Lee Westwood is a bottler and will never win a biggy

First topic message reminder :

Well on Sunday at Wentworth this was further underlined. The good thing is he is no longer at number one and hopefully for the good of Golf he will not return there unless (and this is an unlikely event) he wins either a Major or a WGC event.

I cannot believe some people think that Westwood actually deserved being at number one! How can a player who is known for buckling under pressure and a player who hasn’t won a Golf tournament that is considered a big event deserve to be number one????

Westwood's bottle job on Sunday was amazing. Its ok to play well and putt the birdies when the pressure if off but as soon as the pressure was on he folded. At 16 he three putted on the green. At 17 he couldn’t get up and down in two from the back of the hole and at 18 he misses a four footer which had no movement on it. Then at the extra hole, Donald plays a superb 3rd shot and Westwood Poopie himself and plays it into the water. It was laughable and cringe worthy at the same time and Ken Brown thought it was unlucky!!! Ken, it was a bad shot. He bottled it.

It’s not the first time Westwood has bottled a big event when leading. Last year he threw away the Masters as soon as Mickleson applied the pressure and in 2008 he should of won the US Open but again messed up as soon as Tiger and Rocco put some pressure on.

In my opinion Luke Donald deserves to be number one even though he hasn’t yet won a major. He has won a WGC event and a Major title is imminent. I think he will definatley win one of the remaining three majors this year.

I can't believe they can have total control on how much spin they impart. I think Donald for example knew that if he pitched to the right of the pin and bit beyond it should screw back towards the pin, but it can't be an exact science. I actually believe that Lee took the flag on and showed courage because he knew Donald would probably hole the putt. If he hit it 30 feet right or 30 feet short I would accept that he chickened out a little, but he went for the flag.How is that choking?

What really disappointed me was that both Luke and Lee made too many mistakes coming down the strech. Not what you would have expected (=hoped) for the world's no.1 and 2.

in my opinion, the only shot westwood 'bottled' if we must use that term was the tee shot in the play off. he was very fortunate not to be chipping out sideways from the bundai - then presumably launching a 3wood in hope of getting it close in 3. probably worth saying that westy was presumably taking on a more ambitious line with the 3-wood, which might have given him the option to go in two depending on donald's 2nd. anyhow, at the end of the day donald played the hole as beautifully as he possibly could [even if that was in a reserved manner] and deserved to win. i thought it was a great lesson in playing to your strength rather than blindly chasing.

Of course, the added irony of Sunday is that if Westy had won Donald would be the bottler.

indeed,

the thing i can't understand is why its always the ones who slip away at the end who are the 'bottlers' and not the ones who never feature because they've been doing scientific research on different species of long grass for the first 2 days and don't make it to the weekend. surely you can bottle it well before the final few holes, and if so, surely its the ones with the most bottle who get there and are in with a chance on any given sunday evening.

Robbo I take it that you are not a golfer then.

I thought we had left this sort of sad comment behind with 606.

Ah well, it was good while it lasted

Robbo,
where does this rudey poo come from,Order of Merit winner, Race to Dubai winner over 30 european tour wins,, i wish people like you would think before you keyboard such nonsense, are you related to LJ by any chance, remember Westwood was world number 4 then slumped all the way to 454 and came back to world number 1, this shows true determanation and guts, which no bottler has.

Cheer up chaps; the occasional WUM is bound to seep through the net every once in a while. It bears as much significance as far as I'm concerned to picking a tiny peice of shell out of my fried egg. Robbo is entitled to his opinion; misguided, irrational, uneducated it might be, but an opinion nontheless. Might just want to check your parachute though next time you freefall into the next forum discussion

McLaren wrote:PS can I confirm that on the golf section people are free to post whatever golf articles they want. It just seems the mods have stepped out of line once again and decided that they now determine what people post. Oh dear where is this site going? I miss 606 already.

mac - would you like to expand on that? I don't see any threads or posts that have been deleted or a "mod deciding something is inappropriate"

Where exactly have we stepped out of line?

JDandfries wrote:Davie, I know you have this huge dislike for the term bottler..... not sure why, it can and has been used very aplty in some cases (not here though)

There are many bottlers in sport, it maybe a slightly derogotary word, but it is accurate for Westwood IMO - not here though, he was a touch unlucky, however, his putt at 18 in normal time was pathetic!

I don't know where you get the impression I have a "huge dislike" for the term "bottler". As it happens I thought it was unfair in this instance (as you yourself indicate)

I too happen to think it can apply in some cases (monty and sergio in golf spring to mind, Murray and Henman in tennis is another fair example)

I'm with Davie on this one. I don't like 'bottler' it's not just that it's negative and derogatory, to me it's a far too easy and lazy label to pin on someone. There are a multitude of reasons why some people win and others do not and it's a far too simplistic explanation for someone failing to win. It's too easy to simply shrug 'fortuna favorem bravem' and be dismissive. Lady Luck plays a huge part in the final round of any golf tournament - or sporting event for that matter. I do think however (and this doesn't come down to 'bottle') that most of the greats had superb course management which was juxtaposed to great effect with shot execution. They just knew when to attack and when to defend. That is pure strategy, not 'bottle'.

Robbo_wont_be_champ again wrote: Lee Westwood is a bottler and will never win a biggy

He won the inaugural Dubai Championship, which is as big, if not bigger than the PGA. So case dismissed. He already has won a biggy by your definition of the word.

That's not to say he doesn't have previous for struggling to close out big events. Though I'd dispute both your examples, especially last year's Masters which was won by Mickelson, not lost by Westwood. In fact there was a better example two majors earlier. But the vast majority of golfers have had problems with pressure finishes. Mickelson himself and Els are two who immediately spring to mind.

Davie wrote:

JDandfries wrote:Davie, I know you have this huge dislike for the term bottler..... not sure why, it can and has been used very aplty in some cases (not here though)

There are many bottlers in sport, it maybe a slightly derogotary word, but it is accurate for Westwood IMO - not here though, he was a touch unlucky, however, his putt at 18 in normal time was pathetic!

I don't know where you get the impression I have a "huge dislike" for the term "bottler". As it happens I thought it was unfair in this instance (as you yourself indicate)

I too happen to think it can apply in some cases (monty and sergio in golf spring to mind, Murray and Henman in tennis is another fair example)

Murray perhaps - although he's played top players in his GS finals, he also played well below his best in each of them. Not sure about Henman though, he lost one or two GS semis that he should have won, and several more where he was never really expected to win. That happens, if he wasn't British he wouldn't be thought of as a spectacular bottler.

Well, to round this one off I hope we can all agree that both Donald and Westwood haven't won much as they "should" have. Both are still great players nevertheless.

Robbo_wont_be_champ again wrote:SmitherJones, you are a muppet. If you have nothing better to do than comment on my grammer instead of replying to the post then go away.

This isnt a English lesson you sad sad man.

I don't think there's any doubt who most will view as the muppet here.

Robbo, if you're so confident in your assertion that Westwood is a bottler why don't you tweet him and offer to take him on over 18 holes, your choice of format and have a wee side bet with him....like your house!! So....will you do it? or will you BOTTLE IT??

Robbo, if you actually got off your ample backside and went to watch a golf tournament you'd actually notice far more poor shots executed by professionals than you actually see on TV where the director tends to cherry pick the most noteworthy shots. This is perhaps a reason you think that Westwood choked.

Just as you see netted forehands, stray passes, clumsy challenges, bumper to bumper contact or a 400 metre runner going off to quickly in other sports you'll also see such errors of shot execution or poor strategy in a game of golf. Do those things make other sportsmen bottlers or are bad shots, challenges, tactics etc just part of the game? Obviously they are.

The simple fact is that no sportsman who occupies a position as lofty as Westwood (or Murray for that matter) can ever be called a bottler, because for every time they have made an error which gets highlighted by cowardly keyboard psychologists who know nothing about golf like yourself there are countless examples of times when they have come back from the brink of defeat or produced a moment of magic, determination, skill and outright bravery which has changed the direction of a match or tournament.
Bad shots are a certainty in every ball sport. They are inevitable as no participant is a robot. Every golfer hits bad shots, so by you're judgement all golfers are therefore bottlers.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, and certainly if you can't back it up then don't say anything at all.
WUM.

super_realist wrote:Robbo, if you actually got off your ample backside and went to watch a golf tournament you'd actually notice far more poor shots executed by professionals than you actually see on TV where the director tends to cherry pick the most noteworthy shots. This is perhaps a reason you think that Westwood choked.

Just as you see netted forehands, stray passes, clumsy challenges, bumper to bumper contact or a 400 metre runner going off to quickly in other sports you'll also see such errors of shot execution or poor strategy in a game of golf. Do those things make other sportsmen bottlers or are bad shots, challenges, tactics etc just part of the game? Obviously they are.

The simple fact is that no sportsman who occupies a position as lofty as Westwood (or Murray for that matter) can ever be called a bottler, because for every time they have made an error which gets highlighted by cowardly keyboard psychologists who know nothing about golf like yourself there are countless examples of times when they have come back from the brink of defeat or produced a moment of magic, determination, skill and outright bravery which has changed the direction of a match or tournament.
Bad shots are a certainty in every ball sport. They are inevitable as no participant is a robot. Every golfer hits bad shots, so by you're judgement all golfers are therefore bottlers.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, and certainly if you can't back it up then don't say anything at all.
WUM.

What a top post!

Robbo_wont_be_champ_again

Congratulations. What an respectful, insightful post full of nuance. By the way, thanks for the analysis; you've obviously played the new layout at Wentworth's West Course plenty of times so I'll certainly bear in mind any advice if I ever play there as, coming from you, it must be worth listening to. I look forward to your next contribution with barely suppressed anticipation.

Maverick wrote:Rossa my point was that it wasn't a bottle and to be fair there was nothing wrong with LW's shot many players have stated the poor architecture of the green for the very thing that happened to LW

Can we get over this supposed poor architecture of the West Course's 18th? It was a round 4, 18th green flag on the Tour's flagship event. What do people expect? I don't hear people complaining about the 'poor design' of the 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th etc at Augusta National. LW pulled his pitch, pure and simple.

drive4show wrote:the top boys SHOULD be able to control how much spin they put on the ball. Whether or not they do is a different matter of course.

Sorry D4S, not a poke at you as loads are saying it but what is it with this idea that people should be able to "control the spin"? Sorry, but that's up there with a lot of other nonsense out there. The only way you might reasonably do this is hitting, say, an easy 9 instead of a firm wedge but even then you can't "control the spin". Far better if LW had kept it out right a bit like I'm sure he meant to do.

Mclaren wrote:PS can I confirm that on the golf section people are free to post whatever golf articles they want. It just seems the mods have stepped out of line once again and decided that they now determine what people post. Oh dear where is this site going? I miss 606 already.

What is it with you? Feel free to return to BBCs 606 site. Ah....

super_realist wrote:Robbo, if you actually got off your ample backside and went to watch a golf tournament you'd actually notice far more poor shots executed by professionals than you actually see on TV where the director tends to cherry pick the most noteworthy shots. This is perhaps a reason you think that Westwood choked.

Just as you see netted forehands, stray passes, clumsy challenges, bumper to bumper contact or a 400 metre runner going off to quickly in other sports you'll also see such errors of shot execution or poor strategy in a game of golf. Do those things make other sportsmen bottlers or are bad shots, challenges, tactics etc just part of the game? Obviously they are.

The simple fact is that no sportsman who occupies a position as lofty as Westwood (or Murray for that matter) can ever be called a bottler, because for every time they have made an error which gets highlighted by cowardly keyboard psychologists who know nothing about golf like yourself there are countless examples of times when they have come back from the brink of defeat or produced a moment of magic, determination, skill and outright bravery which has changed the direction of a match or tournament.
Bad shots are a certainty in every ball sport. They are inevitable as no participant is a robot. Every golfer hits bad shots, so by you're judgement all golfers are therefore bottlers.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, and certainly if you can't back it up then don't say anything at all.
WUM.

Way to go! Let's see the wonderfully erudite comeback to that .

SR

I don't think you can tell anyone who they can and can't label a bottler.... and saying they are at the top of their game isn't really a valid reason for banning the term bottler.


Greg Norman was one of the best, if not the best, golfer around at one point, but he was still a massive bottler; Andy Murray is one of teh best Tennisers around, but he is a huge bottler too!

For me Westwood didnt bottle on Sunday, but he has in the past, and IMO doesnt have it in him (mentaly) to win a major, he just seems too happy coming second for my likeing!

Now a few years ago, I would have said that about Donald too, but he seems to have found something, and out of any of the 'Brits' he will be the next one (probably only one) to win a major.

Davie wrote:

McLaren wrote:PS can I confirm that on the golf section people are free to post whatever golf articles they want. It just seems the mods have stepped out of line once again and decided that they now determine what people post. Oh dear where is this site going? I miss 606 already.

mac - would you like to expand on that? I don't see any threads or posts that have been deleted or a "mod deciding something is inappropriate"

Where exactly have we stepped out of line?

Yes if you like.

Davie wrote:Hey ho, here we go. 3 hours after BBC closes and we get our first user of the "bottler" tag.

Robbo - I suggest you read around the forum for a while (including site rules and etiquette) before jumping in with both feet.

We don't want to stifle debate here but it would do you some good to judge the tone of debate around here first.

There may be *some* merit in what you are saying but there is zero merit in the way you are saying it - seems like you are trying to stir the pot somewhat and we won't tolerate that for too long.

Enjoy your stay here but please don't try to incite inflammatory threads

Edit: while I've been typing that, I see you are starting to throw insults around already ("grammer" indeed)

Take a warning straight away. Won't be tolerated

As the above shows a mod jumped in and warned him of the tone, which is odd as I tried to start a discussion on tone and no one was interested. The tone that developed naturally is on the WUM side of things, what with LJ's threads aimed at provoking me. Which I dont mind and to his credit they produced some good debate. As this thread may have done, but a mod warning a poster of tone before thread has even taken off seems a little intrusive to me.

I would hate to think new posters, which we desperately need, are put of by unwelcoming comments the first time they post.

I'm not telling anyone who they can and cannot call a bottler, I'm merely saying that calling someone a bottler simply because they lost or throwing the term in at inappropriate moments is ridiculous.
Robbo clearly used the word in a provacative way, rather than in the correct context, so he deserves to be taken to task.

Westwood simply didn't bottle the playoff as you agree, he simply played a bad shot, as all sportsmen do every time they play.
There is no such thing as a flawless performance in any sport.
I agree that you could call Norman a bottler, although I would define being a bottler as capitulation, and Westwood certainly did not capitulate. He was beaten by someone who played a better play off hole than he did, ditto Murray in his 3 grand slam finals.
There is a big difference between not performing well, and capitulation (or bottling in the common parlance)

Sometimes you just get beaten, but in no way does it mean either players are bottlers or have bottled it they happen to lose.

I've no problem with people using the term bottler, but it's best if they can back up why they think so, and use it in the correct context.
Robbo clearly didn't.

mac - I'll repeat that despite what Robbo said, I didn't delete any of his posts, therefore as far as I'm concerned he (and you) have been allowed to post what you want.

I stepped in because I thought Robbo has jumped in feet first and in a style that was generally disliked at the old place. I asked him to temper his style, but at no time suggested he would have posts removed (that was until he started calling other members "sad" and "muppets".

As far as threads provoking you are concerned, I took them to be good natured and judging by your own replies to them I assumed you took them to be good natured too. If you felt differently and that they were more than just good natured jibes then you should've contacted me or one of the other admins at the time.

I think you'll find we've all been pretty welcoming to new members. This is the first time (since the first week of v2) that we've had someone wade in with a pretty inflammatory article. It was left to stand but a warning was issued that inflammatory posts such as that weren't particularly welcomed here but if he wanted to discuss the topic in more reasoned terms he was very welcome

If westwood had played anyone other than Donald I doubt he would have ended up in the water. It was only because Donald is in such scintillating short game form that it was almost a given he would get inside 10 feet from 100 or so yards. Westwood would certainly have assumed this as a given on the tee.

Is it bottling to try and match a player in the strongest part of his game or in fact brave. Bottling it would have been to play well right of the pin and settling for a 30 foot putt. Westwood failed to execute but did not take the bottlers option. He went over the pin knowing full well he could get wet. Does failing to execute count as bottling?

Davie

No issue at all with LJ's threads, as I said they produced great debate.

No Westwood did not bottle it on Sunday, (not in the playoff anyway - his putt on the 72 for a 4 was laughable) he hit a bad 3rd shot (plus a bad tee shot).

One thing I would ask for clarification on is the 18th at Wentworth, I have played Wentworth before, a few times, but not since the change to the 18th.

Can you get up in two?? If not why not?

For me, Westwoods weakest part of his game is his putting, then his pitching, and for Donald those are his best attributes.

So I wondered why Westwood didnt go for Driver off the tee and attempt to get a 4 (at worst) another way.

navyblueshorts wrote:Robbo_wont_be_champ_again

Congratulations. What an respectful, insightful post full of nuance. By the way, thanks for the analysis; you've obviously played the new layout at Wentworth's West Course plenty of times so I'll certainly bear in mind any advice if I ever play there as, coming from you, it must be worth listening to. I look forward to your next contribution with barely suppressed anticipation.

Maverick wrote:Rossa my point was that it wasn't a bottle and to be fair there was nothing wrong with LW's shot many players have stated the poor architecture of the green for the very thing that happened to LW

Can we get over this supposed poor architecture of the West Course's 18th? It was a round 4, 18th green flag on the Tour's flagship event. What do people expect? I don't hear people complaining about the 'poor design' of the 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th etc at Augusta National. LW pulled his pitch, pure and simple.

drive4show wrote:the top boys SHOULD be able to control how much spin they put on the ball. Whether or not they do is a different matter of course.

Sorry D4S, not a poke at you as loads are saying it but what is it with this idea that people should be able to "control the spin"? Sorry, but that's up there with a lot of other nonsense out there. The only way you might reasonably do this is hitting, say, an easy 9 instead of a firm wedge but even then you can't "control the spin". Far better if LW had kept it out right a bit like I'm sure he meant to do.

Mclaren wrote:PS can I confirm that on the golf section people are free to post whatever golf articles they want. It just seems the mods have stepped out of line once again and decided that they now determine what people post. Oh dear where is this site going? I miss 606 already.

What is it with you? Feel free to return to BBCs 606 site. Ah....

super_realist wrote:Robbo, if you actually got off your ample backside and went to watch a golf tournament you'd actually notice far more poor shots executed by professionals than you actually see on TV where the director tends to cherry pick the most noteworthy shots. This is perhaps a reason you think that Westwood choked.

Just as you see netted forehands, stray passes, clumsy challenges, bumper to bumper contact or a 400 metre runner going off to quickly in other sports you'll also see such errors of shot execution or poor strategy in a game of golf. Do those things make other sportsmen bottlers or are bad shots, challenges, tactics etc just part of the game? Obviously they are.

The simple fact is that no sportsman who occupies a position as lofty as Westwood (or Murray for that matter) can ever be called a bottler, because for every time they have made an error which gets highlighted by cowardly keyboard psychologists who know nothing about golf like yourself there are countless examples of times when they have come back from the brink of defeat or produced a moment of magic, determination, skill and outright bravery which has changed the direction of a match or tournament.
Bad shots are a certainty in every ball sport. They are inevitable as no participant is a robot. Every golfer hits bad shots, so by you're judgement all golfers are therefore bottlers.

If you don't have anything intelligent to say, and certainly if you can't back it up then don't say anything at all.
WUM.

Way to go! Let's see the wonderfully erudite comeback to that .

You've had a pop at so many people there that I doubt this server has enough storage to cope with all the replies

Why reply to these poor unfortunates, who get their kicks out of winding people up, and no nothing about our sport.

In fact you are all doing your best to encourage more of them to post on here, it will soon be as bad as the old 606.

Think this will be my last post for some time to come

The silence from Robbo today has been deafening, anyone would think he'd bottled it!!!

JAS wrote:The silence from Robbo today has been deafening, anyone would think he'd bottled it!!!

Yeah, a complete choker if ever there was one.

oldparwin wrote:Why reply to these poor unfortunates, who get their kicks out of winding people up, and no nothing about our sport.

In fact you are all doing your best to encourage more of them to post on here, it will soon be as bad as the old 606.

Think this will be my last post for some time to come

i agree with the sentiment, opw, but am sure that the mods on v2 won't tolerate this sort of posting (well, apart from LJ but we know what's being done and why there). i'd say we've got the mods in our pocket here but it's more that the mods want the same thing as the rest of us. a bit of banter is fine, there's good discussion and if you use the odd profanity or amusingly disguised profanity, that's ok.

the old 606 was governed by a set of rules which allowed idiotic wind up posts (you should have read the tennis board!) but very often lacked any common sense or balance. but the beeb has to work to a different set of rules and i understand that.

Graeme - so far we've only really had one such post - and I tolerated it. In fact, it has turned into quite a good thread from the reliable posters which mad the original article quite worthwhile.

I don't want to get into the state of just deleting posts such as this unless they are abusive or defamatory. WE (regular posters of which I count myself one as well as an admin) make these threads worthy or not. If a post such as this turns into just a slanging match then it will be removed. While it generates decent debate - as this one did - then they will be left alone.

I'd like to correct you on one point. You don't have "the mods in your pocket" - we know what is wrong and what is right. Flagrant WUMming will be treated severely - but we let the debate go. We are lucky that the rest of the admins and mods let me moderate this golf section in the way I see fit. Other sections would see posts dealt with swiftly but although I was a bit of a latecomer in the old BBC site, I know most of the frequent posters and know the style - know what is banter and what isn't.

Try posting some of the stuff you get here on the boxing or tennis forums and it wouldn't touch the floor before it was removed.

Davie wrote:

JDandfries wrote:Davie, I know you have this huge dislike for the term bottler..... not sure why, it can and has been used very aplty in some cases (not here though)

There are many bottlers in sport, it maybe a slightly derogotary word, but it is accurate for Westwood IMO - not here though, he was a touch unlucky, however, his putt at 18 in normal time was pathetic!

I don't know where you get the impression I have a "huge dislike" for the term "bottler". As it happens I thought it was unfair in this instance (as you yourself indicate)

I too happen to think it can apply in some cases (monty and sergio in golf spring to mind, Murray and Henman in tennis is another fair example)

You haven't done much to back up your statement that Henman and Murray are bottlers though Davie?

Hibbz wrote:You haven't done much to back up your statement that Henman and Murray are bottlers though Davie?

Both reached number 3 or 4 in the world, in a sport where realistically only the top half dozen had a chance to win one of the slams (yes I know there were exceptions, but is was basically true) - unlike golf where routinely anyone of the top 30 or 40 have a good chance to win a major (with the same exceptions that someone outside that bracket could sometimes come through)

Yet both Murray and Henmen had years where they had the best possible chance of their career to win a slam - and threw it away for one reason or another.

One could in fact argue that Britain's best chance of a tennis slam in recent years was the much maligned Greg Rusedski at the US open. Although never as highly ranked as Murray or Henman, he actually had a much better chance as an underdog to beat .. umm not sure and can't be bothered to look it up ... but was it Rafter?)

Rusedski never seemed to have the natural talent that either Henman or Murray had/have .. so could never be described as a bottler or choker. He made the most of his ability. The same cannot be said of Tiger Tim or the miserable Jock

hmmm, I'm not convinced quite yet that Murray can be described as a bottler. In ANY other era he would have won slams by now. Nadal & Federer are once in a generation talents and latter can probably safely can be classed as the greatest of all time. Djokovic to be fair has raised his game to a point where he can realistically compete with those 2, Murray is still on that path and I think it's premature to say he'll never get there or that he will not get there due to mental resolve frailties. Just my opinion, I think we can be too quick to put people down when they don't immediately meet supposed expectations. For the record I also believe that Westwood could very well bag a major or 2 before he's done

drive4show wrote:You've had a pop at so many people there that I doubt this server has enough storage to cope with all the replies

I aim to please .


Off topic I know but I wouldn't class Murray as a 'bottler' yet. He's got a far stronger game than Henman ever had on all surfaces and as JAS says, Nadal and The Fed would be considered greats in any era. Henman was only ever going to win at Wimbledon and he had Sampras and, latterly, Ferderer to worry about there - no contest.

The problem I have with the phrase 'bottler' is it's invariably used by people who never have, do not and never will compete for anything at such a stratified level as the one's they're ridiculing. I also have a problem with the term itself (and 'choking' for that matter too) as it always comes across in a derogatory way. If someone were stating that they thought nerves played a big part in someone blowing a 4th round lead a la Norman vs. Faldo perhaps I think most would accept that anyone in such a situation would be nervous and it's no disgrace if they have a negative effect on the way you play, in whatever sport. Anyone who says they weren't nervous in a situation like that is probably lying anyway.

As an aside, the 'choker' tag I get, but can someone explain the etymology of 'bottler'??

One suggestion is that "bottle" comes from Cockney rhyming slag bottle and glass for "class"

So having bottle meant to have class

Bottler is of course a shortening of losing one's bottle - so losing class

Davie wrote:One suggestion is that "bottle" comes from Cockney rhyming slag bottle and glass for "class"

So having bottle meant to have class

Bottler is of course a shortening of losing one's bottle - so losing class

Interesting. Any advance on that idea?

Amusingly, I thought Norman's description and fronting up when he lost to Faldo at Augusta that time was pretty classy. Does that mean he has a lot of bottle then?

navyblueshorts wrote:

Davie wrote:One suggestion is that "bottle" comes from Cockney rhyming slag bottle and glass for "class"

So having bottle meant to have class

Bottler is of course a shortening of losing one's bottle - so losing class

Interesting. Any advance on that idea?

Amusingly, I thought Norman's description and fronting up when he lost to Faldo at Augusta that time was pretty classy. Does that mean he has a lot of bottle then?

All Aussies have lots of bottles. Only they call them stubbies. So Greg Norman has a stubbie.

LondonJonnyO wrote:All Aussies have lots of bottles. Only they call them stubbies. So Greg Norman has a stubbie.

Poor Greg!

Yep I'm in wholehearted agreement with NBS here, those who jump so quickly onto the bottler/choker bandwagon are almost invariably talentless inadequates who would choke themselves in a pressure situation. They hate that fact and seek to mask it by trying to project it on to someone infinitely more talented than themselves as a way of trying to make themselves feel better.

There....and no I don't have a degree in psychology but I'm sure Robbo will confirm I've got it spot on. If he has the bottle to come back to his own WUM thread.

Davie wrote:

Hibbz wrote:You haven't done much to back up your statement that Henman and Murray are bottlers though Davie?

Both reached number 3 or 4 in the world, in a sport where realistically only the top half dozen had a chance to win one of the slams (yes I know there were exceptions, but is was basically true) - unlike golf where routinely anyone of the top 30 or 40 have a good chance to win a major (with the same exceptions that someone outside that bracket could sometimes come through)

Yet both Murray and Henmen had years where they had the best possible chance of their career to win a slam - and threw it away for one reason or another.

One could in fact argue that Britain's best chance of a tennis slam in recent years was the much maligned Greg Rusedski at the US open. Although never as highly ranked as Murray or Henman, he actually had a much better chance as an underdog to beat .. umm not sure and can't be bothered to look it up ... but was it Rafter?)

Rusedski never seemed to have the natural talent that either Henman or Murray had/have .. so could never be described as a bottler or choker. He made the most of his ability. The same cannot be said of Tiger Tim or the miserable Jock

Thank you for your response Davie but I'm going to have to disagree for the following reasons.

Firstly as you say Henman did reach No 4 in the world but it was only briefly and he generally hovered between about 6-10 depending on whether it was post or pre Wimbledon. His general seeding at Wimbledon I think was about 8 so in fact by reaching the last four you could argue he was punching above his ranking.

Secondly when reaching the semis he was nearly always beaten by higher ranked and better players (Sampras most often) which isn't synonymous with "bottling it" really is it? The only time when he really looked like winning and didn't was when the rain halted his momentum and gave Goran the chance to re-group.

He also reached a semi at the French and was well beaten by a clay court specialist and I think a semi at the US but like you I can't be bothered to look it up. Much like Westwood he won many tournaments worldwide and as you say had his chances in the "biggies" and just as you heavily chastised the original poster for his lazy tagging of Westwood as a bottler I feel duty bound to chastise you for doing the same to Henman.

I could probably make a similar chase for Murray but as you say he's a "miserable jock" and I don't care enough to think about it. Besides the debate should maybe either consigned to the tennis boards or ended.

I wouldn't say he's miserable, he's just unfortunate to have a monotone voice.

His humour is actually quite dry but barely disguised so I'm surprised you haven't noticed it. Infinitely preferable to the pointless interview by numbers with predictable stock answers of Woods or the cliche ridden and thick as mince interviews of Gerrard and Rooney.
Along with Mark Cavendish, Westwood and Donald they are Britains top mainstream sportsmen by a country mile.

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't say he's miserable, he's just unfortunate to have a monotone voice.

His humour is actually quite dry but barely disguised so I'm surprised you haven't noticed it. Infinitely preferable to the pointless interview by numbers with predictable stock answers of Woods or the cliche ridden and thick as mince interviews of Gerrard and Rooney.
Along with Mark Cavendish, Westwood and Donald they are Britains top mainstream sportsmen by a country mile.

His language and behaviour is pretty similar to Rooney's right now but you're right I would rather listen to him than any football player.

Hibbz wrote:

super_realist wrote:I wouldn't say he's miserable, he's just unfortunate to have a monotone voice.

His humour is actually quite dry but barely disguised so I'm surprised you haven't noticed it. Infinitely preferable to the pointless interview by numbers with predictable stock answers of Woods or the cliche ridden and thick as mince interviews of Gerrard and Rooney.
Along with Mark Cavendish, Westwood and Donald they are Britains top mainstream sportsmen by a country mile.

His language and behaviour is pretty similar to Rooney's right now but you're right I would rather listen to him than any football player.

yeah definitely...... at the end of the day, so would I

Whats all this got to do with golf anyway.

Come on Hibs, he's far more articulate, gracious and classy than Rooney, for a start he quite often takes the pi$$ out of the reporter without them even noticing while you can tell he isn't just regurgitating the transparent media training as supplied to the mentally challenged Rooney or Gerrard, he's actually providing a considered, honest and reasoned response which is usually failry insightful and analytical. Something a footballer never does.

He's not terribly charismatic, granted, but he's an awful lot better than 99% of all football players in media when it's clear he isn't comfortable answering predictable and nauseating question.

super_realist wrote:he's far more articulate, gracious and classy than Rooney

I think that is what is called "damning with faint praise" 8)

Probably Davie, to be honest Rooney makes Steven Gerrard look like Stephen Hawking in the intelligence standings so it probably is a bit of a given to say that.

super_realist wrote:Come on Hibs, he's far more articulate, gracious and classy than Rooney, for a start he quite often takes the pi$$ out of the reporter without them even noticing while you can tell he isn't just regurgitating the transparent media training as supplied to the mentally challenged Rooney or Gerrard, he's actually providing a considered, honest and reasoned response which is usually failry insightful and analytical. Something a footballer never does.

He's not terribly charismatic, granted, but he's an awful lot better than 99% of all football players in media when it's clear he isn't comfortable in front of the media.

I think you've missed my dry humour super_realist, at the point of typing he was swearing at the top of his voice having dropped his serve and subsequently the second set in his semi final versus Nadal. Poor old Auntie Beeb had to apologise.

But yes I agree entirely with you he is a very good interview even if the interviewer doesn't realise it he's playing with them, where as I can't think of a single English footballer with anything worth saying judged on their interviews alone. They speak a language which can only be described as "Footballer".

I was only quoting Davie who called him miserable. I think dour is probably more like it. I'm still not really a fan of him though.

Fair enough, he's not everyones cup of tea. Considering the dearth of sporting talent we have in this country though, he's worth supporting as he's one of the few people we have capable of winning anything worthwhile.