
Tiger Woods must rapidly learn that his actions will be more instructive than his words. He said all the right things during Friday's 13-minute statement, but doubts remain as to whether Woods can live up to his promises.
His wife Elin Nordegren, who has had to withstand a torrent of allegations about the 34-year-old's infidelities, seems to harbour her own reservations. To quote Woods: "As Elin has said, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words. It will come in the form of my behaviour over time."
Woods' performance betrayed his failure to absorb this message. He spoke of respecting the game and his fellow players, and yet the timing of his announcement was, in the opinion of Ernie Els, "selfish".
Els' was not the sole voice of dissent; Sergio Garcia, among other professionals, agreed that "his timing was not the best". The world No. 1 was speaking in the middle of the World Match Play Championship, promoted by Accenture - the first of Woods' sponsors to drop him.
Whether or not it was an act that was designed to stifle interest in that tournament is a moot point when compared with the broader context. To steal the limelight in this way is impertinent, and does not show the respect to the fellow professionals that he professes to hold.
The manner of Woods' appearance - his first publicly in three months - implied a disrespectful self-interest. He was apologising on his own terms in front of a gathering of "friends, colleagues and close associates" that he knew would not criticise or ask difficult questions.
Because of this, it can only be seen as a half-apology. Having cultivated an image of a wholesome family man that he used to sell products, and as a successful golfer who attracted a legion of fans, he placed himself in the public eye - and yet his apologetic statement instead had the impression of a private gathering that Woods wanted to be able to control. Because of the choreographed nature of the setting, speculation will state that Woods' words were rehearsed and calculated.
The media deserved the chance to represent the public, to whom Woods has been ubiquitous in recent years, by posing questions. After all, if the American wants the press to cease their hounding of his family, would it not have been better to give them the solution to some of the queries to which they seek answers?
And so, what Woods said seems divorced from his actions. The success of his comeback will depend on to what extent he can realign these factors in future.

