Weekend Wrap

I know, but there was some actual golf played....  We'll get to that in a sec. though first a scheduling note.  Tomorrow is a travel day, so you'll next hear from me from Unplayable Lies' Western HQ.  No need for guilt in reading this blog, as I wasn't the beneficiary of the same kind of incentives as offered to Amazon for their HQ2's.

Belgian Rules - Wait, didn't the N.Y. Times say that Orange Man bad?  I'm so awfully confused:

MELBOURNE, Australia — In the end, there was no doubting these Thomases. Armed with a two-shot advantage on the 18th tee, the Belgian pair of Pieters and Detry combined for their 25th birdie of the week (they also threw in a couple of eagles) over

the Metropolitan Club to emphatically clinch the 59th World Cup of Golf. Their 23-under-par aggregate for 72 holes—half four-ball, half foursomes—was clearly the best of the 28 nations competing, three strokes clear of runners-up Mexico and host nation Australia. For their trouble, each of the new champions earned $1,120,000. 

More importantly, this was Belgium’s first-ever victory in the event, 63-years on from the Benelux nation’s previous best effort—the T-4 finish from Flory Van Donck and Arthur de Vulder in 1955. And even more impressively, it was achieved in an atmosphere that, while never unfriendly, was nevertheless distinctly pro-Aussie. 

Indeed, five-shots back with one round to play, the home pair of Marc Leishman and Cameron Smith did their best to impress 2019 International Presidents Cup captain, Ernie Els (who was on-site to announce his first assistant captain, 2006 U.S. Open champion Geoff Ogilvy). Their closing seven-under-par 65 was equaled only by defending champion Denmark. The Mexican pair of Australian Open champion Abraham Ancer and Roberto Diaz may have had the last chance to catch the eventual winners, but it was the Aussies who pushed the Thomases hardest. Not until Leishman failed from four feet for a birdie on the 16th green that would have closed the gap to two shots did the air go out of the home balloon.

There's rejoicing in Wally-world, though he's picked Belgium to win more team events than Open Championships that I've credited to Sergio.... But it's an event with some actual history, though admittedly not helped by the current scheduling process, which seems to be holding the event when they feel like it....

Since the Presidents Cup has been mentioned, I'll note that Ernie needs no introduction to those two Aussies, who will no doubt be at Royal Melbourne.  And the God of segues smiles down at us, as there's news on that front. first with Ernie's sense of what's been missing from the event all these many years:

I don't know, I might have been tempted to go with a more competitive team, but a logo is good as well.  Let's let Ernie explain:

“It’s a special group of guys from all over the world that make up the Presidents Cup International Team,” Els said. “Being from across the globe, we don’t all play for the same flag. This special group of people needed something to identify with. To lift the spirit of the team, we felt like we needed a logo for ourselves.”

 And, presto, you've got one....  Better yet, I'm guessing that he brought it in under budget....

Ernie did have a couple of quasi-interesting takes on the event, including this about the opposing captain:

Ernie Els expects Tiger Woods will be a U.S. playing captain when the two lead their

teams at the Presidents Cup next December at Royal Melbourne. 

"I think so, the way he's playing," Els said Sunday during a media conference during the final round of the World Cup at Metropolitan. "I'm not sure what kind of points system they use for their team, but I think there's a big chance. The way he's going, it looks like he's going to be in contention a lot this year."

 I can only assume that Ernie didn't pop for the PPV.... This could be taken as a warning shot that there are only eleven spots up for the taking:

"[Scott] is going to be on the team, no doubt about that," Els said. 

"He's right top of [my] list. He's one of the most motivated guys to make the team and he's been very vocal behind the scenes.

Ernie also named Geoff Ogilvy a vice captain, logical given that the guy lives on the golf course....  But, as you'll no doubt agree, it's that logo that's the game-changer.

News From The Land of The Rising Sun - We don't spend much time covering the Japanese Tour, but I'd like to second Shack's motion to get this guy a Masters invite:

Ok, no one has made that call. But I am now! Ryo Ishikawa was 17 and 76th in the world when played on a 2009 Masters invite. But not nearly as interesting as Hosung Choi and his swing.

Will Gray calls it unique with wild gesticulations. 

Ryan Ballengee went with fisherman-style that’s been thrown around to the best effect. 

Josh Berhow mustered up an unconventional designation for the swing. 

And Christopher Powers cooked up absolutely electric.

I'm unable to embed any of the videos, but if you haven't previously seen the swing, you'll want to acquaint yourself with it.  It seems like the perfect fit for Augusta....

Cue The Backlash - Over the course of a year there are only a few items like this that challenge the blogger with where to begin.....  It being an embarrassment of riches, that I'll try not to screw up.

The Tour Confidential panel waited until Sunday night (though their writers did have their own bylines on the event), so we'll expect that additional level of depth and piquancy to their takes:

1. After months of hype and anticipation, we finally saw The Match unfold on Friday at Shadow Creek in Las Vegas. There was some good, some bad and even some weird in the inaugural showdown. Would you consider the entire event a birdie, par or a bogey?

Good call to leave eagle off the table....

Josh Sens: On some of its own most explicit terms, it was worse than bogey. It was “take an X and move on to the next tee.” The play was poor. The banter was painful. And the promised side wagers all but petered out just at the point when the match finally picked

up some tension. We were also told that this would show us Phil and Tiger, up close and personal, as we’d never seen them before. What it wound up showing us was Phil and Tiger exactly as we’ve always believed them to be. Then there’s this: In the HBO promo, the two stars talked a lot about the event as a vehicle for growing the game. If you believe it succeeded on that front, you probably also think that yacht racing arouses popular interest in boating. Where The Match worked was as a dose of entertainment for the audience it was really meant for all along: golf nerds and gamblers, many of whom, like me, are one and the same.

Yeah, this was ball-in-pocket bad, my only quibbles are with his premise that it worked for even those small sub-sets.

Michael Bamberger: I watched it in person. It was odd and, in the end, entertaining. But to grade it with a birdie, par or bogey is to imply it was real golf and it wasn’t. 

Josh Berhow: It was successful, or not, based on what you viewed it as: a match play event between two golfers or a gimmicky show for your entertainment. If you wanted the former you were probably disappointed. As Sens said, there is an audience for this. If you were sitting in a Sportsbook and making wagers on the hole unfolding in front of you, it was probably a lot of fun. But if you wanted riveting match play to rival the final day of a Ryder Cup — heck, to rival the WGC-Dell Technologies Match Play — well, this wasn’t that. It was basically what I think a lot of people expected. Not great. Not bad. Kinda meh.

We get that this was part sporting event, part reality television.  But it didn't work even remotely well on either metric.

2. Which part of The Match was better than you expected? And which part disappointed? 

Sens: The banter was awful, but that’s not so unexpected. The quality of play was the big disappointment. Mostly, I thought the motley and overstaffed broadcast crew did a good job with what they were given. Barkley, in my view, was in especially fine form. 

Bamberger: The course. I had heard so much about Shadow Creek over the years and it seemed like such a showy and ridiculous use of the world’s limited water supply. After seeing it and walking it, I’d say that’s right. But it’s a good course with good holes and (surprise!) an unpretentious clubhouse.

Martin Kauffman, who covers the TV beat for Golfweek, has a thoughtful item on that which can be salvaged from the event:

1. This should go without saying, but get the basic stuff right. Nothing irritates consumers more than the sense that they’ve been ripped off, and that’s how a lot of people felt Friday afternoon after paying $19.99, then learning that Bleacher Report was streaming it free. Fortunately, most cable and satellite providers – in addition to Bleacher Report – offered refunds or credits.
2. Speaking of the basics, how could the organizers spend two months planning the event but forget when the sun sets? Finishing under the lights on a rinky-dink par-3 hole was more unsatisfying than ending the World Cup on penalty kicks.

 They couldn't even do that in order to secure their payday....  Interestingly, at least to me, Cablevision remains silent on the subject of my refund.  They'll likely make me waste my time to call for it, meaning that I'll hate them all the more.

3.  Come up with a format that doesn’t make many of us feel vaguely repulsed. The image of two fabulously wealthy guys standing behind a $9 million pile of money only reinforced the notion of the game’s elite players simply looking for an easy payday. Frankly, I would have found it less tawdry if Woods had accepted the reported $3.25 million appearance fee to play in Saudi Arabia. At least he would have had to travel a great distance and put in an honest week’s work.

That was the only hook they had, yet it always had the potential to make them look greedy....

4.  One of the many problems with “The Match” was the organizers were counting on seeing Woods and Mickelson in top form. That didn’t happen. You can’t guarantee great golf; the players won’t be sharp every time they tee it up. But I’d settle for something that is at least interesting. Maybe it’s a hickory tournament or a long-drive contest or a par-3 contest or speed golf or 18 holes over a 9,000-yard course or a cross-country golf event or a virtual tournament played by Tour stars at Topgolf locations around the country. People far smarter than me can put their minds to work on the format. And if you’re going to give players the power to make wagers, force them to do it on every hole.

Couple of points here, with an apology for patting myself on the back.  My predictions for this event were pretty damn good, and given the rarity of that occurrence....

I have a slight quibble with Marty in the sense that the PGA Tour is more responsible than most folks might understand.  The quibble is that the date virtually guaranteed off-form play, and you might be surprised to hear that the Tour also undermined the event in other ways:

The side-bet challenges made by Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson added another

dimension to The Match, but apparently they were only allowed to do so many.

Golf Channel’s Rex Hoggard, citing sources, said the PGA Tour limited the number of challenges between Mickelson and Woods. 

Tour policy prohibits players from gambling at the site of a Tour co-sponsored event, but a Tour spokesperson told Golf Channel that Woods and Mickelson did not violate any rules since the side bets went to charity. 

The broadcast relayed updated odds and moneylines after ever hole via the MGM Resorts Race & Sports Books, and the opportunity for side bets was heavily touted in the lead-up to The Match — by Mickelson, Woods, broadcasters and Bleacher Report — yet Woods and Mickelson made only five side bets that totaled $800,000 changing hands.

Did you actually see that money change hands?  One last bit from Marty:

5.  If you’re going to put microphones on the players and caddies – the lone interesting production concept of “The Match” – don’t hire an army of announcers to talk over the players. There was nothing that Peter Jacobsen or Darren Clarke or any of the other “Match” announcers could have said that would have been more interesting than even the most mundane comments from Woods and Mickelson.

I nailed this one as well....  There's just no way that two guys can be sufficiently interesting for 4-5 hours, therefore it's far better to let the broadcaster weed the nonsense out.

Now someone is taking the hit, and The Forecaddie is all over that:

Various pre-match stories said the original vision belonged to Hollywood producer Bryan Zuriff and CAA agent Jack Whigham, but it was Turner parent AT&T that ran with their winning bid set on validating the $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. The company CEO, Randall Stephenson, even told the Wall Street Journal in September that “The Match” would illustrate the benefits of the purchase. 

“It’s the whole cross-platform and lifecycle management of this content,” he told the Journal. 

Please don’t ask The Man Out Front what that means. But given that Stephenson sits on the PGA Tour Policy Board and Turner is expected to show an interest in picking up PGA Tour coverage when their TV deals expire in 2021, “The Match” was at least a temporary setback.

Methinks that specific content will have a disappointing lifecycle, but let's hope they got more for their $85 billion than that.

And lots of folks are hitting the What's Next angle:

So what is next? 

The question going forward is this: Should there be a sequel? And the answer is obvious because, again, the encouraging numbers Levy referred to say there probably will be one. But it says a lot, and not good, when the HBO 24/7 program and the promotional trailers were vastly more intriguing than the 22-hole golf exhibition. The problem is, this still needs Tiger, who sells with reputation and popularity, and Phil, who is the showman. 

But it will take more. Turner should take one more stab at getting The Match right, only have a team format. The rumors of an Asian duo taking on the Americans will not cut it. Bring us Justin Thomas, who is brash and jocular, and pair him with his loquacious buddy Jordan Spieth. There will be no dead air. There will be jawing. You have a generational hook. See how that sells.

Meh.  Presumably they'll wise up and realize that the PPV is more trouble than it's worth, and perhaps deliver better production values.

But I think Shack has an answer worthy of your consideration and, fair use be damned, I'm going to excerpt it in full:

More than any contribution it made to television innovation, gambling intrigue or Phil’s pocketbook, The Match reminded us that the Skins Game worked. 

What a perfect time for the organizers of The Match to pick up the right to bring it back with modernized elements. 

As The Match played out and the gambling possibilities were just too tricky to work out despite Shadow Creek’s endless walks between greens and tees, the simplicity of the Skins Game kept making so much sense.

With a few tweaks.

Skins died when the money became irrelevant for today’s players and you were left with oddball foursomes, including 2008’s gathering of K.J. Choi, Stephen Ames, Rocco Mediate and Phil Mickelson. It deserved to die. 

And while The Match was never that interesting because of the $9 million at stake for the winner, you’re only going to get top players if it’s going to pad their pocketbook in a meaningful way.

More than anything, The Match reminded us that Skins was relatable, just unpredictable enough for viewers, and predictable enough for television to take a crack at showing it. At nine holes, it didn’t force us to sit around too long.

Perhaps a new Skins Game needs to return as a nine-hole event and for just one day with three holes played for $500k each, $1 million for the middle stretch and $2 million each for the final three. Lift the best elements of The Match, spread the wealth to four players and use the pay-per-view concept to justify renting an exotic golf course.

Oh, and make sure the credit card readers are working.

Here's the thing....  You can't know what to do with this franchise without understanding what the Tour will allow.  To the extent that it needs to be at this time of year, that puts in the heart of the Silly Season, rendering strong play highly unlikely.

The brilliance of Shack's argument is that it accommodates reality, defining the event in terms of the demands of the calendar.  What a concept, eh?

I'll catch you from the other side.....