Lee Westwood is a bottler and will never win a biggy

First topic message reminder :

Well on Sunday at Wentworth this was further underlined. The good thing is he is no longer at number one and hopefully for the good of Golf he will not return there unless (and this is an unlikely event) he wins either a Major or a WGC event.

I cannot believe some people think that Westwood actually deserved being at number one! How can a player who is known for buckling under pressure and a player who hasn’t won a Golf tournament that is considered a big event deserve to be number one????

Westwood's bottle job on Sunday was amazing. Its ok to play well and putt the birdies when the pressure if off but as soon as the pressure was on he folded. At 16 he three putted on the green. At 17 he couldn’t get up and down in two from the back of the hole and at 18 he misses a four footer which had no movement on it. Then at the extra hole, Donald plays a superb 3rd shot and Westwood Poopie himself and plays it into the water. It was laughable and cringe worthy at the same time and Ken Brown thought it was unlucky!!! Ken, it was a bad shot. He bottled it.

It’s not the first time Westwood has bottled a big event when leading. Last year he threw away the Masters as soon as Mickleson applied the pressure and in 2008 he should of won the US Open but again messed up as soon as Tiger and Rocco put some pressure on.

In my opinion Luke Donald deserves to be number one even though he hasn’t yet won a major. He has won a WGC event and a Major title is imminent. I think he will definatley win one of the remaining three majors this year.

Talking of interviews and sportsmen, and trying to get back to golf, watching the Memorial last night I saw Rory interviewed. I counted no fewer than 16 'y'know's in his replies to 2 questions, swiftly followed by DJ's 17 in 3.

SmithersJones wrote:Talking of interviews and sportsmen, and trying to get back to golf, watching the Memorial last night I saw Rory interviewed. I counted no fewer than 16 'y'know's in his replies to 2 questions, swiftly followed by DJ's 17 in 3.

They do themselves no favours with the y'knows, erms and ah's. Make themselves look like if they could not play sport them they'd have nore career options, what happened to good old fashioned interviews where players could string a sentence together without requiring and erm or y'know to lead in to the next one

Maverick wrote:

SmithersJones wrote:Talking of interviews and sportsmen, and trying to get back to golf, watching the Memorial last night I saw Rory interviewed. I counted no fewer than 16 'y'know's in his replies to 2 questions, swiftly followed by DJ's 17 in 3.

They do themselves no favours with the y'knows, erms and ah's. Make themselves look like if they could not play sport them they'd have nore career options, what happened to good old fashioned interviews where players could string a sentence together without requiring and erm or y'know to lead in to the next one

It's an understandable filler, but I'd have thought if agents did nothing else they'd spend 10 minutes teaching their pros to answer questions without such repetition.

mind you, tiger's been over-coached to the point that he can't actually say anything pertinent or interesting!

I'm in agreement with the consensus here that bottler is a ridiculous word to describe Westy but I think that the growing percentage of people leaning this way is to do with what different golf fans want from their entertainment. We have always been spoilt by dynamic and exciting players at the top of the game (Seve, Tiger, Phil etc) but it would be ridiculous to think that every top tour pro should be like this. Westwood's great strength is in his consistency and this is a far more important attribute to have than being able to go all out attack but as golf fans, a tee to green player is far less enthralling than one that makes ridiculous recovery shots from the trees - surely a top player should be good enough to keep it out of the trees in the first place!?!

Unfortunately for Westwood, his big problem is his short game and as much as that has improved it is still going to be his weakness under pressure. Every top player has a weakness and this is usually shown most under pressure - Tiger barely hits a fairway when he needs to but his strength of getting up and down masks this.

The animosity towards Westwood is more to do with the way in which he plays not being entertaining enough and the fact that people only remember the flamboyant golf shots - everyone will always remember Phil's shot from the trees at The Masters but have forgotten the poor drive under pressure that put him there. This is a misplaced nostalgia for the past where selective memory is different from what actually happened. As another example, the 96 Masters will be remembered for Norman's collapse rather than the -6 that Faldo shot on the final day.

The point about Westwood's poor performance on the par 5's only strengthens the case for his short game not being up to scratch. Put a driver and iron in his hands and he will hit almost every par 3, 4 and par 5 lay-up. Give him a wedge for his third on a par 5 and a par is what you're getting...

Robbo - what an idiot you are.

I will make a point of ignoring your stupid comments in future

Unfortunately for Westwood, his big problem is his short game and as much as that has improved it is still going to be his weakness under pressure. Every top player has a weakness and this is usually shown most under pressure - Tiger barely hits a fairway when he needs to but his strength of getting up and down masks this.

The animosity towards Westwood is more to do with the way in which he plays not being entertaining enough and the fact that people only remember the flamboyant golf shots - everyone will always remember Phil's shot from the trees at The Masters but have forgotten the poor drive under pressure that put him there. This is a misplaced nostalgia for the past where selective memory is different from what actually happened. As another example, the 96 Masters will be remembered for Norman's collapse rather than the -6 that Faldo shot on the final day.

The point about Westwood's poor performance on the par 5's only strengthens the case for his short game not being up to scratch. Put a driver and iron in his hands and he will hit almost every par 3, 4 and par 5 lay-up. Give him a wedge for his third on a par 5 and a par is what you're getting...

Sharri: this comes back to the point that others and I were making earlier on in the discussion - lack of shot selection and execution doesn't make you a 'bottler'. It just means there is still a little room for improvement in strategy and fine-tuning. I still think Lee has done remarkably well to get himself into the position where he is competing at the top level in the game. It would have been far easier for him to have continued his slump (of previous years) and become a 'journeyman pro' on a comfortable living like so many others who have faded into obscurity.

Noshanking, it's easier for people to criticise those at the top than those that are not playing as well. You rarely get people writing articles about players that are further down the rankings and it is a good testament to Westwood's success that he has caught the eye of the very many idiot's out there. I don't see many negative articles written about players like Harrington, Casey, Rose, Poulter (clothing aside), most of the US players and a whole host of other players that have been closer to the top than they are now. I'm sure we will see Donald subjected to negative articles if he ends 2011 major-less.

With regards to Westwood's game, unfortunately he may never master the short game (if that's possible?!) and people will continue to mock his poor scrambling over marvelling at his woods and irons...

Why don't we make this one a sticky? It seems to be an ongoing discussion topic.... and WHEN LW eventually wins a major, we'll have another sticky saying "LW was lucky".

TBH I was thinking of deleting it now we seem to have done it to death. Doesn't look like Robbo is coming back anyway

Davie wrote:TBH I was thinking of deleting it now we seem to have done it to death. Doesn't look like Robbo is coming back anyway

Must have done something right in a previous life. And here was me thinking my karma was well and truly screwed.

Your karma ran over Robbo's dogma

Davie wrote:Your karma ran over Robbo's dogma

Nope. That was my chelsea tractor.

Not sure why we would ever want to make such a negative article a "sticky".
Agreed it's generated a ton of interest but in the long run this site will thrive with positive stuff or wither with negative.
All regardless of the subject though I agree this one (Lee Westwood) attracts more interest because of his supporters and advocates, because he comes across as a damn good guy and is a brilliant golfer!

I took pedro to be talking "tongue in cheek" Kwini

Actually think pedro makes a good point! Except I disagree with it!!

kwinigolfer wrote:Actually think pedro makes a good point! Except I disagree with it!!

My head hurts

Maybe it could be redirected to look at Westwood's career in another way, which is potential. A few years back when he was languishing down the bottom of the rankings nobody would have dreamed that he could rise to be one of the best players in the world yet here he is, number 1 or not, playing some of the best golf. The same could have been said about Harrington a few years back when he hit form and bagged his majors and despite his slump to where he is now, we can only respect his achievements.

There are other players that we have seen the opposite for, as an example, Garcia, who has been a ridiculously good ball striker since he was a teenager but has not been able to fulfil his potential. McIlroy could sadly be an addition to this in a few years and, dare I say it, Ernie is another that may have done more with his golf.

These players make for a far more interesting debate as there are lessons to be learnt from their careers. Criticising Westwood when he has climbed from the bottom to the top of the game against all expectations is very uninteresting.

Unfortunately Harrison that's the British psyche. They can't stand winners and they'll do their level best to find the most pointless thing to criticise them on.

However when you ask them to back their claims up with facts then they conveniently backtrack, make excuses or disappear completely like Robbo has done.

There are thousands of professional golfers in the world, perhaps a couple of hundred who can play to a truly world class tournament winning level, statistically a lot of those are going to miss out due to someone else being better on the day. That certainly doesn't make them bottlers, and one could argue that it isn't really an indication that they aren't playing or winning to their potential level either. A tournament can only be won by a single player. 149 other players will miss out. That's quite long odds of winning a tournament in statistical terms. There aren't many other sports where all participants play against the entire field. Mostly there are knockout rounds which pit smaller groups against each other. Some very good players will always miss out, does it mean they aren't reaching their potential?, or does it mean that golf tournaments are statistically very difficult to win?