RANKING OF TENNIS PLAYERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 129, 22 August 1927, Page 7

RANKING OF TENNIS PLAYERS

THE LISTS FOR THE DOMINION

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

WELLINGTON, v Jday. TENNIS PLAYERS all over the Dominion have been anxiously awaiting the publication of the national ranking lists which are issued each year by the Ranking Committee of the New Zealand Lawn Tenuis Association. When these lists are published they give some indication of the standing of the leading players as seen by the controlling authority, and naturally every player desires the honour of appearing on the list, whether it be for men or women, as the places are limited to 10 in each case. The annual reports of the New Zealand Tennis Association is usually the first indication of this ranking, and this year the reports are a little delayed, but they will be issued soon. In view of this the ranking lists have been made available a little earlier than was expected, and are as follow: MEN. 1. E. D. Andrews (N.Z. champion, Wellington. 2. G. Ollivier, Canterbury. :i. N. R. C. Wilson. Wellington. 4. E. L. Bartleet, Auckland. 5. A. L. France, Wellington. «. D. G. France, Wellington. 7. A. W. Sims, Auckland. 8. C. E. Malfroy, Wellington. 9. T. W. Patterson, Canterbury. 10. I. A. Seay, Canterbury. WOMEN. 1. Miss A. Howe (New Zealand champion, now Mrs R. Adams), Wellington. 2. Miss M. Speirs, Canterbury. 3. Miss M. Tracy, Wellington. 4. Miss B. Knight, Auckland. 5. Mrs W. J. Melody, Wellington. (i. Miss M. Wake, Canterbury. 7. Miss Pattlson, Otago. 8. Miss M. Lowry, Hawke’s Bay. 9. Miss M. Colebrook, Auckland. 10. Miss M. East, Wellington. Wellington's Success. Wellington has done remarkably well in securing half of the available places among the men. Canterbury is next with three. Auckland has to be content with two, and the other provinces are not represented. It is not quite clear what procedure is adopted by the Ranking Committee in making its choice, but it must be safe to suppose that the previous season’s games play a very material part in the placings. As is only natural, the winner of the national singles appears at the head of the list, and though he might not have been there had another player made the journey to Auckland, the fact that he was the winner entitled Andrews to the distinction. It is usual in all tennis countries where ranking lists are made each year to place the winner of the singles championship at the head of the list. It is not in this direction that players will disagree, but in the placings, which are not always what might be expected, as in the present case. Of those left off the men’s list L. G. Knott and N. G. Sturt are the only

ones who might be entitled tc a place, but as they did not meet the Canterbury player Patterson, the only one they might have displaced, it would be unfair to say that either of them was entitled to inclusion. SO far as the ranking is concerned, Seay would seem to be rather unfairly placed, and should have been higher on the list. However, on his play last season there might be some people who would consider him lucky to be included at all. For all that, there can be no doubt that Seay is one of New Zealand’s leading players, and if only he would take his training more seriously he would be very near to the top. Sims was not very convincing last season, and if he had found a place below Malfroy it would not have caused any great surprise. It v.; thought by some people that Dr E :. W. Smyth would have been included, but looking back over the past season it will be understood why he failed to catch the eye of the committee. If he reproduces his 1925 form this season he should find a place next year. The Women’s List. Among the women, Wellington again takes the lead with four, Mrs R. Adams, nee Miss Arita Howe, the New Zealand singles champion, and a prom inent Brougham Hill player, being at the head. There is not a great deal of difference between the two women occupying the first and second positions, but the title-holder is rightfully placed first. Miss Tracy also deserves her position as third player, but it Miss Knight is entitled to a place it seems that Mrs A. M. Arneil, a wellknown Whangarei player, should also have found a position on the lisL. Certainly Miss Knight beat her it the national championships, but the Whangarei lady has several fine performances to her credit. It would perhaps have been more just had Mrs Melody been placed fourth, as she has been playing consistently well during the past season. Both Miss Wake and Miss Pattison deserved their positions though the latter woman, who is the Otago champion, did very little last season to assist in placing her. Providing that one oi two perform ances are sufficient to earn a qualification to be ranked, Mrs Scott, nee Miss Jean McLaren, should be entitled to a place before Miss Pattison. Other players who are rather unfortunate in not finding a place are Miss E. Miller and Miss J. E. Ramsay, both of Auckland, whose performances entitled them to consideration before Miss Pattison and Miss Colebrook. Miss East was extremely lucky to be included on her last season’s performances, but, for all that, she probably would beat any one of the three immediately above her.