LAWN TENNIS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVI, Issue 22, 22 November 1911, Page 8

LAWN TENNIS.

WELLINGTON. (By ROMULUS.) Brougham Hill Tournament*. The Men's Handicap Singles and Doubles are almost through, but progress in the ladies’ events is slow. The lists arc up for championships, and they will bo got under way probably next week. Further results up to Saturday last were:—• MEN’S SINGLES. Second Round.—Laishley (owe 16) v. Smith (16), 50—45.; Kean (2) v. Quinnel! (18), 50—45. Third Round. —Butcher (10) v. Edwards (8), by default; Laishley (owe 16) v. Marriner (4), 50—38; Veen (4) v. 11. V. Howe (owe 10), 50—36. Semi tinal.—Laishley (owe 16) v. Butcher (10), 50—47. The other semifinal! ;ts are J. A. B. Howe (owe 8) and Veen (4), the winner meeting Laishley in the final. MEN’S DOUBLES. Second Round. —Townsend and Kean (6) v. Midlane and Hutchings (20), 50—41. The iirstnamed pair are now through to the semi final, along with Rawnsley and Reeves (14), Sampson and Lawrence (6), J. A. B. and 11. V. Howe (owe 2). ■ LADIES’ SINGLES. Only three matches have been played in this event, and as a result of byes in the opening round and winning the only ones played in the second, Miss Creasey (12) and Miss Mack (12) are both out to the semi final. The trophy should go to one of this pair. COMBINED DOUBLES. First Round.—J. A. B. Howe and Miss Davis (ser.) v. Hurley and Mrs. J. A. B. Howe (10). 40—38; H. V. Howe and Mrs. W. E. Howe (4) v. Oakley and Miss Mack (12), 40—37. Summary c-f Shield Matches. Brougham Hill men's team won comfortably on November 11th from Victoria College, the only player on the losing side to win a rubber being Max Cleghorn, who put up a great performance in defeating A. 13. Howe in straight sets, 6—2, 6—o. (12 games to 2). College were credited with another rubber owing to Hawkins retiring in his single against Beere after winning the first set. F. P. Wilson gave the best performance of the remaining Collegians, while for Brougham Hill 11. W. Howe and Sampson were the strong men, winning their respective singles and doubles. Victoria College reversed the result in the ladies’ match, winning by four rubbers to two (the same margin). Misses Tennent and K. Mclntosh shared most of the glory of the win, winning a single each and their double (in partnership). Miss Van Staveren scored the remaining rubber for the Collegians, easily defeating Miss Morgan (6 —3, 6—2) in the top single. For Brougham Hill, Miss Davis played well, although she failed to win a match, while Miss Archer put up the best effort for her side by defeating Miss Roberts two sets straight. The losing team's second success in the first double through the agency of Miss Morgan and Mrs. W. E. Howe was also praiseworthy. The Wellington A. and B. match (Men’s and Ladies’) calls for' little comment, being something in the nature of a practice match for the A. team. No one in either of the B. teams succeeded in -winning a rubber, and in only one of the twelve was more than five games lost by the A. representatives—Miss Atmore and Mrs Walker scoring six against Misses Williams and Cock (2 —6, 4—6). Four others produced five games (out of 12) for the losing side, the remaining seven rubbers making sorry reading: — Jeffery v. Brown, 4—6, I—6; Mrs Walker v. Mrs Goldie, 2—6, 3—6; Columb and Grant v. Ward ami McNicol, 3—6, 2—6; Mrs Grady and Miss Hannah v. Miss Travers and Mrs Goldie, I—6, 4—6. General Notes. Mr ami Mrs G. J. E. Bickford, wellknown Diinnevirkc tennis enthusiasts, p:i-: il through W llington on their return journey after a trip to England. A big Civil Service carnival ia being

organised for the holiday on 30th November, and tennis is going to be one of the features of the programme. A strong committee has been formed, and the success of the venture is assured if good weather is the order of the day. Canterbury defeated Otago by 20 rubbers (205 games) to 7 rubbers (241 games). W. Sheppard (formerly of Wellington and Newtown Clubs), playing for Canterbury, lost his single to Hamilton, 5—6, 2—6; while in his double with Penn, the Canterbury representatives just managed to beat Hamilton and Bray, 6—5, 6—5. The Brougham Hill and Victoria College shield and cup fixtures on Saturday week were responsible for some curious coincidences and reversals: —

Shield. —Men: Brougham Hill defeated Victoria College by 4 rubbers to 2. Ladies: Victoria College defeated Brougham Hill by 4 rubbers to 2. Cup.—Men: Victoria College A defeated Brougham Hill by 4 rubbers to 2. Ladies: Brougham Hill defeated Victoria College by 4 rubbers to 2. Shield fixtures for Saturday afternoon are as follows:—Men’s- Newtown v. Victoria College, at Newtown-, Brougham Hill v. Wellington, at Day’s Bay; Wellington a bye. Ladies: Thorndon v. Wellington A, at Thorndon; Brougham Hill v. Wellington B. at P-'v’s Bay; Newtown v. Victoria College, at Newtown.

THE GAME IN AUCKLAND. (By FOOTFAULT.) Fixtures. November 25: First round inter-club competition. December 23, 25, 26, 27, 28: New Zealand Championship, at Christchurch. December 30, January 1 and 2: Davis Cup, at Christchurch. December 30, January 1 and 2: Auckland Handicap Tournament. January 27, 29: Auckland -Championship Meeting. Although the wind was very strong on Saturday, the weather was otherwise good, and all the courts were taxed during the afternoon. Owing to the long spell of inclement weather, very few’ players will be in form for the first round of the inter-club on Saturday next. On this account, the selectors will no doubt have great dilliculty in placing their players.

Several local enthusiasts will attend the New Zealand Championship Meeting. The Auckland singles champion, H. Morpeth, intends competing, and has paired with A. S. C. Brown for the doubles.

Inter-club Tournament. The following is the draw for the season of the interclub tournament:— FIRST GRADE. First Round. —First Saturday: Eden and Epsom, bye; West End v. Parnell, at Parnell. Second Saturday: Eden and Epsom v. Parnell, at Eden and Epsom. West End, a bye. Third Saturday: Eden and Epsom v. West End, at West End; Parnell, a bye. Second Round. —Fourth Saturday: West End v. Parnell, at West End; Eden and Epsom, a bye. Fifth Saturday: Edon and Epsom v. Parnell, at Parnell; West End, a. •bye. Sixth Round: Eden and Epsom v. West End, at Eden and Epsom; Parnell, a bye. SECOND GRADE. First Saturday.—Eden and Epsom 11. v. Devonport 1., at Eden and Epsom: West End 11. v. Remuera 1., at West End; Parnell 11. v. Onehunga 1., at onehunga; Auckland 1., bye. Second Saturday.—Eden and Epsom 11. v. Remuera 1., at Remuera; West End 11. v. Devor.poft 1., at West End; Auckland I. v. Onehunga 1., at Auckland; Parnell IL, bye. Third Saturday. Eden and Epsom 11. v. Onehunga 1., at Eden and Epsom; Parnell 11. v. Devonport 1., at Devonport; Auckland I. v. Remuera I. at Remuera; West End IL, bye. Fourth Saturday. Eden and Epsom IL V. Auckland L, at Eden and Epsom; West •End IL v. Onehunga 1., at Onehunga; Parnell 11. v. Remuera L, at Parnell; Devonport L. bye. Fifth Saturday. Edon and Epsom 11. v. West End IL, at West End; Auckland I. v. Parnell IT., at Auckland; Devonport L, v. Onehunga L, at Devonport; Remuera 1., bye. Sixth Saturday. Edon and Epsom IT. v. Paruoll IL, at Parnell; West End 11. v. Auckland 1., at Auckland; Remuera I. v. Devonport L, at Remuera; Onehunga I.»

■Seventh Saturday.—West End 11. ▼. Parnell IL, at Parnell; Remuera I. ▼. Onehunga 1., at Onehunga; Devonport I. v. Auckland 1., at Devonport; Eden and Epsom 11., bye. THIRD GRADE. No. 1 SECTION. First Saturday.—Remuera IL v. Eden and Epsom 111., at Remuera; Devonport IL v. Mount Albert, at Devonport; Auckland 11. v. Otahuhu L, at Auckland. Second Saturday.—Remuera 11. v. Otahuhu L. at Otahuhu; Devonport 11. v. Eden and ‘Epsu'in 111., at Eden and Epsom; Auckland IL v. Mount Albert, at Mount Albert. Third Saturday.—Remuera 11. v. Mount Albert, at Mount Albert; Devonport 11. v. Auckland IL, at Auckland; Eden and Epsom 111. v. Otahuhu L, at Otahuhu. Fourth Saturday.—Remuera IL v. Auckland Ik, nt Remuera; Devonport 11. v. Otahuhu L, at Devonport; Eden and Eps; > i 111. v. Mount Albert, at Mount Albert. Fifth Saturday.—Remuera 11. v. Devonport 11., at Remuera; Auckland 11. v. Eden and Epsom 111., at Eden and Epsom; Otahuhu I. v. Mount Albert, at Otahuhu. No. 2 SECTION. First Saturday.—Byes. Second Saturday.—Otahuhu IT. v. Dominionßoad, at Dominion Road; Birkeirhead v. Onehunga IL, at Birkenhead. Third Saturday.—Onehunga 11. v. Dominion Road, at Onehunga; Birkenhead v. Otahuhu 11., at Birkenhead. Fourth Saturday.—Dominion Road v. Birkenhead, at Dominion Road; Otahuhu 11. v. Onehunga 11., at Otahuhu. The winners of No. 1 and No. 2 sections to play of! when and where directed.

Auckland Association. AMERICAN TEAM’S VISIT. A meeting of delegates to the Auckland Lawn Tenuis Association was held last week. Mr 11. R. Cooke, vice-president, occupied the chair. Correspondence was read from the New Zealand Association re the proposed boundaries of the new Waikato Association, taking in Thames, Paeroa, Waihi, Te Aroha, Cambridge, Hamilton. Te Awamutu, Otorohanga, and Lower ’ Waikato to Mercer. •Messrs. Cooke and Brown were deputed to make negotiations with the Waikato association.

The secretary of the New Zealand Association wrote, asking the local association to submit the names of five gentlemen willing to act as the appeal committee for -the Dominion. It was decided to forward the names of Messrs. H. R. Cooke, A. Goldie, J. T. Grossmann, A. S. C. Brown, and B. II Wyman.

J&odern Service JMetliods. Discussing modern service methods. Dr. L. O. S. Poidevin says:—The almost universal absence of such service methods in our play is one of the most noticeable features of our tournaments as 1 have seen them recently, and affords a most striking contrast with that to bo observed at any Continental tournament, such as } for instance, in France, Germany, Belgium or Austria—places where the standard of play is advancing most rapidly. In the hands of the foreigner or the American the service is his strongest weapon of attack, as it should be. He reckons upon winning his service games as a rule both in singles and. doubles. This is true not only of the “top-notch” American or Continental player, but also of the average player; indeed, even the very poor class player has a good service •because of the method which he adopts. With the average Australian player the

service ia nothing much more than • mere opening of the game, to follow which up towards the net into a position of attack would be to court disaster, n is in the subsequent exchanges that he hopes to gain his winning advantage; consequently he finds it no easier to win his service than to win his “ return of service” games. Generally speaking, the rest of our game, our volleying, our return of service, our play off the ground will bear very favourable comparison with that of any other set of players that I have seen. No one, for instance, could wish for cleaner, crisper ground strokes than those of Sharp or A. B. Jones, or more neatly executed volleys. When, however, you see a good Australian player of the orthodox type, let us say Stan. Doust, playing a young Continental player, Gobert, for instance, the contrast in service is most marked, Gobert makes use of the American variety, with plenty of pace and spin and life, and if he misses with his first, his second is hardly less swift or hostile in intent. It gives him a distinct advantage over his adversary, and he advances towards the net after either service unhesitatingly, and invariably in order to take up the strong position of offence, whence he pounces upon and kills everything that is not played with extreme accuracy and resolution. Such a service alone is s of course, not sufficient; it needs to be backed by good volleying. In Gobert’s case it is, and that is why he has come so rapidly to the front, but the strength of his volleying and his ground play generally was not, when 1 saw him at the close of last season, by any means comparable with that of Doust. Presumably, it has improved during the winter practice. It only needed to do so, and for Gobert to learn

to thoroughly appreciate the meaning an j value of “ position ” for him to take the highest honours at the game. Doust, with his plain, straightforward little service, which he also follows to the net, to the casual onlooker might appear to be outclassed by the Frenchman, but his jleetness of foot and remarkable quickness and dealineaa on the volley help to restore the balance so heavily weighted down by his opponent’s service methods. yVith that service, however, no matter how magnificently he otherwise played, Doust could never hope to attain to the highest honours, but give him Gobert’s service, and he might be champion, and probably would be, at the earliest opportunity. To realise what the modern service means we have only to reflect how the portals of success were opened unto Norman Brookes. In the play of his friend, Dr. Eames though but a very mediocre exponent o’f the service art, Brokes was quick to see and appreciate the value of modern service methods. He set himself assiduously to acquire and develop them by dint of hard and constant practice, and to remodel his game accordingly, and wo all know that the remarkable command he acquired over the modern service is the real foundation of his game and his success. Note, it is not' his whole game, as some suppose; it Is merely the foundation. It makes all things possible to him. Volleying and “position” make up the superstructure. Brookes has thoroughly grasped the value and importance of “position’’ in the court. Just as the high-class billiard player plays for every shot with due regard to the next and succeeding one, s>’ Brookes plays for position in much the same way. It all seems so easy to him. This service gives him the initial advantage, and enables him to get into a commanding position near the net. His return of services and ground strokes generally are usually made slowly enough to give him time to assume the “position” for volleying, whence he can dominate the game. His play may not so nearly attain the ideal as does that of the bil-liard-player, and mistakes are more frequent on the court than on the green doth, and necessarily so; but he has shown the immense possibility of these methods. Without his superb volleying powers, however, his methods would b; totally inadequate. There are many players quite as expert as Brookes on the volley, and perhaps more so in their ground strokes, whose service methods do not give them a reasonable chance of displaying that skill or of reaching the highest honours. Ib'hitively, I fancy the number of those pl lyers is greater in Australia and in England than in any other countries where lawn tennis is played. The reason for this in England is, perhaps, because of the too long and too slavish adherence to the methods of the famous Doherty bndhers. “Laurie” Doherty held the highest honours against all-comers for n ? lll ,y y ears * an d tacitly, if not otherwise, I' U'.lish disciples come to look upon newer methods with the typical English conservatism expressed in the words “what laurie’ Doherty does is quite good enough for us to copy.” But “Laurie” Doherty was a genius with the racket; I have never seen his superior. His game was one of remarkable evenness ami strength at all points. His service was never severe, but particularly well pa i d and full of length, and there was no appreciable difference 'between his first mid second. He used to put just a little ent on the ball, which brought it to the giound a trifle shorter than its flight in tlm air made it appear likely to do; over ami over again have I myself been taken >n «ith that service, when, judging in the. ordinary way by the Hight, it appeared omt un to be a “fault,” at the last moment the ball would drop and clip the ’, niark with persistent and annoying J gnlarity. On the volley he was perf 'ion itself; his ground strokes were "'ll less on either side, and overhead he '■m about as deadly as anyone can be in '("de an unostentatious way. He was a m<H.<'l Of orthodoxy, but, as I have said, a,one - At the same time, it is ■“. v to understand how he should influ"">•o the rising generation during his time • ascendency. More recently, however, I, ne ''’ er methods of service and the 1 I l ‘ ,F anic t,le y foster are taking . 01 the younger players, and there ~ "' pe , for the standard of English lawn r. '"'c to emerge once again from its 11, of comparative stagnation. y? un S players have Seen com- ■ ively little o f the modern methods - i si ployed by the best exponents, ookes has given few illustrations in

Sydney, and the American Davis Cup players could not, in their abort visit, give more than a hint or two; what is needed is a permanent example or two for studious observance. The more established players, of course, cannot be expected to make the changes in their game that these methods demand. It takes time, patience, and perseverance to do so. It is for the younger players to adopt them, and it is encouraging to see some of the younger players giving expression in their match-play to their appreciation of the modern methods of service. It is in ihta way that greatness lies- with a good modern service the value of your volleying is enhanced beyond recognition, and anything is then possible.

The Davis Cup. In view of the coming Davis Cup contest, the following should be of interest:—After McLoughlin had beaten louchard 6—2, 6—4, 6—3, and Beals Wright outed Bundy, 6—4, 6—3 6 —l, the winners met to decile who should challenge Larned for the American championship. The “New York Herald” says: “Only in the second set was Wright at all threatening. Then his tactical skill saved him, for he was the steadier of the two, although McLoughlin was outspeeding him. The young expert kept up a whirlwind pace that allowed Wright no rest. It was a furious assault that gradually wore down ths old champion of 1905, and carried him along as a chip in a maelstrom. . . . The thing which was most amazing was the strong superiority of McLoughlin’s placing. He drove Wright out of position time after time, and then slashed the ball through the opening. He had the surprising ratio of 4 to 1 in the Zrst set. In the second set, which he .ost, he actually tallied 5 more earned points than did Wright. He had a margin of 14 aces in the third set and 10 in the fourth. . . . The rallies of nearly every game contained some Hashing exchanges, and usually terminated with McLoughlin coming up for one of his thrilling kills. He always had the crowd with him, and no victory in recent years has demonstrated so clearly his popularity. Wright at no stage could stem the tide that steadily set against him, for with all of his cleverness he could not block McLoughlin’s terrific smashes, and with his defeat he practically is retired as a national figure in the sport he so long illuminated.” S. N. Doust, the well-known Australian, says: “The English team that went to America has every reason to be proud of its showing in the preliminary round of the Davis Cup. Dixon and A. H. Lowe were two of the team that was selected to play in Australia last year. Considering they were only in New York a week before the match, and playing in a strange country, with an American make of ball, they did remarkably- well. Dixon actually led Larnert 5 —2 in the final set, and was 30 all. Lowe played McLoughlin a 5-set match. (McLoughlin had previously beaten Beals Wright in championship, 3 sets to 1.) Then tne Englishmen won the doubles in 3 straight sets. All this goes to show that the best American tennis players are not much superior to the best English players. Their methods of writing their matches up, the exaggerated praises of different strokes and performances, are apt to put the players on a pinnacle, and we are just as apt to accept their right to be so placed without challenging their right to be put there. The result of the Doubles, to my mind, proves that I have always been consistent in saying that English Doubles play is weak; and Dunlop also bears me out in this. Yet Beamish and Dixon win easily from players whom by their description of the matches against their own men, one would think only an angel from Heaven could beat. Dixon and Beamish have many masters in Doubles over here. They would never be thought to have oven a likely chance of winning the Doubles at Wimbledon, for the simple reason that one man is too slow for slow shots, and the other hits too many good length returns, which I contend in a Double is bad tennis. So it seems, judging by results, that Americans of the younger school are going in for fireworks display, i. 0.. to make your one aim to hit everything ns / hard as possible, even if you break five racquets in one match, as did Mclamghlin when he played Beals Wright.