BARNETT BEATS GUNN

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 3, 5 January 1939, Page 8

BARNETT BEATS GUNN

NZ- TENNIS TOURNEY QUARTER-FINAL A GRUELLING CONTEST TWO CANTERBURY MEN IN SEMI-FINALS * [ Per Prest Astociation.) CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 4. H. A. Barnett won a terrific contest of endurance against J. W. Gunn, Auckland, in the New Zealand lawn tennis championships to-day, to give Canterburw its second representative in the semi-finals of the men’s singles event. The match lasted more than three hours, and Barnett, with superlative steadiness and unshakable tenacity, gradually wore down an opponent infinitely superior to himself in stroke play. In the other men's singles match, which completed the quarter-finals, J. T. Mayson, Auckland, beat R. G. Pattinon, Canterbury, in straight sets. It was a quiet day on championship front, these singles matches w r ere the only serious skirmishes, the management concentrating on the advancement of the mixed doubles and the plate events. Barnett and Gunn’s Duel Barnett and Gunn started their match nearly an hour and a-ha]f before Mayson and Pattinson began their game, and they were still fighting grimly long after the latter pair had finished. Mayson and Pattinson, in fact, started during the 10 minutes interval between the third and fourth sets of the other match, and while Barnett and Gunn fought for one set, the fourth, Mayson won two sets and led 4-1. Barnett was in much better, form than when he was beaten by Gunn in the Canterbury tournament last week, when he was suffering from a heavy cold. It was to be expt/ted, too, that he would be a much harder man to beat in a five-set match. He is as nearly tireless as a tennis player can be, and he is the most consistent returner of difficult shots at present playing in New Zealand. Gunn should have realised that he must win quickly or not at. all, and he made a bad mistake when, with a good lead in the second set, he repeatedly dealt in a most half-hearted way with Barnett's lobs. Barnett was under pressure throughout the first and second sets and he usually found refuge in the Job. Many were of good length and had to be tieaied with respect, but many others should have been put away for winners, especially as Gunn is an exceptionally good smasher; but Gunn allowed the rallies to go on interminably, and eventually he broke down from sheer weariness. A Battle of Tactics. As tennis, it was far from an inspiring game, but as a battle of tactics and of athletic endurance it was magnificent. Gunn, who is slight of physique, deserves as much credit as Barnett for the way be stood up to this gruelling match. While Barnett and Gunn warily patted the ball up and down the court, playing for safety on nine shots out of ten, Mayson and Pattinson engaged in a duel of fierce hitting, which was the antithesis of the former match. Pattinson undoubtedly would have done better had he tempered his hurricane attack with some of the patience shown by other players. He hit many brilliant shots on both lhe backhand and forehand, but Mayson was in great form and rarely had difficulty in picking them up and returning them with interest. Pattinson, too, was far too rash in his advances to lhe net. He came in, it is true on good orive.l, bus, Mayson could do no wrong, and he almost invariably had a reply in the shape of a fast passing shot, which, if it did not beat the Canterbury man outright, caused him to put up a defensive volley and Mayson rarely made a mistake in putting the ball away at the second attempt. The Auckland player's volleying was excellent, and he chose his moment to come to the net me st judiciously. Even then Pattinson whipped across passing shots which would have beaten most players, but Mayson covered every opening and cut off returns with the utmost confidence. Contests in Mixed The mixed doubles matches produced some great contests from which N. G. Sturt (Auckland) and Miss M. Hardcastle (Australia), R. McL. Ferkins (Wellington) and Miss D. Miller (North Otago), C. Angas and Miss I. Poole (Canterbury), and K. W. Dyer and Miss J. Burns (Wellington) emerged as the semi-finalists. The chief surprise of this event was the defeat of C. F. Penfold (Canterbury) and Miss T. Rice (Australia), the eighth seeded pair, by N. F. N. Bedford and Miss E. Plummer (Wellington). Miss Plummer matched the visitor in the soundness of her ground strokes and in the steadiness of her retrieving from the back of the court. Bedford volleyed and smashed well. Both Penfold and Miss Rice made mistakes. At a critical period of the third set in' the quarter-final the winners extended that first seeded pair Sturt and Miss Hardcastle, in an excellent match. There was much free hitting with many brilliant rallies, but in the end the superior driving of the Australian, which opened up the court for Sturt’s angled volleys and smashes, was the deciding factor. Angas and Miss Poole combined well to beat D. B. Livingstone and Miss N. Beverley (Waikato), and A. D. Brown (Canterbury) and Miss P. Cooke (Auckland) in successive rounds. Miss Poole was very sound on the backhand and her solid play from the back cf the court gave Angas many chances for interceptions at the net. One of the Best of the Day. A close quarter-final match between Ferkins and Miss Miller and R. D. Sharpe and Miss M. Glenny (Hawke’s Bay) was one of the best of the day. The latter pai? surprised everyone by reaching the final of the event as an unseeded pair last year. This time they were justly given a fairly high place in the seeding list. The pair

play a most unorthodox game. Sharpe, with only a limited array of ground strokes, excels at the lob and at the volley and smash, and he is quite the ■nos', daring inlerceptor in the tournament. With Miss Glenny playing an imperturbably solid game on the back line, making remarkable recoveries and covering up the gaps left by her partner, Sharpe wandered all over the court, and he rarely got his racket on to the ball without making a "kill." Eventually, lhe sound back of the court plav of Miss Miller and the accurate volleying of Ferkins wen the match in a close third set. Results'.- - Men’s Singles Mayson (Auckland) beat Pattinson (Canterbury), 6-4, 6-4. 6-2; Barnelt (Canterbury beat Gunn (Auckland), 2-6, 6-3, 7-5, 5-7, 6-2. Mixed Doubles Second Round. —C. F. Penfold (Canterbury) and Miss T. Rice (Australia) beat F. H. Renout and Miss J. Forrester (Wellington), 3-6, 6-3, 5-3 (retired). Third Round.—Angas and Miss 1. Poole (Canterbury) beat Livingstone and Miss N. Beverley (Waikato), 6-3, 6-2; Brown (Canterbury) and Miss Cooke (Auckland) beat Robb and Miss Douthett (Wellington), 6-2, 8-6; R. Ferkips (Wellington) and Miss Miller (North Otago) beat Edwards and Mrs. Edwards (Wellington), 6-2, 6-2; Sharpe and Miss Glenny (Hawke's Bay) beat Pattinson and Miss Wake (Canterbury), 6-3, 6-4; Bedford (Auckland) and Miss Plummer (Wellington) beat Penfold and Miss Rice. 6-2° 4-6, 7-5; Sturt (Auckland) and Miss Hardcastle (Australia beat Morrison (Canterbury) and Miss Bedford (Wellington), 6-3, 6-2. Quarter-finals. Dyer and Miss Burns (Wellington) beat Robertson (Otago) and Miss Wilson (Southland), 6-3, 6-1; Angas and Miss I. Poole beat Brown and Miss Cooke, 8-6, 6-3; R. McL. Ferkins and Miss Miller beat Sharpe.and Miss Glenny, 6-3, 3-6, 7-5; Sturt and Miss Hardcastle beat Bedford and Miss Plummer, 9-7, 7-5. Men’s Plate First Round.—C. J. Robertson beat D. B. Livingstone, 6-2, 4-6, 6-2; I. J. Corich beat R. J. Sharpe, 6-4, 6-2. Second Round. —E. S. Falconer beat R. J. Donkin, 6-1, 6-8, 6-3; R. McL. Ferkins beat B. J. Kelly, 6-2, 6-1; Robertson beat C. F. Penfold, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4; Corich beat P. McGregor, 8-6, 0-5, 6-3; N. A. Morrison beat C. B. Beatson, 6-3, 6-3. Quarter-finals. —Ferkins beat Falconer. 6-3, 6-1; J. Roach beat R.obertson, 6-1, 8-6; Corich beat Morrison. 6-2, 5-7, 7-5; E. A. Roussel! beat F. H. Renouf by default. Women’s Plate Quarter-final. —Miss P. Cooke beat Miss M. J. Glenny, 6-1, 6-4; Mrs. C. B. Beatson beat Miss J. Senior, 7-5. 6-1; Miss J. Douthett beat Miss C. Chester, 6-0, 6-1; Miss N. Beverley beat Miss J. Bedford, 6-1, 6-2.