LAWN TENNIS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 129, 29 February 1928, Page 8

LAWN TENNIS

(By

Wellington’s hold on the Wilding Shield was short lived. Won last year from Canterbury by the narrow margin of two sets out ot the twelve matches played, it again goes back to Canterbury Dy seven matches to live. Tho team which wou it last year comprised E. D. Andrews, N. IL C. Wilson, A. L. France, and D. G. France. T’lic delenders were G. Ollivier, 1. A. Seay, Loughnan, and C. Angas. Wellington's chances were jeopardised by the indifferent showing of D. G. France, when ho lost both his singles against men whom scarcely anyone thought it possible he could lose to. Actually the shield was won by the straight set victories of A. L. France over the same two players. Andrews and Wilson, who both beat Seay, were ill turn both beaten by Ollivier. The doubles matches were divided, each team winning two. Last week Wellington’s team was to have been D. G. France, C. E. Malfroy, A. L. France, and N. R. C. Wilson. The improvement of Malfroy, with each successive season, is unquestioned, but the fact that he had never beaten A. L. France in match play seemed to commend itself to the selectors in placing n man to whom, more than any other, Wellington owed possession of the shield. The selectors wore holding trial matches, or (as in one particular instance results were not allowed to count), it may be said they .were holding what purported to be trial matches. Before placing Malfroy Number 2, tho fairest thing would have been to have played him off against France in a trial match, especially as considerable keenness was evinced by the selectors in insisting that Mrs. W. J. Melody be played off against Miss East for third position in the Wellington ladies’ team, when, in fact, Mrs. Melody had decisively beaten her in the New Zealand championships at Christchurch. At least, tho selectors were consistent in their inconsistency. It was later announced that A. L. France would not be available, the claims of business being given as tho reason. It was stated also that G. N. T. Goldie, Wellington’s fifth man would not lie available for the Wilding Shield matches, and the vacancy was filled by J. McGill. Thus, by the withdrawal of France, Wellington’s chances against a team comprising G. Ollivier, I. A. Seay, C. Angas and K. J. Walker were felt to lie very slender indeed. That the position should have been allowed to develop thus constitutes one of tho tragedies of Wellington provincial tennis.

Well, Canterbury came, they saw, they conquered. On the first day they established a lead of five matches to one, the only win on the Wellington side being achieved by Wilson over Walker. On the next day Wellington won four of the six matches, Ollivier and Seay retiring in tlie doubles against Malfroy and France, Ollivier announcing as his reason that he had ricked his back.

D. G. France put up a great fight against Ollivier, who fought every inch of the way to win. With beautiful placements and frequent excursions to the net, Ollivier had France running fast about the court almost unceasingly. I have never seen Ollivier take the net so often, and the number of mistakes he made from there might be counted on the fingers of one hand. He afforded an object lesson in how to, and when to, achieve the net position' and what to do when there. He showed also how an opponent who is also one of the finest net players in the Dominion may be stopped from taking the net or be beaten when he gets there. France, time and again, was caught at his feet with dipping shots, played coolly and yet not too fast. Or else he was passed cross-court by balls that fell within the, service line and almost clipped the sidelines. These shots were varied by drives straight down the lines, forehand ami backhand, or else by perfect lobbing. It was the Dominion’s cleverest player at his best. The quality of France’s tennis may bo gathered from the fact that he took a set off Ollivier when Ollivier was by no means inclined to let him get it. Not only that, France led 2love in the third set, and right throughout it pressed Ollivier to the limit. France’s chief weakness was in his low volleying, a department in which usually he excels. The slowness and slipperiness of the court might have had something to do with this. In defeating Malfroy and thus avenging a previous defeat, Seay played with brilliant generalship. He early sensed

the fact that it was courting disaster to come to tho net against one who possesses two of the finest passing shots in the Dominion and plays throughout with the greatest of coolness. His ascendency and subsequent win was traceable from the very moment he elected to stay on the backline. Malfroy tried all tho wiles he is master of to entice him in, but to no purpose. If Seay

WILDING SHIELD LOST

CANTERBURY REGAINS IT

"Forehand.")

were drawn in to a short one he quickly got back to his former position again. From there he swung his drives from corner to corner with an accuracy that not even Malfroy could equal. Whenever possible he ran round his backhand and played his stroke on his forehand. And Malfroy was powerless to prevent Seay doing that. Frequently after working Seay well to the backhand corner (Seay is a left-hander), Malfroy would drive cross-court to the forehand corner and come in to the net. Seay would speed across the court and hit with all his might cross-court usually leaving Malfroy to watch the ball fall just inside the lines. Seay gave a great exhibition of baseline play. There were times when Malfroy appeared to have his mind on matters outside the game. Particularly was this so after making a bad shot. Seay, on the other hand, from first point to tho last was the essence of concentration. K. J. Walker was no match for Wilson, who was playing more towards bis best form. Rarely, if ever, have I seen Wilson serve better than in these Wilding Shield matches. If he was sometimes off in his driving, he was dead r ly in his overhead work and in his volleys from the net. Walker, too, was netting bis drives and certainly not improving his chances with several double faults. He found the greatest difficulty in dealing with Wilson’s service, and the slippery court made it impossible for him to get to many of Wilson’s severe corner drives and sharp-ly-angled volleys and smashes. In justice to Walker it must be stated he proved himself much better in doubles than in singles, he, with Angas, winning both doubles matches. That, however, thev beat France and Malfroy was due to the very indifferent showing of Malfroy. The weakest player of cither team was undoubtedly McGill, who, however, tried honestly and hard from first to last. He was beaten because he was not good enough. But one can have some admiration for that player who, facing inevitable defeat, does so with a determination to postpone that defeat to the last possible moment. McGill depends on placement without speed to win his matches. His object is to keep his opponent moving all the time. But his type of play demands one essential requisite, and that is that ho must be able to return everything and keep the rallv going until tho opponent makes tho'mistake. That, handicapped as ho was by the slippery court ami heavy balls, McGill could not do. Both Angas and Walker were too severe for him, and their placements too accurate. Also ho could not keep them from the net, Angas especially being very deadly from there. Against Walker, McGill had a 5—2 lead and was four I imes at sot point in tho second set. but he was not able to press homo his advantage. With Wilson in the doubles McGill placed much better against Ollivier and Seay, but the Canterbury pair were much any' kindliness to a weaker combination.

On the second day France maintained his form of the first day, and held the mastery over Seay, who played equally as well as he did on tho first day, making allowances for the slippery court. But lie could not keep France from the net, nor was he given any chance to indulge his penchant for running round his backhand. France was too quick to seize the advantage of position which this weakness of Seay’s gave him. France forced Seay on tho defensive and cut off at tho not Seay’s severe drives. It lias been represented to me in certain quarters that in describing such a match as that between Ollivier and Malfroy it ought never to bo said that Ollivier was not trying, but that tho winner should be accorded the victory as on merit. 1 do not agree. But I do think that provincial selectors and New Zealand selectors should take into account such displays as Ollivier gave against Malfroy last Friday and drop him entirely from all future teams. Ollivler’s performances in Wilding Shield matches are tho problem and despair of Canterbury. On the one day he will step out on to the court and play gloriously as he did against France on the first day, as he did last year against both Andrews and Wilson. The next day he is liable to do what he did against Malfroy, and what he has so many times done against Bartleet —not worry to run after a ball excent in spasms. When one knows what Ollivier can ao when he tries how can one do otherwise than censure him for performances such as the one he cave against Malfroy? or regard if otherwise than robbing the victor of much of the merit of his win. I do think that such performances in teams’ matches ought to be taken into serious consideration bv associations represented by such players.

Let me here state that in flint first set Malfrov played what I consider the finest tennis of his career, and T very much doubt whether Ollivier even bad he tried after some of the wonderful placing drives Malfrov sent over could have ■won that set. Malfrov was f ull of confidence. He seemed incanable of making a mistake. To win t»n successive points with shots such as Malfrov nlnved even if Ollivier made no attempt to return some of them was a event achievement. The wav in which Malfrov cleverly mixed bis leneth and varied his nnce was worthy of AlHvier himself at his best. When Ollivier did trv for some of those shots he very often failed to reach the short ones, and freouentlv netted the deer: ones. Malfrov treater! Ollivier’s service with the utmost imnunifv. He nlnvcd event tennis ri<’ht throughout. and had Ollivier settled into battle as he had done the previous day against France a great and close match might have resulted The one remaininsr solace of Wellington's defeat is that next season Wei. lineton will bo after the shield again. But if will have to bo witli a team stronger than the one which this year essayed to defend it.