Canada's Successful Davis Cup Debut in 1913

[newmark401]

Part I of III

Introduction

Canada took part in the Davis Cup competition for the first time in 1913. Although a total of only eight teams participated in what was the thirteenth year of the fledgling competition, this was the highest number so far at that point. The total was, in fact, nine if the defending champions, the British Isles, are included. However, in those days the previous year’s winners did not have to play through what was known as the All-Comers’ event, but instead ‘sat out’ to see whom they would face in the Challenge Round of what was then officially known as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge.

The core of the Canadian team consisted of Bernard Schwengers and its best player of the period, Robert Powell, who had reached the semi-finals of the men’s singles event at Wimbledon five years earlier, in 1908. (Powell also acted as captain.) Canada had little difficulty in reaching the All-Comers’ Final, defeating debutants South Africa in the quarter-finals and Belgium one round later; this was the second appearance in the Davis Cup by a Belgian team, their first having been in 1904.

Although the Canadians failed to win a set in any of their matches against the all-conquering Americans in the All-Comers’ Final, they put up a good fight nevertheless. Robert Powell’s contribution justifiably receives special mention in the reports reproduced below.
--

First round

Canada d. South Africa 3-1

Played on grass at Queen’s Club, London, on June 19, 20, 21

From “Lawn Tennis and Badminton”, June 26, 1913:

“Canada’s flag is still flying at topmast, and that of South Africa for the first time being hauled down, but to conquered and conquerors alike, can credit be given for a right worthy fight in the first round Davis Cup tie decided at Queen’s Club last week.

“South Africa’s hopes must have fallen almost to zero when Victor Gauntlett, their captain, expressed doubts as to his ability to play, owing to the recurrence of an old sprain in the groin, and it was a relief to both sides that he recovered in time to take his place, and especially so to Canada that the merit of their victory should have been enhanced by a full team being pitted against them.

“The final constitution of the sides was Robert Powell and Bernard Schwengers for Canada and Victor Gauntlett and R.F. Le Sueur for South Africa, the former’s spare men being Captain James Foulkes and Henry Mayes, whilst C.R. Leach and L. Girdlestone were the reserves for South Africa. A definite issue was not arrived at until the third day, when Canada won the contest by 3 matches to 1, the remaining single on the programme not being played, as it had no influence on the result.
--

“The Play

“Robert Powell (CAN) d. R.F. Le Sueur (RSA) 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 3-6, 7-5

“If it cannot be said that the opening match was exhilarating, it had the merit of improving as it proceeded, whilst a close and exciting finish compensated for much of the tameness of the earlier stages. It was rather unfortunate for Le Sueur, the South African with the lesser experience, to be drawn to play first. For two sets he was utterly unable to do himself justice, his game being soft and inaccurate. He admitted that he sometimes forgot his opponent was a left-hander, and Powell had only to remain steady to capture the first two sets, largely on his opponent’s mistakes.

“Le Sueur rallied gamely and won the third and fourth sets, in which he volleyed effectively and had better control of his strokes overhead. The issue then appeared to rest with the man who would stay the longer, and whilst opinion favoured Le Sueur, it was soon seen that Powell was lasting well. Unfortunately for South Africa, the fifth set was too much of an ordeal for Le Sueur. With Powell passing him with some crisp low drives, Le Sueur fell back on the defensive and was led by 4-1.

“Then we saw Powell playing for safety in the hope that the South African would proceed to beat himself, but once let in Le Sueur made a fine recovery, and the scores were subsequently 5-all. Here Powell’s ripe experience served him well, as he was the more composed man in a critical finish that unnerved his opponent, who made his blunders when openings for winning shots presented themselves. Two double faults, faulty smashing, and bad length lobbing all contributed to the South African’s undoing, and finally Powell put Canada put one up by winning the set, 7-5.

“Victor Gauntlett (RSA) d. Bernard Schwengers (CAN) 11-9, 6-3, 6-0

“Although Gauntlett had not been himself at Beckenham, he played his best game on English soil whilst beating Schwengers in the second match. The Canadian had started with a brilliant attack, going up effectively on his good American service, and getting up to a 5-2 lead before Gauntlett quite fathomed his game. Schwengers was foot-faulted in the eighth game, and let the fact worry him so much that he lost confidence, and the game.

“Gauntlett got in with the service to 4-5, and then saved the tenth game after Schwengers, in some most entertaining play, had twice come within a point of set. Gauntlett played with fine judgement after this, crossing his man with some effective pulls, and generally placing well. Schwengers wanted a stroke for the set at 7-6, but again Gauntlett’s resource saved him, and the South African took the set at 11-9.

“The loss of this set was the undoing of Schwengers, who quite failed to do himself justice afterwards. Gauntlett played fine heady tennis, and showed much the better judgement in his advances to the net, with the result that he won the second set by 6-3 and the third to love.

“The Doubles

“Powell/Schwengers (CAN) d. Gauntlett/Le Sueur (RSA) 7-5, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3

“Calculations were upset in the doubles, as the combination of Gauntlett and Le Sueur, which had been very successful in South Africa, and promised well at Beckenham, was very defective against Powell and Schwengers, who had only recently paired. Once more Le Sueur appeared to be beaten by the importance of the occasion, and Gauntlett was sorely handicapped by his partner’s varying moods.

“The play was not very impressive, but the Canadians gradually came to a nice concerted game with Powell the best man in the match by virtue of his supreme steadiness, and his most able captaincy. Schwengers responded gallantly to his captain’s commands, and keeping good control of himself, rendered valuable aid by his strong service and severity overhead. Between them the pair had Le Sueur in a rare tangle, and they persistently hammered at the weak spot until it collapsed. With victory in sight Powell played with unusual power of stroke, and eschewed his lobbing in favour of low, raking drives, and in the closing stages the South Africans were playing from the back of the court.

“The bad light counted for many errors in timing in the first set, whilst lobbing on both sides was rather short. The South Africans did well up to 5-4, but by more incisive methods the Canadians pulled themselves together and won at 7-5. Le Sueur put so many balls into the net that the second set – adjourned at 2-1 owing to rain – was won easily at 6-3 by the Canadians, but South Africa rallied in the third set and won it at 6-3, Schwengers meanwhile changing from rubbers to steel points, whilst Le Sueur was now playing much better.

“The opening game of the fourth set was won by South Africa, but once more Le Sueur lapsed into very soft and uncertain methods, and Canada went with a rush to 5-1. All seemed over, but with Gauntlett making a grand effort the scores went to 3-5 before Canada, with a spirited attack, won at 6-3.

“[Day three]

“Schwengers (CAN) d. Le Sueur (RSA) 6-3, 6-3, 6-3

“In what proved to be the final match, Schwengers was the better attuned to a big ordeal, and by a confident and very able all-round display he won the tie for Canada, there being no necessity for Gauntlett and Powell to go into court for the outstanding singles. It was a coincidence that all three sets were won at 6-3, whilst Le Sueur showed welcome tenacity in making a partial recovery after being led 5-2 in the first and third sets, and in pegging level up to 3-all in the second. Nevertheless, he was again very uneven, and flattered only to deceive.

“In the first Gauntlett should have made the scores 4-5, but with the court at his mercy he came down heavily on a short lob and put it outside. Schwenger’s took the South African’s service well, and whilst his decisive volleying was the feature of his game, he also showed increasing strength in his backhand strokes off the ground, whilst much of his lobbing was admirably done.

“The cup tie, which marked a new era in lawn tennis history, was a delightfully sporting affair, and the visiting teams speedily became very popular with the spectators.”
--

 

[newmark401]

Part II of III

The Semi-finals

Canada d. Belgium 4-0

Played on grass at The Pleasure Gardens, Folkestone, England, on July 10, 11, and 12

From “Lawn Tennis and Badminton”, July 17, 1913:

“It must be confessed that this tie was a great disappointment. Not only was the play of rather poor quality, but the runaway victory which Canada secured was not of a nature to inspire the enthusiasm of the crowd, which was only of small dimensions. The Canadians relied on the same team as that which played against South Africa, so that Robert Powell (captain), Bernard Schwengers and Harry Mayes represented the Dominion, with James Foulkes as reserve.

“The Belgian team was as follows:– Paul de Borman (captain), Georges Watson, and William du Vivier. Albert Prebble was the honorary referee, and in the draw which took place on Wednesday evening it was found that Powell played de Borman and Schwengers Watson.

“Powell played as good a single as he has ever done in his life. The court (slow but true) suited his strokes admirably, and in the baseline duels between the two men, for de Borman and Powell seldom advanced to the net in the earlier stages of the match, the Canadian was by far the more certain in his return. It must be confessed that Powell was lucky to find an antagonist who played a game impregnated (so to speak) with top-cut, for if he has a preference it is for returning this type of stroke.

“Powell led 3-1 in the first set, the game he lost being the first and on his own service, and captured it at 6-2, de Borman winning the seventh in addition. The second set found both men more inclined to attack at close quarters, but here again de Borman met his master and he was only able to secure one game (the third). Powell was severe on any tosses [lobs] which de Borman used to drive him back, and made many winners off them outright, while still maintaining superiority off the ground.

“The third set was much closer than the score suggests. De Borman, feeling that a baseline game would only lead to further disasters, played in a much more enterprising manner, but though by good net play he won several aces [points], the attack could not be sustained, and he retired defeated, the full score being 6-2, 6-1, 6-1 in Powell’s favour.

“It was a thousand pities that Georges Watson was not physically in the best of trim, when meeting Bernard Schwengers, for a really good game might have resulted if the fine fight Watson put up in the first set was any criterion. It was a case, to start with, of a volleyer against a baseliner, and at first Watson on the baseline was having the better of the deal, and led at 3-2. He was driving really well, and if he could have kept up his form should have secured the first set, for his service was, also, not to the liking of the Canadian. Condition, however, told its tale, and only one game rewarded the Belgian’s effort in the next two sets, after losing the first at 6-4. When a player of Watson’s class repeatedly breaks down over easy strokes it is a sure sign that he is not in the best of health. [Final score: 6-4, 6-1, 6-0]

“The doubles match, played on Friday, found Powell and Schwengers partnered against Watson and William du Vivier, and here, again, an easy victory is to be recorded for Canada. It was evident from the start that the plan of campaign mapped out by Powell and Co. included lobbing the service, especially by Powell. This paid, as owing to the nervousness of the opposition, the overhead work of the Belgians was distinctly weak. Du Vivier failed to secure a service game in the first set, and Canada won it at 6-2.

“Despite the capture of the first game in the second set, the Belgians soon heard the score called 3-1 against them; they pulled up to 3-2, but this was their last success, as the Canadians, playing a good combined game, and making few mistakes, won at 6-2.

“The third set found the Canadians still the better pair, and after 2-all had been called they ran out the easiest of winners, content to let their opponents make mistakes, and by this means secured the necessary aces. [Final score: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2]

“Canada having won the tie, little interest was evinced in the remaining singles, one of which was not played, but Schwengers emphasised the victory by defeating de Borman in what proved to be the most level match of the series, for the Belgian won the first set at 6-4, and made a close fight for the second before eventually retiring beaten by 3 sets to1 [4-6, 6-4, 6-2, 6-2].
--

 

[newmark401]

Part III of III

The All-Comers’ Final

United States of America d. Canada 3-0

Played on grass at The All England Lawn Tennis Club, Wimbledon, on July 18 and 19

From “Lawn Tennis and Badminton”, July 24, 1913:

“Friday, July 18

“America did not disappoint expectations on Friday last, when Richard N. Williams and Maurice McLoughlin won their singles matches against Bernard Schwengers and Robert Powell, who were selected to represent Canada. The weather was not on its best behaviour, and though it did not actually rain during the progress of the matches, yet the threatening aspect doubtless had something to do with the small attendance of spectators.

“Richard N. Williams (USA) d. Bernard Schwengers (CAN) 6-4, 6-2, 6-4

“There was a sensational opening, for Williams found his best game at once; he started serving and by the aid of some beautiful volleys, which were placed deep, he won it easily. Schwengers was very uncertain, and in the next game presented his opponent with a brace of double faults and lost it in consequence. Williams reached 40-0 in the third game, drove a ball just out, and then by an attack on Schwengers’ backhand, secured the third.

“Schwengers now began to play with more confidence and, aided by a lucky volley off the wood, reached 40-30, but after deuce had been called several times he dropped the game. His fine fight had, however, given him encouragement, and Williams serving a double fault, which equalised a lucky net-cord, lost the game, as also the next three, Williams hereabouts playing rather wildly. Schwengers was mixing his game well, and a backhand passing shot was particularly noticeable. 4-all. A very fine recovery.

“The Philadelphian then pulled himself together, and by some fine services reached 40-0 in the ninth game and won it with something to spare, despite another double fault. Schwengers got to 30-15 in the tenth game, but here his success ended, and he dropped the first set at 6-4.

“The second set was soon over. Williams won the first game to love on his own service, which was severe and well placed, the second after a fight in which Schwengers lost his chance by double-faulting. The Canadian won the third, a net-cord stroke helping him, but then Williams won the next two in record time and led at 4-1. By the aid of some good services Schwengers secured the sixth game, but this was his last success, and Williams won the set at 6-2.

“The third set was more evenly contested, but one always felt that it was only a matter of time for Williams to win, and this he did after 4-all had been called. The three sets lasted only fifty minutes.

“Williams’ game is an ‘all-round’ one, and he seems to be equally happy in making every sort of shot; his backhand drive is beautifully executed, and far more taking to the eye than that of McLoughlin. Schwengers’ volleys were the best feature of his game; if only he had had more time in which to run in, they would have secured many more points, but the pace of Williams’ return often found the Canadian too far from the net to do justice to the stroke.

“Maurice McLoughlin (USA) d. Robert Powell (CAN) 10-8, 6-1, 6-4

“After a long interval the match between McLoughlin and Powell was begun, and it roused the few spectators to considerable enthusiasm. Powell was lucky to find the court on the slow side; in fact, if he had prepared it himself it could not have been more to his liking, for it made his cut shot far more difficult to take and reduced the force of McLoughlin’s drives and services. Then again, his being a left-hander helped him considerably, as the tearaway second service of McLoughlin’s, which is so difficult for the right-hander to take when in the left-hand court, was made a comparatively easy stroke.

“But when all is said and done these natural advantages would have been but of little avail against McLoughlin unless his opponent was playing well, and we can say without fear of contradiction that Powell played the game of his life. One would have thought that throughout the match the Canadian would have had to have acted on the defensive, and this, superficially, seemed to be the case, but the defensive, on dozens of occasions, became very offensive indeed – to the opponent. His undercut drives were delivered with any amount of sting, and were also of good length, and McLoughlin’s top-cut reply often found the net.

“Then again, Powell used great judgement in coming in to volley and when at the net was extremely difficult to displace; it was only in the later stages of the match that McLoughlin lobbed, and this reply was too much for Powell who, while able to display great activity to and fro by the net, hand not sufficient reserve of stamina to retrieve the insidious toss [lob].

“Powell had a splendid chance of winning the first set, as he captured the ninth game with McLoughlin serving, but the American is never so dangerous as when fully pressed, and by some really good drives, aided by a shade of unsteadiness in Powell, he saved the situation. If people thought that the Canadian, having missed his chance, would capitulate forthwith, they were mistaken. He stuck to his task with grim determination, and although Powell was never within a point of winning McLoughlin’s service, he held so tenaciously to his own that it was not until eighteen games had been played that Powell failed, the last stroke of the set being a delicate drop from McLoughlin which the Canadian could only look at.

“The second set was won by McLoughlin easily, though not as easily as the score suggests, as there were some long tussles. The turning point was the fourth game, which, with Powell serving, McLoughlin secured after deuce had been called three times; this gave the American a lead of 3-1, and keeping up the pressure he won the next three games and the set.

“Powell, however, was by no means done with as, starting service, he established a lead of 2-1 in the third set, and for the second time in the match (and aided by a double fault) he won McLoughlin’s and was 3-1. Just as in the first set, he could not press home his advantage and McLoughlin squared at 3-all.

“A love game to each man in turn was the next noticeable feature, but then McLoughlin ran out as he captured Powell’s service, in which a drop shot followed by a deep lob were too much for Powell, and then won the match with some extra special fast services, which he always seems able to pull out of his bag when the occasion requires them. The slow court evidently did not suit the American, but he was playing a fine game nevertheless, and Powell must be heartily congratulated on giving the ‘comet’ a better fight than anyone in the [Wimbledon] Championships (with the exception of Herbert Roper Barrett) up to and including the final round.

“Saturday, July 19

“Harold Hackett/McLoughlin (USA) d. Powell/Schwengers (CAN) 6-3, 6-3, 12-10

“This match was played today before a very small attendance. America started the game with McLoughlin, and was soon one up. Schwengers followed, and thanks to some good work by Robert Powell, who played finely throughout the match, Canada won it. It was now Hackett’s turn, and by the aid of some good close volleys he won the game; his service did not look extremely difficult; its chief merit seems to consist of good placing and a very slow flight, which enables the server ample time to reach the net. Powell, despite the score reaching 15-30, won his game, Hackett hitting a ball out and another into the net.

“McLoughlin once more had no difficulty in securing his service game, but Schwengers was not so fortunate, a lucky net-cord for America and a good return of Hackett’s making the score 0-30. McLoughlin hit out: 15-30. A good rally ensued, finished by an oblique shot by Schwengers: 30-all. Then Powell and Schwengers in turn hit a ball outside the court and, and America led 4-2. The games going with the service after this, America secured the first set at 6-3.

“The second set was almost a repetition of the first, except that disaster at once overtook Canada, Schwengers dropping his service game, which was the first of the set. McLoughlin, as usual, won his easily enough, but Powell followed suit after deuce had been called. The next five games went with the service, but the once more Schwengers lost his, and America won the second set at 6-3.

“The third set gave the spectators the most excitement, but it cannot be said that the tennis was particularly good, for Hackett became completely off his game, and Schwengers was always rather out of the picture. Canada had a splendid chance of winning this set, for at 4-all McLoughlin was within a point of losing his service; this chance was missed, and victory nearly went to America in the fourteenth game, as Schwengers was 15-40 and the Americans had a game in hand, but it was saved by the Canadians by good all-round play.

“Canada had another chance of winning the set in the nineteenth game, for it was then 15-40 on Hackett’s service, and if only Schwengers had steadied down this game should have been Canada’s, and with Powell’s service to follow, the set should have been in Canada’s keeping. As a matter of fact, Powell won his service and squared the games at 10-all, but then America won the next two games, the last of Schwenger’s service, which McLoughlin was returning with great ferocity, and the set and match [and tie] went to America.
-----