Notes on the Accenture

10 things that struck me about the WGC Matchplay last week:

1) From the moment Tiger escaped from his opening round match against JB Holmes, you got the feeling he was going to win the first WGC event of the year.

2) Why do players (like Stewart Cink) putt like gods in previous rounds and then as soon as they play against Tiger start missing five-footers?

3) I know it's played in the middle of the Arizona desert, but why were there only 35 fans watching the action at The Gallery? Take that field to Wentworth and they'd be hanging out of the pine trees to catch a glimpse of the action.

4) Is it worrying, in Ryder Cup year, that three-quarters of the semi-final line-up of the year's premier matchplay event were American?

5) Why is there a par four on The Gallery course that is only 300 yards long?

6) Is Aaron Baddeley our best hope of someone regularly going head-to-head with Tiger and actually winning now and again?

7) Wasn't it a great change to watch a matchplay event?

8) Did Sergio REALLY take two putters out with him? I hope that was someone's idea of a joke.

9) Don't you just wish Angel Cabrera could play for Europe in the Ryder Cup? El Pato would fit in well.

10) Facing defeat in that opening match against Holmes, Woods closed his round by going 3, 2, 3, 3. That isn't human.

By Chris Bertram

Can we trust Tiger's rivals?

I'M slightly worried about this year. Like every other season in golf, there are plenty of things to look forward to. The Majors and the Ryder Cup stand out of course and already we've had a couple of outstanding tournaments on the European Tour.

But I'm not sure we can trust Tiger's rivals to be just that: challengers to hi throne, men who make him win tournaments rather than the world No 1 simply waiting for them to lose them.

It seems to me this is going to be a transitional year at golf's top table. The so-called Big Five (Tiger plus Phil, Ernie, Vijay and Jim Furyk) never really came to the party at the same time - Troon 2004 was possibly the best roll call (and none of them won!) - and 2008 should see them disband.

Ernie Els is trying manfully to challenge Tiger but he cannot close out a tournament no matter how hard he tries. And that's probably the problem - he's trying too hard. 

I remember suggesting after his four near misses in the Majors in 2004 that he might just be too desperate to win another one.

Injury has played its part but I feel my prediction has come true to a certain extent, much as I wish he'd have a Green Jacket on his shoulders one day.

Things are worse for his countryman Retief Goosen, whose last top 10 came at Augusta 11 months ago. Pinehurst 2005 seems to have done for him.

Vijay Singh got to the top in terrific style in a showdown with Tiger and since then it's been a gradually increasingly slippery slope. Difficult to see that changing this year.

Finally, there's Phil Mickelson. He seems to be ahnging in there better than the rest but if he and Tiger go head to head down the stretch at, say, Birkdale, can you really see him triumphing?

Where does that leave us? Hoping underchievers such as Adam Scott and Sergio Garcia come good, that Padraig Harrington or Geoff Ogilvy have another Major in them or that the youthful likes of Richard Sterne or Martin Kaymer do a Rich Beem (remember him?) and take on Tiger like they're playing with a group of friends for a fiver.

Now you can probably see why I'm worried. Can we trust these men to give Tiger a game?

By Chris Bertram

 

USA USA USA

WHY are we not really, really excited by the start of the World Golf Championships for 2008? This week the matchplay leg of the WGCs takes place and it really should be a tremendously exciting event. 

Yet, after we've done the office draw and we've argued over who's got the best batch of players (this year I got David Toms, Anders Hansen, Jim Furyk, and Jerry Kelly which I'm quietly happy with), it kind of dies a death. Why is that? Probably partly because for most of this event's lifetime it has yet to produce a stellar final or even a star-studded semi-final.

Darrn Clarke v Tiger was pretty good I suppose but they're far too chummy for it to be really interesting.

It needs something thrilling to put it on the map and, let's be honest, it needs Tiger. Put him in the final against Sergio, Phil, Ernie or even Rory Sabbatini and suddenly we're all gathered round the TV.

A re-match against Stephen Ames would be pretty amusing too.

Another reason it's yet to take off? It's always in America! How about Dubai hosting one year? Because the Americans won't travel, just as they didn't when it was in Australia. Surely we've all moved on from there (although the American interviewer who spoke to Henrik Stenson - that's Ryder Cup star and serial tournament champion Henrik Stenson - after winning last year really did ask him if he thought Americans would know him after his victory) and the top names would make it to the Middle East. First-class travel, five-star and a huge prize fund. It's not THAT tough an ask, is it?

Tiger v Phil in Dubai, in the final. Now we're really excited.

By Chris Bertram

Who had more competition - Tiger or Jack?

Until very recently, it was accepted golfing wisdom that in the era of Jack Nicklaus (1960s and 70s) there fewer good players than there are now in Tiger Woods' prime (mid 1990s to the present).

This has always coloured the debate as to which is the greatest.

For the first time, this assumption is currently being questioned.

Now, comparing anything across eras, be it the state of the British Newspaper industry or the quality of real ale, is a completely subjective exercise. Let's get that straight immediately.

But it's also enjoyable and entertaining, so let's try anyway.

In Jack's day, there were a handful of true champions, most notably Gary Player, Arnold Palmer and Tom Watson, but we are led to believe the supporting cast was rather thin. In other words, when it came to a Major, there were only a handful of realistic potential winners.

Right now, the next best after Tiger are the likes of Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els and Jim Furyk - Major champions one and all.

I don't think any have yet earned the right to be talked about in the same class as Jack's peers, but beneath them in any given Major are at least another 50 players who, on their day, are capable of winning one of the big ones.

Yet, despite this supposed depth of talent, Tiger continues to have things pretty much exactly his own way.

When Mickelson has a good year, he wins a Major and perhaps two other events. Els the same. Whereas Tiger wins over half the events he enters.

So does that mean that the competition is not as strong as has been suggested? Quite possibly.

My conclusion is slightly different.

I think that Tiger's domination is on a completely different level to that of Jack's.

Because as good as Jack was, I believe Tiger is better. Much better.

I think he's stronger, fitter, more talented and has a better technique. And, crucially, he is the equal of Nicklaus when it comes to dedication, mental strength and thinking his way not only round golf courses but also entire tournaments and whole seasons.

And he is so good just at the moment that there are only two reasons he does not win every event he enters. One is that his driving is variable, despite his incredible recovery powers. The other is that it only takes one performance-of-a-lifetime display from one other competitor in one given week to deny him. And that happens.

These factors mean that I, personally, think the 15/1 price currently being quoted on him winning the Grand Slam represents very poor value.

But as for passing Jack's tally of 18 Majors, well, that is merely a matter of time.

By Dan Murphy

Editor  

 

 

We can never get enough of Tiger

THE media are often accused of being obsessed with Tiger Woods. For instance, I love Sky Sports’s coverage of golf but have heard others complain that it is too focussed on the world No 1.

I disagree. I think the concentration on Woods is as justified as it is welcome. He is a phenomenon in sporting terms never mind golfing ones, so let’s see as much of him as possible.

Everyone should wake up to this fact. Last Thursday I switched on my television at 8am with real anticipation – it was my first view of Woods in 2008. It was genuinely exciting to watch him hit the most ordinary of shots though of course it helped he was in the middle of a scintillating 65.

Then on Saturday morning we saw Damien McGrane behave round Woods as if he was a star-struck amateur in a Pro-Am rather than an established European Tour professional. So don’t try and tell me Woods is just another player. Even his peers act like autograph hunters round him.

Then there’s his golf. While his power off the tee – such as that whiplash-inducing drive on 17 – and his short game are awe-inspiring, there is more to him than that. A colleague once said to me he felt Woods willed the ball into the hole at times and on days such as Sunday in Dubai it’s difficult to disagree.

Woods brings excitement, class and entertainment to a field that no other comes close to supplying. We hardly get to see him in Europe so when we do I believe it’s something to cherish. He’s raised that fascination factor by playing so infrequently these days, much to the chagrin of PGA Tour journeymen such as Tom Pernice.

If I could have one golfing wish in the next five years it would be that the ungrateful likes of Pernice and PGA Tour chief Tim Finchem annoy Woods sufficiently that he decamps to Europe. Our tour is on the way up and he could hand-pick tournaments and venues to set himself up for the weeks he really wants to peak in – and there are only four of them every year.

Perhaps the best chance of this dream becoming reality is the fact his wife is Swedish and may enjoy living closer to home again. For now, I’m counting down the days when Woods is next on my screen. The WGC Matchplay Championship by my reckoning. Hopefully he’ll last longer than Round One this year…

Chris Bertram

Why Poulter is a prat

WHENEVER a sports star reacts to an interview he has given which has caused distasteful headlines by claiming he was misquoted, journalists all over the land breathe a collective sigh of disgust.

England cricket captain Michael Vaughan was a recent offender and made a total fool of himself when it was proved he made scathing, yet justifiable, comments about Andrew Flintoff.

It’s a real pity our PR-led society means he felt it was better to annoy journalists and temporarily appear a shameless idiot than it was to stand by his comments about a team-mate.

Ian Poulter picked up that same baton last week and, to no great surprise, made an even bigger prat of himself. Firstly he posed nude on the front cover of a golf magazine, his dignity preserved only by a pink golf bag (shameless product placement in full flow). Can’t honestly imagine Tiger doing that, but each to their own.

Secondly, he claimed he had little time for the games of his peers, Woods excepted, and that when he really hit his straps it would come down to a dogfight between the former club pro and the greatest player the game has ever seen.

Or maybe he didn’t. Poulter claims he was misquoted and taken out of context after kindly inviting the journalist into his home. I could be totally wrong, but given a choice between the characters of Poulter and the man who wrote the article, I’m backing the journalist.

For what it’s worth I rate Poulter’s game quite highly. He’s just the type to pluck a Major out of nowhere as the more talented likes of Sergio Garcia three-putts his way to distraction.

But to come out with such self-centred, disrespectful and arrogant nonsense is delusional at best.

After winning in Dubai Woods was asked about the mammoth gap between his ranking and that of world No 2 Phil Mickelson. “But I thought Poulter was number two,” responded Woods.

Word has it he and Woods are pretty friendly. But I sensed there was a good slice of disdain in Woods’s words and I welcomed every consonant and vowel.

Woods has a nice line in disdain, after all. Just ask Rory Sabbatini or Stephen Ames. At least those two didn’t compound their foot-in-mouth episodes with a pathetic attempt at an excuse.

Chris Bertram