Ollies European picks for the masters

According to the Times Olazabal has picked Rory (no suprise) and Kaymer and Westwood as his 3 likely lads for Augusta. Seems strange he hasnt mentioned the current world number one who in some ways is a player more in his own image.
Personally for me it would be Rory, Rose and Donald but Kaymer is now saying his swing changes allow him to move the ball a lot better and Augusta shouldnt hold the demons for him it has in years gone past, in fact it should suit him. Good to see he is sounding more confident about the Masters but it would be a huge turnaround if he was to play well so soon after his problems there. That said I still feel he is probably the strongest mentally out of all the top 10 and if he was in contention come the back nine I would fancy him to finish the job off. Just cant see Westwood putting well enough next week but you cant write him off thats for sure.

Not exactly an insightful set of picks either. We could all just pick the blokes in the top ten. I would have hoped his insider knowledge would have been able to reveal a player that we might not have thought about. Maybe based on something they are working on.

You would hope he had some knowledge of the players in contention for a captains pick for example. As mentioned before the World list players 6-10 are at an advantage this time around so he could be looking at picking euro list players 6-10 or world list players outside the top 10.

I always think the masters is a lottery. Bible thumper Johnson, mike weir, cabrera, Schwartzel are all fairly unlikely winners. Conceivably anyone in the top 50 could win it.

Hopefully will be as I cashed in on Schwartzel last year at 90/1 and there is no value in the favourites though I'd like it to he a brit (except Mcilroy or gfat)

So how much did you win super?

I hope you informed the dole office of the earnings?

Just a pound each way mac, and won a bit on Donald too.

Donated it all to the tommy sheridan benevolent fund so you'd be happy with that.

Super, Id say that the Open was as much of a lottery as the Masters, more so really. Fatty Clarke, Oosty, Cink, Hamilton, Curtis, Lawrie. Nobody would have predicted any of those as winners.
So are two of the majors really just a lottery then, bit of a sad case of affairs really if thats the case.

I'd agree diggers, I'd go further and say most tournaments are lotteries. The fields are so big and there isn't a great deal between the top 50 players in terms that if one of them has a really good week there isn't much any one else can do about it.
I suppose that's why its interesting, nothing worse than predictable winners like football or tennis.

Diggers

Precisely why I proposed the majors should only contain the top 50 and be seen as the culmination of two years good play. Sadly the reaction of the board was that of the typical sentimental golf fan. Apparently it is a magical moment to see someone play 4 good rounds in a year and many, many more average ones for the rest of their career.

Mac, a fifty man field would be rubbish, and why two years? Who cares what you did two years ago, it isn't relative to how you play now.

Personally I like seeing players achieve greatness in any sport so Im not one for liking a different winner every week. I find that dull to be honest, I much prefer to have dominant individuals...in an ideal world you would have a few individuals creating great rivalries Coe v Ovett, Federer v Nadal,Ali v Frazier) ...than a random winner each week that I couldnt really care less about.