LAWN TENNIS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIX, Issue 17, 23 April 1913, Page 7

LAWN TENNIS.

DAVIS CUP DRAW. PARKES’ DEFEAT OF BROOKES. The entry for the Dwight-Davis Cup this year is easily a record for that competition. The draw for the eliminating tournament was made this week in the offices of the Lawn Tennis Association, and is as follows: — Australia v. U.S. of America. Germany v. France. .South Africa v. Canada. Belgium, a bye. These ties have to lie settled by July 21, those in the second round (in which Belgium meets South Africa or Canada) by July 14, and the final by July 21. The challenge round has to be played on July 25. 26, and 28.

A brief review of the draw, coupled with the dates on which the matches have to be played, suggests the possibility of more than one of the competing teams, other than that concerned in the challenge round, visiting England next summer. The most awkward of the ties, from a geographical point of view, is that between South Africa and Canada, and it is quite possible that these countries will come to an arrangement to meet “halfway” and play the tie in England, especially in view of the fact that the winners have to meet Belgium immediately after. Naturally, however. South Africans would like to see the match, and they are certainly to. hold out strong inducements to the Canadians to visit them. The Franco-German tie presents no particular difficulties:

As, however, the final has to be played in the space of a fortnight between the second round and the challenge games, it seems probable that this at any rate will take place in England. Should the finalists be Australasia and South Africa, tremendous interest would be taken in the game in England. Whatever happens it seems certain that 1913 will be the most memorable season in the history of the game in England, if only Jupiter Pluvius will be content to lie less in evidence than he was during the run of the triangular cricket tournament last year. Americans are still puzzling over Parke’s victory over Brookes.in the last Cup contest. The editor of "American Lawn Tennis" discusses the question, and among other arguments asks whether Father Time is now a handicap for tilts, Australian. But the defeat needs a wider explanation, and at the end of a long article on the subject the American writer seems just as far away from a satisfactory solution as at the beginning. He writes: “Here we have introduced, if not a new, yet a different element. The unending battle of the volleyer against the baseliner is about to be renewed. We will not be so foolish as to say that Brookes does not know how to cope with an exponent of the baseline game. lie does. Furthermore, all base-line players are ‘pie’ to him—all save one. This one is the unusual, the uncommon, the extraordinary base-liner —like the Parke of the winter 1912-13, for example. It has been contended from time immemorial (in lawn tennis history) that the base-liner who can make his stroke when his opponent is at the net can pass consistently, and eventually beat any player of equal ability. We believe this contention to be absolutely sound. A decade ago, when, like nearly everybody else at that time, the advent of the volleyer dazzled us, we acclaimed him the superior. But a more extended study of the subject, and close observation of the best players, lias caused us to modify this opinion, and swing over to the opposite camp. We are fully aware of the fact that the volleyer continues to win—consistently and decisively. But this is because practically all the good players are consistent volleyers, and they rarely meet base-liners of anywhere near equal ability. Yet there have been times when some players have held the best of the volleyers at bay; and we all know that Johnson hud McLoughlin tied up in a knot for a large part of the time required to play the final round of the championship last year. Abroad, not even 11. L. Doherty could take the net successfully against the mighty driver Smith when the latter was gbing at bis best on a hard court.

“There are but two possible explanations of Brookes’ collapse—or perhaps a combination of the two. One is that ho was physically unfit; the other is that he was not able to meet Parke’s driving attack. It was possible- perhaps probalde that it was the combination of the two’; that Parke's ferocious

assault was unexpected, and that no effective defence had been prepared ; and that Brookes wore himself out in endeavouring to cope with the attack. There is much to near out this hypothesis. Brookes was his invincible self for three games. Up to that time his strok.es and his tactics were supremely successful, and there is every reason to believe that they would have continued to be successful to the end of the chapter had not Parke developed an extraordinary attack. But he did just ■this, and contemporary testimony is to the effect that nothing like it had ever been seen in Australia. Yet we cannot bring ourselves to believe that ha<i Brookes been quite himself he could no; have gone on to probable victory aft** winning the third set. That'should have been the turning point. "''at it should have 'been the end of th -.title argues the permanent pass, -o of Brookes.”