I have no issue with the coverage itself at the moment. It's tough with covid and where cameras / crews can actually get to en masse. I also quite like watching more of a handful of players, as you get to see how they build a round etc, and get to see hear their thinking about why they've hit certain shots. Chopping between groups, you only really get to see tee shots, made putts and flagged approaches.
That said, I'm getting increasingly frustrated at commentators / pundits who seemingly have a lack of interest in keeping up with stats and trends (and facts). A few weeks ago Rob Lee and another (maybe Simon / Radar) spent the whole build up and mid-round links at the Zozo only talking about how it was between Thomas and Rahm, and that nobody else could compete - only for Cantlay (who was never more than a shot or two behind) to go on and win. Cantlay was playing great golf in a group or two ahead, and looked brilliant throughout the week - ignoring him was just laziness as they'd obviously done research on Rahm / Thomas and nobody else ahead of going live.
Today on the ET, when talking about the new SA lad that's hitting it miles, one of the commentators said: "you don't need to lengthen the courses, just grow the rough and people won't hit it so far". There's a million different things wrong with that statement (not least the fact that the guy they were moaning about was down the absolute centre of the fairway - where there'll never be rough). But enough strokes gained stats etc have shown over recent years that being 100 yards out in the rough is almost always preferable to being 150 out in the fairway. If you narrow the fairways EVERYBODY misses, but the short guys are even more at a disadvantage. None of that is speculative, it's literally fact - but again, they don't bother to do the research and so say things like the above - which in turn, make the more casual golfer think what they're saying is correct ... and make very bored locked-down golfers like me, take angrily to forums to whinge about it.
