Tennis Topics.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XII, Issue XIII, 31 March 1894, Page 295

Tennis Topics.

E "X"

‘ V ANT A GE.’

The following is a brief record of Mr J. R. Hooper s tennis career. He commenced playing in 1886, and won bis Club (University) handicap single at the end of the same season. In 1887 he was chosen to represent the Club in the singles, but suffered defeat in the final. In 1890, owing 30 to scratch, he won the racquet at Zealajidia Winter Court. His first attempt for the Championship was made in 1891, but he was beaten by Mr XV. B. A. Morrison in the semi final. This was Mr Hooper’s last year of defeat by Auckland players, as in 1892 he won the Championship, and repeated the operation last and this year. In 1893 Mr Hooper represented Auckland at the New Zealand Tournament played at Dunedin. He was beaten by Mr R. Harman, the then Canterbury champion. He played in the championship round this year, beating Mr F. M. Marshall, and being beaten by Mr Minden Fenwicke.

In my 1 Topics,’ when reviewing Miss Rees’ career, I had occasion to speak of her father s athletic predelictions, and was guilty of some errors. I said that Mr Rees learnt his cricket from the Graces, the real fact being that the Graces learnt from him. Mr W. G. Grace, Mr W. G Rees’ cousin, and godson got his first lesson from his godfather in 1858, he being then a boy of 11, and his teacher 32 years old. In •Grace’s Life’the incident is mentioned. Mr Rees at the same time held the highest average for the five years for West Gloucester, viz , 29. It may be of interest to Auckland ladies to know that Miss Rees is this year competing for the Championship of her club (Ashburton) against the men. So far she is runner up, and I expect to hear the result of the final shortly. THE DEVELOPMENTS OF DOUBLES. (CONTINUED FROM J.AST WEEK). The question then arises : can this difficulty be met, or is the double match in future to consist simply of a recurrence of a series of certainties, coupled with a possibility (common to all certainties) of one of them being upset ? In other words : can some method of play be found which will annul the advantages at present accruing to the service, and, if so, what is it ? Let us revert to the positions of the strikers-out. First, there is the partner of the man who is receiving the service. He, as has already been shown, stands somewhere near the service line and looks on. Why he stands there does not seem very clear, except that he is in a good position for volleying. But how often is be able to turn this position to any account? Only when his partner makes such a good return of the service that the other side are compelled to play the ball where they can —so that it may come in his direction. But how seldom this occurs ! If they can do so by any possible means, they send the return to his partner who is running up, and the issue once more turns upon what sort of a stroke he will make. If, on the other hand, his partner’s return of the service is a weak one it is simply killed, being aimed generally either at the body or legs, or else just out of the reach of the ‘looker-on.’ Now, supposing this ‘ looker-on ’ were to stand in a line with (or perhaps the least bit in advance of) his partner, somewhere near the base line, he would be in a position to save at any rate some of the kills which would result from his partner’s weak returns of the service ; he would be better able to see what sort of a return his partner had made, and would stay back if he stayed back, or else advance alongside of him. Thus the action of the partners would be far more concerted. Nowadays it is quite a common thing for the actual striker-out never to arrive at the net at all, though his partner remains there hopefully, leaving all the time a • hole’ which a properly-aimed cross-stroke is bound to find. Of course this suggestion that the partner of the man taking the service (or ‘looker-on’ as he has been styled above) should stand near the base line involves the extra exertion of running up at the right time instead of being already there, but surely this is better than being there five times out of six to no purpose. He will also, perhaps, lose a chance of killing one or two unexpectedly easy first returns from the servers, but they are not numerous enough in a good match to be seriously counted upon. His attitude, until the rest is at any rate fairly started, and started somewhat in his own side’s favour too, must of necessity be defensive in most cases, and the service line is not the best place to defend from—even in a double.

Now, as to the man who is taking the service. His position is, of course, settled by the fact that he has to be in a particular place in order to make his return properly. The

momentous question with him, therefore, is not where be shall stand, but what sort of a stroke he is to make. Of course, there is very little that is new to be said on this point, except in relation to the altered position which is advocated for his partner. If he has a fair chance of success he will try to pass the man at the net down the side line. This is a very risky stroke when your partner is ‘ up.’ But now, supposing it does not happen to score outright, the partner, standing on the base-line, will have a very fair chance of saving the hard cross-volley, which is the almost inevitable result. A more common return of the service is a low cross-stroke in the direction of the man who is running in. This, if well done, will justify both the strikersout in running up (which they must do quickly). If, on the other hand, it is only a somewhat feeble return, then both can stay where they are and be in the appropriate position for defending. The same will also hold good with regard to short drops and other ‘ fancy ’ strokes, which, however, are of such a nature that they usually score outright or are completely scored off. One stroke remains which is occasionally used, and which, it is submitted to the reader, might be cultivated with more diligence, and that is the lob. And here let it be remembered that the new position suggested for the striker’s partner is again the right one if a lob is made. The best lob of all is undoubtedly a low lob just out of the reach of the man at the net. If really well done this stroke forces the server to stop his advance and run back behind his partner to make the return for him, and that, of course, would be the signal for a general advance on the other side. Even if the man at the net goes back after the lob himself he is losing position a little, and his return is not likely to be very powerful. Or, again, it sometimes pays to lob to the server as he runs up ; this stroke is particularly efficacious where men come up at the top of their speed and as near to the net as they possibly can. Unless they pull up very quickly the ball sails quietly over their heads, and they have had a run for nothing. Apart from these considerations, there is no doubt that the lob is the safest stroke of all in a difficulty. And it must be once more urged that the strikers-out are in a difficulty. They start at a disadvantage, and very seldom succeed in bettering themselves. This has been already shown, and is proved by results. Even the hardest hitters and the finest placers seem to break down over the return of the service more often than they succeed, and the logical result is that the service game always wins. Now the lob ought to be a safer stroke than any other, because, in making it, the presence of the net may be wholly ignored. Of course a lob must rise fairly high, and be aimed to pitch far back in court ; a bad lob is almost inevitably ‘smothered. But then it must be remembered that no stroke, unless it is one of the best of its kind, is of much use in a double, so that if your stroke is fated to be a weak one it may just as well be a weak lob as anything else. Of course it would be absurd to say that a lob is the only answer to the service ; that is evident. The player must naturally be guided by circumstances, and take every opportunity given, for instance, by weak services, by slow running in on the part of the server, or by the neglect of the man at the net to cover his fair share of the court. All that is urged is that the lob, as a means of defence against the preponderating advantages attaching to the service, might be more cultivated, and that its more frequent use, coupled with the change of position advocated for the defenders, would tend to lessen in a great degree, if it did not absolutely nullify, these advantages. The theory has yet to undergo the test of experience. It may quite well be proved to be wrong. But, if its enunciation has the effect of setting players to find out the right way out of the present difficulty, and that right way—whatever it may prove to be—is ultimately found, the purpose with which this brief essay has been set down will have been most satisfactorily attained.