LAWN TENNIS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23591, 27 February 1940, Page 12

LAWN TENNIS

PASCO E CUP MATCHES The third round of the Pascoe Cup lawn tenuis competition for Inter-house teams was continued last night at the Clive Road courts following were the results, the names of players of first-mentioned teams takniK Precedence in each case:- . City Council V. Post Office and Savings Bank. —K. A. Armstrong and J. P. Williams lost to A. Lamond and Iv. P. Rothville, (i—a, I—(!, -1—0; C. T. Leys and D. J. Williams lost to C- Anderson and G. Zano. ■I —0, o—l,0 —1, I—o.1 —0. Post Office and Savings Bank won by two matches to nil. Post Office v. Auckland Savings Bank ; \o. I. —I<\ Forrest and Tt. Carter beat J. Allen and N. C. L. Stewart, 0 —'1—0; ■ N. Gould and'A, Osboru beat D. F. Stephens and Barrett, o—o—o, Post Office won b.v two matches to nil. , Farmers TradinK Company v. Maccluffs. Limited. —!S\ Coleman and \V. BurridKe beat N. j. Kinstone and G. Propter, (I —3. o—s;0 —5; H. Polwin and R. Rawllnson beat It. L. Donald and P. H. Bartrum, (i —3, o—l. Farmers' Trading won by two matches to nil. P. Henenan v. State Advances No. 1. —P. Henenan and A. Wilson lost to G. G. Ellis and M. Ald red, s—o. o—4, 0—0; A. Murdoch and J. Boland lost to C. Eade and J. T. Harrison, I—<s. O—State Advances won by two matches to nil. The third round will be completed to-niKht. the draw being as follows: —Reid Rubber Mills v. South British Insurance, court No. .11 Native Department v. Air Force No. 2, court No. ?; National Bank v. Abattoir Em.nloyees No. T, court No. 3; Social Security No, 2 v. Transport Board, court No. 4.

AUSTRALIAN RANKINGS Appraisers of Australian lawn tennis merit have several difficult problems to consider In issuing rapkinu lists of Australian players for—the IIHO-10 season, states t|ie tennis writer in the Australasian. Melbourne. Should the national champion. Adrian Quist. bo No. |. or should that place be retained bv the lODi) cjuvinplon, John Bronnvich, his doubles partner and Davis Clip team-mate? Should t|iese players he bracketed? Perhaps that would bo a fittinpr solution In view of the fact that their combined efforts broucht Australia the Davis Cup. and also because of their remarkable successes as a doubles combination. Personally T always have a leanincr toward the champion when making a rankinsr. The nlayer who wins the national title deserves the premier position, especially if his record is otherwise irood. For that reason QnNt gains first place in my list, even although Bromwich was the more consistent over the year and had defeated him in two important finals. This gradinn is also made iu spite of the fnet that 1 consider (hat Bronnvich will win nine out of ten of his future, matches with Quist, am) that he will always be more consistent, unless, like Vivian McGrath. his unorthodox stylo fails him when ho fully matures,