The Masters: a dreary recap

Been trying to write something for the blog about this year's Masters tournament, and I can quite put my finger on my thoughts.

Basically, I was rather unimpressed by the whole event. Mickelson was kind of just around and ended up being the winner in the end. It isn't like he put forward some sort of herculean effort to pull it off. He was only ahead by two strokes most of the final round, yet he was all but assured victory by the time he hit the 13th tee. Why was that?

I'm not saying you have to decimate the field, ala Woods in 97(?), to be a true champion. But you have to admit that the most interesting contender was Olazabal, who managed to go from +3 to -5 in the span of sixteen holes (3rd round 17 - 4th round 15). It took Mickelson nearly four rounds to traverse the same distance.

I guess I don't value steady progress (Phil) as much as I do the late surge (Ola), but Phil's steady progress was just so ordinary. Hard to get excited about that.

Also, with all the complaining that has been going on about the relentless Tiger-proofing of Augusta National, I took a look at the PGA stats site to see who is hitting the ball so far. Turns out that there are 22 players from the 2005 PGA freshman class amongst the top 50 in driving distance and only 5 in the bottom 50. So, maybe they do have something to worry about.

Technorati tags: golf, The Masters, Phil Mickelson, Augusta National