LAWN TENNIS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18963, 10 March 1925, Page 12

LAWN TENNIS.

AUCKLAND V. FRANKLIN. A match between the Franklin lannis Association team and an Auckland B grade team was played at Pukekohc on Saturday, Auckland winning by 12 matches to one. Results are as follow, Auckland names being mentioned first: Men's Singles.—Nicholson beat, Ohlson. 6—2, 6 —3; Hardy beat Stevens, 6- 2, 6—5; Steele beat Matthews. 6—2. 6—l; Francis beat Waters. 6—2. 4—6, 6—3. Ladies' Singles.—Miss Bartlect' lost to Miss Pleydell, 2—6, 6—4. 2—6; Miss Whitelaw beat Miss Meiklejohn, 6—l, 6-1.

Men's Doubles. —Nicholson and Hardy beat Ohlson and Stevens, 6—o. 6—4; Steele and Ohlson beat Matthews .-uid Waters, 6—l; 6—3 ; Francis and Partridge beat Papesch and Robson, 6—l. 3—6. 6—l. Ladies' Doubles.—Misses Bartleet and Whitelaw beat Misses Pleydell and Meiklejohn, 6—4, 6—2: Misses Hardley and McDougall beat Mrs. McElwain and Miss Zinzan, 6—5. 6—3. Combined Doubles.—Miss Hardley and Partridge beat Mrs. McElwain and Papesch. 6—5, 6—2; Miss MelJougali and Ohl.son beat Miss Zinzan and Robson, 6—3. 6-2

ONEHUNGA V. HAMILTON. WIN* FOR THE FORMER. [BV TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT. ] HAMILTON Monday. A team representing the Onehunga Tenuis Club visited Hamilton on Saturday and defeated the Hamilton Club's representatives in a series of interesting games bv 15 matches to 11. The following are the scores, the Hamilton players being mentioned first; — Men's Singles.—Marquand lost to Bowlands, 4—6. 2—6: McCracken lost to Richardson, 3—6, 2—6; Horton lost to Taylor, 5—6, 2—6; Stevenson beat Winter. 6—l, 4—6, 6—o: Norrie beat McCarroll, 6—4, 6—o; Fabling beat Warren, 6—l, B—6; Hunter beat French. 6—2. 6—o.

Ladies' Singles.—Mrs. McCracken lost to Miss Lawry, 3—6, 5—6: Miss Bruce lost to Miss Worrall, 2—-6, 3—6; Miss E. Newell lost to Mrs. Taylor, 2—6, 2—6; Miss Nutsford lost to Miss Litton, I—6, 6—5. I—6;1 —6; Miss Chad wick lost to Miss Brookes, 3—6, 4—6; Miss Schcrcr lost to Miss Hickman. 2—6, 3—6. Men's Doubles. —Stevenson and Norrie lost to Richardson and Rowlands. 2—6, 6—4, 5—7: McCracken and Horton boat Taylor and Winter, 6—4. 9—ll, 6—2; Marquand and Fabling beat Richardson and McCarroll, 6—4, 7—5; Best and Hunter boat Warren and French. 6—2, 6—4. Ladies' Doubles. —pisses Bruce and E. Newell beat Misses Lawry and Worrall. 5—6. 6—5. 6—3: Mrs. McCracken and Miss Nutsford beat. Mrs. Taylor and Miss Brookes, 6 5, 4—6, 6-4; Misses Chadwick and Schcrcr lost, to Misses Litten and Hickman. 2—6, b 4, 1 6.

Combined Doubles. McCracken and Mrs. McCracken beat Rowlands and Miss Worrall, 4—6, 6—o, 6 0; Marquand and Miss Bruce lost to Richardson and Miss Lawry, 4—6, o—6; Stevenson and Miss Newell lost to Taylor and Mrs. Taylor, 4—6. o—6; Norrie. and Miss Chadwiek lost to Winter and Miss Brookes, 4—6, 2 -6; Fabling and Miss Nutsford beat Warren and Miss Litten. 6 3. 4 6. 6- 3; Hunter and Miss Schercr lost to McCarroll and Miss Hickman, 4 6, 6 4, 1 6.

PATTERSON BEATS ANDERSON. BRILLIANT FORM SHOWN [from orn own coiuiesi-oxivext.) SYDNEY. Mar. Tennis enthusiast were delighted at the splendid form shown by Patterson in the trials in Melbourne on Saturday in connection with the selection ot the Davis Cup team. Patterson overwhelmed .1. 0. Anderson, winning in three sets to one, and so reversed the result of their recent contest in Sydney. for sustained brilliance Melbourne has seldom seen anything better than Patterson's serving from start to finish against Anderson. Not only did he serve a number of aces, but time after time the pace of his deliveries forced Anderson into errors. In addition. Patterson was volleying at his best, and his ground shots were well controlled. When Patterson hurt his foot at 3—-1. 40-iove on his own service in the fourth set. Anderson went to 3—2. and it seemed as if the Victorian would fade away, but he set his jaw grimly and came through with flying colours. The mishap seemed to upset Anderson more than Patterson, for from that stage 4 'J.0." was inaccurate. ' Though Anderson was not at his best, he played finely, but was beaten by Patterson's brilliance. "J. 0." did not get the better of baseline exchanges as often as was expected, and it was certainly Patterson's greatest effort since 1922.