LAWN TENNIS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19764, 15 April 1926, Page 5

LAWN TENNIS.

By Smash,

This week’s notes are devoted to some further comments on the recent Easter tournament, and also to a brief summary of the University tournament. In the first round of the men’s championship singles Cleghorn. who somehow or another, never seems to do himself justice in a tournament, had two fairly hard games to reach the fourth round. He was extended to three sets by W. Sherrill, •whose all-round play continues to show a steady improvement, and his second set against Black went to 14 games before he won it. With a little good fortune Black might have taken this set, but Cleghorn won the first so easily that it would probablv not have affected the final result. In the semi-final Bray and Guy had a proJopged duel of three sets, which ended ■with the curious score of I—6,1 —6, 6 —l, 6—l ♦tl favour of Bray. On the day’s play Guy (last year’s champion) failed to do himself justice, for he is one of the best stylists as well as best players in Dunedin, his footwork, stroke production, and control ’ being an admirable model for younger players. In the first round he defeated Boddy. 6—4, 6—4, but the latter was not at home in the heavy wind on Friday. Page reached the semi-final by defeating Cleghorn in a match that produced some of the best tennis of the tournament. Cleghorn's well-placed drives keeping his opponent on the alert throughout and making Page reply with the best strokes at his command. In the next round Page met Moody, who made a good fight of it in the first set, taking the score to 3 all, but after this the former captured a sequence of nine game's. Moody in the first round was taken to three sets by Earle, a University player, who makes his strokes nicely and reveals considerable promise. The earlier rounds of the singles, played in a howling gale on the opening day. did not produce any surprises. Contrary to the method employed last year all the' sets were made advantage sets, and it is to be hoped that this practice will be maintained. One of the most interesting of Friday’s games was that between Page and A. J. Deaker, who is second to Gilmour on the Southland ladder. Page won the first '•et fairly easily at 6—2, and when he ran to a load of s—l in the second set it looked as though the end was in sight. 1 But this was far from being the case, and the best tennis of the match was still to come. Deaker served in tire seventh game, and won it despite no fewer than three ■ double faults. H followed this up by taking ? age's service with a nice passing shot right down the side-line, and agam won his own service, making the score 5—4. In the tenth game, however, Page clinched the match on his own service after deuce had oeen called twice. In the early stages of the match Page played mainly to - Deaker’s backhand, and the Southlander was frequently seen running round the ball in order to get it on his forehand. Deaker’s unving. lacked both pace and depth, and although he returned a great many of Page’s shots, his own strokes were not of the type to win against such a player as his opponent. His backhand stands in great need of improvement, and he makes far too many strokes merely with the ' arm instead of imparting body power to them. In the second set he showed he has the ability to produce good drives and smashes, and when he hit out he did much better. The Sumpter brothers, from Oamaru, who very sportingly entered for the tournament at the last minute, are usually well worth watching, but they have not altogether justified their early promise. 2s o doubt this is due to a lack of practice against players whJ*>are superior to themselves. Both possess an excellent drive, and can smash well, but these tactics do not win against good - volleyers, and they would be well advised —especially in doubles play—to exploit the lob to a greater extent ttyan they -do •at present. With' a little more steadiness there is no reason why they should not take a high place as a doubles pair. In the singles G. Sumpter won his first two matches, and although he defeated Bray in the match against North Otago last year, he could only win one game in two sets on this occasion. t H. Sumpter . reached the second round, where he met Page, and although the Oamaru man put up a good resistance, and played many brilliant shots, he had not the sustained accuracy of his opponent. Clark and Guy, who last year contested the final of the singles, when Guy won 16 —2, 5—7, 6 —4, 3 —6, 6—-3, met in the third round. Although Clark was playing under difficulties, he played his customary sound game, the score of 7 —5, 6—3 in favour of Guy showing that the latter was fully extended. It was a very attractive game to watch, as both players are excellent tacticians. In the men's championship doubles Bray and Cleghorn were eliminated by Fulton and Guy. After taking the first set 6—4, they could collect only five games in the next two sets. The holders of the men’s championship doubles, Clark and Brown, did not defend their title. This was a' matter for regret, as they are a strong pair, who give an admirable exposition of the doubles game. Bray and Cleghorn were eliminated by Fulton and Guy. After taking the first set 6—4, they could col- . lect only five games in the next two sets. M'Dougall and Black, a well-known and formidable combination, were unfortunate in having to withdraw from the other semi-final, giving Page and Moody a walkover. In the third round they defeated Jensen and Sherrill fairly • easily after this, pair had given a very fine exhibition in defeating Boddy and Tregear in three hard-fought sets. ' This latter match was played on Friday, and Boddy and Tregear, who had had little practice together, did not show a perfect understanding. On the day Sherrill was the outstanding player of the quartet, and he was well supported by Jensen, the Cosy Dell pair winning 5 —7, 6 —4, 7 —5. Against M'Dougall and Black they did not shape so well. The Roslyn pair quickly ran to a lead of s—o,5 —0, and the accuracy of their game may be judged by the fact that up to this stage their opponents had scored only one point. In the second set M'Dougall and Black led 4 3 when the match was interrupted by rain. On resuming they took the odd games with the loss of only two points. Borrows and Bell advanced to the third round after a prolonged three-set encounter with the M'Phersn brothers, and in their next match they ran Bray and Cleghorn to an advantage set —a very creditable performance. Sumpter brothers, who contested the final last year, went , out in the first round to the ultimate winners, Page and Moody. They made the - fatal mistake of driving almost continuously when their opponents were at the net. The entry in the mixed doubles champiciiship contained a number of very strong pairs. As a result this event was invested with an unusual degree of interest and many of the matches were close and exciting. The holders of the title, Guy and Miss M'Adam, advanced to the third round, in which they met M'Dougall and Miss Pattison. In this ■match M'Dougall reproduced the form - that has kept him in the fore-front of local players (with the exception of a ■ period during which he was incapacitated) , and the Roslyn pair scored a wellearned victory by a margin of two games. In ? the next round M'Dougall and Miss Pattison accounted for Clark and Mrs Evans, with one game to spare, and thus , qualified to meet Page and Miss G. Manchester in the final. H. Sumpter '. and Miss Todd began well by defeating • Tregear and Mrs Tregear and Boddy and Miss D. Manchester, but they then met with disaster at the hands of Page and Miss G. Manchester, who did not allow - them one game. Cleghorn and Miss • Anderson (Kaituna) reached the semifinal by defeating a strong pair in Black : and Miss Ramsay, and then encountered Page and Miss Manchester. The latter pair established a lead, and though Cleghorn and Miss Anderson recovered some of the lost ground they were unable to avert defeat, and went down 9—7. The final, which was played in ideal weather last Saturday afternoon, resulted in Page and - Miss . G. Manchester defeating M'Dougall and Miss Pattison, 6—4, ‘ Page played with great severity and ac- ‘ curacy,- and was the- dominating figure of the quartet, scoring many points at the net. where he was well supported by his partner, who volleyed nicely. The Roslyn pair, on the other hand, did not reproduce . the form which they showed in some of the iarlior rounds, and they lost the match beCn««e* Page and his partner were able to up a position that gave them the Initiative and the advantage thereby involved. By his win in the mixed doubles Page < performed a feat which, I think, is unique fn the history of the Easter tournament—gamely, the winning of the three champion»hip events which it was possible for him

to enter, the .men’s singles. doubles, and the mixed doubles. At any rate, such a feat has not previously been achieved within the recollection of the writer. Miss G. Manchester also placed to her credit a notable record of successes, and she and her sister will ba welcome visitors at future tournaments. The winner of the ladies' handicap singles proved to be Miss D. Scott, a young player of undoubted promise. She p«ssesses a nice forehand drive, a strong service, and abounding activity, and when a little more experience has been added to her present equipment she should make her mark'in good company. Though she was perhaps treated rather leniently by the handicappers, Miss Scott defeated a strong field, and is to be congratulated on her performance One of her best games was that in the semi-final round in which sne defeated Miss Todd, who also made a good showing, and should do better on a future occasion. The other semi-final was contested between Miss G. Manchester and Miss Turner, and although the former won 9—4 it was a hard-fought game and a really good display. In the final Miss Scott soon established a lead over Miss Manchester, and went on to win at 9 —4. It was very pleasing to see so many of the younger players coming to the fore in this event. The Misses Manchester, who played well in all their events, scored a family triumph in the ladies’ handicap doubles, in the final of which they defeated Misses Pattison and Cook. The latter pair effected a rather remarkable achievement by reaching the final of this event from the owe 40 mark, but against the play of their younger opponents the concession of points was a hopeless task, and they won only three games. Mrs Tregear and Miss White and Miss Fuller and Jefferson were the other semi-finalists. The record of the Misses Manchester was as follows: First round, won 9 —5; second round, won 9—5 ; final, won 9 —3. Earle and Miss Heywood (owe 15 4-0) were successful in the mixed handicap doubles, in which they gave a consistently good exhibition of doubles play. Jensen and Miss Turner, who reached the final from the same mark, also made a strong pair, defeating Cleghorn and Miss Anderson, and Black and Miss Manchester in successive rounds before they went down to the winners, 9—7. In the semi-final round Earle and Miss Heywood established a strong claim to success by defeating M'Dougall and Miss Pattison (owe 40), 9—4. In the men’s handicap singles F. T. Rostgard (owe 3-6) and J. Familton (owe 2-6) won the respective sections, and in the play-off Rostgard won 9 —2. Familton, who is a very steady player, is a wellknown figure at Easter tournaments. The men’s handicap doubles gave some of the younger players a chance. The final was plaved between M'Leod and Blaikie (owe 1-6) and Rawlinson and A. D. Smith (owe 5-6). The former pair won 9 —4. The other semi-finalists in this event were Rostgard and Tomkins and the Sumpter brothers. The university tournament was a veritable triumph for the representatives of Canterbury College, who regained possession of the cup from Otago by winning all five events. Play reached a very high standard in this tournament, especially in the ladies’ events, and on both days the matches were played before a large and interested attendance of spectators. The men’s singles resulted in a comparatively easy win for W. R. Robinson (Canterbury College), who defeated R. M'L. Perkins (Victoria College), 6—l, 6—4, in the final, and thus retained the title, which he won last year. The final of the men’s doubles was fought out between Robinson gnd Loughnan (Canterbury) and Fulton and Watson (Otago), who proved to be two well-matched pairs. With the first set in hand 6—3 and a lead of 4—l in the second Otago’s chances looked rosy, but from this stage onwards Watson did not accord his partner the same assistance that he had done previously, and a long sequence of games was called in favour of Canterbury, who eventually won by two sets to one—3 —6, 6 —4, 6 —2, Miss Partridge (Canterbury) was the outstanding figure among the ladies, winning the singles outright and assisting to win the ladies’ doubles and the mixed doubles. On the first day she defeated Miss Ballantyne (Otago). 6—2, 6 —l, but this score probably does not represent the difference between these two players, as Miss Bal-. lantyne had rather an “off” day. In the final Miss Partridge beat Miss Miller (Auckland), last year’s holder, 6 —l, 6-—4, her brilliancy and accuracy proving too much for Miss Miller’s steadiness. The ladies’ doubles resulted in a victory for Misses Partridge and Saunders (Canterbury) over Misses Miller and Muller (Auckland), 6-—4, 6—3, this being a wellcontested match. The final of the mixed doubles was played between two Canterbury pairs, and was won by Louphnan and Miss Partridge, who beat Robinson and Miss Lowden, 6—4, 6—l, Throughout the tournament some very good doubles play was seen, especially on the part of the Canterbury representatives. Otaco greatly missed the services of Smyth, who. last year, figured successfully in two of the finals.