LAWN TENNIS NOTES

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XL, Issue 1, 4 January 1908, Page 31

LAWN TENNIS NOTES

(By the Man at the Net.) The New Zealand championships went off very successfully at New Plymouth so far as weather, entries and attendance were concerned, and the play seems to have been quite up to the level of excellence expected. The courts were a little slow at first as a result of the recent rains, but they were fast and true enough on the last two days, and seemed to give general satisfaction. Ou the first day, in the Men’s Singles, Quill, of Christchurch, showed that his reputation as a rising player was not exaggerated. Quill had. a few games in Auckland this week, when passing through to New Plymouth, and he showed an unusually good American service, with fair pace and a fine drive, not unlike Parker’s in style. He beat Nicholson, the Taranaki side line hitter, without much trouble, and subsequently got through against Swainson, of Pahiatua, who had nearly killed himself in a long five-set “go” with H. W. Brown, of Wellington. Our old friend, J. Peacock, made a good start. He beat A. Wallace, the Waverley crack, in three sets straight; but I can’t believe that Wallace was up to form. Personally, I think Wallace is the best “natural” player we have turned out since Parker, and I am always hoping for something really brilliant from him. Dickie, Wallace’s partner, did rather better by getting rid of H. M. Gore in three sets. Gore is a good sound player of the old “cut” school, but he is not fast or hard enough for a strenuous Hercules like Dickie. Tn the Ladies'' Singles it seemed from the start very much as if the very best of our lady champions were to have things much their own way. For instance, Miss Powdrell beat Miss D. Udy 6—o, 6—l, Miss Ward beat Miss Batham 6—l, 6—3, Miss Baker beat Miss Hitchens 6—l, 6—o, and Miss Nunneley beat Miss van Staveren 6—o, 6—o. Aucklanders who have seen Miss Udy play do not need to be told that she has a splendid drive, and that she plays a good all-round game off the ground; while Miss van Staveren is certainly one of the best lady players Wellington has produced for some years. What then are we to think of Miss Powdrell and Miss Nunneley? It is a consolation to see that Miss Powdrell “put down” Miss Baker (ex-champion of New South Wales) rather badly by two sets to one. Miss Powdrell can always be trusetd to “ last,” and apparently it was “condition” as much as anything . else that enabled her to win the last two sets easily from Miss Baker, t • - » . The Combined Doubles produced some excellent- play. In the opening round, Fisher and Miss Nunneley beat Peacock and Miss Wellwood, 6—4, B—6, after a very close and interesting game. Miss Wellwood lacked experience and consequently fell a victim to Fisher at the net, but she very often won her first service, outright. Miss Nunneley was ithe cool, experienced player right through the game, driving with splendid length, thus giving her partner plenty of opportunities at the net. Peacock is not first-class in a combined because he does not poach enough at the net, and in addition, Miss Nunneley is hard to cut off. Fisher, on the other hand, has no scruples about going for everything he can reach, and consequently gave Miss Wellwood a rough time of it, but Bhe played up well, and the final set was very keenly contested. Of the other Combined matches, the recognised claimants on the championship got through the first round easily. Parker and Miss Powdrell did not lose a game in their two sets; Dickie and Miss Baker won 6—l, 6—l, and Cecil Cox and Miss Ward won their match 6—l,

6—2. In the second round Cox and his partner managed to get a love set against Parker and Miss Powdrell, which evidently means that Cox cut off a lot of Miss Powdrell’s drives at the net. However, the last two sets told a very different tale, 6—3, 6—4; and afetr this maCch most people expected that Parker and Miss Powdrell would run Fisher and Miss Nunneley very close for the final. In the Ladies’ Doubles Miss Nunnely and Miss Baker won their match easily, while Miss Powdrell and Miss Gray also had a two-set win. I should not be at all surprised if Miss Gray’s net play would make a serious difference to Miss Baker, or even to Miss Nunnely, but it all depends on whether Miss Powdrell is keeping a good length or not. I don’t know any player more liable to disconcert her opponents in a ladies’ double than Miss Gray. On the second day Peacock had a hard fight with Cecil Cox, but managed to beat him by three sets to one. Apparently the two men played much the same sort of game, serving, driving and volleying hard. Other things being equal Peacock ought always to win at this game, because Cox has a comparatively weak back-hand, while Peacock’s backhand stroke is one of the best of the kind I have ever seen. But Peacock evidently had not the condition to last through the tournament for he was beaten later in the day by Quill. As Quill ultimately got a set from Parker, 1 suppose he must be better than he looks. But though he is accurate and active, I can’t imagine him beating either Fisher or Cox or Peacock if all players were in good form and training. Parker had not very much trouble with Fisher, who is generally brilliant, and always rather uneven. Fisher had beaten Dickie in three straight sets, but I think he would beat the Waverley man most days in the week. Parker was altogether too accurate for him, and in spite of his American service, his fine drives and his activity, the Wellington man could not get a set. In the Men’s Doubles Parker and Quill, as I expected, failed to make much of a show against Fisher and Peacock. Quill has modelled his game/on Parker’si and Parker himself is not at his best lit men’s doubles; he does not volley enough or cover enough ground neat' the net. Fisher and Peacock lost the first set, but by this time Peacock had got over his' “bad time” with Cox and Quili; and the Wellington pair buried the opposing combination by fine serving and hard net play. . . There was some fine play in the ladies’ round during the second day. Miss Powdrell was too much for Miss Travers, who plays the same hard hitting game, but less accurately than the Patea girl; and also Miss Powdrell has the better backhand. In the Ladies’ Doubles Miss Nunnelly and Miss Baker simply “walked over” Miss Batham, and Miss van Staveren, while Miss Powdrell and Miss Gray disposed of Miss Ward and Miss Travers quite as easily. The reason for the utter rout of the Wellington pairs in both cases wan the same—“the girl at the net.” Miss Gray is as good as a man near the net in a double, and Miss' Baker (the Sydney champion) is quite as effective. It makes a tremendous difference to have an active net player in a four, as men know well. But in the semi-finals of the Combined Doubles, the “girl at the net” does not seem to have had so much to say for herself. Parker and Miss Powdrell beat Dickie and Miss Baker, 6—2, 6—l, while Fisher and Mies Nunnelly beat Pearse and Miss Gray by exactly the same margin. Of course, this means that Barker and Fisher were much superior to- the men on the other side of the net;'and as a matter of fact, this is so. Fisher covers an immense amount of ground near the net in a mixed double, and Parker is quite the cleverest player at this variety of the game that I have ever seen. The last day of the tournament produced some really exciting and brilliant play. The final of the Men’s .Singles could hardly be in doubt; and though Quill earned the distinction of being the first New Zealander to take a set from Parker for a good many years past in a championship, he never had a chance when Parker settled down to Kis game. Apparently the only way to beat Parker is to volley persistently, as Wilding did last year at Christchurch, or to possess the all-, round equipment of a Norman Brookes. But there are few tennis players in the ■world so wonderfully active and effective at tne volleying game' as Wilding. However, it is well to remember that in the

opinion of the “Australasian,” Brookes is the only player in the colonies who can beat Parker. , - ■ Miss Nunnelly beat Miss Ward easily enough, 6—l, 6 —3, but she had to strain every nerve to win from Miss Powdrell. The difference between them, it seems to me, is that Miss Nunnelly's stroke to her opponent’s back hand has more fire and pace than Miss Powdrell’s, and that, generally speaking, she keeps a better length. I have seen very few men who could pound away down the back hand side line and into the corner with such vigour and accuracy as Miss Nunnelly, and keep such a wonderfully correct length; and the many men who have tried to play her from the back line can sympathise sincerely with Miss Powdrell. However, the Patea girl made a fine fight, and, as Miss Nunnelly herself admitted, if Miss Powdrell had managed to win the second set, it would have been anybody’s match. In the end, by a desperate effort, Miss Nunnelly won, 6 —4, 6 —4, and so took the Ladies’ Single Championship for the thirteenth year in succession. If there is any other tennis record to equal this, I should be glad to hear of it. In the Ladies’ Doubles, Miss Nunne.lly and Miss Baker (N.S.W.) were just too good for Miss Powdrell and Miss Gray. As in the earlier matches, the two girls at the net did great execution; but it was only Miss Nunnelly’s terrible drive down into the back hand corner that settled the opposition. In the final of the Combined Doubles, Miss Nunnelly again played well; but Fisher was no match for Parker. I have always held that Parker is better fn the combined game than in Men’s Doubles; and I have never seen anybody else display the same quickness and cleverness in eluding his opponents and making his own points. It is a rather curious fact that Parker volleys splendidly in a combined double, while in a men’s double he is not nearly so effective, and in a single he hardly ever volleys at all. In this instance he was much too clever for Fisher; and Miss Powdrell supported him admirably from the back of the court. There is no sort of doubt that if Miss Nunnelly were out of the way, Miss Powdrell could “sweep the board” at our tournaments; which, of course, goes to show what a very exceptionally fine player Miss Nunnelly really i»,> . I have left the Men’s Champion Doubles *to the end because it was in several ways the best of all the finals. I don’t think that any win could have been more popular , than the victory of the Waverley pair who are deservedly favourited with spectators, and players alike. Both Dickie and Wallace are extremely keen, and they play such a fine game in such an admirable spirit that they thoroughly deserve success. Most people seem to have thought that Fisher ami Peacocks were bound to win, but I must eay that I was doubtful. Apart from their strokes, Wallace and Dickie have two great points in their favour—they always play up pluckily to the bitter end of a match, and they combine splendidly. In this case I think it was their superior combination that won them the match, aided by greater steadiness and probably by perfect condition. Neither of them had much chance of practice before the tournament began: in fact they rimply played themselves into form during thin matches. But they are always able to stand any amount of running about, and I have no doubt that Fisher and Peacock began to feel the strain toward the end. However, it was a great feat for, Wallace and Dickie to win after losing the second and third sets, and I congratulate them heartily. The published accounts of the match showed that both sides used their full equipment of strokes and tactics, all four - driving and volleying well. Fisher and Peacock probably had a little the best of the argument in serving, but Dickie and Wallace aro very hard to pass at the net or to beat off the ground. Neither side seems to have lobbed much, which rather surprises me, seeing how close the game was. But the victory evidently went to tho stronger pair, ami it is a good thing for the game to find the younger players forcing their way to the front and dispossessing the older men of their supremacy.