Southampton and the Women's National Championship conflicted the next week. The story of Mrs. Mallory's sensational triumph and successful defense of her title is told elsewhere in this book.

Southampton, as always, proved the goat, for almost all the leading players took a week's rest before the National Doubles Championship.

The English Davis Cup team, Willis E. Davis, Vincent Richards and the Kinsey brothers, Bob and Howard, were the leading stars. The event narrowed to Davis and Richards in the finals with no upsets of a startling nature. Davis had had a very poor record all year, while Richards boasted of the finest list of victories of the season. On the other hand the boy was over-tennised and stale and it proved his undoing, for after one set, which he won easily, the sting went out of his game and Davis took the match in four sets.

The championships were just ahead. The Doubles held at Longwood Club, Boston, found several teams closely matched. Williams and Washburn, with the Rhode Island State and Newport to their credit, were the favorites for the title. "Little Bill" Johnston and W. E. Davis and Bob and Howard Kinsey of California had both pressed them closely. Vincent Richards and I teamed together for the first time since N. E. Brookes and G. L. Patterson had won the title from us in 1919. Samuel Hardy and S. H. Voshell were a pair of veterans who needed watching.

Williams and Washburn had a close call in the third round when Hardy and Voshell led 3-1 in the fifth set, but an unfortunate miss of an easy volley by Hardy and a footfault on game point at 3-4 and 30-40 by Voshell turned the tide and the favorites were safe. Johnston and Davis had several chances in the semi-final but Davis was too uncertain and Bill too anxious and they tossed away the opportunities.

Vinnie and I met the Kinseys in the semi-final and after chasing their lobs all over the court for hours and smashing until our backs ached, we finally pulled out three sequence sets. I have seldom seen a team work together more smoothly than the Kinseys.

The final match between Williams and Washburn, Richards and I for two sets was as sensational and closely contested doubles as ever featured a national championship. Our slight superiority in returning service gave us just enough margin to pull out the first two sets 14-12, 12-10. Then Richards went mad. There is no other way to describe it. Every time he got his racquet on a ball it went for a clean placement. I stood around and watched him. Almost single-handed this remarkable boy won the last set 6-2.

The Davis Cup challenge round stretched itself between the Doubles and Singles Championship. There was no work except for us poor hard-working players who were on the team. The rest was a blessing to Richards, who needed it badly, as he was tired and drawn.

Following the American victory in the Davis Cup, the scene shifted to Philadelphia and the eyes of the tennis world were centered on the Germantown Cricket Club, where the greatest tournament of all time was to be held. Players of seven nations were to compete. The Davis Cup stars of England, Australia and Japan added their brilliance to that of all the leading American players. Six American champions, W. A. Larned, W. J. Clothier, R. N. Williams, R. L. Murray, W. M. Johnston, and myself were entered.

Fate took a hand in the draw and for once I think did so badly that it settled the "blind draw" forever. In one sixteen Johnston, Richards, Shimidzu, Murray and I were bunched. The howl of protest from tennis players and public alike was so loud that the blind draw surely will go by the board at the coming annual meeting. Since the foregoing was written, the prophecy has proved true. The annual meeting, Feb. 4th, 1922, adopted the "Seeded Draw" unanimously.

Every day produced its thrills, but play ran singularly true to form in most cases. Illness took a hand in the game, compelling the defaults of R. L. Murray, Ichiya Kumagae and W. A. Larned.

The early rounds saw but one upset. Norman Peach, Captain of the Australasian Davis Cup team, was eliminated by William W. Ingraham, of Providence, one of the best junior players in America. It was a splendid victory and shows the fruit our junior development system is already bearing. Peach had not been well but for all that he played a splendid game and all credit is due Ingraham for his victory.

The second day's play saw a remarkable match when W. E. Davis defeated C. V. Todd of Australia after the latter led him by two sets. Davis steadily improved and by rushing the net succeeded in breaking up Todd's driving game. Todd unfortunately pulled a muscle in his side that seriously hampered him in the fifth set.

Wallace F. Johnson, playing magnificent tennis, eliminated Watson Washburn in one of the brainiest, hardest fought matches of the whole tournament.

Johnson was very steady and outlasted Washburn in the first set, which he won. Washburn then took to storming the net and carried off two sets decisively. The strain took its toll and he was perceptibly slower when the fourth set opened. Johnson ran him from corner to corner, or tossed high lobs when Washburn took the net. It proved too much for even Washburn to stand, and the Philadelphian won the next two sets and with it the match. Many people considered it a great upset. Personally I expected it, as I know how dangerous Johnson may be.

The Johnston-Richards match and my meeting with Shimidzu came on the third day. Fully 15,000 people jammed themselves around the court and yelled, clapped and howled their excitement through the afternoon. It was a splendidly behaved gallery but a very enthusiastic one.

Richards, eager to avenge his crushing defeat by Johnston at Seabright, started with a rush. "Little Bill" was uncertain and rather nervous. Richards ran away with the first two sets almost before Johnston realized what was happening. The tennis Richards played in these sets was almost unbeatable. Johnston nerved himself to his task and held even to 3-all in the third. Here he broke through and Richards, I think foolishly, made little attempt to pull out the set. The boy staked all on the fourth set. Johnston led at 5-3 but Richards, playing desperately, pulled up to 6-5 and was within two points of the match at 30-all on Johnston's service. It was his last effort. Johnston took the game and Richards faded away. His strength failed him and the match was Johnston's.

I hit a good streak against Shimidzu and ran away with three straight sets more or less easily.

Meantime one of the most sensational upsets of the whole tournament was taking place on an outside court where Stanley W. Pearson of Philadelphia was running the legs off N. W. Niles of Boston and beating him in five sets.

"Little Bill" Johnston and I met the next day in what was the deciding match of the tournament, even though it was only the fourth round. Every available inch of space was jammed by an overflow gallery when we took the count. It was a bitter match from the first point. We were both playing well. In the early stages Little Bill had a slight edge, but after one set the balance shifted and I held the whip hand to the end.

The same day Dick Williams went down to sudden and unexpected defeat at the hands of J. O. Anderson of Australia in five well played sets. It was a typical Williams effort, glorious tennis one minute followed by inexcusable lapses. The Australian was steady and clever throughout.

The keen speculation as to the outcome of the tournament fell off after the meeting of Johnston and I, and with it a decrease in attendance. This ran very high, however, again reaching capacity on the day of the finals.

The round before the semi finals saw a terrific struggle between two Californians, Bob Kinsey and Willis E. Davis. Kinsey had defeated Davis in the Metropolitan Championship the week before and was expected to repeat, but Davis managed to outlast his team and nosed out the match. Kinsey collapsed on the court from exhaustion as the last point was played.

Gordon Lowe went down to me in a fine match while J. O. Anderson and Wallace Johnson completed the Quartet of semi finalists,

I finally got my revenge on Davis for the many defeats he had inflicted on me in years gone by. Wallace Johnson scored a magnificent victory over J. O. Anderson in four sets after the Australian led at a set all, 5-2, and 40-15. Johnson ran the visiting Davis Cup star all over the court and finally pulled out the match in one of the finest displays of court generalship I have ever seen.

The finals was more or less of a family party. It was an all-Philadelphian affair, two Philadelphians competing with 14,000 more cheering them on.

Johnson was unfortunate. Saturday the match was started under a dark sky on a soft court that just suited him. I have seldom seen Johnson play so well; as always, his judgment was faultless. We divided games with service with monotonous regularity. The score was 5-all when it began to drizzle. The court, soft at best that day, grew more treacherous and slippery by the minute. Johnson's shots hardly left the ground. He broke my service at 7-all when the rain materially increased. He reached 40-15 but, with the crowd moving to shelter and the rain falling harder every minute, he made the fatal error of hurrying and netted two easy shots for deuce, A moment more and the game was mine and the match called at 8-all.

Play was resumed on Monday before a capacity gallery. By mutual agreement the match was played over from the beginning. I had learned my lesson the previous day and opened with a rush. The hot sun and strong wind had hardened the court and Johnson's shots rose quite high. It was my day and fortunately for me I made the most of it.

I consider that match the best tennis of my life. I beat Johnson 6-1, 6-3, 6-1 in 45 minutes. Thus fell the curtain on the official tennis season.

The East-West matches in Chicago proved more or less of an anti-climax. Johnston was ill and unable to compete, while Wallace Johnson, Williams, Washburn and Shimidzu could not play. Several remarkable matches featured the three days' play in the Windy City. The most remarkable was the splendid victory of J. O. Anderson over me in five sets, the final one of which hung up a world's record for tournament play by going to 19-17. Frank T. Anderson defeated Robert Kinsey in five sets, a splendid performance, while S. H. Voshell scored over W. E. Davis.

The Ranking Committee faces a hard task on the season's play. Let us look at the records of some of the American players, and a few of our visitors.

1. W. M. Johnston Beat V. Richards 2, Williams (2), Kumagae, Shimidzu, Roland Roberts, Davis and others. Lost to Washburn, Tilden, Roberts.

2. R. N. Williams 2d. Beat Richards, Shimidzu, Kumagae (2), Voshell and others. Lost to Johnston (2), Richards, J. O. Anderson, Kumagae.

3. Vincent Richards Beat Tilden, Richards, Kumagae (2), Shimidzu (2), (in exhibition at Toronto), Voshell, Hawkes, Lost to Johnston (2), Williams, Davis.

4. Ishiya Kumagae Beat Williams, Voshell, Anderson, Hawkes. Lost to Johnston, Tilden, Williams, Richards.

5. Zenzo Shimidzu Beat Wallace Johnson (2), Anderson, Hawkes, Niles. Lost to Johnston, Tilden (2), Voshell (2). Richards (2) (in exhibitions).

6. Wallace Johnson Beat Watson, Washburn, Anderson. Lost to Tilden, Shimidzu (2).

7. Watson Washburn Beat Williams, Johnston, Voshell. Lost to Wallace Johnson, Tilden, Atherton Richards (a most sensational upset).

8. J. O. Anderson of Australia Beat R. N. Williams, Tilden, Hawkes, Lowe. Lost to Wallace Johnson, Kumagae, Shimidzu.

9. S. H. Voshell Beat Shimidzu (2) , Davis. Lost to Richards, Williams, Washburn, Neer (an upset), Allen Behr (a gift).

10. W. E. Davis Beat Richards, R. Kinsey, Lowe. Lost to Niles, L. B. Rice (an upset), R. Kinsey, Voshell and Tilden.

These few records show how useless comparative scores may be. If another season like 1921 strikes American tennis, the ranking will need either clairvoyance or a padded cell.

These upsets are part of the zest of the game and it is due to the very uncertainty of tennis that the public is daily becoming more enthusiastic about the game. I believe next year will see even a greater interest taken in it than was shown this.

Second in importance only to the big events themselves was the season in junior tennis.

Little Miss Helen Wills, in her first Eastern season, won the junior championship for girls and brought to the game one of the most delightful personalities that has appeared in many years. Her success at her early age should prove a great boom to girls' tennis all over America.

Vincent Richards passes from the junior ranks this year but leaves a successor who is worthy to wear his mantle in the person of Arnold W. Jones of Providence. Jones should outclass the field in 1922, by as wide a margin as did Richards this year.

Arnold Jones has had a remarkable record. He won the boys' championship of America in 1919. In 1920 he carried Richards to a close match in the National junior Singles, taking one set. He was ranked "two" for the year.

This year Arnold had his greatest year of his brief career. He journeyed to France and England, as the official junior representative of America, recognized by the National Tennis Association. He played splendidly in France, defeating A. Cousin in the hard court championship of the world and forced Tegner, the Danish Davis Cup star, to a close battle before admitting defeat. His sensational play in the doubles was a great aid in carrying him and me to the semi-final ground, where we lost to Gobert and Laurentz after five terrific sets. In England young Jones played Jacob, Captain of the Indian Davis Cup team, a splendid match.

On his return to America he carved his niche in the Hall of Junior Tennis fame by defeating Harold Godshall of California, W. W. Ingraham of Providence and Morgan Bernstein of New York on successive days in the junior championship. He forced Richards to a bitter fight in final, and again proved beyond question that he is but a step behind Richards today, although he is a full year younger.

Godshall, Ingraham, Charles Wood, Jr., Bernstein, Jerry Lang, Charles Watson III, Fritz Mercur and many other boys are but a step behind Jones. With this list of rising players, need we face the future with anything but the most supreme confidence in our ability to hold our place in the tennis world!

There were two other remarkable features to the tennis season of 1921, both of them in America. The first was the appearance of the Davis Cup team on the court of the White House, Washington, in response to a personal invitation from President and Mrs. Harding. The President, who is a keen sportsman, placed official approval on tennis by this act. On May 8th and 9th, Captain Samuel Hardy, R. N. Williams, Watson Washburn and I, together with Wallace F. Johnson, who understudied for William M. Johnston, met in a series of matches before a brilliant assembly of Diplomatic, Military and Political personages. C. S. Garland was unable to accompany the team owing to illness. Julian S. Myrick, President of the U. S. L. T. A., and A. Y. Leech completed the party.

Rain, that hoodoo of tennis, attempted to ruin the event for it fell steadily for the five days previous to the match. The court was a sea of mud on the morning scheduled, but the President desired play and the word went on "to play." Mr. Leech and Mr. Myrick, ever ready for emergencies in tennis, called for gasolene, which was forthcoming speedily, and, while the Chief Executive of the United States interviewed men on the destiny of nations, the people of Washington watched nearly 200 barrels of gasolene flare up over the surface of the court. The desired result was attained and at 2 o'clock President Harding personally called play. Singles between Williams and me opened the matches. Then Williams and Washburn decisively defeated Johnson and me, following which Williams and I nosed out Washburn and Johnson to close the program.

The second outstanding feature was the tour for the benefit of the American Committee for Devastated France. The appearance in America of Mlle. Suzanne Lenglen was due primarily to the efforts of Miss Anne Morgan, who secured the services of the famous French champion for a tour of the States, the proceeds to go to Devastated France. Mlle. Lenglen's regrettable collapse and forced departure left the Committee in a serious position. The American Tennis Association, which had co- operated with Miss Morgan in the Lenglen tour, found its clubs eager for a chance to stage matches for France but no matches available. Finally, in October, in response to the voluntary offer of several of the leading players, a team was organized that toured the East for the benefit of Devastated France. It included Mrs. Franklin I. Mallory, American champion, Miss Eleanor Goss, Miss Leslie Bancroft, Mrs. B. F. Cole, Mrs. F. H. Godfrey, Vincent Richards, Watson Washburn, N. W. Niles, R. N. Williams, W. F. Johnson and myself. Matches were staged at Orange, Short Hills, Morristown and Elizabeth, New Jersey, Green Meadow Club, Jackson Heights Club, Ardsley-on-the-Hudson, New Rochelle, Yonkers, New York, New Haven, and Hartford, Connecticut. They proved a tremendous success financially, and France netted a sum in excess of $10,000.



PART IV: SOME SIDELIGHTS ON FAMOUS PLAYERS

INTRODUCTORY

P. T. BARNUM immortalised Lincoln's language by often quoting him with: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." P. T. was an able judge of the public, and it is just this inability to fool all of the people all of the time that accounts for the sudden disappearance from the public eye of some one who only fooled all of the people for a little while. That person was a sham, a bluff, a gamester. He, or she, as the case may be, had no personality.

Personality needs no disguise with which to fool the people. It is not hidden in a long-hair eccentric being. That type is merely one of those who are "born every minute," as the saying goes. Personality is a dynamic, compelling force. It is a positive thing that will not be obliterated.

Personality is a sexless thing. It transcends sex. Theodore Roosevelt was a compelling personality, and his force and ability were recognized by his friends and enemies alike while the public, the masses, adored him without knowing why. Sarah Bernhardt, Eleanor Duse, and Mary Garden carry with them a force far more potent in its appeal to the public than their mere feminine charm. They hold their public by personality. It is not trickery, but art, plus this intangible force.

The great figures in the tennis world that have held their public in their hands, all have been men of marked personality. Not all great tennis players have personality. Few of the many stars of the game can lay claim to it justly. The most powerful personality in the tennis world during my time is Norman E. Brookes, with his peculiar sphinx-like repression, mysterious, quiet, and ominous calm. Brookes repels many by his peculiar personality. He never was the popular hero that other men, notably M'Loughlin and Wilding, have been. Yet Brookes always held a gallery enthralled, not only by the sheer wizardry of his play, but by the power of his magnetic force.

Maurice E. M'Loughlin is the most remarkable example of a wonderful dynamic personality, literally carrying a public off its feet. America and England fell before the dazzling smile and vibrant force of the red-haired Californian. His whole game glittered in its radiance. His was a triumph of a popular hero.

Anthony F. Wilding, quiet, charming, and magnetic, carried his public away with him by his dynamic game. It was not the whirlwind flash of the Comet M'Loughlin that swept crowds off their feet, it was more the power of repression that compelled.

I know no other tennis players that sweep their public away with them to quite the same degree as these three men I have mentioned. R. L. Murray has much of M'Loughlin's fire, but not the spontaneity that won the hearts of the crowd. Tennis needs big personalities to give the public that glow of personal interest that helps to keep the game alive. A great personality is the property of the public. It is the price he must pay for his gift.

It is the personal equation, the star, who appeals to the public's imagination.

I do not think it is the star who keeps the game alive. It is that great class of players who play at clubs the world over, who can never rise above the dead level of mediocrity, the mass of tennis enthusiasts who play with dead racquets and old balls, and who attend all big events to witness the giants of the court, in short, "The Dubs" (with a capital D), who make tennis what it is, and to whom tennis owes its life, since they are its support and out from them have come our champions.

Champions are not born. They are made. They emerge from a long, hard school of defeat, dis- encouragement, and mediocrity, not because they are born tennis players, but because they are endowed with a force that transcends discouragement and cries "I will succeed."

There must be something that carries them up from the mass. It is that something which appeals in some form to the public. The public may like it, or they may dislike it, but they recognize it. It may be personality, dogged determination, or sheer genius of tennis, for all three succeed; but be it what it may, it brings out a famous player. The quality that turns out a great player, individualizes his game so that it bears a mark peculiar to himself. I hope to be able to call to mind the outstanding qualities of some of the leading tennis players of the world.

Where to start, in a field so great, representing as it does America, the British Isles, Australia, France, Japan, South Africa, Rumania, Holland, and Greece, is not an easy task; but it is with a sense of pride and a knowledge that there is no game better fitted to end this section of my book, and no man more worthy to lead the great players of the world, that I turn to William M. Johnston, the champion of the United States of America, and my team-mate in the Davis Cup team of 1920.



CHAPTER XII. AMERICA

WILLIAM M. JOHNSTON

The American champion is one of the really great orthodox players in the world. There is nothing eccentric, nothing freakish about his game.

Johnston is a small man, short and light; but by perfect weight-control, footwork, and timing he hits with terrific speed.

His service is a slice. Hit from the top of his reach Johnston gets power and twist on the ball with little effort. He has a wonderful forehand drive, of a top-spin variety. This shot is world famous, for never in the history of the game has so small a man hit with such terrific speed and accuracy. The racquet travels flat and then over the ball, with a peculiar wrist-snap just as the ball meets the racquet face. The shot travels deep and fast to the baseline.

Johnston's backhand is a decided "drag" or chop. He hits it with the same face of the racquet as his forehand, and with very little change in grip. It is remarkably steady and accurate, and allows Johnston to follow to the net behind it.

Johnston's volleying is hard, deep, and usually very reliable. He crouches behind his racquet and volleys directly in to the flight of the ball, hitting down. His low volleys are made with a peculiar wrist-flick that gives the rise and speed. His overhead is accurate, reliable, but not startling in its power. Johnston's game has no real weakness, while his forehand and volleying are superlative.

Johnston is a remarkable match player. He reaches his greatest game when behind. He is one of the hardest men to beat in the game owing to his utter lack of fear and the dogged determination with which he hangs on when seemingly beaten. He is quiet, modest, and a sterling sportsman. He gets a maximum result with a minimum effort.

R. N. WILLIAMS

R. N. Williams, American Champion 1914 and 1916, another of my Davis Cup team-mates, is a unique personality in the tennis world. Personally, I believe that Williams at his best is the greatest tennis player in the world, past or present. Unfortunately, that best is seldom seen, and then not for a consistent performance. He is always dangerous, and his range of variation is the greatest among any of the leading players.

Williams' service is generally a fast slice, although he at times uses an American twist. He is erratic in his delivery, scoring many aces, but piling up enormous numbers of double-faults. His ground strokes are made off the rising bound of the ball. They are flat or slightly sliced. Never topped, But sometimes pulled. Williams' margin of safety is so small that unless his shot is perfectly hit it is useless. He hits hard at all times and makes tremendous numbers of earned points, yet his errors always exceed them, except when he strikes one of his "super" days.

His volleying is very hard, crisp, and decisive, coupled with an occasional stop volley. His use of the half volley is unequalled in modern tennis. His overhead is severe and ordinarily reliable, although he will take serious slumps overhead. He is a past master of his own style strokes, but it is an unorthodox game that should not be copied by the average player.

He is never willing to alter his game for safety's sake, and defeats himself in sheer defiance by hitting throughout a match when his strokes are not working. He is greatly praised for this unwillingness to alter his game in defeat. Personally, I think he deserves condemnation rather than praise, for it seems recklessness rather than bravery to thus seek defeat that could easily be avoided.

Williams takes tennis almost too lightly. Cheery, modest, and easy-going, he is very popular with all galleries, as his personality deserves. He is a brilliant ever-interesting light in any tennis gathering, and his game will always show sheer genius of execution even while rousing irritation by his refusal to play safe. He would rather have one super-great day and bad defeats, than no bad defeats without his day of greatness. Who shall say he is not right? We may not now agree, but Williams may yet prove to us he is right and we are wrong.

CHARLES S. GARLAND

The last member of the Davis Cup team and youngest player of the Americans is Charles S. Garland, the Yale star.

Garland is the perfect stylist, the orthodox model for ground strokes. He is an example of what stroke perfection can do.

He uses a soft slice service, of no particular peculiarity, yet places it so well that he turns it into an attack. His forehand is hit with a full swing, flat racquet face, and a slight top spin. It is deadly accurate and of moderate speed. He can put the ball at will anywhere in the court off his forehand. His backhand is slightly sliced down the line and pulled flat across the court. It is not a point winner but is an excellent defence. His overhead is steady, reliable, and accurate, but lacks aggressiveness. His high volleying is fine, deep, and fast. His low volleying is weak and uncertain. He anticipates wonderfully, and covers a tremendous amount of court. His attack is rather obvious in that he seldom plays the unusual shot, yet his accuracy is so great that he frequently beats a man who guesses his shot yet can't reach it.

N. E. Brookes stated he considered Garland one of the greatest ground-stroke players in the world. This is true of his forehand, but his backhand lacks punch. His whole game needs speed and aggressiveness.

He is quiet, modest, and extremely popular. His perfect court manner and pleasant smile have made Garland a universal favourite in America and England. His game is the result of hard, conscientious work. There is no genius about it, and little natural talent. It is not an interesting game as it lacks brilliancy, yet it is very sound, and much better than it looks.

VINCENT RICHARDS

Vincent Richards, National junior Champion of America and the most remarkable boy playing tennis, is a distinct personality. Richards, who is now only seventeen, won the Men's Doubles Championship of America at the age of fifteen. Richards is a born tennis player and a great tennis genius.

Richards' service is a fast slice that he follows to the net. It is speedy and very accurate. His ground strokes are both slice and drive, although the basis of his game is slice. He meets the ball on the rise and "spoons" it off his forehand. It is low, fast, but none too sure. His backhand shot is a fast twisting slice that is remarkably effective and very excellent as a defence. He is learning a flat drive.

His volleying is the great feature of his game. He is the greatest natural volleyer I have ever seen. Low and high volleying, fore- and backhand is perfect in execution. His half volleying is phenomenal. His overhead is very severe for a boy, and carries great speed for so small a person, but it is inclined to be slightly erratic. He is tremendously fast on his feet, but it inclined to be lazy.

Vincent Richards has the greatest natural aptitude and equipment of any tennis player I have ever seen. Against it he has a temperament that is inclined to carelessness and laziness. He tends to sulkiness, which he is rapidly outgrowing. He is a delightful personality on the court, with his slight figure, tremendous speed, and merry smile. He is a second "Gus" Touchard in looks and style. I hope to see him develop to be the greatest player the world has ever seen. He gives that promise. The matter rests in Richards' hands, as his worst enemy is his temperament.

At his best he is to-day the equal of the top flight in the world. At his worst he is a child. His average is fine but not great. Travel, work, sincere effort, and a few years, should turn this astonishing boy into a marvellous player.

R. L. MURRAY

The new "California Comet," successor to M. E. M'Loughlin, is the usual sobriquet for R. L. Murray, now of Buffalo. Murray won the National Crown in 1917-1918.

His service is of the same cyclonic character as M'Loughlin. Murray is left-handed. He hits a fast cannon-ball delivery of great speed and an American twist of extreme twist. His ground strokes are not good, and he rushes the net at every opportunity. His forehand drive is very fast, excessively topped, and exceedingly erratic. His backhand is a "poke." His footwork is very poor on both shots. He volleys very well, shooting deep to the baseline and very accurately. His shoulder-high volleys are marvellous. His overhead is remarkable for its severity and accuracy. He seldom misses an overhead ball.

Murray is a terrifically hard worker, and tires himself out very rapidly by prodigious effort. He is a hard fighter and a hard man to beat. He works at an enormous pace throughout the match.

He is large, spare, rangy, with dynamic energy, and a wonderful personality that holds the gallery. His smile is famous, while his sense of humour never deserts him. A sportsman to his finger-tips, there is no more popular figure in American tennis than Murray. His is not a great game. It is a case of a great athlete making a second-class game first class, by sheer power of personality and fighting ability. He is really a second M'Loughlin in his game, his speed, and his personal charm.

WATSON WASHBURN

In contrast to Murray, Watson Washburn plays a cool, never-hurried, never-flurried game that is unique in American tennis.

There is little that is noteworthy of Washburn's game. His service is a well-placed slice. His ground strokes are a peculiar "wrist-slap," almost a slice. His volleying fair, his overhead steady but not remarkable. Just a good game, well rounded but not unique. Why is. Washburn great? Because, behind the big round glasses that are the main feature of Washburn on the tennis court, is a brain of the first water, directing and developing that all-round game. There is no more brilliant student of men in games than Washburn, and his persistence of attack is second only to Brookes'.

Washburn, too, is a popular player, but not in the same sense as Murray. Murray appeals to the imagination of the crowd, Washburn to its academic instincts. Washburn is a strategist, working out his match with mathematical exactness, and always checking up his men as he goes along.

There is no tennis player whose psychology I admire more than Washburn's. He is never beaten until the last point is played, and he is always dangerous, no matter how great a lead you hold over him.

Another case of the second-class game being made first class, but this time it is done by mental brilliancy.

WALLACE F. JOHNSON

Here is another case of a second-class game being used in a first-class manner, getting first-class results through the direction of a first-class tennis brain. Johnson is not the brilliant, analytical mind of Washburn, but for pure tennis genius Johnson ranks nearly the equal of Brookes.

Johnson is a one-stroke player. He uses a peculiar slice shot hit from the wrist. He uses it in service, ground strokes, volleying, and lobbing. It is a true one-stroke game, yet by sheer audacity of enterprise and wonderful speed of foot Wallace Johnson has for years been one of the leading players of America.

SAMUEL HARDY

The overwhelming success of the American Davis Cup team in 1920, when we brought back the cup from Australia was due in no small measure to the wonderful generalship displayed by one man, our Captain Samuel Hardy.

The hardest part of any such trip is the attention to training, relaxation and accommodations for the team and only perfect judgment can give the comfort so needed by a team. It is to Captain Hardy that the team owes its perfect condition throughout the entire 3,000 miles we journeyed after the cup. Yet Captain Hardy's success was far bigger than that, for by his tact, charming personality and splendid sportsmanship at all times he won a place for us in the hearts of every country we visited. Hardy, although a non-playing member of the team, is a great tennis player. He is one of the best doubles players America has produced. His clever generalship and wonderful knowledge of the game proved of inestimable value to the team in laying out our plan of attack in the Davis Cup matches themselves.

Clever, charming, just and always full of the most delightful humour, Hardy was an ideal Captain who kept his team in the best of spirits no matter how badly we might have been playing or how depressing appeared our outlook.

CARL FISCHER

I am including in my analysis of players a boy who is just gaining recognition but who I believe is to be one of the great stars of the future, Carl Fischer of Philadelphia.

Young Fischer, who is only 19, is a brilliant, hard hitting left-hander. He has already won the Eastern Pennsylvania Championship, been runner-up to Wallace Johnson in the Pennsylvania State, Philadelphia Championship and Middle States event, besides holding the junior Championship of Pennsylvania for two years. He won the University of Pennsylvania Championship in his freshman year.

His service is a flat delivery of good speed, at times, verging on the American twist. His ground game carries top spin drives forehand and backhand. His volleying and overhead are severe and powerful but prone to be erratic. Fischer is an all court player of the most modern type. He is aggressive, almost too much so at times as he wastes a great deal of energy by useless rushing. He needs steadiness and a willingness to await his opening but gives promise of rounding into a first class player, as his stroke equipment is second to none.

MARSHALL ALLEN

Far out in the Pacific Northwest in Seattle, Washington, is a young player who bids fair to some day be world famous. It is quite possible he may never arrive at all.

Marshall Allen is a typical Western player. Allen has a hurricane service that is none too reliable. His forehand drive is reminiscent of McLoughlin. It is a furious murderous attack when it goes in and quite useless when it is off. Allen's backhand is a flat drive played to either side with equal ease. At present it is erratic but shows great promise. Allen volleys at times brilliantly, but is uncertain and at times misses unaccountably. His overhead is remarkably brilliant and severe, but also erratic. He reaches great heights and sinks to awful depths. If Marshall Allen consolidates his game and refines the material he has at hand he should be a marvellous player. If he allows his love of speed to run away with his judgment at the expense of accuracy and steadiness he will never rise above the second class. Time will tell the story. I look to see him world famous.

OUR RISING JUNIORS

For a moment I am going to pay tribute to some boys who I look to see among the stars of the future. They are all juniors less than eighteen at the time of writing.

First in importance comes Arnold W. Jones, of Providence, R. I., who accompanied me to France and England in 1921, where he made a fine record. Young Jones has a splendid all-court game, with a remarkable forehand drive but a tendency to weariness in his backhand and service. His volleying is excellent. His overhead erratic.

Second to Jones I place Charles Watson III of Philadelphia. Here is a boy with a most remarkable resemblance to Chuck Garland in style of his game. Watson has a fine service, beautiful ground strokes fore and backhand and a more aggressive volley than Garland. His overhead lacks punch. He is the cleverest court general among the juniors.

Phillip Bettens of San Francisco is a possible successor to Billy Johnston. Bettens has a terrific forehand drive and a rushing net attack. He needs to steady up his game, but he is a player of great promise.

Armand Marion of Seattle, Washington, is another boy with a finely rounded game who, given experience and seasoning, bids fair to become a great star. Marion does not have enough punch yet and, needs to gain decisiveness of attack.

Charles Wood of New York, W. W. Ingraham of Providence, Milo Miller and Eric Wood of Philadelphia, John Howard of Baltimore, and others are of equal class and of nearly equal promise to the boys I have mentioned.

In the younger class of boys those under 15, one finds many youngsters already forming real style. The boy who shows the greatest promise and today the best all-round game, equalling in potential power even Vincent Richards at the same age, is Alexander L. (Sandy) Wiener of Philadelphia. At fourteen young Weiner is a stylist of the highest all-court type.

Among the other boys who may well develop into stars in the future are Meredith W. Jones, Arthur Ingraham, Jr., Andrew Clarke Ingraham, Miles Valentine, Raymond Owen, Richard Chase, Neil Sullivan, Henry Neer, and Edward Murphy.

There are many other great players I would like to analyse, but space forbids. Among our leaders are Roland Roberts, John Strachan, C. J. Griffin, Davis, and Robert Kinsey in California; Walter T. Hayes, Ralph Burdock, and Heath Byford in the Middle West; Howard Voshell, Harold Throckmorton, Conrad B. Doyle, Craig Biddle, Richard Harte, Colket Caner, Nathaniel W. Niles, H. C. Johnson, Dean Mathey, and many others of equal fame in the East.



CHAPTER XIII. BRITISH ISLES

J. C. PARKE

There is no name in tennis history of the past decade more famous than that of J. C. Parke. In twelve months, during 1912 and 1913, he defeated Brookes, Wilding, and M'Loughlin—a notable record; and now in 1920, after his wonderful work in the World War, he returns to tennis and scores a decisive victory over W. M. Johnston.

Parke is essentially a baseline player. His service is soft, flat, but well placed. His ground strokes are hit with an almost flat racquet face and a peculiar short swing. He uses a pronounced snap of the wrist. He slices his straight backhand shot, but pulls his drive 'cross court. It is Parke's famous running drive down the line that is the outstanding feature of his game. Parke was a ten-second hundred-yard man in college, and still retains his remarkable speed of foot. He hits his drive while running at top speed and translates his weight to the ball. It shoots low and fast down the line. It is a marvellous stroke.

Parke's volleying is steady and well placed but not decisive. His overhead is reliable and accurate, but lacks "punch." The great factor of Parke's game is his uncanny ability to produce his greatest game under the greatest stress. I consider him one of the finest match players in the world. His tactical knowledge and brainy attack are all the more dangerous, because he has phenomenal power of defence and fighting qualities of the highest order. There is no finer sportsman in tennis than Parke. Generous, quiet, and modest, Parke is deservedly a popular figure with the tennis world.

A. R. F. KINGSCOTE

The most recent star to reach the heights of fame in English tennis is Major A. R. F. Kingscote. Kingscote has played good tennis for some years; but it was only in 1919, following his excellent work in the War, that he showed his true worth. He defeated Gobert in sequence sets in the Davis Cup tie at Deauville, and followed by defeating Anderson in Australia and carrying Patterson to a hard match. Since then he has steadily improved and this season found him the leading figure of the British team.

Kingscote played much of his early tennis with R. N. Williams in Switzerland during 1910 and 1911. The effect of this training is easily seen on his game to-day for, without Williams' dash and extreme brilliancy, their strokes are executed in very much the same style.

Kingscote's service is a fast slice, well placed and cleverly disguised. It carries a great deal of pace and twist. His ground strokes are hit off the rising bound of the ball, with a flat raquet face or a slight slice. His wonderful speed of foot offsets his lack of height, and he hits either side with equal facility. There are no gaps in Kingscote's game. It is perfectly rounded. His favourite forehand shot is 'cross court, yet he can hit equally well down the line. His backhand is steady, very accurate and deceptive, but rather lacks speed. His volleying is remarkable for his court covering and angles, but is not the decisive win of Williams or Johnston. He is the best volleyer in the British Isles. His overhead is reliable and accurate for so short a man, but at times is prone to lack speed.

Kingscote is a sound tactician without the strategic brilliance of Parke. He is a fine match player and dogged fighter. Witness his 5-set battle with me in the Championships, after being match point down in the fourth set, and his 5-set struggle with Johnston in the Davis Cup. It is a slight lack of decisiveness all round that keeps Kingscote just a shade below the first flight. He is a very fine player, who may easily become a top-notch man. His pleasant, modest manner and generous sportsmanship make him an ideal opponent, and endear him to the gallery.

H. ROPER BARRETT

One of the real tennis tacticians, a man who is to-day a veteran of many a notable encounter, yet still dangerous at all times, is H. Roper Barrett.

A member of every Davis Cup team since the matches were inaugurated, a doubles player of the highest strategy, Roper Barrett needs no introduction or analysis. His, game is soft. His service looks a joke. In reality it is hard to hit, for Barrett pushes it to the most unexpected places. His ground strokes, soft, short, and low, are ideal doubles shots. He angles off the ball with a short shove in the direction. He can drive hard when pressed, but prefers to use the slow poke.

His volleying is the acme of finesse. He angles soft to the side-lines, stop volleys the hardest drives successfully. He picks openings with an unerring eye. His overhead lacks "punch," but is steady and reliable.

Barrett is a clever mixer of shots. He is playing the unexpected shot to the unexpected place. His sense of anticipation is remarkable, and he retrieves the most unusual shots. It is his great tennis tactics that make him noteworthy. His game is round but not wonderful.

THE LOWES, A. H. AND F. G.

The famous brothers, called indiscriminately the Lowes, are two of the best baseline players in the British Isles. Both men play almost identical styles, and at a distance are very hard to tell apart.

Gordon Lowe uses a slice service, while Arthur serves with a reverse spin. Neither man has a dangerous delivery. Both are adequate and hard to win earned points from.

The ground strokes of the Lowes are very orthodox. Full swing, top spin drives fore- and backhand, straight or 'cross court, are hit with equal facility. The Lowes volley defensively and only come in to the let when pulled in by a short shot. Their overhead work is average.

Their games are not startling. There is nothing to require much comment. Both men are excellent tennis players of the true English school: fine base- line drivers, but subject to defeat by any aggressive volleyer. It is a lack of aggressiveness that holds both men down, for they are excellent court coverers, fine racquet wielders, but do not rise to real heights. The Lowes could easily defeat any player who was slightly off his game, as they are very steady and make few mistakes. Neither would defeat a first- class player at his best.

T. M. MAVROGORDATO

One of the most consistent winners in English tennis for a span of years is a little man with a big name, who is universally and popularly known as "Mavro."

"Mavro" added another notable victory in 1920, when he defeated R. N. Williams in the last eight in the World Championships. "Mavro" has always been a fine player, but he has never quite scaled the top flight.

His game is steadiness personified. He shoves his service in the court at the end of a prodigious swing that ends in a poke. It goes where he wishes it. His ground strokes are fine, in splendid form, very accurate and remarkably fast for so little effort. Mavro is not large enough to hit hard, but owing to his remarkable footwork he covers a very large territory in a remarkably short space of time. His racquet work is a delight to a student of orthodox form. His volleying is accurate, steady, well placed but defensive. He has no speed or punch to his volley. His overhead is steady to the point of being unique. He is so small that it seems as if anyone could lob over his head, but his speed of foot is so great that he invariably gets his racquet on it and puts it back deep.

Mavro turns, defence into attack by putting the ball back in play so often that his opponent gets tired hitting it and takes unnecessary chances. His accuracy is so great that it makes up for his lack of speed. His judgment is sound but not brilliant. He is a hard-working, conscientious player who deserves, his success.

There are many other players who are interesting studies. The two Australians, now living in England, and to all intents and purposes Englishmen, Randolph Lycett and F. M. B. Fisher, are distinct and interesting types of players. C. P. Dixon, Stanley Doust, M. J. G. Ritchie, Max Woosnam, the rising young star, P. M. Davson, A. E. Beamish, W. C. Crawley, and scores of other excellent players, will carry the burden of English tennis successfully for some years. Yet new blood must be found to infuse energy into the game. Speed is a necessity in English tennis if the modern game is to reach its greatest height in the British Isles.

Youth must be seen soon, if the game in the next ten years is to be kept at its present level. Parke, Mavro, Ritchie, Dixon, Barrett, etc., cannot go on for ever, and young players must be developed to take their places. The coming decade is the crucial period of English tennis. I hope and believe it will be successfully passed.



CHAPTER XIV. FRANCE AND JAPAN

France

ANDRE GOBERT

One of the most picturesque figures and delightfully polished tennis games in the world are joined in that volatile, temperamental player, Andre Gobert of France. He is a typically French product, full of finesse, art, and nerve, surrounded by the romance of a wonderful war record of his people in which he bore a magnificent part, yet unstable, erratic, and uncertain. At his best he is invincible. He is the great master of tennis. At his worst he is mediocre. Gobert is at once a delight and a disappointment to a student of tennis.

Gobert's service is marvellous. It is one of the great deliveries of the world. His great height (he is 6 feet 4 inches) and tremendous reach enable him to hit a flat delivery at frightful speed, and still stand an excellent chance of it going in court. He uses very little twist, so the pace is remarkably fast. Yet Gobert lacks confidence in his service. If his opponent handles it successfully Gobert is apt to slow it up and hit it soft, thus throwing away one of the greatest assets.

His ground strokes are hit in beautiful form. Gobert is the exponent of the most perfect form in the world to-day. His swing is the acme of beauty. The whole stroke is perfection. He hits with a flat, slightly topped drive, feet in excellent position, and weight well controlled. It is uniform, backhand and forehand. His volleying is astonishing. He can volley hard or soft, deep or short, straight or angled with equal ease, while his tremendous reach makes him nearly impossible to pass at the net. His overhead is deadly, fast, and accurate, and he kills a lob from anywhere in the court.

Why is not Gobert the greatest tennis player in the world? Personally I believe it is lack of confidence, a lack of fighting ability when the breaks are against him, and defeat may be his due. It is a peculiar thing in Gobert, for no man is braver than he, as his heroism during the War proved. It is simply lack of tennis confidence. It is an over- abundance of temperament. In victory Gobert is invincible, in defeat he is apt to be almost mediocre.

Gobert is delightful personally. His quick wit and sense of humour always please the tennis public. His courteous manner and genial sportsmanship make him universally popular. His stroke equipment is unsurpassed in the tennis world.

I unqualifiedly state that I consider him the most perfect tennis player, as regards strokes and footwork, in the world to-day; but he is, not the greatest player. Victory is the criterion of a match player, and Gobert has not proved himself a great victor.

Gobert is probably the finest indoor player in the world, while he is very great on hard courts; but his grass play is not the equal of many others. I heartily recommend Gobert's style to all students of the game, and endorse him as a model for strokes.

W. LAURENTZ

Another brilliant, erratic and intensely interesting figure that France has given the tennis world is Laurentz, the wonderful young player, who, at the age of seventeen defeated A. F. Wilding.

Laurentz is a cyclonic hitter of remarkable speed and brilliance, but prone to very severe lapses. His service is of several varieties, all well played. He uses an American twist as his regular delivery, but varies it with a sharp slice, a reverse twist of great spin, and a fast cannon-ball smash. Laurentz is very versatile. He has excellent orthodox drives, fore- and backhand, and a competent forehand chop.

His volleying is brilliant almost beyond description, but very erratic. He is very fast on his feet, and anticipates remarkably well. He will make the most hair-raising volleys, only to fall down inexplicably the next moment on an easy shot. His overhead is like his volley, severe, brilliant, but uncertain.

Laurentz is a very hard worker, and, unlike Gobert, is always at his best when behind. He is a fair fighter and a great match player. His defeats are due more to over-anxiety than to lack of fight. He is temperamental, sensational, and brilliant, a sportsman of the highest type, quick to recognize his opponent's good work and to give full credit for it. He is one of the most interesting players now before the public.

He is a clever court general but not a great tennis thinker, playing more by instinct than by a really deep-laid plan of campaign. Laurentz might beat anyone in the world on his day or lose to the veriest dub when at his worst.[1]

[1] It was with deepest regret the news of his death reached us, as this edition went to press.

J. SAMAZIEUHL

The New French Champion of 1921 who defeated Andre Gobert most unexpectedly in the challenge round, is an interesting player of the mental type. He is anything but French in his game. His style is rather that of the crafty American or English player than the hard-hitting Frenchman.

Samazieuhl is an exponent of crafty patball. His service is a medium pace slice, well placed but not decisive. His ground strokes are a peculiar stiff arm chop varied at times with an equally cramped drive, yet his extreme mobility allows him to cover a tremendous amount of court, while his return, which is well disguised, is capable of great angles. His volleying is reliable but lacks severity and punch. He makes excellent low volleys, but cannot put away shoulder high balls while his overhead is not deadly.

It is Samazieuhl's clever generalship and his ability to recover seemingly impossible shots that win matches for him. He is a comparatively new tournament player, and should improve greatly as he gains confidence and experience.

R. DANET

One of the most interesting young players in France is R. Danet, who has come to the fore in the past few years. This boy, for he is little more, has a hard hitting brilliant game of great promise.

His service is a speedy slice. He drives with great speed, if as yet with none too much accuracy, off both fore and backhand. His net attack is very severe while overhead he is deadly. His speed of foot is remarkable, and he is a very hard worker. His limitations are in his lack of a set plan of attack and the steady adherence to any given method of play. He throws away too many easy chances, but this will correct itself as time goes on and Danet has fought through more tournaments. I consider him a player of great promise.

Max Decugis and Brugnon, the two remaining members of the 1920 Davis Cup team of France, present totally different types. Decugis, crafty, cool, and experienced, is the veteran of many long seasons of match play. He is a master tactician, and wins most of his matches by outgeneralling the other player. Burgnon is brilliant, flashy, hard hitting, erratic, and inexperienced. He is very young, hardly twenty years of age. He has a fine fore-hitting style and excellent net attack, but lacks confidence and a certain knowledge of tennis fundamentals. A few years' experience will do wonders for him.

The French style of play commends itself to me very highly. I enjoy watching the well-executed strokes, beautiful mobile footwork of these dashing players. It is more a lack of dogged determination to win, than in any stroke fault that one finds the reason for French defeats. The temperamental genius of this great people carries with it a lack of stability that can be the only explanation for the sudden crushing and unexpected defeats their representatives receive on the tennis courts.

I was particularly impressed during my visit to France by the large numbers of children playing tennis and the style of game displayed. The sport shows a healthy increase and should produce some fine players within the next ten years.

Keen competition is the corrective measure for temperamental instability and with the advent of many new players in French tennis I would not be surprised to see a marked decrease of unexpected defeats of their leading players.

Japan

A new element has entered the tennis world in the last decade. The Orient has thrust its shadow over the courts in the persons of a small group of remarkable tennis players, particularly Ichija Kumagae and Zenzo Shimidzu, the famous Japanese stars.

Kumagae, who for some years reigned supreme in Japan and Honolulu, has lived in America for the past three years. Shimidzu is a product of Calcutta, where he has lived for some years.

No player has caused more discussion than Kumagae, unless it is Shimidzu; while surely no man received more critical comment than Shimidzu, except Kumagae. The press of America and England have vied with each other in exploiting these two men. There was unanimity of opinion concerning these two men in one respect. No finer sportsmen nor more delightful opponents can be found than these Japanese. They have won the respect and friendship of all who have met them.

Kumagae is the speedier tennis player. He came to America in 1916, the possessor of a wonderful forehand drive and nothing else. Kumagae is left- handed, which made his peculiar shots all the harder to handle. He met with fair success during the year; his crowning triumph was his defeat of W. M. Johnston at Newport in five sets. He lost to J. J. Armstrong, Watson M. Washburn, and George M. Church. He learned much during his year in America, and returned to Japan a wiser man, with a firm determination to add to his tennis equipment.

In 1917 Kumagae returned to America to enter business in New York. Once established there he began developing his game. First he learned an American twist service and then strengthened his backhand. That year he suffered defeat at the hands of Walter T. Hayes and myself. He was steadily improving. He now started coming to the net and learning to volley. He is not yet a good low volleyer, and never will be while he uses the peculiar grip common to his people; but his high volleying and overhead are now excellent. Last year Kumagae reached his top form and was ranked third in America. His defeats were by Johnston, Vincent Richards, and myself; while he defeated Murray, S. H. Voshell, Vincent Richards, and me, as well as countless players of less note.

The season of 1920 found Kumagae sweeping all before him, since Johnston, Williams, Garland, and I were away on the Davis Cup trip. Williams barely defeated him in a bitter match, just previously to sailing. Kumagae left America in the middle of the summer to compete in the Olympic games, representing Japan.

Kumagae is still essentially a baseline player of marvellous accuracy of shot and speed of foot. His drive is a lethal weapon that spreads destruction among his opponents. His backhand is a severe "poke," none too accurate, but very deadly when it goes in. His service overhead and high volley are all severe and reliable. His low volley is the weak spot in an otherwise great game. Kumagae cannot handle a chop, and dislikes grass-court play, as the ball bounds too low for his peculiar "loop" drive. He is one of the greatest hard-court players in the world, and one of the most dangerous opponents at any time on any surface.

Shimidzu is to-day as dangerous as Kumagae. He, too, is a baseline player, but lacks Kumagae's terrific forehand drive. Shimidzu has a superior backhand to Kumagae, but his weak service rather offsets this. His low volleying is far superior to Kumagae, while his high volleying and overhead are quite his equal. He has all the fighting qualities in his game that make Kumagae so dangerous, but he has not had the experience. Shimidzu learns very quickly, and I look to see him a great factor in the game in future years.

Both Shimidzu and Kumagae are marvellous court coverers, and seem absolutely untiring. They are "getters" of almost unbelievable activity, and accurate to a point that seems uncanny. Both men hit to the lines with a certainty that makes it very dangerous to attempt to take the net on anything except a deep forcing shot that hurries them.

With such players as Kumagae and Shimidzu, followed by S. Kashio and K. Yamasaki, and the late H. Mikami, Japan is a big factor in future tennis. 1922 will again see Japan challenging for the Davis Cup, and none but a first-class team can stop them. The advent of a Japanese team with such players will mean that this year we must call out our best to repel the Oriental invasion: so competition receives another stimulus that should raise our standard of play.

The probability of journeying to Japan to challenge for the Davis Cup is not so remote but that we must consider it as a future possibility.



CHAPTER XV. SPAIN AND THE CONTINENT

Spain

A new factor entered the arena of world tennis in 1921 in the appearance of a Spanish Davis Cup team. Among their number is a star who bids fair to become one of the greatest players the world has ever seen. A scintillating personality, brilliant versatile game, and fighting temperament placed this young unknown in the first rank in one year of competition.

MANUEL ALONZO

Seldom have I seen such wonderful natural abilities as are found in this young Spaniard. Here is a player par excellence if he develops as he gives promise. Alonzo is young, about 25, slight, attractive in personality and court manners, quick to the point of almost miraculous court covering. He is a great attraction at any tournament.

His service is a fairly fast American twist. It is not remarkable but is at least more severe than the average continental delivery.

Alonzo has a terrific forehand drive that is the closest rival to W. M. Johnston's of any shot I have seen. He is reliable on this stroke, either straight or cross-court from the deep court but if drawn in to mid-court is apt to miss it. His backhand is a flat drive, accurate and low but rather slow and in the main defensive.

His volleying is at once a joy and a disappointment. Such marvellous angles and stop volleys off difficult drives! Yet immediately on top of a dazzling display Alonzo will throw away the easiest sort of a high volley by a pitiable fluke.

His overhead is at once severe, deadly and reliable. He smashes with speed and direction. It is not only in his varied stroke equipment that Alonzo is great but in his marvellous footwork. Such speed of foot and lightning turning I have never before seen on a tennis court. He is a quicker man than Norman E. Brookes and higher praise I cannot give. I look to see Alonzo, who today loses matches through lack of resource, become by virtue of experience and tournament play the greatest player on the continent.

His brother, J. M. Alonzo, although nowhere in Manuel's class, is a fine all court player as are Count de Gomar and Flaquer, the remaining members of the Cup team. If Alonzo and his teammates are an indication of the type of players Spain is developing a new and powerful factor in the tennis world is entering the field to stay.

Some Other Champions

There are some individual players of interest from the countries where tennis as a game has not reached a place worthy of national analysation but who deserve mention among the great players of the world.

First among them comes Nicholas Mishu of Rumania.

N. MISHU

What can I say of Mishu? As a tennis player he defies analysis. His game is a freak. He adores to do the unusual and his game abounds in freak shots that Mishu executes with remarkable skill. He has many and varied services, underhand cuts, fore and backhand, a "push" off his nose, and even one serve where he turns his back on the court and serves the ball back over his head.

His drives are cramped in swing and hit with excessive top spin. His footwork is a defiance of all rules. His volleying game looks like an accident, yet Mishu produces results. In 1921 he beat A. H. Gobert in the World's Hard Court Championship at St. Cloud. Mishu is a winner. I don't know how he does it but he does. He is above all a unique personality. Cheery, individual, at times eccentric, Mishu is a popular figure in tournaments abroad. He plays with a verve and abandon that appeals to the European galleries while his droll humour and good nature make him a delightful opponent.

J. WASHER

Belgium is represented by J. Washer, my opponent in the final round of the Hard Court Championship of the World in 1921. Washer is a fine orthodox tennis player. His service is a well placed twist delivery of medium pace. He has a terrific forehand drive that gains in effectiveness owing to the fact he is a left-hander. Like so many players with a pronounced strength, he covers up an equally pronounced weakness by using the strength. Washer has a very feeble backhand for so fine a player. He pokes his backhand when he is unable to run around it.

His overhead is strong, speedy and reliable. His volleying lacks punch and steadiness. He has had little tournament experience and shows promise of great improvement if given the opportunity.

E. TEGNER

Denmark is represented by a player of promise and skill in the person of E. Tegner. This young star defeated W. H. Laurentz at St. Cloud in the Hard Court Championship of the World in 1921 when the latter was holder of the title.

Tegner is a baseline player of fine style. His strokes are long free drives of fine pace and depth. His service is hardly adequate for first flight tennis, yet while his ground game cannot make up for the lack of aggression in his net attack. Tegner is not of championship quality at the moment but his youth allows him plenty of time to acquire that tournament experience needed to fill in the gaps in his game. He is a cool, clever court general and should develop rapidly within the next few years.

H. L. DE MORPURGO

The Italian champion, H. L. de Morpurgo, is a product of his own country and England where he attended college. He is a big, rangy man of great strength. He uses a terrific service of great speed but little control on his first ball and an exaggerated American twist on the second of such extreme contortion that even his great frame wears down under it.

His ground game is of flat drives that lack sufficient pace and accuracy to allow him to reap the full benefit of his really excellent net attack. His volleying is very good owing to his great reach. His overhead, like his service, is hard but erratic. Unfortunately he is slow on his feet and thus loses much of the advantage of his large reach. He seems to lack confidence in his game but that should come with more experience.

A. ZERLENDI

Tennis in Greece. No! not in ancient times but in modern, for that little country has a remarkable little baseline star, by name A. Zerlendi. This man is a baseliner of the most pronounced type. He gets everything he can put his racquet to. He reminds me irresistibly of Mavrogordato, seemingly reaching nothing yet they all come back. I cannot adequately analyse his game because his first principle is to put back the ball no matter how, and this he carries into excellent effect. Zerlendi is a match winner first and a stylist second.



CHAPTER XVI. THE COLONIES

Australasia

The death of that sterling sportsman, Anthony F. Wilding, and the natural decline in the playing powers of Norman E. Brookes, owing to the advance of years and his war experiences, leave Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) in a somewhat uncertain condition regarding its tennis prospects.

NORMAN E. BROOKES

Volumes have been written about N. E. Brookes and his tennis genius, but I would not feel right if I could not pay at least a slight tribute to the greatest tennis player and genius of all time.

There is no need to dwell on Brookes' shots, his marvellous mechanical perfection, his peculiar volleying style, his uncanny anticipation. All these are too well known to need my feeble description. They are but the expression of that wonderful brain and dominant personality that lie behind that sphinx- like face we know as Brookes'.

To see across the net those ever-restless, ever-moving eyes, picking the openings in my never too- well guarded court, and know that against me is pitted the greatest tennis, brain of the century, is to call upon me to produce my best. That is what my match with Brookes meant to me, and still does to-day. Brookes should be an inspiration to every tennis player, for he has proved the power of mind over matter in tennis: "Age cannot wither nor custom stale his infinite variety."

Brookes is the most eminently just man on a tennis court I have ever met, for no excitement or emotion clouds his eyesight or judgment in decisions. He cannot abide bad decisions, yet he hates them quite as much when they favour him as when they are against him. I admit frankly I am a great admirer of Brookes, personally and from every tennis sense. He is a master that I as a student of the game feel proud to study under.

GERALD PATTERSON

Australia's leading player, Gerald Patterson, is one of the most remarkable combinations of tennis virtues and tennis faults, I have ever seen.

Patterson has a wonderful service. He has speed, direction, control, and all kinds of twist. He hits his service consistently hard and puts it in. His overhead is the most remarkable in the game. He can kill from any place in the court. His, shot is clean, with little effort, yet carries terrific speed. His volleying above the net is almost faultless on his forehand. He has an excellent forehand drive that is very severe and consistent, but his backhand . . . Where in all the rest of tennis history was there a first-class man with a backhand so fundamentally wrong? His grip is bad, he pulls up on the ball and "loops" it high in the air. I do not mean Patterson always misses his backhand. He does not. He even makes remarkable shots off it at times, but, if Patterson is pressed, his backhand is the first portion of his game to crack, because it is hit inherently wrong.

Patterson relies mainly on speed to win matches. He is not a strategist, and finesse is not part of his tennis equipment. He has a magnificent physique, and relies largely on his, strength to carry him through a long match and win in the end.

He is very quiet, and inclined to be somewhat careless on the court, unless pressed, when his businesslike, determined play shows what a great match player Patterson can become. He produces his best game at the crucial moment of the match. Patterson is a superior match player to his real tennis ability. His is not truly a top-notch game. It has superlative features, but its whole texture is not of the finest.

Patterson owes much of his success in 1919 to Brookes, under whose guidance he played. The absence of the master mind directing his attack proved a decided handicap in 1920, and Patterson's attack was not so certain nor sustained as in the previous season. Patterson's game plus Brookes' strategy would be a great combination in one man.

PAT O'HARA WOOD

This young Australian is one of the greatest doubles players in the world and bids fair to press the leading singles stars close.

Pat O'Hara Wood is a player without a weakness, yet also one without a strength. He is a typical all court player with no outstanding feature to his game unless it be his volleying. Pat Wood has a natural aptitude for doubles which at times seriously interferes with his singles game.

His service is a well placed speedy slice that he mixes up well. It is not a great delivery but very effective. His ground strokes, taken on the rising bounces, are flat drives, accurate and varied as to direction but lacking punch. He does not hit hard enough. He is a brilliant volleyer, cutting off at sharp angles the hardest drives. His overhead is erratic. At times he is deadly overhead but is prone to lapses into uncertainty. He is remarkably quick and speedy of foot. His sense of anticipation is magnificent. His generalship good, though not brilliant. It is lack of punch, the inability to put the ball away, that keeps Pat O'Hara Wood from the first flight in singles.

Clever, blessed with a keen sense of humour, a sterling sportsman and delightful opponent, Pat O'Hara Wood is a big asset to tennis and a man who is needed in the game.

J. C. HAWKES

The youngest of the Australasian players and a boy of great promise is Jack Hawkes. He is only 22 and young in the game for his age.

Let me state now I do not approve of Hawkes' style. His footwork is wrong, hopelessly wrong and I fear that unless he corrects it, it may keep him from attaining the place his natural abilities promise. "Austral," the famous critic, describes him as "having the genius of the game."

Jack Hawkes has an exaggerated American twist service that, since he is a left-hander, places an unnecessary strain on his heart muscles. It carries terrific twist but little speed and does not Pay him for the amount of energy he expends.

His forehand drive is excellent, fast, deep, and well placed, yet in making this he steps away from the ball, again wasting energy. His backhand is a poke and very unreliable. To save it he runs around everything possible, again causing unnecessary exertion. His volleying is brilliant while his overhead is magnificent.

Hawkes' waste of energy has cost him many a match, yet for all the inherent defects in his game he is so clever in using what he has, his tactics are so good for so young a player that I believe he will be one of the leading players of the world in a few years. Under the watchful eyes of Norman Brookes I foresee Hawkes changing his footwork to at least a reasonable copy of the old master.

J. O. ANDERSON

This young player is again a promise rather than a star. He is a big, rangy, hard-hitting type like Gerald Patterson. He is crude, at times careless and unfortunately handicapped in 1920 and 1921 by a severe illness that only allowed him to resume play in the middle of the latter year. His ground strokes are flat drives fore and backhand. His forehand is a particularly fine shot. He hits it with a short sharp snap of his arm that imparts great speed and yet hides the direction. His backhand is defensive. His volleying clever, accurate but soft. His overhand severe and reliable. His service flat, fast and dangerous.

He needs finesse, experience and season, with which he may well become one of the greatest players as the fundamental potentialities are there.

NORMAN PEACH

The steady baseline game of England has its exponent in Australia in Norman Peach. He has a beautiful driving game, with adequate but not severe service, that one finds so much in England. At times Peach will advance to the net but his volleying and overhead are secondary to his baseline game. He is not a great tennis player but is certainly one of high standard of play. He is just below the first flight in Australia.

R. V. Thomas is one of the finest doubles players in the world as is amply attested by his win of the world's title in 1919 with Pat O'Hara Wood and their two successive wins of the Australian Championship in 1919-20. Thomas with his hard-hitting off the ground, and his brilliant volleying is a fine foil for Pat Wood's steady accuracy.

Just a word about one veteran, a good friend of mine, who is again playing fine tennis, Rodney L. Heath, hero of the famous Davis Cup match in 1911 when he defeated W. A. Larned, is again in the game.

Heath with his long beautiful groundstrokes, forehand, or backhand, his incisive crisp volleys and fine, generalship based on young experience, is a notable figure in the tennis world.

The mantle of Wilding and Brookes must fall on the shoulders of a really great player. Who it will be is hard to say at present. No outstanding figure looms on the horizon at the time of writing.

South Africa

The 1920 South African Davis Cup team players, following their disastrous defeat by Holland, journeyed to England for the Championship and following tournaments, and I had the opportunity of studying three players of great promise. The remaining two were excellent, but hardly as exceptional as the former.

Charles Winslow, the leading player in the team, has a remarkable versatile game. He uses a high, bounding service of good speed, which at times he follows to the net. His best ground stroke is a severe chop, not unlike Wallace F. Johnson. He has a good drive both forehand and backhand, which he only uses when pressed or in attempting to pass a net man. He volleys very well, and covers the net quickly. His overhead is very severe, steady, and reliable. He is a fine natural player just below the top flight. He is an excellent strategist, and mixes his shots very well. He has exceptionally fast footwork, and repeatedly runs around his backhand to chop diagonally across the court in a manner very similar to Johnson.

B. I. C. Norton, the South African champion, a youngster of twenty, is a phenomenal player of extreme brilliancy. He has everything in stroke equipment, drives, slices, volleys, and a fine service and overhead. Unfortunately Norton regards his tennis largely as a joke. His judgment is therefore faulty, and he is apt to loaf on the court. He tries the most impossible shots that sometimes go in; and in the main, his court generalship is none too good.

He is an irrepressible boy, and his merry smile and chatter make him a tremendous favourite with the gallery. He has a very strong personality that should carry him a long way.

Louis Raymond, the left-handed star of the South Africans, has an excellent ground game coupled with a good service and fair volleying and overhead. His game is not remarkable. He is a hard-working, deserving player who attains success by industry rather than natural talent. His judgment is sound and methods of play orthodox, except for a tendency to run around his backhand.

C. R. Blackbeard, the youngest member of the team, and G. H. Dodd, its captain, are both very excellent players of the second flight. Blackbeard is very young, not yet twenty, and may develop into a star. At present he chops too much, and is very erratic. . . . . . . .

There are many other players whom I would analyse if I had the time or space; but in these days of paper shortage and ink scarcity, conservation is the keynote of the times.

Let me turn for a few moments to the women whose fame in the tennis world is the equal of the men I have been analysing.



CHAPTER XVII. FAMOUS WOMEN PLAYERS

Women's Tennis

The great boom that featured the whole tennis season of 1921 in America found one of its most remarkable manifestations in the increased amount of play, higher standard of competition and remarkable growth of public interest in women's tennis.

England has led, and still leads, the world in women's tennis. The general standard of play is on a higher scale and there is more tournament play in England than elsewhere. France, with Mlle. Suzanne Lenglen, Mme. Billout (Mlle. Brocadies) and Mme. Golding, forces England closely for European supremacy, but until recent years America, except for individuals, has been unable to reach the standard of women's tennis found abroad.

Miss May Sutton, now Mrs. Thomas H. Bundy, placed American colours in the field by her wonderful performances in winning the World's Championship at Wimbledon more than a decade ago, but after her retirement America was forced to content itself with local honors.

Neither Miss Mary Browne nor Miss Hazel Hotchkiss, now Mrs. George Wightman, followed Mrs. May Sutton Bundy in her European invasion, so the relative ability of our champions and Mrs. Lambert-Chambers of England or Mlle. Brocadies of France could not be judged. Mrs. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory followed Miss Browne as the outstanding figure in American tennis when the wonderful Norsewoman took the championship in 1915. Miss Browne, then holder of the title, did not compete, so their relative ability could not be decided. Throughout the period from 1900 to 1919 the woman's championship event had been held annually in June. The result was that the blue ribbon event was over so early in the season that the incentive for play during July and August died a natural death.

Finally in 1920, at the request of the Women's Committee, particularly on the advice of Mrs. George Wightman, the national champion, and Miss Florence Ballin of New York, under whose able guidance the entire schedule was drawn up, the United States Lawn Tennis Association moved the Women's Championship to September. Miss Ballin, following the successful system used in the men's events, organized a schedule that paralleled the big fixtures on the men's schedule and placed in operation "a circuit," as it is called, that provided for tournaments weekly from May to September. Miss Ballin, together with Mrs. Wightman, organised junior tournaments for girls under 18, along the lines used for the boys' events. The response was immediate. Entry lists, which in the old days were in "the teens," jumped to the thirties or forties, in the regular events. Young girls who, up to now, had not played tournaments, fearing they lacked the necessary class, rushed to play in the Junior girls' events. From this latter class came such a promising young star of today as Miss Martha Bayard, who bids fair to be national champion at some not distant date.

It was a tremendous task of organization that Miss Ballin and her assistants undertook, but they did it in a most efficient manner. Mrs. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory lent her invaluable assistance by playing in as many tournaments as possible. She was a magnet that drew the other players in her wake with an irresistible force.

1920 saw Mrs. Mallory's first invasion of Europe since her American triumphs. Misfortune was her portion. She was ill before sailing and, never at her best on shipboard, a bad voyage completed the wreck of her condition. She had little time for practice in England and it was a player far below her best who went down to crushing de feat at the hands of Mrs. Lambert-Chambers in the semi- final round of the World's Championship at Wimbledon.

Defeated but not discouraged, Mrs. Mallory returned to America and, again reaching her true form, won the championship with ease. She made up her mind the day of her defeat in England that 1921 would again find her on European courts.

The season of 1921 in America opened in a blaze of tournaments throughout the entire country. Mrs. Mallory showed early in the year she was at her best by winning the Indoor Championship of the United States from one of the most representative fields ever gathered together for this event.

Early May found Mrs. Mallory on the seas bound for France and England. The story of her magnificent, if losing, struggle in both countries is told elsewhere in this book, but she sailed for home recognised abroad as one of the great players of the world, a thing which many of the foreign critics had not acknowledged the previous year.

The trip of the American team to France, and particularly the presence of Mrs. Mallory, coupled with the efforts of the Committee for Devastated France, finally induced Mile. Suzanne Lenglen, the famous French World's Champion, to consent to come to America. The announcement of her decision started a boom in the game that has been unequalled. Out in California, Mrs. May Sutton Bundy and Miss Mary Kendall Browne, our former champions, heard the challenge and, laying aside the duties of everyday life, buckled on the armour of the courts and journeyed East to do battle with the French wonder girl. Mrs. Mallory, filled with a desire to avenge her defeat in France, sailed for home in time to play in the American championship.

What a marvelous tournament this proved to be! In very truth it was a World's Championship. Mrs. May Sutton Bundy, former world's champion, back again after fifteen years with all her old charm of manner, much of her speed of shot and foot, and even more cunning and experience; Miss Mary K. Browne, brilliant, fascinating, clever Mary, with all her old-time personality and game that three times had carried her to the highest honors in American tennis; Mrs. Mallory, keen, determined and resourceful, defending the title she had held so long and well; the young players, rising in the game, struggling to attain the heights, and finally looming over all the figure of the famous French champion of champions, Suzanne Lenglen, considered by many competent critics the greatest woman tennis player of all time.

The stage was set for the sensational, and for once it occurred. The God of Luck took a hand in the blind draw and this resulted in all the stars, with the exception of Miss Mary Browne, falling in one half. Mile. Suzanne Lenglen was drawn against Miss Eleanor Goss, while Mrs. Mallory met Mrs. Marion Zinderstein Jessop, her famous rival, in the first round, with the winners of these matches to play each other in the second.

Unfortunately illness prevented Mile. Lenglen from sailing at her appointed time. She arrived in America but one day before the tournament was to start. The officials of the United States Lawn Tennis Association wisely granted Mile. Lenglen another day's grace by holding her match with Miss Goss until Tuesday. Mrs. Mallory, playing brilliantly, crushed Mrs. Jessop on Monday.

Then came the deluge! Miss Goss, taken suddenly ill, was forced to default to Mlle. Lenglen on Tuesday and Mrs. Mallory was called upon to meet the great French player in Mlle. Lenglen's first American appearance.

There is no question but what it was a terribly hard position for Mlle. Lenglen. Mrs. Mallory was physically and mentally on the crest. She had lived for this chance ever since Mlle. Lenglen had defeated her at St. Cloud in June. Now it was hers and she determined to make the most of it.

The two women stepped on the court together. Mlle. Lenglen was obviously and naturally nervous. Mrs. Mallory was quietly, grimly confident. Her whole attitude said "I won't be beaten." Every one of the 10,000, spectators felt it and joined with her in her determination. It was an electric current between the gallery and the player. I felt it and am sure that Mlle. Lenglen must have done so too. It could not fail to impress her. The match opened with Mrs. Mallory serving. From the first ball, the American champion was supreme. Such tennis I have never seen and I verily believe it will never be seen again. The French girl was playing well. She was as good as when she defeated Mrs. Mallory in France or Miss Ryan in England, but this time she was playing a super-woman who would not miss. One cannot wonder her nerves, naturally overwrought, broke under the strain.

Mrs. Mallory, in an exhibition of faultless, flawless tennis, ran through the first set 6-2. It was at this point Mlle. Lenglen made her mistake.

She had trouble getting her breath and was obviously feeling the strain of her tremendous exertions. She defaulted the match! Mrs. Mallory walked from the court conqueror, clearly the superior of the much vaunted world's champion.

It is regrettable Mlle. Lenglen defaulted, for if she had played out the match, everyone would have made full allowance for her defeat, due, it would be said, to natural reaction from her recent sea journey. No one would have been quicker to make allowance for Mlle. Lenglen than Mrs. Mallory herself. The whole tennis public deeply regretted an incident that might well have been avoided.

Mrs. Mallory was the woman of the hour. She marched on to victory and successfully defended her title by virtue of victories over Mrs. May Sutton Bundy in the semi-final and Miss Mary Browne in the final.

Marvellous Molla! World's Champion in 1921 beyond shadow of dispute!

It is deplorable that the quite natural reaction and nervous upset, coupled with a return of her bronchial illness, forced Mlle. Lenglen to return to France before she was able to play her exhibition tour for the Committee for Devastated France. Possibly 1922 will find conditions more favorable and the Gods of Fate will smile on the return of Mlle. Lenglen to America.

MRS. FRANKLIN I. MALLORY (Molla Bjurstedt)

One of the most remarkable personalities in the tennis world is Mrs. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory, the American Champion and actually Champion of the World, 1921.

Mrs. Mallory is a Norsewoman by birth. She came to America in 1915. In 1919 she married Franklin I. Mallory, and thus became an American citizen.

It is a remarkable game which Mrs. Mallory has developed. She has no service of real value. Her overhead is nil, her volleying is mediocre; but her marvellous forehand and backhand drives, coupled with the wonderful court-covering ability and fighting spirit that have made her world-famous, allow her to rise above the inherent weaknesses of those portions of her game and defeat in one season all the greatest players in the world, including Mlle. Suzanne Lenglen.

Mrs. Mallory, with delightful smile, never failing sportsmanship and generosity in victory or defeat, is one of the most popular figures in tennis.

MRS. THOMAS C. BUNDY (May Sutton)

It is said "they never come back," but Mrs. May Sutton Bundy has proved that at least one great athlete is an exception to the saying. Fifteen years ago, May Sutton ruled supreme among the women tennis stars of the world.

In 1921 Mrs. May Sutton Bundy, mother of four children, after a retirement of over a I decade, returned to the game when Mlle. Lenglen announced her intention of invading America. If Mlle. Lenglen's visit to our shores did nothing more than bring Mrs. Bundy and Miss Browne back to us, it was well worth while.

Mrs. Bundy in 1921 was still a great player. She has a peculiar reverse twist service, a wonderful forehand drive, but with excessive top spin, a queer backhand poke, a fine volley and a reliable overhead. Much of her old aggressiveness and speed of foot are still hers. She retains all of her famous fighting spirit and determination, while she is even more charming and delightful than of old. She is a remarkable woman, who stands for all that is best in the game.

MARY KENDALL BROWNE

The return of another former National Champion in 1921 in the person of Mary K. Browne, who held the title in 1912, '13 and '14, brought us again a popular idol. The tennis public has missed Miss Browne since 1914 and her return was in the nature of a personal triumph.

Mary Browne has the best produced tennis game of any American woman. It is almost if not quite the equal in stroke technique of Suzanne Lenglen. She has a fast flat service. Her ground strokes are clean, flat drives forehand and backhand. She volleys exactly like Billy Johnston. No praise can be higher. Her overhead is decisive but erratic. She couples this beautiful game with a remarkable tennis head and a wonderful fighting spirit.

Miss Browne is a trig and trim little figure on the court as she glides over its surface. It is no wonder that her public love her.

MRS. GEORGE WIGHTMAN (Hazel Hotchkiss)

The woman to whom American tennis owes its greatest debt in development is Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman, National Champion 1909, '10, '11 and 1919. Mrs. Wightman has practically retired from singles play. Her decision cost the game a wonderful player. She has a well placed slice service, a ground game that is essentially a chop fore- and backhand, although at times she drives off her forehand. She volleys remarkably. She is the equal of Mary Browne in this department, while her overhead is the best of any woman in the game.

Hazel Wightman is as clever a court general and tactician, man or woman, as I have ever known. She has forgotten more tennis than most of us ever learn. She is the Norman Brookes of woman's tennis.

It is not only in her game that Mrs. Wightman has stood for the best in tennis, but she has given freely of her time and ability to aid young players in the game. She made Marion Zinderstein Jessop the fine player she is. Mrs. Wrightman is always willing to offer sound advice to any player who desires it.

Mrs. Wightman and Miss Florence Ballin are the prime factors in the new organization of woman's tennis that has resulted in the great growth of the game in the past two years.

MRS. JESSOP (Marion Zinderstein)

There is no player in tennis of greater promise than Marion Zinderstein Jessop. She has youth, a wonderful game, the result of a sound foundation given her by Hazel Wightman, and a remarkable amount of experience for so young a girl. She has a beautiful fast service, but erratic. Her ground- game is perfectly balanced, as she chops or drives from either side with equal facility. She volleys with great severity and certainty. Her overhead is possibly her weakest point. She lacks the confidence that her game really deserves.