Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-10-04
WORK AHEAD FOR TENNIS RANKING COMMIT
WILLIAM JOHNSTON TO BE RANKED
AS PREMIER RACQUET WIELDEl
National Champion Had Better Success on Courts Ths
ANY Other yer-Mc1oughlin and Williams
Probably Will Come Second and Third

Despite the fact that National Champion
william NJ Johnston, by his defeats Of
Maurice g. McLoushlin. r. Norris Will
iams, I'd, and Karf II. Behr, ranked first
second and third among the lawn tennis
nlayers Of the land, clearly established his
right to lead the 1916 ranking list, there Is
bound To be q raft Of criticism directed
at the friendless Ranking Committee after
the list is published.
Last year a precedent was established
when the national champion was ranked
below the man he defeated in the final Of
the national why" was the question
asked. SHOULD McLoushlin be placed
ahead Of the wearer Of the national
CROWN" McLoughlin's victories over
wfdlng and Brookes. together with Will
Jams defeats at the hands of the same
men. were the real reasons. And the
Ranking Committee was perfectly right
for the California Comet, after the high
tension he reached in the international
championships. relaxed, and was an easy
victim for Williams in the national. Inc
same thing happened TO Williams, who
following his victory over Mclaughlin,
lost TO Church i'm the Intercollegiate, and
the same thing happened to Johnston TINS
year after his well-sustained enort IN
the national event. Three DAYS atter
gaining the topmost position in American
lawn tennis Johnston lost to Williams IN
the East VS. West matches, and more re-
Gently to Mclaughlin.
As there were no international matches
this wear, the Job of the Ranking Com
nnittee in laying out its work Is to use'
first, the national championship. and sec
ond, performances previous to the cham
pionship The main question is: Do John
ston's victories over Behr, at 3-6, 6-3, BE-,
rs. and over williams at 81. Ga, 3D. 81,
So and over Mclaughlin, at 1-e, 60 7-5.
| 1913 Cthis second set being the only love
| set that McLoughlin ever losD, Offset his
| defeat by Mclaughlin in the Exposition
final at San Francisco; by Niles. at Long
wood; by Pel, at southampton, and by
Byford, at Chicago previous to the cham
| pionship?
What happened after Johnston won the
singles title and with Griffin the doubles
! title, should be q closed book to the
| Ranking Committee. for after a strenu-
| Gus preliminary campaign, and an even
more strenuous 10 days of championship
battles, it was nothing more or less than
/ natural that Johnston should suffer let
Z
/ of critics and close students of the game
! that on the last few days of the Forest
| Hills event Johnston could have beaten
any tennis player in the world
At the time the tennis season really
| closed, as far as important tournaments
wero concerned. Johnston had clearly
/ demonstrated his supeiorty over the lead
ing players in the land. and his victories
over Mclaughlin, Williams and Behr,
gained when they would do the most
good aid when they were of the great
est Importance. certainly Offset his earlier
defeats in tournaments where nothing
| was at stake but the honor of winning.
Fortunately there were no international
matches this year to further complicate
matters. The Davis. Cup matches last
year were of greater Importance to this
country than the national championship,
and Mclaughlin clearly demonstrated
when he defeated Brookes at 17-15, 6-3. 6-3
and wilding at SO, S-6, 6-2 6-2, two men
who defeated Williams. that he was the
greatest tennis player in the world. How
| could the American public consistently
hail Mac" as the greatest in the world
and still hail Williams as the best in
the land?
The real question that faces the Rank
ing Committee this year is, Who shall be