THE ALL-ENGLAND LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1747, 30 August 1905, Page 16

THE ALL-ENGLAND LAWN TENNIS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

(By H. A. PARKER.)

The championships recently concluded at Wimbledon were not only the most cosmopolitan but decidedly the most representative that have ever taken place in the history of the game. It was in reality the championship of the world that was being played for, the international element being provided by the Australasian, American, and Belgian competitors for the Davis Cup competition.

The feature of the meeting was the triumph of Norman Brookes, the Vie* torian, who beat in succession seven of the finest players in England, and won the Renshaw Cup for the All-comers’ Singles, only to be defeated in the .challenge round by H. h. Doherty after a fine match. >

The earlier stages of the meeting do not call for much comment, but it was Unfortunate that four Australasians should meet in the first round, viz., Dunlop and Wilding and Doust and Parker. In each case the New Zealanders were victorious without losing a set. Wilding showed himself too strong a player for Dunlop, who is much handicapped by his simple service and plain style of play. Dunlop's ground strokes in this match were good and accurate, but Wilding had no difficulty in anticipating their direction. Up to the present Dunlop has been very successful in winning Handicap Singles here, appropriating both these events at the Northern and London Championships, but his game suffers against a superior player. Wilding on the other hand, though inferior to Dunlop as a volleyer, and - especially q low volleyer, has a tricky service, and a far superior forehand drive. He had) no difficulty, in winning the three sets. Doust. who had been playing in the North of Scotland, where the courts are very lively, had great difficulty in timing the ball at Wimbledon; Against Parker his play was very patchy, and the New Zealanders’ American service puzzled him considerably. Brookes disposed of Salmon very easily, and then met G. A. Caridia, the famous half-volleyer. To the majority of English playprs who use plain strokes Caridia is somewhat of a. terror, but Brookes mixed his game so cleverly, giving him first chop strokes with under spin, and then the forehand drive with uplift, that Caridia’s half-volleying game was ruined* and he could only secure three games in three sets, tire score going in a descending ratio, 6—2, 6—l, 6 — o.

D. Fscombe, a brilliant, but erratic player, who was the Victorian’s next victim, made nevertheless a most gallant attempt to win. By determined hitting he forced Brookes more on the defensive, and compelled the latter to stretch himself in order to win. And new began a most exciting series of matches, for the colonial and American representatives to decide who should be left in the last eight for the Singles. Wilding and Clothier were the first to start, and the match took place in the centre court, before an immense crowd of spectators. The Maorilander led off •trongly at 4—l, but Clothier respond*ed well, and annexed the set, a proceeding which he followed up by easily taking the second, and leading 3—l in the third. With such an easy victory apparently in his grasp Clothier must have allowed himself to be lulled into a false security. Wilding came with a run of four consecutive games, making the score 6 —3 in his favour, but Clothier responded with three, and led at 6—*s, so colonial chances were anything but rosy. Wilding was game, however, and sticking to his work wop the set at B—6. The last two sets were very exciting, but Wilding just won them both on the post. Wilding’s pluck and determiria-' tioh when matters were all against him were beyond all praise, and he will make a worthy representative in the Davis Cup.

Curiously enough in the next court and quite contemporaneously with the above match, P&rker, the New Zealand was having a long-drawn-out struggle with the famous American player W. A. Darned. The latter is considered to have been the finest Singles pT&yer America has ever produced and in' addition to holding the American Championship three times, he has had ttis-distinction of vanquishing R. F. Doherty. Parker bad evidently profited by seeing Smith’s tactics against Holcombe Ward’s services, as instead of taking Darned’s services on his backhand, he stood round and hit them hard with bis forehand drive. Further, he often hoisted the American with his own petard by serving the reverse American twist and running in on it, volleying Darned’s returns bard across the court. Darned volleyed and served very well, but h : s f round strokes, especially on the backand were inferior to Parker s. It was a most interesting match, and when two-'all was called in the fifth set, it wak-ahybody ’ s game. Parker had the advantage for a time in the fifth prame. but Tosing it, his chance vanished as Darned leading at 3 —2 with the sun behind him was in a strong position. Matches like these, where the players met on neutral grounds, go to show

how small a margin of skill separates American from Australasian lawn tennis. Brookes had meantime continued his triumphal career by crushing G. W. Hillyard in the most decisive fashion. Hillyard has been for many years one of the leading English players, and although never the champion, he is quite a front-ranker. Against the modern lawn tennis, as played by Brookes, he seemed quite an inferior performer, and never once looked like winning.

Out of an entry of seventy-one players Australasia achieved the distinction of having two men left in the last eight, viz., Brookes and Wilding, while the only American representative was Larned. F. «L. Riseley, who figured in the challenge round of the Singles in a previous year, now opposed Brookes, but the Australian made light of his task,, and the Englishman was never in the hunt. Brookes won every service game, and this, of course, helped him enormously. Riseley runs in well, and has a fine plain service, but outside these advantages bis tactics were obsolete as compared with Brookes’s. Gore, the < famous base-line player and champion of 1901, always proves a veritable stumbling-block to Wilding, and' the present was no exception to the rule, as although Wilding led in the first set, he eventually lost it, and thenceforward Gore had no difficulty. Wilding will never beat Gore until he can force the play on his backhand, and get up and volley more. Tb attempt to heat Gore from the base-line is suicidal for any one except perhaps his great rival, S. H. Smith. S. H. Smith had meantime been occupied in heating Larned, while Ritchie had a very easy progress to the semi-final, and thus three Englishmen and 'one Australian were left in the final stages. The play of Brookes against Gore was of a most brilliant description. Gore had previously tackled Holcombe Ward’s services fairly successfully at Queen’s Club,. and Beals Wright, the American left-hander had not worried him much, hut Brookes had a weapon up his sleeves which nonplussed Gore. Brookes is unquestionably the finest server in the worlds He not only has more variety of service at his command than any other player, but he works them more scientifically. With almost identical action, Brookes can produce American twist and forehand cut which break in diametrically opposite directions. So cleverly is the action disguised that even the most experienced players are often quite deceived as to the bound of the ball after it reaches the ground. It was* very amusing to watch the. contortions , of Gore in attempting to return balls which he had expected to break to the right, but which had broken in to his legs. The Englishman is, however, as game as a pebble, and he made some glorious passing shots whenever he got an opportunity to hit the ball. The second set was very dose, as Gore not only played extremely well, but Brookes allowed himself to he disturbed by a shocking decision against him. In matches of such importance only trained players should fce allowed to act in the capacity of linesmen, and the least to be expected is that the linesman should be able to distinguish the ball from the line. The individual in question, who had no doubt seized upon the opportunity of taking a line with avidity, in order to get a good view of the match, was wrapped in semislumber, and when appealed to, lost his head and gave a decision that might have cost Brookes the match. Gore got to 5 —2, but Brookes overhauled him brilliantly, and finally won at 9—7. In the third set he was quite overwhelming. only losing two games, and these were practicably used as breathing spaces. . - _ The final of the All-comers’ Singles, in which Brookes was opposed by S. H. Smith, attracted a crowded audience, and for the first time Brookes began nervously, and quite failed to do himself justice at the start. Smith, on the other hand, was completely master of himself, and making few mistakes, soon placed the first set to his credit at 6—l. Brookes retaliated by winning the next two sets at 6—4, 6—l, his play in the latter being superb. The fourth went to Smith at a like figure, in fact the vicissitudes of tbe game made it a most exciting struggle to watch.. Smith jumped off with the lead in the final set, and looked all over a winner at 4—2 and 40 —30, but Brookes made a magnificent recovery, and equalised at 4 all. “Five all ’ followed, and then the Australian made his final effort, and winning two consecutive games placed himself in the proud position of challenger. Brookes’s feat in going through such an immense entry of the finest quality is unequalled in the history of the game, and Australia may well be proud of him. Even in the palmy days of the Renshaws and Lawford, the enthusiasm was hardly as great as when H. L. Doherty and Norman Brookes met in the challenge round of the championship. Spectators had been arriving for hours previously, and long before the match started hundreds were turned away, as U was quite impossible to accommodate them, while messages had to be despatched to all important -railway stations to stop any moie intending spectators from starting on their fruitless journey. Both men played well, Doherty exceptionally so. Brookes seemed a little stale after his tremendous exertions of the previous fortnight, and a strained

side militated against his using his full strength in his service. This was a serious drawback against a player of Doherty’s calibre to defeat whom every artifice must be employed. In spite of all this Brookes led at 6 —6 in the first set, and should not then have lost it. Both men qdopted volleying taotics almost continuously, running in on practically everything. Doherty served well, but, of course, without the variety at the Victorian’s command, while his volleying was as nearly perfect as could he wished. Brookes was more tricky, hut not quite so accurate as his nimble opponent, but where Doherty outshone him was in his overhead volleying, which was very severe, and well placed, and a model for other players. Brookes has a great weakness in the tentative way in which he pokes his overhead volleys, and although he is improving fast in this respect, he still has a good way to go to attain perfection.

Although Doherty won in straight sets I should imagine Brookes is the finer player taking all things into consideration, and had Doherty been compelled to play right through as Brookes did, I think it quite unlikely he would have won. In any case, he would have had to face Brookes in a jaded condition, and on even, terms I consider Brookes would beat him. As it was, Doherty was pitted in absolutely fresh condition against a tired man, and even so he seemed none too fresh at the finish.

Doherty was loudly applauded as he walked off the ground, t/nt the greatest reception of the week was reserved for Norman Brookes as he slowly crossed the ground to the pavilion. Probably no greater reception has ever been accorded to any tennis player, and right well he had earned it.

Before going into the question of comparisons between Australasian and English methods of play and the relative strength of the leading players, I should Dike to make a few remarks about the Men’s Doubles and the ladies play at Wimbledon.

At Queen’s dub the previous week the two American pairs played off the finals, Larned and Clothier winning. The other pair, Ward and Wright, had the distinction of heating Brookes and Dunlop fairly easily. ' In the English Championships Brookes and Dunlop played much better, and beat Larned and Clothier quite easily. To those who may have had any doubi on the subject, I may say that the Australian methods are fully up to date in double play, in fact, they were generally quicker on the ball than the Americans, and their volleying, except overhead, was more decisive. Dumop’e volleying overhead was superior to that oi Brookes, but he threw away chances at critical moments. This pair had the distinction of playing the All-comers’ Final against Smith anl Riseley, who had previously beaten Parker and Wilding and Ward and Wright. Smith and Riseley are no better than some Australian pairs; they play practically a glorified Mixed Double, with Riseley at the net. and Smith generally on the base-line, and it is only their exceptional excellence in each department that renders them formidable. I consider that a pair like Sharp and Wright would be quite their equal. At the same time, they are a useful pair to take a line through, as they beat Wilding and Parker, Ward and Wright, and Brookes and Dunlop in succession. As the Doherty Brothers had but little trouble in defeating Smith and Riseley it looks as if they were a class ahead of any other pair, and on present form I should certainly say th?s is the case. Chey are getting into the net much better than in the past, and this position, combined with their fine volleying and excellent team work, makes them almost invincible. Leaving out of consideration the Doherty Brothers, who are in a class by themselves both in England and America, I would place Australian double play quite on a par-with either English or American. Another index of our strength may be obtained from the fact that Wilding and Parker, who had never previously played together, beat such a well-known pair as Ritchie and Simond quite comfortably, and yet it would be considered quite possible for the latter pair to beat Smith and Riseley. As for the ladles play here, it is again quite over-rated. Miss Payten, the well-known Sydney lady champion would in my opinion, quite hold her own with the best of them, and so would Miss Nunneley, of New Zealand, with a little practice. Sutton, the American lady champion, who has just taken the Championship of England, without the loss of a single set, has not a large number of qualifications for tennis. She practically relies on three, things, her accuracy, her forehand drive, and her physical strength. Miss Ethel Thomson, a charmingly graceful player, would I think beat her if she had the condition. The weather has been very hot, and that has told on the English laches. Miss Sutton uses a very similar forehand drive to Parker’s, with a heavy uplift, and just as in the New Zealander s stroke the hall appears te he go ng out and dives suddenly for the base-line and comes in. Her forehand drive is so severe, and so accurate and well placed, that she weans her opponents down practically by the aid of this one stroke alone. Miss Douglass, the holder, who defended, her title in a most sportsmanlike manner, was recovering from an injury to her wrist, and was auite un-

fit to play. At her best I should consider her quite capable of heating Mist Sutton. I therefore have no hesitation in saying that an Australian ladies’ team consisting of Miss Payten of Sydney, Misa Gyton of Melbourne, Miss Nun* neiey of New Zealand, and Miss Payne of Adelaide would have a good chance of beating any four ladies in England. / As a result of the recent tournament at Wimbledon, Australasian lawn tennis stock has gone up considerably. English players had very hazy ideas erf colonial form, and all colonies have been lumped together very good naturedly as not much good at lawn tennis. To say a man held the championship of Australia or New Zealand would convey no, more idea of his strength to the general run of Englishmen than if it were said he was champion of Penang. Hitherto all have been classed as second-raters, but this is quite altered now. While on this subject I think it is only fair to> mention the wonderful way in which Mr P. A. Vaile of Auckland gauged the relative strength of English, American, and Australasian players. Both in “Modern Lawn Tennis” and -'Great Lawn Tennis Players” he has stoutly maintained that colonial form was veiy little, if any, behind the best in England, and events have proved the correctness of his judgment. The Championship Tournament has completely disposed of all the non* sense that has been spoken by casual colonial visitors to London to the effect that English lawn tennis is rec. £3O (half-thirty) ahead of Australasian. In my opinion Brookes is the equal of the " Dohertys and superior to any other Englishman, and as is well known in .Australia, we have plenty of other players who are not very far behind him. Sharp of Sydney would be aimost as hard a nut to crack, and 1 do not think any one but possibly the Dohertys and Smith could beat him at his best. Here we are in a strange country playing men who know the surroundings intimately, and yet we have quite held our own, My own firm impress on is that the best English team that could be got together would have r.'s work cut out to beat the Australians on Australian soil. The courts here are very soft and quite different from those we play on in Australia, and the light, too, is not so bright, and these are conditions that take some time to get accustomed to. As regards methods of play, there is very little to he lea n; from the Englishmen, in fact in some respects they m'ght with ad van age copy us. There isi hardly an Englishman with what would be considered a good backhand stroke in the colonic-.-, in all ground strokes their watch wo. -d is “safecy,” and there is no fine free hitting that is so common in Australia, f 1 may except Messrs Smith and Go o, whose forehand ground strokes are uu n, passed. Many Englishmen who are very Weak off the ground are splendid at 'he net, but they do not vary their p'.vv i'ke the Americans or colonials. Tile grio of the racket they adopt seems unsuitable for ground strokes, but just the thing for low valleys.

In the past a great deal has been written about grips, hut up-to-date tactics and American services require a variety of grips to be a u opted. A' grip that is entirely su—hie for a chop stroke, is not necessarily tue best for a forehand drive w-tii uplift, and yet both thec;e strokes are necessary to any first-class player who w.sues to be fully equipped, and it appears therefore that to get the best possible results, a player must to* some extent adapt his grip to suit the special circu ms l ances of the stroke required. There will be further opportunity during the matches for the Davis Oup for amplifying comparisons, and an additional test will be afforded on July 29, when a representative six from All England will pi ay. the. A ustralasians at Wimbledon.' The English team will, I believe, consist of R. F. and H. L. herty, S. H. Smith, F. Riseley, A. W. Gore, and H. Roper "Bar.etc, while Australasia will be represen ed by N. Brookes, A. W. Dumop, A. F. • iidnig, H. A. Barker, W. V. Eaves, and B. Murphy. The English team is the finest that could he picked, but the -nclusion of Sharp and Rice would strengthen Australasia somewhat. At the same time, we should obtain a comparatively accurate idea of the -rela ive merits of English and colonial tennis. The interest ta.ii.en m meeting by the public has been enormous, and this no doubt is primarily due to the international character of the contests. At the same time the huge at;endance must) be largely set down to the immense fillip that the English press has given-to the game. Nearly all the leading London dailies have had sjiecial reports on the WimbLedon matches each day, and this has, of course, influenced the public largely. So great were the crowds that the committee of the All England Oiuh deeidectito rebuild the stands round the centre court, so that a larger number of spectators may he accommodated for the Davis Cup final--. In sn’te of the lack of accommodation, I believe that the takings during the whole meeting considerably exceeded €3OOO. The contests fo"- the Dae is Cup promise to he wildly exciting The struggle between America and Australasia for the right to challenge England, and then the challenge round should provide some magificent tennis, and if the cun should leave England, and especially ; f it came to Australia, added interest' would be given to lawn tennis all over the world.