Share This Page

Masters notebook: No tears for Snedeker

| Sunday, April 14, 2013, 9:15 p.m.

AUGUSTA, Ga. — There were no tears this time for Brandt Snedeker, who cried when he blew his shot at winning the Masters in 2008. But the lost opportunity Sunday still hurt.

Snedeker, who shared the lead going into the final round, did not perform well in the rainy conditions at Augusta National Golf Club. He fired a 3-over-par 75 to drop into a tie for sixth, five strokes out of the playoff won by Adam Scott over Angel Cabrera.

“Just frustrated and disappointed,” the 32-year-old Nashville native said. “I played pretty well and putted horrible and didn't make the adjustments you've got to make. The greens got really slow on the back nine ... and I did not make the adjustments you have to make.”

Snedeker fell out of the lead for good with bogeys on the fourth and fifth holes.

Amazing Cabrera

Coming into the Masters, Angel Cabrera had just two victories in 187 starts on the PGA Tour. But if you're going to win two, what is better than the 2007 U.S. Open at Oakmont and the 2009 Masters?

Cabrera, 43, began the week as the 269th-ranked player in the world. He was trying to become the second-oldest player to win the Masters and the 17th to win the green jacket at least twice.

Guan's historic week

At only 14 years old, the youngest player ever to compete in the Masters, China's Guan Tianlang achieved something that Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw, Phil Mickelson, Tiger Woods and Jay Sigel did.

Guan won low amateur honors after closing his historic first appearance at Augusta National with a 75 and a final score of 300. He placed 58th.

“The whole week is great for me,” he said. “I really enjoyed it. I'm having fun, and hopefully I play some good golf.”

Phil so-so

Phil Mickelson, a three-time Masters champion, carded 15 birdies for the week but managed just one round under par, wrapping up his week with a 73 and a total of 297.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.