Match of the Century (tennis)

The Match of the Century was a tennis match in 1926 known for being the only career meeting between Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills, the two preeminent female tennis players of the 1920s. The meeting took place in the final of the February edition of the Carlton Club tournament on the French Riviera. Lenglen won the match in straight sets by a score of 6–3, 8–6.[1][2][3][4][5]

For the match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs, see Battle of the Sexes (tennis).
Match of the Century
Suzanne Lenglen vs. Helen Wills
Lenglen (left) and Wills (right)
at the Match of the Century
Set 1 2
Suzanne Lenglen 6 8
Helen Wills 3 6
DateTuesday, 16 February 1926
TournamentCarlton Club (February edition)
LocationCannes, France

Tournament

The Match of the Century was contested as the women's singles final of the February edition of the Carlton Club tournament, one of the largest tournaments on the French Riviera circuit. The Riviera season lasted from January through April and attracted many of the best players in the world in the lead-up to Europe's two Grand Slam tournaments: the French Championships in early June and the Wimbledon Championships in late June. The Carlton Club hosted two tournaments in Cannes annually, one in February and another in April.

With 58 competitors entered in the women's singles draw at the February edition of the Carlton Club, the event was played as a six-round single-elimination knockout bracket. Lenglen and Wills were placed on opposite sides of the draw to set up the possibility of them meeting in the final. Although they each needed to win five matches to ensure that they meet, once both players entered the singles event, it was regarded as a foregone conclusion that they would both reach the final due to the gap in playing ability between them and the other players.

Competitors

Suzanne Lenglen

Suzanne Lenglen was a 26-year-old French tennis player who was widely acknowledged as the best women's player in the world at the time. She had been ranked No. 1 in the world by A. Wallis Myers at the end of 1925, a position she had held since the year-end rankings began in 1921. She entered the Match of the Century on a win streak of over 150 matches, having not lost a singles match in over four years. Lenglen was a Wimbledon champion a then-record six times. She had lost just one match in singles and three sets in total since the end of World War I, a period of seven years. Lenglen was rarely challenged in singles, as further evidenced by the lopsided scores with which she won the overwhelming majority of her matches. Lenglen's success led the press to call her as La Divine, which translates to "the Goddess", and gave her an aura of invincibility.

Helen Wills

Helen Wills was a 20-year-old American tennis player who was regarded as an up-and-coming star and a potential challenger to Lenglen's dominance. She had been ranked No. 2 in the world by A. Wallis Myers at the end of 1925 by virtue of having won the U.S. National Championships the previous three years. Her first two such titles came against compatriot Molla Mallory, the only player to defeat Lenglen in singles after World War I. The third title was a victory over British player Kitty McKane, who had previously defeated Wills in the 1924 Wimbledon final.

Background

Earlier missed encounters

The hype for a match between Lenglen and Wills began in late 1923 following Wills's first major title at the U.S. National Championships. Their first encounter was expected to take place in 1924 when Wills made her first trip to Europe to compete in the Wightman Cup against Great Britain before partaking in Wimbledon and the Olympics later that summer. However, such a meeting never materialized. In April, Lenglen contracted jaundice in Spain after winning the Barcelona International. This illness prevented her from playing another competitive match until Wimbledon and notably kept her out of the French Championships, where she was the four-time defending champion. Although both Lenglen and Wills entered Wimbledon in late June, Lenglen had not fully recovered. She entered her quarterfinal against her doubles partner Elizabeth Ryan as an overwhelming favorite, having not lost a game in any of her first three matches. Although she defeated Ryan, she dropped the middle set, the first set of tennis she had lost in singles since 1921. Following the match, Lenglen withdrew from the tournament, asserting she had not yet recovered from her illness. She did not play another match that year. In the other half of the draw, Wills reached the final without losing more than two games in any set. Though, she could not capitalize on Lenglen's withdrawal and ultimately finished runner-up to Kitty McKane despite taking the first set.[6] A week later, Wills did take advantage of Lenglen's absence at the 1924 Olympics in Paris, winning the gold medals in both singles and doubles. This Olympic success bolstered her popularity in the United States and helped her rise to a level of stardom comparable to that of Lenglen, adding more interest for a match between tennis's two leading female stars.[7]

Wills did not return to Europe in 1925, instead focusing on her college studies as a sophomore at the University of California at Berkeley in the early part of the year and competing in tournaments on the east coast of the United States during the summer. During that year, Lenglen reestablished her perceived invincibility, going undefeated in both singles and doubles, and winning titles in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles at both the first open French Championships as well as Wimbledon. In the United States, Wills was unable to match Lenglen's level of success. Although she won the U.S. National Championships for the third year in a row, she lost a singles match in straight sets to Elizabeth Ryan and needed three sets to defeat Kitty McKane in the U.S. National Championship final. She also lost the decisive doubles match in the Wightman Cup to the visiting British pair of McKane and Evelyn Colyer. With these lapses, Wills had yet to attain the reputation of invincibility that Lenglen had. As a result, Lenglen was still regarded as the best player of the world and a clear favourite in a potential match against Wills.[8]

Lead-up to the match

In January 1926, Wills travelled to France with the goal of facing Lenglen in a tournament on the French Riviera, where Lenglen typically played the majority of her season outside of the Grand Slam tournaments.[9]

Contrast of playing styles

The two players also dealt with illness in opposite ways. Lenglen had developed a reputation for potentially faking illnesses when she was nervous, while Wills did not attribute poor performances to her health even when she was sick.[10]

Venue

The tickets cost more than 20 times what tickets at the U.S. National Championship men's singles final cost at the time.[11]

Match summary

First set

After Wills took an early lead in the match, Lenglen rebounded to win the first set comfortably. The set began with both players holding serve, Lenglen to love and Wills to 30 after falling behind 15–30. Wills carried over the momentum from her service game to break Lenglen and take a 2–1 lead. Although Lenglen had initially saved two break points at 15–40, Wills was eventually able to break on a long point that ended with her hitting a defensive cross-court backhand winner far up the line from well behind the baseline. The final shot prompted a standing ovation from the crowd, who did not expect Lenglen's well-placed previous shot to be returned, let alone hit for a winner. Wills' performance in this game convinced the spectators that Wills could compete with Lenglen and in turn that the match would be competitive.[12]

Nonetheless, Lenglen was able to break Wills in her next three service games after devising a new tactic. In the first three games, she observed that Wills only attempted cross-court backhand winners, never hitting her backhand up the line. Lenglen took advantage of this weakness beginning in the fourth game by hitting drop shots to lure Wills into the net. If Wills was able to get to the drop shot, Lenglen would follow it up with a passing shot to win the point. She had little difficulty in setting up these drop shots because she knew where to position herself whenever Wills was hitting a backhand shot. Meanwhile, Wills lacked the speed to hit a good offensive return off of Lenglen's drop shots. This strategy also made Wills do more running and tired her later in the match. Lenglen's first two breaks and a service hold gave her a 4–2 lead.[13]

Having lost three games in a row, Wills changed her own tactics and opted to come to the net voluntarily in Lenglen's next service game. This strategy helped her get another break to get to 3–4 after Lenglen was only able to hit one passing shot in the game. However, Lenglen was able to adjust and get her third break of serve in the next game by hitting deep lobs instead of passing shots whenever Wills came to the next. She then consolidated the break to win the set 6–3. Despite taking the first set, Lenglen went to her mother in the stands for a glass of cognac in-between sets, a practice she was known for doing in her most competitive matches such as the 1919 Wimbledon final. Conversely, Wills was not dismayed by losing the first set, as she had a reputation for starting matches slowly only to end up winning in three sets.[14]

Second set

The second set was more competitive than the first. After three service holds to begin the set, Wills again picked up the first break to take a 3–1 lead. She continued to employ her strategy of coming to the net on every point and not giving Lenglen good opportunities to hitting passing shots. At this point, Lenglen stalled the match and again went to the stands for another glass of cognac. When she returned to the court, she broke back as Wills began playing more passively and stopped coming to the net in an effort to conserve energy. After Lenglen held serve to level the set at 3–3, the two competitors played what turned out to be the longest game of the match. Wills began the game trailing 15–40, but saved both break points by coming to the net. She then missed two routine shots on game points before prevailing on the fourteenth point of the game, an unforced error by Lenglen two points after the fourth deuce.[15]

With Wills leading 4–3, the next game became the most controversial. After Lenglen briefly left the court a third time for more cognac, Wills took a 15–30 lead in Lenglen's service game. The next point featured a long rally that ended with Lenglen hitting the ball cross-court near the intersection of the service line and the sideline. Although the shot was called good, it is generally accepted that the linesman Cyril Tolley missed the call. Reporter Don Skene in particular noted that it landed wide by "three inches at least". Wills, who typically had a calm demeanor, became enraged and screamed at Tolley to question his call. Although the spectators also backed Wills, the call stood and Lenglen ended up winning the game. Wills then held serve in a game that went to deuce. Lenglen followed suit with a hold to love to keep the set level at 5–5.[16]

"And incidentally it will go down as one of the most grotesque and thrilling and momentous games on record."

—James Thurber on the confusion in the game at 6–5 in the second set.[17]

In the next game, Lenglen broke Wills to 30 to give herself the chance to serve for the match. She took a 40–15 in her service game to earn two match points. The first match point became another critical juncture in the match. Lenglen and Wills engaged in a long rally that ended with Wills hitting a powerful cross-court forehand into the corner near the line. Both players, the umpire, and the crowd heard the ball called out, signaling the end of the match. Within moments, photographers and reporters flooded the court and a picture was taken of Lenglen and Wills about to shake hands at the net. However, the linesman told the umpire that the ball was in and the call had from a spectator in the stands. Several minutes were needed to clear out all of the people and flowers on the court so that play could resume. When the match continued, Wills won the next three points to break Lenglen and level the match at 6–6.[18]

Both players had game points in each of the final two games of the match. Wills could not carry her momentum into her service game and fell behind 0–40. Although she won the next four points, Lenglen responded by taking the last three points and the game, setting up a second chance to serve out the match. Wills had a break point at 30–40 and a second after Lenglen had a rare double fault at deuce. However, Lenglen saved both break chances, and won the next two points to earn a third match point. On Lenglen's second shot of the point, she drew Wills into the net with a drop shot that she was barely able to get back. Wills's weak subsequent shot gave Lenglen enough time to run up to near the service line and hit a volley for a winner to end the match 6–3, 8–6.[19]

Match statistics
Category Lenglen Wills
First set (19 minutes)
Points won30/47 (64%)17/47 (36%)
Break point conversions3/3 (100%)2/4 (50%)
Most consecutive points104
Second set (41 minutes)
Points won52/99 (53%)47/99 (47%)
Break point conversions3/9 (33%)2/4 (50%)
Most consecutive points44
Overall (63 minutes)
Points won82/146 (56%)64/146 (44%)
Break point conversions6/12 (50%)4/8 (50%)

Source: Little[20]

Press coverage

Aftermath

Doubles final

Later missed encounters

Significance
gollark: Wait, you're in Turkey?
gollark: It's one of the few bits of C tooling which is slightly sane and useful generally.
gollark: But also don't use OOPy stuff unless you like OOP which is OOP and OOP.
gollark: Actually, find a combination of language and libraries which are *g*o*o*d.
gollark: All no hail C!

References
  1. Engelmann 1988, pp. 154–186.
  2. King 1988, pp. 36–38.
  3. Little 1988, pp. 68–73.
  4. Lidz, Franz (16 October 1991). "Tennis everyone?". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 16 August 2019.
  5. "Two Queens at Cannes". New York Times. 16 February 1926. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
  6. Engelmann 1988, p. 81–86.
  7. Engelmann 1988, p. 88–94.
  8. Engelmann 1988, p. 100–106.
  9. Engelmann 1988, p. 107–118.
  10. Engelmann 1988, p. 85–86.
  11. Engelmann 1988, p. 161.
  12. Engelmann 1988, pp. 166–168.
  13. Engelmann 1988, pp. 168–169.
  14. Engelmann 1988, pp. 169–171.
  15. Engelmann 1988, pp. 171–173.
  16. Engelmann 1988, pp. 173–175.
  17. Phillips 1999, p. 49.
  18. Engelmann 1988, pp. 175–176.
  19. Engelmann 1988, pp. 177–178.
  20. Little 2007, p. 83.

Books
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.