Matt Ward:
Fear not, I am not one to hold back my thoughts because I may upset others...
Unless it's my mother's cooking, of course.
Yes, I would see both courses being pretty equal, although I haven't seen all of the land the Fingal course will be constructed upon. But from the half or so I have seen, yes. In fact, the best hole on the entire property could well be the Fingal 16th, a do-or-die short par four that leaps across ridge to ridge. The others I've seen looked pretty impressive just in the dirt. I remember thinking as I wandered the 6th, which rolls across some dramatically tumbling land, that it may well be one of the best holes in Australia right now as is.
I guess there is probably some truth to saying there may be a little pressure on Tom and team to 'live up' to the Gunnamatta course, and then possibly criticism if it doesn't match up - but they are over two different pieces of land, so they will be fairly different courses. Some will undoubtedly prefer one over the other, but then we do in most instances in life where we have a choice, and not always for rational reasons.
Who would you pick to design the Fingal, though? None of the Australian designers have lived up to the promise of the land on the Peninsula, although I believe Norman's Moonah course at The National is quite good. Maybe someone who has played it can fill us in. However, I have never met anyone who thinks it is a world-class course, and make no mistake, the Gunnamatta course is, and the Fingal will be.
The Fingal land is much choppier, and the layout tends to run a little more across the hills, as opposed to along or through the valleys the Gunnamatta course occupies, so it will have its own identity, although there will obviously be some similarity in bunkering and design ethos. But don't Bandon Trails and Pacific Dunes share similar design ethos? Obviously different land, but surely there are some familiarities, although clearly with individual traits.
Reactions? I think they will be a mixed bag, actually. The Gunnamatta course is spectacular, with drives from high tees, and second shots to 3,9,10 and 13 in particular, that are terrific. But it is also a very subtle and deceptive course, and maybe some people will 'miss' that, and think holes like 5, which has a blind or semi-blind second shot over a bunkered ridge to a small, subtle, front-to-back sloping green, are okay, but strange, or nothing special, whereas I really like it - it's a super 'sleeper'-type hole.
Maybe they will dismiss it because there are a lot of drives from high tees,so it's 'one dimensional', and the holes are predominantly shaped from left-to-right, so therefore it won't score many points on 'design balance', either.
Maybe people won't like that there are four short par fours - five, really, if you count the 377 metre 7th, which runs at least a couple of clubs downhill, so that also means there' s three short fours in a row, too.
I think there will be a smidgeon of criticism about the par threes, too. Melbourne is blessed with any number of world class par threes, and I can imagine people thinking the set here are perhaps a little similar, and not quite what they should be, given the land. The 6th is spectacular, and great, the 16th fine and tough, the 11th has the best green, and the 4th is a tough 197 metres and seemingly always into a 2 club wind. They work well as a set, but are, again, subtle and tricky. It may just be because par threes, particularly , rely on the natural setting, and aside from the 6th, there needs to be a lot of vegetation work done to enhance the holes. The 4th, particularly, will really 'pick up' in this area, and I guess that is the bottom line. It will take a few years for all the native vegetation being planted to grow in. At the momet, the site is a little raw, despite being in terrific condition for one so young.