TENNIS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16819, 23 August 1922, Page 2

TENNIS

On all the Courts

The next big tennis match will be the challenge tie for the Davis Oup between the United States, who regained the cup at Auckland in 1820. and Australia. The match will he commenced on September 1. next Friday week. The American team has not yet been announced, and the same may be said of the Australian team with Anderson’s state of heatlh a mystery, O'Hara Wood’s arm likely to give out at any time, and Patterson the only sound member of the party. On his form re- • cently, it is quite on the cards that Pattersou will not he beaten in the Davis Cup singles, but it is very hard to gauge the form of the American defenders. Tilden’s star undoubtedly is declining, and he has been beaten bv Johnston and Richards. Johnston appears to be the only certainty for the team at the present moment, and on his form (ho has narrowly beaten Anderson within the last three weeks) Patterson has more than an even chance of defeating him. Some idea of the form of the Americans can be gleaned from an article in the latest San Francisco “ Chronicle files byRobert Kinsey, one of the foremost players on the Pacific Coast. The national singles championship at Philadelphia in September, he writes, will he a very interesting affair. Rivalry and competition will be intense because of the many visiting foreign players competing in the Davis Chip piny, and also for the reason that at least three men j who have* two wins on the challenge bowl will enter in the play. These men are Richard Norris Williams, of Boston, William M. Johnston, of San Francisco. and William T. Tilden, of Philaj delphia . the present title holder. Close Upon tbe above follow Vincent Richards, who may upset the dope, James O. Anderson, the Australian player, who defeated William? in the national last year, and Gerald Patterson, who has just won the so-called world’s ehampion- | ship at Wimbledon. Any of these men have an outside chance to win the national. but Johnston and Tilden are the favourites for the trophy. One very important point must be considered this year, and that is the ceding of the draw, which will mean that competition will he on an absolutely even basis with all players having an even break in the draw. If Richards should draw in the same half with Tilden, this match will be a real contest, for Richards plays with great confidence against his doubles partner, and should have a very fair chance to win. The. reason for this U that “ Vinnie ” has an excellent chance of studying Tilden’s game while playing with him, so that when they meet in competition he is able to take advantage of every opening. That is one reason why Richards has already defeated him on two occasions this year. Many stories have been circulated that Tilden has gone back or is in a. slump from too much tennis, which, has brought about several defeats to him this year. This can hardly he the case, as Tilden has a sound game, being one of the steadiest back-court players to-day. He started play when about seven years of age and his improvement has been gradual through, twenty years of play, and there i* little reason to believe that he has gone back. It is probable that he is a little stale, requiring a few weeks rest, which he usually takes during the middle of the playing season

Johnston, on the other hand, has never been in better playing form , and th > only requirement is that he hold that condition throughout the playing season by intelligent playing, taking a rest during certain periods to prevent his going stale. If Johnston plays Tilden on an equal basis he has an excel lent chance of lifting the cup for San Francisco. This is the opinion of Kin sey, who is well acquainted with the various styles of the players in his own country, and if he gives Johnston x good chance against Tilden. the prospects of Australia lifting the cup cannot be very hopeless. At this distance it looks as if it might depend entirely on the doubles.

From -well authenticated sources in New York it is said that the Davis Cup Committee has derided upon three of the players who will make up the team. They are William T. Tilden, of Philadelphia, William M. Johnston, of San Francisco and R. Norris "Williams, of Boston. Johnston and Tilden, it ’s said, will devote their play exclusively to the singles, while the fourth member of the team wil] 1 e selected as a partner in the doubles to Williams, who also will be held leady for emergency in the singles. The. fourth choice considered to rest l>etween Vincent Richards, No. 3 ir. the ranking, and national junior champion, and Watson M. Washburn, of New York, who partnered with Williams in the doubles lest year. A further line to form is contained ir the following dispatch from Los Angeles on July 4:—-The Kinsey brothers. Boh and Howard, retained the Pacific Coast doubles tennis championship when they defeated William M. Johnston and Clarence J. (*‘ Peek ”) Griffin. 7-9, 8-6, 5-7. 6-2, 6-4 here today The match was featured by the, indivi dual playing of Johnston and the team work of the Kinseys, fn the early part of the contest the Kinseys undertook t.( play Johnston, but bis terrific driving and volleying resulted in bis team having the edge at the end of the first three sets. A ten-minute rest after the third set apparently was helpful to the Kinseys, while having no appreciable effect on Johnston and Griffin. Tn the last two sets, the Kinseys picked on Griffin with great success. Tri neither of these last two frames did Johnston and Griffin show the skill and that they had in the first three. The result of the game was a great surprise to the large crowd, as Johnston and Griffin were formerly national champions. and earlier this year had twice defeated V . T. Tilden and Vincent Richards, present national champions Many of those who saw the vietor-v of the Kinseys to-day had considered Johnston and Griffin the strongest doubles team in America.

The scratching of the British Isles team for the semi-final of the Davis Cup was the subjeep of the following message by the Associated Press to American newspapers: —The British Lawn Tennis Assocation decision to withdraw from competition for the Davis Cup, announced yesterday, has created a sensation among tennis devotees. Regret over this action is universal, but while this attitude in some cases is based on sharp disagree-

ment with the association’s action, it takes form elsewhere in deploring Great Britain’s present lack of enough finst-rate players to make a team without two outstanding meu—Major A. R. P. Kingscote and Randolph Lyoett, who, it was said, would be unablo to make the trip to America, if they should have won the preliminary tournament against Spain. The “ Daily Telegraph’s ” tennis expert has this to say :—“ This rather inglorious end to Great Britain’s Davis Cup campaign of 1922 reveals a rather serious executive blunder somewhere. Great Britain, ought not to have issued a challenge and played the first round if further purusit of that challenge depended upon the business affairs of two men. . When countries like Czechoslovakia and Italy—comparative strangers in file international arena—can send teams abroad, it is a thousand pities that the oldest lawn tennis country should withdraw suddenly. If Kingscote and Lycett could not go to America three or four other players could have been found. Their job might have Keen a<s hopeless in prospect as that of ItaJv or Czecho-Slovakia, but it would at least have been undertaken with courage and camaraderie.” “ Sporting Life ” says:—“ British tennis is badly deficient in players of really first-class ability. Kingscote and Lycett are the only two men who would have had any real chance against the United States. There is evidently a need for some organised scheme to encourage and develop youthful talent.” American files just to hand contained the following dispatch by Miss Elizabeth Ryan, the international tennis player, on the result of the LanglenMailory match:—“By ’winning the world’s tennis championship, Mdlle Suzanne Lcglen has once more shown herself the finest tennis player in the world. 1 do not base this statement just on her defeat of Mrs Molla Mallory. In the final round she exhibited what I boldly say no one has ever seen surpassed. The French girl played the best tennis I have ever seen since she defeated Lambert-Chambers in that wonderful match in 1919. From the start until the last point she took complete control of the court, and even when attacked by Mrs Mallory she returned a Roland for an Oliver, and made beautiful winning strokes off the best that the American had to offer her. She was superb in her victory, and looked every inch the champion she is. The applause she received from the great crowd of British sportsmen w’as tremendous. The match was put on very late, but when the two ladies walked into the court the excitement in the stands was intense and their reception was all one could have wished. Although the match must have been a tremendous ordeal for Mdlle Lenglen, she looked very happy and did not seem the least bit nervous. By these words of praiee of Mdlle Leglen 1 do not mean to belittle the American champion, but lam convinced that the former is in a class by herself. I saw the match between Mrs Mallory and Mrs Beamish, and was convinced by the former’s excellent exhibition that she could do what she liked with the hall, but when the play was against the French champion it was a different story. J know 6he played as well as she was able. In the first game Mrs Mallory struck me as being nervous. Mdlle Lenglen, making the service easily, won a love game. In the second game. Airs Mallory seemed to collect herself and won with the help of the net cord stroke. Mrs Mallory, however, after taking the fifth game of this set. tailed to secure another during the match. It was interesting to note that Mdlle Lenglen waited until the eighth game to make the first excursion to the net; it was also interesting to note that she won this game. The second set is remarkable only for the absolute supremacy of Mdlle Lenglen. Mrs Mallory, at most times, hit the ball actually harder, hut Mdlle Lenglen always placed it so her opponent was on the defensive. I have had a wonderful lesson to-day in placing Mdlle Lenglen seemed to be able to place the ball on a dime when she wanted to.”

Airs Mallory, on the other hand, was not satisfied with the result. Speaking to a pressman, she said : “ I am sure I did not ploy one-third as well against Mdlle Lenglen as I played in New A ork, but she played better against me than I have ever seen her play before. She was heaps better than against Miss M Kane or Miss Ryan. it. is when Mdlle Lenglen has, the upper hand that she plays so well ; it would have been a different story had I got the first two games. But it could be seen how J was playing when the French woman got the first game by my beating myself, in hitting out widely on the first four shots. That is not my game. Many people tell me they thought I was nervous because 1 seemed to them not to have the same control oyer the ball as T had against Mrs Beamish, the day before. But it was not nervousness. I simply felt from the beginning, even when we were just knocking over a few halls, that 1 could not hit the ball and was not on my game. Perhaps .1 was over-anxious. I don’t think, however, that a match of this importance should have been put on at seven o’clock in the evening, after we had been waiting about four hours and were not even expecting tc have to play on Saturday at all. The light was very had : the gun was low down in the eyes on one side and heavy shadows were ever parts of the court. —cast by the stands. I am not satisfied with the score md the verdict, and my chief anxiety now is to play Mdlle Lenglen again ;D the earliest possible moment. My suggr tion is that she come over to our national championships in America to play, in the hope that- we again, because now each of us has one victory on the grass to our credit. Sitting around waiting hour after hour in the cold was no preparation for this match. I do not consider Saturday a fair test ; many othes bavr* said so, too. I thought the great crowds of English spectators were perfectly line. And 1 hope to come back again next year and then to meet Lenglen again. But as the French Davis Cup players are going

to America to play the Australians at* Boston in August, why does Mdlle Lenglen not come also? Then we need not wait a full year for another match. My one wish is that Mdlla Lenglen will take up this expression of my desires as a challenge.” Mdlla Lenglen declared that she was return ing to France immediately after the Wimbledon tournament, and would go to Dieppe for a few days' rest. Shu said she was feeling very jolly after her victory, and that it was a very good match indeed. “ T had to keep all niv strength for this match,” she went on, ” and I played very much better than I did against Miss M’Kane or Miss Ryan, and so, as I had been careful. [ was perfectly well on Saturday, and had all my strength. I was not a bit nervous. T think Miss M’Kane and Miss Ryan the better players, don’t you?” A very different coraplextion is put in the American papers on the painfid incident that followed tile match. The correspondent of the San Francisco “ Chronicle ” cabled:—Sensational reports in circulation to-day alleging that something in the nature of a seen© took place between Mrs Moll a Bjurstedt Mallory and Suzanne Lenglen immediately after their champion tennis match on Saturday led to revelation of wliat they really said after the match. This is what actually took place: Mrs Mallory, after losing the match, 6-2, (5-0, ran to her French opponent and smilingly congratulated her upon her victory. After shaking hands Mdlle Lenglen said : “ Now you see I really was ill when I played you in America/’ Ivlrs Mallory replied: “ You did to me to-day what I did to you in New York.’* In an examination of the reasons why English lawn tennis has lagged in recent years, a rather painfully frequent subject with English writers, Mr F. R. Burrow, the famous referee, says : “ The real reason why other nations have gone a head of us is that their players concentrate all their energies on lawn tennis and make it, as long as they go on playing, the mam object of their lives. Whereas our players, fond though they are of the game, do not devote the whole of their existence to playing it, but have other interests in life. I daresay, for example, that the eommitte which selects our international team may, from a purely national point of view, regret that Max Woosnam should be a firet-class cricketer, golfer, and football player, because if instead of playing these other games he had devoted himself solely to lawn tennis, he might have been a sort of “ super-champion'’ at the game. But does anybody else regret that Woosnam should have distributed his energies over the four games, and probably others? Very few, I should think, and most certainly not Woosnam himself. Nobody would be more pleased than I to see England again producing players to beat all comers; but that pleasure would be dearly bought if I felt that the winners were men who lived only to play lawn tennis, to the exclusion of all other interests.”