LAWN TENNIS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 January 1933, Page 2

LAWN TENNIS

ANDREWS WINS N.Z. SINGLES

MALFROY HAS DOUBLE SUCCESS

MISS NICHOLES LADY CHAMPION

(Pe Press Association — Copyright.)

WELLINGTON, January 23

The New- Zealand tennis championships concluded to-day in fine weather, before a very large attendance. E. D. Andrews outplayed C. E. Malfroy in the most brilliant gaiqe that has been seen bore for years to win the’ men’s singles championship! Miss Dulcie- Nieholls -wpn the ladies’ singles title, heating Miss Marjo-rio MaicFarlauc in a- long and strenuously fought base line game, in which the latter was mostly behind, and even had-’the match point against her early in the second set. It was a worthy Anal from both.

Malfroy and Seay won the men’s doubles title, beating France Bros, in a five set go of fluctuating fortunes, in which all four, between individual patches of brilliance, sank to mediocrity. Malfroy’s quickness ■ at the net was the deciding factor in the fifth set. -Stay ..was the steadiest to then. Len France was .outstanding of the losers.

The wonderful steady lobbing of Mrs R. P. Adams was responsible for her and Mrs Dykes’ win in the final of the ladies’ doubles. It made opening for Airs Dykes at the net, and also threw one of the opposition out of the game in almost every 'stroke at each rally. The losers drove and smashed well, but were forced into mistakes at vital times.

The final of the mixed doubles between Andrews' and Airs Dykes againstATalfroy and Aliss AlcFarlane was a brilliant encounter. Andrew’s faulty position at the half court and Malfroy’s quickness at the net were responsible for ATalfroy and Aliss AlacFarlano framing the victory. Both lad es played excellently, returning the fiercest serves and quick volleys and smashes with great accuracy. Mbs AlacFarlaiie scarcely missed anything from the back line.

Results were: Alcn’s singles:—E. D. Andrews (England) beat C. E. Alalfroy (Wellington) 6—o, 6—4, 2—6, 6—3. A huge gallery marvelled at the accuracy of Andrews, combined with his pace, when, playing against Alalfroy in the singles final. For the first nine games, Alalfroy never looked like winning a game. Driving to the corners, cross court, or down the side linos backhand and forehand, Andrews kept Alalfroy away from the net, thus robbing his opponent of the greatest part of hils strength. If Alalfroy did come in Andrews lobbecl deep to the backhand, compelling Alalfroy to play safe or parsed him either hand with well concealed drives. Andrews fell and wrenched his ankle when 1 ading three-love in the second set. This disturbed his concentration, so that Alalfroy then gained a. slight ascend-ent-v.

ATalfroy won the third set with a eonrent-ated .attack from the net. which forced Andrews into- errors, maiin',v i;n the net. On the fourth set Andrew--', found himself again, and reduced Afalfrov to impotence with infinitely sip -'i'iov strokes, both in spied and accuracy. Alalfroy wnis gliod T> the bark line, while Andrews drove will) a variation of lengib and pm-e much ,-s lie olio-re, or t'K'k the net, where his low volljcs were a revr-hi-

tion, to accurate were they. He was also deadly overhead. He was always in a. P'U.ition to meet the best .Malfroy could give. The game was fought at a fast pace till roiv.'j.i out. AHa.lfiVvy handled Andrew s’ fi'i-t slued backhand well, but 111. cent Id not hit- winners off it. . Men’s doubles, final:—C. E. Malfroy (Wellington) and I. A. Seay (Canterbury) beat A. L. and D. G. France (Wellington) 6—4, 6—2, 7—5, 3—6. 6—3.

The men’s double was not a brilliant mntb. All four were too patchy for that. One member of a combination would win a point in a brilliant wa.t-lv. and L'lnn the other partner would lose the next point through falling down on easy shots. Malfroy played iu isp-asm;?, so that Seay was the steadier of this combination for four sets. Mnlfroy came to light in the fifth set- with brilliant ' interceptions and smashes, which, turned the tide in his favour. Len France tried all he knew in volleying, lobbing, serving and cutting, all grimly. Don France was off form, driving when he might have lobbed, and lobbing when ho ought to have smashed. The Frances did best when they took the net -after driving their opponents back with doep lobs. Ladies’ singles, fi'iial: —Miss Duli'io Nicholls (Can torbnry) boat Miss Marjorie MacFarlanc (Auckland) 6—4. 6—B, 6-3

Ladies’ doubles, final Mpisdam.es P. P. Adams and H.' M. Dykes (Wellington.) heat Miss Dulcio Nidi oils (Canterbury) and Mrs W. J. Melody (Wellington) 10—12, 6—3, 6—3.

Mixed doubles, semi-finals: —E. D. Andrews and Mrs H. M. Dykes heat A. L. France and Miss Dulcio Nicholls 7—5, 6—2. C. E. Malfrov and Miss Marjorie MacFadane heat N. P. 0. Wilson and Mr s N. M. McNair Thomson 6—2, 7—5. Fn.nlC. E. Malfroy -(Wellington) and (Miss. Marjorie MacFarlo.no (Auckland) heat E. D. Andrews (England) and Mrs IT. M. Dykes (Wellington) 6—4, 6—3.

'iho crowd were greatly excited with tlie final of the mixed double.?, in which all four plovers, particularly Mrs Dyke® a.r.d Miss MncFarlane, were brilliant. Andrews' portion, in the mid-court, was made the centre of Malfroy’s attack. Andrews was inclined to run himself out of position, going for angled voilies at the net Thr-, against the remarkably quick Malfrov, was fatal. Malfroy’s interceptions at the net were the main factor in the victory, but he could not have done it without Mfes. Ma-c Fa-r-1 arc’s splendid driving from the net when she handled Andrew--’ fiercest drives a.rxl twist services fearlessly and with the greatest consistency. If Mrs Dykes was brilliant at times involleying, she also made many mistakes. Often the locers got mixed up in their combination.