LAWN TENNIS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 75, Issue 206, 1 September 1932, Page 5

LAWN TENNIS

THE AMERICAN CHAMPION CONQUEROR OF WIMBLEDON. VINES’ TERRIFIC SERVICE. LONDON, July 8. The lawn tennis championships were concluded on the courts of the AU England Club at Wimbledon, on July 2, in the presence of the King and Queen. Their Majesties had attended on several days and had shown themselves keenly interested spectators. H. E. Vines, winner of the men’s singles, had been beaten previously at Queen’s Club by H. A. Hopman, the Australian, but he could not have been then in anything like his best form. The Times had previously remarked of the American: “Vines has many amazing strokes, delivered with power and speed such as few players have ever achieved, but in the midst of great activity and accuracy he is liable to lapse into sins of sluggishness and carelessness that are well nigh incredible.” ■When Vines met Crawford in the semi-final round, the match lasted only forty minutes, the Australian being beaten at 6 —2, 6—l, 6 —3. The Times then commented:—“ln this match Vines gave a clear indication of his quality, and his opponent seemed, on the play, to be almost second rate, whi'ch he is not. Vines has the advantage of an enormous reach and periodically he sends over his service at such a pace that no man may hope to return it.

“On the other hand, Vines did serve quite a number double faults, but, by no means perturbed by them, generally won the next point. Perhaps Vines ’ favourite gambit, which beat Crawford time and time again, was a terrific low drive, which went in turns to either side of the court in the extreme corners. The match was played mainly from the back of the court.” Finalists Compared. Contestants in the final round were Vines and 11. W. Austin, Great Britain. The two had never met previously. Austin had on the day previous defeated J. Satoh,, Japan, 7—5, 6—2, 6—l. When they met on the last day Vines defeated Austin, and from England’s point of view the match was disappointing. The Times’ expert writes:—-

“It was soon evident that Austin had no plan for coping with the devastating opponent. He could do little more than hold out his racquet in hope, and when that availed nothing he found it a hard business to deal with Vines even in his gentler moods. It was also evident that Vines was hitting hard and true. It was a raging, tearing campaign of massacre before which nothing could stand; ‘sheer murder,’ as a famous player described it afterwards in humourously advocating a trench where the receiver could seek refuge. Austin won only six games. ‘‘Such hitting has never been seen before. There was no answer to it. The terrific service might possibly have been dealt with in a manner by standing far outside the court, but whether the return might have caught the server unprepared is not certain. The only way to stop the driving would have been to hit the ball back into his feet so that he could not place himself for his hard drive. “It was a battle against great odds. The contest found Vines at his best probably, and those who would beat him when he is at his best must have some definite plan of campaign and bo able to work it out with confidence, skill, determination and daring. His opponent on Saturday was but a victim Jed to the slaughter. There was nothing for it but to bow In submission.

Revelation of Surprises. “Of the new champions Vines certainly stands out first. He is young, and promises to come again to Wimbledon, where he has won the championship, like Tilden and Patterson, on his fust visit. His play has been a constant and progressive revelation of surprises. Those who saw him in his first matches in London would hardly have known him to be the same man who finished off his final round on Saturday m the short time of 50 minutes—surely an unprecedented feat. Vines has been bringing forth new treasures from his store each day, and he may have others to produce that have never yet been seen. Some are ready to compare him favourably with the giants of the past, but such a comparison is unrair. He is young yet, and has much to learn. Yet it may be said that there has never been a player who could hit so hard over a considerable stretch of play. At times there arc few intervals between his fireworks. It is an unremitting barrage. "Discussion will now probably range as to the advisability of allowing two service balls to such players. Many may feel that it is giving” a player too much to allow him a first service, which he can drive with all his force regardless of the consequence to himself, as he has still another to fall back on if ho fails to attain the mark. Yet in Vines’ ease the service is not everything, much as it may be. Ho can with just as much force and pewer suddenly end a prolonged rally with a terrific drive on either hand. Ho is no one-shot player, but a kind of fabled ’amphisbaena, each end a sting.’ ”

THE UNFAIR SEX WOMEN AND TENNI3 SELECTION QUESTION Is a woman tennis player the best and fairest judge of another woman’s play? and Should the Women’s Advisory Committee to the Lawn Tennis Associa tion’s selectors be abolished? Everywhere in lawn tenuis circles these questions of the announcement in the Daily Mail that a motion for the abolition of the Women’s Advisory Committee is to come before a meeting of chairmen of L.T.A. committees next January, writes 8. N. Doust. One is led to believe that there is a serious difference among members of the L.T.A. itself, and already it has been hinted that there is a likelihood of many resignations of councillors if the motion be carried. Players who have been in the Wightman Cup teams are among those who think that women ought to be selected by women. They declare that they have always found the Advisory Coni-

mittec, consisting of Mrs. Mavrogordato, Miss Rose and Mrs. Godfree fair. Generally speaking, the present generation of young players, however, has not a good word to say’ for the Women’s Committee. A promising young woman who is on the threshold of international lawn tennis said: — “It seems so hopeless to young players who want to get on. Whatever we do we seldom get praise for. Indeed, the women advisers seem annoyed whenever we beat their favourites. It is only public opinion that gets us recognised.” Airs. Lycctt, who played in the doubles final at Wimbledon in 1923, expressed herself as being in favour of keeping the women’s committee. Mrs. Strawson, on the other hand, said she would prefer to leave her fate in men’s hands. “Women are inclined to favouritism. Men are fairer,” she declared. Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lambert Chambers, who have been champions at Wimbledon, arc in favour of the women. Miss Rose, one of the advisers, said “I have always tried to do my best, and if people aro not satisfied let them say so.”