LAWN TENNIS

Waikato Independent, Volume XXX, Issue 2312, 18 March 1930, Page 6

LAWN TENNIS

CAMBRIDGE COMPETITIONS

FENCOURT WINS A GRADE

B GRADE TO TRINITY.

The Cambridge sub-Assoeiation ’s

competitions came to a close on Saturday last, when perfect weather conditions prevailed. The final in the A grade competitions, between Cambridge and Foncourt, provoked much interest, and proved a very closelyeontested match, Foncourt winning by 14 sets to 10. These teams have been well to the fore all through the season, and it was recognised that there would be little between them at the end of the season. Though the town club has a big membership to draw from, Fencourt Club includes some of the most prominent players of the Cambridge Association. Wo heartily congratulate the country club on win-

ning the competition. The B grade final did not provoke much interest. Trinity was al ready .assumed of the cup, having gone through with an unbeaten record, and they had an easy task in their final match against Fencourt B.

Trinity has an excellent team this season, that has shown consistently ■good form throughout the season. The club has a good membership, and players have been keen. They well deserve their win, and wo congratulate them oh having done so well, w hich is all the more gratifying seeing that last season the club was weak. Should the club continue as it.has done of late, it ■should enter for the A grade competitions next season. St. Paul’s, with only one boss, were runners-up for the competitions.

A GRADE. FENCOURT 14 V. CAMBRIDGE 10. Fencourt carried too many colours for Cambridge and won narrowly by 14 sets to 10 (132 games to 117 games). The majority of the games were closely ■contested, with but two or three panics deciding the issue. The following are the details, Cambridge mentioned first: —

Men’s .Singles: Clow v. Swayne, I—7; J. Haworth v. Jamieson, 7 —6; Wilson v. Fcisst, I—7;1 —7; L. Haworth v. Cubis, 7 —6; S. Baker v. Jamieson, 7 —l; Watson v. Swayne, 4—7. Ladies’ Singles:-Miss Short v. Mrs Swayne, 2—6,* Miss Armstrong v . Miss Fcisst, 5 —6; Mrs Nickle v. Miss Jemieson, o —6; Mrs Ward and Mrs Cubis, <j—4; Miss Cowley v. Mrs Jamieson, 4 —6; Miss McCarrol v. Miss Qualtrough, 6—4.

Ladies’ Doubles: Misses Short and Armstrong v. Mrs Swayne and Mrs *Cubis, 6 —4; Mesdames Nickle and Ward v. Miss Feisst and Mrs Jamieson, I—6;1 —6; Misses Cowley and McCarrol v. Miss Qualtrough and Mrs Jamieson,

Men’s Doubles: Clow and Haworth v. Swayne and Jamieson, 5 —7; Wilson and Haworth v. Cubis and Feisst, 7 —2; Baker and Watson v. Swayne and Jamieson, 7—5.

Cambined Doubles: J. Haworth and Miss Short v. Swayne and Mrs Swayne, 3—7; Clow and Mrs Nickle v Jamieson and Miss Jamieson, 5 —7; Wilson, and Miss Armstrong v. Feisst and Miss Feisst, 7 —4; Watson and Mrs Ward v. Cubis aJid Mrs Cubis, 3 —7; Haworth nnd Miss Cowley v. Jamieson and Mrs •Jamieson, 6—7; Baker and. Miss McT’arrol v. Swayne and Miss Qualtrough, j —4.

Totals: Fcncourt, ]4 sets (132 irames); Cambridge, 10 sets (117

games)

j B GRADE. TRINITY 24 V. FENCOtfRT 0. The winners extended themselves and is the scores indicate they notched

every set, a result that is rather unique in the tennis history of Cambridge at, least. Many of* the games were very close and proved interesting. The following aic the details, Trinity mentioned first: —

Men’s Singles: G. Williams v. T. Jamieson, 7—4; H. Simpson v. A. Con7__i ; D. MeCalhie v. A. Futon, 7 —6; A. Clothier v. C. Feisst, ( 7—l; S. Nicholson v. T. Bourke, 7 —l; G. Hay v. J. Wattam, 7 —3. Ladies Singles: Miss E. Price v. Miss E. Fcisst, (i—2; Miss A. Levesque v. Mrs Simpson, (i—s; Mrs Williams v. Miss M. Jamieson, (5 —0; Miss E. Lynds v. Mrs Bourlcc, o—3; Mrs Clothier v. Miss Voyle, (s—l; Miss L. Stubbing v. Miss Swayne, G—3. Men’s Doubles: Williams and Simpson v. T. Jamieson and C. Feisst, i 1; McCathic .and Hav v. Conner and Paton, 7 —6; Clothier and Nicholson v. Bourke and Wattam, 7 —4. Ladies’ Doubles: Misses E. Price and A.' Levesque v. Miss E. Feisst and Mrs Simpspn, G—4; Mrs Williams and Mrs Clothier v. Miss M. Jamieson and Mrs Bourke, 6—2; Misses E. Lynds and L. Stubbing v. Misses Vovlc and Swayne, 6 —5 Combined Doubles: Miss A. Levesque and G. Williams v. Miss E. Fcisst and T. Jamieson, 7 —l; Miss E. Price and H. Simpson v. Mrs Simpson and A, Conner, 7 —2; Mrs Williams and D. McCathie v. M. Jamieson and Paton, 7 —5; Mrs Clothier and A. Clothier v. Miss Voyle and C. Feisst, 7 — 2; Miss E. Lynds and S. Nicholson v. Mrs Bourke and T. Bourke, 7 —5; Miss L. Stubbing and G. Hny v. Miss Swayne and J. Wattam, 7 —6. Totals: Trinity, 24 sets (.159 games); Foncourt, 0 sets (73 games).

LEAMINGTON V. ST. PAUL’S. On Saturday afternoon last the above clubs met in a friendly match on the Leamington courts. St. Paul’s was only able to send a very weak team, seven of its best team being unable to play, while Leamington was also minus one or two of its best team. However, a very enjoyable match was played, ending in an easy win for the home team by 16 sets (124 games) to 8 sets pIOO games). The Leamington ladies provided a bountiful and appetising afternoon tea.

Following are the results, Learnington players mentioned first: — Men’s Singles: A. G. Thomas v. F. Penn, 6 —4; E. Richmond v. J. Keelcy, 6—5; H. Richmond v. R. Easter, G—4; A. R. Thomas v. G. Vinall, 3 —G; J. Thompson v. H. Bycroft, 4—6; B. Hall v. Les. Bycroft, 6 —3. Ladies’ Singles: Miss J. Dagg v. Miss E. Wood, I—6; Miss E. Billings v. Miss J. Arnold, G —3; Miss G. Bradshaw v. Miss T. Litchwark, 6 —2; Miss J. Richmond v. Miss M. Sutcliffe, 6—l; Miss G. Tripp v. Miss M. Jenkins, 6 —o; Miss E. Schwass v. Mrs Linsley, O—G.0 —G.

Men’s Doubles: A. G. and A. R. Thomas v. F. Penn and J. Keclcy, 7 —3; E. and H. Richmond v. R. Easter and G. Vinall, 7—3; J. Thompson and B. Hall v. H. and L. Bvcroft, 3—7. Ladies’ Doubles: Misses J. Dagg and E. Billings c. Misses E. Wood and J. Arnold, o—3; Misses G. Bradshaw and J. Richmond- v. Misses V. Litchwark and M. Sutcliffe, G—l; Misses J. Tripp and E. Schwass v. Miss M. Jenkins and Mrs Linsley, 3 —G. Combined Doubles: A. R. Thomas and Miss J. Dagg v. F. Penn and Miss E. Wood, 7 —2; A. G. Thomas and Miss E. Billings v. J, Keeley and > Miss J. Arnold, 5—7; E. Richmond and Miss Bradshaw v. R. Easter and Miss T. Litchwark, 7—3; H. Richmond and Miss Richmond v. G. Vinall and Miss M. Sutcliffe, 7 —5; J. Thompson and Miss Tripp v. H. Bycroft and Miss M. Jenkins, 7 —5; B. Hall and Miss Schwass v. L. Bycroft and Mrs Linsley, ,3—7.