Yesterday was a Novelty Game day and, since we were precisely 8 in number, I thought it would be a great opportunity to play Canadian Greensomes. This is a format which we regularly play on a Ryder Cup tour and is normally thoroughly enjoyed by all and sundry. It is played in 2-ball pairs and after each partner has played their own ball for the 1st and 2nd shots, they must choose one of the balls to play alternbatively for the rest of the hole. If Partner 1’s ball is chosen then Partner 2 must play the next shot and then Partner 1 and so on.
For harmony, it is important that partners trust each other not to play a perfectly positioned ball into the boondocks from where the other partner is left with an impossible recovery shot. Of this more anon.
Team selection was based on a draw designed to pair a lower handicap player with a higher handicap player, for which purpose I had prepared 2 sets of scraps of paper. each set numbered internally 1 to 4, and one set marked with an R (the numbers inside being written in red biro) and the other set marked with a B for blue biro – just to help me distribute them correctly. Regular readers of this column will not be surprised to hear that when one member was asked what number he had drawn, his reply was “I don’t know – it just marked with an R”. Hey ho – it is more and more clear that the coloured Lego bricks was the most foolproof (using the word advisedly) method of team creation m- I just need to dig around in the Lego box for a 4th colour to go with the red, white and blue sets that I already have.
Once we sorted out this misunderstanding, the teams were revealed to be MikeS with JohnS, RobM with me, PeterR with Alan, and MikeW with RobA. The first 4 named went off 1st and immediately rain into trouble when JohnS lost his tee shot into the woods on the left and MikeS very nearly lost his ball after his second shot which hit a tree and all but disappeared. The scraped 1 point while RobM and I scored a par for 3 points.
On the next hole, I lost my ball when my second shot hit the tree on the right which was disappointing for RobM who had to walk backwards down the fairway to play our 4th shot out of a bunker about 200 yards from the hole which is where I had hit it after Rob’s first 2 duffed shots. We then blobbed this hole while they scored a comfortable 2-pointer. These erratic outcomes became a way of life.
Playing as partners with a single ball on the green obviously provides the benefit that partners can and should consult each other on the likely direction that the putt will take – is it straight? curving left? or curving right?
On the 3rd hole, JohnS ignored MikeS’s advice that his long approach putt would go left and be downhill, and struck it on the basis that the putt was uphill and going right thereby leaving the ball about 8 feet past the pin in an unexpected place for Mike to putt from. Muttering words not to be repeated in polite company about his partner, Mike then rammed the putt straight into the hole.
Being a quick learner, the good Doctor then proceeded to leave many putts way short for the rest of the round. MikeS rose to the challenge and must have sunk at least 5 monster putts including one on the 9th. This was virtually next door to where I had to putt from following Mike’s putt. I said to him that I would be happy to learn the line from him and very unhappy if he sank it as it would add to my pressures. After he sank it he claimed not to have heard my request not to do so. Faced with any putt of less than 4 feet, Mike was inclined to miss.
So JohnS’s strategy was a great example to us all of how to play Canadian Greensomes. I can now offer an example of now not to. Most of us will have observed that when RobM is playing a tee-shot, the head of his club hovers closer and closer to the ball just like a bee inspecting a flower before it dives in for the nectar. Since he has been doing this for years, I rather thought that this was a well-grooved in pre-tee shot process for Rob and, on the 15th tee, I mentioned this bee analogy to him. Unfortunately it completely disrupted his game as he now focussed more on his hovering clubhead than he did on hitting the ball and having been striking the ball majestically miles down the fairway, my partner very nearly missed the ball totally on his remaining tee-shots – thank goodness I waited until the 15th before making my comment.
I do worry about how much it will cost Rob on psychologist fees to sort out his tee-shot again and rid himself of images of hovering bees.
I suspect that hooking my ball into the sandless bunker above the 17th green was Rob’s way of apparently innocently extracting a modicum of revenge. Despite the resultant blob, we managed to just creep past our immediate opposition with a 3-pointer on the 18th to their 2.
In the other group of 4, they seemed to have encountered problems knowing who should be playing whose ball which led to an unseemly discussion over lunch about whether or not MikeW and RobA should have been penalised for getting this wrong. The difference was that their score was either 14 or 16 and so, on the basis of no evidence at all and in the spirit of the harmony which seemed to have vanished, I suggested that their score should be 15.
As it happens this made no difference either way as the final scores were as follows:
RobM and Richard 17 + 14 = 31
MikeS and JohnS 17 + 13 = 30
MikeW and RobA 15 + 9 = 24
Peter and Alan 9 + 13 = 22
We were joined at lunch by Stuart, who had been practicing his putting, Bill who had been doing the same and was very happy with the result of his recent cataract operation, and PeteF who, much to his surprise, had been given a cardioversion the day before to tackle his AF while having a normal checkup. We so enjoyed the extensive chat about medical matters that we talked of nothing else and finally were left wondering what we used to talk about.
