CANTERBURY’S FIRST TEN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16908, 6 December 1922, Page 2

CANTERBURY’S FIRST TEN.

G. Ollivier is really in a distinct grade above any orher of the Canterbury men, and some of his past performances against visiting players indicate that given the. opportunity for practice against players of his own class for a few months, lie would be close indeed to the top flight in the world. His ground shots are very accurate, and his forehand is pretty severe,

although to an onlooker he ma§- not seem to be driving a fast ball. The secret lies in the beautiful timing of this stroke. "Whilst verv safe, Ollivier’s backhand is usually more or less de-

fensive, but he makes use of a slow backhand stroke across court very effectively as a. passing shot. He plays mainly from the back of the court in a single, and when he does come up to the net it is usually the case that he has already established such an advantage in the rally, that he alreadv has the noint more than half von. Overhead he is rather sale than brilliant, short lobs being placed just out of his opponent's reach and winning the point just as surely as the most terrific AFLoughlan smash. Ollivier hardly makes full use of his height in serving, and his average' service is not outstanding, but when hard pressed lie will resort to his “ American ” which kicks away to the backhand of a righthanded opponent in a very disconcerting manner.

D. F. Glanville, who is now ranked second on the Canterbury list, has improved a great deal during the past year. This improvement is almost entirely due to Ills greater steadiness, which now seems to be the outstanding feature of his game. His forehand drive is just a straight hit, the ball receiving very little spin On the backhand side his drives carry just a trace of cut or slice-. His driv ing is not particularly severe unless a clear opening is presented, and generally the trajectory is fairly high above

the net, which tends to keep Glanville’s proportion of netted halls very low. When attempting a passing shot, however, he keeps the ball low. and hits rather harder, often making a fast drive just skim the net. His volleying is fairly sure, hut in a single he generally eschews the net unless he lias an opportunity presented which s too good to be missed. Overhead. Glanvillc hits fairly hard, and as a result he is somewhat erratic in this branch of the game, but at times, when he is on his game, he makes brilliant smashes. He has quite a weak service for the second player in Canterbury. A point that must strike Glanville’s opponents is his ability to start well. Often, with practicallv no preliminary knock up. Olnnville will be playing his top right from the start., and whilst his opponent will he endeavouring to get his own game in working order, Glanvillc will he establishing quit© a handy lead. (To be Continued.) PEACH BEATS PATTERSON, When the crowd was departing at the end of the day after the matches between Victoria and New South Wales (says an Australian writer) the sole topic of discussion was the sterling play of Norman Peach against Gerald Patterson. In the first set Patterson, who had shown superlative form in his eaflidr match against

Sieler, played all over Peach. He took the first set to love, and made the game look easy. In the second set Peach got going. Patterson was sending down some of his most severe services. To take them Peach had to run to the stop nets. But from there, while almost leaning on the fence, he made returns from his backhand that sent the ball right outside the post supporting the net. One such return fsipnt the ball about half the height of the post, and it landed just inside the right-hand side line, within a yard of the base-line. Patterson, meanwhile, had run into the net. and could only turn his head round to watch the ball strike inside the court.

With many other returns Peach got the balls right to Patterson’s feet as he rushed in. and Patterson netted many attempts to half-volley. When he did reach such returns on the volley. Patterson made some splendid volley’s deep into the right court. Peach, however, played so well that lie took the first, three games of the second set, and the crowd cheered his plucky efforts. Then Patterson won three in succession, while Peach struggled pluckily. He improved all his strokes in the next two games, and, to the intense delight of his team-mates, assembled at the back, scored the next two games and the second set. It was then expected that Patterson would assert himself. He tried to do so, but Peach answered every call. His successes had given him confidence. Patterson was getting puzzled by the fine deliveries. In the third set Peach took the opening two games ; but Pat-

tersou responded by taking the next three. Peach scored one more. Patterson ran to 5—3 with Peach to serve. It looked all over, for Peach had. lost his last three service gameSj and Patterson had another service to take the set at 6— -4, at least. Peach was still playing for a win on every stroke. He was placing abeve anything he has shown. He evened at I alj. and then ran into the lead oi his own service. Patterson served, and was beaten. He served again, and lost another print. Then a rally came, and Patterson’s'volley to Peach’s backhand line seemed to many to go out; but the umpire considered it good. It * would have made the score 0 40. Patterson won the next point, and then sent down a severe service, deep to Peach’s backhand with immense break and “jump.” Peach threw his whole weight at the ball, sent it whizzing to Patterson’s feet, though close in. The latter netted r< difficult low volley. Peach thus won. 0-6. 6-4, 7-5. Although greatly nle&sed. Peach showed no undue elation, and did not throw his racket up high in the air. as well he might, if he had followed bad examples. This is his third defeat of Patterson since the latter returned from England in 1919. It would be foolish to say he is as great a player as Patterson; but he certainly is a great fighter and a great tactician. His persistent attack on Patterson’s backhand, coupled with his severe driving in reply to Patterson’s best services, are worthy of great praise. Also they are worthy of imitation. Miss Nancy Curtis’ withdrawal from the New Zealand championships will be greatly regretted by tennis players throughout New Zealand. Probably Miss Curtis has been overdoing tennis, and sh e had her work cut out to beat Mrs Melody iu a recent ranking challenge. Miss Curtis will make a big difference to the "Wellington team at the championship, for the Wellington ladies have won the banner twice running for the province.