Mike,
Sergio was his player consultant, if that means anything. As far as how "Aussie" this course is, I can't comment on that as I have never been to Australia. But I walked holes 1-4, 7-9, 14-18 yesterday, and I wasn't very impressed. Aesthetically, the edges of the bunkers and greens look like someone gave a rabid chimp a machete and asked them to make lines in the sod for fun. They really went overboard in their attempt to be more natural. I do like how deep the bunkers are, and about 2/3's of them were well positioned in my opinion. The biggest consequence of the bunker depth and aesthetic so far seem to be a conditioning issue more than an architectural one; lots of sod separating in cracks due to the slopes and shape of the bunker walls.
Most--if not all--of the green complexes are substantially raised above grade. I would liked to have seen much more variety in that respect. The internal contouring does decent job of matching the external contouring of the green surrounds and fairways. I was impressed with some of the creative pin placements available. The double green at 2 and 7 is a desperate attempt at creativity. It honestly has no business being a double green.
In the end the course will do exactly what it was designed to do. Which is a good thing for investors, the Tour, and those that wish to pay to play it. It's definitely a cart course based on many of the ultra long transitions. It is hard, requires long and straight tee shots, and aerial approaches to the raised greens. Putting could be fun though. Maybe I'm a architecture snob, I just wasn't all that impressed. And all the folks in the gallery telling me how great it was was even more depressing. Especially considering I was wearing my Old Macdonald hat that garnered ZERO questions.
