Movatterモバイル変換

UranQeline to Wimbledon's Centre Court

Litlle did Crawford's parents realise , when ihey handed their six-year-old son a racquet at Urangeline (near Albury) in 1914, that the
fair-haired lad would one day blossom into a World's champion. It is a far cry from a back-blocks court to the centre court of Wimble
don, the Mecca of the tennis world.

greater than theirs. Then came the Japanese team,

including two men of outstanding international skill,
Satoh and Harada. Once again Crawford showed him
self better than the visitors. Early this year came the
finest team of all, which included the actual world's
champion, H. E. Vines, and the world's third or fourth
man, Wilmer Allison. Before that team left America
the writer ventured to predict that, when it left,
Crawford, by practice against them, would have ranged
himself alongside them in skill. So it has proved. He
made an analysis of Vines's methods and saw what
weakness there was. That weakness is a preference
for his forehand drive. To get it Vines steps aside
when possible and takes on his forehand a ball aimed
at his backhand. There is no reply to it. He sends
the ball with a thunderbolt drive to the last inches of
his opponent's backhand corner. Crawford won out
here by either getting the ball right on to Vines's
backhand, which is stiff and formal, or sending it short
and wide to his exposed forehand line. After running
to these last Vines frequently nets them. One has not
been greatly aided by any details in the cables of the

actual tactical methods, but one can be well sure
that, as the famous American coach Beasley, whose
pupil Vines is, has said, Crawford won by 'using
his head.'
Speed Insufficient
TT has been shown again and again in the history
of the game that speed alone will not win.
Were it so the game would not be what it is.
Crawford has got used to Vines's tremendous speed
of stroke. Having himself no stroke weakness, he
can attack that of Vines, while Vines has not the
same all-round stroke resources.
Doubtless Vines will realise this, and will streng
then his game. When Norman Brookes first came
before the public he was one of the hardest hitters
the game has seen. It was Dr. Eaves, a player of
the highest international fame, who just missed
the English and American titles, each by one
stroke, who taught Brookes in 1902 the higher
value of placing, of playing the whole game, and
of delicacy over mere speed. Brookes was himself
taught by the athletic Irishman J. C. Parke, in
1912, that he had neglected his ground strokes too
much. This lesson learned, Brookes in 1914 wrested
the world's title from Anthony Wilding at Wimble
don, using speed or delicacy as best suited the l'ally.
Then the war. After that Gerald Patterson won
at Wimbledon. Then came the two great Ameri
cans W. T. Tilden and W. M. Johnston. They
reigned supreme, Tilden being unbeatable till 1927,
though he did not compete at Wimbledon every
year. It was Tilden's function to show the world

the value of high speed coupled with complete com
mand of spin.
Prom 1924 the Frenchmen won at Wimbledon,
Borotra by volleying, Lacoste by splendid driving, and
Cochet by the whole game of speed-driving and volley
ing.
It was Norman Brookes, about 1910, having won
the world's title first in 1907, who commenced to develop
the method of taking the ball on the rise. This was
to answer the American service. An American, R. N.
Williams, did the same. Brookes did so to enable him
to get to the net to end the rallies by volleying. Wil
liams and a Victorian, Arthur O'Hara Wood, pursued
the same methods. Both did so in an entirely new
way. They used their ability to take the ball on the
rise to enable them to stand well inside the -baseline
(instead of remaining outside) till they could run in
to volley.
This method is that used by Crawford. One felt
before he met Vines that great speed and good length
would penetrate this method. For a time it did so
against Crawford. We saw Satoh drive him back in
one splendid set by such drives. We saw Vines do so
continually. Crawford has, however, by his wonderful
genius for the game survived the attack of mere speed.
Standing well inside the baseline he is able to save
himself much running, while getting the ball back to
his opponent before the latter has had time to regain
position. His opponent thus gets more running and is
at a tactical disadvantage. Vines by taking the ball
very low as it falls increases this disadvantage, but

gains in power. Crawford's methods have set a stan
dard for the world in new tactics which seem, at this
stage of the game, to be flawless, and his success is the
greatest Australian performance in lawn tennis for
many years.
Started Early
VI ANY times boy wonders are acclaimed as coming
^ world's champions. Seldom do these bear out that
high forecast. There is in almost all a defect in stroke
outfit, temperament, or physique that says, 'Thus far
and no farther.' Crawford is the most striking illus
tration of the contrary. He first held a racquet in his
hand at the infant age of six. His parents lived in
the country — near Albury — but had come from Eng
land, and his father was imbued with the fame and
the methods of the Dohertys, the one-time English
lawn tennis champions of the world. Crawford, therefore,
was taught at an early age to adopt their methods. My
first acquaintance with him was at Pratten Park, Ashfield,
near Sydney, when he was a mere boy. The late Harold S.
Fox, a sound judge of the game — indeed, never excelled

LEAPING FOR A SMASH.
It has been said that J. Crawford, the new world's
champion, is not a brilliant smasher. He does not
kill with the ferocious energy of G. L. Patterson,
but nevertheless there is an artistry about his work
and a cool, scheming brain that wins him the points.

— asked me to go over and see 'a wonderful boy,' who
was then about sixteen. Even then he impressed his
fellow-players with his skill and his qi^iet, easy manner.
Just about this time the N.S.W. association began
to earnestly coach all promising youths, and Crawford
rapidly responded to that training. He soon established
himself as the junior champion of Australia, and as
early as 1926, when he was only 18, he won the Vic
torian doubles title (with J. Willard) and reached the
final of the singles. In the doubles they actually beat
Patterson and Hawkes, who had proved themselves a
few months before to be one of the best pairs of the
world, having lost to Lacoste and Borotra only at 8-10
in the fifth set of the Davis Cup doubles in the final
round.
In the next year he won the N.S.W. title, and he
and H. Hopman in Europe established themselves as
one of the world's best pairs. In 1929 he and Hopman
became Australia's best pair, as they still are to-day.
Since then they have frequently won the doubles title
of each State, and that of Australia several times.
Indeed, one may summarise his performances by point
ing out that he won 23 major titles out of 24 successive

attempts, only losing the doubles title of Victoria (with
Hopman) to a fine pair in Schlesinger and Clemenger.
This is the answer to the far too often repeated in
accuracy that he is erratic, temperamental, and so on.
This baseless charge was made by careless critics.
They always overlooked the fact that his defeats were
only in minor events or in exhibition matches, or when
he had had excessive travelling. In five-set matches
he has seldom lost to Australians. His developing
genius was clearly shown when he met Jean Borotra in
Sydney in 1928. He defeated this dashing player, then
in the world's first three, twice in Australia out of five
matches. He defeated both Austin and Dr. J. C. Gre
gory during the visit of the British team in 1929, and
with Hopman proved himself too good for the British
best pair, Gregory and Collins, though that pair on
their return to Europe proved themselves to be practi
cally in the world's three best pairs. In 1930 he and
E. F. Moon reached the semi-final of the French doubles
championship, fully extending Cochet and Brugnon,
then the world's best pair.

Beaten World's Best
IN 1931 he beat both Satoh and Harada, then
amongst the world's best players, Harada having
in 1926 beaten W. M. Johnston, then only second
in the world to Tilden, and who in the same year
had beaten Lacoste and Cochet. Satoh was already
one of the world's first ten.
Early this year he met and twice defeated the
'world's champion,' Vines (for the Victorian title
and in the last test match in Sydney), though
losing as often to him in other matches. He also
beat Allison in Melbourne in the semi-final of the
Australian championship, and in the final beat
Gledhill, who had beaten McGrath after the boy
had beaten the champion of the world, Vines.
One would have thought that these results
would have impressed the world's critics, but they
were largely ignored and attributed to lack of form
by the visitors. Those who saw him defeat Vines
in their last meeting in Sydney knew that both
were fit and well, and that the win was entirely
on the merits. My shorthand notes of every rally
showed this clearly, and Vines sportingly admitted
it — though he would, of course, have said so in
any event.
English Critics Astray
GOING to England for the present series, Craw
ford played at Bournemouth, and the English
critics hungrily comforted themselves with his
failure, as if to say: 'Did we not tell you?' They
ignored' the fact that he had hurried off the boat
at Marseilles, and had landed at Bournemouth

only in time to play. None the less, he and Turnbull
won the doubles, beating in the final (luckily) Quist
and McGrath, the fine English pairs having been dis
posed of.
Since then his progress has been meteoric and
dazzling. Without the loss of a set he won
five singles matches in succession, his victims
including Boussus, Satoh (at the amazing score
of 6-0, 6-0, 6-2), and Cochet. To defeat Cochet on his
own courts before his own people was a magnificent
performance indeed. To do it in straight sets was
wonderful.
One would have thought that such form could not
be held. It was only the beginning. He went through
the English tournament at Wimbledon with increasing
skill. He was extended by the splendid Spanish player
Maier, and was a shade lucky to win. Perhaps he was
slow to get again into his stride after the wine of
success in France. Then he rose in a crescendo of
skill till he beat Hughes after the Englishman had
beaten Sutter, of the U.S.A., and Satoh after the son
of Nippon had beaten Austin, England's most highly
rated player.
His Methods
THEN came his match against Vines — and world
fame! He is now enrolled among the lawn tennis
immortals.
It may be interesting to analyse his methods. His
grips, his arm-action, and his footwork are based on
(Continued on Next Page.)

Australia's Prospects for the Davis Cup

Jack Crawford:
World's Champion Tennis Player
(Continued, jrom Page 15.)
the methods of the Dohertys, England's famous
champions. These set a standard for the world that
has, perhaps, not been surpassed. His court tactics
are largely his own. Certainly, he never saw any
player adopt them before he himself did so. He used
them as a boy. It has always been held by the critics
that the danger zone in singles is just inside the base
lines. The accepted position was either outside the
baseline or right inside the service-court line. Crawford
operates from about three yards inside the baseline. He
is able to hold that exceptional and dangerous position
as a result of his amazing ability to play the drive
volley, the half-volley, and the rising ball. His timing
is the root of his genius.
The position allows him to avoid much of the

running oi other players. Hasty critics, m conse
quence, said he was lazy. Of course, they now
speak of his 'quiet, easy manner' and of his
'effortless ease.' Now it is his main virtue in
their eyes. Nothing succeeds like success. His
chief asset was beyond their comprehension for a
long time.
Command of Spin
?p^ARLY in his career I frequently commented on
his error in using a flick of the wrist on his
backhand strokes. Possibly he read those remarks
and tried out the method suggested. That method
was laid down by Tilden to the writer, who only
passed it on. Such a flick involves too great a
danger of error in timing. To-day Crawford's
backhand is as good as his wonderful forehand.
Prom both now flow perfect drives or drive-volleys,
the direction of which can only be seen when they
have left his racquet. What an asset!
He has shown that at the last moment he can
place the ball on either sideline, short or deep.
He can drive or volley, deep or short. He has thus
not only perfect command of direction, but, what
is greater, perfect command of length. He has
also what Tilden has said, and the writer has
noticed, to be the chief asset of the truly great
player — command of spin. Crawford can use a
plain drive for speed or overspin to ensure the dip
of the ball early in its flight, or chop so that the
ball shall not rebound much. He has shown during
the last three years that he can vary his game so
as best to defeat the style of each opponent. The
volleyer he passes with delicate placements; the

chopper he drives out of court with speed and length;
the pure baseliner he defeats by his own volleying. He
betters Achilles, for he has no heel that is open to fatal
attack.
Before the last two years showed him that the
great players were only mortal he allowed his natural
timid manner, mistaken often for diffidence or even
fear, to cloud his skill. The visit of the Americans, and
his successes and close defeats, showed him that he
was as good as anyone. He goes on to the court to-day
with the self-confidence and the readiness to attack
that a champion must have.
He has now no weakness at all.
His Help-maie
A ND now to speak of his other fine asset that has
helped largely to make him champion of the world.
Before he became famous Miss Marjory Cox, an
other country player, came down from Narrandera and
soon established herself as one of Australia's best
players. Later a romance developed and resulted in a
marriage between these two. Mrs. Crawford in this
tour and before it, has fully justified the wise confi
dence of the Australian association in sending her with
the team as his unofficial coach. Mrs. Crawford has to
her own credit the championships of several States and of
Australia. No Australian pair can look with confidence
to defeating her and her husband.
She knows how best to help to ward off the attacks
of asthma that have on occasion weakened his phy
sique. Australia may therefore be well pleased that she
was with him to watch and share in his triumphs.
Mrs. Crawford grew up in a tennis atmosphere. Her
mother and father are still good players.
Crawford is tall— nearly six feet — and is of that
robust build that can withstand a long, hard tourna

ment without fatigue. His weight (nearly 13 stone in
training) gives a power to his strokes that tells against
his opponent, without calling upon his own stamina.
He is a handsome man of a pleasing disposition, and is
a general favourite. He has won 52 major titles, in
cluding the mixed doubles of Australia three times
with his wife. His third successive win of the Aus
tralian singles title made the Challenge Cup his own —
an unprecedented feat in Australia.
The Other Finals
T IKE the Crawford- Vines struggle, all the other titles
^ resulted in close matches. Miss Round is the first
player to take a set from Mrs. Moody for years. This
she did in the final at 6-4, 6-8, 6-4. Mrs. Moody has
now an absolute record of seven successive wins. No
one else got more than six. Borotra and Brugnon
retained their title of doubles champions, beating in
the final Satoh and Nunoi, of Japan, 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 7-5.
Miss Ryan — still the world's finest doubles player,
though over 40 years of age — won the doubles cham

'THE CALIFORNIAN THUNDERBOLT.'
This is how H. Ellsworth Vines has been described
by one of the tennis writers of his own country.
Vines took his defeat in a manner that was worthy
of a great player.

pionship with Mme. Mathieu, of Prance. They beat
Misses James and Yorke 6-2, 9-11, 6-4 in the final.
The mixed doubles title was won by Von Cramm, of
Germany, and Fraulein Krahwinkel from Farquharson
and Miss Heeley, 7-5, 8-6.

And Now the Davis Cup
TM'OW that Australia has in her team the undoubted
champion of the world in 'Jack' Crawford, one
might hastily foretell certain success also in the Davis
Cup contests — the main purpose of the Odyssey of the
team. To do so would be to overlook many matters.
One real danger is a mental let-down by Crawford
himself. Earnest and sincere as he undoubtedly is in
treating this as his first duty, he is but human. To
any votary of any sport the world's title is the height
of his inmost ambition. It is one that a modest man
hardly visualises till it is attained. Having attained it,
there inevitably must be a sitting back, a relapse, with
the feeling 'I have done it. Now I am satisfied.'
rpHEN there is the very real skill of his opponents,
* H. W. Austin and F. J. Perry. He has won
through a tournament that included them. Yet they
are good enough to defeat him on occasion. They will
have nothing to lose; he, everything for that match.
This notwithstanding, one only states a danger. One
does not forecast defeat for a moment. Assuming,

then, as we do, that Crawford will win both his
singles, we have still a good way to go. We have to
win one other match, a singles rubber or the doubles.
As to McGrath's chances, one certainly does not agree
with those who say the boy 'has done nothing since
he beat Satoh.' Seeing that since then Satoh has
beaten Austin, it is surely enough that the boy did
beat such a champion. Satoh stands to-day as one of
the world's first six. McGrath beat him. Why should
the boy not be given more than 'a chance' of winning
either against Austin or Perry? He has also beaten
Vines and Allison.
IT has been suggested that Britain's attitude may be:
'Let us accept the defeat of Austin and our other
man by Crawford, and go for victory by both against
McGrath. Lee has beaten him twice. Choose Lee.'
In the first place, the British are not so weak-minded
as to accept defeat. Perry is, on his scores for the
past year, quite as good as Austin. Lee has beaten
McGrath twice, but not in a Davis Cup match. McGrath

is patriotic enougn to reserve nimsen xor nis
country's matches. In the writer's opinion he will
have a good chance of beating either Austin, Perry,
or Lee. Against the former two he will have the
advantage that they rely on volleying. He is at
his very best against a volleyer. Moreover, no man
who meets his bizarre backhand for the first time
can believe it as good as we know it to be. At
tacking it, they fail.
Mr. Wallis Myers has said it is a liability, not
an asset. Vines has said it is the best backhand
in the world.
The Doubles Problem
THE pairing in the doubles is a problem. We have
seen the team floundering round to find the best
partner for Crawford. So far Quist has done best as
that; yet Turnbull and Quist have done so well that
one may fairly assume they would do as well as
Crawford with any one of them. The fault is not
wholly theirs. Crawford is a hard man to suit in
doubles, owing to his hanging back. Let us, then,
accept the inevitable. Turnbull and Quist playing
the doubles, Crawford would be released from the
excessive strain of playing each day. That would
be a great advantage. Luckily, the actual choice
need not be made till after the first round of
singles. If we win both those, then gauge all on
the second singles match and leave the doubles to
Turnbull and Quist, who beat Vines and Gledhill,
champion pair of the U.S.A. Perry and Hughes
were beaten by Satoh and Nunoi. Crawford and
Quist had beaten this pair.
In my opinion, Australia will win against Britain
by three to two or four to one.

Australian Doubles Methods
TT is said that the success of Quist and Turnbull in
their recent epic struggle with Vines and Gledhill,
the national champions of the United States, arose
largely from the adoption by the Australian pair of the
Australian formation in doubles when receiving service.
That method, like many other devices, was invented by
Norman Brookes. When the adoption of the run-in
after the service became universal, about 1895, Brookes
was a young man, just reaching his interstate rank.
Later, with his usual keen analysis, he detected a
weakness in that run-in system. The server has to
cross a danger zone as he gets in — the space between
the baseline and his own chosen position to volley the
return. If, then, the receiver can get the ball back
with overspin to the feet of the server before he can
bridge that gap the reply must be uppish, and the re
ceiver's partner, if standing in close, can kill it.

THE DAVIS CUP.