chasm

What? I've never seen a golf course on which I couldn't tell the difference between the rough - even the semi-rough - and the fairway.

Quite an achievement, the standard of play was very high. He's clearly an improving player. It would be nice if the Anglo-Saxon commentators would bother to learn how to pronounce his surname, though.

I've been in management and leadership positions for quite a lot of my life. It's almost never a good idea to be aloof and dictatorial - if that's what Watson was - but it's equally foolish to imagine that a formula that has worked in one set of circumstances with one group of people is "the answer" and should be adopted by evreryone, all the time. That's the problem with this rush to embrace Azinger's "pod" system. It may have worked out well, and Mickelson clearly liked it, but effective leaders have to lead in their own way. If you pick a Captain and tell him he has to use someone else's system or style, you're effectively hamstringing him - he won't be as good as he might have been because he won't be doing what comes naturally or playing to his own, and his team's, strengths. A dozen people isn't an unmanageably large number. There are all sorts of ways to turn them into a mutually supportive team. What the USA needs to do is not pick some formula or system, it needs to pick the right captain.

True, but yellow is even better. And don't forget to rub raw spinach into your forearms an hour before tee-time.

I don't disagree that Europe has the stronger team. But it's interesting to me that they seem to be much stronger in matchplay than they would be week-to-week on the PGA tour. Not sure why that is, but watching Westwood, for example, he appears to be utterly confident in this format despite having ahd a relatively poor year in tournament play.

Faldo was never going to be a good captain. Great golfer, but absolutely not a natural leader of men. And of course, many of the players on his team had hated his guts for years because of his single-minded (some would say bloody-minded) self-absorption while he was beating the crap out of them on the European tour and in the majors. With all that baggage to carry, he'd have been in trouble even had he been a tactical genius - which he wasn't.

The McDowell/Dubuisson pair were immaculate, to rifle in birdie after birdie playing foursomes is really something. Westwood/Donaldson not that far behind. The rest was pretty close, though McIlroy and Garcia were certainly better today than yesterday.

I play with some low single-digit handicappers from time to time. Actually I'm not all that impressed with their ball striking, what I'm impressed by is their consistency and course management. Not always on the green in regulation, but if they miss it isn't by much, and they can chip. Good out of the sand. Putting unspectacular but solid, three-putts very uncommon indeed. Not all especially long hitters, and certainly not all able to 'work' the ball at will, but play consistently straight (or consistently draw or fade the ball) and spend most of their time on the short stuff. It's rarely spectacular, it's just efficient, these guys are closer to making the most of what they've got than I am. The difference between them and the tour pros I have watched is night and day, there's no comparison. The latter appear to be playing a different game in terms both of power and precision.

That's the first time I have ever heard anyone say they like to play alone so they could play slower. Dangerous tactics hereabouts. Lone players have no status on the course, so if they hold up play they are obliged to let the people behind play through. In my experience, being a "seasoned golfer" seems to have little bearing on how long it takes to select clubs, visualise the shot etc. Single-digit players are just as likely - perhaps more likely - to take their time than high handicappers. If the latter are slower it's because they take more shots, spend more time in the trees and so on. Back on topic, I usually play with people I know. But I like to get out on my own from time to time, I feel more free to experiment. Of course, one can experiment on the practice ground, but it feels more hypothetical, less real.

Don't play with people who insist on using the time between shots to tell you what's wrong with: 1. Young people today; 2. Welfare; 3: Immigrants 4: (Insert appropriate subject here) It's bad for your game.

Always unwise to make assumptions. And this probably isn't the forum for a political debate. Suffice it to say that it is impossible for "the critics" to "step up to the plate" because of the stranglehold the mainstream parties have on the process. As for getting what we deserve, the turnout in the Scottish referendum looks like being over 80%. People will engage if they are presented with a real choice between distinct alternatives, on an issue that matters. The UK electorate hasn't had that luxury for about thirty years.

It's going to be tight. Maybe not as tight as the Quebecois version, but tight. There's been political panic here this week, every mainstream political party telling the Scots (whom they have largely ignored for years) how much they love them, all the financial institutions threatening imminent apocalypse if they go independent, blah blah. Were I forced to have a bet, my money would be on a narrow 1%-2% majority to stay in the union. But it is far from impossible that the Scots will have the balls to face down the money men and vote yes. I would if I were them, but that's another story.

This, of course. The sterling/euro exchange rate is 1:1.26, so a fee of £150 would initially be set at €189. However, there's a bigger problem with this discussion, which is that the Scottish Government has made it clear that even if it wins the referendum on independence it has no intention of joining the Euro. Its preference is to keep the pound. Even if the residual UK Government blocks a currency union, as it says it will, there is nothing to stop Scotland simply contiuing to use the pound and tying the "Scottish Pound" to sterling. Ireland did that for about seventy years post-independence with few issues.

Yes, this. One of the hardest things for me to re-learn (I'm not there yet, but it's coming) has been to dial it back and not try to muscle the ball away. Going for a repeatable rhythm, rather than trying to lash the cover off the ball, is what works. If I feel like I'm swinging hard with my driver the ball ends up in the trees. If I feel like I'm swinging at 80% I'm much more likely to be straight, and I'm longer, too. And the truth is, the actual (as opposed to perceived) swing speeds probably aren't much different.

I too play with seniors who adopt this strategy. It's OK, but only if you're happy to remain a bogey golfer. If you can drive only 160 yards you're going to be 200 yards from the hole on shortish par 4s. And by definition, for a hitter as short as that, that's more than one shot. The thing is, most of those seniors whose strategy you're admiring haven't adopted it as a matter of choice. If they could reliably hit the ball further, they would. What they are engaged in is damage-limitation now that they no longer have a the physical capacity to make a full swing.

The question isn't what the club has the right to do, it is what it ought to do. The R&A;, as a club, no longer governs the game here, it devolved that responsibility to a separate company some years ago. But it retains a symbolic status as the custodian of the history and ethos of the game. As such, what it chooses to do matters, in setting a tone and influencing public perception of golf and the way it is run. That being the case, it is ludicrous that at a time when the national associations are trying to increase participation in the sport and, specifically, to attract more women to play, some R&A; members think it appropriate to continue to exclude women. Talk about counter-productive - as well, of course, as antedeluvian.

Creeping down. I'm impatient, but I have to remind myself that I only came back to the game in January after 6 years off, and Back in the day I was only an occasional golfer anyway. Plus I'm old. Started the year with some lessons and playing as much as I could, which earned me a handicap of 18.0. Playing more or less to that for a few months, with some ups and downs. Now a couple of decent scores have me to 16.2. More importantly, if I don't break 90 I'm a bit disappointed. Progress.

I've had an interesting time this past month. At the end of July I went to Scotland with some friends to play some great links courses, some of them famous, some less so. I played twelve straight days, did OK, felt by the end that I was in a pretty good rhythm. Came back to my home course and for a week or so I had never hit the ball better. In particular, I was driving the ball well. Then, for a fortnight, I simply couldn't hit the ball at all. I was standing over it asking myself "is this right?" becasue I had no feel for whether my posture was good, what my tempo should be, anything. Simply awful. Move on to this week. Played Tuesday, didn't pull up any trees but felt good, hit the ball straight, would have scored well but a few putts narrowly didn't drop. Today, our annual senior captain's competition at an away course (standard scratch 71) I hadn't played before. The bad news? A triple bogey and a double bogey at successive holes. The good news? A net 66. Never hit the ball so well in my whole life. Such a weird game, this. For a couple of weeks every bit of progress I thought I was making had deserted me. Then BANG, I feel right, my confidence is there, I can play.

Rats. Looks like McIlroy again.

Ilonen is tied for fourth with McIroy, but as far as the TV coverage is concerned he may as well have stayed at home.

Really? He's one of the most intelligent golfers out there, doesn't suffer fools (which means he gives the interviewers a hard time when they ask dumb questions), he has adry sense of humour, and he can play. What's not to like? Go, Henrik.

Stenson!

I'm liking Stenson's chances here. Nothing wrong with his nerves.

McIlroy starting to show signs of frailty. Still vulnerable when things don't go his way, imo.

Ernie Els playing like he used to. He has momentum...