We're in no-man's land at this moment. It's unclear whether there's any more golf to be played and, more importantly, whether there will be a ski season... We do have a couple of major stories to discuss, so we'll do the best with what we have.
It's a Monday, so our bias is always to lede with after-action reporting...
The Match III - The reviews are in, and it seems that folks....well, didn't hate it?
It was the perfect day-after-Thanksgiving viewing. No one wants anything too serious when they’re still digesting the previous night’s feast, and this third edition of these made-for-TV matches—this one officially dubbed “The Match: Champions for Change”—never promised to be anything more than pure entertainment for wonderful causes.It was certainly entertaining. Despite giving up some 16 shots in combined handicaps—at least allegedly, more on that in a second—the team of Phil Mickelson and Charles Barkley dominated Peyton Manning and Stephen Curry on the type of cloudless late-November Arizona day that has you wondering why you don’t live out West.Most importantly, the broadcast raised $5,455,000 for historically black colleges and universities, and will result in more than 3.7 million meals donated to those in need.
Perfect? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.... But I realize now that these guys are really quite brilliant, playing three-dimensional chess to our checkers. Specifically, I can now see where that initial installment was deliberately dreadful, necessary to lower the bar for the future iterations... Well played, Phil!
Daniel Rappaport has six takeaways, so let's see if he's captured the zeitgeist:
PGA Tour pros are really, disgustingly, insanely goodThis is not new information, of course. We know damn well that PGA Tour players are among the best golfers in the world. Moreover, we know that Mickelson is a legend of the game. And yet, Mickelson and Barkley were underdogs coming into this match. We’d guess the oddsmakers’ reasoning went something like this: The modified alternate-shot format (also known as Pinehurst) meant Mickelson would have to play more than a few of Barkley’s shots, and Barkley is an absolutely horrible golfer, while the other team features two pretty darned good golfers.
Turns out, if only one team in a golf match has a PGA Tour pro, you should back the team with the PGA Tour pro.Mickelson did indeed have to play a number of Barkley’s shots, but it didn’t matter. He was able to limit the damage and often put Barkley in spots where he just had to lag a putt close enough for Phil to make it. Granted, Curry played pretty awfully for a plus-handicap, and Barkley did hit some good ones. And, of course, hindsight is 20/20. But looking back, those pre-match odds were something of a headscratcher.
I think we can all readily see that Dan needs to get out more. Not least because, as well-chosen and entertaining as the format proved to be, it's not a Pinehurst (as my readers will well know, a Pinehurst requires they play two shots before picking one ball to play into the hole). And it might be nice if our major golf publications knew something about the game...
This was always going to be the issue, especially since this guy didn't show up:
One bad round doesn’t mean Stephen Curry can’t play to his handicapCurry did not play well. That much is indisputable. What’s also indisputable is that one round does not a golfer make. In other words, just because Curry played awful on Friday does not mean he’s some sort of vanity handicapper. Who knows how much he’s been playing lately? Recall that Curry broke his wrist just 13 months ago, and you have to think the doctor cautioned against playing a bunch of golf during the rehab process.The odds are Curry hasn’t been playing as much as he had in the run-up to his two starts in professional events. In those events, he shot 74-74-71-86. He clearly has game, even it didn’t show up on Friday.
Tiger was missed
There was one notable absence from this Match, as it relates to the first two: namely, TigerWoods.Now, the first iteration of this series was the $9 million match between Woods and Mickelson at Shadow Creek. That broadcast was dripping awkwardness, the golf was subpar, and it seemed the entire operation didn’t know if it was a serious golf match or entertainment. The second edition, which pitted Woods and Manning against Mickelson and Tom Brady, was a huge hit—largely due to Tiger.Surely Woods brought at least half the eyeballs, because any time Woods plays, people watch. But it’s more than that—Woods’ interplay with Mickelson, his greatest rival throughout his career, was fascinating, as were his conversations with two of the best quarterbacks of all time. Plus, he played extremely well that day, which is always extra nice to see at this stage of his career. You can’t fault this broadcast for not having Tiger, but you couldn’t help wishing he was there.
OK, Daniel, as long as you never provide any of us with a medical diagnosis, because Tiger was at best the fourth most interesting participant in Match II... Check that, make it fifth, because JT easily was the more entertaining, even in that cameo role. There's little doubt that Tiger will bring some eyeballs... It's just equally true that he's ill-suited to entertain us with anything but his sticks....
But I'm most amused by how ill-considered that first installment was. I'd encourage the reader to keep that thought in mind for our next item as well, as it's not always clear that we, the golfing public, actually know what we want...
Dylan Dethier takes his own shot at the bigger picture, anointing ten "winners" from the event, including this most obvious candidate:
1. Phil, the anchor
This was the first in this Match series without Tiger Woods, and while we certainly missed thegravitas of the world’s most famous golfer, this was a chance for Mickelson to go full Phil. He seized the opportunity.
It’s hard to narrow it down to one or two things Mickelson did, so let’s buzz through them: He served as Barkley’s sensei. He hawked his “Coffee for Wellness” brand. He nearly called his shot on a must-make hole-in-one. He dropped the line, “I loved this club so much, I bought it!” And he channeled all that attention and energy into some truly impressive play, all while coaching his once-hopeless partner to respectability.
It’s okay to admit that you liked Mickelson’s role. It’s also okay to say that you’re mystified by him. There’s an element of ridiculousness to a guy who can take his partner’s meaningless putt for double-bogey 6 so seriously when it comes in the middle of the back nine of an exhibition match. But that’s exactly the sort of thing you need to glue this place together. Mickelson was brash, he was strange, he was funny and he bought all the way in. All he needed was someone to counter that energy on the other side.
I've long separated the world into Good Phil vs. Bad Phil, but this is the role he was born to play. Again I'm amused at how misguided the first match was, but set him loose on Tom Brady or Sir Charles, and it will be entertaining... But remind me, Dylan, what of Tiger did we allegedly miss?
Of course, this is the crux of why this version worked:
2. Charles Barkley, resurrected
Perhaps Mickelson’s greatest accomplishment was helping Charles Barkley play respectable golf in front of millions of viewers on TV. Remember, this is a guy who is famous for his inability to swing actually through a golf ball. But we didn’t see Barkley’s hitch a single time all Friday.
Of course, Barkley is the one who truly deserves credit for overcoming a massive obstacle, both mentally and physically. When he striped his opening tee shot, he looked so happy and relieved that it was impossible not to be happy for him. Barkley’s inability to play golf was, in some ways, the selling point for this edition of the Match. To his credit, he actually got so good that the storyline never quite bore out.
That yellow caution flag is waving, though, because how many Barkley's can Phil find? He's pretty much a one-off, and now that he's "fixed" he's much less interesting... This item captures it pretty well, including his best bits:
7 more reasons why Charles Barkley is the best bad golfer
I don't think he actually delivers on his header, but it's some combination of a world-class athlete becoming so tormented by our game that he can't take the club back... Who doesn't dig a resurrection?
Back to Dylan with this key point:
4. Modified alternate shot
The format was a big-time winner here. If there’s one thing we learned from The Match 2, it was just how much better the action got when every shot counted. Moreoever, alternate shot acts as a multiplier. There’s the normal tension of a best-ball match, and that gets amplified when you suddenly have to count every shot, and it gets amplified again when you have to play your partner’s golf ball.
You could see Manning and Curry struggle with the format, and that’s easy to understand — it’s harder to get comfortable when you don’t get in the rhythm of playing your own ball. The format also made it more fun watching Mickelson work his mental magic on Barkley. The choice of two tee shots added strategy; alternate shot the rest of the way added tension.
I thought it was Match II? better yet, Dylan didn't call it a Pinehurst, so we've got that going for us...
But this was the key bit from Version 2.0, where the better ball was a dud.... Good on them for making this work with only the one Tour pro.
And while I hate that this is true...
6. Golf carts
At first, you’d think golf carts would be a bad idea. They’re not. In addition to satisfying social distancing requirements, the carts allow for some interaction with the broadcast booth. They eliminate the awkward tee-to-ball walks that we loathed from The Match 1.0. And they ensured that the match actually finished while there was still sun in the sky — although if they’d had to play 18, they’d have been putting with iPhone flashlights on.
And while I loved watching Rory and DJ carry their bags at Seminole, it killed the broadcast simply on account of the time it took to get to their balls. The bigger problem is that the length of time for a full eighteen is also quite the buzzkill...
The weekly Tour Confidential confab had this angle on the franchise:
3. The Match III is in the books. Charles Barkley and Phil Mickelson defeated Steph Curry and Peyton Manning 4 and 3. There was some golf. There were some laughs. Charity was also a big winner, with Historically Black Colleges and Universities the beneficiaries. We’ve now seen three iterations of this high-wattage exhibition: one only with golfers (Tiger vs. Phil), one with two golfers (Tiger and Phil) and two celebs (Manning and Tom Brady) and one with one golfer (Phil) and three celebs. Which formula works best, and why?
Hear Sean Zak confirms that GMTA:
Zak: The Match II had the best format. At times, it’s great to see celebs struggle, but not for four or five hours. Get on with it! With two elite pros involved, there’s plenty of teaching, the match feels as level as can be, and you can actually see great shots be responded with … other great shots.
The one constant from all these contrived matches is that the golf itself disappoints... This one was a reasonably successful iteration, but even then it wasn't close to enough amusement for the time involved.
Did someone say that GMTA?
Shipnuck: I like the Match II format as long as Tiger isn’t involved — he’s too stiff, serious and brooding for these things.
We may have seen the last of Tiger in any of these, the only exception being if we pair him with Charlie... What? OK, well, let's see how that one foes.
Sens: Match III gets my vote. But that was because of the personalities, not their status as golfers. Of course, we don’t want to watch entirely awful golf by everyone involved. But one pro, two pros. I don’t think it matters as long as the other players can get it airborne and have something entertaining to say.
Piastowski: Any Match needs both Sir Charles and Phil in it, either announcing, coaching or playing. Or all three at once. They’re two of this generation’s — maybe any generation’s — best sports entertainers. They’ve made these things pretty damn fun to watch.
That last bit might just be the final word on these things. I've no problem with Sir Charles behind a microphone, but who do you have as interesting as him to play? I think we can all agree that it's a short list.... a very, very short list.
You Say Potato... - No doubt, as an astute observer of the human condition, you know the purpose of the traditional Friday afternoon news dump. But like everything else in this world, there are Friday news dumps and then there are Black Friday news dumps....
We don't believe in coincidences here at Unplayable Lies, so one assumes the timing of this news is significant:
EUROPEAN TOUR AND PGA TOUR ANNOUNCE LANDMARK STRATEGIC ALLIANCE
* Historic move brings golf’s two leading global Tours together in partnership
* Alliance allows for further collaboration on scheduling and commercial opportunitiesThe European Tour and PGA TOUR today heralded a significant new era for global golf with an historic announcement of a Strategic Alliance.
The landmark agreement will see golf’s two major Tours explore all facets of collaboration, working together on strategic commercial opportunities including collaborating on global media rights in certain territories.
This will come through part of the agreement which sees the PGA TOUR acquire a minority investment stake in European Tour Productions (ETP), the European Tour’s Media Production company, which produces and distributes content internationally.
OK, ETP is a plucky little operation that has garnered worldwide attention for the Euro Tour, but we can all agree that this deal has little to do with a minority stake in a money-losing social media operation.
Shack has been blogging up a storm on this subject, including this basic premise:
That’s the lead news in this? I mean, we all love ETP and they certainly do a fine job but uh, ok. More likely it gets top billing because this was the easiest way for the PGA Tour to send a check that keeps the lights on in Wentworth.
Which is a perfect segue into the second point of significance, which is that the Euro Tour was most certainly not in trouble:
Of course, as we've noted often, when they tell you it's not about the money, it's about the money...And when they tell you it's about the money? Yeah, it's about the money, though they're not telling us how much.
Other factors of note include this little bit:
One element of the partnership which can be confirmed today is the fact that PGA TOUR Commissioner Jay Monahan will take a seat on the Board of the European Tour.
Naturally, since it's a partnership of equals, Mr. Pelley will have a seat on the Ponte Vedra Boards as well, right?
So, what really happened, I hear you ask, especially since the Euro Tour was quite obviously not in financial duress? It turns out that our favorite guys triggered this, and that those prior reports of their demise were exaggerated:
The historic alliance announced Friday between the PGA Tour and European Tour came aftermonths of tense negotiations, and fended off a rival bid to take a stake in the European circuit by the private equity group fronting the Premier Golf League, multiple sources have confirmed to Golfweek.
Negotiations between the world’s two largest professional golf circuits had been taking place for months but had been complicated by a rival proposal submitted to the European Tour by The Raine Group, a private equity firm that has fronted the proposed Premier Golf League. The PGL concept—a breakaway circuit featuring brand-name players in highly-lucrative, limited-field tournaments with a team element—emerged in public earlier this year.
The proposed splinter Tour was dealt a blow in March when Rory McIlroy, Jon Rahm and Brooks Koepka — at the time the top three ranked players in the world — all publicly rejected the PGL, with McIlroy saying he objected to its source of financing, which was an investment fund controlled by the Saudi Arabian regime.
I was always a PGL skeptic, but one can readily see where Jay Monahan would wants to freeze that existential threat, especially when it supports his other objectives. But I dare you to read the press releases and analysis and tell me what this partnership will involve, because it's all a bunch of hot air, as per this example:
Specifics of the partnership agreement between the Tours remain vague, but multiple sources told Golfweek it is likely to eventually include some marrying of schedules, most likely in the period from September to November, after the conclusion of the FedEx Cup, with a number of prestigious European events awarded FedEx Cup points to attract U.S.-based players to compete. It’s also believed a deal would include a pipeline to allow European Tour members to play their way on to the more lucrative PGA Tour.
Got that? The cooperation will be limited to that portion of Jay's schedule that's expendable, a large portion of which isn't played in the U.S. That last bit might prove awkward for Jay, to the extent that it's perceived as detrimental to those toiling in the Korn Ferry miasma, but that just probably means that nothing much will be on offer.
We know the two tours have been talking for ages, as per this bit from Eamon Lynch:
The historic alliance announced Friday between the PGA Tour and European Tour came after months of tense negotiations, and fended off a rival bid to take a stake in the European circuit by the private equity group fronting the Premier Golf League, multiple sources have confirmed to Golfweek.
Alistair Tait has some fun Fisking Mr. Pelley's comments, beginning here:
“You might ask, why now?” Pelley acknowledged. “Jay and I have been talking about working closer together for the last four and a half years. I've always said golf is very fractioned with four major championships and two professional organisations. This was just a moment in time when everything aligned.”
OK, but we can't help but note that after 4 12 years of talk...
You’d have thought after four and a half years of talking to PGA Tour counterpart Jay Monahan they’d have laid out some basic plans of where this strategic alliance was going to take the game. No. Just airy-fairy stuff cobbled together over 72 hours. Why the rush?
I've been reliably informed that it has nothing to do with financial distress:
“We are categorically not in financial difficulties. That is simply wrong. We are in robust financial health with a very strong balance sheet, strongest ever, and a strong support of networks of partners.”
Best balance sheet evah! Methinks he doth protest too much....
But the mad rush to a deal combined with the profound absence of any coherent benefits to the partnership lead exactly to that conclusion that Mr. Pelley is warning us off. Here's just one example of his vagueness as to the nature of the deal he just struck:
“The detail is still to be worked out. We have been talking and there are some concepts that we have discussed with some of our current members.”
Keith, at the risk of harshing your mellow, you're now Jay's bitch.
Paul McGinley is on the Euro Tour Board, and I wonder if he didn't inadvertently give too much in this Sky Sports interview, beginning with this:
In professional golf you have the PGA Tour at the top of the tree, the European Tour just beneath that, then there's the Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour, PGA Tour of Australasia and other Tours around the world.
Just? In the sense that the U.S. is just a little bigger than Liechtenstein, perhaps...
The idea is that we become a little bit more international in terms of the schedule of the world's top players, so they're able to visit other places and play in other events on the European Tour.Three of the four major championships are played in America every year and a lot of the World Golf Championships have migrated back to the USA. I think the players can eventually expect, hopefully from a European point of view, a more international flavour to the world's best events.
These arguments are always amusing, in that they ignore the actual reality, which is that the top Euro players also live in Florida... It wasn't just the U.S. players that failed to show up for the Match Play in Australia....
This is a way of working together to get everyone back to playing under one umbrella, which will help bring a little bit of a better narrative to what golf is all about.
It's a simplification of the sport to try to create a real top tier of professional golf, Premier League style if you like, with gateways for the players underneath that to then get into that style of event.
The thing is, I don't even agree with the basic premise of McGinley and the PGL that the best players don't play together sufficiently often. They play in the four majors, the four WGCs, The Players and a few others. How many do you think we need?
It may seem off topic, but this is what I meant above about the linkage. We all crave those epic match-ups of great players, Jack v. Arnie and Tiger v. Phil, as obvious examples. Problem is, it needs to happen organically in the context of a meaningful event. When you drop Tiger and Phil into a contrived event at Shadow Creek, though, it doesn't achieve the objective for the simple reason that it doesn't mean anything...
And, while Andy Johnson is an astute observer of our game, i think this is wrong:
I don't think the product that the PGL envisions is interesting in the least, nor do I think it was ever a viable concept. I've explained the former above, glorified exhibitions that would quickly be perceived as money grabs for the elite players.
The premise assumes, however, that the PGA and Euro Tours (not to mention the four majors) would sit back and let them grab the cream off the top. Obviously these entities will protect their turf and, even if you could roll out a few events, you'd need a constant reshuffling of players to maintain the premise of having the best fifty or so players on your upstart tour. Did you think Jay Monahan would roll over and play dead?
My concern is now about the suits in Ponte Vedra Beach controlling the entire elite men's golf world, which I don't find a pleasant thought. To me, their events are a dreary lot, and the Euro Tour is a bit of fresh air for us all... I guess we can kiss that goodbye....
I'm sure we'll have more to mull on this as we see how it unfolds in the future, and at least we'll always have Augusta...
I'm going to leave you here and we'll leave some browser tabs open for later in the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment