Tiger: "He sticks almost slavishly to his strategy of conservatism at all costs"

John Huggan analyzes Tiger's conservative strategy of just five drivers through three rounds and comes away impressed but also points out why it might not work with Sunday's breeze.

And this week is similar. So far, the longest club in his bag has made only five appearances, as the 14-time major champion has plotted his way around a sadly soft and almost becalmed Royal Lytham.

James Lawton in the Independent was less impressed.

It was not the scoring, which saw Scott denied an eagle by the barest margin and the Tiger always giving himself too much to do to glean a birdie, but the profound difference in their strategies.

Really, it was a gulf. Scott slugged a drive with immense power and control. The Tiger once more elected to go with an iron. Scott powered his second shot beyond the pin. Woods was well short of the green. Even after the years of crisis, the convulsions in his life and the disruptions brought by injury, it did seem like another small defeat among many.

Oliver Brown's Telegraph story was headlined, "Tiger Woods' refusal to gamble leaves him struggling to reel in leader Adam Scott."

He sticks almost slavishly to his strategy of conservatism at all costs, refusing to swap his long irons for the driver as he resisted flirtation with Lytham’s 206 bunkers, but the approach succeeded only in increasing the deficit to Scott, the more enterprising Australian.

Why did he not take a few gambles? Why would he not try to intimidate Scott with his power-hitting? The questions were left hanging in the air on Saturday night, answerable only by Woods’s apparent assumption that Scott, still a flaky performer in the type of stiff winds forecast on Sunday, could yet falter. For a man five shots off the pace, though, that seems a bold supposition.