LAWN TENNIS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVII, Issue 1, 3 January 1912, Page 8

LAWN TENNIS.

N.Z. CHAMPIONSHIPS

Brilliant Matches at Christchurch. — The World's Best as Competitors.

(Specially Written for the "Graphic."}

THE twenty sixth annual New Zealand Lawn Tennis championship opened at Lancaster Park on Saturday, 23rd December in dull but fairly favourable weather. As events turned ut, it was the best day of the tournament for tennis, as Tuesday and Wednesday, 26th and 27 th, were both worse: and though the actual weather conditions had improved for the last day's play, the courts were slow and sodden after heavy rain which had fallen the previous night. It is doubtful if a New Zealand championship tournament has ever been previouslv played under such unfavourable circumstances. Apart from the weather the courts were not nearly good enough for high-class tennis, while the arrangements for the convenience of players were of a most primitive character. The Christchurch people disclaim responsibility for that state of affairs, and as a certain class of players is always only too readv to find something or somebody to grumble about, the executive of the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association was fixed upon as the responsible party, and many were the unkind things said of the management. The writer cannot refrain from saying that 1 ancaster Turk was about as unsuitable . spot as could have been chosen for th. tournament. Even had the courts been in good order, very little cause might have existed for - criticism when viewed from the standpoint that the New Zealand championships were somewhat overshadowed by the greater contest.'the Davis Cup; and thus the actual existence of such beautiful courts and surroundings at the United CSv.b's property in Uagley Park caused one to wonder why special arrangements could not have been made to run off the championships, and even the Davis Cup. there. True, greater difficulties would have arisen, and perhaps more expense have been entailed, but surely, after all, the financial consideration is not the only one to be thought of. On the occasion that the Australasian championships were run off in conjunction with the New Zealand champ nships during Exhibition Year, 1906, ven the assistance of Parliament was ii ked, and a special hill put through to < able the management to deal with t'e financial aspect; and as the latest eo. tests were of much greater importance, t is to be regretted that somewhat similar arrangements were not undertaken again. For this year's meeting there was the most representative gathering of player's in the history of New Zealand, the competitoi- including all the members but one ill. A. Larned) of both the American ami Australasian Davis Cup teams, in. addition to other first-class Australian players, and absolutely the cream of the Dominion's own talent with the exception of those two great and popular players. R. N. K. Swinston (Wellington), and Miss L. Powdrei! (Taranaki). Certainly. C. J. Dickie. A. G. Wallace (Taranaki i. and Miss B. M. Wellwood (Hawke's Ray), were not competing, but it is probable that they will not take a very active part again in first-class tennis in New Zealand. So from the point of view of talent and playing ability there was nothing to be desired, ami had the weather only been “ summe-y ” the couits hard and fast, the tenirs would have been .spectacular in the extreme. As it was, some splendid matches were w-tnessed, but • conditions militated against general rx—ellen e, and consequently brilliancy was confined to a minimum number of the contests, and exciting and interesting matches were the <: .ption rather than the rule. '.oe tournament was conducted under th- n> na-.cmcnt of the committee of the Now Zealand Lawn Tennis Association, consisting of Messrs. F. M. B. Fisher, M.P. (chairman), J. S. Barton, TTtoe.

Gray. H. M. Gore, Geo. A. Hurley, E. Y. Redward, and F. P. Wilson, with Mr Arthur J. Petheriek as secretary amt treasurer. Other officials were: — Christchurch sub-eommittee: Messrs. G. L. Berry, A. Burrows and E. J. Taylor. Referee, Mr. E. J. Ross. The bulk of the work fell upon Messrs. Petheriek and Redward, who ran off the various events without a hitch. Every consideration was shown to the players, and the fact that several matches had to be played in rain-sodden courts on Tuesday was unavoidable, with more bad weather threatening, and so this mandatum was cheerfully a copied, and the official exonerated on this occasion., Mr. Petheriek, in the terms of his appointment last year as secretary to the N.Z.L.T.A., personally supervised and conducted the meeting. He was a most popular official, and created a very good impression in Christchurch. Detailed results follow. MEN'S CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES (1910 Champion, J. C. Peacock.) First Round.—R. M. Kidston v. W. Pearse, 7—5, 6—o, 6—2,; F. M. B. Fisher v. C. C. Cox, 6—l, 6—4, 7 —5; H. W. Brown v. W. Goss, 3—6, 6—4, 6 —2, B—6; L. Bennington v. H. M. Butterworth, 7—5, 6 —2, 6—2; A. O'hara Wood v. W. Sheppard, 6—2, 6 —2, 6—4; F. S. Wilding v. A. S. C. Brown, 6—3, 9—7, 6—4; J. C. Peacock v. N. E. Brookes, by default; F. P. Wilson v. R. IV. Heath, by default; R. D. Harman v. A E. Davey, 6—o, 6—l, 6—3. Second Round. —G. Ollivier v. R. Wertheim, 6—l, 6—3, 6—2; R. M. Kidston v. S. Upton, by default; F. M. B. Fisher v. H. W. Brown, S—6, 6—2, 6—3; A. O’Hara Wood v. L. Bonnington. 6—3, 6—4, B—6; J. C. Peacock v. F. S. Wilding, 6 —2, 7 —5, 6 —3; R. D. Harman v. F. P. Wilson, 6—3, 6—2, 7—6; T. R. Quill v. G. G. Aitken, 3—6, 6—3, 2—6, 6—4, 7 —5; H. Morpeth v. M. L. Lampe, 7 —5, 6—3, Third Round. —G. Ollivier v. R. M. Kidston, 4—6, B—6. 6—3, 6—l; A. O'Hara Wood v. F. M. B. Fisher, 6—4, 6—2, 6— 4; J. C. Peacock v. R. D. Harman, 6—l, 6—4. 6—4; T. R. Quill v. H. Morpeth. 6—2, 6—3, 6—3. Semi-Finals.—J. C. Peacock v. T. R. Quill. B—6, 6—3. 6—3; G. Ollivier v. A. O'Hara Mood. 6—3, 6—2, 6—2. Final.—G. Ollivier (Canterbury) beat J. C. Peacock (Wellington), 6—2, 4—6, <s—l. 6 —l. The outstanding matches in the first set were those between Fisher—Cox and Brown—Goss. lu the former the Wellington ians won in straight sets, but the old New Zealand champion (1898) threw the third set away when leading s—l5 —1 and 40 love. Fisher was in fine form, and must have won whether four or five sets had been required. Brown has not been playing too well this season, and his defeat of the Canterbury veteran Goss came as a surprise. After losing the first set Brown had a comparatively easy passage until the fourth set, which was keenly fought. Goss might have won could he have taken that set, but after missing a couple of good chances he lo ; t it and match at 6—B. O’Hara Wood, a Victorian Inter-State representative, liegan to show up prominently early at the meeting, and he -oon had two victories to his credit in the singles, defeating Sheppard and Bonnington respectively in straight sets. He was particularly sound in the second match against Bonnington, and gave the impression that he was going to be a hard man to put out of the event. Quill's match with Aitken was the gem of the second round, and was the first (o run into the full number of sets. Indeed, it was the only one in the singles. The Masterton man was playing very steadily, and nt the conclusion of the third set looked oood enough to win. and even after Quill had evened matters in

the fourth set, Aitken should have won, but went down finally in * vantage set. Quill played with a quiet determination in those last couple of sets, and owed his victory to his service and his fine work at the net. Peacock and Quill were both on the soft side of the draw, and had no diifflculty in playing through to the semifinal, disposing of Hannan and Morpeth respectively without loss of a set. The two matches in the other half of the third round. Ollivier —Kidston and Fisher—O’Hara Wood, were much more keenly fought. Ollivier got a great shake-up by Kidston, who was set in, 6—5 and 40—15, but failed to win the second set, his last chance going when a fine saving shot just missed the side line with Ollivier beaten, the Christchurch colt taking the set at B—6. In the third and fourth sets Ollivier was aggressive throughout, and, driving and volleying beautifully, he captured both, with loss of only four games altogether. Ollivier - ’ win was full of merit, considering Kidston’s opportunities, and the fact that the courts did not suit Ollivier in the least.

O’Hara Wood put up a great performance in defeating Fisher in three sets straight. The heavy courts just suited the Victorian, and his driving cross-court on to Fisher's back-hand was deadly, the Wellingtonian being all at sea in the heavy going. Wood’s effort was ail the more praiseworthy as Fisher had been playing well up to form, and even in this match started well enough, leading 3—l and 4—2 in the first set.

The semi-finals went as was generally expected, Ollivier and Peacock reaching the final safety without lose of a set. Ollivier was on the tough side of the draw, and had a much harder task than Peacoek, as Kidston would probably have beaten him had he won the second set on either of the two occasions when only one ace was required. O'Hara Wood was playing so well in the morning that the Australians tipped him to win against Ollivier, but he never had a chance ou the actual play. Wood made many fine strokes, but Ollivier always had his measure, and gave a first-class exhibition of serving, driving, and volleying.

Peacock fairly revelled in the going with his old opponent Quill. If there is one man the New Zealand champion likes to get on the opposite side of the net it is the wiry little Canterbury representative. who, although making a good fight of the opening set, was subsequently overwhelmed, Peacock defeating him in straight sets.

The final was a disappointment because the play never reached a high standard. Certainly Ollivier served in the most brilliant fashion, while there was not much wrong with his driving, but he did not give nearly so good an exhibition as in the semi-final against O’Hara Wood. His overhead work was very poor, considering his countless opportunities, for Peacock was unable to do anything with his great service but lob it short, and yet straight out “kills” were the exception. Peacock was beaten in every department of the game. He started badly, for after leading 40—15 in the opening game of the match, he lost it by serving two double faults. Only once in the whole match did the 1910 champion play like the great player he has been. After Ollivier led 3—o in the second set, having won seven successive games, from 2 all in the first: Peacock gave a glimpse of what might have been, driving and volleying beautifully. He seemed to get right into his stride all at onee, and the spectators settled themselves down to see a brilliant exhibition, when the Wellingtonian captured the second set at 6 —4, having won six of the last seven games. But disaster followed, for Ollivier simply overwhelmed his opponent in the next two sets, winding them both up at 6—l, thus writing his name on the New Zealand roll of honour at the age of 21. the youngest player to ever capture a New Zealand championship.

LADIES' CHAMPIONSHIP SINGLES.

(1910 Champion, Miss Eva Travers.)

First Round. —Miss E. Travers v. Mi’s L. Van Staveren, 6—2. 6—l; Miss L. Williams v. Miss G. W. Greenfield, by default; Miss H. M. Butterworth v. Miss M Molesworth, 6—l, fl—3; Miss K. M. Nunncley v. Miss D. Bedford, by default; Miss E. Goodman v. Miss E. Miles, fl—l. 6—l.

Second Round.—Miss H. M. Cotton v. Miss D. Wellwood, 3 —fl, fl—2, o—3;

Miss P. A. Ntewsrt v. Miss F. A. Bio®bam, 6 —o, 6—l; Miss E. Travers ▼. Miss E. M. Baird, 6 —l, 4—6, 6—2t‘ Mies H. M. Butterworth v. Miss L. Williams. by default; Miss K. M. Nunneley v. Miss E. Goodman, 6 —4, 6—2; Miss A. Gray v. Miss L. Turton, 6—o, 6 —3; Miss N. Hartgill v. Mrs. J. C. Lord, 6—l, 6—o; Miss E. Scott v. Miss A. L. Brewster, 6—2, 7 —5. Third Round.—Miss P. A. Stewart v. Miss H. M. Cotton, 6—o, 6—l; Miss E. Trovers v. Miss H. M. Butterworth, 6— 3, 6—3; Miss A. Gray v. Miss K. M. Nunneley, 6—4, 3—6, 7 —5; Miss N< Hartgill v. Miss E. Seott, 6—2, 6—l. Semi-finals.—Miss P. A. Stewart V. Miss E. Travers, 6—2, 7 —5; Miss A, Gray v. Miss N. Hartgill, 2—6. 6—o, 7— Final.—Miss P. A. Stewart (Victoria) v. Miss A. Gray (Auckland), 6—4, B—6. Umpire in final, Mr. T. H. Jones (Wellington). The first round of the ladies' singles calls for no remarks. Two players won their matches by default, while the remaining three went in straight sets by big margins of games. Misses Cotton and D. Wellwood played one of the best matches of the second round, the Hawke’s Bay girl taking the first set in good style. Miss Cotton’s experience, however, stood her in good stead in the next two sets, which she won by steady tennis. losing but five games. The feature of Miss Wellwood’s play was a fast service, good driving, and neat placing. Miss Baird had the satisfaction of taking a set from Miss Travers, but she was really on the defensive throughout the match. Miss Travers’ driving was splendid, but she was somewhat erratic in the second, which Miss Baird captured, playing steadily with a nice drive occasionally. Her service was one •of the bright features of her display. Miss Travers was very aggressive again in the concluding set, which she won at

Misses Nunneley and Goodman hact an interesting match which, however, the ex-champion won comfortably, while Miss llartgill played herself into the semifinals with two easy wins. Miss Stewart the Australasian champion, was a prime favourite from the start, and In reaching the semi-final she showed great ability losing only two games in four completed sets. Her form was so god that she was universally selected as the winner of the championship, a selection which looked sound enough, after the subsequent defeat of Miss Nunneley by the Auckland champion, Miss A. Gray. The last-men-tioned player covered herself with glory by her fine victory over Miss Nunneley. She played soundly and consistently until missing the lead at 3—o in the second set, Miss Nunneley taking the third game, making the score I—2 against her. The Wellingtonian had got a length on her drive by this time and as Miss Gray was apparently tiring, Miss Nnnneley won the set by winning five of the following six games. Misv Gray, however, was not finally disposed of and she gave almost as sound an exhibition as in the first set. Her driving was the strong feature of her play but it was rather a pity she did not get in to volley oftener, as she excels at the net and the back line is a dangerous place from which to play Miss Nunneley. Miss Travers reached the semi-final by an easy win against Miss Butterworth, who took a set from the New Zealand champion at Blenheim last year, but at no stage did she look like repeating the performance, although she played attractively enough. The champion’s next opponent was Miss Stewart, the crack Victorian, and as the latter played up to her reputation os a resourceful player, Miss Travers failed even to take a set. The New Zealander was never eery comfortable and she threw away two all important games in the second set when leading 40—love. Her driving was deadly at times but it would have paid her better to try an occasional lob when Miss Stewart eame in to volley. The latter’s back-hand, too, was anything but strong, a fact apparently overlooked by MislS Travers. The Australian champion, however, gave a fine exhibition, her driving and especially her volleying and placing being magnificent. She uses her head all the time and played with marked confidence and coolness. Though disappointed at the defeat of the New Zealand champion, t'ft> crowd gave Miss Stewart a gxeat receptjpn. She plays the puns and New Zealanders plump for the sport every time, a fact that has made Miss Travers so popular. Miss TTartgill, the hard hitting Danns*

virke girt, went very elose to defeating Miss Gray iu the other semi-final. Serving strongly and driving with great force she captured the first set at 6 —2, but Miss Gray then took a hand and won a love set. Miss Hartgill soon established a handy lead in the final set and at 3—l looked like winning. It was here that Miss Gray shone and, playing pluckily, she won four successive games and led, 5—3. Miss Hartgill brought the house down by making a vantage set of it, but failed to make good in her own service for a change and was down at 5—6, Miss Gray winning the twelfth game easily and with it the match. The final was remarkable for some beautiful volleying, both Misses Stewart and Gray excelling themselves. Miss Stewart was first away and though Miss Gray fought hard, the Victorian maintained the advantage throughout the set which she won at 6 —4. She also took command of the succeeding one and led first 3 —l and then 5 —3, twice failing to win set and match wheu requiring one point at 5 —3 and afterwards at 5 —4. Miss Gray’s feat in making good at 5 all was loudly applauded, but she was unable to get away with the lead much as the spectators would have liked her to win the set. After missing a chance to assume command at 6—5, her opportunity was gone though the next couple of games were long vantage ones. In addition to volleying so well both drove splendidly, but Miss Stewart’s service was stronger and her placing more clever.