US Masters / Paul Krishnamurty / 22 March 2010 /

Zach Johnson, Trevor Immelman and Angel Cabrera have all won the Masters in recent years starting at three figure prices. But they all had better chances than their odds suggested, says Paul Krishnamurty.

When Zach Johnson claimed the Green Jacket in 2007, it was easy to write off that [150.0] shock result as a fluke. After all, for decades the Masters had been one of the most reliable markers on the calendar for golf form students. Five of the last six had been won by either favourite or second favourite, and you could count the number of shocks in the previous three decades on one hand.

Three years down the line, and it appears that a trend has developed. 2008 champion Trevor Immelman was available at an incredible [300.0], around the same marker as two of his closest challengers, Brandt Snedeker and Steve Flesch. Then last year, we saw three triple-figure priced challengers fighting out a play-off, with [150.0] chance Angel Cabrera emerging triumphant.

So has the Masters really transformed into an outsiders' event? Certainly, there are levelling factors in play. Improved technology means that far more players can hit the par-fives in regulation nowadays. Since Augusta was lengthened, the Masters has certainly become tougher than simply a bomber's paradise, even if not as suitable for grinders as a US Open.

However, we must remember the context. We are living during the Tiger Woods era, when every other player's odds have been massively enhanced just by the great man's presence. The last two Masters have seen significant pre-tournament gambles on Tiger, pushing all sorts of plausible winners into the triple-figure range. Its hard to imagine that a former US Open champion like Angel Cabrera would have started at [150.0] in previous eras.

Furthermore, while these players may have started at huge odds, they barely register on the Richter Scale of majors upsets. Immelman and Johnson were both multiple former winners, infinitely more pickable than other recent major champions like Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Shaun Micheel or Paul Lawrie. So, for that matter, were all those other lesser names in contention. It still remains the case that no rank outsider has ever won a Masters.

Any fair analysis of those shock results also requires a look further down the leaderboard. Here, the picture becomes a lot more predictable. Tiger has finished 2nd, 2nd and 6th. Mickelson has been 5th in the last two. Of the 34 players to have made the top-10 in the last three years, only two hadn't previously won on either the PGA or European Tour.

Weather conditions can make all the difference. In normal, calm years, the key to Augusta is always going to be maximising the few straightforward birdie opportunities, especially on the par-fives. This will usually favour the big-guns.

Zach Johnson's year does appear to be the exception, as seen by the strangely high winning total of +1, eight shots worse than any since the 1980s. That year saw damp, cold, foggy conditions. The ball was travelling less distance through the air, and running less on the fairways. Normally reachable par-5s became out of range, and par was a challenge on virtually every hole. That combination may have lengthened the course, but it also 'bomb-proofed' it, placing a greater emphasis than usual on accuracy and scrambling skills.

To conclude then, while there are plenty of plausible outsiders in the field due to Tiger's presence and increasing strength in depth, picking the Masters leaderboard shouldn't be too difficult. Whatever the odds suggest, flukes don't happen here. Therefore, if you're looking for an outsider, pick one with top-class winning form just as all of those last three unlikely champions had. Also, watch the weather. If its damp and cold as in 2007, many more players come into the reckoning.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: