Tennis.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 270, 10 January 1929, Page 8

Tennis.

WAIKATO EAST TOURNAMENT. ( -- Handicap Matches. Owing to the inclepient weather which prevailed over the holidays, many of the entrants in the Waikato East sub-association’s third annual tournament at Matamata were prevented from attending on account prolonged by rain. The courts at Matamata were in | excellent order, and the arrange- j ments for the tournament reflect I great credit on the committee in j charge, there being no hitch in the j proceedings. - Play stopped for a short time on SaturcSy, owing_ to the rain, .but afterwardj| almost- without interruption, i some very close finishes and surprise results, and! the standard of play was higher than that of previous years. The detailed results are as follow: Men’s Handicap Doubles. First round: Brown Bros, (owe 5) beat Dunlop and Ward (owe 10), 50 —34; Hollis and Robertson (scr) beat Keeley and Egan (owe 5), 55—30; Jensen and Waugh (20) won by default from Hobbs and Morrow (scr); Green and Fletcher (scr) beat Whitehead and Gauntlett (10), 50—32; Tonson and Wood (scr) beat Fitzgerald and Lynch (10), 50—35; Laurie and Connolly (15) bye; Peters

and Carter (20) bye. Second Round: Brown Bros, won by default ; Hcllis and Robertson beat Jensen and Waugh, 50—45; Laurie and Connolly beat Peters and Carter, 50—42; Tonson and Wood beat Green and Fletcher, 50—45. Semi-finals: Hollis and Robertson beat Brown Bros., 55—51; Laurie and Connolly beat Tonson and Wood, 56—54. " , Final: Laurie and Connolly beat Hollis and Robertson, 50—46. Men’s Handicap Singles. lirst Round: Peters (20) beat Whitehead (15), 50—47; Laurie (15) won by default from Somers (owe 5); E. Brown (owe 5) won by default from Brough (owe 10); Tonson (15) beat Reid (10), 50—18; Watson (15) beat Fitzgerald (10), 50—41; Gauntlett (5) beat Morrow (scr), 50—34; Fletcher (12) won by default from Corbett (15); Lynch (14) beat Waugh (25), 50—48; Hollis (scr) beat-A. Brown (5), 50—43; Dunlop (10) beat Jensen (25), 50—44; Connolly (15) won from Dannaeford (scr) by default; Green (owe 5) beat Keeley (5), 55—47; Egan (5) won by default from Hitchcock (10); Wood (15) beat Ward (owe 10), 60—29; Johnson (5) won by default from Tukere (owe 10). . Second Round: Laurie beat Peters, 50—37; Robertson beat E. Brown,

50—31; Watson beat Tonson, 50—46; Gauntlett beat Fletcher, 50—36 ; Lynch beat Hollis, 50—33; Dunlop beat Connolly, 50—45; Green beat Egan, 55—51; Wood won from Johnson by default. Third Round: Laurie beat Robertson, 50—38; Watson beat Gauntlett, 50—43; Dunlop beat Lynch, 50—47; Green beat Wood, 50—37. Semi-final: Laurie beat Watson, 50 -—4 l; Green beat Dunlop, 55—52. Final: E. Green beat K. Laurie, j* Combined Handicap Doubles. First Round: Miss N. Beverley and Wood (owe 10) won from Miss Coupe and Reid (15) by default; Miss Stewart and E. Brown (owe 5) beat Miss Rolfe and Peters (20), 55—48; Miss Clark and Hollis (scr) won by default from Miss Bell and Ward (owe 10); Miss Oates and Green (owe 10) beat Miss A. Dobson and Waugh (25) . 60—56; Miss M. Beverley and Ward (owe 10), beat Miss Hueston and : Dunlop (5), 60—57; Miss Mathieson and Egan (5) beat Mrs. Bonney and A. Brown (scr), 50-—4 O; Miss Ellery and Keeley won by default from Miss Green and Morrow (scr); Mrs. Hooper and Tonson (20) beat Miss E. Dobson and Jensen (25), 50—45. Second Round: Miss N. Beverley find Wood beat Miss Stewart and E. ’ Brown, 60—45; Miss Clark and Hollis heat Miss Oates and Green, 60—52; Mrs. Hooper and Tonson beat Miss Ellery and Keeley, 50 —47; Miss Mathieson and Egan beat Miss M. Beverley and Ward, 60—23. Semi-final: Miss Clark aand Hollis beat Miss N. Beverley and Wood, 63 —6l; Miss Mathieson and Egan beat Mrs: Hooper and Tonson, 50—44. * Final: Miss Mathieson and Egan heat Miss Clark and Hollis, 50—22.

Ladies’ Handicap Singles. First Round: Mrs. Bonney (5) beat Miss Coupe (15), 40—27; Miss Clark (10) beat Miss N. Beverley (owe 20), GO—39; Miss A. Dobson (27) beat Miss Green (5), 40—27; Miss E. Dobson (25) beat Miss Mathieson (scr), 40 —18; Miss Rolfe (20) beat Miss Huestcn (5), 40—25; Miss M. Beverley (scr) beat Miss Stewart (scr), 40—38; Mrs. Hooper (20) beat Miss Oates (7), 40 —25; Miss Robinson (10) won by default from Miss J. Bell (owe 5). Second Round: Miss Clark beat Mrs. Bonney, 40—36; Miss E. Dobson beat Miss A. Dobson, 40—32; Miss M. Beverley beat Miss Rolfe, 40—32; Mrs. Hooper won by default I from Miss Robinson.

Semi-final: Miss E. Dobson beat Miss Clark, 40 —20; Miss M. Beverley beat Mrs. Hooper, 40—34. Final: Miss E. Dobson beat Miss M. Beverley, 40—36. Ladies’ Handicap Doubles. First Round: Mrs. Bonney and Miss Clark (scr) beat Misses Rolfe and Coupe (20), 40—36; Misses Beverley (owe 15) beat Misses Mathieson and Ellery (10), 55—42; Missea Hueston and Stewart (5) beat Misses Green and Oates (5), 40—37; Misses E. and A. Dobson (20) beat Miss Robinson and Mrs. Hooper (20), 40 —34. Semi-finals: Misses Beverley beat Mrs. Bonney and Miss Clark, 55 43; Misses E. and A. Dobson beat Misses Hueston and Stewart, 40—31. Final: Misses Beverley beat Misses E. and A. Dobson, 55—50. THE CHAMPIONSHIP MEETING. Some Impressions. Generally the standard of play at the New Zealand championship meeting at Auckland was very much below that seen on the last occasion the event was held there. At that gathering the New South Wales team were competitors. This year, beside the absence of visitors, several prominent New Zealand players had not entered. Beside reducing the standard it affected the interest, as in many of the events it was very easy to determine who would be in the finals. The earlier stages wei e spoilt by the atrocious weather, and when spikes and “ rope chains ” have to be called into general esc, and the courts were sodden and heavy, brilliant tennis was not to -a - - .. _cted. It was also unfortunate as u compelled some of the younger players to default. Amongst the victims were the Heeps Bros., of Morrinsville.

Bartleet’s success in the championship singles was very popular. For many years Bartleet has been right in the front row, but somehow has just failed. On his form he deserved the honours. His play was very brilliant at times, and his strong service was a great factor in his success. One of the finest singles was the meeting of Bartleet and Malfroy. It was bright, forceful tennis and there was nothing very much between the players. Both, drove powerfully, but Bartleet was rather the more accurate and used his experience and judgment to greater advantage. Until the last set Bartleet kept to the back line whilst his opponent j came in at every chancp. Malfroy has filled out since his last visit to Auckland. But the impression is conveyed that he still lacks the strength to last through many hard fought matches. He is still very young and in the course of a fe\V years may acquire the reserve of strength which is so essential. He has improved in his play since the writer last saw him on the ■ courts. He drives very powerfully, but his greatest advance is in his volleying. He smashes well and has a cut volley which was very effective. A great trier, he goes for everything and takes a lot out of himself. His service, of the American type, develops a lot of kick, but he double faults too frequently. One great example of -Malfroy’s play is his realisation of the truth of the maxim that the strongest form of defence is attack. When he met A. L. France he continually forced that very sound play ■ er into defensive strokes through his attack. Coming to the net, he smashed, or placed winners time and again. Malfroy did not show up as well In the doubles as in the singles. Probably the most exciting match was the final of the men’s doubles. There was very little between Bnrtleet and • Laurenson, the winners, and Angas and France. It was in this match more than in any other that Laurenson showed his ability as a

great doubles player. He was brilliant in his overhead work and his lobs from the back line were amazingly accurate to his opponents. Bartleet probably served better than in any other game, hut he was hardly I equal to Angas at the net. The C dn . terbury player played the centre line game with successful res.ults. France

was the Weakest of the four, his cut shots giving his opponents too much time to pick up or to get position. The ladies’ tennis was disappoint-

ing. Miss Spiers was very patchy, just as she was the last time she visited Auckland. On the form she showed in the semi-final against Miss Tracy the championship appeared at iher mercy. But she hardly seemed the same player against Miss Macfarlane in the final. She lacked initiative. The game developed into a wearisome back line duel, with Miss Macfarlane the steadier and more accurate.

A promising young player was A. C. Stedman. He has a beautiful drive and is of the aggressive, forceful type. His match with Laurenson was a contrast in styles. Stedman was aggressive and Laurenson defensive. The veteran retrieved some wonderful shots and was never flurried. He is as clever and wily as ever in forcing his opponents into mistakes, as Stedman found out. Now that Ollivier is out of the amateur ranks Laurenson ranks as the headiest player. There was some very promising material among the boys, Robertson and Barnett being particularly noticeable:

Chat With Dr. Laurenson. When a representative of the Matamata Record congratulated Dr. Laurenson upon his performances and victory, that cheerful and modest sportsman was disposed to make light of his achievements, and, with his characteristic generosity, threw bouquets to others. Most people who know of the tremendous call his medical work makes upon Dr. Laurenson’s time and energy were rather inclined to the view that he was placing altogether too much upon himself in again entering for the New Zealand championships, and even the worthy doctor himself makes frank concession to that opinion. He repeated what he said long ago, and prior to his departure for tne scene of the championships this year, namely, that he had no intention cf entering the lists for the singles. However, he yielded to strong persuasion, but, having passed the vigour and elasticity of youth, the four days’ intensive practice and the successive matches without sufficient time intervening left him somewhat stale and stiff for the major clashes. Youth alone could make the rapid recuperation necessary for prime fitness under the conditions existing.

Dr. Laurenson’s good opinion of Malfroy, which he expressed on return from the 1927 events at Christchurch, was further fortified this year. The doctor considers Malfroy well worthy of championship company. He also states that E. L. Bartleet, his partner in the doubles, showed improved play. Afterwards, most of us say we will never do it again, but we forget our resolutions made in the calm after the storm. Dr. Laurenson again avers that the singles will see him no more. Maybe we can take his word for it this time, without doubting the sincerity of his previous declaration on the point, for to be sure he may well retire to that extent in peace and honour. So far as the writer’s knowledge serves, there is not another medical man in the Dominion playing in top-notch tennis, the reason being that the dual nervous strains of a doctor’s calling and of the demands of tennis are beyond human capacity to withstand indefinitely. However, Dr. Laurenson has won an honoured place for himself in the New Zealand tennis world; should he enter the lists again we will all wish and Watch for further victories; if he should decide to leave the field altogether to others, then we may enjoy with him his mellow reflections when he retires upen the Laurenson laurels. But for the present one imagines that when the clarion call goes forth next year for the Dominion tournament Laurenson will be there. .