TENNIS

Southland Times, Issue 20172, 7 May 1927, Page 19 (Supplement)

TENNIS

(By

“Chop.”

I think most readers of this column will be interested in the following letter and reply that appeared recently in the columns of the Otago Daily Times—

Dear Smash, —Your remarks on the final of the men’s doubles last week were written purely from a spectator’s point of view, and the play, to a spectator, may not have been good. From a player’s point of view I consider the play of Bray and Cleghorn very good, and not merely because they us. You criticise all four players for their dependence on the lob to the exclusion of the drive, but I feel sure no such criticism w’ould have resulted had the drive been exploited to the exclusion of the lob. I am not defending the lob as the only shot to be used in a doubles, for if any of the four players engaged possessed a sound drive, it would have been used, but to say that the tennis was poor because none of the players used the drive is not doing justice to the game. For a pair to win by continuous lobbing against such smashing as Boddy was doing was in itself an excellent performance. As for the drive, may I point out that, in the semi-final, Boddy and I defeated McDougall and Clark fairly easily, though they possess two of the soundest forehands in Dunedin. Further, in the final at South Canterbury this year, we defeated Page and K. J. Walker, two of the hardest drivers in Canterbury, in straight sets, demonstrating’ that driving, though spectacular, is not all that it might be in a doubles. I realise that the ideal is a judicious mixture of driving and lobbing, but to say that the play is poor without the drive is not logical. I think, therefore, that most senior players will agree when I state that Bray and Cleghorn played sound tennis to win the doubles. Personally I wish they had employed the drive more, for then we might have won, but the fact remains that they won against first-class smashing by Boddy, and that, therefore, they must have played good tennis from a player’s, if not from a spectator’s point of view.—l am, etc., John Fulton.

[lt is to be admitted that defence is Fulton’s strong point; but in seeking to defend this match he has undertaken a rather unenviable task. Undoubtedly it was a “sound exhibition”—of lobbing. But as an exhibition of the game and as a. lesson to the ladies and the younger players present it fell far short of what should be expected from our four leading men. Boddy’s smashing w r as good, and in my criticism I said so; but matches are not won by smashing alone. Furthermore, does

it not strike my correspondent that Boddy would have had far fewer opportunities to smash had the ball been seent over the net in drives instead of being tossed up to him in the air? Boddy’s best smashes were all made off short lobs falling in front of him, whereas Fulton had much less difficulty in returning the deeper lobs. What I deplored—and what I still deplore —was the lack of aggressive play. Attack is the essence of all games, and in boxing, football, cricket, etc., the points are awarded for attack and not for defence. Moreover, my correspondent is again wrong in his inference that “no such criticism would have resulted had the drive been exploited to the exclusion of the lob.” Driving was so restricted that it accounted for only three aces; but had it been tried —even unsuccessfully—then the criticism would have had to be modified. There was a marked hesitancy to attack almost throughout, and it appeared as if each pair was more concerned about what the opposing players were going to do than with trying to make openings to score. As a result, the great bulk of the scoring was done on errors and not on earned points, and although play of this kind frequently brings success, it means also that the standard will fail to rise above the level set by the exponents of this style of game. No doubt there is room for some difference of opinion as to the merits of this match; but despite what my correspondent says there are other senior players who are seriously asking themselves whether play of this type is responsible for the position occupied by Otago with relation to the other provinces.] *