LAWN TENNIS.

Waikato Times, Volume 100, Issue 16712, 30 January 1926, Page 18 (Supplement)

LAWN TENNIS.

WELLINGTON CLAIMS SUPREMACY. In view of the prospects of a Wilding Shield tennis match between Wellington (the challengers) and Canterbury, the following comments .by a Wellington writer are of interest: — The New Zealand championships were followed by a naive claim by a Canterbury writer that the Cathedral city rested supreme in New Zealand tennis. Well, it certainly is hard to explain away, four titles out of five going to Canterbury. But the mere fact that the southern city possesses OUivicr and Miss SpCirs does not make it the best province- And the Wilding Shield contest, immediately after the championship series, lessened the pride of the southerners considerably. To be reduced lo counting the sets before it could claim victory over an Auckland team which our northern friends sent away without a hope of victory—that is a set-back. Jt is al l very well to say that Ollivier was of: colour —lie has hen off colour for three years as far as the Wilding Shield is concerned. Results count. As a matter of fact, Canterbury is not by any means the best tennis province in the Dominion. That distinction rests with. Wellington, if men's play only is taken into account; for at present we are surprisingly weak in ladies. Surprisingly, when you remember how many really excellent juniors we had a few years ago—Mas Tracey, Rita Howe, and Dulcie NichollS among them —who have all failed to make good. The retirement of Nahcy. Curtis, a calamity for women's tennis in New Zealand, and the absence of that wonderfully improved player, Mrs Melody, all have left our ladies in the ruck. But with our men it is different. The two top positions went to Canterbury, with G. Ollivier and Don France (who is also a Wellington player), and the third to Auckland, with E L. Bartlee.ti The next four positions went to Wellington, with L. France, Smyth, Wilson, and Peacock, the eighth. (Scay) "to -Canterbury; and the tenth to Auckland (Griffiths).

But the strength of Wellington is greater still. For E. D. Andrews comes into the Wellington district, and, he would be in the top four. He { proved that last, week by defeating Bartleet at Palmerston, 11—-9, 4—6, 14—12. That is a narrow enough win. but it is a win, and it cannot be denied that Andrews is a match at least foi Don France. Also, that bright youth, Russell Young, has been showing such good form this season that he has a claim to tenth position at least. Put tlic teams side by side. Can it be doubted that Andrews, L. France, Smyth, Wilson,-Peacock, and Young are a stronger six than' Ollivier,; Doi France, Greenwood, Seay, Glanville, and B. B. Loughnan? There seems little doubt that there is a good chanc; of the four matches between the first two singles strings ending with honours easy. The rest of the Wellington team is markedly stronger and more reliable. Smyth, for instance, has never lost to Seay, to Greenwood, or to Griffiths, pf Auckland, who seems to have Greenwood's measure. Wilson is more erratic, but should be a match for either Greenwood or Seay, and Peacock, when fresh, can be disposed of by nobody but the very .best. Well, it looks as though we may have a chance of judging this season when the learns meet.

So much for the singles; but what of (he doubles chances? Years ago J. C. Peacock remarked:. "Canterbury always 'seem to beat us in doubles, somehow." But times have changed, and to-day in Andrews and Smyth and Wilson and Peacock, Wellington has two good doubles combinations. And it would have a third if only. L

France would make up his mind to go in closer lo the.net. But whal the ladies will do will be little.

THE SUBURBAN ASSOCIATION. In the games played last Saturday St. Paul's A beat Matangl A by J 09 games to 96, and Railway A beat Hamilton East by 105 games to 103. Details are as under: — St. Paul's A, v. Matangi A. • Played at Matangi, St. Paul's players mentioned first— Men's 'Doubles.—Gilling and Clark v Dunford and Enwright, 7—2; Boneham and Gadd v. llinton and Coventry, 2—7; Cobb and Towers v. llinton ami Kendall, 7—.'J. Ladies' Doubles.—Mrs .Manders and Miss Fear v. Misess Dunford and Coventry, o—2; Missies Jones and Cliffe v. Mrs Hinlon and Mrs Ranstead, 2 —G; Misses Laybournc and Ritchie v Mrs Pilkington and Miss Nielson, G—2. Combined Doubles.—Gilling and Mrs Mandcr v. Dunford and Miss Dunford, 7 —4; Clark and Miss Jones v. Enright and Miss Coventry, 7—.'J; Boneham aad Miss Cliffe v. llinton and Mrs llinton, 7—G; Gadd and Miss Ritchie v.. Hinlon and Mrs Ranstead, I—7: Towers and Miss Laybourne'v. Covenfry and Mrs Pilkington, 3—7; Cobb and Miss Fear v. Kendall and Miss Nielosn, 7—2.

Men's Singles.—Gilling v. Dunford, 7 —;t: Clark v. Enright, 7—2; Boneham v. R. llinton, 4—7; Gadd v. A. llinton, I—7; Cobb v. Coventry, 7—G.

Ladies' Singles.—Mrs Wander v. Miss Dunford, G—2: Miss Jones v. Miss Coventry, 4—G; Miss Cliffe v. Mrs Hinlon, G—-i; Miss Laybournc v. Mrs Ranstead, 5—G. Total, St. Paul's i'<) sets, 109 games; Matangi, 8 sets, 90 games. Railway B v. Hamilton East. Played on Railway courts, Railway players mentioned first— Men's Doubles.— Brown and Wallace v. Knapp and Simpson, 7 —G; Brown and Alexander v. Berry am! Short, ! —7; Ficldcn and F. Martin, v. Emmcll and McKinnon, 7 —l. 'Ladies' Doubles. — Mrs and Miss llowse v. Mrs Knapp and Miss II

George, s—o: Miss Martin and Mrs Wallace v. Miss Lake and Mrs Short. 0 —1; Misses Simpson and Boardman v. Mrs St. George and Mrs Gardne.-, o—i.

Combined Doubles. Brown and Miss Rowse v. Kanpp and Mrs Knapp, 2—7; Wallace and Mrs Wallace v. Miss Berry and Miss St. George, 5—7; Brown and Miss Martin v. Simpson and Miss Lake, 7—o; Alexander and Mrs Rowse v. Short and-Mrs Short, 2 —7: Fielden and Miss Boardman v. Emmett and Miss St. George, 7-—-0; Martin and Miss Simpson v. McKinncn and Miss Gardner, 7—4.

Men's Singles.—Brown v. Knapp, 7.—i 7.—i; Wallace v. Berry, I—7: Browne v. Short, 7—5; Martin v. Mckinnon, 7 —2. Ladies' Singles.—Miss Rowse v. Mrs Knapp, 2 —-0; Mrs Bowse v. Miss St. George, 3—o; Miss Martin v. Miss Lake, 6—4; Miss Simpson v. Mrs Short, o—l ; Mrs Wallace v. Miss I. St. George, 4—o. Total: Railway, 12 sets 105 games: Hamilton East 9 sets, 103 games.