Tennis.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 276, 21 February 1929, Page 8

Tennis.

PUTARURU v. ARAPUNI. The above game was played at Putaruru and resulted in a win for the home team by 14 matches to 4. Following are details of the scores, Putaruru players being mentioned first: Ladies’ Singles.—Miss Dunlop beat Miss Edginton,. 6—2; „ Mrs. Hooper lost to Miss Haven, 4—6; Mrs. Shine lost to Miss Hjorth, 4—6; Airs. Macown beat Miss Edginton, 6—2. Men’s , Singles.—A. C. Thompson beat J. Calwell, 9—4; R. Dunlop beat Hjorth, 9— 4; J. G. Gasparieh lost to S. Rapson, 5 —9; J. S. Reid beat L. Atkinson, 9—B; A. H. Dukeson beat S. Harris, 9—2; F. J. Peters beat Stevenson, 9—7. Men’s Doubles.—Thompson and Dunlop beat Caldwell and Atkinson, 9—7; Gasparieh and Peters lost to Hjorth and Rapson, 5-— 9-„ Reid and Dukeson beat Stevenson and Harris, 9—5.

Ladies’ Doubles.—Miss Dunlop and Mrs. Shine beat Misses Edginton and Haven, 6—l. Combined Doubles.—Thompson and Miss Dunlop beat Calwell and Miss Edginton, 6—4; Dunlop and Mrs. Hooper beat Atkinson and Miss Haven, 6—3; Gasparieh and Mrs. Shine beat Rapson and Miss Hjorth, 6—4; Reid and Mrs. Macown beat Hjorth and Miss Hjorth, 6—4. TIRAU CLUB. Men’s Singles.—Semi-final: Hawes beat Stewart, 6—4, 6—4. Final: Hawes beat A. Brown, 6—l, 6—2. Men’s Handicap Doubles.—Wilson and Selby (scr) beat G. Brown and F. Harrison (rec. 15), 50—47. Ladies’ Championship Singles.— Mrs. Bonney beat Mrs. Cocoran, 6—l, 6—l. Mixed Doubles, Oxford Cup—Selby and Mrs. Bonney beat Wilson and Mrs. Cocoran, 6—3, 2—6, 6—3. All the finals were played over the week-end. vfx WAIKATO EAST V. LOWER WAIKATO. The following will represent Waikato East sub-association against Lower Waikato sub-association at Hamilton on Saturday : Misses N. and M. Beverley, Bell, Mrs. Bonney, Misses Stewart and Dunlop, Thompson, Wa.rd, Bassett, Green, Wells and Keeley.

THE BEST PLAYERS.* In Dominion Tennis. National Ranking. “ Forehand,” in the Dominion, writes a very interesting article on the best ten men and women tennis players in New Zealand. He says that the difficulties in the way of making a national ranking to please everybody are immense. They are so immense that it is impossible of accomplishment. In the first place, the best players of the Dominion so seldom meet in the course of the season unless they reside in the same district. In the second place it is so seldom that the matches are, for men, best of five advantage sets, the only real test so long as the rules for big championships are what they are. In the absence of any tests, then, a ranking can only be a matter of personal opinion, backed up when possible by results of matches. My rankings are as follow: Men. E. L. Bartleet (Auckland). D. G. France (Wellington). C. E. Malfroy (Wellington). A. L. France (Wellington). C. Angas (Christchurch). J. T. Laurensor: (Waikato). N. G. Sturt (Auckland). T. Rhodes Williams (Wellington). A. C. Stedman (Auckland). N. R. C. Wilson (Wellington). Ladies.

Miss Marjorie Macfarlane (Auckland).

Miss M. Spiers (Christchurch). Mrs. W. J. Moledy (Wellington). Miss M. Myers (Wanganui). Mrs. R. P. Adams (Wellington). Miss M. Tracy (Wellington). Miss M. Wake (Christchurch). Miss D. Nicholls (Wellington). Miss M. Andrew (Christchurch). Miss M. Gibson (Timaru). E. L. Bartleet.—E. L. Bartleet • is No. 1 by virtue of the fact that he is New Zealand champion. I have previously stated that the only one in New Zealand who might beat him is D, G. France, seeing he has done so before. The type of play of A. L. France whengthat worthy is in form also might upset him. But there has been no meeting between them this season. A,, ,’L. France was beaten by C. E. Malfroy in the semi-final at Auckland, and D. G. France, for his own good reasons, did not compete in the New Zealand championships. In Auckland Bartleet reigns supreme. D. G. France.—ln view of the fact that D. G. France did not compete in

the New Zealand championships or at the North Island championships, but preferred to do the “ smalls,” grave doubts may very well be cast on the wisdom of ranking him No. 2. That he cannot be left out of a New Zealand ranking is obvious from liis known standard of play. That he cannot be left out of any trulyrepresentative New Zealand team is also obvious. His recent defeat of Malfroy at Dannevirke in a remark-ably-close-fought game shows that he still has a slight advantage over Malfroy. It is safe to say, I think, that Whoever Malfroy can beat D. G. France can beat, and France has shown he can still beat Malfroy. France’s placing would have been more certain had he competed in the New Zealand and the North Island championships. C. E. Malfroy.—To be a finalist in the New Zealand championships and to win the North Island championship from almost a New Zealand championship field gives C. E. Malfroy unassailable claims to a high place. There are many, and with much good reason, who would put him No. 2. I have already explained why I put D. G. France No. 2. A. L. France.—A. L. France was a semi-finalist at the New Zealand championships, being beaten by Malfroy. He was a finalist at the North Island championships, again being beaten by Malfroy. On the way along in the latter tourney he beat T. Rhodes-Williams and N. G. Sturt. His type of game, I think, is too puzzling for C. Angas, and I think J. T. has gone back too much Yo again beat him. In the past Laurenson had been a bar to France just as he had been to Bartleet. I think A. L. France’s position is secure at No. 4.

C. Angas.—C. Angas, the present Canterbury champion, in Auckland before the’ New Zealand championships played better in practice matches than he did in the championships themselves. But this is a common failing and may be discounted. In the men’s singles he was beaten by Bartleet. Those four placed above him have gained victories over him, while with the exception of Laurenson, whom he has never played, he has defeated those I have placed below him.

J. T. Laurenson.—Lack of practice alone keeps that human stone wall, J. T. Laurenson, from being even more dangerous than he now is. With no winning strobes other than a remarkable lob and a deadly smash, Laurenson ‘ gets there by his wonderful agility in getting to, and not less wonderful skill in getting back, seemingly-impossible balls. These retrieving powers, and his patience, are the means he employs to break down the opponent’s game. Of those below him, Sturt and Stedman are perhaps the two who would give him the hardest fight. N. G. Sturt.—N. G. Sturt has been suffering from lack- of practice. He was beaten by Malfroy in the New Zealand championships, when, it must be stated, Sturt was worried by a bereavement in the family. He played much better in the North Island championships, and in his match with A. L. France he improved with each succeeding game. His game is more versatile than Stedman’s and shows an adaptability to changing circumstances than at present A. C. Stedman cannot pretend to. T. Rhodes-Williams. —T. RhodesWilliams has come to the front in an outstanding degree by virtue of a good style, coolness and months of hard practice and much tournament play. On every occasion they have met he has defeated A. C. Stedman, and he has always gone down to C. E. Malfroy and A. L. France, while earlier in the season he obtained a merited win over N. R. C. Wilson. A. C, Stedman.—A. C. Stedman is a player of promise, who will, I feel sure, fulfil that promise. He has shown himself streets ahead of that warrior M. L. Lampe, and he disposed of N. R. C. Wilson in the North Island championships in no uncertain fashion. In the New Zealand championships he ran Laurenson to a hard four-set match. At Masterton he suffered decisive defeat at the hands of Malfroy. N. R. C. Wilson.—N. R. C. Wilson has not been seen in big tennis much this year and his appearance has, been unimpressive, due probably to little practice. His path is strewn "with more defeats than victories, and the defeats have been to players usually regarded as below him in standard. Nevertheless I do not think that there are any in New Zealand, outside of those I have before mentioned, who can beat him, except, of course, I. A. Seay, of Canterbury. A serious illness has prevented Seay from playing almost the whole of this season. But for that he must assuredly have been entitled to a place above C. Angas, and probably above A. L. France and below Malfroy.