Citizens Say

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 552, 3 January 1929, Page 8

Citizens Say

(To the Editor.)

TOO MANY DOGS » As with greatness, so with dogs: some acquire dogs; some have dogs thrust upon them. It is because I am one of the latter long-suffering class that I maintain there are too manv dogs. Not that I am cruel to dogs. Ido not kick dogs, or starve them. kike old Mother Hubbard I hate to see a hungry dog. My grievance is not against dogs, but against dog-owners. There is a time and. a place for everything; and the time for dogs is daytime, and the place io.r them the wide open spaces of the country, but not closely-populated suburbs, where tired workers seek sleep. , , As I write I am tormented by a dog making the night hideous in an adjoining backyard. Everyone within a furlong range must be tossing in sleepless wrath, thinking sinister things of this particular dog and his inconsiderate owner. Why, oh why, do suburban residents keep ornamental dogs? Any inconsiderate wretch with 7s Gd or so and an indifference to fleas seems entitled to tie up a dog in his pocket handkerchief suburban backyard. There it can bark for 365 days and nights without further interference from State or municipality. But should a sleepless neighbour offer it a tempting morsel of poisoned meat over the fence, he is certain to be denounced by “Pro Bono Publico” and ‘‘Mother of Six” in the Press. or lynched by local dog fiends. I> it just, I ask? Is it fair to non-dog licensees like myself, who lose our repose because a half-starved dog. like Macbeth, “doth murder sleep”? I want to annihilate that ridiculous idea of the value ot' dogs in suburban backyards as “watchdogs.” Frighten away burglars! Ridiculous! Our suburban homes are not worth robbing—at least mine i* not. WEARY WILLIE.

BAD HABITS IN TENNIS Sir, — Anyone who watched the play of the juniors at the tennis championship meeting must realise how timely was the article in last night’s Sun, on the training of young players. They are growing up “just anyhow.” It looks a simple thing to toss a ball in the air and hit it 6ver the net into the service court; yet only one player in 100 can place his feet in the right position, and make the correct motions of body and arms to deliver the service properly and without waste of energy and strength. I watched the final of the mixed doubles for juniors, and it was a mystery to me how two boys with such a bad style could have got so far. One would think they had been training for a contortionist act in a circus instead of a tennis match. A good coach could have taught them that twisting their bodies into knots

puts no extra twist on to the ball, nor does it travel any faster as a result of a corkscrew action of the arm that holds the racket. Neither of the boys mentioned can ever make a player unless he promptly corrects his bad habits, and adopts a less fatiguing style. Bartleet is almost a classic example of beauty and efficiency of style on the tennis court. If our young players cannot learn from watching Bartleet how to deliver a service or make a stroke let them practice in front of a full-length mirror. If they could see what guys they look a t present, they might lose some tff their conceit, and be readier to learn. A good games master at a school can nip a lot of faults in the bud; but many boys are playing tennis to-day who have never had the luck to be coached in their games at school: and unless the controlling authorities of our tennis clubs lay themselves out to do something to develop young players along sound lines, the careers of many who might otherwise reach the Championship class will be spoiled. E.G.M.

TENNIS AND UMPIRES Sir, — I am sure many people will agree with me when I say that the standard of tennis at the New Zealand championships has on the whole been disappointing. Weak services are it coxispicuous fault among nearly all the players. More disappointing still. nnm- eV !t' !i us . been tUc exceptionally 5,a standard of the umpiring, in which, as is an open secret amons those associated with them, the S f , lale had 110 confl dence whatDases in point occurred in yesteiday afternoon s matches. Two naluably bad decisions on base-line dnyes went against Bartleet, while in the final of the combined doubles Angas hit un "outed” ball before it touched the ground, and yet got the La .ter in the same match, a mutual point at a deciding stage of ta ®, set ™ ent against Malfroy and Miss 1 racy. The shot went to Mis--S a £d C w han< !’ 3t an anreachi.de dn„le, ana was two inches inside the hs’cilrif umpire gave the point to the Canterbury pair. In drawing attention to this, I am not so miTeh erm msing the umpire as criticising the was 'ob, m f r , un . ninsr tlle tournament, it plam that such linesmen as there nnt inexperienced. There were only n oteof e te h wL stand. °How%hey e we'r e e exmecE/? ro°un l d e ‘te y "s ith a touSSattoS I, ihteteS shot 6 wa" out. On a court that is the scene of m atitakp Ch ’t " hich a national title is emptoved^ltf lß . l4 li , nesnlei ‘ should be ’ Y e at each end for the side nth, f ' and centre-lines, and others for the base-lines and servicelines. An oilier man should be on the net, for “net balls” off service. These

aids to the umpires are considered indispensable at centres like Wimbledon, Forest Hills (U.S.A.), and St. Cloyd (France), at all of which places the standard of umpiring is as high as it it possible to get. Why, therefore. the same aids should nqt be thought necessary here, where the umpires were often inexperienced, is an abiding mystery. Both umpires and linesmen should be given a certain a mount of instruction, and the ball-boys, too, want coaching. Often they were more a hindrance than a help to the players. If it hopes to raise the standard of tennis in this country, the New Zealand Lawn Tennis Association will have to shed some of its suburban ideas. In conclusion. I should like to pay a tribute to the quality of The Sun’s tennis reports. a refreshing change from some of the sheer drivel I have seen published. WIMBLEDON.