356 



RECREATION 



sistently high-class game he has played all 

 year, especially abroad. In the tournament 

 his work was distinctly on championship cali- 

 bre. Ward, on the other hand, had played 

 erratically before he went abroad, during his 

 foreign trip, and after his return. To be sure 

 the fact that Wright had had so hard a strug- 

 gle to reach the finals, particularly in the 

 closing days, would militate against him, but 

 Ward's lack of tournament play ought as well 

 to tell against him. In a measure the two 

 considerations neutralized each other. 



But few expected that the Boston man 

 would so markedly outplay the champion. 

 Until the third set was in hand Ward never 

 had a look in. Then it was only by one of 

 the sensational rallies for which he is famous 

 that the little champion made a hard fight, 

 only to succumb at the finish. With games 

 four to two against him, it looked to be all 

 over. When each added a game, and Wright 

 needed but one game more there was little 

 doubt of it, but Ward not only won two 

 games and brought the set to deuce, but added 

 a third, getting advantage. Wright saved the 

 next, and the match shifted from deuce to 

 Ward's advantage and back until the nine- 

 teenth game, when Wright won advantage, 

 and followed it by taking game, set and 

 match. 



It was a sensational finish and called forth 

 tennis worthy of the championship. The 

 point score was : 



FIRST SET. 

 4440548 . . . . 29-6 



o 2 i 4 3 i 6 . . . . 19-1 



SECOND SET. 

 64464414 . . . 33-6 

 4624124I . . . 24-2 

 THIRD SET. 

 1444I IO 342214 

 24160554 67-II 



Holcombe Ward, 41024 8514442 



42444332 65-9 



Beals C. Wright, 

 Hoicombe Ward, 



Beals C. Wright, 

 Holcombe Ward, 



Beals 



Wright, 



At the start of the tournament the doubles 

 aroused even keener interest than the singles. 

 In the latter in the earlier rounds there were 

 no upsets and every match being decided ac- 

 cording to form, there was nothing to hold 

 attention. When on Monday the Eastern 

 and Western champions faced each other, 

 there was a general movement of the gallery 

 to the court on which they played. The 

 Western pair being the older combination, 

 and having some reputation for high-class 

 skill, was generally the favorite. There 



was no great alarm among their supporters, 

 even when they lost the first set, 6-4. The 

 game had been close enough to turn on one 

 or two critical plays, and it was generally 

 believed that the visitors would rally and 

 come into their own in the remaining sets. 

 When in even closer play the second set went 

 to Alexander and Hackett there was deep 

 concern in the Collins-W'aidner camp, a con- 

 cern that changed to dismay when the East- 

 erners broke through their opponents' service 

 in the seventh game and made the score 5-3. 

 It was too late then to retrieve their fortunes, 

 and Collins and Waidner went down to de- 

 feat for the third time by the 6-4 s,core. The 

 points were made in the three sets thus : 



FIRST SET. 



Alexander and Hackett, 4343524048 37-6 

 Collins and Waidner, 2515342416 33-4 



SECOND SET. 



Alexander and Hackett, 5141643464 38-6 

 Collins and Waidner, 3418815140 35-4 



THIRD SET. 



Alexander and Hackett, 3746714448 48-6 

 Collins and Waidner, 5564541. 166 43-4 



This brought Alexander and Hackett up 

 to the challenge round, but none expected to 

 see them make much of a fight against Ward 

 and Wright. Nor did they. The six games 

 that fell to their lot in the match were due 

 after the first rather to carelessness on the 

 part of the champions than to the superior 

 quality of the challengers' play. The story is 

 best told in the summary : 



FIRST SET. 



Ward and Wright, 54246454 . 34-6 



Alexander and Hackett, 4 1 3 4 o 4 2 1 4 23-3 



SECOND SET. 



Ward and Wright, 7444434. . 30-6 



Alexander and Hackett, 5 2 1 1 1 5 1 . . 16-1 



THIRD* SET. 



Ward and Wright, 245040446 29-6 



Alexander and Hackett, 71424032 . 21-2 



Limited space forbids the criticism at length 

 of the Longwood and Southampton tourna- 

 ments. The winners in the singles were Rich- 

 ard Stevens at Southampton, and Clarence 

 Hobart at Longwood, Larned later beating 

 him for the Longwood Cup. In the doubles 

 Alexander and Hackett of course won at 

 Longwood, and Harry Torrence and Theo- 

 dore Roosevelt Pell at Southampton. Harry 

 F. Allen and Miss Alice Kobbe won the 

 mixed doubles at Southampton. 





