Rory McIlroy may not get his first major win in eight years at St Andrews next week.
He may never win a major again. It doesn’t matter right now. The fact is, for a sport in crisis, he is the most important golfer in the world. He is the conscience of the game, the chain’s most outspoken and principled voice.
Not just because he opposes the tour of the Saudi rebels, because many players do. But because he does it from the highest echelon of the sport and without flinching.
Rory McIlroy isn’t afraid to voice his opinion on the controversial LIV Golf Series
He never misses a question, never misses an opportunity. He doesn’t care that he has friends on the Saudi circuit, he doesn’t care that he went through titanic battles with them as Ryder Cup teammates.
McIlroy calls it like he sees it. And how he sees it is almost always spot on.
This week, four of the rebellious LIV Golf Series players won a legal battle to play in this week’s Scottish Open.
Among them was Ian Poulter, McIlroy’s four-ball Ryder Cup partner. The couple goes back decades. McIlroy didn’t hesitate. “I think if you’ve gone to play another tour, go and play this tour,” he said.
“You left all your peers behind to make money, which is fine, but hang in there. Don’t try to come back. This whole having your cake and eating it is where the resentment stems from.
He is also right. After taking Saudi Arabia’s money, Poulter and some other rebels now want to return to the European and PGA Tours and collect from those pots as well. Not fair. If the attraction of the tour in Saudi Arabia is the great prizes, then why should Poulter or Branden Grace compete for what is on offer in Scotland this weekend?
The Northern Ireland star has not given up on friends taking part in the Saudi-backed Rebel Tour, which has attracted major stars such as Ian Poulter, pictured at the Scottish Open on Thursday
This isn’t the first time McIlroy has been a spokesperson for golf as we know it.
When Matthew Wolfe, previously hailed as one of the circuit’s most promising young players, joined the Rebels, it was the absolute epitome of the malaise McIlroy had already identified.
Last month, he drew a distinction between Rebel players approaching careers on the senior tour and his contemporaries.
“I believe my best days are still ahead of me and I think theirs are too,” McIlroy said. “So here you feel like you’re taking the easy way out. Nothing is guaranteed. You have to show up and play well to win it.
Well, you do on the McIlroy Tour. Wolff, just 21 years old, was ranked in the top 20 in the world, becoming the only golfer in 132 years to finish in the top five at his first two majors.
Many players have controversially left existing tours to participate in the LIV Golf Series
He has since fallen to No. 78 in the world. So instead of fighting back, he took the easy way out: the guaranteed spoils of Saudi Arabia.
McIlroy swapped the European Tour for the PGA, but when he did, he made life more difficult.
There’s no comparison between trying to go up against the best on some of the best courses in the world in the United States and getting fewer seats and a field, but huge money for looks, no matter what your card says.
This is going to get nasty. Scottish Open organizers were due to field a quartet of rebels, but split them into two groups of two – the rest of the field goes out in threes – at graveyard times.
And while McIlroy’s criticisms are invariably measured, others are less careful.
American golfer Billy Horschel called the rebels “liars and hypocrites.” United States Ryder Cup captain Zach Johnson has already said there will be no Rebels selected for his 2023 team.
McIlroy’s stance on the Rebel Tour has been backed by greats including Tiger Woods
There are few sports like golf with its history and traditions and that is what has been passed down, for money. When Tiger Woods was asked about breaking away, he was unequivocal. “I believe in legacies,” he said. “I believe in big championships, big events, comparisons to historical figures.”
This is also McIlroy’s point of view. What is golf if it’s not taking place at places like St. Andrews, if you’re not against the best, unless it carries a sentence for the ages? And what is any sport unless the rewards are justly earned?
That’s why on the Old Course next week, McIlroy will be the most worthy winner. But even if it isn’t, there isn’t a better one for the game.
When Sergio Garcia whined at one of his last Tour events, it was McIlroy who shot him down. “We’re finally getting paid what we deserve,” Garcia said. “Sergio, we don’t deserve anything,” McIlroy replied. “We’re playing golf.”
Why Bazball doesn’t bother Aussies
There are precedents for what England players do in Test cricket.
Australia’s Victor Trumper changed the scoring rate at the turn of the last century, but Michael Slater’s decision to treat the first over as the 50th marked the start of the modern scoring revolution.
So when Steve Smith is heard gently mocking Baseball, it may be because Australia has seen it before, with a much better team than the one England currently possess.
Likewise, they faced many of the players who are at the heart of this rock and roll cricket – Jonny Bairstow, Joe Root, even Ben Stokes – and emerged victorious.
Try it against Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood, see how far you go, was the message.
And until England do, although this summer promises to be exciting and the transformation breathtaking given what we witnessed in the West Indies, as much as we like it, the jury remains out.
The likes of Jonny Bairstow (right) and Joe Root (left) embraced the new attacking ‘Bazball’ well, scoring crucial runs in Test wins over New Zealand and India for England
Tuchel is the best thing about Chelsea. If he doesn’t want Ronaldo, listen to him
The signing of Raheem Sterling is a very good start for Todd Boyley and his new regime at Chelsea. He’s a good player, a good goalscorer and immediately improves Chelsea’s big weakness last season: strength.
Cristiano Ronaldo would too. Even in a weak Manchester United side that failed to reach the Champions League, he scored 24 goals in 38 games. With this record, he would be Chelsea’s 9th top scorer.
Indeed, if Romelu Lukaku turned at the speed of Ronaldo last season, he would have scored close to 30 goals and Chelsea would have had no problem.
Yet Ronaldo should be Thomas Tuchel’s call-up. We can all see what attracts Boehly to him. This also attracted Manchester United. But where did it lead them? With Ronaldo not joining their pre-season tour, there will be financial penalties associated with his absence.
Manager Thomas Tuchel must make the final decision on whether Chelsea should sign Cristiano Ronaldo
That’s the problem with buying a player as much for his commercial influence as for his football prowess. United get no value from Ronaldo either way. He couldn’t get them into the Champions League without the right support and now United could be hit financially if they don’t make it to the Far East.
Owners Manchester City were also interested in him last summer but backed out when it became clear Pep Guardiola had reservations. Guardiola was unsure how Ronaldo would fit into his game plan and felt his arrival would undermine the message of putting the team first. If Guardiola asks Kevin de Bruyne to play right-back or come out at half-time, he is doing what is best for the team. Guardiola felt it would be difficult to do so while committing to one man like Ronaldo.
Tuchel’s philosophy is a bit different. Played with Callum Hudson-Odoi at full back. He expects Timo Werner to be tireless in his press. When Lukaku lets him down, he abandons him, regardless of his status and reputation.
So it should be Tuchel’s decision for Ronaldo as well. And if he needs convincing – Guardiola never said no outright, he just raised a lot of questions – then Boelli should step down.
Tuchel is the best thing in Chelsea right now. He knows what his team needs. Listen to him. This has been United’s fault for far too long.
Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo has interest from new Chelsea owner Todd Boilley
The question that shows the FA care more about the suits than the stars
Beth Meade, England’s match-winner against Austria on Wednesday, says the players discussed the change from an all-white armband because of the concerns of those who have periods.
There is debate, in an age of some athletes bleeding freely during marathons and other events, whether this should even be a problem. And yet it is, and in this case it is easily resolved.
England don’t play all white. The colors of the national team are white, blue, white. All white is a construct of FIFA and UEFA’s marketing department because they think colored blocks look better on TV.
The FA, ever desperate to impress in the hope of a crumb being thrown from the table, slavishly accepted the white armband in tournaments without thinking of the complications for women. Still, if England reverted to their actual colors – worn since 1882 – the shorts would be navy and the tension would be reduced. It depends on who the FA are most keen to impress: their players or the men in suits.
FIFA and UEFA rules have forced England to play with an all-white kit in recent years, having traditionally competed in navy shorts for the previous few decades
I don’t hear much from Tracey Crouch (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) about governance and football as the government and the political party she is a member of have descended into a shambolic, duplicitous mess.
Never forget, it is the people who will decide who runs the game and the strongest argument against a government…
Add Comment