Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NOTES BY NET PLAT.

Scoring by Points. We have now had the opinions of seven players on this subject — four for and three against. In the course of conversation I find a great many who, although not altogether satisfied with the present system, have no opinion as to how the game can be improved. Tennis is unequalled as a recreation. No game has ever been devised by which both sexes can meet on such equal terms and where any degree of exercis^can be obtained. I know a young man who has shone as a footballer, a cricketer, and as a cyclist, but who says that tennis beats them all for downright hard f xarcise ; whilst, on the other hand, most of U3 know how gently the game is sometimes played. It is therefore passing strange that while hundreds will attend an athletic gathering, a cricket match, a bicycle race, and thousands the rough - and - tumble football scramble, a mere handful patronise the game that those who really understand ib agree is the i best of them all. Tennis does not, to use an Americanism, "catch on" as ib is entitled to do. Why ? The reason given by "Veteran "in his article — i.e., the method of scoring — I have little doubt has something to do with it. One must be a player to fully understand and appreciate the scoring, aud almost an experienced adept to thoroughly understand the handicapping. Tho adoption of the 100-up stjle would do away with all this and would induce a great deal more interest in the game, aud numerous new players would very soon appear on the scene. Then the scoring would be simplicity itself »9 compared with the present system, and &H the yexajbious delays and doubts would be done away with. Handicappera, umpires, scorers, and alj concerned would appreciate the relief from their present trying duties that the adoption of the ppipt system would certainly give. I quite agree with what has been written from this point pi view, but it seems to me that there is nothing further to be said in favour of the 100-up system, while a great deal can be said against it. I do not think the present system perfect by any means, but could anything be more monotonous aad wearying than the bald task of Bcoring 100 points — 10 cervices by each player until the monotony ends. Suppose one player goes off in a brilliant style and gets a subBtantial lead, all interest in the game is practically over. It seems to me that there can be no interest or excitemeut in such a game until the competitors are drawing to the close of the match, and in that case there can be very little of either unless the score is almost even. Our present syslem is full of, as one writer puts it, "ponderous and vexatious complications," but the remedy is not going to be found in the 100-up system. Mr Park points out that the question must have received full consideration by the leading tennis body in tke world, and it was not \ adopted. Mr Park thinks that the Otago system of best of 17 games is the best. It may perhaps be better than that in vogue and the 100-up, but it also is, in my opinion, unlikely to solve the difficulties that tennis labours under, and although suggestions are not absolutely wanting as to new systems, I will not venture further at present as to how these difficulties might be remedied, but I shall be i glad to have the opinions of any readers who

feel sufficiently interested to write me on the subject, not necessarily for publication. Otago v. Kaituna. This match was played on the Otago courts on Saturday last, and, as was expected, resulted in a rather easy win for Otago by 36 games. Kaituna, though very much overmatched, played pluckily all through, and in most sets made a very good stand against their opponents. During the afternoon tea was provided by the Otago ladies. Scores :—: — OTAGO. KAITUNA. Koch 1 Payne 0 Herdman 7 J. M'K. Henry ... 9 J. B. Henry. 6 Hislop 9 Gavin 9 Duthie 4 Miss Grant 9 Miss M. Martin ... 6 Miss Mackerras ... 9 MissNicolson ... 6 Koch and Herdman 9 Payne and J. M'K. Henry 6 Gavin and J. B. Henry 6 Martin and Duthie 9 Richardson and H. Holnies 8 Payne and Duthie... 10 Misses Kempthorne Misses Nicolson and and Brdwnlie ... 9 Thomson 2 Misses Grant and Misses M. and G. Mackerras ... 9 Martin 1 Misses Scott and Misses G. Martin Spencer 7 and Thomson ... 9 Koch and Miss Payne and Miss M. Grant 9 Martin 5 Herdman and Miss J. M'K. Henry and Kempthorne ... 10 Miss Thomson ... 8 J. B. Henry and Hislop and Miss Miss Scott ... 7 Nicolson ... ... 9 Gavin and Miss Martin and Miss Brownlie 9 Callender 4 H. Holmes and Miss Hislop and Miss Spence 7 Callender... . 9 Richardson and Miss Duthie and Miss G. Mackerras ... 9 Martin 6 Total 148 Total 112 Majority for Otago, 36 games.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW18940215.2.82

Bibliographic details

Otago Witness, Issue 2086, 15 February 1894, Page 19

Word Count
846

NOTES BY NET PLAT. Otago Witness, Issue 2086, 15 February 1894, Page 19

NOTES BY NET PLAT. Otago Witness, Issue 2086, 15 February 1894, Page 19

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert