John Huggan: A Tiger by the tail

Published on Saturday 9 May 2009 20:02

RIGHT FROM the start, Hank Haney had a pretty good idea of just what he was getting himself into. He knew it would be, in so many ways, an impracticable and thankless job. He knew it would be a role where due and deserved credit was always going to be all but impossible to come by. He knew it would be a high-profile position like no other, one where he would be scrutinised and second-guessed like no-one else in his field. And he knows his eventual fate, like that of almost every football manager

The likelihood is that Haney will become surplus to requirements in what is euphemistically known as "Team Tiger." In the end, like so many others have been before – coach, caddy, psychologist, lawyer, agent – he will be fired.

Indeed, for Haney, things are even more challenging than for the so-often beleaguered footie boss. Teaching Tiger Woods, the man who may be the best golfer ever to don spikes, truly is the ultimate no-win situation, improving on near-perfection being the near-hopeless task it is. Add in the sizeable Woods ego, one that reportedly never takes too kindly to advice it doesn't like, and the potential thanklessness of Haney's role becomes stark indeed. Tiger takes all of the credit while accepting none of any blame going around.

If Haney's star pupil wins a tournament it's because, well, he's Tiger and that is simply the accepted way of things. Or, if the man himself is to be believed whenever he hoists yet another trophy skyward, he finally managed to "make a few putts". Otherwise, on those occasions when the world No.1 doesn't emerge victorious, reasons are inevitably sought. And not many of those reasons turn out to be, at least in the eyes of an increasingly vitriolic media pack, direct failings on the part of the man who has so far won 14 major championships. How could they be? Instead and invariably, it is his swing coach who is blamed for even a hint of failure.

Two factors are behind that easy assumption. Firstly, Woods himself does a very poor job of cutting off ill-informed speculation regarding his on-going relationship with his coach. Priding himself on saying virtually nothing of substance during his interminable press interviews, Tiger only adds to the never-ending feeding frenzy that forever surrounds his every move by not promptly putting the record straight.

As a consequence, Haney is often left exposed by his boss's verbal inactivity. He certainly was at Augusta, when Woods left the premises muttering of "band-aid" swings rather than more correctly identifying the shortest club in his bag as the root cause of his failure to win a 15th major. Even worse, it wasn't until last week's Quail Hollow Championship that Woods put an end to lingering rumours of a rift between himself and Haney. All of which left the coach as an easy and sitting target in the fortnight following the Masters. Memo to Tiger: do a better job of looking after your guy.

Then there is the collective technical ignorance of the golfing press – most can't tell what causes an 18-handicap slice never mind comment sensibly on the subtle nuances of the Woods action. Sadly, when it comes to swing mechanics, too many journalists really don't know what they are writing about (some even take a warped sense of "pride" in their lack of knowledge). Just last week, a supposedly respected member of the scribbling profession proclaimed that Woods had "no clue what he was doing with his swing" during the final round of last month's Masters. Another called Tiger's performance that day "humiliating".

Hang on though. Let's take a calmer, closer and less vitriolic look at that supposedly embarrassing final day. Shooting 68, four under par, Woods tied for sixth place, four shots – a whole one per round – from making the three-man play-off a foursome. Statistically, he was also tied for sixth in the "greens in regulation" category and was, wait for it, only 48th equal in putting.

In other words, Tiger failed to win because his putting was rubbish, not because of any consistent inability to hit the ball where he was aiming. And yet, mainly because of one spectacularly wayward tee-shot on the first hole (where he would eventually make par), that Woods did not win a fifth green jacket was apparently the sole responsibility of his full swing and so, by extension, Haney.

Am I alone in finding such obviously dodgy deductions more than a little ridiculous? (At this point, by way of full disclosure, I should acknowledge that Haney and I are friends and that I have helped him write three of his four instruction books, so I am not the most impartial observer). Am I alone in wondering why other coaches and players are never called upon to answer to the same sort of flawed reasoning or in wondering when the seemingly perennial inconsistencies of Adam Scott, Ernie Els and Phil Mickelson are going to reflect in similar fashion on their guru of choice, the notorious self-promoter who is Butch Harmon? (Not that those inevitable ups-and-downs in form necessarily mean Harmon's teaching is flawed. Which is the point, of course).

Let's take another closer look, this time at Woods' wild and wacky drive off Augusta National's first tee. Yes, it was an awful shot, one worthy of some ridicule. But, again, hang on a minute. Is this the first time Tiger has begun an important round of golf with a less than perfect shot? Hardly. The mind goes back to the following occasions:

1) The Open Championship at Royal St Georges, 2003. On the first hole of his first round, Tiger played three off the tee after losing his first ball.

2) The Ryder Cup at the K Club, 2006. Off the first tee on the first morning Woods pulled his long-iron tee-shot straight left into a water hazard.

3) The Open Championship at Carnoustie, 2007. Again using an iron off the first tee in the third round, Woods again hit a straight pull into a tributary of the Barry Burn far left of the opening fairway.

4) The US Open at Torrey Pines, 2008. Three times out of four, Woods began regulation play with a double bogey six, each time the result of a tee-shot into trouble.

5) The Masters at Augusta National, 2009. The aforementioned pull-hook off the first finished nearer the distant eighth fairway than it did its intended target.

Could it then be that – heaven forbid – Woods has a bit of a history when it comes to opening tee-shots? Could it be that the great man gets a wee bit nervous on the first tee? Or that all those flubs have more to do with a flaw in his hitherto unquestioned constitution than with his technique? Hey, just a thought.

Then there are those who blithely trot out the fact that, circa-2000, when Woods was a Harmon pupil, he was hitting around 70 per cent of the fairways he aimed at. Now he finds short grass from the tee maybe 58 per cent of the time. Such figures, while undeniably accurate, fail to take into account the equally indisputable fact that almost every leading player's driving accuracy has long been in decline.

Why is this? Well, it may just have something to do with the fact that today's fairways are an awful lot narrower than they were. Those in charge of course set-ups have taken a depressingly one-dimensional and unthinking approach – the growing of long grass – to combating the ever-increasing distances the best players hit golf balls.

And let's not forget that, overall, the driving accuracy statistics are notoriously misleading; they pay no heed to what side the player misses on, how far he misses by and what club he uses off the tee. Apart from all that, they are incredibly useful (!) tools for determining the competency or otherwise of players and coaches.

Over time, such a sustained level of hyperbole and lazy analysis has made Haney less inclined to talk publicly about the relationship he has with Woods and his swing. His appearances at tournaments are also becoming more sporadic – having missed Quail Hollow, he has been notably absent from the Players Championship concluding today. While both his reticence and his absences are understandable, each is a pity. Were Haney to speak out more, a few uninformed critics might just learn something. But, given the accumulated evidence so far, on that there are no guarantees.