Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

Bill Ponderosa · 27-02-2021 2:21pm

Looking at his stats this week his putting isn't too bad, lost half a shot approach to the green. 13 birdies through 2 rounds is good just too many bogies.

boardise · 27-02-2021 7:47pm

Our hero wastes no time in pushing the self-destruct button with yet another double bogey at the second ( missing from 6 ft for the bogey ) and then only parring the par 5 third.
Woeful journeyman rubbish.

Dr. Bre · 27-02-2021 10:44pm

Rory going well

4Ad · 27-02-2021 10:56pm

boardise wrote: »

Our hero wastes no time in pushing the self-destruct button with yet another double bogey at the second ( missing from 6 ft for the bogey ) and then only parring the par 5 third.
Woeful journeyman rubbish.

He has certainly turned it around since.
Shame Morikawa is giving a masterclass, a joy to watch..

Bill Ponderosa · 27-02-2021 11:04pm

Dr. Bre wrote: »

Rory going well

Not bad for a journeyman..!

Russman · 27-02-2021 11:17pm

Dav010 wrote: »

Does how he compares to others change the scores on his card, or change the fact that he missed a number of shortish putts?

I get that some are into stats, strokes gained on this and that, but at the end of a round, it’s the scores on those 18 holes that count, not that you gained on an average which includes a quarter of the field that are miles behind the leaders. The worse the back markers play, the better the stroked gains stats look for a player like Mcilroy, does it change his score though?

I don’t think anyone is suggesting it changes his score on the card.
SG is just an analysis tool to help see the “why” or maybe the “where” behind his scores.

It helps take out the noise if, say for example, someone is missing greens all day but chipping it to 3 feet - they might only take 22 putts but it doesn’t mean they’re putting “well” as such.

blue note · 28-02-2021 8:37am

In essence it's not any different than looking at his score on the par 5s on a course for example and compared to others and saying that's where he needed to perform and he didn't. So if he finished 3 behind the winner and the others in the top 5 averaged -10 on the par 5s for the week and he averaged -2, you could point to his performance on the par 5s and say that's what he needed to capitalise on to win.

It's the same with SG stats. If the rest of the top 5 averaged a stroke gained on the field each round from putting and Rory averaged a stroke lost, that's 8 shots from putting he's behind the other top guys you can point to.

Bubbaclaus · 28-02-2021 12:20pm

blue note wrote: »

In essence it's not any different than looking at his score on the par 5s on a course for example and compared to others and saying that's where he needed to perform and he didn't. So if he finished 3 behind the winner and the others in the top 5 averaged -10 on the par 5s for the week and he averaged -2, you could point to his performance on the par 5s and say that's what he needed to capitalise on to win.

It's the same with SG stats. If the rest of the top 5 averaged a stroke gained on the field each round from putting and Rory averaged a stroke lost, that's 8 shots from putting he's behind the other top guys you can point to.

"BuT iT iS tHe ScOrE oN tHe CaRd ThAt MaTtErS" - people that do not understand the benefit of strokes gained stats

Dav010 · 28-02-2021 12:39pm

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"BuT iT iS tHe ScOrE oN tHe CaRd ThAt MaTtErS" - people that do not understand the benefit of strokes gained stats

A poor attempt at sarcasm no doubt.

What are the benefits of strokes gained stats derived from a sample which includes a significant number of back markers with poor scores and no hope of competing at the top of the leaderboard relative to the score on the card? Effectively the worse those back markers perform, the better other players stats appear, yet that does not change the score on the card not their position on the leaderboard. Do you think Mcilroy or anyone else needs a statistics to tell him he missed 4 short putts in one round? Does statistical analysis tell you why he missed them? Do they tell you if it was a miss read or a poor stroke?

I’ve dealt with statistics all my academic and professional life, I recognise their limitations and how they can be interpreted in different ways to support alternative viewpoints. An example of this is the stat posted earlier that Mcilroy’s putting on day one wasn’t all that bad, yet anyone who watched the coverage would be scratching their head. Take a smaller sample in a tournament using only the top 15 and the statistic could reveal a completely different SG result on one which includes the +15s at the bottom of the board, does this change the scorecard? No

I’m sure for analysis they have their benefits, but when a poster says his putting isn’t bad in a round where he misses many short putts, or another poster says, well ya, he’s a bad putting, but shots gained off the tee, he’s the best. What use is it being better than a load of also rans off the tee, if when you get to the green you regularly miss the 3 footer for par?

Russman · 28-02-2021 4:06pm

Dav010 wrote: »

A poor attempt at sarcasm no doubt.

What are the benefits of strokes gained stats derived from a sample which includes a significant number of back markers with poor scores and no hope of competing at the top of the leaderboard relative to the score on the card? Effectively the worse those back markers perform, the better other players stats appear, yet that does not change the score on the card not their position on the leaderboard. Do you think Mcilroy or anyone else needs a statistics to tell him he missed 4 short putts in one round? Does statistical analysis tell you why he missed them? Do they tell you if it was a miss read or a poor stroke?

I’ve dealt with statistics all my academic and professional life, I recognise their limitations and how they can be interpreted in different ways to support alternative viewpoints. An example of this is the stat posted earlier that Mcilroy’s putting on day one wasn’t all that bad, yet anyone who watched the coverage would be scratching their head. Take a smaller sample in a tournament using only the top 15 and the statistic could reveal a completely different SG result on one which includes the +15s at the bottom of the board, does this change the scorecard? No

I’m sure for analysis they have their benefits, but when a poster says his putting isn’t bad in a round where he misses many short putts, or another poster says, well ya, he’s a bad putting, but shots gained off the tee, he’s the best. What use is it being better than a load of also rans off the tee, if when you get to the green you regularly miss the 3 footer for par?

You do have a point, but dismissing the rest of a WGC field as also fans is silly imo. These are all world class players, able to beat each other on any given day. It arguably might be different if it was a load of club pros or 10 handicappers at the back of the field.

Let’s say Rory 3 putts four times from 40 feet in a round. Ok is that bad putting, or was it his poor wedge play that cost him shots by putting him into a position where a 3 putt is fairly likely for anyone ?

Dav010 · 28-02-2021 4:28pm

Russman wrote: »

You do have a point, but dismissing the rest of a WGC field as also fans is silly imo. These are all world class players, able to beat each other on any given day. It arguably might be different if it was a load of club pros or 10 handicappers at the back of the field.

Let’s say Rory 3 putts four times from 40 feet in a round. Ok is that bad putting, or was it his poor wedge play that cost him shots by putting him into a position where a 3 putt is fairly likely for anyone ?

I’m not dismissing the rest of the field, I’m pointing out that the bottom of the leaderboard skews the stats to an extent that poor putting can somehow look reasonably good. And to be fair, a field of professionals can have the same diversity of performance and talent as a field of Sunday club golfers, relatively speaking. When I look down the leaderboard, there are often players in the bottom one third I have never heard of. There are pros in the top 500 whom I’m sure have never been near the first page of a leaderboard.

In relation to the wedge/putt argument, it may be both or singular, occasionally a player might sink a 40 footer, but at that level they would be expected to sink a 4 foot putt consistently. In golf all shots are important as each one goes towards the score on the card, saying a golfer gains one shot on the field in driving but loses 2 on the field average means damn all if the field includes a lot of players who put their ball in the rough off the tee but consistently sink 10 footers, or split the fairway with their tee shot, but miss from 3 feet on the green. I get that stats give analysis on where improvement is needed, but in any given tournament using SG in one type of shot to show a player is actually doing well based on a sample containing many players who are having stinkers/playing poorly, and saying that the score on the card isn’t what matters, now that is silly.

Russman · 28-02-2021 5:29pm

Dav010 wrote: »

I’m not dismissing the rest of the field, I’m pointing out that the bottom of the leaderboard skews the stats to an extent that poor putting can somehow look reasonably good. And to be fair, a field of professionals can have the same diversity of performance and talent as a field of Sunday club golfers, relatively speaking. When I look down the leaderboard, there are often players in the bottom one third I have never heard of. There are pros in the top 500 whom I’m sure have never been near the first page of a leaderboard.

In relation to the wedge/putt argument, it may be both or singular, occasionally a player might sink a 40 footer, but at that level they would be expected to sink a 4 foot putt consistently. In golf all shots are important as each one goes towards the score on the card, saying a golfer gains one shot on the field in driving but loses 2 on the field average means damn all if the field includes a lot of players who put their ball in the rough off the tee but consistently sink 10 footers, or split the fairway with their tee shot, but miss from 3 feet on the green. I get that stats give analysis on where improvement is needed, but in any given tournament using SG in one type of shot to show a player is actually doing well based on a sample containing many players who are having stinkers/playing poorly, and saying that the score on the card isn’t what matters, now that is silly.

Absolutely all shots are important, indeed they’re the only things that matter in a given round. I’m not for a second arguing that Rory is a good putter, but I think that SG gives a very good analysis as to where he’s losing or gaining shots relative to a field of his peers. At least it gives a fixed reference point rather than a subjective analysis of what a player “should” be doing. If he’s not going to benchmark against his competitors, who is he going to benchmark against ?
As you say, the score will ultimately show how he really did that week in isolation, but the SG helps with the why. Ok so he missed a few short ones, but nobody holes them all, and if his approach play was better he wouldn’t be leaving himself so many missable ones if his first putt was from 20 feet rather than 40 feet.

28-02-2021 9:40pm

Diamond has to go.

LuckyGent88 · 28-02-2021 9:47pm

Another very poor Sunday when in contention. Started well but two bad irons on the par 3’s have cost him. Has drove it really well since then but his rubbish wedge game is back on view.

gypsy79 · 28-02-2021 9:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Diamond has to go.

You do know he doesnt hit the ball

First Up · 28-02-2021 10:01pm

gypsy79 wrote:

You do know he doesnt hit the ball

I know they are friends but I doubt he knows much about the different grasses on US greens. That matters a lot.

boardise · 28-02-2021 10:11pm

At 9.10 p.m. of the first 26 players on leaderboard- McIlroy the only one over par !!

OEP · 28-02-2021 11:02pm

First Up wrote: »

I know they are friends but I doubt he knows much about the different grasses on US greens. That matters a lot.

He's not the reason he's hitting it into the water

rooney30 · 28-02-2021 11:05pm

First Up wrote: »

I know they are friends but I doubt he knows much about the different grasses on US greens. That matters a lot.

You have absolutely no idea whether he does or he doesn’t .

FixdePitchmark · 28-02-2021 11:10pm

First Up wrote: »

I know they are friends but I doubt he knows much about the different grasses on US greens. That matters a lot.

I'm sure he could learn.

ctlsleh · 28-02-2021 11:24pm

Approach shots are putting too much pressure on his putting, needs to be more accurate and of course putting also needs to be better.......I note he switched back to his traditional blade putter this week

Hopefully,he will put score Patrick Reed at least!

First Up · 28-02-2021 11:27pm

rooney30 wrote:

You have absolutely no idea whether he does or he doesnâ€™t .

Well he hasn't grown up putting on all of them but by feel free to prove me wrong.

fullstop · 28-02-2021 11:37pm

boardise wrote: »

At 9.10 p.m. of the first 26 players on leaderboard- McIlroy the only one over par !!

At 10:36pm there are 9 of the top 27 worse than him for the day. It’s easy to pluck a random stat at a point in time that suits a narrative.

boardise · 01-03-2021 12:24am

fullstop wrote: »

At 10:36pm there are 9 of the top 27 worse than him for the day. It’s easy to pluck a random stat at a point in time that suits a narrative.

Not quite sure why you insinuate a subtle snipe about some arcane 'narrative' you imagine I've concocted.
The only 'narrative' I'm aware of is one that's shared by the majority of recent posters .This is roughly along the lines of 'Why has the game of a world top ten player of the talent and record of McIlroy developed so many flaws and why does he underperform so notably badly when in contention ?'
I'm absolutely perplexed by it and so are many others . I'm an ardent fan of McIlroy and sincerely hope he can somehow re-ignite that spark of brilliance that set him apart in the first half of his career.
On the Betfair golf forum some think we've seen 'peak Rory' -which could be true but I think that's unlikely at the age of only 31 and that he can still be a major winner. Augusta in April would do nicely.

rooney30 · 01-03-2021 12:29am

First Up wrote: »

Well he hasn't grown up putting on all of them but by feel free to prove me wrong.

Neither did Steve Williams , he has done ok on US courses .

fullstop · 01-03-2021 12:30am

He was never that likely to win today IMO. He started the day 4 behind Morikawa who was playing brilliant stuff and the only chance he had was to get a really fast start, which he didn’t do.
There are too many big numbers on that course to go chasing it.
Maybe we have seen ‘peak McIlroy’ and maybe he’s not as good as we think he is, or can be, but at the minute he’s not the player in form and his game isn’t where he wants it to be, so T6 around a tough course isn’t exactly a bad result.

monkeybutter · 01-03-2021 12:22pm

he was tied 6th, its not like he missed the cut

considering he is so shocking at golf by all accounts, that's a good result

gypsy79 · 01-03-2021 1:01pm

First Up wrote: »

I know they are friends but I doubt he knows much about the different grasses on US greens. That matters a lot.

You think he is just his friend who holds his bag. If you believe that then you need take a long hard look at yourself

Dav010 · 01-03-2021 1:04pm

monkeybutter wrote: »

he was tied 6th, its not like he missed the cut

considering he is so shocking at golf by all accounts, that's a good result

There was no cut.

Maybe you are confusing it with his last tournament, where he did miss the cut.

BoardsMember · 01-03-2021 1:31pm

He's not miles off, form wise. Or ability wise. I don't believe he has peaked. I do believe there is more top quality depth in the field now than there was 6-8 years ago.

According to McGinley, his putting and wedge stats need to improve. If we see that, and nothing else suffers, it is hard to see how he does not end up in the top 2 or 3, and winning a couple of tournaments a year. As has been the case in recent years.

I don't think he's so much better than everyone else such that he wins if he plays well - there are 10 or more players who when playing well can beat Rory playing well, it just depends on who sinks the putts at clutch times. Putting is such a massive factor. This is the biggest concern I have for him getting it done in a major. Everyone gears up to peak for them, putting becomes the key thing. He can strike the ball incredibly well, his short game can potentially compensate for his poor approach shots, but he needs to be nailing the putts.

Rory McIlroy - 4 Time Major Winner

Comments