FRED PERRY’S RECORD IN LAWN TENNIS

Taranaki Daily News, 12 November 1934, Page 11

FRED PERRY’S RECORD IN LAWN TENNIS

Every Claim To Be Ranked Best Player Of Day

HAS CONQUERED A FAILING

To have achieved something no man has ever done before must be a gratifying sensation. Before F. J. Perry’s success in the U.SA. lawn tennis singles championship, no lawn tennis player had ever won the championship of Australia, of the U.S.A., and—well, at Wimbledon: the Wimbledon championships are just “The Championships,” not championships “of” any country at all! —in the same year. Last year J. H. Crawford won at Wimbledon, in Paris, and in Australia, and so set up a record of three wins, but Perry’s are a different three, and a slightly more creditable three, since the opposition in America is generally a good deal stronger, though less cosmopolitan, than it is in Paris (comments a writer in a London paper): It seems fitting, too, that Perry should have had , this success, for it was he who, almost at the last moment, prevented Crawford adding the U.S.A, title to his other three championships last year, ■ when it was almost within his grasp. Only one other English player, H. L. Doherty, has ever won the U.S.A, championship: Perry has now won it in two successive years—a really fine performance, when one considers the tremendous strength of the opposition at Forest Hills. Again, Perry showed how good he can be at the end of a long fivesetter, for though he won most of his matches easily enough, his final against Wilmer Allison went the full distance. Allison is one of the best fighters of lost causes ever known; indeed, he may fairly be regarded as the world’s unluckiest player, for he has often been so near and yet so far. His fighting finish, when, being 2—5 down in the final set against Perry, he squared the match at 5 all, was worthy of a hero. Perry, perhaps, recalled a certain Davis Cup match against Germany, when D. Prenn, from an even worse position, had pulled the match out of the fire against him. Whether he did or not, his nerve certainly did not fail him; two love games on his own service and one captured from his opponent took him into port, and the unfortunate Allison had no reward for his valour except the knowledge that he had done better than any of the U.S.A. Davis Cup team of 1934, and had defeated the best of them. Poor consolation, perhaps, but there is always _ a certain satisfaction in proving, quite incontestably, that you are a better player than those who have been preferred to you. 1 Meanwhile, Perry’s star is at its zenith: he has every claim to be considered the best player of his day, and even if he is not very far in front of some of his rivals, he has more stayingpower than any of them, besides possessing the; confidence —so big an asset —engendered by his repeated victories over most, if not all, of those who have any claim to be considered nearly his equals. He has made this lofty eminence for himself by diligently striving to dismiss the former lack of concentration which spoilt his otherwise fine game. At one time he alleged that he could not conquer this failing: it is all the more to his credit that he has succeeded in achieving what he thought would.be impossible. He is well worthy to rank with the heroes of English tennis of . the past. • ' ,