In the Nick of Time

Based on his performance at the British Open and the Tour Championship, Nick Faldo is poised to become TV’s best golf announcer, force Paul Azinger to play more tournament golf, and make ABC’s Sunday golf telecasts must-see TV in 2005.  Here’s why:

It’s about pressure, not mechanics.

The primary difference between Faldo and Miller as players can be summed up in a word – majors. Johnny claimed to treat them like any other tournament – Nick revered them and built his swing and career on results in them. Johnny rose to the top of the golf world for a 2-year window, piling up 15 wins and 2 majors, the clear highlight his Sunday 63 at Oakmont to win the US Open. For much of Miller’s career, his best performances were in non-major events on the west coast. By contrast, Faldo won 6 majors over a 9-year period, bookends including his tremendous 18-par round at Muirfield to win his first major and his stunning comeback against Greg Norman in the final round of the ’96 Masters. Miller is best-known for his rounds of tremendous ball-striking and iron play; Faldo is best-known for his course management and ability to put opponents under constant pressure when it mattered most.

It should not surprise anyone that their approach to commentating differs significantly as well. Miller focuses on mechanics – i.e. “let’s look at the tape and review the swing positions to see if he gets stuck – there it is – and has to over-rotate his hands to catch up with the swing or he blocks it right” to the exclusion of almost anything else. In short, Miller looks at each player in a vacuum – much as he played major tournaments. By comparison, Faldo realizes that much of Sunday performances in majors are dictated not by mechanics, but by pressure situations created by competitor’s and the player’s own shots from earlier in the round.  The result is simple – Johnny can explain to viewers exactly what went wrong with a particular swing mechanically; Nick can explain why it happened and in some cases foreshadow the result with analysis of shots from earlier in the day.

In this age of a thousand swing gurus and constant improvements in slow-motion video-camera capability, showing what has already happened and explaining it is becoming a commodity. Explaining why something happened is harder and more valuable to the viewer. Even more valuable is the ability to isolate in advance the factors that could lead to the explanation, so that a viewer has some insight as things unfold rather than waiting for someone to explain what happened after the fact. At the Tour Championship Nick gave viewers one key variable to watch and why it mattered – the heavily-contoured greens would reward players who could control both distance and spin and leave their ball in the proper locations with uphill putts across one tier. Those unable to do that would face pressure-filled putts across the ridges. Right on cue Tiger’s lack of distance and spin control caused him to miss the first green and 3-putt the second over a ridge, helping to create the opening Goosen charged through with a final-round 64 to win the tournament. Goosen’s ability to control both distance and yardage and leave himself in the right positions on the greens allowed him to play with relatively little pressure for much of Sunday.

Provide context or say nothing.

A perfect example was on the back nine Sunday, when Tiger missed (another) fairway and was left with one option – a towering shot over trees to a pin tucked just behind a bunker. Azinger summed up the shot with this gem, “nobody hits the ball as high as Tiger.” Even if true, Azinger’s comment adds little to the situation. Meanwhile, Faldo made two relevant points: (1) Tiger was missing tee shots in both directions (which both explained why he was left with only one option and suggested that for the rest of the back 9 he would have a difficult time hitting fairways because he couldn’t count on missing in only one direction and play for that); and (2) Retief Goosen was swinging beautifully and was at this point the man to beat (which was allowing him to hit more fairways and greens, putting additional pressure on Tiger and allowing Retief to play with less pressure).

Another great example was Tirico’s statement as Goosen pulled ahead, “we’re not used to seeing Tiger get caught from behind on Sunday.” In fact, Mike, we’re not used to seeing Tiger lead going into Sunday in the past 18 months. And in case you hadn’t noticed the guys on tour continue to get longer, stronger, and have more mental toughness to put pressure on any leader and chase anyone down from behind – players are not afraid of anyone and welcome the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with anyone for any title, including majors. There are a variety of reasons for this – ongoing success from developmental tour graduates and Asian tour players, first-time major winners like Rich Beem and Ben Curtis helping new tour players believe they can win early, and the continued refinement of equipment to match each player’s swing (launch angle optimization, custom club fitting, and constant ball and club evolution to deliver the best mix of length, spin, and height).

Commentators like Tirico seem to believe that once Tiger finds ’it’ the rest of the tour will again be vanquished to second place. The reality is that everyone playing in big events is playing at a higher level than five years ago – consider the performances of Ben Curtis (winning over Thomas Bjorn, Tiger and Vijay), Shaun Micheel (whose 7-iron to tap-in distance at the ’03 PGA held off a charging Chad Campbell), and Todd Hamilton (who prevailed over Els in the British after playing the last 40 holes with him, including the 4-hole playoff) as examples. In short, comments like Azinger’s and Tirico’s only make the approach Faldo takes all the more noticeable. Azinger and Tirico seem intent on staying on Tiger’s holiday card list – Faldo just wants to bring context to relevant activities for viewers.

Odd man out

ABC’s decision to experiment with a 3-man booth looks like a calculated risk, a way to shake things up. In fact, it’s the opposite, a defensive response to a desperate situation. Curtis Strange left suddenly after contract negotiations stalled and without a clear backup ABC was left to play “rotating lead analysts” for much of the summer. In short, the 3-man booth was the best answer to Johnny Miller and Lanny Wadkins, great players with strong personalities who are willing to make controversial statements and in many cases can back them up. Rather than shoot for an equal, ABC chose to play 2-for-1 and hope to capture as much value from two chairs as NBC and CBS get from one. The strategy makes sense, right up until Faldo starts proving himself at the British Open and drives the point home with the Tour Championship performance. At that point, adding a third chair to the booth makes no sense.

There’s a reason the two-man booth is standard in golf – one announcer provides color while a former golfer provides analysis and this is generally sufficient to cover an event. Three-man booths are used in other sports where there is more action or more than one perspective (i.e. Monday Night Football, where an analyst, a quarterback, and a lineman can provide 3 different points of view for the listener to hear from while the action is between plays). The action is at a reasonable enough pace in golf that to this point 3-man booths have not been required, particularly if field reporters are used properly. Andy North’s ability to convert his position from a 10-second analysis on lie, probably club selection, and likely outcome (reactive, with limited info on top of what the tower can provide) into a close-up preview of the lie with analysis of shot options that are/are not available has raised the bar for all field reporters for 2005. It requires North to be well-positioned and get to the ball in advance of the player and caddy’s arrival to not interfere with play, but it also provides the viewer with a much more detailed look at the thought process that goes into each shot late in a round, when one shot can mean the difference between first and second (or worse).

If Tirico and Faldo are doing their jobs, and from all indications they are, then the obvious question is what does Azinger add to the equation? He is unlikely to deliver a stronger analyst performance than Faldo (see above), so his choices are few: (1) become a set up man for Faldo (not great – Tirico can already do this with relative ease); (2) inject humor and a distinct perspective (difficult – humor is not as effortless for Azinger as it is for some, like Peter Alliss, and since Faldo and Azinger are contemporaries that played in the same era it’s hard to provide a distinct perspective); or (3) out-prepare him with extra information on certain players (probably best left as an exercise for field reporters who will follow a group the entire day). All of these seem like gap-fill until Nick and Mike are able to perform them. In short, Azinger can’t out-Faldo Nick, and Tirico can provide all the context Nick needs to do his job, so it’s unclear what long-term advantage the 3-man booth delivers. As soon as Nick has proven to ABC that he can do the job solo, they should find another role for Azinger.

ABC matters

Most golf fans know the tournaments as much by network as by commentator. NBC has some the US Open, the Player’s Championship, the Ryder Cup, and Johnny Miller. CBS has the Masters, the PGA, and Lanny Wadkins. ABC has the British Open and the Tour Championship. One of the reasons NBC has built such a strong golf portfolio the last 20+ years was their belief (rightfully so) that a strong former player and lead analyst like Miller could deliver significant interest in golf to a new audience. CBS is in a similar position with Wadkins, who does a good job with big events. ABC appeared to be in a similar position with Curtis Strange until his surprisingly quick departure earlier this year.

If ABC had not found a comparable announcer (i.e. multiple major winner with a strong personality and the ability to communicate it effectively to viewers), there was some risk that the British Open and other tournaments would have shopped around as contracts came up for renewal to get a stronger announcing team. Adding Nick Faldo to the booth provides a playing field of three relative equals, which should be great for golf and great for viewers. Competition is good and will force everyone to raise their games. In this case, having Nick in the booth for the British (a tournament he’s won 3 times) and the Tour Championship will allow ABC to consider building a stronger golf portfolio (contingent, of course, upon them locking him in to a long-term contract).

In short, with Nick around, ABC’s tournaments become “must see” TV and help the British and Tour Championship retain their prestige. In addition, newer events like the WGC events should thrive with Faldo’s extensive match play and Ryder Cup background. The WGC Match Play is the only true match play event on the PGA Tour. The other WGC events include members of both the Ryder and President’s Cup teams. Nick’s personal background with the match play format and the Ryder Cup teams will make these perfect events for him to commentate.

So there you have it – the reasoning behind the bold early prediction that Nick Faldo will become the premiere golf announcer in 2005, convince Paul Azinger he should play more and commentate less, and make ABC coverage of golf events “must see” TV in 2005. I can’t wait to watch it all unfold!