N.Z. Lawn Tennis Championships

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVI, Issue 1, 4 January 1911, Page 9

N.Z. Lawn Tennis Championships

Successful Tournament at Blenheim.

Wellington Wins Banner —Miss Eva Travers Lady Champion Wins Again After Ten Years.

—J. C. Peacock

SPECIAL. TO THE " WEEKLY GRAPHIC."

THE 25th Annual Championship Tournament of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association eventuated at Blenheim on 2Gtl’., 27th and 28th December, and in many respects the meeting was one of the most remarkable in the history of lawn tennis in the Dominion. In the first place, H. A. Barker was beaten for the first time in his career (since establishing his great reputation) by a New Zealander pure and simple, and the same player (J. C. Beacoek) was the last man to have won the Men’s Championship Singles prior to the advent of Harry Barker and Anthony Wilding, the former' having won five times since Beacock’s year, in 1901, and the great Wilding on three occasions. (Barker 1902-1905 inclusive and 1907; Wilding 1906 and 1908-1909 inclusive.) So Beaeock, who won at Auckland in 1901 from Fred Laishley, is the New Zealand Champion again in 1910, after a lapse of ten years. Then, the meeting provided a new Lady Champion in Miss E. C. Travers, who for the first time in her long and creditable career as a tennis player, defeated Miss K. M. Nunneley, whom she has met on many previous occasions at various Championship Tournaments, New Zealand and Provincial. Miss Tra. vers has been in the front rank of lady tennis players for many years, and excepting Miss L. Bowdrell, of Taranaki, has been Miss Nunneley’s most serious rival. Miss Bowdrell was the first player to defeat the latter in a New Zealand Championship, in 1908, at Nelson, and she repeated the performance last year at Auckland. It was there that Miss Travers, who has failed at a critical juncture more than once previously, had extremely hard luck, as she was within one aCe of defeating Miss Bowdrell, and as the Wellington girl was undoubtedly playing better at Blenheim than she has ever done before, it is particularly unfortunate that Miss Bowdrell was unable to be present at the 1910 Tournament. And, to continue, it is somewhat of a coincidence that the players who contested the finals of the Men’s and Ladies’ Singles should have paired for and won the respective Doubles. Pea-cock-Fisher and Misses Travers-Wellwood fought out the finals of the Singles, and are also Men’s and Ladies’ Doubles Champions. Again three players at the meeting under review were in every possible final— Fisher, Miss Travers and Miss Wellwood. The Wellingtonian was runner-up in the Men’s Singles, Doubles Champion with Beacoek, and runner-up in the Combined with Miss Travers. The latter won the Ladies’ Singles and Doubles (with Miss Wellwood), and partnered Fisher in the Combined; while the Hawke’s Bay representative ran second to Miss Travers in the Singles, and was a member of both winning Double combinations— Ladies’ with Miss Travers and Combined with Barker.

These facts will serve to prove that the 1910 Championships provided some novelties, and though the entries were not of an imposing character, the tennis was of a high standard. The surroundings lent themselves to such a possibility, as the meeting was capably conducted, the weather simply glorious throughout the whole three days, and the courts in remarkably fine order. The Marlborough folk realised that they were given the opportunity of witnessing something worth seeing, and as a consequence the attendance of the public was very largo for the district. The spectators were not slow to appreciate the brilliant rallies resulting in several of the contests. and in three particular matches (Beaeoek-Barker, Misses Travers-Nun-ncley, and final of Ladies’ Doubles) ) they worked themselves up to a high pitch of enthusiasm. One lady, however.

must have felt a trifle disappointed, as, after witnessing one game that was hardly of a sensational character, the writer overheard her remark to a friend that the visiting players were not such marvels after all, as she thought that they (the spectators) would be hardly able to see the balls! But in this case the quickness of the hand did not deceive the eye! Before commenting upon the various matches played in the five Championship events, the writer cannot let slip the opportunity of paying the highest tribute to the warm welcome accorded the visitors, and the kindness and hospitality meted out on all sides. These are the sentiments of the many players who attended the Tournament from outside centres, and Blenheim on that account will not be easily forgotten by those who had the good fortune to be present. Indeed, one player who has attended the New Zealand Championships for nearly fifteen years stated that he has never yet attended a more enjoyable Tournament than that just concluded. Mr. Graham Griffiths carried out the secretarial duties on behalf of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association, and he had with him the following energetic Committee, which worked so hard to make such an undoubted success of the meeting:—Dr. 11. Anderson, Dr. <T. F. Bennett, Messrs. S. J. Collins, A. Davey, L. Griffiths, W. Cane, 11. W. Horton, .1. L. Lord, S. Barker, S. Paul, G. M. Spence, G. O. Waddy, and I. Brock (Assistant Secretary). Mr. C. J. W. Griffiths (Bresident of the N.Z.L.T.A.) carried out the duties of Referee, with Sir, G. O. Waddy as Deputy. " Wellington regains possession of the Championship Banner, which for the last two years has been won by Canterbury. Out of a total of 21 points (Men’s Singles 6, Men’s Doubles 5, Ladies’ Singles 4, Ladies’ Doubles 3, and Combined 3) Wellington accounts for 16 J points and Hawke’s Bay 3. The banner and prizes won by the various players were handed over at the ball given in honour of the visiting players last Wednesday night—■ a gathering marked by great enthusiasm and enjoyed by all. The following table shows the winners of the five events and their provinces, with the corresponding Champions for last year: —• AUCKLAND, 1909, A. F. Wilding (Canterbury). Miss L. Bowdrell (Taranaki). J. C. Beaeock and F. M. B. Fisher (Wellington). Misses L. Bowdrell (Taranaki) and A. Gray (Auckland). A. F. Wilding (Canterbury) and Miss K. M. Nunneley (Wellington). Detailed Results. MEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES. First Round. —11. A. Barker v. G. F. Smvthe, b—3, 6—l, 6—4; J. C. Beaeock v. T. R. Quill, I—6, B—6, 6—o, 6—o (QuilljAvithdrew after the second set); S’. P. Wilson v. A. Davev, 6—l, 6—2, 4—6. 4—6, 6—l; B. Fisher v. IT. W. Brown, 6—2, 3—6, 7—5, 6—l. Semi-Finals. —J. C. Beaeock v. IT. A. Barker, 2—6, 6—3, 7—5, 6—3; F. M. B. Fisher v. F. P. Wilson. 6 —2, 6—3, 6—3. Final —J. C. Peacock v. F. M. B. Fisher, 6—l, o—6, 6—l, 7 —5. MEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP DOUBLES. First Round. —J. C. Peacock and F. M. B. Fisher v. F. P. Wilson and A. Davey, 6—3, 6—4, 0—0; 11. A. Parker

and T. R. Quill v. E. Griffiths and E. W. Griffiths, 6—o, 6—2, fl—l, Semi-Finals. —J. C. Peacock and F. M. B. Fisher v. G. F. Smythe and 11. G. Didsbury, fl—2, B—o. 6—l; IT. A. Parker and T. R. Quill v. 11. W. Brown and J. S. Wilson, 5—7, B—6, 6—l, 6—-1. Final. —J. C. Peacock and F. M. B. Fisher v. H. A. Parker and T. R. Quill, o—3, 6—3, 6—2. LADIES’ CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES. First Round. —Miss E. Baird v. Miss M. Simpson, 7—5, 6—l ; Miss R. E. Well wood v. Miss E. Ledger, fl—4, 6—-0; Miss K. M. Nunneley v. Miss A. M. Batham, 6—l, 6—o; Miss E. C. Travers v. Miss M. 11. Butterworth, 3—fl, 6—l, Semi-Finals.—Miss Wellwood V. Miss Baird, fl —2, 6 —4; Miss Travers V. Miss Nunneley, fl—3, 7 —5. Final.—Miss Travers v. Miss Wellwood, 6—2, fl—l. LADIES' CHAMPIONSHIP Dot BI.ES. First Round. —Misses Nunneley and Baird v. Misses Bell and Maginnitv, 6—l, 6—l. Semi-Finals.—Misses Nunneley and Baird V. Misses Butterworth and Ledger, 6—l, fl—1; Misses Travers and Wellwood v. Misses Batham and Simpson, 6—l. B—6. Final.-—Misses Travers and Wellwood v. Misses Nunnelev and Baird, 2—6, 6—4, 6—3. COM BINED ( HAM Pit >NSIH P DOCBLES. First Round. —H. W. Brown and Miss Nunnelev v. G. F. Smvthe and Mrs. Marshbanks, 6—2, 6—o; F. M. B. Fisher and Miss Travers v. F. P. Wilson and Miss Bell. 6—l. 6—l. Second Round.—H. A. Parker and Miss Wellwood v. IT. G. Didsbury and Miss Butterworth, 6-—2, fl—2; H. W. Brown and Miss Nunneley v. T. It. Quill and Miss Baird, by default; F. M. B. Fisher and Miss Travers v. F. R. Wilson and Alias Batham, 6—l, 6—4; J. C. Peacock and Miss Simpson v. A- Davey and Miss Ledger, 6—3, 6—2. Semi-Finals.—ll. A. Parker and Miss Wellwood v. 11. W. Brown and Miss Nunneley, 6—4, 10—8; F. M. B. Fisher BLENHEIM, 1910. Men’s Singles.—J. C. Peacock (Wellington). Ladies’ Singles.—Miss Eva Travers (Wellington). Men’s Doubles.- —.1. IPeacock and F. M. B. Fisher (Wellington). Ladies’ Doubles.-—Misses E. C, Travers (Wellington) and R. E. Wellwood (Hawke’s Bay). Combined Doubles. —H. A. Parker (New South Wales) and Miss R. E. Wellwood (Hawke's Bay). and Miss Travers v. J. C. Peacock and Miss Simpson, fl—2, fl—4. Final.—ll. A. Parker and Miss Wellwood v. F. M. B. Fisher and Miss Travers, B__6, fl—]. Notes on the Tournament. MEN’S SINGLES. Though there were only eight entries for this event the first round was billed to provide some interesting matches, and it was somewhat remarkable that the weakest players, Davey ami Wilson. F. P., should have drawn each other, proof positive that there was no arrangement by the management; and. peculiarly’ enough, it was the only men’s match te run the frail number of sets, Wilson winning the deciding one 6—l, after two sets all had been called. Smythe key*

Parker busy, and ho. earned every one of the eight games he scored. The former has lieen playing .veil for a long time, and his failure to do any la-tter than lie did made it appear as though the 'Australian crack were a moral for the Chainpionship, especially as Peaeoek never did himself justice in his halffinished match witli Canterbury’s sole representative (Quill).

At one stage of the Brown • Fisher match things didn't look too good lor the latter, as after Brown evened up matters by taking the second set he continued to be aggressive, and got a handy lead (3 —1) in the important third set. But he was too anxious to win, and made many poor shots at critical junctures of various games, lie lost the lead, but made up leeway again at five all, when he missed the eleventh game from 40—and again after deuce had been called. Fisher continued to plav a quiet game, but was getting there' all the same, and after capturing the set wound up the match in very simple fashion. The semi-final in the top half and the final were eagerly anticipated. Parker 6ame with a great flare of trumpets fresh from the scene of several line performances in Australia, and it certainly looked odds against, his defeat. Peacock fliough was known to have trained specially for the occasion, and he looked fit to fight for a kingdom when he faced thtj music on Tuesday morning. He did not '■start too well, but right from the jump of the second set he took command, and tliehee until the fourth set saw him victorious oyer Parker for the first time. He had the' Australian mostly on the. defensive with his beautiful length driving, sound volleying and ofttimes bril--1 sniashing. lie looked anxious when ,fic failed to win the third set at 6—4 after leading 5—4 and 40—love, but he won the eleventh game on his service easily, and after a long deuce game took the set, which meant so much for either man It looked as .though five sets Would lie required to decide supremacy, but though Parker had the advantage in the opening stages of the fourth set lie was down a game at 4—3, and. try as he might to win that eigthh game, it T as all to no purpose, thouglivon three occasions he had the advantage in. That Was the end, as he made no further effort, netting four successive balls in the ninth game, which gave Peacock the.set and match. Parker was tried right oht. /’ ut despite his great experience and tine lH> H > was found wanting. The only spot which stood the strain was Jiis backhand, and all through the 38 games he took ball after ball with a consummate ease which almost spelt perfection. 1

There were few who gave Fisher a chance in the tinal. though many would have liked to see him successful, as he had never won the championship before, qiliile Peacock had. Still, 011 performances, it didn’t appear possible, but in the second set he gave of his very best, and his tennis at that stage was brilliancy all the way, serving, driving, placing, and smashing with a confidence that spelt success. Peaeoek, however, got his measure again in the third set, and he was never in difficulties, though his opponent caused him some anxiety Jiy getting away to 3—l in what proved jto be the last set. Fisher could not maintain his advantage, -and for four eueecssive games mixed rotten shots with dazzling ones, as only one plaver (Harold Brownl can do consistently-. M hen down 3; —he made final effort. ,l>ut missed an easy vollev when the point .Would have put him in front again at 6—5, and that was his last 'opportunity, lie looked tit enough to Jast another set easily, and it is an ■Ppen question whether Peacock didn’t do most of tlie donkey work, though Jthorc could be no two opinions that he looked better able to do it. For a final, it was tame, nigh into weariness (look at the scores!), and nothing to be compared with the preceding match. i> LADIES’-SINGLES. • The games in the first round were not Very keenly contested, although in the '.earlier stages of three of them something good was promised. Miss Batham iiad rather a long journey in order to meet Miss Nunneley. seeing that she Jean get a couple o'f sets with her at almost any time up at Thorudoxi: but she took the matter quite.philosophically, and was soon out of her anxiety. Miss Simpson and Miss Baird played • very nice single, and although defeats ed In two sets by 13 games to 6, Miss Simpson kept .’ handv ..throughout the first act, wbkh she might have taken

had she accepted an opportunity to send down one of her many clinking drives when only wanting an ace to lead at 6—5, and her own service to follow.

Last year’s Marlborough champion, Miss E. Ledger, had a lively set-to with Miss Wellwood for a long time, and from 2-—5 ran up to 4—6 before she lost the set. After that, she was nowhere, and failed to win another game, though she still continued to win many of the rallies.

Miss Butterworth’s performance against Miss Travers was a very creditable one, and she deserved the set she won, as her style is very attractive, and in this match she worked hard for every point, Miss Travers improved as the game wore on, and in the last two sets she was driving solidly and getting a good length, so good that Miss Butterworth had to be content with one game per set.

It was very evident that the two Hawke’s Bay representatives are not very partial to match singles, and in the face of their subsequent form in the doubles and practice games, their semifinal was quite an uninteresting match to follow for players with such a reputation. Miss Baird in particular did not drive with anything like the confidence she did against Miss Simpson, and Miss Well wood, too, played very carefully, but the latter occasionally got in some nicely-placed drives that beat her opponent all the way, and there was no occasion why she could not have maintained the aggressive.

Miss Travers, after years of perseverance, has defeated Miss Xunneley in a championship fixture, and their meeting produced one of the best expositions of tennis during the whole tournament. As on other occasions, she got the first set in, but hopes of victory began to disappear as Miss Nunneley* made the pace in the second set, and 3 1. 4 —2, 5 —3 did not look like producing set for Miss Travers, but she never lost confidence, and. sending down beautiful crosscourt drives, both forehand and backhand, she made up the deficiency and finished of! the match by winning the eleventh and twelfth games in brilliant fashion. The final was disappointing, and Miss Well wood was completely outclassed by the Wellingtonian, who seemed to improve every time she went on the court. Tiie only weakness in two great exhibitions was the standing one of her service, and had she only as strong a service as Miss Wellwood or Miss Baird, wxgijd not have had to wait so long for heis reward. MEN’S DOUBLES. Peaeoek and Fisher had no difficulty in retaining the doubles championship, which they negotiated without loss of a set in three matches. Smythe and Didsbury gave them as good a game as the opposing pair in the final, but as it was known there was verdy little between the the possibility of defeat was vety remote; but with a little luck Smythe and his partner might have taken the second set.

Parker and Quill founds Brown and J. S. Wilson quite serious opposition, and had the two WellingtoniafiV taken advantage of a fine .recovery iiiythe second set. when they were down 5—S, Parker and Quill might have found of winning three sets to two past comprehension. (furiously enough, the -Australian and his partner led 5 —3 in each of the opening sets, with Parker's service to follow; but Brown and Wilson, by splendid combination, ran into the lead at 6—5. winning the first one and losing the second . because of their inability to win important games from 40—love and 40 —15. Brown’s experience in that direction in the 1-910 touruament must be unique, as a similar fate befel him in his single and combined. The final. provided some great rallies, and at times the large gathering of spectators. was moved to enthusiasm. The champions seldom made a mistake, and their volleying and overhead work were magnificent. Parker did his best to stem the tide, but Quill was the weakest man on the court, and as" the pairs’ combination was defective. Peaeoek and Fisher had their task made easier, and they turned every opportunity, to scoring account. Some of Parker’s work was .great, and he volleyed with a precision that was remarkalde to an ordinary player, while he frequently earned applause by the certainty with which he jammed his racket down when in an awkward position, and scored uiany an ace with a sweet half-volley. ~

LADIES’ DOUBLES. The only match which ■ provided, even the semblauee of a contest was the’ final, and it made up for the one-sided,results of the remaining three matches in the event. Misses Nunneley and Baird got an early lead, and when 3—o, 5-4-1 Were called, it -_wqs apparent Misses .Travers and Wellwqod would be required, to. win two successive sets to win the match. That they proved equal to the task is now a matter of history, and they rattled off the championship by virtue of superior combination and the general excellence of their all-round play. Miss Wellwood was brilliancy itself, while little Miss Baird did all that could well have been expected of her, and perhaps a little more, as she was lamibarded by the clinking drives that came from both corners of the opposition court. Her returns were not aggressive enough, and had nothing like the sting in them that came with both Misses Travers and Wellwood’s returns of Miss Nunneley’s hottest shots. The *hatch provided quite an exciting finish—almost a sensational one—as Misses Nunneley and Baird took three consecutive games after s—love5 —love had been called, and the ninth game tallied to 22 points (deuce eight times) before the end came. COMBINED DOUBLES. The combined matches appealed more to the large number of spectators than any of the other games, though there were only two of the ten games played which produced anything like an exciting contest —the semi-final and final, in which Parker and Miss Wellwood figured.

The bottom semi-final between Fisher —Miss Travers and Peaeoek—Miss Simpson was a delightful game to watch, the former pair winning easily. Peacock is never very partial to combineds. and then Miss Travers was too strong for his partner. Miss Simpson, however, played a particularly attractive game, and the writer likes her style better than that of any other competitor at the tournament. In the round preceding the semifinals there were two matches, which were evener than the majority, and in which some fine rallies took place. Didsbury and Miss Butterworth got two games in each set against Parker and Miss Wellwood, and they both played a neat game. F. P. Wilson had a .fine combined player in Miss Batham as his partner, but they were not too much at home until the second set was well under way, when they made a fine recovery from 2—:4. and 3—5, winning the ninth game and leading, 40—15, in the tenth. They were playing so well at that stage (by the way Fisher and Miss Travers were their opponents) that winning the set did not appear beyond possibility, but Miss Batham gave Fisher an easy one to kill, and Wilson smashed the next into the net, and the chance to even up at 5 all was gone. Fisher then took two more games and match. It took 28 games for Parker and Miss Wellwood to defeat Brown and Miss Nunneley in straight sets. The Hawke’s Bay girl was playing beautifully, and Parker had her coached up to all the fine points—Brown did his utmost to keep her on the move by his usual bustling game, but she never lost her confidence. Miss Nunneley probably played her best game in this match, as she was left a tremendous amount of work to get through, as the result of Brown frequently leaving an open court for Parker. Miss Nunneley often earned hearty applause for lier gameness in going for almost impossible returns, and several times she won by a brilliant shot from an apparently- hopeless position. Parker and Miss Wellwood had the upper hand throughout the first set. b»|t the second was always in doubt after Brown and Coy caused the prowd a great disappointment when they failed to win it. from 5—4 and,40 —15- each of the pair netting the return which would have given them the set. They led again at 6—5 and 7 —6, but though they evened up again at 8 all afte.r Parker won the succeeding couple of-games, confidence in their ability- to win the set was a minus quantity, the Australian and his partner winning the longest set at the meeting, l<h-8-The final, prblnised to, be , one of the liest matches at the tournament. but Fisher failed to win the first set when twice requiring only one point to do so. and Parker aqd . Miss ‘Well\iqod'wound up the match and championship' by taking the second set in very decisive fashion (6—l). In the first set .Fjsher and .Miss Trgvers were down 2 —o and 3—l, but the former then nettled down and gave' •

really entertaining display up to the stage when the pair' led (6—5), his smashing in particular being very fine, while his volleying and placing were very tittle inferior. Parker had been missing a lot Of smashes, which he continually netted, pnd it was not until he had saved the set that he gave of his best, his volleying calling for most comment. He made some wonderful recoveries when he looked to be hopelessly- out of position, and gave a fine all-round exhibition in the closing stages. Miss Wellwood added another good performance to her several others at the meeting, but Miss Travers was perhaps not seen to less advantage on any- other occasion in the whole three days. She was often in trouble, owing to the erratic way Fisher was performing, and one never knew what he would do next —leave her standing or take the ball off her racquet.