TENNIS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17037, 10 May 1923, Page 2

TENNIS

Ob all tka Courts

"Where Is Our Sportsmanship? was the heading of an article in the last Sydney “ Referee ” by Mr Claude Corbett, who wrote:—Why is it that in Australia there is generally a violent agitation on the financial side when it conies to the sending abroad of sporting, teams? Boiled down, the absolute reason why Australia is not going to be represented in this year’s Davis Cup is because of the fear that the team will not be strong enough to reach the final, and consequently the gate-money. Is that not poor .sportsmanship? Because of the success -of previous Davis Cup representatives from Australia, the controlling lawn tennis body has .£3OOO in its coffers - enough to send a team this year ana another in 1924. I talked with ornoi the trustees of the fund. He said it was not the function of the council to spend money on a team which would have no chance of reaching the final That, to my way of thinking, is very narrow. Australasians are not such poor sportsmen that they will only compete when they have a big chance of success. It is the other way about. Where would we be with the Olympic Games if such a spirit pervaded the whole athletic world ? Last year England caused a lot of uncomplimentary discussion by not sending a team across to America. The attitude was condemned all over the world where true sportsmen were concerned. The question of whether we are going to win or not should never enter into Australian calculations. I know from personal experience that there are sportsmen in Sydney big enough to dip deeply into their pockets to ensure Australian representation at the hub of the world’s sport, wherever it might be at the moment. “ An exhibition of tennis by G. PaL terson, P. O’Hara Wood, J. B. Hawkes and H. C. Wertheim was given under the auspices of the Ballarat Tennis Club at- the City Oval on Saturday in ideal conditions, on a specially-prepared turf court, which Mr Patterson declared to be equal to any Davis Cup court that could be obtained anywhere” (says the Ballarat “Courier.”) “It was the first time tennis on such a scale had been played on a grass court in Ballarat. in booking alone £l2O was taken. The doubles, with Patterson and O’Hara Wood on one side, and Hawkes and Wertheim on the other, provided spectacular tennis. The first set consisted of 10 games. The scores were level at 3 all. Then H&wkes and Wertheim won two games in succession. They lost the next, but won the next set. Tbe second set took longer to play, and provided some line exchanges from tbe back of the court, and close to the net. The scores were level at 3 all, 5 all and b all, but the next two games went to Hawkes and Wertheim. The third set saw Patterson at his best. Hawkes and Wertheim won the first game, lost the second and won the third, But Patterson and Wood ran out with live games in succession. The fourth set also provided eight games. Paterson and Wood Avon the first two, making a win of seven games in succession, but Hawkes and Wertheim then wrested a game from them after a good tussle. Three times deuce was called, and then Ha\f*kes and Wertheim gained tho advantage and the game. From then onward they were not beaten, and took six games in succession, thus winning thee sets out- of four. The residts Avere: — Singles: Patterson defeated Hawkes, 6-1, 6-4; O’Hara Wood defeated "Wertheim, 0-3. Doubles: HaAvkes and Wertheim defeated Patterson and Wood. 6-4. 8-6. 2-6, 6-2.”

It Avill scarcely be gainsaid that lawn tennis balls are alike, or nearly alike, all over the word, says “ American LaAvn Tennis.” But they are not. American balls are more lively than those of other countries. They arc also, Avhich is not brought out *n the recent discussions, larger and heavier than other balls. When an American player goes to England or France oi the Riviera and plays in tournaments, he must use the balls of the country in which the meeting takes place. When international players come here they must use our balls; just as when we send a team to NeAv Zealand the members* of that team play with halls approved by the Australasian L.T.A. In the one case the half is unexpected livelv ; in the other it appears to be dead. The players must accustom themselves to the different balls, and when they return home they must undo thi9 work. One can imagine what an outcry there would be if court dimensions differed, and players from one country had to accustom themselves to the larger or smaller courts of the land t-hev visit. It is curious to recall just how American ball standards came to differ from those of other countries, as Avell as from the previous American standards. Some fiA-e or six years ago ; t AA r as discovered by an alert official, whose duties were to keep tab on American balls, that the latter were a trifle larger and heavier than was require I bv the regulations. It was » condition that confronted ns. so we seized the bull bA r the horns and changed the

rule to conform with the fact. Other lawn tennis playing nations stood pat. So there was divergence in the ways. Now it is brought home to us that our balls have been getting Ih’elier and livelier. The next thing is to decide whether we shall call a halt or stay where we are. Which shall it be?

THE DAVIS CUP.

“AUSTRAL’S.” VIEW OF THE POSITION. So much lias been said, hastily, and by those whose only desire has been to say something, and to say it before everybody else, that it is well that one should state the two main principles on which the Davis Cup team discussion turns, writes “ Austral ” in the “ Referee.” These ai*e, first,' shall Australia send a team, no matter what may be its strength, simply so that it may be said that Australia was there? and, second, if this principle is not accepted to its full strength, just .where shall the Lawn Tennis Association of Australasia stop in its descent down the standard of skill to get a team ? Taking the first principle, one can see great force in such an argument. It has the virtue of clearness. It is based on this deeper principle that Australia has taken so prominent a place in the field of sport that it should bo represented at all cost every time there is an international contest. Are we prepared to go as far as that? And where does it lead us ? We are to send a- team every year till we recover the Oup, and then do so after we lose it again. That means that Australia is to spend, if need be, nearly £2OOO a year on its players going to America, or wherever else the Cup may be held. It may be that in some years we could not get a team that could win even its first round, which would almost certainly, under the new rules, be played in the country of the holder. Still, Ave would haA*e to send a team simply so that “ Australia should he there.” This sounds very fine, but is it practicable? It is a good rule not to commence any enterprise unless one can see that it can be carried through. Assume that after a couple of years our funds should be exhausted. Would the public subscribe £2OOO every year to send a team of tennis players to America? The answer is certain, it would not, and the first principle will not work. Then Ave have to consider the second principle. Is it better to use the money in hand now wisely, or to spend it at once? If we wait each time till we can get a team that has a chance of getting through, say, at least three rounds, then the players A\ r e send aa - ill get good practice. Those of them who are colts will improve by that practice. We will have educated them, so that in the ensuing years av© Avill have them able to go far higher in skill. Take as an instance Avhat would happen this year if, say, Hawkes, M’lnnes. Schlesinger. and Stuart were sent. How far would that team go? It would certainly defeat Hawaii, and just as certainly it would be beaten by Japan, if, as appears certain, ShimisiU, and Kumagae be abailable. What, then, would the members of our team do? They could not themselves afford to wait in America till the American championships were played. We could not afford to keep them there for a course of tennis education. They AA'ould have to return, and what would A\-e have to show for our £ISOO or more? About three weeks’ practice and two matches for two or more of the team, arid the general public crying out on the degeneration of Australian play. Is this Avorth £1500? In addition, we know they could get better matches in Australia. Noav consider the other side of the argument. Let us assume that Ave wait till we can get a team in which at least one player shall be of tire strength of Anderson, Patterson, Brookes or O’Hara Wood. There will be three colts to go with that- player. The team will haA r e a lair chance of reaching the challenge round. Then two good results will arise. The colts and the leading player Avill get much good practice, including probably the opportunity of playing in the American. championship, and our funds will he replenished, and A\ _ e will be able to send more teams away without calling on the general public at all. Then Are shall not be likely, as av© might in the other event, to find that when Are hare our four best players available we haA-e no funds left to send them away. Trust the public, it may be answered, to then supply those funds. They can do that to-day if they wish, and then the reserve fund Avill not be depleted. Talk is cheap, hut it takes money to send players to America. 'Hie papers A\'ho to-day talk most subscribed nothing last year. Now all this argument Avas clear to any thinking person. The matter had been entrusted to men fully seized of the men keenest in Australia on laArn

tennis, and keenest on seeing Australia worthily represented, not only this year; but in future years. They think for the future. When Anderson was afi length reached by the newspapers we find that he says first ; ” Tt is news to me that I am not available. I told the association that 1 was available.” Two hours later, when asked what his terms were, and, be it remembered he had not said a word about terms in his first telegram, he eaid: —“ My terms are payment by the association ef the expense of providing a substitute in my business.” That is, he asks terms which he know perfectly well are impossible. He had been told so definitely by the Council of the Association. After all the newspaper talk then of rooting the council out lock, stock and barrel by irresponsible journalists, av© find that the association could do no other than it did. It could not accept Anderson’s terms, and still send him aAvay as an amateur. Therefore, it said, and said rightly, that he warn not available.