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.