Young guns to dominate majors

Jasons quote

Day agrees that a group of young players are on the verge of something special in the game while acknowledging the task of pressuring McIlroy.

"This is the start of it, and obviously Rory is leading it, and there’s a bunch of other great golfers out there that obviously we need to work a little harder to get to the level of Rory," he said.

"But you’re right, we really are going to start a new generation, and it’s really fun. I think it’s great for golf."


Jason for multiple majors

Jason Day looks like a really good player and actually seems like a really nice bloke
Nice touch of him to put an arm round Rory at the trophy presentation and congratulate him. No sign of bitterness or the self centred attitude others might have displayed.
Plus two runners up spots so far in the two Majors of the year. Sound familiar? - world number one in 12 months time???

Still, no need to write the title of your article entirely in capital letters 'Jason Day Rules' !

Day is a very good player - it might just be his misfortune to be around in the same era as McIlroy

I agree, I think the time has passed for the likes of Westwood & Donald. There are too many good, young players in contention at every major now. They seem to have taken Tiger's lead in preparing to peak for those 4 tournaments, and being that much younger and fitter, one of them is bound to come up trumps against the older generation. That's not to say that Lee and Luke are finished, but I don't see either of them winning a major now.

Smithers, what on earth are you talking about? Westwood has been in the top three so many times in majors lately and on virtually all occasions has been beaten by someone in blistering form. That doesn't mean you are passed it, it simply means that someone happened to be better than you.

Remember Mickelson battled with numerous second places befor efinally breaking the duck.

Yes, Westwood might never win a major ( most players don't), but while he continues to put himself in excellent positions as he consistently does in the majors, it's very short sigthed to say you don't see him winning a major now.

I think people are getting a tad carried away with the new generation stuff. Rory was amazing this week but it was still only his third pro win, personally I think he will have weeks when he blows everyone away but cant see him dominating the way Tiger did but who knows, he could do.
I still can see the trend of lots of first time winners carrying on and that means younger and a bit older players.
Donald at 33 clearly has lots of time, not so sure about Westwood, personally feel and have said before he needs to make the most of his peak form as I cant see him being a top 3 player for more than the next 2-3 years at most.

There are obviously anomalies such as Tiger and MM... but isn't the average first time major winner around his mid-late thirties?

All it takes is one "young gun" to win a tournament and it's time for a "generational change".
Cobblers!
There are still plenty of guys in their thirties and forties who are perfectly capable of winning top events.
Just a month or so ago the PGA Tour propaganda machine was all about the young guys winning week in, week out.
Not so much when KJ Choi, Toms, Stricker and Frazar win four out of five.

And none of the young guys have won that much, Dustin Johnson the only young 'un to have won four times anywhere. Not exactly Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson. Yet.

Precisely, for every McIlroy or Mannasero, there's a Fowler or Ishikawa who flatter to deceive.

I agree that the whole 'young generation' thing is/will be overhyped.
Rory was incredible but he's played like that before. Not for four rounds granted but his scoring this week is no huge surprise is it? He's capable of that. The only question was could he do it over four rounds. Now, at least partially, proven

So the situation for Lee, Luke etc is no different today than it was this time last week. And many were tipping both to win the US Open so i can't see how they're finished. Are they worse players because McIlroy won yesterday?? Err, no!

I'm not saying they're worse players, it's just that where before they've been pipped by contemporaries, they're now being beaten by players with less experience and more ability. Westwood was poor yesterday, say what you like about trying to chase it but the second to 6 was a terrible shot, and he compounded it by missing the par putt, not even touching the hole from 4 feet. I'm not suggesting he choked, before anyone gets carried away, simply that he played poorly when his playing partner, despite being much more wayward, got the job done as well as could be expected.

Rory was great, but when will we ever see a US Open course suit him so much? Never is my guess, that felt and played more like a PGA Tour event that a US Open.

That said, I take nothing away from Rory, cos he was still head and shoulders above everyone else, except maybe Sergio who STILL cannot putt to save his life!!

As for Westwood, I have said it forever, his short game and in particular his putting isn't good enought to win one of the American majors, and his best chance is probably The Open.

I hope people don't get carried away about McIllroy, despite this achievement, as good as it is!

I say this after an arguement with a bloke on the pub last night who brashly suggested that McIllroy will surpass Jacks record, when IMO if he gets 4 he will have done well!!

super_realist wrote:Smithers, what on earth are you talking about? Westwood has been in the top three so many times in majors lately and on virtually all occasions has been beaten by someone in blistering form. That doesn't mean you are passed it, it simply means that someone happened to be better than you.

Remember Mickelson battled with numerous second places befor efinally breaking the duck.

Yes, Westwood might never win a major ( most players don't), but while he continues to put himself in excellent positions as he consistently does in the majors, it's very short sigthed to say you don't see him winning a major now.

Diggers wrote:I think people are getting a tad carried away with the new generation stuff. Rory was amazing this week but it was still only his third pro win, personally I think he will have weeks when he blows everyone away but cant see him dominating the way Tiger did but who knows, he could do.
I still can see the trend of lots of first time winners carrying on and that means younger and a bit older players.
Donald at 33 clearly has lots of time, not so sure about Westwood, personally feel and have said before he needs to make the most of his peak form as I cant see him being a top 3 player for more than the next 2-3 years at most.

kwinigolfer wrote:All it takes is one "young gun" to win a tournament and it's time for a "generational change".
Cobblers!
There are still plenty of guys in their thirties and forties who are perfectly capable of winning top events.
Just a month or so ago the PGA Tour propaganda machine was all about the young guys winning week in, week out.
Not so much when KJ Choi, Toms, Stricker and Frazar win four out of five.

And none of the young guys have won that much, Dustin Johnson the only young 'un to have won four times anywhere. Not exactly Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson. Yet.

All great comments guys. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Great win for Rory and in great style. Some pretty amazing play in anyone's book but I'd like to see what he's like when he's not got an 8 shot cushion at the beginning of R4 though. I wonder how he'll deal with all the dumb media, trouser climaxing every time they talk about him; it's not even 24 hours yet and already we're seeing some ridiculous hoopla.

JDandfries wrote:...I say this after an arguement with a bloke on the pub last night who brashly suggested that McIllroy will surpass Jacks record, when IMO if he gets 4 he will have done well!!

What is it with these people? They have no idea how difficult it is to amass a Majors record like Nicklaus'.

JD - whilst i don't buy the whole course was set up for him idea (lots of other players play with a draw and they were on the same course), i do agree with you 100% re the Majors record.

The Sky coverage finished off last night with a comment like 'we thought chasing Jack's Major record was a one man race but now there's a new kid in town'
Come on?! One Major he's one! In style yes but gees!........

JDandfries wrote:
I say this after an arguement with a bloke on the pub last night who brashly suggested that McIllroy will surpass Jacks record, when IMO if he gets 4 he will have done well!!

Claiming he will break Jack's record is stupid but IMO he is capable of getting into the 5 to 12 bracket - he is that good.

Tigers second Major was at the age of 24 years and 4 months.
Rory has 6 cracks at a major before he reaches that age - even chance he could surpass Woods.

He is still very very young; as the 80 year odd US open record for youngest winner shows.

With all due respect, all the 'he could do this and that' is bit silly.
Of course he could break records but let's not get too carried away talking about Tiger and Jack

LJs little boy has over 80 chances to win a Major before he's Rory's age and could have overhauled Jack before he's 6. I don't see what saying things like that has any relevance to anything!

Whether or not this current generation of players will dominate the majors over the next few years and stop players like Westwood and donald winning majors is just a ridiculous idea. There have always been great young players coming through and everyone will talk about the older guys never winning again but this has never been proved correct.

Even Tiger's stunning Masters in '97, a good comparable imo for Rory's dominance at this US Open, was followed up by an Open and Master's win for a rather senior Mark O'Meara. Faldo and Seve were phenomenal young major winners but that didn't stop Jack nicking a last Masters in '86.

These young players are obviously playing great golf but there will always be young players playing great golf and this shows great evolution of the sport. Els, Mickelson, Woods, Furyk, Singh, Duval etc were all great players at a young age and these kids are no different.

It's all ridiculous hyperbole!

What we are more likely to see is just the 'next generation' of young players coming through who as a group might dominate Majors for the next 5-10 years. Rory is one of that group but certainly not the only one. Add players like Manassero, Day, DJ, Ishikawa and Kaymer and probably another 3 or 4 more to that list.

But one thing is for sure, we WILL see Majors won by 'oldies' in the same time period.

I didnt mean it was set up for him, i meant it wasnt your typical US Open course, had it been, I don't think we would have had a run away leader.... as such I still think his best opportuities for more majors, lies at The Open.

I totally agree oldies will continue to win majors - to claim young players will dominate is silly IMO.

However I do think Rory is the most gifted player to play at this level since Tiger Woods and he will more majors in the years ahead.

To say a course is set up for McIlroy is a bit silly (whoever said it). The majority of professional golfers play with a natural draw so it should have suited most players.
All that happened is that McIlroy had an absolute blinder and no one else played to the same level, it doesn't signal a changing of the guard, a new generation or anything else. Let's not forget "old finished washed up has beens" like Westwood, Yang, Davis Love, Slocum, Jacobsen and Stricker were not exactly a million miles away, had McIlroy not been so outstanding.
The way some people are trouser climaxing it's as if they think McIlroy will win every tournament he plays by the same margin.

Emphatic and well deserved victory, but only his third title. There is a long long way to go yet. Whilst I do not subscribe to the notion of a complete changing of the guard, I do feel that golfers in their 40s are on borrowed time in terms of majors and the stronger fields the PGA and Euro tours offer on the bigger events.

Sportsmen in any game are on borrowed time once they get into their forties, while they can continue to be competitive it is with less regularity. Not particularly surprising.
However you only need to look at the relative ages of those who have won tournaments this year and there has been no massive swing towards a much younger generation.

It's not so much Rory's performance that makes me think the older players will struggle as Day's. Out with LW, spraying it in relation to Lee yet outscoring him by 2 shots, when Lee had the extra motivation of regaining the No.1 spot.

I think people expect Pro's to be able to hit the shot they require every time they play golf. I think it was Hogan who said if he was lucky he hit three perfect shots a round. That leaves sixty odd during a good round that aren't perfect.

Golf is a precision sport, the margins for error are small and the potential consequences of a mistake can be expensive. People need to be realistic and pragmatic. All shots, regardless of who plays them do not always come off. It happens like this in every sport, why do people expect golfers to always be on form and always be able to execute every shot to perfection.

It is interesting that the four current major champions were all born in the 80s, and I think are actually the first four to have been born in that decade. Of course the older generation will still win things, but I think there's gonna be a new confidence in the younger players, and they'll start to feature more and more.

super_realist wrote:I think people expect Pro's to be able to hit the shot they require every time they play golf. I think it was Hogan who said if he was lucky he hit three perfect shots a round. That leaves sixty odd during a good round that aren't perfect.

Golf is a precision sport, the margins for error are small and the potential consequences of a mistake can be expensive. People need to be realistic and pragmatic. All shots, regardless of who plays them do not always come off. It happens like this in every sport, why do people expect golfers to always be on form and always be able to execute every shot to perfection.

LW's second to 6 wasn't just less than perfect, it was an abject push. That's not a question of not making a perfect swing, it's a poor shot choice, poorly executed. Again, Day was in a worse position off the tee and yet played the sensible shot, fading it off the gap on the left. Westwood tried to fly it straight at the flag, a one in ten shot at best even for him, and played it just about as far from perfect as he could. Given that he told Tim Barter after his 65 that he still felt he was getting ahead of his irons, how bad a decision is that?

The more I think about it, the more I think the c word may well be appropriate.

SmithersJones wrote:

super_realist wrote:I think people expect Pro's to be able to hit the shot they require every time they play golf. I think it was Hogan who said if he was lucky he hit three perfect shots a round. That leaves sixty odd during a good round that aren't perfect.

Golf is a precision sport, the margins for error are small and the potential consequences of a mistake can be expensive. People need to be realistic and pragmatic. All shots, regardless of who plays them do not always come off. It happens like this in every sport, why do people expect golfers to always be on form and always be able to execute every shot to perfection.

LW's second to 6 wasn't just less than perfect, it was an abject push. That's not a question of not making a perfect swing, it's a poor shot choice, poorly executed. Again, Day was in a worse position off the tee and yet played the sensible shot, fading it off the gap on the left. Westwood tried to fly it straight at the flag, a one in ten shot at best even for him, and played it just about as far from perfect as he could. Given that he told Tim Barter after his 65 that he still felt he was getting ahead of his irons, how bad a decision is that?

The more I think about it, the more I think the c word may well be appropriate.

That's sport. Mistakes and bad judgements happen and happen to everyone, however if he's so past it how come he has been the most consistent player in majors for the last three years?

The most consistent runner-up, you mean? Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but Lee seems to make more of them, and is not very good at bouncing back from them with birdies on the following hole (or by holing saving putts for par, in this case), something that I think distinguishes the really top players.

Regarding Westwood's shot on #6, I took it that he was trying to make something happen, that the only way he was going to challenge Rory was to go low and his super drive had set himself up for the perfect shot. I'm sure he still thinks it was a risk worth taking.
Perhaps Lee was the only golfer still playing to win, when a three would make a statement.
It's no knock on Jason Day to say that he wasn't playing to win.

Yes, runner up, but I'll refer you to my previous point that on most of those occasions he was beaten my people in extraordinary form. There is no shame in that.

I expect that you have won every competition at your club this year then, if you know exactly when to play the correct shot, and that you always make the correct decision and place the ball exactly where you want it.

Lee only appears to make more mistakes because he is at the top of the game and he gets more coverage, if you actually knew how many shots end up on the cutting room floor you'd be amazed. Go to a tournament and see just how many bad shots are played right across the field and I think you'll be surprised.

I guarantee throughout the tournament that Day also played innappropriate or badly though out shots, you just didn't see them.

Like footballers and tennis players golfers make unforced errors. People are just looking at ways to bash Westwood because he hasn't won a major, they did the same to Mickelson and Harrington too.
It's a very lazy type of criticism, and not particularly well founded when you look at shot mistakes in the proper perspective.

I think Westwood needs to win some big events soon. It all very well having the theory that on the day another player shot better than you but ultimately thats almost like suggesting the great players won events just by luck.
He plays enough WGC events and enough majors to impose his game on them from a position of being the best player (or one of them) over the past 2-3 years.
For me if (and Im not saying he will) he finishes his career without winning a WGC or a major then he will be remembered ultimately as a guy who couldnt finish the job off when it really mattered against a full field of his peers and didnt fulfill his talent.

Before I get too many people too wound up, I ought to point out that I don't really believe a word I've been writing. I've long been a big fan of Lee's and I genuinely think he'll win a major very soon. Clearly he had to try and force it yesterday, and once he'd missed that shot there was little or no hope left of putting pressure on Rory. I did feel a little disappointed in LW last night, but in hindsight there wasn't much he could do.

I wish he'd settled for par on the 72nd at Troon (I was there, btw), but again he went for the big shot and it ended up costing him. Far from bottling, it's perhaps closer to the mark to say he is too aggressive when sometimes a conservative strategy (cocky execution, Mr Rotella?) would get the job done. The young guns will make it more difficult, but that's life. Lee ought to put in a strong showing again at the Open, and if Rory has raised the bar I'm sure the 3 people still above him in the rankings are up to the challenge (so long as Kaymer can get his old shape back!).

I wonder what would have happened if Rory's chunked wedge to #6(?) had dropped in the lake instead of clearing it by a foot or two....

Before everyone gets toooooo excited remember who tied for The Open at Turnberry.

super_realist wrote:Yes, runner up, but I'll refer you to my previous point that on most of those occasions he was beaten my people in extraordinary form. There is no shame in that.

I expect that you have won every competition at your club this year then, if you know exactly when to play the correct shot, and that you always make the correct decision and place the ball exactly where you want it.

Lee only appears to make more mistakes because he is at the top of the game and he gets more coverage, if you actually knew how many shots end up on the cutting room floor you'd be amazed. Go to a tournament and see just how many bad shots are played right across the field and I think you'll be surprised.

I guarantee throughout the tournament that Day also played innappropriate or badly though out shots, you just didn't see them.

Like footballers and tennis players golfers make unforced errors. People are just looking at ways to bash Westwood because he hasn't won a major, they did the same to Mickelson and Harrington too.
It's a very lazy type of criticism, and not particularly well founded when you look at shot mistakes in the proper perspective.

Super agree with what you are saying. Always watch the final round at my dad's - my brother (doesn't play, but always has an opinion to offer) always chimes in with 'Lee Westwood is a really nice bloke, BUT he always produces 2 good rounds in the majors and falls away at the end - he just can't get the job done, he will NEVER WIN A MAJOR - end of'

Ohh how I would love him to win just one to shut my soddin brother up. But I have to say that each one that passes by it is starting to seem less and less likely....

It's a very obvious observation by your brother Shanking, but rather one eyed and lacking knowledge of golf and sport in general. Westwood has not yet got across that line (he might never as most pro's don't win a major) but I remember people used to write off Detori and McCoy for not winning The Derby and National.
Westwood is at the very echelon of the game and everytime a major comes around he's going to be one of 4-5 players who are highly fancied, truth is that only one player can win, I think Westwood has been incredibly unlucky to come up against people on fire like McIlroy, Oosthuizen, Mickelson and Harrington.
Whether he wins one or not, only those who know little about playing a competitive sport or who don't realise that mistakes and bad judgement happen in sport would call him a "bottler" (wretched term).

I've always been a big Westwood fan but tbh find him a little annoying now that he's competing at the top. I think that his reputation of being a top bloke stems from a few years ago when a commentator would ask him about his week and he would talk about all the great pubs in the local area - now he is unfortunately talking in the type of cliches that frequently grace the morons of the Premier League. I thought that his comments after round three regarding McIlroy were typical of him now and were not the way that a good bloke would talk.

I remember a good few years back when Westwood was playing in The Sun City $1m event in South Africa, one of the biggest purses in it's day, and when asked how his week was going he talked about his family being with him, the safari they had been on and what a generally great time he was having with his family. Now it is sadly only talk about his golf and even this is uninteresting - If he keeps saying things like "you don't win majors on a Thursday or Friday" (or whatever it was) then I'm not sure how much longer I can keep those memories of when he was a good bloke...

Sadly Harrison, there are precious few characters in any sport, if they are not drearily dull and unintelligent like Woods, Terry, Lampard, Rooney, Gerrard etc then they are smug and smarmy like Federer and Nadal.

I have never heard anyone call Nadal smug and smarmy before, thats a first and quire frankly a rather bizarre comment. Lampard was a straight A student, you might not like or rate him but he is by no means stupid and you wont ever read an article about him that will suggest he is.
By your logic England have just been unlucky not to win a World Cup or European Championship. Someone plays better on the day, hey ho, thats just sport. Of course thats not the case nor is it for Westwood. He clearly has the ability to shoot a low number himself to win majors and so far he hasnt, if someone else raises their game then you have to raise your game.
Thats what defines great sportsmen, its what Murray needs to find and its what Westwood and Donald need to find. Maybe they wont manage to do that but if thats the case I wont be looking back at their careers and saying they were unlucky, Ill be saying they simply werent good enough.
People seem to think that choking is all about missing a 3 foot putt or not shooting low on the back 9 at Augusta. Its not that to me, its an inability to impose your talent across a whole tournament if you are accepted as being one of the very elite at your sport. Thats why for me Norman is a choker, not because he particularly threw away a lot of majors at the last but because as a guy who topped the rankings for 7 seasons and won for fun at other events he never brought that dominance to the majors.

Diggers, Comparing Westwood and England is completely ridiculous and that wasn't what my argument was saying at all, for a start England have NEVER played well enough in a competition since 1966 to win it or even be close to winning it and it has never been the case that they have played well and have only been beaten by a better team, and it isn't as if one team has ever been outstanding, save SPAIN in a tournament, there have always been at least 3-4 teams minimum better than England are, they fluked their way to the semi final via lucky wins over Belgium and Cameroon in 1990 and played mediocre teams on route to a 1996 semi AT HOME.

Westwood is a world class player of international standard, England are barely European standard and are almost an international laughing stock. So it's pretty obvious that you took my comparison out of context.

Perhaps I was wrong about Lampard being thick although like most footballers he is exceptionally dreary.
Westwood and Donald (and Murray in tennis) are probably the highest standard of sportsmen in world terms that England/Britain have had in mainstream sports in over a decade, yet people are so quick to get on their backs. We British are very peculiar

Its funny how when you want to just write off an achievement like a world cup semi that its just luck. Not about finding an edge to actually win a match like having world class finishers in Platt and Lineker.
Lee Westwood has never won an event in which all the worlds top players have competed, its a simple fact that cannot be denied. Murray has at least won I think 7 Masters events beating the best of his peers. To be truly world class you have to able to find a way of winning these events, its not like they only come around once every 4 years. I think it is perfectly fair to question the fact Westwood has never won an event against the best in the world because it is a very peculiar stat for a guy who has been the best in the world at his sport. (in theory)
And lets face it for 2 years of his career it was Lee Westwood who was a sporting embarassment, which just goes to show that players can come back from the brink and maybe England will one day too.

Diggers, lets be honest, England footballers, do not have the skill, work ethic, intelligence (in a footballing tense), fitness, tactical nouse, ability to create spontaneous brilliance or attitude to ever win a tournament. They just don't understand the meaning of "team" and quite frankly it's impossible to see them ever being able to take any of these requirements to win a tournament on board.
Yes, they reached a semi final which is fairly commendable, but who were the other losing semi finalists?, We hail that as a success, and award Bobby Robson a knighthood, yet other countries would have sacked their managers. I doubt most can remember who else lost (Italy) and fewer care, but when you consider the resources, coaching, facilities, money, training and sheer size of population their international record is nothing short of lamentable. When you consider that countries like Sweden, South Korea, Turkey, Portugal and Greece have had far better success than England in recent years with far less opportunity it makes it even more hilarious just how bad England are at their national sport.
You could be right about Westwood, but he's one of the top sportsmen we have, yet we'd rather slate him and praise a bunch of overpaid and undertalented deadbeats.

England have plenty of decent footballers and are nowhere near as bad as you make out. They are consistently in the top 8 teams in the world rankings wise and lets face it, its rankings that are defining Westwoods place in the world elite, not actually winning anything of note.
I dont see them winning anything soon though to be honest I think international football is not really the elite level of football anymore, more people seem interested in supporting clubs and players than their nations.

SR it was Italy who lost to Argentina and who beat us in the 3rd place play off - just. Argentina went on to lose to Germany in the most boring World Cup final in living memory.
For my opinion our sides in 1990 and 1996 were the best teams in their respective competitions so i cannot agree that we haven't played well enough to win since 66.

Anyway back to golf, i'm a big fan of Westwood but i do sort of think he needs to win a big event, if for nothing else than to stop people saying he doesn't deserve the no 1 spot etc. Whether it's true or not (and it's not) it must affect him in some way.
The thing about 4 or 5 players being able to win each Major and so LWs chances in each being slim is true. However if you've played 10 of them whilst in that group of 4 or 5 and still haven't won you start thinking the law of averages means it should have been his time at least in 2 of them.
He has been unlucky but maybe it is fair to ask why?

Super, I think that you may have been caught up in the media circus' that surround the World Cup and Euro's. England as a football team are not great in comparison to other international teams and it is only our media that suggest otherwise. The same is the case in other countries but to a far greater degree - countries like France and Italy are expected to win everything by their media and are far more harshly treated when they don't than our national team. South America takes it to another level still.

The '90 World Cup was a phenomenal success because a great manager took a very average group of players and using heart and spirit got them to play with the best in the world. This has not been seen since with the England team and only a fool that believes the media hype would expect anything like that sort of performance. The England rugby team produced the same in the last World Cup beating France, Australia and almost SA against all the odds. However, the hype was not built up for this sport because the followers read proper media and have a modicum of intelligence.

As for praising Westwood, it is ridiculous to criticise his golf game and this is only happening now that he is playing well (notice the increase in talk about Donald now that he's up there), but as a person he was much more endearing when he was playing average-good golf and showing that he had a life outside of the game. He reminds me of the sort of person that when you ask them how they are they say that the kids are fine - all he can talk about is golf and more boringly, his golf.

And Nadal is a proper world class sportsman - loves playing the game, always laughing and joking in interviews, ridiculous fitness and ability and actually gives an opinion rather than a generic cliche. Djokovic is the same which probably makes Federer and Murray appear even less interesting than they are. Interestingly, McIlroy is more like Nadal and Djokovic but then maybe he will lose that with experience...

I actually think Federer has plenty to say for himself as does Murray. Federer in particular is known as an incredibly articulate man (speaks what 4 or 5 languages, as do most Swiss people but hey its still impressive) and Murray , though Im not a fan of tweeting, is apparently brilliant on that medium, gets a great balance with communicating and updating and enjoys good banter with a few journalists on there as well.
Book and covers and all that.

Diggers, you hit the nail on the head, England have "decent" players, even the most ardent criticisms of Westwood would have to concede he's better than "decent". Yes, he needs to win a big one, but he's in a better position than virtually any other British golfer (alongside Donald and Mcilroy) to do so, and he's certainly in a better position than any British footballer to be successful.
International football is still the pinnacle for countries that are actually capable of winning it, just look at how teams are supported in Holland, Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Germany, Italy etc, the only reason people aren't so keen in England/Britain is because deep in their subconscious they actually know that England are Q/F also rans, there to make up the numbers, not to mention the dire standard of football and general ambivalence by the players.

I'd actually say there are at least 30 players capable of winning Majors, considerably more than are capable of winning an international football competition, there have certainly been a lot in the last 10 years, far more than are capable of winning World Cups, therefore making Westwoods high finishes more commendable and Englands rampant failures all the more glaring when they are competing against fewer opponents.

You guys must have all been watching a different 1990 World Cup to me!!

A very average group of players??
Shilton, Pearce, Robson, Waddle, Beardsley, Lineker, Barnes, Platt, Gascoigne
These guys were arguably up there with the best in the world in their positions at the time

Federer is semi-interesting and the fact that he is semi-interesting in multiple languages does not make him any more interesting. Compared with Nadal and Djokovic he is dull but then there are very few people at the top of any sport that are that interesting. Maybe with Murray I can't see past the fact that I hate him more than any sportsman alive. I was cheering when he won Queens last week though - makes losing at Wimbledon that much more difficult to take.

And I'm afraid that Twitter is just a ridiculous medium to judge anything on - having the time to sit back and think about what you are going to say is not the same as thinking on your feet. Even Rio Ferdinand does well on Twitter so the less said about that, the better...