Golf Review / Paul Krishnamurty / 17 August 2011 /

Three of the year's Majors have been won by the young generation - but is it really time to bid farewell to Phil and co?

There is plenty left to play for in the 2011 season, but with the majors now completed and money list finales beginning to take shape, we can already declare this to have been a year when golf changed dramatically.

The old guard is in decline. Tiger Woods will not even qualify for the Fedex Cup play-off series. Also outside the top-125 of that points list are triple-major winners Ernie Els and Padraig Harrington.

Simultaneously, long-touted 20-something prospects Rory McIlroy and Charl Schwartzel came of age at the Masters and US Open. Whereas these majors were widely considered as too tough for a novice, Jason Day finished runner-up on debut in both. Most shocking of all, Keegan Bradley won on his first ever attempt in a major, less than a year into his PGA Tour career.

Bradley's rapid rise to fame is typical of the new order. Nobody to my knowledge was tipping him for big things when graduating from the Nationwide Tour, yet there was nothing flukey about Sunday's victory. He'd contended for a long way in elite company the previous week, and won impressively at the Byron Nelson Championship.

Whether he builds upon it or returns to obscurity remains to be seen. For every Keegan Bradley, there are another dozen talented youngsters on each tour, unknown to most people. We all know about Rickie Fowler or Matteo Manassero, but who's to say Thorbjorn Olesen, (three times a runner-up in his maiden Euro campaign), won't improve at a faster rate next year?

In addition to identifying the best prospects, we need to assess how this affects the chances and odds of the current mainstream. Should we all be looking towards backing McIlroy in single figures, before he becomes the next Tiger? How short a price are we prepared to take about Day or Fowler, despite the fact they've only won one title between them?

These are the dilemmas that confront punters every week nowadays, as we assess increasingly volatile markets. Day started at [200.0] for the Masters, and just [28.0] for the PGA. As the odds about these youngsters plunge, other top-class experienced campaigners' odds fluctuate wildly on the basis of one week's form. Adam Scott's PGA price, for instance, more than halved as a consequence of his Firestone victory. Over the same timeframe, Ian Poulter's odds doubled.

At this point, we need to pause for thought. Youngsters may well have won three of the four majors, but things could easily have been different. While Bradley emerged from Sunday's photo-finish, a couple of different bounces and Scott Verplank could have become the oldest ever major champion. Darren Clarke, 42 years of age, won the Open. Runner-up Phil Mickelson, only a year younger, also started red-hot favourite for the Masters and may well do so again next April. The world's top-two players, Luke Donald and Lee Westwood, are in their thirties.

Nevertheless, it is increasingly hard to make a case for taking short prices about the likes of Mickelson, Donald or Westwood, simply because they don't win enough. Keegan Bradley was the 19th triple-figure priced winner from 38 PGA Tour events this year. When rank outsiders are winning half of all tournaments, why back favourites who will likely win only once or twice a year?

Ultimately, it all boils down to the specific course conditions for each tournament, for which there are no golden rules. Augusta is bound to remain dominated by huge-hitters, obviously favouring the younger generation. Yet courses like Atlanta Athletic Club will continue to place a premium on course management, which depends upon experience. Winning the Open Championship will continue to require world-class links skills, which most novices simply don't have, although Fowler hasn't taken long to learn the art.

Finally, we must be wary of over-reacting to brilliant potential. Just as nobody saw Keegan Bradley coming, so the perennially disappointing Charles Howell was once the next big thing. It remains generally true that, in order to start really fulfilling their potential, players need five years plus on tour to fine-tune their game, iron out weaknesses, improve their course management and temperament skills.

Just as it took a while for Schwartzel and Donald to fulfil their promise, so it will probably take as long for the current crop to peak. That's the scariest thought for the older guys - if McIlroy can dominate a US Open at this early stage, just imagine how good he'll be at his peak.

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

:

:

:

?

: