South Canterbury Tennis Titles

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20927, 5 January 1938, Page 8

South Canterbury Tennis Titles

Successful Tournament

Continued

Interesting Play in Finals The South Canterbury Association has every reason to be gratified at the success of the New Year tennis tournament, which was practically concluded at Maori Park yesterday, as the public and players were well pleased with the conduct of the fixture generally and the standard of tennis revealed. In pleasant contrast to conditions on the opening day, ideal tennis weather was experienced, there being an almost entire absence of sun and wind. * After a heavy ground for early in the morning, the playing surfaces were slippery, but the courts dried well and conditions were splendid by the time the finals were staged. The galleries were large and appreciative.

The 1938 championship titles were distributed as follow: Men’s Singles: H. A. Barnett (Canterbury). Men’s Doubles: R. G. Pattinson and I. J. Corich (Canterbury). Women’s Singles: Miss D. Miller (Oamaru). Women’s Doubles: Misses Miller and D. Patchett (Canterbury). Mixed Doubles (to be played on Saturday). Because of the late start yesterday owing to the effects of the heavy ground fog, the women's handicap semi-flnals and final could not be concluded, while a similar position exists in the mixed handicap doubles. It -s hoped to complete these sections this morning.

COMMENT ON PLAY

RENTON’S SOUND TACTICS Tactically sound throughout and steady for most part of the journey, W. E. Renton, South Canterbury’s first man, accounted for I. J. Corich, the

Canterbury representative, who was seeded one above him, in three sets. Corich failed to get going at the stait of the first set. His backhand was on holiday and he experienced great difficulty in picking up Renton’s accurate placements, which were gently delivered. Renton lost only the second game, but he won the rest and not once did he attempt to speed up his game. He was content to drive steadily and come into the net for opportune winners. Corich steadied considerably in the second set and his backhand improved. Renton exploited the net but was frequently passed by the Canterbury man who introduced more variety into his game. Renton was much the same as Corich was in the first set and there was no doubting Corich’s superiority 6-2. Reverting to his earlier tactics of forcing Corich into errors, Renton commenced a profitable campaign in the third session to run to a 3-1 lead. Corich steadied to make the score 3-3, but Renton’s I work was much cleaner and he was more certain at the net to capture th? next three games, the last game without the loss of a point. Although Corich did not reveal his earlier form the tactics adopted by Renton had a great deal to do with that.

Pattinson’s Game Fight

Although he played bright and enterprising tennis in his match against H. A. Barnett in the other semi-final, R. G. Pattinson could not hold the holder of the South Island singles title and went down 8-6, 7-5 after putting up a good fight. He began promisingly. maintaining a good length and volleying brilliantly, and for a time it seemed he was going to hit Barnett off his cut game, but he made too many errors at crucial stages of the match. Covering the court effectively, Pattinson repeatedly made winners with angled volleys Which burnt the sidelines and led 3-2. Forcing Barnett to the baseline, he then scored with clever drop shots, although on several occasions Barnett made some remarkable recoveries. Pattinson forged ahead to lead 5-3 and held set point, but Barnett survived with a net-cord which beat his opponent. Pattinson fell into errors, enabling Barnett to pull up to 5-all, but when he opened up on his forearm Pattinson took the odd game. Twice he held set point in the next game but he could not clinch the set and Barnett ran through to win at 8-6. On the play Pattinson was definitely unlucky to lose the set. A different complexion came over the match in the second set when Barnett took over the role of aggressor and. imparting more spin to the ball, kept Pattinson running on the baseline. The young-

er player stuck to his task gamely, however, and when he hit out kept the game scores even to 5-all, but Barnett wore him down and when his length shortened took control and finished the set off at 7-5. Had Pattinson played his usual lively game, flashes of which he produced in the first set, he might have fared better, but his margin of errors was too large against Barnett, who made fewer mistakes than any other player in the tournament.

Barnett’s Easy Victory

If Renton’s ground strokes had been as good as his overhead work, Barnett would not have had the easy win 6-3, 6-1, in the final of the singles. For the most part the match was fairly tame. Renton was tired after his strenuous doubles and was not in the condition to cover the court to the extent that was demanded by the good placements of Barnett, who, although not brilliant, played his usual consistent game.

Owing no doubt to his tendency to drive a dropping ball, Renton found difficulty in playing Barnett’s drive. It appeared as though Renton would have been better to have made more extensive use of the net, as he was more effective there than at the baseline, where he was frequently required to travel the width of the court. Barnett was the essence of safety in driving to both wings, and the spin shots from his backhand were most effective on a drying court. Renton held Barnett in the early stages of the game, hut as he tired he lost consistency and .many points came the Canterbury man’s way as a resuit of Renton’s mistakes. Barnett is a difficult opponent lor any New Zealand player to defeat, and he can always be relied upon to produce a sound and effective game. This was very evident in the second set, when it was obvious that Renton realised that the chances of a tired player matched against a consistent driver with a solid attack and tireless defence were nil.

Effective Net Storming

After a thrilling marathon in the first set, Renton and Sandral found touch well to eliminate S. G. McDougall and A. Feathers. After leading 3-0 Sandral struck a bad patch and the opposition, profiting by his mistakes, made up the leeway. A feature of the play at this stage was McDougall’s return of service, which, besides being well placed, carried considerable speed. By careful tennis Sandral played himself in and, combining well with Renton, who was playing consistently in all departments the pair outplayed their opponents to win the set 12-10. Net storming tactics by the South Canterbury pair in the second set quickly forced their opponents into difficulties, and in the

winning of games few points were scored against them. Drop-shots by Sandral, pacey volleys from Renton, opened the defence of their opponents who were unable to cope with the strategical strength of the winners, who lost only one game. Pattinson’s winning volleys and safe overhead smashing contributed largely to the victory of he and Coricb. against Barnett and Penfold in the semi-final of the men’s doubles. Considering the greasy surface the tennis reached a high standard and the large gallery was most appreciative. Pattinson and Corich won the fust set after combining well to gain a substantial lead. Frequently the four players advanced to the net position and the game fairly sparkled with exchanges of crisp volleys. In the second set Barnett played an outstanding game and besides extricating his side from difficult situations he scored winning placements with overhead smashes. They took the set 6-4. The final session saw the four men playing carefully. The games were even until 4-4 wp' called. By means of safe work overhead : id acutely-angled volleys Pattinson and

Corich out-manoeuvred their opponents to worthily run out winners 6-4. Corich unaccountably missed some easy shots earlier in the match but produced sparkling tennis when it was most necessary in the third set. Doubles to Canterbury Sandral and Renton failed to reproduce the form against Pattinson and Corich that allowed them to enter the final. It might be said that the opposition was stronger, but at the same time too many critical points were lost by the local players which they ordinarily would not have missed. A feature of the game was the overhead work of Pattinson, who never missed a smash. The Timaruvians’ return of service was not too strong and the opposition, taking advantage of this, entrenched themselves at the net where they dealt drastically with anything loose. A number of scintillating rallies took place with all the players in the forecourt. The game as a whole provided a good standard of doubles play and the excellence of Pattinson’s exhibition was the deciding factor in winning the event for the Canterbury pair. In the first set games more or less alternated with service until 6-6 was called. At this stage Pattinson smashed witn great pace and judgment and enabled his team to collect the first set 8-6. The strong return of service by both of the visitors enabled them to open the defence and secure winner from close in. A notable feature of the play was the fact that Sandral never lost his service. Occasional weak returns by the local men were pounced upon and turned to good account by the agile and experienced Christchurch players. Towards the finish of the match Sandral and Renton were forced on to the defensive and one or two lobs of theirs just found their way over the backline. The large gallery appreciated the good display by all the players. Women’s Semi-finals

Miss Dora Shirtcliff and Miss Joan Eaton engaged in a baseline duel in the semi-final of the women’s singles,

but more consistency on the part of the former allowed her to take the first set 6-3. In the second set Miss Shirtcliff was again more accurate and although Miss Eaton made a number of good recoveries she found the net too often. Miss Dora Miller entered the final of the women’s singles at the expense of Miss S. Gillanders, who in the first set gave a good performance against her more experienced opponent. Miss Gillanders after being down 5-2 took th? score to 4-5, but Muss Miller drove speedier and more accurately to take the set 6-4. In the second set Miss Miller had matters much her own way and was not extended at any stage.

Disappointing Final

The final of the women’s singles championship between Miss Dora Miller (Oamaru) and Miss Dora Shirtcliff (Timaru) proved a most disappointing affairs, the Timaru girl failing to produce the standard of tennis which has won her the premier position on the South Canterbury ladder. In earlier rounds of the championship she showed good form but, opposed to one of the most experienced women players in the Dominion at present, her form slumped sadly and in two sets she was unable to collect more than one game. Miss Miller, a former New Zealand representative player who has not played sufficient tennis in recent seasons to be assessed for national ranking, played a steadygame, but in the first set had only to keep returning the ball for her opponent to present her with points from net and outing errors. Neither player moved far from the baseline, a driving duel which otherwise have been attractive being spoilt by Miss Shirtcliff’s mistakes. She seemed to realise that she was no match for her experienced opponent at close quarters and tried to force the pace from long range, but her customary accuracy deserted her when she most needed it. Miss Miller was rocklike on defence and her driving was severe. At times she revealed glimpses of the form wh‘ h formerly won her high tennis honours. She won the first set without the loss of a game, but in the second Miss Shirtcliff temporarily found touch with the sidelines and, scoring with pacey crosscourt drives, took a game on her merits. Miss Miller then speeded up and took five game : in a row to win the championship without being extended. Better Court Coverage Better ability to cover the court gave Misses D. Miller and D. Patchett victory in the final of the women’s doubles against Mesdames Blank and Chetwin 6-4, 6-8, 6-3. Miss Miller played her usual hard driving game from the baseline and came in close when the occasion demanded. Miss Patchett played well and was very effective at close range. Mrs Blank, who is always a worthy opponent, used a cut slice to the sideline very effectively, a shot which worries the most experienced players. Mrs Chetwin played a sound game although she was not so active as the others. The winners combined very well and their coverage of the court was superior ■ i their opponents.

The Mixed Doubles

The mixed doubles produced two interesting semi-finals, in which the issue was always in doubt. Sandral and Miss Shirtcliff bes McDougall

and Miss Miller after a hard fight 6-1, 4-6, 7-5, while F. Lewis and Miss Eaton beat Renton and Miss D. Patchett 6-3, 10-8. The final is to be played on Saturday as a curtain raiser to the Coombe-Stedman exhibition match. Association Congratulated The trophies were presented by the Mayor (Mr P. C. Vinnell), who was introduced by 7 the president of the South Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association (Mr W. M. Sexton). Mr Sexton expressed appreciation of the support players had accorded the tournament, entries having constituted a record. He also expressed the Committee’s thanks to the competitors for the consideration they had shown in waiting for their games and in assisting the officials to get through the long programme. The Mayor congratulated the Asso- j ciation on the success of the tournament, and said that the fact that many of the players had returned year after year showed that they were well satisfied with its conduct. The thanks of the visiting players for the expeditious manner in which the tournament had been conducted were conveyed by Mr H. A. Barnett

(Christchurch), who said the players especially appreciated the provision of umpires, officials who were not always available at other tournaments. CHAMPIONSHIPS MEN’S SINGLES Semi-Finals W. E. Renton beat I. J. Corich, 6-1, 2-6. 6-3. H. A. Barnett beat R. G. Pattinson, 8-6, 7-5. Final Barnett beat Renton, 6-3. 6-1. MEN’S DOUBLES. Third Round S. G. McDougall and A. Feathers beat B. Whelan and J. McKenzie, 6-4, 7-5. Semi-Finals I. J. Corich and R. G. Pattinson beat H. A. Barnett and C. F. Penfold, 6-2, 5-6, 7-5. A. E. Sandral and W. E. Renton beat McDougall and Feathers, 12-10, 6-1. Final Corich and Pattinson beat Sandral and Renton, 8-6, 6-3.

WOMEN'S SINGLES Semi-Finals Miss D. Miller beat Miss S. Gillanders. 6-4. 6-0. Miss D. Shirtcliff beat Miss J. Eaton, 6-3. 6-4. Final Miss Miller beat Miss Shirtcliff, 6-0. 6-1. WOMEN’S DOUBLES. Semi-Finals Misses D. Miller and D. Patchett beat Misses H. Sumpter and K. Edbrooke, 6-1, 6-2. Mesdames A. R. Blank and C. Chetwin beat Mrs R. Lewis and Miss J. Eaton. 6-4, 4-6. 6-3. Final Misses Miller and Patchett beat Mesdames Blank and Chetwin, 6-2 6-8. 6-3. MIXED DOUBLES Second Round W. E. Renton and Miss D. Patchett beat W. G. Gerard and Miss N. Oxford 6-1, 6-1. B. B. Loughnan and Miss J. Edbrooke beat J. Milliken and Mrs R. Lewis, 6-4. 9-7. Third Round A. E. Sandral and Miss D. Shirtcliff beat F. O. Schmidt and Miss A. McKenzie 6-2. 6-1.

W. E. Renton and Miss D. Patchett beat B. Souter and Mrs Newlands, 6-3, 10-8. F. Lewis and Miss J. Eaton beat Loughnan and Miss J. Edbrooke, 8-6, 4-6, 6-3. S. G. McDougall and Miss D. Miller beat W. M. Sexton and Miss M. Saxton by default. Semi-Finals Sandral and Miss Shirtcliff beat McDougall and Miss Miller, 6-1, 4-6, 7-5. Lewis and Miss Eaton beat Renton and Miss Patchett, 6-2, 2-6, 6-1. BOYS’ SINGLES. Third Round J. Roseveare beat J. L. Brown 9-7. Semi-Finals J. Roseveare beat S. McWhirter, 9-3. R. G. Blair beat D. Williams, 9-0. Final Rosevear beat Blair, 6-2, 0-6, 7-5. GIRLS’ SINGLES Semi-Final. M. Bolderston beat M. Sexton, 9-4. Final M. Bolderston beat P. Morrison, 6-2, 3-6, 6-4.