Will Steve Williams win more majors than Tiger?

Each week, golf writer Bob Harig will take your questions and answer a few select ones on ESPN.com. Below are this week's selections.

There is a guy in the caddie Hall of Fame that Tiger knows, his name is Terry McNamara. He was Annika's longtime caddie. He would be the perfect fit for the job. -- Murray Miller

Harig: There are no shortage of good candidates for Tiger to choose from, if he has not done so already. And there's really no wrong decision here, either. Tiger needs to feel comfortable with the person he chooses to be his next caddie. And we all know that, ultimately, the final decisions, and all the shots, are made by the player.

Who will win more majors going forward -- Tiger Woods or Steve Williams? -- Rich Pisarra

Harig:It is certainly possible that Williams wins more majors as Adam Scott's caddie. The Aussie has long been expected to win the big tournaments and he finished second at the Masters. Scott has yet to win a major and perhaps Williams helps him do so. Not knowing the status of Woods' health makes future projections about him difficult. When fully healthy and given time to work on his game, the view here is that Tiger will be in position to win more majors.

I don't buy Phil's comment that after 11 or 13 (during the final round of the British Open), he felt he had to go after birdies, because he felt Darren Clarke wasn't making any mistakes and as a result, he suffered a few more bogeys coming in. First of all, Clarke still had 9 or 10 holes left to play and there is a lot that can happen in those holes. Secondly, this is a major and Clarke is going after his FIRST and perhaps only major, so the pressure had to be intense. If Phil would have parred in, Clarke would have felt a lot more pressure the last few holes and who knows what would have happened. He can't assume that Clarke was going to par in. I felt the media gave Phil a pass on that comment. There was no reason for Phil to change his strategy. -- Ken Greco

Harig: You make a good point. When Mickelson made bogey at the 11th hole by missing that short putt, he was just two strokes behind. True, Clarke had made few mistakes, but the difficulty of the course came in the closing holes. Had Phil parred in from that point, he would have shot 65 and posted the same score at which Clarke won. Obviously Clarke had the luxury of being able to bogey the final two holes because he had such a big lead but had Mickelson posted the number, things might have been much different.

Regarding your article about Clarke's Open win - you said he was exempt into the Open until he was 60. How did Tom Watson thus get in this year's event? I know he got in last year's Open by finishing second in 2009 but in the 2010 event he did not finish that high. -- Brian Baylis

Harig: The rule is that past champions are exempt into the championship through their 60th birthday. That meant that last year's Open at St. Andrews was to be Watson's last. But after he lost in a playoff to Stewart Cink at Turnberry in 2009, the R&A amended the rule to say that any past champion who finished in the top 10 got a five-year exemption. So this clearly applied to Watson, now 61, and would only be of necessity to a player who is in his late 50s. A top 10 at that stage gets you into five more Opens. Watson is exempt through the 2014 Open at Royal Liverpool.

After the Players, I questioned just how badly Tiger was injured. Based on his own comments the injuries were minor, there didn't seem to be reason to believe his poor nine-hole performance was due solely to his knee issues. Obviously, Tiger was more injured than most thought, but, once again, his secrecy allowed people to believe the worst. Had he been more forthright about the severity from the start, conspiracy theories wouldn't have blossomed so easily. Having said that, I agree with those who've said Tiger's injury provided an unintentional, but opportune cover for a golf swing in disarray. Even before the Players, Tiger had only shown brief glimpses of good form. Had his new "swing method" clicked more quickly, would we have already seen him back on the course? Maybe, maybe not. At least for me, it remains difficult to square Tiger's comments his injuries were minor with his extended time away from the game. Either the injuries were more severe than disclosed, or something else is preventing his return. Regardless, I don't blame Tiger for taking time away from the game. In fact, he probably should have done this last season. While I believe his current swing will not regain him the form he desires, I think the time away could serve him in much the same manner Sergio's sabbatical from the game did. -- Robbie Sherman

Harig: There is no question that a bit more transparency might save Woods some grief when it comes to second-guessing. Perhaps he doesn't care about that anyway and prefers to keep the information to a minimum. There is no question he was injured that day at the Players, and it's hard to believe he would mask his swing problems by using an injury as an excuse. The best way to correct the swing issues is to get out and play. From what we've been told, he hasn't been able to practice or play for much of the time since he withdrew from the Players Championship. The unfortunate thing for Woods is he did start to show some signs at the Masters. He had two very good days and was tied for the lead on the back nine on Sunday. If nothing else, that was a tournament from which he could have built on. And he hasn't been healthy enough to do it.