The University has never possessed a tennis coach. Swimmers and fencers, soccer and lacrosse players are always under the direction of a competent instructor, who can teach inexperienced players the fine points of the game and watch over the training and physical condition of the adepts. Tennis seems to be the most "amateur" of our sports; training depends entirely upon the individual undergraduates who participate; the team is selected by an undergraduate captain; and younger players are forced to profit as best they may be undergraduate coaching.

This condition of affairs does not obtain at many other large Universities. Yale adopted a regular tennis coach two years ago and has this year produced a championship team. At the University of California, where tennis is ranked as a major sport, the players are as carefully coached, and their physical conditions as closely watched as is the case with the football or baseball squads.

There seems to be no sufficient reason for a coachless tennis squad at Harvard. There are, moreover, many arguments to be presented in favor of securing a coach. The tennis player, even if he be possessed of unusual ability, can always improve his game under the guidance of an expert with years of experience behind him. Strict training is an important requirement for a winning team, and cannot be left to the inclination of the individual. The advice of an old hand is almost indispensible to a captain choosing his men.

The University tennis team has just completed an indifferently successful season. Much excellent though untried material is available for next year, and for its proper development a regular tennis coach is badly needed.