Guardian: Rolex Series Doesn't Bridge PGA Tour Gap

Ewan Murray doesn't deliver a Guardian-endorsed stamp of approval to the European Tour's new Rolex Series.

He questions whether the expensive funneling of cash to events that were already stars on the ET schedule is a wise tact given the number of events in dire need of an attention infusion.

Pelley remains quite the showman but close analysis of his work continues to raise queries. What this Rolex Series will actually provide, barring more money at the elite level of the Tour and enhanced media coverage which it is hoped will make golf more accessible, is a cause for debate. The gulf in resource to the PGA Tour remains vast.

One could make a decent case for the batch of events as boosted, with the French Open being certain to follow, being strong enough in any case. What is being done for the poorly attended, unattractive stuff at the lower end? Pelley has to be careful not to pander only to the players at the top of his organisation.

Murray also touches on something that has left me confused about the Series and many of these concepts created in various tour headquarters.

There is no overall narrative to knit the seven tournaments together and no combined prize at the end of them. The European Tour already has an order of merit, which it is stressed will retain key status. This, it is feared, could add confusion; the announcement of a second money list, lost in the Rolex melee, certainly should. Golf hasn’t really grasped the concept of simplicity being king.

It's bizarre that tournament formats floated to break free of 72-hole stroke play are often branded as too complicated, yet we keep getting all of these odd money lists, points races and other algorithmatic nightmares that interest no one.