, but Berridge was out of touch. Each served strongly, and the first six games went with the service. Berridge could not maintain this run, and McKegg took the remaining games without difficulty. In the second set, Berridge made many mistakes and did not provide his opponent with a great deal of opposition. The game was played at a fast pace, with strong drives coming from both sides of the net. McKegg seldom ventured away from the backline, and when he did Berridge left him in mid-air with fine passing shots down the side lines. His game was spoilt by over-hitting and a tendency to be erratic. TWO-HOUR STRUGGLE In the marathon three-set duel, lasting over two hours. O’Carroll (Mairtown), displaced K. Laurie, of the same club, in fifth position. J The score was 6—4, 3—6, 7—ft. Both relied more on placement than on pace, and, being accurate, their tussle was a long drawn-out affair. O’Carroll led s—l in the first set and Laurie held the advantage throughout the second. In the third, O’Carroll established a lead of 5—2, but Laurie rallied and J evened the score. O’Carroll then won j the next two games for the match.