TENNIS.

Southland Times, Issue 19658, 7 October 1922, Page 13 (Supplement)

TENNIS.

(By Pennon). Th” good weather prevailing during the last week has enabled those club members, who are particularly keen, to get in some practice before the season officially opens. All clubs have had their courts put in order, and some good games are expected. The Invercargill Club will oj>en its season to-day and members of other clubs are cordially invited to come along and have a game. Miss Helen Wills, the 16-year-old Californian girl, who won the American junior championship last year, and this year secured the Californian title, reached the final of •he National Women’s championship this year. In the final she met Mrs Mallory and was defeated 6—3, 6—l, but the score does not indicate the nature of the game. The match was a battle of youth against experience, of a coming star against one at the peak of her game. Miss Wills gave America s greatest woman player a real battle, and in the early stages of the match she presented a constant menace to her opponent. The girl's play was the sensation of the match and she amazed the gallery by the speed of her attack and her uncanny court generalship. Tennis is a serious proposition to Miss Wills and the fact is evident from her every move on the courts. She seldom smiles or speaks and when she does it is only some essential word about the game. In the first set she bothered Mrs Mallory repeatedly by her forcing drives to her opponent s base-line. Mrs Mallory found it impossible to handle these with her usual effectiveness, but the champion’s ability as a base-line player enabled her to get some sort of a return on these shots, and in the end Miss Wills was frequently forced into costly errors. Miss Wills won the first game after Mrs Mallory had lead 40 —15, winning the game by a smash down the side line, which Mrs Mallory could not get near. Miss Wills then became erratic and Mrs Mallory obtained a lead, but the girl showed her gameness by pulling up to evens at 3 ail. Airs Mallory won the seventh game on her own service. The next game was the most exciting of the match. Miss Wills wavered slightly as the game began and Mrs Mallory established a lead at 40—30, but the girl, with a clean service ace, evened the score. Then followed a senes of long tense rallies, Mrs Mallory finally passing the younger player with a shot down the left-hand side of the court for game. With the score 5 —3 against her Miss Wills lost control and Mrs Mallory secured the last game with greater ease. Although Miss Wills rallied gamely after Mrs Mallory won the first two games of the second set and captured the third game, that was all Mrs Mallory would allow her. It was comparatively easy for Mrs Mallory to sweep through the remainder of the set, as her younger opponent was tiring after her exertions in the first set. After her defeat in the National Women’s singles championship Miss Wills, together with Mrs M. Z. Jessup, had the pleasure of defeating Mrs Mallory and Miss Sigourney for the doubles’ title. Miss V. ills was visibly tired after her singles’ fight, but her partner played remarkable tennis. At times Mrs Jessup was erratic, but whenever an effort was required she rose to the occasion in the pinches and it was around her that the rally which decided the championship cen tied. In the first set she and Mbs Wills had a comparatively easy time, scoring 33 pointe to their opponents’ 28 and winning

at 6 games to 4. Then came the second set when the Jessup-Wilk combination twice had the set and match point up only to lose it and finally have Mrs Mallon’ and Miss Sigourney win at 9—7. Mrs Jessup and Miss Wills directed much of their play at Miss Sigourney and it- was in no small part due to the gradual improvement of that player that her team carried off that hardfought second set. After that set there was a ten-minute intermission and it was lucky for Miss Wills and Mrs Jessup that it. came just then, for the title of the battle had apparently set in against them, and they needed time to pull themselves together. When the players took to the court again, : however. Mrs Mallory and Miss Sigourney ! swept through the first three games and j looked to be certain- winners, only Io have ' their opponents put on the finest kind of a rally and win six straight games and the i match. Through it all the tennis was brilliant. the rallies long and hard-fought and the result pleasing, in that it- brought a fair sharing of the spoils of the day. The ! final score was 6—4, 7—9, 6 —3, in favour ’ of Miss Wills and Mrs Jessup. I With regard to the match between jOJohnston and Anderson there was only one . man in the picture. The following short • description of the game fully describes how 1 Anderson failed and why:—■ ! There is not a great deal of a story to ; the match that saw Johnston triumphant I over Anderson, for the Australian was woe- • fully weak in his play, never being able to ! approach his real form. No sting there } was to his shots, no sustained control. It might have been different had Anderson faced any other man but little Johnston. Johnston never gave the Australian a chance. “Little Bill’’ was a veritable tornado of energy, but energy that always was under perfect control. From the moment that Albert Gibney, the umpire, called “play” and Johnston started service, until Anderson lost the final point of the match by sending a back-hand return of Johnston’s last furious drive out of court, there was no slackening in the slender Californian’s ferocious attack. Most of the devastation was wrought by Johnston from deep court, from where he sent his terrific forehand drives bombarding a path through Anderson's defence. At times the Californian followed in behind these furious drives to meet Anderson’s faltering returns on the volley and shoot the ball back for brilliant placement aces. Johnston was hitting so hard and so truly, that Anderson felt himself being swept along on the irresistible wave of power and was forced into hurrying his strokes in ’ sheer desperation. I twas all too evident that the Australian had not recovered from • his recent illness, and it was really tragic to see this great player go down before Johnston’s onslaught so easily, so unlike himself. Yet, when the final point had been won and lost, and realising how disappointing a showing he had made, Anderson’s splendid sportsmanship was uppermost as he ran to shake hands with Johnston. “Thank you, Bill,’’ was his greeting as the victor and vanquished smiled across the net at I each other. | In the Davis Cup finals between Aus- | trail a and Patterson won the toss | and commenced to serve, the first point going to Tilden, who returned Patterson’s i second service to (he Australian’s backj hand, Patterson netting the return. I Fatterson then got into his service stride I and took the firet game, Tilden finding difi ficulty in handling the severe serve of his i opponent. Tilden won the second game | j mainly through the speed of his own “bill- I | let" service . Tvrice Patterson failed to I touch the ball as it went past him for a service ace. Aided by a double fault Tilden won the Hurd game, and the fact that he was a game behind appeared to act a« an incentive on Patterson who stormed I his way through the next two games, break- I mg through Tilden's service and I liis own, tn which he scored three magni- i j ficient service aces. Patterson then lead j i 3 —2, a lead that looked dangerous, j Patterson was slaughtering Tilden’s second, high-bounding, service, “stepping into" the ball with tremendous forehand drives that forced the American into errors, while he himself was handling Tilden’s ser- ; vice well, except that dreaded “bullet” dej livery. I Tilden evened the score in the sixth game j ; largely because of Ills vicious attack on ! i Patterson’s backhand. A tally of the j I mistakes made by Patterson when return - : ing backhand shots showed that they were ! I many, so many in fact, that it might be I said that his backhand beat- Patterson. | : Time after time he would work up a good I attack and lose all the hard earned ground by a little slip on his backhand. I The struggle grew in intensity every * I moment, with both men keyed up to : the fighting pitch as they clashed in the sharp rallies. Few placement aces were I being made, for each was forcing the other | I into errors under the relentless attacking shots. Patterson went to the lead again by making good his service in the seventh • game, even though he made two double I faults. Two terrific aces, however and I ; two “nets” by Tilden brought the Aus- J < traiian through. The match had developed i into a furious battle of service. Tilden. ! squared matters at 4 ail as Patterson puli four returns of service into the net, all I off his own backhand, for the national champion was centering his attack on that i point. f Again that devastating service, aided by j two dazzling cross-court volleys for place- I ments, gave Patterson the ninth game, close to victory, but it was not to be. I ! Tilden won the tenth game, ending with ■ . three sizzling service aces, twice clashed ■ | to Patterson’s backhand. The last ser- I j vice sent the ball flying close to the side . hue. The Australian believed it out, the | i crowd believed it out. but the linesman I I made no call, and Patterson, halting, ac- I ‘ cepted the decision with a smile, but he I i was plainly upset for the moment, and ! Tilden swept through the next two games i with the loss of only one point, giving ' : him the set at 7—5, and a lead to which i ' he clung until the end. ■ Pat-tersoiF opened the second set well. I ; leading 3—l. In the fourth game he came | tearing in from the baseline to catch Til- j den's return on the volley and speed them back across the forecourt for aces. At I this stage the Australian was magnificent and Tilden wore a harried look as though I he realised victory was far from won. Til- t den came back in great style and equalised I by hammering Patterson’s backhand, for the Australian was wavering on these returns. particularly when Tilden shot the ball to his feet. : The tide of battle ebbed and flowed after that, until, in the ninth game, Patterson stood within a single point of winning the set, leading at 15—40 on Tilden’s service. Again fortune turned her back on the Antipodean. Following a stirring rally Patterson volleyed a backhand to the sideline, making a splendid recovery, but the ‘ lean greyhound in the other court raced I for the ball and sent it skimming down the side line for a placement ace, Patterson | lunging desperately and sprawling his i length on the ground when he missed. Two ' j service aces and a netted volley by Pat- | ■ terson and the game was Tflden’s for ; j s—all. A narrow escajie. Once more Patterson, after disheartening failures, returned to the attack to gain , his goal. Patterson was now trying to baffle his opponent by using a slice on his forehand ground strokes, but Tikien was quick to respond with similar weapons and they struggled on even terms. The really deciding stage of the match i-.mie in the seventeenth game, when the two men fought doggedly for the lead, with deuce" being called seven times before Tilden broke through after many bitterly fought rallies. Patterson missed on several short volleys at critical points, and more than once close decisions went against him. A misanthrope in the stands called i out: “How about two new linesmen?” .after one of these decisions. The loss of i the game appeared to convince Patterson that defeat lurked at his elbow, for he • lost the last game of the set at love, making four nets on service. Tilden was drojv ping the ball at the Australian’s feet and the latter failing palpably on his half-vol- ; leys. Thus Tilden won the second set i

at 10—8, and then the end came quicjcly. Tilden took the last game without the loss of a game, Patterson striving valiantly to stem his attack but without avail. VINCENT RICHARDS. AMERICA'S BOY WONDER. Not yet out of his teens, Vincent Richards, the boy wonder of the tennis i world, has gained the unique distinction of being selected for his country to represent [it in the Davis Cup contests. His record is remarkable. In 1917. when only 14 years of age, he won the National Boys’ Singles title in a country that encourages boys to play the game. In 1918 he captured four national titles—Junior Indoors, Boys’ Singles and Junior Doubles, and in partnership with Tilden, the open National Doubles. His ranking for that year was 22 in the singles and first in the doubles. In 1919 he kept his play up. That year he won the National Junior Singles, the National Indoors Singles, defeating Tilden in the finals, and with him he also captured the National Indoors Doubles; with Miss M. Ziderst-ein he won the National Mixed Doubles, and in the National Doubles final he and Tilden met Patterson and Brookes and lost, but- only after a terrific five-set match. His ranking in 1919 was 32 in the singles and 7 in the doubles. He started the 1920 season by getting into (he final of the Indoors National singles with Tikien who beat him; but he succeeded'in winning the Junior Indoors title. He entered for the Clay court championship and reached the final of that event being put out by Roberts. At Forest Hills he won the Junior title again and in the big championship. Tilden put him out in the fourth round in four sets. His ranking was 12 in singles. Last season, 1921, was his best. He first captured the Clay Court title at Chicago and then came on to Providence, where he beat both Williams and Tilden, winning the State title. At Newport, S-eabright and Southampton he was defeated by Williams, Johnston and Davis respectively. In the National singles, however, he came within an inch of defeating Johnston, Having (he Californian two sets down and forcing the fourth to 9-7. With Tilden he captured the National Doubles, defeating Washburn and Williams in the final. His singles ranking was 3 and his* doubles 1. Richards is probably the greatest volleyer in the United States to-day, with Johnston a close second. His anticipation at the net is uncanny, approaching that of Norman Brookes, and his grace of execution leaves nothing to be desired. He chops his volleys and gets very sharp angles on them, preferring this style to the straighter, deeper ones, such as Johnston uses. His low and half-volleying is remarkable, being executed with such ease as to make these really difficult strokes appear simple. All the principles of good form are adhered to in his volleying. With Richards volleying is an art and, like a good musician, he has a wonderful touch. Overhead Richards is severe, astonishingly so in view of his slight build. He swings on lobs just as he serves, getting a fine . snap, and his perfect timing accounts for his severity. He can kill from any part of the court and is particularly adept at smashing a deep lob by running back, let- ; ting (he ball bounce high and then leaping in the air, killing it for a clean ace. His • lobbing is good. Off the ground Richards is neither strong , nor weak. lie has no offensive ground I strokes, except occasionally when he “pulls I oil" a fast cross court forehand drive, ' which i: hit very hard with a great deal I of lift on it. But as yet Richards is not ' reliable with if and resorts chiefly to chop i and slice strokes. For his forehand chop I Richards uses his whole arm, keeping the elbow and wrist fairly stiff. It is a sort of mixture of a chop and block stroke. His backhand is very much undersliced, the bail Laving lis of backspin on it. It he were not so steady and accurate with these strokes his ground game would be weak, but somehow he manages to keep the ball in play until an opportunity to take the net arises. Thon he goes prancing in and he usually ends the point with a wellplaced volley. Much of his success seems to depend upon whether his service is working well or not. If going well he is able to get. into the net ofter.er, whereas if it is behaving badly he i- forced to remain back on the defensive. His first service is quite fast and well placed, the second is similar in execution but not bit so hard. Both are out-twists delivered with a snap of the body, which, coupled with good timing, gites plenty of speed. He stands a little around to one side as he begins to serve, instead of facing directly its his opponent as many servers do. and he does not throw up his ball very I high. As a result most of his faults conic from netting rather than from over-hitting the service lines. A close .-urvey of Richards’s game would i show that he is not a brilliant player, but a very steady and heady one. lie concentrates upon every shot with the object of kccj-ing the ball in play until he gets an j opening. He plays safety at all times, using ' liitlc speed bur great, accuracy. Onp exccp- j lion to this might be made, and that is Iris smashing. Ho always kills outright, even on deep, well placed lobs, but in the main he is very deliberate in his play. His doubles bring out. more brilliancy, but it is because he plays wholly at the net where he can bring his smashing into play. In stating that Richards is not a brilliant player no inference is made that he is inferior to brilliant players. Indeed Richards’s style should keep him among the topnotchcrs longer than many a harder hitting player cf his class. His head work is sup-cib, and it is all the more remarkable ■ when his age is considered. Except lor a I tendency at times to become somewhat in- I different and lazy, he has a fine tempera- | ment for the game. To sum up his game, Richards's strength lies in his excellent volleying, his steadiness and accuracy from the back-court and a remarkable knowledge of position play and tactics in general. His weakness is his lack of speed <■!' ground strokes. His general play is fairly aggressive, in that he is charging to the net on every occasion, but against a hard hitting opponent of the first class he i> apt to be on the defensive, and forced to play back, having no speedy I ground strokes to rely upon. His service somet.imcs goes back on him and he cannot get his first ball in.