LAWN TENNIS

Otago Witness, Issue 3854, 24 January 1928, Page 58

LAWN TENNIS

By

SMASH.

The recent South Canterbury tournament brought under notice some ydung ’players of great promise, and once again emphasised the fact that the game has reached a very high standard in Timaru. I). C. Johnston is, of course, in the van of this younger contingent, but there are two others in the persons of Robertson and Renton who should be heard of in the near future. These two boys handle their rackets with the easy grace and skill that is the inheritance of the born player, and it is to be hoped that they will be able to obtain a class of practice that will ensure the full development of their powers. The standard of play amongst the ladies in Timaru is also very high, and the South Canterbury Association is to be congratulated upon the possession of so much excellent material. A query from a country correspondent: <r In playing a game of men’s doubles, while. my partner serves from his first court (his right-hand), I stand at the net on the same side of the court (the right-hand). The receiver objects, saying lam acting illegally. I contend I can stand on our side of the net in any place I like while my partner serves. Am I right? ”•—The writer adds that his reason for taking up this unusual position is that the receiver usually returns a low cross-court cut stroke which it is - difficult for the server to reach, and he therefore places himself where he can intercept this “ wily ” return. My correspondent can at once be reassured as to the legality of his action. He can stand wherever he likes on his own side of the net. I would suggest that he should compromise with the receiver by offering to stand elsewhere if the receiver will undertake not to use his terrible “ crossCourt cut stroke.” The following is the position of the teams engaged in the Lawn Tennis Union competitions at the end of the first

. At the recent Poverty Bay and East Coast tournament, Patrick R. D. Watson, formerly of Dunedin, was one of the outstanding players, winning the Handicap Singles and Doubles, and being defeated by N. H. Bull in the championship final, 3 —6, 6 —3, 7 —5, 6 —2. Watson, who is only 19 years of age, is on the staff of Messrs Dalgety and Co.’s Gisborne branch, prior to which he was with the Loan Mercantile Agency Company in Dunedin. He attended the Arthur Street and Otago Boys’ High Schools, and had some of his earliest games of lawn tennis at the Balmacewan courts.

The Men’s Championship Doubles at Timaru went to Fulton and Boddy after four exciting sets. Fulton, who has won the final of this side of the tournament for the fifth year in succession, was the outstanding player. Sumpter, who displayed great form in the final set, provided the spectators with some sparkling tennis. Boddy was good overhead, and M'Dougall played a steady and consistent game from first to last. .Fulton and Boddy won the first, third, and fourth Beta, and their opponents the second set. Canterbury sets great store by C. Angas,. and with reason (says a Wellington lawn tennis writer). He is an attacker who plays all his shots cleanly and without hesitation to the spot he has determined upon. He plays always to get the net position, and _ shows great cleverness in picking up drives at his feet as he rushes in. His smashing, too, is good. His game is fast developing, and. being set on sound lines, must inevitably greatly improve.

FRANCE v. NEW ZEALAND.

VISITORS WIN ALL MATCHES

In the lawn tennis match between France and New Zealand the scores were as follows:—

Brugnon beat Ollivier. 6—l, 3 —6, 6— l, 6—l.

Borotra beat Bartlcet, 4 —6. 6 —3. B—6,8 —6, 6—4.

Boussus beat Malfroy, 6 —3, 6—3, B—6.8 —6. WELLINGTON, January 18. The weather conditions could scarcely have been bettered to-day for the first day’s trial of strength between the French team, represented by Jean Borotra, Jacques Brugnon, and Christian Boussus, and New Zealand, represented by G. Ollivier (seven times champion of New Zealand), E. L. Bartleet, N. G. Sturt, and G. K. Nott (in doubles), and C. E. Malfroy. There was a light southerly blowing, which did not make itself felt on the enclosed court, and the clouds later gave way to a blue sky and a strong sun that got in the eyes of the players in dealing with overhead stuff from the northern end of the court. The arrangements were excellent, although some of the decisions of some of the linesmen could not be supported. Listeners-in generally express satisfaction at the way in which the matches were broadcasted by Mr C. F. Williams, while the provision of loud speakers for the umpire’s use proved a great boon to the gallery. Although the New Zealanders have won none of the three matches played they put up a creditable performance, especially Bartleet against Borotra.

~ Fully 1500 people to-day journeyed to the Wellington Provincial Association’s courts at Miramar for the matches. Such is the reputation of the country whose team won the Davis Cup from the United States of America that few people expected New Zealand to be otherwise than

completely overwhelmed, even allowing for the three weeks the Frenchmen were at sea, during which time they were unable to practise. Such were to be disillusioned. _ Although the French displayed a definite superiority over the New Zealanders, it was a superiority due in large measure to greater match play experience, the frequent meeting with opponents as good if not better than themselves, an aptitude and willingness to take risks, and the much greater facilities for play afforded them. For the most part, where our men defended, the French attacked with decision. It must not be forgotten that France is to-day the premier lawn tennis country of the world and that Borotra is ranked No. 4 in the world’s ten, and. Brugnon No. 9, and that in France itself Boussus ranks next after Brugnon, and has taken Henri Cochet to five sets. It was indeed a stiff proposition that New Zealand was up against.,

BOUSSUS v. MALFROY.

The first to take the court were Christian Boussus (France) and C. E. Malfroy (New Zealand). Although described as an exhibition, it was really a match between the two most remarkable junior players (both are 19 years of age), which each country possesses. They provided a contrast in almost every feature. Boussus is much taller than Malfroy, bigger built, and gives the appearance of greater physical strength and stamina. Boussus is a lefthander, and Malfroy is right-handed. Boussus serves a high bounding' sliced service from full height with a stiff, perfectly straight arm, and smashes as he serves. In Malfroy’s service the ball is hit high and well over the top. It swerves from right to left, and then kicks from left to right as it bounces high. Boussus gets the ball high and drives harder than Malfroy with greater depth, and uses the cross court drive most efficiently. Malfroy played mainly straight down the side lines, overhead, and in volleying there was no comparison. Boussus did not miss an overhead. Malfroy did not know where the ball was going and consequently there was no return. The same might almost be said of the volleying. Malfroy played mainly from the backline, and was all too frequently passed if he tried to come in while Boussus directed his game to getting to the net. His volleying was well nigh perfect, and, whereas Malfroy’s backhand was played plain, all the Frenchman’s backhand shots were chopped, but beautifully placed and varied in length. There was some good rallies from the backline, but nearly aways was Malfroy sent careering along the line to reprieve, if possible, a drive to the corner, most often to the backhand corner. Short stuff Boussus dealt with unmercifully. He played a much more severe game than Malfroy who depended mainly on steadiness ana his passing shot. He found, how'ever, that his steadiness was of no avail against the French bby’s all round brilliance, forcefulness, and at the same time steadiness. Malfroy’s service troubled Boussus a great deal- at first, but when he got used to it he took the ball at its height and hit it hard cross court to the corner, varied at times with straight shots down the line. Malfroy cleverly changed his pace and length, and mixed his game, cutting and chopping a lot, but always Boussus sensed the change, and altered his tactics accordingly. He was ever on the alert, and was the sound tactician. The manner in which he plays his forehand drive allows him to clear the net by a great margin and yet still keep the ball well within the backline. He showed, too, that he could play straight down the line on either wing -with as great a proficiency as Malfroy. Malfroy' did his best, but it was not good enough. Boussus is all that New Zealand has been led to expect of him.

BRUGNON v. OLLIVIER.

The match between Brugnon and Ollivier was also a contrast in styles. Ollivier plays nearly- all his shots plainly, change of pace and length to win. Brugnon, on the other hand, is most unorthodox. He possesses shots that are unique in the game, and certainly could scarcely be copied with success by other players. His service is perhaps the only- feature of his game that in anyway follows along the lines of other people, and it is a fine service, hit hard, carrying plenty of work and slice. It is made to land where wanted, in the corner or down the centre line. Both balls are hit with the same force, and although he served double faults, as did Ollivier, generally it is accurate. It is an attacking weapon also in the sense that it nearly always compels the opponent to move for it. It was a service that gave Ollivier a great deal of trouble.

Brugnon’s forehand is a peculiar lift drive something like a punch upwards. It is not pretty but it is very effective. He can play it anywhere across his body, away from his body, down the line or cross court. His concealing of direction is excellent- and several times he had Ollivier guessing badly. If the forehand drive is unique, how much more so is Brugnon’s backhand Nothing like it has been seen in New Zealand previously. All shots on his backhand he plays very late indeed. The ball seems almost to have gone past him, compelling him to lean back with his we'jht on his left foot. He then plays his sliced backhand with perfect rhythm, using his left arm to aid also in a sweeping swing forward. This shot, however, did not worry Ollivier at all. He merely waited for the bounce and answered Brugnon’s side-line shot with a cross court one. Brugnon, in his turn, taking the ball low down (falling) would hit it strongly across court and nearly always to the corner. He was always appreciative of a good shot by Ollivier.

Brugnon’s low volleys were wonderful things. They were all sliced. Never did he defend them. Always ho hit them, and generally straight down the line. He was deadly overhead. Ollivier put up good lobs but Brugnon dealt with them severely. Where Brugnon had it so greatly over OTiivier was his fleetness of foot. Ollivier directed a great deal of attention to Brugnon’s backhand. He lacked the versatility of Brugnon, who attacked from al[ parts of the court and was deadly whenever he got the net. His smash, was without the severity of Boussus, but it was equally effective in result. Any balls landing inside the service line he hit to leave Ollivier either standing or running the wrong way. Ollivier was outplayed by a better player and he was netting much more than usual for him, especially m trying to play his short shots.-

BOROTRA v. BARTLEET. “What went ye forth to see?” If people were asked that question they would probably reply that they went forth to see Jean Borotra. ’ It was generally expected that he would sweep like a whirlwind and utterly demolish his unfortunate opponent. But it was far otherwise. The hero of the match was E. L. Bartleet. He was beaten, but not disgraced.

Borotra probably was not in his best form, but he was still up to the level that had probably sufficed for him to win many an international match. Bartleet played as he has not been seen to play before, even when he took Ollivier to five sets in the New Zealand 'championships at Christchurch. He drove harder both, backhand and forehand with greater accuracy. He anticipated well, and he volleyed excellently. All his efforts were directed to keeping Borotra from the net, and for lengthy periods in the set which he won he had Borotra on the defensive. Borotra was what we have been led to believe he is only in spasms, but in those spasms he showed something of what he is likely to be when in form. There is no one in New Zealand comparable to him in covering the court. In running back from the net to retrieve a lob he is marvellous. Running underneath the ball he will literally leap through the air at it when it bounds and toss it high over his head. When he decides to go to the net he races straight for it. He scarce seems even to pause as he plays the half-volley on short, fast dipping balls that may be in the way of his charge. To-day he was badly off form in his halfvolleys, missing them repeatedly. When he continues to the net it is to be right on it, and the speed with which he can dart along it to intercept the 'hardest drives is remarkable. Usually his volleying, because he is close, barelv skims the net, runs parallel with it, and is almost impossible of being returned. Here again he was obviously below form and netted all too frequently. The Frenchman’s forehand drive is not a graceful affair, the ball being punched; but the shot carries speed, depth, and accuracy. His backhand he plays very close in to his body, almost under his body, and nearly always cross court. He is very accurate with both, and leaves a big margin in which to clear the net. He serves as he smashes, with a stiff arm and every service is a bad footfault for which he ought to have been pulled up every time. The line umpires were failing in thir duty in this respect, for it gave Borotr an unfair advantage in his rush to the net.

Borotra, while he definitely beat Bartleet, was himself very frequently outplayed, and Bartleet even on occasion held his own in net play. He moved with far greater ease and grace than Borotra, who bounded about like an indiarubber ball; but he lacked much of Borotra’s speed. Borotra anticipates best when at the net, and frequently from the backline he was made to chase hard across court, and then did not find himself quick enough for Bartleet’s clever short ones. Most lobs Borotra jumped high for and hit hard, but did not always, or nearly always, succeed in kil[ing. Bartleet made some very effective drives off many of these smashes. As the game developed, however, it was Borotra’s net play that won him the day.

THE NEW ZEALANDERS OVERWHELMED.

WELLINGTON, January 19. The weather was again ideal to-day for the concluding day of the international lawn tennis matches—France v. New Zealand—on the Wellington Provincial Lawn Tennis Association’s grounds at Miramar The Frenchmen again won all their matches, establishing this time an even more definite superiority over 'the New Zealanders than they did on th e first day. Borotra and Brugnon played a much better game than they did on Wednesday, as also did Ollivier. Bartleet, perhaps, was not allowed by Brugnon to be quite so brilliant as he was on the first day against Borotra. The doubles match between Borotra and Boussus and Knott and Sturt was full of interest, with Borotra and Sturt being the outstanding players of the respective combinations. The detailed scores were as follows :—

J. Borotra (France) beat G. Ollivier (New Zealand), 6—2, 6—4, 6—3. J Brugnon (France) beat E. L. Bartleet (New Zealand), 7 —5, 6—2, 6—l. J. Borotra and 0. Boussus (France) beat N. G. Sturt and L. G. Knott (New Zealand), 9—7, 7—5, 6—l. BOROTRA BEATS OLLIVIER.

Both Ollivier and Borotra, the latter especially, played a much better game than their performances on Wednesday. Borotra went much more to the net, and he was altogether free from the volleying and half-volleying mistakes of the first day against Bartleet, while his smashing and cross-court driving was much more accurate. Indeed, overhead he was deadly. At the net he was impassable either by drives down the lines, cross-court shots, or lobs. The latter h e smashed to the opposite corner and for cross-court shots he would speed along the net and volley par allel with the side-line, leaving Ollivier no, chance. Ollivier’s short cross-court shots, which have proved such prolific point gatherers against New Zealand’s best, were probably the worst shots he could have employed against Borotra, for the reason' that tlie Frenchman would run uito them, play them, and then continue on to the net. When that happened the point was definitely lost to Ollivier.

Borotra, in all departments of his game, showed himself something of the marvellous player he is when at his best. He “ punched ’’ ,his drives cross-court right to the corners, back-hand and fore-hand and straight down th e line. He smashed with unerring accuracy from all parts of the court. He served with great precision, always taking Ollivier out of court. But it was in his volleying that he was supreme. High, low, and half-volleys were the same. H e was bounding along the net to intercept Ollivier’s drive almost before Ollivier’s shot was made. Many of his volleys were mad e with both feet off the ground, as were many of his smashes;

Ollivier played a harder game than is his wont, and concentrated upon backhand shots to Borotra’s backhand for a period. Because that did not pay he switched over to cross-court driving on his forehand to Borotra’s forehand. Borotra accepted both with equal cheerfulness and replied to both with equal soundness, bo long as Ollivier drove deep Borotra was quite prepared to play him at that game, but the moment Ollivier sacrificed depth for his short cross court shots Borotra was to the net like a flash. His placing was brilliant, and nearly always Ollivier was compelled to play the shot on the run, and to run very fast, too, if he would get t 0 the ball. It seemed impossible that anyone could keep up the pace Borotra set himself, but it was Ollivier who was quickly tiring when the end came. Because of this he made many errors on comparatively easy balls. Borotra was spectacular to a degree. It was noticeable also that although he foot-faulted frequently, and was not pulled up he did make an honest effort to curb this unfortunate propensity. The ground behind the line where he stood was well torn by the scraping of the toe of his right shoe.

BRUGNON BEATS BARTLEET.

Those who thought that Bartleet on hi s performance o n Wednesday against Borotra would beat Brugnon were doomed to disappointment. Brugnon played an nn; U ' ely w tter than he did against llivier. He was better in every respect, serving smashing, and driving. His backhand slice drive was more accurate. He himself was much more active; indeed he was amazingly so. He was scarcely less speedy than Borotra, and certainly not so spectacular His sliced backhand Jhot Se jT' Ie > t - !> lrn down > and those thp tS nJt nd 8 * Ced V °, lleys J ’ ust c lear ed the net, and were always beautifully placed to the lines, either straight wtll C h U ’i t u° r Cl ’ra S Court ' Bartleet drove the net Wh° U n " Ot keep Bru S non from r ® ? et .’ jy hen Brugnon was at the net DOSSibi? ne \ r ' y “I’ that WaS hUrnanly possible to pass him, but aways did BrueaiT 1 / r° SS t} ? e net or *® a P into the air to get his racket on the ball. Like shot, str 6 'u Bartleet’s cross court shots straight down the lines, making Bartleet run on a hopeless chase. Shot or unfi ,S l ai ‘ d Hne Biugnon smashed for untouchable winners straight across t 0 the oppos'te side line. Lobs on his backhand side line he hit straight h?? n b- th kb T Fr he ran round bis backhand a s Bartleet plaved cross court to ,t, and hit the ball hard straight hi fnH S \ d % hne ’ but usually he played P a rfM ,al k d Ve J ° Ut f,om his body to PA? ■ 1 n bac hhand, and varied it only occasionally cross court to Bartleet’s forehand corner. e The hard racing took away from BartLIS accurac y> even causing nim to fall into numerous errors on what were comparatively easy shots—shots, that is, which he did not have to move for. He mishit Brugnon’s service quite a lot sometimes, but the times were rare. Bartleet got Brugnon with fine passin" shots backhand and forehand, principally the former, and he even fought on even terms with Brugnon at the net, but generally his volleying lacked Brugnon’s intensity. More often than not Brugnoji s volley from low down was a sliced drive. The cut which Brugnon so skilfully puts on most of his shots troubled Bartleet a lot, as did the wonderful length Brugnon was keeping and his placements. Brugnon used all the court, taking the greatest risks with the greatest confidence. He was not afraid' to dare, and he very seldom missed the vital point.

Bartleet put up a gallant fight. He did Pot lose heart, and died fighting gamely, but there can be no real comparison between the standard of the two players. Only Bartleet’s real determination prevented Brugnon getting the third set, 6—o. THE DOUBLED MATCH.

The doubles match between Borotra and Boussus (who was substituted for Brugnon) and Knott and Sturt had phases of spectacular volleying and smashing and good cross-court d; ing, as well as bad errors in which the chief offenders were Knott and Boussus. Knott at times was brilliant, with'severe cross-court drives and splendid smashes after Sturt’s skill had made the opening, but he made numerous bad errors at critical stages in games and sets. His principal errors were in his driving. Boussus, the left-hander, who, strange to say, was put in the right-hand court, played very badly. Indeed, his patches of brilliance were even more rare than Knott’s, but when he did strike them it was to make superlative winning shots. Sturt played fine tennis almost throughout, vicing at times with Borotra in short-range volleying duels or driving effectively cross court, or putting up some good lobs. Generally, however, lobs were fatal, as Borotra would lean in the air and smash across court for a winner. Boussus played some clever cross-court drives with his backhand in returning service, but his low volleying—such a feature in his match against Malfroy—was very weak indeed. When he did get his racket on to a ball fairly and squarely there was no repl to it. Borotra was full of life at the net, and jumped in front of stiff drives, halfvolleyed and volleyed smashes, and himself drove in brilliant and dazzling fashion. Both he and Sturt served well.

FRENCH PLAYERS ENTERTAINED.

WELLINGTON, January 20. The visiting French lawn tennis players were entertained at dinner by the Lawn Tennis Association. A feature of the function was a performance of the poi

dance by five Maori girls, which was explained by Kingi Tahiwi. Borotra said they regretted that they could only make such a short stay, and that they had no opportunity of viewing some of the New Zealand scenery of which they had heard so much. He had a good word for the play of the New Zealanders, and thought bis team was lucky to have won so many sets against them.'

THE ARGENTINE ASSOCIATION. BUENOS AIRES, January 16. The Argentine Lawn Tennis Associalion has decided to enter teams for thg Olympic and Davis Cup contests. WAIPAWA TOURNAMENT. WAIPAWA, January 21. A six-days’ tennis tournament was concluded last evening. An entry of over 900 constituted a record. Results: — Men’s Singles.—Griffiths (Auckland) beat Barkman (Wanganui), 6—3, 6 —2. Ladies’ Singles.—Mrs Adams (Wellington) beat Miss Myers (Wanganui), 6—5, 6—4. Men’s Doubles.—Stedman (Auckland) and Charters (Whangarei) beat Barkman and Powdrell (Wanganui), 6—3, 7—5. Ladies’ Doubles.—Misses Calver and Myers (Wanganui) beat Mrs Barkman and Miss Powdrell (Wanganui), 6—2, 6—l. Mixed Doubles.—Stedman and Miss Myers teat Lowry (Napier) and Mrs Adams, 6—3, 6—o. WELLINGTON PROVINCIAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. WELLINGTON, January 21. The Wellington provincial lawn tennis championships were commenced to-day at Miramar in fine weather. The entries are poor and several of the province’s best players are not competing. SATURDAY’S GAMES. A GRADE. NORTH-EAST VALLEY v. COSY DELL. Totals: Ncrth-East Valley, 9 sets (103 games); Cosy Dell. 7 sets (94 games). MOANA v. OTAGO. Totals: Moana, 13 sets (114 games); Otago, 3 sets (78 games). C GRADE. ROSLYN v. NORTH-EAST VALLEY. Totals: North-East Valley, 9 sets (95 games); Roslyn, 7 sets (82 games). OPOHO v. TRIANGLE. Totals: Opoho, 9 sets (99 games); Triangle, 7 sets (101 games). CAVERSHAM v. WAIMANA. T '—ls: Cavershatn 11 sets (112 games); Waimana, 5 sets (77 games). WESLEY v. COSY DELL Totals: Wesley, 9 sets (103 games); Cosy Dell, 7 sets (90 games). ST. CLAIR v. TECHNICAL. Totals: St. Clair, 8 sets (102 games); Technical, 8 sets (102 games). ANDERSON’S BAY v. UNIVERSITY. Totals; Anderson’s Bay, 11 sets (120 games); University, 5 sets (73 games).

round:— A Section. L. D. Pts. P. W. First Church 5 4 —— 1 9 Kensington 5 4 1 - 8 Broad Bay 4 2 1 1 Musselburgh . 5 1 4 — 2 Portobello 4 1 3 2 Glenaven .. . 3 0 3 — 0 B Section. Mornington , 5 5 — — 10 Kensington 5 3 2 — 6 Kaikorai .. . 3 2 1 —— 4 Musselburgh . 3 1 2 — 2 Rutherglen 3 — 3 —— 0 St. Leonards . 3 — 3 — 0