Tennis.

Southland Times, Issue 19480, 1 April 1922, Page 9

Tennis.

SPEED v. STEADINESS. “It is speed that has glorified the game of lawn tennis, and raised it from a lawn party, high tea affair, to something that has more of the characteristics of prize fighting than most people realise, or man}' are willing to admit,” says American Lawn Tennis. “The antithesis of speed is softnets, patball, what you will. Even in non-tournament play the *Boft* player is shunned, despised, animadverted upon. His game is not a game a tall, but a miserable makeshift, the very name of which is anathema. “But speed alone will never get anyone anywhere. It must be harnessed, kept well within bounds, else, like a runaway steed, it will bring disaster in its. train. But restraint is the most difficult of all things for the possessor of speed to practise. It is quite within bounds to say that it has ruined more games, many times more, than it has made. Against a Larned, who took nearly twenty years to yoke speed and sustained accuracy, we can put a McLoughlin, who, apparently, ruined the greatest game of his day by attempting to impose restraint on it. “All who have studied the game to good effect know that it is fatal for a brilliant youngster to curb his speed, unices tbs curbing is done wisely* without hampering the freedom of stroke and is ths very essence of speei The playp-r who has the precious gift of speed must, not tamper with it. Regulate it, by all means, pracute strokes, produced properly and carrying speed, thousands, even tens of thousands of times. But do not under any ciroumetances, rob them of their greatest asset—speed. “It is admitted that speed and a reasonable amount of accuracy must go hand in hand. Fast shots that rarely reach their I mark are only a little better than those of the patball variety. But pace is the lethal weapon that bears down all opposition. A good player can get to the best placed of soft shote, whereas no one can retrieve, consistently, the fast ones sent 1 over by the great masters of the game. It is axiomatic, therefore, that speed should I be employed whenever possible, unless its opposite will serve the purpose equally well and can be brought tc bear with less risk. This is only another way of descanting against indiscriminate speed. No player can hit everything hard, and to try to do so is to make disaster inevitable. But no player can reach real greatness unless he can hit hard. “Which is the better in lawn tennis speed or steadiness? The question is almost as old as tae game, and it it> still, to a conI siderable extent, a moot point. Speed alone j or steadiness alore will seldom prevail The I combination of the two is the happy one, and it spells success almost as surely as two and two make four. ‘ Why do co many players who have the heaven-given gilt of speed fail to use it on so occasions? That they do is troe beyond ti.e possibility of gainsaying. Tilden and Johnston are, at times, conspicuous offenders, when opposed to men w*xom they can beat; and Richards, save on rare occasions fail r to use as much speed as be nossesses. Williams is an outstanding of a player who employs speed consistently, but during the past season he has the least successful of he four pltyers named; and therefore he is not th? best argument in favour of the all-epeed tame. Nevertheless, slack playing is to ue condemned, and it not infrequently brings about defeat. Yet the delusion persists that a better way to defeat an inferior

player can be found than that of giving him of one’s best. Nothing more false or more pernicious could be imagined. “It is one thing to prolong purposely a match in order to practise strokes, but it is quite another to play tentatively for the purpose of saving oneself. When this policy is adopted, it almost inevitably defeats itself. We remember seeing a match going to five sets, simply because the superior player had another match to follow, and wanted to save himself for it. At the end, we asked him whether he thought he had acomplished anything, and he occasioned surprise by replying that he was not sure! A short, sharp match, in which the winner plays his best £ame, is an inspiration, and is apt to give unbounded confidence; whereas a long drawn out one causes dissatisfaction, and is apt to affect morale. “To tournament players, especially those of the first class, good advice can be given —advice that loses none of its virtue because it is given unasked—regarding the • matches:— “ ‘Make them snappy.’ ”