Masters 2019

[Grant85]

Why do you need on course commentary? Would you like on pitch (footie/ rugby etc) commentary?

I really enjoy the Sky coverage with Andrew Coltart, Wayne Riley etc. giving you a much clearer idea of what options a player has on a shot or how difficult a shot it. Adds an extra dimension to the coverage that guys in the booth don't have.

Completely different to football or rugby, where the playing field is the same / similar dimensions and doesn't influence the play like a golf course does.

 

[Grant85]

Every single shot covered and shown.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1116072381053845505

There is life outside of Sky/BBC etc.

That is welcome. I'll definitely try and access some of that this afternoon and hopefully it allows you to follow some of the early coverage.

But... why not just give Television more coverage like they manage to do at the Open (which is at a different venue each year)?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I really enjoy the Sky coverage with Andrew Coltart, Wayne Riley etc. giving you a much clearer idea of what options a player has on a shot or how difficult a shot it. Adds an extra dimension to the coverage that guys in the booth don't have.

Completely different to football or rugby, where the playing field is the same / similar dimensions and doesn't influence the play like a golf course does.

I am just grateful to be spared the inanities that tumble so freely from Riley's lips.

For that alone I am grateful to ANGC.

Don't mind Coltart though 😉

 

[TheDiablo]

And another thing... the field size. 87 players in the field this year.

The field is effectively the top 50 in the world plus past champions, and a few other winners of previous majors and recent tour events.

Given that;
* 11 players are in only on the past champion exemption (i.e. no other status, the only one with any serious tour status is Danny Willett, OGWR 78)
* plus Jimmy Walker and Martin Kaymer are in only on account of majors within the last 5 years (OGWR 102 & 190 respectively)
* that there are also 6 amateurs in the field
* and 1 special exemption to a Japanese player to boost the media coverage over there

That effectively reduces the elite field by another 15 to 20 players each year. So they are really only running a tournament with 70 players in it. Half the size of an Open or US Open.

I appreciate that part of the 'difficulty' of winning the Masters is that you have to be a very accomplished player to qualify for it, but even without holding open qualifying and letting a Todd Hamilton or Shaun Micheel in to potentially win, they could still allow another 30 or 40 players from the world rankings to make a deeper field and a tougher event to win.

And this goes for the Open as well as the Masters - but letting past champions play until they are well into their 60s should be revoked. It should either be a 10 year exemption or it could continue as long as you have status on a tour or can make a few cuts somewhere. The sight of Ian Woosman and Sandy Lyle struggling to break 80 serves no purpose to the event - even for the odd romantic moment of one of the old guys making the cut or leading in the early stages. The Open gets more of a pass, given they let in a lot more 'current' players.

I'd rather see Lee Westwood, Russell Knox, Ryan Fox, Ryan Moore, Cameron Champ etc. - who have won decent tour events in the last year or two, are ranked inside the top 100 and are genuinely elite players who could get into contention and possibly win the event.

I honestly don't get this take. Literally every golfer has the chance to qualify for The Masters every single year. You've had to really clutch for some names that have missed out there.

The last 28 major winners all came from the Top 50 in the world. These guys are so much better than the rest now, and they're who I want to see in majors.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Every single shot covered and shown.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1116072381053845505

There is life outside of Sky/BBC etc.

You have to have better broadband coverage than I have, same for plenty of others, for this to be any use though. Better than nothing and good for those who can get it but there are plenty of us out there who simply don't have the broadband speeds for this yet. (come on Openreach you useless bunch and pull your fingers out )

 

[Deleted member 16999]

That is welcome. I'll definitely try and access some of that this afternoon and hopefully it allows you to follow some of the early coverage.

But... why not just give Television more coverage like they manage to do at the Open (which is at a different venue each year)?

Because whatever they do someone will moan, let’s not pretend you can see as much coverage at The Open, that’s also on Sky.
People moaned about Sky and it’s cost etc and Golf authorities in the US were lauded on here for not giving Sky a contract and how they were taking it across digital platforms for the modern era.
And yet there is still criticism!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You have to have better broadband coverage than I have, same for plenty of others, for this to be any use though. Better than nothing and good for those who can get it but there are plenty of us out there who simply don't have the broadband speeds for this yet. (come on Openreach you useless bunch and pull your fingers out )

I get that mate, but do The Masters care about a village in Northumberland anymore than a village in ........(insert any village in any part of the world)
No other event has this, none, but people still moan! (Not aimed at you)

 

[Orikoru]

I honestly don't get this take. Literally every golfer has the chance to qualify for The Masters every single year. You've had to really clutch for some names that have missed out there.

The last 28 major winners all came from the Top 50 in the world. These guys are so much better than the rest now, and they're who I want to see in majors.

Agreed. Everyone who the vast majority would care about being there, are there.

 

[Grant85]

I honestly don't get this take. Literally every golfer has the chance to qualify for The Masters every single year. You've had to really clutch for some names that have missed out there.

The last 28 major winners all came from the Top 50 in the world. These guys are so much better than the rest now, and they're who I want to see in majors.

Personally would rather see a deeper field. Gives a much better chance of more players being in contention and having an exciting event. Jim Furyk - a man in form, not in the field, Graeme McDowell, likewise. Thorbjorn Olessen, Byeong Hun An, Abraham Anser etc. All played WGC golf this year, but not good enough for the Masters?

Ok, so last 28 major winners were from the top 50. Effectively the Masters winner will always be top 50 - very few chances for someone 51 to 100 to get in - barring the odd Keith Mitchell / Shane Long / Correy Conners who have 1 win and won on the right week and other results haven't put them in the top 50.

So statistically guys ranked 51 to 100 are unlikely to win, but they could win and they can certainly contend and make an event more exciting. If there is room for 6 amateurs, 10 past champions with no real tour status and a random Japanese guy, there is room for Jim Furyk, Lee Westwood etc. to tee it up.

Also there's probably a few past champions eligible, who have decided to not play - Faldo for one.

 

[Grant85]

Because whatever they do someone will moan, let’s not pretend you can see as much coverage at The Open, that’s also on Sky.
People moaned about Sky and it’s cost etc and Golf authorities in the US were lauded on here for not giving Sky a contract and how they were taking it across digital platforms for the modern era.
And yet there is still criticism!

For the record, I don't moan about Sky - and especially their major coverage. Their golf coverage is excellent and we are probably best served country in the world in terms of golf coverage because of them.

There's a few tweaks I'd like to see them make, but if people think Sky is bad for golf fans in the UK, or is over priced, they are not looking at the big picture.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Personally would rather see a deeper field. Gives a much better chance of more players being in contention and having an exciting event. Jim Furyk - a man in form, not in the field, Graeme McDowell, likewise. Thorbjorn Olessen, Byeong Hun An, Abraham Anser etc. All played WGC golf this year, but not good enough for the Masters?

Ok, so last 28 major winners were from the top 50. Effectively the Masters winner will always be top 50 - very few chances for someone 51 to 100 to get in - barring the odd Keith Mitchell / Shane Long / Correy Conners who have 1 win and won on the right week and other results haven't put them in the top 50.

So statistically guys ranked 51 to 100 are unlikely to win, but they could win and they can certainly contend and make an event more exciting. If there is room for 6 amateurs, 10 past champions with no real tour status and a random Japanese guy, there is room for Jim Furyk, Lee Westwood etc. to tee it up.

Were do you stop with this point of view though? Top 100? Top 150? Top 200? There’ll always be somebody missing out!
I’d suggest there are just as many hangers on at The Open, but somehow that adds to the event.

 

[Grant85]

Were do you stop with this point of view though? Top 100? Top 150? Top 200? There’ll always be somebody missing out!
I’d suggest there are just as many hangers on at The Open, but somehow that adds to the event.

Of course there has to be a cut off. There is a realistic capacity as to the number of players a golf tournament can accommodate - at the Open and US Open this is 156 - who all tee off on the 1st.

Now these are both events in the summer with more daylight, so the Masters would probably not be able to accommodate that number, even if they wanted to, without a 2 tee start.

But if they changed the top 50 to top 75 and gave past champions a 10 year exemption, or age 50 exemption, or that they had to have tour status to remain exempt - they'd still have a limited field of 100 or so and probably a more exciting tournament.

 

[Slab]

Personally would rather see a deeper field. Gives a much better chance of more players being in contention and having an exciting event. Jim Furyk - a man in form, not in the field, Graeme McDowell, likewise. Thorbjorn Olessen, Byeong Hun An, Abraham Anser etc. All played WGC golf this year, but not good enough for the Masters?

Ok, so last 28 major winners were from the top 50. Effectively the Masters winner will always be top 50 - very few chances for someone 51 to 100 to get in - barring the odd Keith Mitchell / Shane Long / Correy Conners who have 1 win and won on the right week and other results haven't put them in the top 50.

So statistically guys ranked 51 to 100 are unlikely to win, but they could win and they can certainly contend and make an event more exciting. If there is room for 6 amateurs, 10 past champions with no real tour status and a random Japanese guy, there is room for Jim Furyk, Lee Westwood etc. to tee it up.

Also there's probably a few past champions eligible, who have decided to not play - Faldo for one.

Just cos he's a player I look out for I'm pleased to say Thorbjorn Olesen will be teeing it up later today

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Is there an argument perhaps for delaying the issuing of invites to capture more in form players like Furyk, McDowell etc and using the WGC or TPC as a route in for the likes of Olesson etc. I can definitely see an argument to extending the field to 100 which will give more current players a chance and maybe introduce another access point via events in Australia/Far East so more of their players have a route (especially as a growing golf market)

 

[bagcarrier]

I love the Masters and don't care what goes on outside the ropes as I purely only want to see the best take this brutal beauty on. This tournament brings nostalgia with it for me and I will never forget as a child being allowed to stay up late until every blow was struck.

I would imagine if you asked the most avid golfers if they could play any course in the world which would it be? I am pretty certain Augusta would top the list.

 

[Orikoru]

Personally would rather see a deeper field. Gives a much better chance of more players being in contention and having an exciting event. Jim Furyk - a man in form, not in the field, Graeme McDowell, likewise. Thorbjorn Olessen, Byeong Hun An, Abraham Anser etc. All played WGC golf this year, but not good enough for the Masters?

Ok, so last 28 major winners were from the top 50. Effectively the Masters winner will always be top 50 - very few chances for someone 51 to 100 to get in - barring the odd Keith Mitchell / Shane Long / Correy Conners who have 1 win and won on the right week and other results haven't put them in the top 50.

So statistically guys ranked 51 to 100 are unlikely to win, but they could win and they can certainly contend and make an event more exciting. If there is room for 6 amateurs, 10 past champions with no real tour status and a random Japanese guy, there is room for Jim Furyk, Lee Westwood etc. to tee it up.

Also there's probably a few past champions eligible, who have decided to not play - Faldo for one.

Olesen is there.

 

[Grant85]

Also it should be noted, that they used to have their top 50 cut off at Christmas. This meant someone could be ranked 51st at Christmas, then have a load of top 5s and top 10s and move well inside the top 50 - and not get in. They changed this and also started allowing tour winners in.

And even now, the qualifying heavily favours PGA tour players. Winnres of decent sized tour events over the past year on the PGA tour get in (obviously most of those guys are already exempt) but European Tour winners don't - even bigger events (Irish open, Scottish open, Nedbank winners all not in the field - all Rolex seires events with $7M prize funds.

 

[Grant85]

Olesen is there.

Fair enough - I thought there was a category for previous years Ryder Cup team and I was looking for him in that.

 

[Orikoru]

Also it should be noted, that they used to have their top 50 cut off at Christmas. This meant someone could be ranked 51st at Christmas, then have a load of top 5s and top 10s and move well inside the top 50 - and not get in. They changed this and also started allowing tour winners in.

And even now, the qualifying heavily favours PGA tour players. Winnres of decent sized tour events over the past year on the PGA tour get in (obviously most of those guys are already exempt) but European Tour winners don't - even bigger events (Irish open, Scottish open, Nedbank winners all not in the field - all Rolex seires events with $7M prize funds.

Why are you so determined to moan about it? It's a championship on a famous course with all the world's best players in it. Either watch it or don't?

 

[Grant85]

Is there an argument perhaps for delaying the issuing of invites to capture more in form players like Furyk, McDowell etc and using the WGC or TPC as a route in for the likes of Olesson etc. I can definitely see an argument to extending the field to 100 which will give more current players a chance and maybe introduce another access point via events in Australia/Far East so more of their players have a route (especially as a growing golf market)

Yes - like most things in golf, everything is geared towards the US and they really don't allow much room for things to grow or even survive in other regions.

If you are a good non-American golfer - you basically have to relocate to the US as soon as you can or your career will not progress.

Why someone like Eddie Pepperell is such a breath of fresh air. He loves the fact his world ranking can get him into 4 US PGA tour events - so has taken advantage of that to play a bit of golf over there. But is still going back to play a full season in Europe and has said he loves playing at the Dutch open and will definitely keep that on his schedule even if he was exempt from a far more valuable event elsewhere that same week.

He has specifically said he is not interested in PGA tour membership... I guess he may revise that in a few years, but hopefully not.