I know. Many organisations would have made a big deal about not inviting him, great virtue signalling opportunity.
This is basically what I meant. I'm on Bet365, he was 7/1, the each way is 8 places but 1/5th of the odds so not worth it at all. I only put 2 or 3 quid on each golfer generally so I look for 30/1 or higher for each ways.
.
By what measure? Beyond the top-20 in the world the field gets pretty thin - by DataGolf rankings, there are just
I'd imagine that is always the way due to how the Masters works. It will always be the weakest field of the 4 majors but it doesn't make this year worse than any other.
I agree, The Masters always has a weak field compared to the other majors - and at least half a dozen PGA Tour events are stronger - but that's the nature of being a mid-sized field invitational with a dozen or so amateurs and ex-champions who have little chance of making the cut.
I think it was more in reply to a post about this years Masters been the weakest in memory. I think it is as strong or as weak as any Masters field. Golf is in a good place right now, some strong players. Scheffler and Rahm are very strong, we don't quite know about Cam Smith but he could join those two. Then the players next up, McIlroy, Thomas, Speith, Morikawa etc can all turn it on on their day. It isn't a poor group of players.
Indeed. Doon's post was a complete fabrication. The field isn't weaker than any other year. Casey, Fowler and Simpson are probably the biggest names missing out - and arguably Leishman. Others are missing because they're past it, pretty much.
who are the 8 in the top 50 world rankings not playing?
My mistake, it's 9 of the top-50 in the DataGolf rankings who are missing: Wyndham Cark, Paul Casey, Taylor Montgomery, Matt Kuchar, Rickie Fowler, Charles Howell III, Sam Ryder, Denny McCarthy, J.J. Spaun.
Several reasons. Firstly DataGolf is a better measure of who are the best players "right now" (which is relevant to Phil's claim) - OWGR is a tapered two year rolling average that enables players to maintain erroneously high rankings for an extended period. Secondly, DataGolf has a broader scope compared to OWGR. Thirdly, OWGR is skewed by some very bizarre calculations and points allocations that do not accurately represent relative performances (e.g. awarding more points for a distant last place in a very small field in the US than top 5 in a big field in Asia/Japan/Australia/South Africa/Europe/etc.).
All well and good but since the Masters would use the OWGR, surely that makes it the only relevant one?
Not if you want to look at it objectively.
