LAWN TANNIS.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17971, 17 March 1930, Page 3

LAWN TANNIS.

THE AUSTRALIAN TEAM. IN HAMILTON TO-MORROW. INTERESTING PLAY PROMISED.. The visit of the. Australian lawn tennis team to Hamilton to-morrow should be a red-letter day as far as tennis is concerned in this area. The visitors have just completed a highly successful tour of the Dominion without suffering loss in any of the matches played, and with the loss of very few sets throughout. In the doubles department of the game they have, so far, proved invincible. The Australians are a young', vigorous team, all having been tried out in the recent Davis Cup tests in Australia. Of splendid physique, they play an accurate hard-hitting game with much of the spectacular that is the delight of the spectators. The members of the Waikato team are all in ihe top rank of tennis in this area, and while it may not be expected of them that they will defeat the visitors,, they can be depended on to make them give of their best. Both Dr. Laurenson and A. W. Sims are ex-Dominion singles champions, while Dr Gray and G. Brough have had quite a lot of good singles work. In doubles the locals are more or less an unknown quantity, hut can be defended upon to make a good showng. Play Commences 11 a.m. Play will start at 11 a.m- on the Rosstrevor Street courts, when Dr. Grav and G. Brough will he opposed to the third and fourth members of the visitors’ team in singles. At - p.m. Dr. Laurenson will meet Kalins, and A. W. Sims will meet Sproule in singles These games will he followed by the doubles, when the Waikato team will he paired as ioljows: Dr. Laurenson and Sims, and Dr. Gray and Brough. Exhibition Game, An endeavour Is being made to arrange an exhibition' doubles game by the visitors, which will follow the above games, if the visitors are agreeable. Civic Reception. ■His Worship the Mayor, Mr J. RFow wall tender a civic reception to the team, at 1.45 p.m. on the courts Seating accommodation for about four hundred spectators will he available, and given favourable Wither conditions some fine tennis should eventuate, as the courts are in splendid order at present. SECONDARY SCHOOLS. THE ANNUAL TOURNAMENT. FURTHER SECTIONS DECIDED. Ideal playing conditions favoured the competitors ih the. Waikato Secondary Schools’ annual tennis tournament which was continued on the Hamilton Club’s courts on Saturday. During the play .two finals were decided, while most of the other competitions have reached semi-final stages and will he completed next Saturday. Some excellent games were witnessed around [he courts, particularly in the junior sections, in which 1 there are some promising young players. The Results. Following are the results of the section play:— Senior Girls’ Singles—Second round: M. Edmondson heat P. Taylor, 9 4. Third round: J. Cowper heat L. Holmes, 9 —7; G. Clevely beat E. Robinson,' 9—3; M. Edmondson won toy default from B. Boyes. Semi-ilnal: P. Sorby beat M. Edmondson, 9—5; C. Cievelv beat L. Cowper, 9 —6. Senior Girls’ Doubles. —Semi-final: P. Sorby and T. King beat M. Edmondson and P. Taylor, 9—2. Junior Girls’ Singles.—Third round: B. Armstrong "heat J. Green, 7—2. Semi-ilnal: G. Clevely beat B. Armstrong, 7—l; P. Woolf or d heat I. Leech, 7 —3. Junior Girls’ Doubles.—C. Clevely :;.:ui,p, Woolford (Hamilton Technical High School) heat M. Hicks and N. Griffiths (Cambridge District ' High School)', 9—l. In this match the Hamilton girls played an outstanding game throughout, both using excellent judgment in p'acing the ball. Their opponents -.rove hard to increase their score, hut :;;o opposition was too strong and the Hamilton girls registered a meritorious victory. junior Boys’ Doubles. —Final: Mathieson and Pount-ney (Hamilton High School) Ibeat llotson and Page (Hamilton High School), 9—B. This was perhaps the most interesting game of the day. Hotson and Page, Iwo of the smallest competitors in the tournament, faced their opponents showing signs of nervousness, and did not begin to show their true form until the score w j as heavily against them. Mathieson and Pountney, who were playing very consistent tennis, gained the honours in the first two games and oontlnued to meet with success until the scores stood at 4—i in their favour. It was then that Hotson and Page came to light with some dazzling strokes which caught the opposition off their guard and equalised the tallies at six all. Pountney’s net play again gave him the lead, 7 —6, but Hotson and Page fought hard and scores were again equal. In the final game Mathieson and Pountney combined in overwhelming play, against which Hotson and Page had no chance, although they battled valiantly and were, applauded for their plucky fight. Senior Boys’ Singles.—Third round: Ghitty beat Anderson, 9—l; Ellis beat Kelly, 9—2; Tapper beat Cook, 9—7. Semi-final: Livingstone beat Tapper, 9—4; Ghitty beat Ellis, 9—B. Senior Boys’ Doubles.—Semi-final: Cook and Ellis beat Cox and Kelly, 9 —2; Livingstone and War beat Tapper and Patterson, 9 —5. A Fine Performance. A feature of the morning’s play was the performance of Miss Cecily Clevely, a young player from the Hamilton Technical High School, who played and won four consecutive games, in each instance defeating her opponents toy a substantial margin. Playing with a convincing style and dispalylng a sound knowledge of the game, she gave a fine exhibition In every game. Although only a Junior she participated in senior games as well as In those of her own section. Throughout the tournament Miss Clevely has competed with distinction, and her performances stamp h on as a player of outstanding ability.

CAMBRIDGE SUB-ASSOCIATION. COMPETITION FINALS. The Cambridge Sub-Association’s final matches in the A and B grade competition were played on Saturday. The A grade was won by Fencourt by 14 sets to 10 against Cambridge. Trinity won the B grade with ' an overwhelming victory against Fencourt by 24 sets to 0. Fencourt A v. Cambridge A. The results of the A grade match were as follows, Cambridge being mentioned first :- x : Men’s Singles.—Clow v. Swayne, | I—7; J. Haworth v. Jamieson, I—6 ; Wilson v. Feisst, I—7; L. Haworth v. Cubis, 7—6; Baker v. Jamieson, 7—l; Watson v. Swayne, 4-—7. Ladies Singles.—Miss Short v. Mrs Swayne, 2 —G; Miss Armstrong v. Miss Feisst, s—-G; Mrs Nickle v. Miss Jamieson, 5—6; Mrs Ward v. Mrs Cubis, G—4; Miss Cowley A r . Mrs Jamieson, 4—6; Miss McCarrol v. Miss Qualtrough, G—4. Men’s Doubles. —Clow and J. Haworth v. Swayne and Jamieson, 5 —7; Wilson and L. Haworth v. Cubis and Feisst, 7 —2; Baker and Watson v. Swayne and Jamieson, 7—5. Ladies’ Doubles. —Misses Short and Armstrong v. Mesdames Swayne and Cubis, 6—4; Mesdames Nickle and Ward v. Miss Feisst and Mrs Jamieson, I—6;1 —6; Misses Cowley and McCarrol v. Misses Qualtrough and Jamieson, 5-—G. Combined Doubles. —J. "Haworth and Miss Short v. Swayne and Mrs Swayne, 3 —7; Clow and Mrs Nickle v. Jamieson and Miss Jamieson, 5 —7; Wilson and Miss Armstrong v. Feisst and Miss Feisst, 7—i; Watson and Mrs Ward v. Cubis and Mrs Cubis, 3—7; L. Haworth and Miss Cowley V. Jamieson and Miss Jamieson, 6 —7; Baker and Miss McCarrol v. Swayne and Miss Qualtrough, 7 —4. B. Grade. Men’s Singles.—Trinity players being mentioned first : —G. William v. T. Jamieson, 7—4; 11. Simpson v. A. Conner, 7 —l; D. McCathie v. A. Paton, 7 —6; A. Clothier v. C. Feisst, 7 —l ;S. Nicholson v. L. Bourke, 7—l; G.. Hay v. J. Watlam, 7 —3. 'Ladies’ Singles.—Miss E. Price v. Miss E. Feisst, 6 —2; Miss A. Levesque v. Mrs Simpson, G—s; Mrs Williams v. Miss M. Jamieson, 6—o; Miss E. Lynds v. Mrs Bourke, G —3; Mrs Clothier v. Miss Yoyle, 6 —l; Miss L. Stubbing v. Miss Swayne, 6 —3. Men’s Doubles. —Williams and Simpson-v. Jamieson and Feisst, 7—-1; McCathie and Hay v. Conner and Paton, 7 —6; Clothier and Nicholson v. Bourke and Wattam, 7 —4. Ladies’ Doubles. —Misses Price and Levesque v. Miss Feisst and Mrs Simpson, G —4; Mesdames Williams and Clothier v. Miss Jamieson and Mrs Bourke, 6—2; Misses Lynds and Stubbing v. Misses Yoyle and Swayne, 6 — 5. Combined Doubles. —G. Williams and Miss Levesque v. T. Jamieson and Miss E. Feisst, 7 —l; H. Simpson and Miss E. Price v. E. Conner and Mrs Simpson, 7—2; D. McCathie and Mrs Williams v. A. Paton and Miss M. Jamieson, 7 —5; A. Clothier and Mrs Clothier v. C. Feisst and Miss Yoyle. 7 2; S. Nicholson and Miss I/ynds v. T. Bourke and Mrs Bourke, 7 —5; G. Hay and Miss Stubbing v. J. WatLuii and Miss Swayne, 7—G.