TENNIS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16735, 17 May 1922, Page 2

TENNIS

'1 he Canterbury Lawn Tennis Association will moot on Friday night, when important business will be discussed. The question of the balls to bo used at tbc next New Zealand championship meeting will probably h© tb© subject of a. recommendation. Plans will probably be discussed for carrying out the next. Easter tournament in three days. Probably this will be effected by using more courts and playing all second grade matches on the extra courts. A report of the Match Committee of the association will be presented to the meeting.

The plans for the restoration of St James’ Church, Ricearton, include provision in the grounds for tennis courts. Other new courts are projected not only at St Albans Park but also at Kfc Martins. where one court is already, laid and two others are to be put down. The Cashmere proposa I, which is on an ambitious scale, is also taking definite shape. This club will help more than anything else to relieve the congestion on the tenuis grounds of the city generally-

B lien a game grows in popularity as rapidly as has lawn tennis, it becomes obvious that a handicapping system which was adequate to its needs twenty years ago must require revision to meet its present day requirement©, writes E. P Johnson in “The Ladies’ Field’’ Tho object of all handicapping is, of course, ter make it possible for a really good player to meet a weak one on more or less level terms with cut- either excessively crippling the giver or pauperising the receiver of odds, and in this lawn tennis presents great diffi-culties—-possibly greater than any other gam© in which a handicap system obtains. The method of scoring at golf probably conduces to the best handicap results: it is possible to concede even a stroke a hole, not only without paralysis. but the stroke-giver may. on occasion. be forced to produce a super shot which he might not have been led to attempt if he had been playing the hole on level terms. Thus he may, if he be so minded, accrue benefit to himself, and the game may be profitable to both short and long handicaps. At Badminton the fact that only the server can score enable® the backmarker to take risks and to go all out for winning shots so long as he retains the se:vice, and he reed not play for safety when, hie opponent is.serving to him. Tins n, of courv. in favour of the conceder of odds, and. given a great discrepancy in the form of the players, the better one will almost invariably win ; but it is an educative game for the weaker player who will encounter his ojyponent’a finest shots and learn to return and to imitate them. Tn lawn tennis this is quite otherwise.. A plnver on. tho owe mark cannot play against one receiving a long start with any pleasure or with profit either to himself or to his opponent. Take, for example, a match between owe 15— 3 and receive 30—3, these being usually the extremes of handicap in any ordinary tournament. The owe 15—3 player is hopelessly crippled ; he ran never use his brilliant or subtle shots— the possession of which have presumably gained him his back-mark-ing position— as the element of risk is too great.: and ho must become a mere machine for returning the ball, relying for victory on the mistakes of his opponent. There is also the question of luck to he taken into consideration. If a net cord hall is a nuisance in a level match it is a calamity to a backmarker in a. handicap—bail bounces are the some—and umpires, especially those who are likely to lie so philanthropic as

to take on this sort of match. arc human and likely to err. There is also a tendency among inexperienced umpires to consider that any doubtful point should ho given in favour of the weaker player, hut this is obviously unfair, as a stroke is worth three or four times as much to him as it would he to his stronger opponent. Lurk cannot, of course, be taken into consider-

atiou in awarding hondic.ips. hut it is a factor which enhances the chances of receive 30—-3 and adds a further burden to owe 35—3. To receive such very long odds i? also extremely demoralising; a 30—3 player may win n match through sheer weight of points and the (from his point of view) negative fact that his opponent cannot play his own game with the odds so much against him. Tt is quite safe to assert that to bring the two extremes of lawn tennis form together profitably is impossible. The number of handicap players has increased euorryonsly during recent years; handicaps of 30—3 are frequent —even 30—4 has occasionally* to be allotted. and the adoption of lawn tennis by public parks will certainly tend ,still more to swell their ranks in seaside and holiday resort tournaments. It is on this account that the Lawn Tennis Association have had tho subject under discussion, and their new ruling is to abolish all handicaps of over 30. If a player is not good enough tc win with a start of 30, ho is not good enough to win nt all. This resolution was passed at the Lawn Tennis Association meeting with very littJc opposition, and it is to be hoped that ’t will not be regarded by the tennis-playing public as being in any way intended a? a discouragement to handicap players. The tennis world owes much to its giants, such as Mrs Lambert Chambers and Colonel Kingscote, but it owes a far far greater debt of gratitude to the humble handicap players. "Without their support tournaments could not be held, and this is true, not only of handicap but of level events. Tn the open events at any tournament certainly not more than a sixth of the competitors have the least chance of getting oven a third prize, but the remaining five-sixths show an admirable keenness of spirit in the way that they pay in their entrance fees for the glory and possible education of being slaughtered by a bored opponent in the early rounds. The crack players ulio amass quantities of prize orders in the course of a successful season, are enabled to win this amount solely through the generous support of the handicap players, but I do not think this fact is sufficiently remembered or appreciated by them. The extension of handicaps to more than thirty has, however, tended to exploit the worse handicap players at the expense of the better, and in lawn tennis, ns in other matters, the middleclass have not received their due consideration. While it is expedient to encourage all handicap players, it is specially desirable in the case of those who show most promise. Players on the 3-6 to 15-3 mark have no chance in an open single, and during the last few years it has been almost impossible for them to win a handicap* The difference between 3-6 and 30-3 works out at an additional one or two sixths to its face value, and it is unlikely that 3-6 players can concede so much, and in any case- it is extremely bad for their play to do so. Handicap events should be regarded not only as competitions for prizes, but as a school for improving the standard of play, and flier© is nothing educative in the attempt to concede such lengthy odds; it has, on the contrary, a lowering effect. The result of this new legislation will undoubted!v be to increase the number of two-class handicaps. There is a prevalent idea that to divide an event into two classes increases the number of matches, but that is erroneous. The number of matches remains the same, and there should be less blocking of events by individual players -which is the anathema of referees. The only possible increase is in the prize list, but T am sure that nil concerned would prefer that the value of each prize should be decreased, and Ibo available total redi»tributed so as to include two classes, and so further a movement which must be entirely favourable to the progress of the game.