LAWN TENNIS

Southland Times, Issue 22215, 6 January 1934, Page 6

LAWN TENNIS

DOMINION TITLES

PLAY DELAYED BY STORM

. MALFROY LEADS DONOHOE

(Per United Press Association.) Christchurch, January 5

For the third day in succession rain interfered with the New Zealand tennis championships at Wilding Park, and after a severe storm at 3 o’clock, further play had to be abandoned. The courts were then thickly carpeted with hail and the scene resembled winter. At one stage prior to the adjournment, the contestants in the semifinals of the men’s singles were playing to the accompaniment of a barrage of hail, flashes of lightning and the roar of thunder, conditions unique in New Zealand tennis. When play ceased, Sproule (Australia) was leading Andrews (England) 10 —9 in one semi-final, and Malfroy (New Zealand) was leading Donohoe (Australia) 6—3, B—6, 4—4 in the other semi-final.

Malfroy is expected to beat Donohoe, but the Andrews v. Sproule contest is very open, with Sproule’s superior fitness for a stiff encounter an important factor.

Prior to the storm good progress was made with the various events in the tournament, though the courts were heavy after Thursday night’s rain. There will be an all-Australian final in the women’s singles. Miss Valkenburg beat Mrs Dykes, of Wellington, in three sets and Miss Bickerton beat Miss Marjorie Macfarlane, of Auckland, in two sets. Both the visiting ladies were more decisive at the net than the New Zealanders, but Mrs Dykes attacked for a time every bit as persistently as her opponent, though towards the end she tired.

Mrs Melody and Miss Nicholls (Wellington) went into the women’s doubles final by beating the former Canterbury champions Mrs B. Carl and Miss B. Gould, in two sets. Seay and Malfroy gained the verdict in continuation of their semi-final doubles with Rhodes-Williams and Dymond and meet Sproule and Donohoe in the final.

The boys’ singles championship was unexpectedly won by I. Corich (Canterbury) who defeated J. Gunn (Auckland) 5—6, 6—4, 6 —3. In the semi-final of the junior combined doubles, the Canterbury pair, Miss D. Dickey and I. J. Corich beat Miss J. Bums and N. A. Morrison 5—6, 6—5, 6—3.

The tournament will not now be concluded until Monday. The women’s singles will be played to-morrow and the remaining finals on Monday. The following team has been selected to represent New Zealand in the test match with the visiting New South Wales ladies: Mrs Dykes (Wellington), Miss Marjorie Macfarlane (Auckland), Miss D. Nicholls (Wellington), Miss I. Poole (Canterbury); Emergency, Miss M. Wake (Canterbury). The results were:

MEN’S SINGLES. Semi-finals. Sproule leads Andrews 10 —9. Malfroy leads Donohoe 6—3, B—6, B—6, 4—4. MEN’S DOUBLES. Semi-Final. C. E. Malfroy and I. A. Seay beat I. Rhodes Williams and H. Dymond 6 —2, 6—4, 5—7, 6—l. WOMEN’S SINGLES. Semi-Finals. Miss U. Valkenburg beat Mrs H. M. Dykes 6—B, 6—4, 6—4. Miss L. Bickerton beat Miss Marjorie Macfarlane 6 —3, 6—3. WOMEN’S DOUBLES. Semi-Final. Mrs W. J. Melody and Miss Nicholls beat Mrs J. D. Carl and Miss B. Gould 6—3, 7—5. JUNIOR COMBINED DOUBLES. Semi-Final. Miss D. Dickey and I. J. Corich beat Miss J. Burns and N. A. Morrison 5—6, 6—5, 6—3. JUNIOR BOYS’ SINGLES. Final. I. J. Corich (Canterbury) beat J. W. Gunn (Auckland) 5—6, 6—4, 6—3. MEN’S PLATE. Semi-Final. I. Rhodes Williams beat Bartleet by default. Final. Rhodes Williams (Canterbury) beat Roussell (Wellington) B—6,8 —6, 6 —l. NOTES ON THE PLAY. In the women’s singles semi-final, Miss Valkenburg led Mrs Dykes 3 —l in the first set and later 5—4, but Mrs Dykes kept creeping up, using clean drives both on the backhand and forehand, and making fine recoveries from out of the court, bringing her drive into play and finishing off with a spectacular passing shot. Mrs Dykes took the lead 6—5. She had the service in the next game, but Miss Valkenburg, playing to the backhand, evened the score at 6—6. A strong forehand drive gave Mrs Dykes the next two games and the first set at B—6. Miss Valkenburg was slightly superior with her placements in the second set and won it at 6—4 after many delightful driving exchanges. The critical stage came in the final set after Mrs Dykes had led 3 —2. Forcing Mrs Dykes into the forehand comer and killing her lobbed return. Miss Valkenburg evened the score and by playing to her opponent’s backhand, won the next game and led 4—3. Mrs Dykes adopted similar tactics in the eighth game, and had Miss Valkenburg on the defensive. Miss Valkenburg pulled up to deuce and the game was not claimed by Mrs Dykes until deuce had been called again three times. Outed returns by Mrs Dykes gave Miss Valkenburg the lead at 5—4 and clever placements, two of which completely beat Mrs Dykes, gave Miss Valkenburg the tenth game and the match off her opponent’s service. Contrast in Styles. A contrast in styles was witnessed in the other semi-final when Miss Bickerton made it an all Australian final, beating Miss Marjorie Macfarlane (Auckland) 6 —3, 6—3. Miss Macfarlane made a plucky fight, bombarding the comers with hard drives that even in the soft conditions came off the turf with a sting. Miss Bickerton could equal her in this department, and she had the advantage in her ability to come in to the net to finish off with angled volleys and deep smashes. Miss Macfarlane drove with amazing accuracy, but that was not enough to rob the visitor of victory. In the final of the boys’ singles, Gunn (Auckland) took the first set at 6—5, using his service often to gain a vital point, but Corich, of Canterbury, won the second set 6—4 by pasting his op-

ponent’s backhand relentlessly. Corich attacked from the net in the final set and neat placements enabled him to open up a lead of 2—o. He dropped his service in the third game and had to concede the fourth to Gunn after the game had returned to deuce seven times. Two more games were shared on the service. Then after being down love-40 on his service in the seventh game, Corich outplayed Gunn to lead 4—3. A short cross court shot often caught Gunn defenceless when he went into the net. Three errors by Gunn and a kill from a low lob gave Corich the boys’ singles title. The set was his at 6—3. In the semi-final of the women’s doubles, the Wellington pair, Mrs Melody and Miss Nicholls, defeated Mrs Carl and Miss Gould because of greater experience and better use of openings, Mrs Melody’s spin shots from the baseline being very effective. The Canterbury pair saved a succession of match points before they made two mistakes and lost 6—3, 7—5. The semi-final in the other half of this event has not yet been reached. With two sets in from the previous day in the semi-final of the men’s doubles, Malfroy and Seay, the title holders, had still some difficulty in disposing of the Canterbury pair, RhodesWilliams and Dymond, who won the third set 7—5. This morning the volleying was hard and accurate by all four, but towards the end either Malfroy or Seay swept in with a winner or the other pair were worked out of position and Seay’s left-handed smasher frequently landed into a clear corner of the court. Malfroy served with remarkable pace throughout. His court sense was outstanding. They won the fourth set easily, 6—l, combining beautifully. This pair will play Sproule and Donohoe in the final to-morrow.

Donohoe v. Malfroy.

Everything worked perfectly for Donohoe in the first set against Malfroy, except his service. His severe first service faulted time and again and was no help at all in keeping the racing Malfroy away from the net. Play began with sudden speed that was kept up throughout. Both tried with all their power to reach and hold the net position, but generally it was Malfroy who had the best of these manoeuvres. Malfroy was hammered from all angles when he came up, but refused to vacate the advantage, though passed several times with beautifully accurate volleys down the side lines. Donohoe showed himself also a master of the lob and employed it to even three all. He failed in accuracy and length however and Malfroy led 5—3 and took the first set 6—3. Again in the second set a clash of tactics provided the spectators with an exciting duel. Donohoe employed a heavy cut to the base line but Malfroy closed in after stinging counter drives and volleyed with snap and precision. He has seldom played better. Three all was called as rain began to fall, but the match continued at a fast pace. The seventh produced some spectacular lobbing before it went to Malfroy when Donohoe found the net twice in succession. Donohoe’s service beat Malfroy in the next game and once more the scores were even. The spectators were delighted when Donohoe, in the ninth game after racing back to the baseline to pick up a fast one by Malfroy, sent the ball back with a magnificent lob that in its turn had Malfroy sprinting to make a recovery. Malfroy won the game, but the tenth gave a taste of Donohoe at his best. He took control of play from the net, giving Malfroy more court to cover than he had any chance of coping with. Light rain was falling now and thunder rolling overhead. Powerful serving by Malfroy in the next game kept Donohoe well back and by following in Malfroy was able to score placement winners. The set progressed purely on service, the slippery court affording poor foothold and causing a slump in the standard of play, although Malfroy appeared to be more at home than Donohoe. The set went to Malfroy at B—6.

For the third set both men fitted themselves out with spiked shoes. Donohoe went ahead on long raking drives to the corners with an occasional lob over Malfroy’s head when he went in to the net. Donohoe led 3—l and at that stage both men got it from the heavens which opened on them with a barrage of hail. They defied it, playing on and giving a great display. When the hail ceased the rain became heavier and at length play had to cease with the score four-all. Sproule v. Andrews. There was the keenest interest in the meeting of Sproule and Andrews in the other semi-final and it was unfortunate that the star attraction of the day, and perhaps of the tournament, should have been interrupted by the weather. The match opened with Andrews serving and both players cautious and plainly keyed up. Andrews outed a number of times in seeking placements and Sproule appeared to be testing his powers of endurance by a mixture of drop shots and deep drives. Sproule jumped away to a 5 —2 lead, but now the real Andrews became apparent. He fought in tigerish fashion and Sproule lost his lead to five-all. Andrews kept forcing the pace and, taking advantage of Sproule’s monetary inaccuracy. Sproule was having hard luck with net shots. Andrews is amazingly quick on his feet and his covering up, though he was often hard pushed and had Sproule out of position on a number of occasions.fi It was 6-all and 7-all, Sproule having the advantage until Andrews, with t o perfect drives to the corners, made it B—7, but it was 8-all and the game continued, though a hailstorm whitened 'the court. Andrews was fighting desperately and, with Sproule still missing on the backhand, it was 9-all. Sproule led 10—9 when rain stopped play. Another match interrupted by the rain was the women’s doubles in wii ch Mrs Dykes and Mrs Adams led the Misses Poole 6—l, I—3 at the adjournment.