TENNIS 



425 



these are admirable, others of doubtful value. 

 Negotiations must determine which shall be 

 adopted. Upon the decision relative to the 

 •nomination of contestants for the matches 

 depends our choice. 



THREE OR FOUR? 



In event of a four-man team being sent to 

 England the present rule requires the nomi- 

 nation of the men to play singles and doubles 

 three weeks in advance, and permits of no 

 interchange of contestants except in event of 

 accident or illness. The men selected for 

 singles must play only in the singles, and the 

 men chosen for the doubles only in the 

 •doubles. This is a distinct disadvantage. 



In case a three-man team is chosen it will 

 be possible to delay the nomination of the 

 players until the night before the match. This 

 will necessitate one man playing both singles 

 and doubles, and in view of the draw, will 

 mean that he may have to play twelve con- 

 secutive matches in as many days, a physical 

 and nervous strain that few men could sur- 

 vive. Considering, then, that the important 

 and the hardest games would be played last, 

 it might defeat our chances. 



Should the "over-night rule" be construed 

 to mean that the players might be named the 

 night before the beginning of each tie and not 

 before the first tie for the entire series, it 

 would be possible to so shift the men that 

 the necessity of this severe strain on any one 

 would be removed. The third best singles 

 player could be used against the weakest op- 

 ponent, and the "repeater," so to say, might 

 "be rested. 



For instance, America and Belgium are 

 drawn to play in the first tie. They will meet 

 on July 8, 10 and 11. Nominations must be 

 made on July 7. Should we win we are 

 drawn to meet France on July 13, 14 and 15. 

 If we are allowed to name our team against 

 France on July 12 we obviously enjoy an 

 advantage that we do not have if compelled 

 to say on July 7, who shall play in the French 

 match. The effect that this construction of 

 the rule would have on the question of the 

 personnel of our team can be readily appreci- 

 ated by those in the know. 



THE UNFORTUNATE DRAW. 



The misfortune of our draw is largely re- 

 sponsible for our predicament. There are 

 five challengers, necessitating three byes. 

 America and Belgium were drawn for the 

 preliminary match. The winner meets France, 

 while Australia plays Austria. The proba- 

 bilities are that Austria will default, leaving 

 Australia practically a second bye and en- 

 abling her, without a contest, to play the sur- 

 vivor of France's match with the American- 

 Belgium winner for the right to challenge the 

 iholder of the title, England. The advantage 



enjoyed by Australia is obvious, and the diffi- 

 culties confronting America and Belgium as 

 apparent. 



Here is the draw : 



AMERICA 



FRANCE 







BELGIUM 























AUSTRALIA 

 AUSTRIA 

















ENGLAND 



July 8, 10 & 11 



July 13, 14 & 15 



At Queen's Club, London 



July 17, 18 & 19 



July 21, 22 & 24 



At Wimbledon 



English opinion credits Belgium and Amer- 

 ica with the strongest of the challenging 

 teams. American opinion favors the French 

 over the Belgium. It is, of course, not known 

 who will represent either country, but it is 

 assumed that Messrs. De Borman and Le- 

 maitre will again play for Belgium, and 

 Messrs. Ayme and Decougis for France. In 

 spite of Belgium's success last year Ameri- 

 cans believe that France is stronger. 



As before stated, it is understood that Aus- 

 tria will default. It is believed that Aus- 

 tralia, thus assured of playing for the right to 

 challenge will really be tl/e weakest of the 

 four contestants. Althougn not certain, it is 

 believed that the Antipodes will be represent- 

 ed by Messrs. Eaves and Dewhurst. Dr. 

 Eaves will be well remembered in America. 

 Dewhurst is the young collegian from the 

 University of Pennsylvania whom Leroy, of 

 Columbia, defeated for the Intercollegiate 

 championship. Neither is in the same cate- 

 gory with any of the men whom we consider 

 sending. 



OUR CHANCES. 



Our chance of winning against France and 

 Belgium is acknowledged to be excellent, so 

 that we may be said to be confident that we 

 will meet the Dohertys as challengers. If we 

 are ever to regain the Davis Trophy we wiP 

 hardly have a better chance. 



In this connection our previous appearances 

 in England may not be amiss in review. Since 

 the early eighties when Dr. Dwight and Sears 

 played abroad with indifferent success and 

 O. S. Campbell tried out English strength in 

 1892, the trips of Larned in '96 and of Ward 

 and Davis in 1901 are most interesting. Lar- 

 ned attained some success in the smaller 

 tournaments, but after advancing well up at 

 Wimbledon he was beat en for the champion- 

 ship by Herbert Baddeley and was rated at 

 the end of the year several notches below the 



