AMERICAN VS. ENGLISH TENNIS.

Considerable interest was manifested in the tennis games played last summer in England between the famous Renshaw brothers and the Clarks, because these games seemed to be a fair teat of two distinct styles of play, which may be said to be fairly representative. Mr. Evelegh, who was referee in these matches, recently expressed himself in the most unprejudiced manner as very much pleased with the play of the Americans, which, of its style, was the best he had ever seen. But he also said "that the style was entirely wrong. Against men of the Renshaw 'calibre,' they played far too near the net, and when the Englishmen really set themselves to play (that is in the second match, not the first), they did what they pleased in the long stretch of court, left absolutely undefended. It is all well enough to oppose the net game, properly so called, to players who are content with 'lobbing,' or an occasional mild 'liner,' but to play this game opposite men who send their returns in like the proverbial lightening, is simple suicide." An English correspondent has recently written a letter in which he comments on these two styles of play. He speaks in conclusion about the distinctive features of the English and American games as now played in the following terms: "Taking the single game first, the difference is not so great not as it used to be, the theories being very much the same, the execution only being different. In volleying, the English player invariably takes the ball as late and as close to the ground as possible, and this he manages to do without losing speed in his 'return.' In fact on the other side the return volley is immensely harder than it is in America. The advantage of this is obvious to anyone who has studied the game. The 'striker' has the advantage of having more time to 'place' his return, and the 'receiver' is at the disadvantage of not knowing until the ball has actually left his opponent's racquet where it is going. In the American style of volleying, on the other hand, as the ball is seldom allowed to drop below the level of the net, the 'shaping' of the racquet tells the 'receiver' at once at what angle the ball is coming, and he is there to meet it, and the 'striker' has to take the ball quickly and without having time to consider the most judicious play to return it to. The low volley always keeps the ball low, and unless the 'receiver' is there or thereabouts, he can never get at it. A volley from the shoulder invariably sets the ball 'bouncing,' rendering it possible of return (although otherwise well placed) by an active receiver. I should recommend our players to take pains to acquire the low volley. Players on this side distress themselves too much in serving, and often tiring themselves out, and weakening their returns. The service is becoming less important in the single game every day, and a great number of the best players invariably give their opponents the service in preference to serving themselves. Nine cases out of ten the result justifies them.

One word on the 'double game' and I an done. The style here has to be completely changed in matches between good players. Against poor or even medium players, the near-net game is apt to pay very well, but against first-class exponents of the game it is simple suicide. Each player should stand on the service line (excepting the server, of course, and he gets up as soon as possible) and if they are up to the mark nothing except a smash will get past them. This is always done in England, and even allowing for the difference in 'calibre' of the players, the superiority of the English style was fully exemplified in the late international matches. The more advanced the game gets here, the necessity for this change will be more apparent, and I confidently expect that next season our best teams will study this style of play to their advantage.