WGC-Accenture Match Play final: Ogilvy holds almost all the aces
There’s a current of opinion that Geoff Ogilvy’s luck cannot last for ever. To quote Fred Albers’ colourful analogy on XM radio: “You can only make so many passes at the craps table before you come up snake eyes.” Coupled with the fact that Henrik Stenson is playing some superlative golf in the Arizona desert, it gives us all hope that at least Sunday’s final will be a contest to remember.
But I cannot see Ogilvy coming this far to have an off day at the final hurdle. He has been the man of the week by a country mile and, as this ESPN article admirably details, he has the experience that could prove the clincher in this exhausting weekend format. So that’s it, pure and simple.
Perhaps things might have been different if at least one of my fellow countrymen hadn’t flopped when the chips were really down. I guess I let my patriotic emotions get the better of me Saturday. I should have known better.
Paul Casey openly admits he played rubbish against Ogilvy in one of the tournament’s more disappointing encounters.
But for me Justin Rose’s failure against Trevor Immelman was much the more upsetting because, yet again I find myself bamboozled and frustrated by the player everyone keeps telling me is the next big thing. When, for goodness sake? “Oh you don’t understand,” they say, “he’s building up, he’s getting there, he’ll flower into a great player, you’ll see.”
All I see is crushing disappointment, again and again. “If it was strokeplay, I would have played some of the best golf out of anybody the first three days,” Rose said after his defeat. God give me strength. It’s no good, in strokeplay or matchplay, having three great days if the fourth is pants. I’m sorry, where’s that straitjacket and muzzle. That’s about the only thing that will shut me up about *!&*%$*!*! Justin.
Anyway, thank goodness someone finally found out how to halt the runaway Immelman train. I really can’t stand people who don’t do what I predict they will do.
PS: Back down south again and all credit to Fred Funk for seeing off that back pain to carve a two-shot lead.
There remains the question of whether, given his problems, he can hold up to a strong Sunday challenge. Trouble is, where is that challenge to come from?
Jose Coceres has posted some good numbers, but probably needs to hit another 65 or 66 Sunday to stand a chance. And the rest of the pack is at least five strokes adrift. Looks to me as if Funk only needs to fire something in the order of three under Sunday to clinch the deal, a fact clearly reflected in his price of just over 1.7.
But I have to say that, clearly in concert with the majority of punters, I cannot work up any enthusiasm for this competition whatsoever.
| « WGC-Accenture Match Play: So what did they do with the real Geoff Ogilvy? | WGC-Accenture Match Play quarter finals: Woods exit sets it up for a rampant Rose » |
7 comments
Please give me a clue.
When do you think will be the next time you are correct about anything? :-)
Antoine, we're all waiting for Justin. To be "the next big thing" is to be a freak of nature...as it is, he's pretty close to being the next Colin or the next Lee, guys who succeeded on the Euro tour but never in America. At least Justin seems to diverge from their path and lay his eggs in the USA basket...we'll see.
Different bloke. I was just having a little fun with your losing streak in predictions.
I enjoy reading your blog on golf wagering, something that I have never done personally.
A brother-in-law of mine tried it for a two year period. His belief was that if one were to bet on Tiger to win in all the events in which there was a line, and in all the imaginary matchups,
one would certainly HAVE to be an eventual winner. How's that for a fallacy!
It took him two years and close to $10,000USD to get sufficiently discouraged to give up his quest.
I never heard the term "mug punter" before, but my brother-in-law would probably fit that title exactly. He liked his system, which consisted solely of betting on Tiger, and he was addicted to chasing his losses
In one tournament last year, I believe it was the Barclay's, he bet on Woods to best Ernie for the four rounds, which he won, on Woods to win the tournament, which he did, and on Tiger to win daily matchups, of which Tiger won two and lost two. He still managed to have a net loss for that event.
How did he do it? Because he was always betting on Tiger he had to lay pretty stiff odds. Betting in increments of $200(hoping to win that much per bet), he won $200 on his four-round matchup against Ernie, he won $200 on each of two imaginary one-round matchups, and $400 on Tiger's tournament win. for a total win of $1000.
But by laying 2.75 to 1 on his two matchup losses, he lost $1100.
Net:-$100.
This is only my opinion, but I think this old axiom applies to all sports' wagering:
If you want to quit sports' betting with a small fortune, start out with a large fortune
Comments are closed for this post.



Recent comments