LAWN TENNIS.

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15866, 12 December 1923, Page 9

LAWN TENNIS.

THE DAVIS CUP.

N.Z.'S REPRESENTATION. The decision of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association to enter the lists for the next Davis Cup contest, has been a subject of much comment on the courts during the week. The decision means the participation of New Zealand (in its capacity as a ration) in a contest which is the most international sporting event ever instituted. Since the Davis Cup was given by Dwight Davis for competition twenty-one nations have challenged for it, but three only among that numner have succeeded in dividing the honours —United States of America, British Isles, and Australasia (writes "Forehand" in the Dominion). For the purposes of the. Davis f-up, Australia and New Zealand were counted as one nation. It was an arrangement which suited both countries admirably, for if Australia had Norman E, Brookes, New Zealand had the redoubtable Anthony F. Wilding. These twy players practically constituted Australasians contribution to the debate. With both together Uie team was well-night invincible. Abart, Australasia's chances of 'winning the coveted trophy, or retaining it if won, were practically a negligible quantity. When Wilding was unfortunately killed in the war, New Zealand had none other worthy enough to take his place. In 1920 Australasia was called upon to defend the Cup against the challenge of America, and the matches were set down to be played in Auckland in accordance with a decision, previously come to be played alternately in Australia and New Zealand. Norman Brokes made no secret of his desire to see a change which would cut New Zealand entirely apart, and leave Australia free to challenge as a separate entity. The painter was cut, Australia was formed into a nation for Davis Cup purposes, and since then she has made two unsuecssful attempts to win the cup hack from the United States, the present holders. And new comes New Zealand info the field, and everybody is asking themselves what arc her chances? Those of us who saw Brookes and Patterson go down to defeat at the hands of Tildcn and Johnston in Auckland do not at this present time give her much chance of winning the coveted trophy. But that only places her in the 'same category as Australasia was placed in when they set out in quest of the cup. The tiling of interest is that a beginning has been made which is bound to raise considerably the standard of play in New Zealand. Australia and America have produced high-class plajcrs, but since the war their Davis Gup teams have been composed of practically the same men, and it is problematical whether, when Johnston and Tilden pass out of American tennis, or Anderson and Patterson out of Australia, those countries will have other who can fill their places with the same abiltiy. In other words, there is a great drop between the first of those two countries and those belew them in what may broadly le defined as the first flight. There is always a tendency for an age to produce one or two phenomenal men in every branch of sport, and tennis >s no exception. The standard of English tennis can be more accurately gauged from the fact that New Zealand has one player at Home (F. M. B. Fisher), who, though never New Zealand champion, is now regarded among the best players in England to-day. It may be that his tennis has improved, as he has had more opportunities for practice. In 1920 he was ranked in a list compiled by A. E. Crawley as eighteenth among the world's players. Another player is Randolph Lycett, an Englishman by birth, an Australian by upbringing, but for many years a New

Zealander by residence. Thare were many in this country who could beat him when he was here, and yet, for two years, he was a member of the British Isles Davis Gup team. The point I am endeavouring to stress is lhat New Zealand has produced an Anthony Wilding once, Who is to say that she will not do so again? If the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association could devise some scheme which would result in an intensive cultivation of potential Davis Cup representatives there is no reason why, at some date in the future, New Zealand should not have her name inscribed on the large silver bow*. I am well aware that finances play a big part in a nation's ability to send a team, and that the amateur status for the Davis Cup player is a very strict one. but with the rapid growth of tennis in this counrty, the time cannot be far distant when the association wil be able to build up a fund tor the purpose of permitting men to traval. To ask a player to give up his work for months and travel, and perhaps suffer financial loss, must quite naturally narrow the limits of selection, and possibly preclude the best man or men being chosen. It would seem, therefore, that there must come an amendment in Uhe rules of governing the Davis Cup contest to allow an association a little more latitude in the matter of expenses. Fo the purposes of convenience, the countries of the W)r!d were divided into zones, thereby involving a minimum of travelling. New Zealand, however, is applying to be included in the European zones. Under ordinary circumstances, of course, it would have allowed itself to be drawn in the same zone as Hawaii and Australia. But the circumstances are not ordinary. Mr J. G. Peacock, who has been named as a possible member of the team, will be in England when Ihe. Davis Cup draws are made and the preliminaries commenced. That fact ;Jone would be considerable saving in expense to New Zealand. There is also at Home Mr Cuthbert McCarthy, son of the former Welington Magistrate (Mr S. E. McCarthy), Mr Lowry (son of Mr T. 11. Lowry), and Mr F. M. B. Fisher.