The problem with Tiger is people compare him with the pre-2010 Tiger to his present game.
His new swing is better, but he needs more than a cut to be "Tiger." With his talent, people won't rest until he hits a draw and cut - high, medium and low. The criticism last week is that he is too steep on the downswing and needs to take a wood out once in a while.
He also needs work on his wedges and putting.
People want old Tiger with a new swing, but old short game.
Take a wood out? His strategy worked just fine. In fact you can make a pretty good case that it was because Scott "took a wood out" on 18 that he lost the tournament. There was no need for him to hit 3-wood. It unnecessarily brought the bunker onto play, and on a 413 yard hole 3-wood distance was not necessary. Hard to imagine how such a great caddy could let him hit 3-wood. It was a Mickelsonian move.
I do not believe Tiger didn't hit driver because he "couldn't". He didn't do it because it was unnecessary and too risky given the course layout. Just like, albeit for different reasons, as he did at Hoylake. A guy dies not become top 10 in overall driving by being afraid to hit driver. You have to have both distance and accuracy to be that high in total driving. Look at all the talk about Westwood being one of the best drivers of the ball. His distance avg, is almost exactly the same as Tiger's but he is 35 places lower in driving accuracy. So that makes hi one of the best drivers of the ball while even better stats makes Tiger afraid to hit driver? Does that make sense?
And is likely about to begin doing it with a fourth.