On Tuesday, the PGA Tour released the finalists for the 2010 Player of the Year honors. While I agree with four-of-the-five nominees, there is one I don’t think should be on the list. The five players listed have never been named as the Player of the Year, all because of some dude named Tiger, who has won the award ten times in the last 13 years. So while all five of these players are great, there is one player who deserves it most.
And the nominees are:
Ernie Els– Two wins in 2010, the CA Championship and Arnold Palmer Invitational. Leader in the regular season Fed Ex Cup points.
Jim Furyk– Three wins, including the Fed Ex Cup Champion. Won The Tour Championship along with the Verizon and Transitions. Second on the money list, but with three wins, that is pretty easy.
Dustin Johnson– Two victories in 2010, Pebble Beach Pro Am and BMW Championship. Should have won the PGA Championship, but a “sand trap” issue got in the way, and Johnson finished tied for 5th. Also had a meltdown in the third round of the U.S. Open, but finished with a tie for 8th.
Matt Kuchar– Finished first in money and had the lowest scoring average on Tour. Won The Barclays along with two top-10 finishes in the Majors.
Phil Mickelson– Won The Masters. Top-5 finish at the U.S. Open. Five other top-1o finishes throughout the year. But other than that, really didn’t do much after that Masters win.
And the winner is: Matt Kuchar
Kuchar had a great year and played solid all year. Probably played the most consistent golf all year next to Jim Furyk. The player that shouldn’t even be on the list is Phil Mickelson. I mean he had a ho-hum year and other than The Masters win didn’t do much. I think the PGA Tour just needed a bigger name on the list. While the other four players are well deserving, Kuchar should win based on the money title and lowest scoring average.
What do you think?