CUP LESSONS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 568, 22 January 1929, Page 14

CUP LESSONS

Patterson’s Report TEAM OF FOUR ESSENTIAL “The main lesson we learned from the Davis Cup tour was that if it is worth while sending a team it is necessary to have a team of four,” says Gerald Patterson, captain and manager of the 1928 Davis Cup team, in his report on the tour. There are four reasons for this. He states: (1) Great advantage in practice. (2) Reserves in case of injury or illness. (3) Wider selection if any member of team is out of form. (4) Two complete teams for doubles in tournament games. Another lesson learned was that players before leaving Australia should undergo rigid and complete medical examination by one conscientious doctor. “It is quite apparent,” says Patterson, “that we must expect financial loss on all Davis Cup tours, unless we reach the challenge round.” “Trying Time” Referring to the Davis Cup tie at Genoa, Patterson says conditions were perfect, but Crawford’s . attack of asthma occurred the day before the match. Ilopman’s arm was quite recovered at the time, but his own was getting more painful as the day of The match approached.

“We had a trying time in an effort to nurse Crawford into condition,” adds the report. “I realise the terrific strain imposed by an attack of asthma, and if we had been warned of this chronic condition we could have acted with more dispatch, but we were assured that his attacks were only a touch of bronchitis. It may be open to conjecture why he was played in the circumstances, but I did not anticipate any such happening. Crawford was capable of beating de Morpurgo if he could strike an early streak, and Tlopman, I considered, had some little chance of beating Stefani. If Crawford had not played in the first match he could not play on the final day, and I knew we could procure the necessary doctor’s certificate to allow us to use Hopman against Stefani. “Prom this I do not want it to be

PATTERSON AND CRAWFORD imagined Crawford was going on to the court in an unfit condition, though he was by no means as well as one should be for a Davis Cup match. We did consider the advisability i ' using Hawkes and myself, and although Hawkes’s form had been fair, there had been nothing in it at the time to justify such controversial displacement of one of the selected men, even if Hawkes had been keen on playing, which he was not. Hopman’s Weakness “My friendship with Hawkes was well known. Had Hawkes been officially sent as fourth man, I think I would have risked criticism on this score. The weakness in Hopman’s game lay in his great uncertainty in being unable to hold his service at that period. There was no need to concern ourselves with the question of who was to play in the last match against &tefani, as Morpurgo settled the match by beating me in five sets. “I think it quite clear,” adds Patterson, “that Crawford, if he is fit and the climate suits him, is among the leading players in the world. Hopman’s game has undergone changes which have produced a good deal of uncertainty, but I anticipate that if he is able to steady down he will gain rea] benefit from his trip overseas. I cannot commend him too highly for his enthusiasm and keenness, and feel sure that h€> amply justified the policy of the association in sending such a young player overseas.

“Taken right through, Crawford’s performances were much better than Hopman’s, and if something can be done to overcome his chronic bronchial asthma, we have in him a player who is quite capable of putting Australia in the forefront of international tennis.”

Unquestionably the man of the year is Henri Cochet. The winning of the championship of the United States may well be termed his crowning achievement, for it was the only one of the big titles that had hitherto eluded his grasp. Cochet is also champion of France, and he was the hero of the Davis Cup challenge tie. His only defeat was at the hands of Lacoste at Wimbledon, where the two met in the final round and Cochet won only one set.