TENNIS CONTROL

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 113, 10 February 1928, Page 6

TENNIS CONTROL

INCIDENTS AT DOMINION CHAMPIONSHIPS OFFICIAL REPLY TO CRITICISM QUESTIONS OF SPORTSMANSHIP "During the concluding stages of the New Zealand tennis championships played at Christchurch at the end of last year,” writes Air. D. D. Kea.i, manager of the 1927 New Zealand championships, “I was asked to make a statement in reply to certain criticisms of the management of the tournament published in two Christchurch dailies, ‘The Star,’ and the ‘Lyttelton Times.’ While the'tournament was in progress I had no time to read any newspapers, but I promised to do so on my return to Wellington. The visit of the French team delayed my reading of the papers mentioned, but I now make the following statement

‘The management of the tournament is accused of rushing Ihe matches and commercialising the tournament, with disregard to the interests of the players. The actions of two of the competitors have been introduced and coloured to lend support to these and other statements published. I do not propose to deal here with the vague and unfounded general charges of mismanagement, but only with such specific instances as have been quoted by the papers concerned. A comparison of the actual facts of each such case with the fantastic and sensational allegations will, I think, be sufficient to enable the public to form its own conclusions as to the truth or otherwise of the vague and irresponsible general allegations of mismanagement, “Before stating the facts of each case or incident introduced I would mention that each day’s play at the championships was carefully considered the night before, and the time for starting each match in the important events of the day was advertised in the morning papers. Ample time was allowed between each competitor's matches, and during the progress of the tournament I did not receive a single complaint or protest from anv one of the competitors regarding the times set down for the matches, and several of them asked for more matches than I could arrange with the number of courts available. All competitors for championship honours are expected to be fit, and no special concessions can be made to enable the unfit to be nursed through at the expense of those who play the game on and off the court. Matches Not Rushed On.

“I now make the definite statement that the matches were not rushed on and that the question of the gate did not in any way govern or influence me in my management of the tournament. The gate receipts seemed to be of more importance to the Canterbury Association’s officials, several of whom suggested prolonging the tournament so that the finals could be played on the Saturday afternoon for a good gate. The Canterbury Association receives a third of the gate takings. In previous years in Christchurch when I have been associated with a local tournament committee in the management, I have been urged to hurry the matches so that the Anthony Wilding Shield matches could be played by the Canterbury Association on the New Year dates. Case of Dr. Laurenson. In a leading article on December 30, the ‘Star’ stated: ‘There is something inhuman about a system under which a player—and a medical man at that—who has to retire in a singles semi-final from exhaustion, is called on immediately to undertake a five-set doubles match against opponents who have not played earlier in the day.’ This refers to Dr. Laurenson, and if he has read it he has evidently not considered that it calls for comment from him, so I must give the facts.

“On the day previous to the matches, Bartleet versus Laurenson and Peacock and Wilson versus Bartleet and Laurenson, Messrs. Bartleet anil Peacock came to the committee's tent, and I asked them to let me know the times they would like to play these matches on the following day. Bartleet left the tent and saw Laurenson, and on returning he informed Peacock and me that he and Laurenson would like to play the singles match at 1 p.m., and the doubles at 3 p.m. Both Peacock and I commented on the short time allowed between the two matches, but Bartleet told us that he and Laurenson preferred that arrangement, and, ‘in any case the singles would not run into more than three sets, whoever won.' On the following day Laurenson arrived at the courts at 1.45 p.m. He could then have been scratched, but by this time, with Bartleet's remark in mind, I had arrived at the conclusion that Laureuson was offering himself for martyrdom, and I decided to give him a chance to ‘show his hand.’ I informed him before he went on the court at 1.55 to play Bartleet iiat 1 expected him to keep to his arrangement to play the doubles at 3 p.m., and that as Wilson (Peacock’s partner) had to play another match that afternoon I was not going to penalise Wilson by postponing the double. Those who saw this singles match must have formed their own conclusions by now. I say that Dr. Laurenson did not retire from exhaustion. After a short spell the doubles match started at 3.20, and Bartleet and Laurenson won it. “Before leaving this incident, I must say that neither Bartleet nor Laurenson was asked to attend at the courts in the morning, and if they had no lunch (as alleged by the ‘Star’) they no doubt had their own reasons for such self-denial. Case of Miss Speirs. "To again quote the ‘Star’ of December 30: ‘An even worse example of officialdom, however, seems lo have occurred in the case of Miss Speirs. After a most exhausting mid-day match on the hottest day of the season, her application for an extension of time was disregarded, and she was compelled to play a doubles final from which she had to retire on account of fatigue. This was a particularly bad piece of slave-driving, for the singles match was commenced half an hour late, through no fault ot the players, because the commercialisation of the tournament demanded that the match should wait until a centre court was vacant.’ “The Mrs. Adams v. Miss Knight and the Miss Speirs v. Miss Mncfarlanc singles were advertised to commence at 10.30 on the Thursday morning. At that time one of the two centre courts was available, and I instructed the honorary officials assisting me to put the first fair ready on to the vacant court. Mrs. Adams and Miss Knight were nut on. It. was a windy morning, and I had decided that both ladies' singles matches should be played on the only sheltered court on the grounds. Both matches were important, and deserved every consideration as to the conditions. Miss Speirs and Miss Macfarlane commenced play at 11 a.m., end finished a few minutes after 1 p.m., the actual playing lime being about one hour and a half. Twice during the progress of this match I was compelled Io speak to the umpire, first regarding the long spells taken bv Miss Speirs between games in the second set, and then regarding the decisions nf two of the linesmen. 'The decisions of the controlling umpire wore correct and beyond question. Why Miss Speirs Retired. “Miss Speirs did not ask me for an extension of time before playing her doubles match, but I allowed her over half an hour’s extension of time before she played in that match. She had two and a half hours’ spell. Regarding Miss Speirs’s retirement from the doubles match, when she and her partner had lost the first set, and were 2—l down

in the second set—tit present 1 can only give Miss Speirs’s statement to me and to a member of the ladies’ committee, that her retirement was not on account of illness, but she felt the heat very much, and Mr. Goss had advised her to stop playing. The statements of the

umpire, the ladies’ committee, and Mr. Goss are matters for my association.

“The statement in the ‘Star’s’ issue of December 31 that ‘the court was reserved for the ladies’ final’ makes me wonder if the ‘Star’ had any unbiased representatives at. the tournament. The court had not been used that day until the ladies went on to play, sharp to the minute “The final tilt at me in the ‘Star’s’ issue of January 3 might have been averted if I had made a statement before leaving Christchurch, but T did not. so another ‘unpleasant incident’ was found on the final day. when Bartleet after a ‘desperate five-set match singles final’ went ‘on immediately or rather after half an hour’s interval, for a fiveset doubles final.’ “At 1.45 p.m. Bartleet started to play Ollivier in the finals for the singles championship. Bartleet and Laurenson had to meet Knott and Sturt in the final of the men’s doubles afterwards. As far as the management was concerned. this doubles final, which started about 4.15, could have been started two hours later, but Bartleet. Knott, nnd Sturt wanted to catch the ferry steamer for 'Wellirv’ton that nieht. and they fixed the time for the match themselves, and all were quite satisfied. Only the ‘Star’ saw an ‘incident’ in this mutual arrangement. Object of the Criticism. “Summing up all the criticisms, discounted by paltry misstatements, it is fairly clear that the object of it is to support the wishes of a few of the Canterbury Association officials to secure control of the New Zealand championships when played in Christchurch is well known that some of them desire this, but I .think that the N.Z.L.T.A., and the great majority of those competitors who support the championships will now be stronger in their opposition to such a proposal. “Before concluding this statement, 1 would like to take this opportunity to express my deep appreciation of the valuable assistance I received from those members of the Canterbury Association who acted cn the several tournament committees, and to »he competitors whose sportsmanship and friendship outweigh all the destructive criticisms and petty annoyances inspired nnd encouraged by parochial interests. To those visiting players who suffered from the results of the parochialism encouraged by a section of the Brass I offer my sincere sympathy, and T assure them that T shall give my association an opportunity to make proper provision (o prevent' a recurrence of such unpleasant happenings as were witnessed in Christchurch during the recent tournament.”