Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Niall C on September 30, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
-
Hands up, I'm in the camp that says Captains don't really matter very much as long as they don't get in the way (ie. Faldo). I'm also a huge fan of Watson. With that in mind it seems to me that the reaction to the US loss and the blaming of Watson is totally misplaced. Europe won because they played better over the three days.
Much has been made of Watson dropping Mickelson when he wasn't playing too well. Surely that would have been seen as an inspired decision had Mickelsons team mates come up with a win. The guy is in his mid-40's and frankly looked jaded. In that respect reputation has nothing to do with it. Instead should Watson not take huge credit for backing the rookies who were possibly the stars of the competition ? It all seems very strange to me.
Contrast that with McGinley who is getting all manner of praise heaped on him. Imagine if Europe had lost, what would the press have said about continuing to play Poulter when he was clearly in no form. What about the comment from McDowell when he finished playing Speith and said he had felt at the start of the game that he was less than match sharp as he had only played foursomes to that point where he had hit very few putts and very few iron shots. Of course by the end, all the European players were asked by the media what they thought of McGinley and to a man they said he was great (even Gallagher) which just shows what a win does for you ;)
Niall
-
He picked Webb Simpson with his last pick, after a late night text begging from Webb, and then plays him all of two matches. Captains picks should be an opportunity to improve your team, not filler asked to play the first morning round and then sit a day and a half until singles. Really, why pick guys who use long putters when they obviously are short on character.
This is a strange article: http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jason-sobel/simpson-talked-texted-way-ryder-cup-team/
Note: I didn't watch the Ryder Cup since I was on a golf trip myself of unspeakably epic origins.
-
Note: I didn't watch the Ryder Cup since I was on a golf trip myself of unspeakably epic origins.
This time around, you really didn't miss much, if suspense about the outcome is something to appeals to you.
Curious about something: Did Watson need to make his captain's picks as early as he did? Surely, had he waited, Horschel and Kirk would have been on the team instead of Simpson and (choose one of the others).
-
When the relative talent is equivalent, such as in the NFL, who wins? Most of the time it is the better organization. Possible for bad organizations to win but that is the exception. Take it one higher than Watson, perhaps Ted Bishop?
Who would you rather hang out with? The most interesting man in the world, Harrington, McGinnely etc or
Tom Watson, Andy North, Ray Floyd, Steve Stricker..... All interesting people, but hang out with.....
Give me the euros please........
Phil has a point, not that we need Azinger back.
A little modern business management please........ Or modern military leadership, they are the same thing.
-
This article lets you look into the mind of Watson the coach. Simpson hits a poor drive on the first hole after being introduced wrongly. Even at that it found the fairway. Instead of instilling confidence in an obviously talented Major winner, Watson benches him until singles. The entire team sees and feels this vibe. It's must have felt like being back in high school.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/29/5209084/webb-simpson-reflects-on-disappointing.html#.VCr6SyjH0qY
This excerpt says it all:
“I noticed he said Bubba Watson,” Simpson said with a laugh, “And I glanced over at Bubba like, ‘Well, maybe you’re supposed to hit first then.’ ”
Using a fairway wood, Simpson sent his tee shot, the first of the Ryder Cup, sky high. When it landed, less than 200 yards away, it barely had reached the 429-yard, par-4 hole’s fairway.
“He just popped it up,” Watson told the News & Observer. “I was a little shocked when I first saw it, but I guess that happens sometimes.”
After a morning four-ball loss to Europe’s Henrik Stenson and Justin Rose, Simpson, 29, was one of four Americans left out of Friday afternoon’s foursomes competition. On Saturday, the Wake Forest alum didn’t play at all.
“I didn’t think Webb played very well Friday, and I thought we had other guys in better position to get points for us,” U.S. captain Tom Watson said.
Simpson was excluded from both the Saturday morning four-ball and afternoon foursome rounds, and he didn’t have a shot at redemption until Sunday’s singles.
-
Very few great players in any sport have made great coaches.
-
When the relative talent is equivalent, such as in the NFL, who wins? Most of the time it the better organizations. Possible for bad organizations to win but that is the exception. Take it one higher than Watson, perhaps Ted Bishop?
Who would you rather hang out with? The most interesting man in the world, Harrington, McGinnely etc or
Tom Watson, Andy North, Ray Floyd, Steve Stricker..... All interesting people, but hang out with.....
Give me the euros please........
Phil has a point, not that we need Azinger back.
A little modern business management please........ Or modern military leadership, they are the same thing.
Brad,
The problem is, the relative talent is not equal. The US was clearly the inferior team on talent, desire and, ability to do what what your captain asks you to do for the good of the team, agree or disagree. The Americans don't know how to accept and embrace ANY role they are asked to play by the captain who has to sit somebody out. The whining by the likes of Phil & even an in-form Reed undermined their captain and, by default, their team during the competition. Simply by making it an issue, these guys are basically telling their teammates on the course they don't trust them.
This is all very disappointing to say the least...but not surprising considering how spoiled American PGA Touring pros are and, likely have been their entire lives.
Cheers
-
Note: I didn't watch the Ryder Cup since I was on a golf trip myself of unspeakably epic origins.
This time around, you really didn't miss much, if suspense about the outcome is something to appeals to you.
Curious about something: Did Watson need to make his captain's picks as early as he did? Surely, had he waited, Horschel and Kirk would have been on the team instead of Simpson and (choose one of the others).
Very good point, Dan. Why not wait until 5-10 days before kickoff to see who is really hot and wants to be there. Does a football (or baseball or basketball or hockey or soccer or rugby or cricket or boules) coach choose his starting lineup (with no substitutes allowed) 1-3 months before the game begins?
The more I think about this, the more bizarre it seems.....
-
This is the text that Simpson sent Watson asking to be picked. Even he mentioned better options. The extra "really's" should have been a red flag.
“I thought, I've got nothing to lose,” Simpson recounted on Thursday, “So I texted him, something like: ‘I know it's a really tough decision for you, I know Chris [Kirk] just won and I know Bill [Haas] is playing good, and you even have other options than that. But I really, really, really want to be on the team and I really want to represent the United States. I love this format, and I'll do anything to be on the team.’”
-
George Allen of Rams and Redskins eventually wore out his welcome. Harbaugh with the 49ers seems to be doing the same thing. Go to management, ie PGA of America for the true source of problem and ultimately the solutions.
In this episode of golf, the Ryder Cup, a relevant leader is more important than a coach, other than that I totally agree with you Jim.
-
Interesting points here:
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/9/30/6871439/phil-mickelson-tom-watson-ryder-cup-captain-2014
-
The lack of a clear plan or consistency.
I'm in the camp that says Captains don't really matter very much as long as they don't get in the way
The problem with Watson was he got completely in the way because of his inconsistencies. He told the players that the ones that played well in the morning would play in the afternoon on Friday. Didn't happen.
Didn't think thru playing Phil and Keegan on Friday afternoon, then had to hold them out for their strongest format on Saturday morning and couldn't play them in the event they struggle with in the afternoon.
Letting Rickie and Jimmy Walker play every session even though they were told they would rest at least once.
Switching up Kuchar's partners last minute...Zach Johnson and Kuchar never even played one practice round together.
Sure, the players hit the shots, but it seems like Watson did everything in his power to make them the least comfortable they could possibly be all weekend.
-
I'm not of the opinion that the captain really matters that much. The players play and the captains are just there. The fact of the matter is that the Euro teams of late have been birdie machines whereas the American players are more steady par makers which doesn't bode well for match play
That being said, I think there is something to be said for McGinley's approach. I think you play better and more relaxed when you're comfortable with your playing partners and McGinley made sure of it:
http://www.golf.com/ap-news/mcginley-had-control-european-tour-tee-times?sct=hp1
-
This NY Times article provides a good perspective on the situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/30/sports/us-ryder-cup-team-needs-to-adapt-to-the-times.html?ref=golf&_r=0
-
When the relative talent is equivalent, such as in the NFL, who wins? Most of the time it the better organizations. Possible for bad organizations to win but that is the exception. Take it one higher than Watson, perhaps Ted Bishop?
Who would you rather hang out with? The most interesting man in the world, Harrington, McGinnely etc or
Tom Watson, Andy North, Ray Floyd, Steve Stricker..... All interesting people, but hang out with.....
Give me the euros please........
Phil has a point, not that we need Azinger back.
A little modern business management please........ Or modern military leadership, they are the same thing.
Brad,
The problem is, the relative talent is not equal. The US was clearly the inferior team on talent, desire and, ability to do what what your captain asks you to do for the good of the team, agree or disagree. The Americans don't know how to accept and embrace ANY role they are asked to play by the captain who has to sit somebody out. The whining by the likes of Phil & even an in-form Reed undermined their captain and, by default, their team during the competition. Simply by making it an issue, these guys are basically telling their teammates on the course they don't trust them.
This is all very disappointing to say the least...but not surprising considering how spoiled American PGA Touring pros are and, likely have been their entire lives.
Cheers
The average world ranking of Americans was better than euros. All of them are pampered spoiled pros.
Watson was wrong choice for wrong time. He would work great with tiger, not so with the average American pga player.
-
The average world ranking of Americans was better than euros. All of them are pampered spoiled pros.
Watson was wrong choice for wrong time. He would work great with tiger, not so with the average American pga player.
> That's one measure...which dates back two years if I am not mistaken.
> The Euros never seem to act like spoiled brats?
> That's your opinion...and Phil's apparently.
> Again, your opinion.
And how many of these fellas do you actually know to say you'd rather "hang" with one or the other. I am actually in agreement with you on choosing engaging personalities. But, without knowing any personally, who's to say?
And really, what does modern military strategy have to do with Ryder Cup Captaincy?!?! ::) I guess drone attacks might have improved our chances some! ;)
-
Welcome back Niall. I too am a fan of Watson but...
Lets look at the memoirs and records of recent Euro Captains.
A best seller over here was "Into the Bear Pit" by Mark James. I reccomend this book as How NOT to do it. It being any organised team activity. There are a hilarious couple of pages where he rips Faldo's character apart and finishes by saying Faldo's worst characteristic is his negativity and lack of sensitivity. Mark James was a losing Captain as was Faldo.
Torrance lived for the Ryder Cup, he notes that as a player he always had his best seasons when the Cup was being played. He set the model for
-Preparation of every detail including
- taking public speaking lessons
- gettng help with his speeches.
- having a no of vice captains who would then take their turn to step upto the maker.
Torrance was happy to take a backseat this time and support McGuinley as a vice Captain. I can't see an American who's prepared to do that.
Are the results a coincidence? I don't think so.
Some other strange thoughts I'm reading on these threads.
Some gave the US team no chance as their oponents were so obvioulsy superiorior glofers. However as the match started the average World Ranking was clearly in the US favour. After that it's the vagaries of matchplay, in a series of two horse races.
Anyone who thinks the US team was weaker because of the absense of Tiger Woods has not read the same Hank Haney book I have or looked at his record. There is no Team in Tiger's eye.
Has anyone got the stats on how the teams fare in the relative formats over the years? Yes it was a foursomes session that made all the difference this time, but I don't believe it always has been.
For my part I observed the interviews after the matches on the first two days. On camera the Euor's were listening to what their partner said and he would repay that by reffering to his partner by name. As in "Sergio and I didn't play our best today, we can do better tomorrow." By marked contrast the American who wasn't speaking, was almost to a man angled away from his partner and looking for friends or in one case examining his nails! None mentioned their partner by name.
Phil was in the room. Interesting to hear what he says and why he felt the need to blurt it out the moment the action stopped. No one has commented on how knackered he looked coming down the stretch on Friday PM. Perhaps Watson was P_______ at this professional athletes fitness level?
For those who don't like all the cheering turn the sound down. To me it remains the most compelling TV golf bar none.
-
Leaving aside his management style (i.e., gruff old man) that seemed to rub some players the wrong way, some of his pairings weren't well thought out and then he was quick to abandon them if they didn't work out immediately.
For example, take Phil and Keegan--they were an established team, they struggled on Fri morning and won, then struggled badly on Fri afternoon and lost. He basically picked Bradley to play with Phil. Why give up on them when they were 1-1? Given the course setup and their known wildness off the tee, it would have made far more sense to have sat them out of the Fri foursomes and then put them in for Sat fourballs.
He picked Simpson to play with Watson. He broke them up after one loss. Contrast that with what McGinley did with Westwood and Donaldson. They were beaten easily in the Fri fourballs but he stuck with them for the foursomes. They rallied, won their foursomes match and then went on to win another.
I wouldn't have had a problem with sitting Spieth-Reed for foursomes if it were planned, but that was inconsistent with Watson's reactive style that was very sensitive to performance in the last session.
I'm in the camp that thinks Captains can matter--both in making teams for specific sessions and in creating an atmosphere conducive to success. Watson was pretty bad on both counts. Still no excuse for Mickelson's actions.
-
Tim, I agree with your comments except for Phil. I am not a Phil fan but I think he's getting a bum rap here. He spoke perhaps without thinking, but he was correct. Just think of all the pleasure Phil has given us in the pursuit of this debate.
The Azinger analogy of when in a foxhole, you only care about the person in the foxhole with you applys here.
-
Brad,
It's far from high treason or anything, but Phil did not speak without thinking--he knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted. Phil is always thinking and positioning himself as the smartest guy in the room. I confess I don't really care for the guy but his golf and comments are entertaining. Sometimes, though, it's not all about entertainment. Maybe he's an ass, but Watson, and any captain, deserves respect.
The best part of the live press conference was Mahan's reaction to Phil--he adjusts his jacket about five times, checks his watch, checks his nails, rolls his eyes, and can't believe Phil is still talking. Priceless.
-
Golf is an individual sport. This idea of team chemistry is overblown, in my opinion. You need reasonably compatible partners in alternate shot, but outside of that, the personalities shouldn't matter. What should matter is individual pride, competitiveness, and confidence.
The majority of the current US Ryder Cup team is made up of Ryder Cup losers. They need to purge the ranks and start over. Give me a team of Ryder Cup rookies over these veterans 10 times out of 10.
-
Maybe I'm a moron but I don't understand the controversy. PM was asked a question and answered it honestly. Would it have been better for him to give a "false" answer because Watson was sitting a few yards from him or does he deserve credit for speaking his mind in front of Watson and not behind his back.
No, he doesn't deserve any credit for delivering a cheap shot at his captain during a closing press conference. The better option would have been to have spoken directly with Watson, preferably before the matches when it could have done some good. Mickelson admitted he didn't do that.
-
Uh, he sat Reed & Spieth after they won 5&4 Friday morning, thereby killing any possible momentum we had going into Friday afternoon. The resulting 1-3 performance in the afternoon gave all the momentum to the Euros, which we never got back. Who knows- they go out and win again, we come into Saturday all square and maybe it's an entirely different ballgame...His inability to take one for the team with the media only compounded his incompetence in the pairings...
-
But what are you going to do to address your 2nd paragraph: give the Captain 12 picks? The 9 guys that make the team earned their way onto the team.....
I agree, it's a problem. They made the team fair and square. I'm just saying that there isn't a whole lot Watson could have done (even though I think he made a few mistakes). He was saddled with a core group of guys who have loads of experience losing the Ryder Cup. He also has guys like Mickelson, Mahan and Furyk who, in recent years, have hit an inordinate amount of awful shots under extreme pressure. And this is going up against a group of guys like Sergio and Poulter who seem to save their most clutch performances for the Ryder Cup.
-
Ryder Cup captains can have a positive effect on their teams, but that might not translate into any extra wins. A captain's primary responsibility is to not make any obvious blunders that help the other side, and that's where Watson failed. Benching Spieth and Reed on Friday afternoon was simply inexplicable, as was playing the 44-year-old Mickelson in Friday afternoon foursomes when he was driving the ball all over Perthshire in his morning match. Then not putting Mickelson and Bradley out Saturday morning in four ball -- the format in which they'd won the day before -- was another obvious blunder, as was failing to even notify Mickelson in person. Watson's other mistake was picking Webb Simpson, who simply wasn't on form this summer and had no business being selected.
Watson was inconsistent, non-communicative and exhibited poor judgment on several important decisions. With another captain, the U.S. probably would have lost by just 15-13.
-
This is the text that Simpson sent Watson asking to be picked. Even he mentioned better options. The extra "really's" should have been a red flag.
“I thought, I've got nothing to lose,” Simpson recounted on Thursday, “So I texted him, something like: ‘I know it's a really tough decision for you, I know Chris [Kirk] just won and I know Bill [Haas] is playing good, and you even have other options than that. But I really, really, really want to be on the team and I really want to represent the United States. I love this format, and I'll do anything to be on the team.’”
I think he received the same text from Michael Jordan but had the good sense to hit the "trash" button.
this is my favorite post of 2014.
-
But what are you going to do to address your 2nd paragraph: give the Captain 12 picks? The 9 guys that make the team earned their way onto the team.....
I agree, it's a problem. They made the team fair and square. I'm just saying that there isn't a whole lot Watson could have done (even though I think he made a few mistakes). He was saddled with a core group of guys who have loads of experience losing the Ryder Cup. He also has guys like Mickelson, Mahan and Furyk who, in recent years, have hit an inordinate amount of awful shots under extreme pressure. And this is going up against a group of guys like Sergio and Poulter who seem to save their most clutch performances for the Ryder Cup.
Dan, why do you think the same guys that lose at the Ryder cup win at the Presidents Cup with the same format?
-
Note: I didn't watch the Ryder Cup since I was on a golf trip myself of unspeakably epic origins.
This time around, you really didn't miss much, if suspense about the outcome is something to appeals to you.
Curious about something: Did Watson need to make his captain's picks as early as he did? Surely, had he waited, Horschel and Kirk would have been on the team instead of Simpson and (choose one of the others).
Very good point, Dan. Why not wait until 5-10 days before kickoff to see who is really hot and wants to be there. Does a football (or baseball or basketball or hockey or soccer or rugby or cricket or boules) coach choose his starting lineup (with no substitutes allowed) 1-3 months before the game begins?
The more I think about this, the more bizarre it seems.....
I agree that I wish they could finish out the Tour Championship and then pick the last three players, but I guess the clothing manufacturer needs enough time to fit all the guys on the team and have the clothes ready for the matches. Priorities!!
-
But what are you going to do to address your 2nd paragraph: give the Captain 12 picks? The 9 guys that make the team earned their way onto the team.....
I agree, it's a problem. They made the team fair and square. I'm just saying that there isn't a whole lot Watson could have done (even though I think he made a few mistakes). He was saddled with a core group of guys who have loads of experience losing the Ryder Cup. He also has guys like Mickelson, Mahan and Furyk who, in recent years, have hit an inordinate amount of awful shots under extreme pressure. And this is going up against a group of guys like Sergio and Poulter who seem to save their most clutch performances for the Ryder Cup.
Dan, why do you think the same guys that lose at the Ryder cup win at the Presidents Cup with the same format?
Interesting thought experiment. The two most obvious answers are:
1) President's Cup ROW teams are weaker than US teams;
2) Ryder Cup is pressure, the President's Cup is fun, ergo US chokes under pressure.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
-
Here's the best article I've seen so far:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/ryder-cup/2014/paul-mcginley-tom-watson-shane-ryan
-
But what are you going to do to address your 2nd paragraph: give the Captain 12 picks? The 9 guys that make the team earned their way onto the team.....
I agree, it's a problem. They made the team fair and square. I'm just saying that there isn't a whole lot Watson could have done (even though I think he made a few mistakes). He was saddled with a core group of guys who have loads of experience losing the Ryder Cup. He also has guys like Mickelson, Mahan and Furyk who, in recent years, have hit an inordinate amount of awful shots under extreme pressure. And this is going up against a group of guys like Sergio and Poulter who seem to save their most clutch performances for the Ryder Cup.
Dan, why do you think the same guys that lose at the Ryder cup win at the Presidents Cup with the same format?
Interesting thought experiment. The two most obvious answers are:
1) President's Cup ROW teams are weaker than US teams;
2) Ryder Cup is pressure, the President's Cup is fun, ergo US chokes under pressure.
I'd add that the Europeans care far more about the Ryder Cup than the ROW players care about the President's Cup. Their passion is quite visible--tears of joy from Sergio, partying like it's 1999 when they win. Maybe it's overhyped, but I think it's pretty cool to see that sort of emotion in golf.
The ROW team used to be very strong with Els, Singh, Goosen and Norman and Price going further back. Now, it's Scott, Day, Schwartzel, Oosthuizen and not much after that. They've fallen off quite a bit.
-
I thought Watson came across like a doddering old fool, especially when held in comparison to the masterful McGinley. I found it particularly interesting that McGinley had his foursomes pairings sorted out for more than a year and that he had these teams paired together (with the help of the Euro PGA Tour) for the first two rounds of many tour events in the leadup to the Ryder Cup. The 7 to 1 whitewashing is no surprise to me in light of this kind of detail.
-
I don't mean to change the direction of the tread, but I had an observation.
In all of the Ryder Cups that I have watched, it seems that the team that wins makes putts (pretty obvious), especially 10-15 footers. I do not know if the stats are kept, but I would like to see the difference between the teams. Watching this week, the Euros just made more putts. We are talking about 24 of the best players in the world, and the margin of difference is razor thin. Yes, certain players or teams may have bad days or someone may get very hot (Rory on Sunday), and those points aren't going to be close. All the matches that ended halved, 1up, or even 2&1, could easily be explained by one or two mid range putts. It just seems the Americans don't make as many putts as the Euros. It really isn't fun to argue about like benched players or team room intrigue, but seems like it might be the best explanation for much of the difference.
-
It seems the criticism of Watson amounts to "he let them have foursomes in the Ryder Cup". If he has just stuck to insisting that all team matches be four-ball, then everything would have been OK.
What I mean by this is that he is criticized for not siting Phil and Keegan in the afternoons and playing them in the mornings. Well guess what, the team would have done better if he had played everyone in the mornings, and sat them all in the afternoon. The USA players played four-ball better than they played foursomes, so optimally you gotta play everyone in the morning in addition to Phil and Keegan, and sit everyone in the afternoon, in addition to Phil and Keegan.
In essence the criticism is that he did a bad job, because playing someone else would have been better. What a bunch of drivel. No one knows what other pairings would have done, so those suggesting we would be better with them are bloviating egotists.
-
Im of the opinion that the captain doesn't make much difference. He sets the lineup best he can but these guys are pros. You could let the Euro capt pick the American lineup and they could actually get beat, same as the flip side. There is noone on either team that can't shoot 65 and also can't play like shit and shoot 75, even the best player in the world, Rory is barely over 55% likelyhood to beat the worst player on the American team. Tiger in his prime lost to Nick O'Hern 2x in match play.
You can't say that in any other sport. If a football coach got to call the plays of the other team or a baseball manager picked who was going to pitch and the lineup of his opponent, then they would never lose.
Being that the captain is not that important when compared to other professional sports, (see my point above) Having basic common sense would help. Benching Reed and Speith on Friday afternoon made no sense. They were the only team that played decent in the morning, Phil and Keegan won but shot like 1 or 2 under on a best ball which probably wouldn't have beat any other team that morning. The Euro's have come up clutch and made more putts at the right time, any talk of why is just pure BS, the reality is that they are both equally talented and it will ebb and flow. Winning 5 of 6 is not close to enough of a sample size to prove anything, the Americans will go on a run soon simply because of a reversion of the mean.
-
But what are you going to do to address your 2nd paragraph: give the Captain 12 picks? The 9 guys that make the team earned their way onto the team.....
I agree, it's a problem. They made the team fair and square. I'm just saying that there isn't a whole lot Watson could have done (even though I think he made a few mistakes). He was saddled with a core group of guys who have loads of experience losing the Ryder Cup. He also has guys like Mickelson, Mahan and Furyk who, in recent years, have hit an inordinate amount of awful shots under extreme pressure. And this is going up against a group of guys like Sergio and Poulter who seem to save their most clutch performances for the Ryder Cup.
Regarding the 9 qualifiers and 3 picks, let's remember that it was 4 picks until Watson only wanted to have to pick 3.
-
Here's the best article I've seen so far:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/ryder-cup/2014/paul-mcginley-tom-watson-shane-ryan
Wait for it.....This guy said it better than I could.
-
1. Playing a 40+ year old guy with an arthritic condition twice on Friday. (Did you notice the ski gloves on his hands?) Pat him on the back after the fourball win, say "nice job, Phil. Rest up, and do it again tomorrow." Phil's game is completely ill-suited for alternate shot. He is a master of recovering from his own errant shots, NO ONE else can do that, especially in this format.
2. He should have stuck with Speith and Reed, two young players who did not know they could not win. The odds were stacked against the US, the Euros were clearly the stronger team. Hoping to catch lightning in a bottle was the only hope.
3. Panicking after Phil's loss Friday afternoon and benching him Saturday morning.
-
Im of the opinion that the captain doesn't make much difference. He sets the lineup best he can but these guys are pros. You could let the Euro capt pick the American lineup and they could actually get beat, same as the flip side. There is noone on either team that can't shoot 65 and also can't play like shit and shoot 75, even the best player in the world, Rory is barely over 55% likelyhood to beat the worst player on the American team. Tiger in his prime lost to Nick O'Hern 2x in match play.
You can't say that in any other sport. If a football coach got to call the plays of the other team or a baseball manager picked who was going to pitch and the lineup of his opponent, then they would never lose.
Being that the captain is not that important when compared to other professional sports, (see my point above) Having basic common sense would help. Benching Reed and Speith on Friday afternoon made no sense. They were the only team that played decent in the morning, Phil and Keegan won but shot like 1 or 2 under on a best ball which probably wouldn't have beat any other team that morning. The Euro's have come up clutch and made more putts at the right time, any talk of why is just pure BS, the reality is that they are both equally talented and it will ebb and flow. Winning 5 of 6 is not close to enough of a sample size to prove anything, the Americans will go on a run soon simply because of a reversion of the mean.
So despite the fact the Americans consistently have the better team based on world rankings at the time the match is played, you think the run of success for Europe is entirly down to luck? After all you say the Captian doesn't really make a difference.
As a Euro I kinda hope your view prevails at the PGA. Don't need to change a thing and our time will come again. Please tell me how often you are preparared to lose before you reconsider this position?
-
Golf is an individual game, not a team sport. The Euros have mastered the concept of "team golf" in the Ryder Cup and except for Azinger at Valhalla, the US has not in recent years. It seems that a Captain can not or no longer tell his guys to go out and play. Watson was remote with his players personally and on the course. Of course, Watson was hampered by injuries of possible key members of the team- Woods & Duffner- and the Dustin Johnson "leave of absence" situation. Also, the PGA;s policy of not delaying Captain's pics, leaving Horschel & Kirk out of the mix. BUT, Watson's "old school" approach didn't work and won't work in the future. The PGA did reach out to Azinger before selecting Watson and there was no return call. Changes will be made.
-
Here's the best article I've seen so far:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/ryder-cup/2014/paul-mcginley-tom-watson-shane-ryan
Wait for it.....This guy said it better than I could.
Worth reading.
"On Wednesday and Thursday, I joked about the template with colleagues, likening it to metaphysical hokum like "The Secret." By Saturday evening, as the contours became clear, I thought it was genius. (Even his main guest speaker last week, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, was chosen because he made a career of winning at home as a favorite -- two qualities shared by this year's European team.) Later, I came to a more measured conclusion -- the template is a fine way to structure a team, but it takes a man with the energy, intelligence, and personal insight to execute it. McGinley was that man and more, a charismatic CEO who has set a standard that future captains may find very difficult to match."
Sadly for Europe Darrren Clarke is not the man to work through a plan. Jiminez is much more disciplined than his reputation might suggest.
I've come to think that the singularity of mind that leads a Golfer to Major success, probably makes him unsuitable for such a role. Watson trusted his gut, but it's more important to worry about his player's guts.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I don't think it is 'dislike' exactly, but you have hit on the key issue IMO. Back in the 1980s when Europe started to make the RC competitive and it became a big priority over here, there was a definite 'us and them' feel. I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world, when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well. If you look at how team spirit is created in any area - business, sport, military - it comes from wanting to do well for your mates who are around you, and a bit of an 'it's us against the world' mindset is pretty potent. Alex Ferguson was a master of that during his time with Manchester United; even after they had become the biggest and most successful club for years, he was still able to engender a sense among his players that no-one liked them and the world wanted them to fail.
What has happened in recent years is that the strength in depth of the European team has increased, while the 'us against the world' culture has been maintained from captain to captain. Even though the players mostly spend most of their time in the US, even though our team is now objectively stronger than the American, they still maintain that 'we're little old Europe and we're fighting together against the odds' spirit. That mindset is very powerful. It's even more remarkable when you consider that 'Europe' as an entity is pretty amorphous and attracts precious little loyalty. The team plays under the EU flag while polls indicate that a fairly substantial proportion of British people want to pull out of the EU. Yet in Ryder Cup week all that is forgotten and we come together as one unit. All that, imo, is the legacy that Jacklin created. They are playing for themselves and their mates.
Somehow the Americans have to find a way of inculcating the same kind of spirit, but it is difficult. I guess most people on here will be aware that the kind of overt 'We're the greatest' patriotism that is deeply enmeshed in American culture doesn't always go down well elsewhere in the world - there is a fine line between pride and the stereotype of the 'ugly American' and I am sure the US golfing authorities are aware of that and seek to avoid going over the top. Plus, if you're always asserting that you are the best it's hard to conjure up an underdog spirit!
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I don't think it is 'dislike' exactly, but you have hit on the key issue IMO. Back in the 1980s when Europe started to make the RC competitive and it became a big priority over here, there was a definite 'us and them' feel. I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world, when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well. If you look at how team spirit is created in any area - business, sport, military - it comes from wanting to do well for your mates who are around you, and a bit of an 'it's us against the world' mindset is pretty potent. Alex Ferguson was a master of that during his time with Manchester United; even after they had become the biggest and most successful club for years, he was still able to engender a sense among his players that no-one liked them and the world wanted them to fail.
What has happened in recent years is that the strength in depth of the European team has increased, while the 'us against the world' culture has been maintained from captain to captain. Even though the players mostly spend most of their time in the US, even though our team is now objectively stronger than the American, they still maintain that 'we're little old Europe and we're fighting together against the odds' spirit. That mindset is very powerful. It's even more remarkable when you consider that 'Europe' as an entity is pretty amorphous and attracts precious little loyalty. The team plays under the EU flag while polls indicate that a fairly substantial proportion of British people want to pull out of the EU. Yet in Ryder Cup week all that is forgotten and we come together as one unit. All that, imo, is the legacy that Jacklin created. They are playing for themselves and their mates.
Somehow the Americans have to find a way of inculcating the same kind of spirit, but it is difficult. I guess most people on here will be aware that the kind of overt 'We're the greatest' patriotism that is deeply enmeshed in American culture doesn't always go down well elsewhere in the world - there is a fine line between pride and the stereotype of the 'ugly American' and I am sure the US golfing authorities are aware of that and seek to avoid going over the top. Plus, if you're always asserting that you are the best it's hard to conjure up an underdog spirit!
Scott said it is a GB&I thing and Adam you parlayed that into a key European thought.
No I can’t see it. I think this attitude is much more a GB thing. Loss of empire and all that? I doubt it was much motivation to McGinley, Gmac or Rory, Dubuisson, Stenson etc.. I accept it mattered to Seve! Casey is not exactly the Brain of Britain and I discount this theory as a significant factor in Europe’s success. Any team needs an opponent to focus on beating.
-
Here's the best article I've seen so far:
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/ryder-cup/2014/paul-mcginley-tom-watson-shane-ryan
Wait for it.....This guy said it better than I could.
Worth reading.
"On Wednesday and Thursday, I joked about the template with colleagues, likening it to metaphysical hokum like "The Secret." By Saturday evening, as the contours became clear, I thought it was genius. (Even his main guest speaker last week, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, was chosen because he made a career of winning at home as a favorite -- two qualities shared by this year's European team.) Later, I came to a more measured conclusion -- the template is a fine way to structure a team, but it takes a man with the energy, intelligence, and personal insight to execute it. McGinley was that man and more, a charismatic CEO who has set a standard that future captains may find very difficult to match."
Sadly for Europe Darrren Clarke is not the man to work through a plan. Jiminez is much more disciplined than his reputation might suggest.
I've come to think that the singularity of mind that leads a Golfer to Major success, probably makes him unsuitable for such a role. Watson trusted his gut, but it's more important to worry about his player's guts.
Judging by the results, his players' support and his public statements, McGinley was an exceptional captain. But, that's not necessarily required for the Euros to win. Consider Woosnam, Seve, Gallacher.
-
Adam, that was Hogan.
Interesting Golf Digest article. Really amazing how McGinley took a golf cripple like Dubuisson and got this nobody from nowhere to play top-tier golf. Henry Higgins ain't got nothing on this here McGinley bloke! How did he even find this guy in the first place??
-
Adam, that was Hogan.
Ray Floyd also said this at the 89 Ryder Cup at the Belfry.
That was the one I meant. I'm not old enough to remember Hogan being captain!
-
It's a famous line from Hogan. Floyd was quoting him.
-
Watson could have picked four players, elected only to pick three.
He could have picked Chris Kirk, who had won twice, led the FedEx standings, and had just beaten McIlroy head-to-head over 36 holes, and didn't. Horschel's win in Atlanta was after the deadline for the picks, but he had played better than Simpson all summer, as had Haas and several others.
The logical assumption is that he picked Bradley, who hasn't won in two years in hopes of getting something out of Mickelson, which is a suspect strategy at best. He picked Simpson, then sat him from Friday morning until Sunday when he (predictably, I think) didn't play especially well.
He sat his most successful Friday morning team made up of two young guys on Friday afternoon. That he instead played an older, arthritic guy in poor form (one top ten ALL YEAR) for 36 holes on Friday speaks for itself. Would ANY coach or manager in ANY other sport make such a decision?
So what did Watson do wrong? He thought he was the smartest guy in the room.
-
1. Playing a 40+ year old guy with an arthritic condition twice on Friday. (Did you notice the ski gloves on his hands?) Pat him on the back after the fourball win, say "nice job, Phil. Rest up, and do it again tomorrow." Phil's game is completely ill-suited for alternate shot. He is a master of recovering from his own errant shots, NO ONE else can do that, especially in this format.
2. He should have stuck with Speith and Reed, two young players who did not know they could not win. The odds were stacked against the US, the Euros were clearly the stronger team. Hoping to catch lightning in a bottle was the only hope.
3. Panicking after Phil's loss Friday afternoon and benching him Saturday morning.
Sums it up fairly nicely.
-
I find there to be far too much focus on what Watson did wrong and far too little on how good the European team was. Honestly, I'm not sure if it would've mattered if Watson had made the right picks or sent the right matches out, Europe would've still come out on top. I know we'll never know the answer, but I can't help but think that all the arm chair quarter backing from Mickelson might be a reaction to the fact that level of play between the respective tours is so even that it's negligible.
The facts as I see it are this: the U.S. tour is no longer the king of the mountain. We are and have been witnessing the global golf scene take over and there are not any heir apparent to TW.
-
Wonder what Phil would have said if asked what Couples does as a captain to lead them to success in the President's Cup..
-
David, doesn't it confirm the US PGAT is king? This comp looked like Orlando Red vs Orlando Blue.
-
David,
No doubt that the Europeans were outstanding. But were they 7 to 1 better at foursomes based on talent and performance, or was it a function of poor pairings, lack of a TEAM concept, and perhaps insufficient preparation in that format? These are areas where the captain has great input and the accompanying responsibility.
I think that senior members of the team earn the right to influence the captain. The reports are that Watson had near zero rapport with the players and though he may have been persuaded by the pleas of a comparatively unimpressive young player (Simpson- yeah, he won the US Open at a course with a history of producing dark horse winners), he disregarded Phil's assurances that he had fixed his problems and was ready to go. Had Watson been benched by his captain, he may not have done it publicly, but he would have had his comeuppance in the end.
I do agree with you that the U.S. no longer dominates at the top. From my standpoint, some of my favorite players are "foreigners". Hopefully our boys will step up their efforts, but I am not at all concerned that golf is becoming more global. I also agree that there is no domestic heir apparent to Mr. Woods. I've been fortunate to have seen two of the best in Nicklaus and Woods in my lifetime. If the next one is an Irish lad, that's fine by me. I sure like nearly everything about him.
Congrats to the European team!
-
I understand the sentiment "golf is an individual sport, these guys are pros, etc.," but the more I think about this the more I believe the captain CAN make a big difference. The GD linked earlier was a great look into what can be done to build a team from individual athletes.
I also wonder what can be learned from the Team USA basketball experience? Here you have a team of All Stars, all multimillionaires, who are used to having their way at nearly all times with their teams. Hell, only 5 of them can start a game, the rest start on the pine, which for these guys probably hasn't ever happened in their entire lives.
Here's a great story from the Wall Street Journal discussing what Coach K did to "motivate" these guys to play for their country: http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885).
What should the next captain learn from Coach K?
-
So what did Watson do wrong? He thought he was the smartest guy in the room.
I think that's what he has in common with Mickelson -- and goes a long way toward explaining everything.
-
David, doesn't it confirm the US PGAT is king? This comp looked like Orlando Red vs Orlando Blue.
No, not to my mind. My comment was based on a "top to bottom" tour comparison. In the past, after about 8 or 9 players, the drop off on the European Tour was noticeable. Not anymore. I honestly think the European players as a whole are tougher. They have to be. They travel far more than their American rivals on their tour (read more expensive going tour event to tour event) and are not coddled to the same degree, and far greater cultural and time zone adjustments. The money is less ( not nearly as less as it used to be) which means the players are fighting harder.
I find the European players more interesting and the courses they play more diverse, which makes for more interesting viewing IMO and more well rounded players.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I think this observation rings true.
The list of U.S. Ryder Cup players (since the inclusion of continental European players in 1979) who have won a major and have losing records in the Ryder Cup is pretty lengthy: Furyk, Bubba Watson, Webb Simpson, O'Meara, Love, Leonard, Crenshaw, Couples, Duval, Bill Rogers (!), Payne Stewart, Strange, Toms, and led of course by America's best two golfers the last two decades -- Mickelson and Woods. It's far longer than the list of American major winners who have winning records in the Ryder Cup since Euro' 79: Kite, Pavin, Wadkins, and Irwin sort of (he played 3 of his 5 RCups from '79 on).
The list of Euro players who did not/have yet to win a major and have winning Ryder Cup records is lengthy as well. Players of fairly modest accomplishment who never won a major -- Parnevik, Casey, Rocca, Pinero, Canizares -- all have winning RC records since 1979. And then there are the big ones; none have won a major, and here's what they've done in the Ryder Cup:
Monty: 20-9-7
Garcia: 18-9-5
Westwood: 18-13-6
Poulter: 12-4-2
Donald: 10-4-1
I don't know how you compare those two lists and not come to the conclusion that European players simply take the Ryder Cup more seriously than U.S. ones do, prepare for it better, and perform under the pressure of the Ryder Cup better than the Americans. Euro is simply better at this than the U.S.
-
Lou, I pretty much agree with your post.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I think this observation rings true.
The list of U.S. Ryder Cup players (since the inclusion of continental European players in 1979) who have won a major and have losing records in the Ryder Cup is pretty lengthy: Furyk, Bubba Watson, Webb Simpson, O'Meara, Love, Leonard, Crenshaw, Couples, Duval, Bill Rogers (!), Payne Stewart, Strange, Toms, and led of course by America's best two golfers the last two decades -- Mickelson and Woods. It's far longer than the list of American major winners who have winning records in the Ryder Cup since Euro' 79: Kite, Pavin, Wadkins, and Irwin sort of (he played 3 of his 5 RCups from '79 on).
The list of Euro players who did not/have yet to win a major and have winning Ryder Cup records is lengthy as well. Players of fairly modest accomplishment who never won a major -- Parnevik, Casey, Rocca, Pinero, Canizares -- all have winning RC records since 1979. And then there are the big ones; none have won a major, and here's what they've done in the Ryder Cup:
Monty: 20-9-7
Garcia: 18-9-5
Westwood: 18-13-6
Poulter: 12-4-2
Donald: 10-4-1
I don't know how you compare those two lists and not come to the conclusion that European players simply take the Ryder Cup more seriously than U.S. ones do, prepare for it better, and perform under the pressure of the Ryder Cup better than the Americans. Euro is simply better at this than the U.S.
Good post Phil. I think you're spot on. I would add that if you look at players who did not go on to win majors, it does not take away from their reputations of being assassin's in the Ryder Cup. Monty and Torrance spring to mind.
And FWIW, I would rather hang with a Torrance or O'Connor and have a pint or two than just about any American major winner I can think of as of late.
-
Well..........the Captain goes down with his ship and the US players didn't play well and deserve to be put under the microscope......and the opposition played well. Not a recipe for success.
Lets look at the top to see where the problem may really lie...perhaps the PGA of America needs to examine what they've been responsible for overseeing for the past 20 years and see if their system of selection, captaincy, player motivation requires a tune up?
The USPGA owns 50% of the event. Everyone likes to win when they compete, but if the PGA coffers are being filled nicely with or without a win, why swim against the tide and tinker with things. It's not like players get a cut of the profits or soemthing fabulous they otherwise couldn't afford if they win and pay their own way if they lose.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I think this observation rings true.
The list of U.S. Ryder Cup players (since the inclusion of continental European players in 1979) who have won a major and have losing records in the Ryder Cup is pretty lengthy: Furyk, Bubba Watson, Webb Simpson, O'Meara, Love, Leonard, Crenshaw, Couples, Duval, Bill Rogers (!), Payne Stewart, Strange, Toms, and led of course by America's best two golfers the last two decades -- Mickelson and Woods. It's far longer than the list of American major winners who have winning records in the Ryder Cup since Euro' 79: Kite, Pavin, Wadkins, and Irwin sort of (he played 3 of his 5 RCups from '79 on).
The list of Euro players who did not/have yet to win a major and have winning Ryder Cup records is lengthy as well. Players of fairly modest accomplishment who never won a major -- Parnevik, Casey, Rocca, Pinero, Canizares -- all have winning RC records since 1979. And then there are the big ones; none have won a major, and here's what they've done in the Ryder Cup:
Monty: 20-9-7
Garcia: 18-9-5
Westwood: 18-13-6
Poulter: 12-4-2
Donald: 10-4-1
I don't know how you compare those two lists and not come to the conclusion that European players simply take the Ryder Cup more seriously than U.S. ones do, prepare for it better, and perform under the pressure of the Ryder Cup better than the Americans. Euro is simply better at this than the U.S.
Good post Phil. I think you're spot on. I would add that if you look at players who did not go on to win majors, it does not take away from their reputations of being assassin's in the Ryder Cup. Monty and Torrance spring to mind.
And FWIW, I would rather hang with a Torrance or O'Connor and have a pint or two than just about any American major winner I can think of as of late.
David
I hung with Torrance for a couple of hours a few years ago and it is contention for the most entertaining two hours of my life.
-
... I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world,
when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well....
It was Ben Hogan,
and you didn't have Seve, Bernhard, ...
-
... I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world,
when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well....
It was Ben Hogan,
and you didn't have Seve, Bernhard, ...
Floyd. And we did. See above.
-
I don't know what Watson did wrong, but my experience playing in Europe (mostly Ireland and Scotland) suggests to me that European are just better at match play. That's my non expert opinion.
P.S. And the Irish are definitely the best at social, match play golf.
-
... I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world,
when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well....
It was Ben Hogan,
and you didn't have Seve, Bernhard, ...
Floyd. And we did. See above.
Are you sure? ;D
"We have the best team, they have the home-course advantage," Watson said. 1993 Ryder Cup at Belfry.
August 17, 1993, Chicago Tribune
-
I don't think Watson did anything wrong per se. The Euros care for this event much more than Americans. Golf is an individual sport. The Ryder Cup is not that important in the grand scheme of things. That being said it is fun to watch.
-
I find there to be far too much focus on what Watson did wrong and far too little on how good the European team was. Honestly, I'm not sure if it would've mattered if Watson had made the right picks or sent the right matches out, Europe would've still come out on top. I know we'll never know the answer, but I can't help but think that all the arm chair quarter backing from Mickelson might be a reaction to the fact that level of play between the respective tours is so even that it's negligible.
The facts as I see it are this: the U.S. tour is no longer the king of the mountain. We are and have been witnessing the global golf scene take over and there are not any heir apparent to TW.
Fair enough but back in the 1980s and 1990s the Euros seemed to do quite nicely in the event despite a decided lack of depth on paper.
-
... I forget which US captain introduced his team as the twelve best golfers in the world,
when we had Seve, Bernhard, Faldo, Woosie etc, but that didn't go down too well....
It was Ben Hogan,
and you didn't have Seve, Bernhard, ...
Then how do you explain this article?
http://www.rydercup.com/2006/europe/history/results/1989.html
Easy, Ben got such a negative reaction, that I assumed no one would be foolish enough to repeat it.
I was wrong. I underestimated the hubris of the professional golfer. ;)
-
I find there to be far too much focus on what Watson did wrong and far too little on how good the European team was. Honestly, I'm not sure if it would've mattered if Watson had made the right picks or sent the right matches out, Europe would've still come out on top. I know we'll never know the answer, but I can't help but think that all the arm chair quarter backing from Mickelson might be a reaction to the fact that level of play between the respective tours is so even that it's negligible.
The facts as I see it are this: the U.S. tour is no longer the king of the mountain. We are and have been witnessing the global golf scene take over and there are not any heir apparent to TW.
Fair enough but back in the 1980s and 1990s the Euros seemed to do quite nicely in the event despite a decided lack of depth on paper.
True, but those European teams relied heavily on 6 or 7 players on Friday and Saturday and hid their weak links until Sunday. IIRC, the U.S. would traditionally win the singles matches.
Those days are over. Both teams are at least even from players 1 thru 12.
-
It takes a big man to say admit he underestimated the hubris of the professional golfer.
;)
Let's keep my obesity out of this!
;)
-
Watson's problems began when he was top of the world in the early-mid 80's and he started to refer to himself in the 3rd person. It has been all a gradual downhill slide since then.
-
Watson's problems began when he was top of the world in the early-mid 80's and he started to refer to himself in the 3rd person. It has been all a gradual downhill slide since then.
;D
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true. They have the attitude towards the guys on the U.S. team that they are prima donnas, we're arrogant about our world rankings and that we play on the best tour in the world, so how can we lose. The U.S. doesn't have that attitude toward GB&I. I don't see any dislike for them when it comes to playing the Ryder Cup matches, until Patrick Reed came along this year. They might not admit it, but I think they still have some of that dislike (F.U. factor) towards us and it fuels their fire.
I think that's why the U.S. performs so much better in the President's Cup. The International team doesn't seem that have that dislike for us the way the GB&I team does. When I watch those matches, it appears to be a much more cordial event and the U.S. team seems to play their best.
I know captains play a big role, but there are so many other factors at play. JMO.
I think this observation rings true.
The list of U.S. Ryder Cup players (since the inclusion of continental European players in 1979) who have won a major and have losing records in the Ryder Cup is pretty lengthy: Furyk, Bubba Watson, Webb Simpson, O'Meara, Love, Leonard, Crenshaw, Couples, Duval, Bill Rogers (!), Payne Stewart, Strange, Toms, and led of course by America's best two golfers the last two decades -- Mickelson and Woods. It's far longer than the list of American major winners who have winning records in the Ryder Cup since Euro' 79: Kite, Pavin, Wadkins, and Irwin sort of (he played 3 of his 5 RCups from '79 on).
The list of Euro players who did not/have yet to win a major and have winning Ryder Cup records is lengthy as well. Players of fairly modest accomplishment who never won a major -- Parnevik, Casey, Rocca, Pinero, Canizares -- all have winning RC records since 1979. And then there are the big ones; none have won a major, and here's what they've done in the Ryder Cup:
Monty: 20-9-7
Garcia: 18-9-5
Westwood: 18-13-6
Poulter: 12-4-2
Donald: 10-4-1
I don't know how you compare those two lists and not come to the conclusion that European players simply take the Ryder Cup more seriously than U.S. ones do, prepare for it better, and perform under the pressure of the Ryder Cup better than the Americans. Euro is simply better at this than the U.S.
Good post Phil. I think you're spot on. I would add that if you look at players who did not go on to win majors, it does not take away from their reputations of being assassin's in the Ryder Cup. Monty and Torrance spring to mind.
And FWIW, I would rather hang with a Torrance or O'Connor and have a pint or two than just about any American major winner I can think of as of late.
David
I hung with Torrance for a couple of hours a few years ago and it is contention for the most entertaining two hours of my life.
That sounds like it was time we'll spent! I'm a Torrance fan. His interview with Feherty was great.
-
I don't think Watson did anything wrong per se. The Euros care for this event much more than Americans. Golf is an individual sport. The Ryder Cup is not that important in the grand scheme of things. That being said it is fun to watch.
Brent,
Just start with Friday, and look at the decision to sit Reed and Speith after they had won 5 and 4 in the morning, and instead play an arthritic 43 yr. old and a captain's pick with the golf equivalent of Tourette's in an alternate shot format after watching them hit the ball all over Scotland that morning. It was just inexplicable, and worked out about as well as expected.
Then assume that neither good nor bad decisions fly alone, but that they tend to come in flocks.
That was Watson's captaincy. That does NOT mean that it cost the US a victory, and certainly doesn't take away from how well the Euros played. But he put himself on the Mt. Rushmore of weird/bad Ryder Cup captains with Sutton and Strange Curtis. (I'd put Faldo up there with them, but that's another argument.)
-
Fair enough but back in the 1980s and 1990s the Euros seemed to do quite nicely in the event despite a decided lack of depth on paper.
True, but those European teams relied heavily on 6 or 7 players on Friday and Saturday and hid their weak links until Sunday. IIRC, the U.S. would traditionally win the singles matches.
Those days are over. Both teams are at least even from players 1 thru 12.
I don't disagree with you; it's not an exact comparison. However, the Euros were able to come up with a strategy that made up for their lack of strength on paper. So I don't know that it's sufficient to say that the US lost this year simply because the Euros had better players. That was certainly a contributing factor, but is there no strategy that the US can employ to mask team weaknesses? Europe certainly seemed to have a formula 20 years ago.
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true.
Scott
I don't think that's true and certainly hope it's not. I don't dispute he said it but really I think he was referring to the desire to win and the competitive juices that the Euros manage to get going as they go into the tournament.
I'm not sure there is that much of a discrepancy between the respective talents of the two teams and I think the difference is the amount of self belief the Euro's have built up on the back of a run of wins and the opposite effect that run has had on the US. I said before the best thing the US could do was pick some rookies who haven't had the going over that the older guys have and I think that was played out by the tremendous performance of Spieth, Reed and Walker.
Niall
-
I think there is also the F**k You factor that the GB&I team has that we don't. Paul Casey said it several years ago when he stated that they bloody hate the U.S. team when it comes to the Ryder Cup (I'm paraphrasing here). He took a lot of grief for that comment, but I think it's very true.
I said before the best thing the US could do was pick some rookies who haven't had the going over that the older guys have and I think that was played out by the tremendous performance of Spieth, Reed and Walker.
Niall
Unless they themselves start consistently losing, which could be a real possibility with the young guns the Europeans have.
Hazeltine will be crucial. If the U.S. loses again, it would not surprise me in the least if there is talk of rethinking the format. Something along the lines of adding countries to the U.S. side.
Hey, they did it for the GB&I side when they could not compete anymore. Why not the U.S.?
-
In all of this, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the U.S. won the fourball and singles combined, which are formats that people actually play in the real world!
That we just got absolutely smoked in the foursomes is puzzling, but not especially important to me; it would be like an Olympic runner getting beaten at running backwards or in a three-legged sack race.
A better question might be what should be a third format to replace foursomes. I'm NOT kidding when I say this, but a "reverse scramble" where the opponents get to pick the shot you play would make more sense.
If not that, then surely something else.
-
In all of this, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the U.S. won the fourball and singles combined, which are formats that people actually play in the real world!
Huh? Europe won 2 of the 3 formats outright.
Four Balls
US 5 Europe 3
Foursomes
US 1 Europe 7
Singles
US 5.5 Europe 6.5
D Cronan,
My point was that the disparity was in a format that NOBODY plays, except every now and then in a club event. It's not like the Euros are playing alternate shot during their practice rounds at their Tour events, right?
All I said was that the US won the other two COMBINED, which is true. The overall score of the competition is rather deceptive, given that the foursomes margin is bigger than the overall margin. But if you prefer, we'll call the singles and fourballs, for all intents and purposes, a draw.
In any case, it's hard for me to get to excited about a format that is really nothing but an artifact anyway.
Note: I'm not especially nationalistic by nature, and swore I would root for the Euros anyway after Watson didn't pick Chris Kirk, which was just foolishly, utterly, 100% inexcusable. I was perfectly happy watching the event unfold the way it did.
-
In all of this, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the U.S. won the fourball and singles combined, which are formats that people actually play in the real world!
Huh? Europe won 2 of the 3 formats outright.
Four Balls
US 5 Europe 3
Foursomes
US 1 Europe 7
Singles
US 5.5 Europe 6.5
When he says combined, I think he means combine them to US 10.5, Europe 9.5.
However, his American chauvinism maintains that no one in "the real world" plays foursomes. Alternate shot is played quite often in the US, just not in his experience I suppose. He completely ignores what an important game it is across the pond (not the real world).
-
If they want a real-world format it ought to be pseudo stroke play with gimme putts, double-bogey max, two off the first tee, roll them in the fairway and drop one in the rough if you hit your tee shot OB.
-
In all of this, I don't want to lose sight of the fact that the U.S. won the fourball and singles combined, which are formats that people actually play in the real world!
Huh? Europe won 2 of the 3 formats outright.
Four Balls
US 5 Europe 3
Foursomes
US 1 Europe 7
Singles
US 5.5 Europe 6.5
When he says combined, I think he means combine them to US 10.5, Europe 9.5.
However, his American chauvinism maintains that no one in "the real world" plays foursomes. Alternate shot is played quite often in the US, just not in his experience I suppose. He completely ignores what an important game it is across the pond (not the real world).
Garland,
You, of course, have no way of knowing the truth of ANY of what you just wrote. You are, at least, consistent in that disregard for both facts and for the opinions of others.
I've played a lot of golf for a long time, and the ONLY time I've ever come across alternate shot formats is in club tournaments, usually only for either 6 or 9 holes at a time. By contrast, both fourball matches and singles matches are played constantly. Of course, you know this.
If you can provide some data to the effect that lots of people "across the pond" are playing foursomes, let me have it. But absent that, I'm going to continue to believe that the 12 guys on the Euro side play foursomes about as often as our guys do, which is basically never, save team competitions like the Walker, Ryder, and President Cups. Meanwhile, I'll speak with three friends at my club who are from Belgium and England and see what they say.
Maybe you can examine the USGA and R&A websites and give me a list of sanctioned foursomes competitions that they conduct. Or just do it for your own state golf association. Since "alternate shot is played quite often in the US", there MUST be state and national competitions, right? Right?
Edit: I'll amend this to say that there appear to be at least some foursomes tournaments in the UK. Overwhelmingly, they appear to be club events, and mixed. I'm going way out on a limb here and saying that Westwood, Rose, and the rest (not to mention Garcia!) won't be participating!
-
AG
I don't know the truth of what I wrote?
And, then you suddenly make the discovery that they do play foursome tournaments across the pond like I said. Are you discovering the truth of what you wrote? Or, are you still in denial?
-
AG
I don't know the truth of what I wrote?
And, then you suddenly make the discovery that they do play foursome tournaments across the pond like I said. Are you discovering the truth of what you wrote? Or, are you still in denial?
And he gets it wrong by saying the majority of foursomes events are mixed. The suggestion that foursomes "isn't a real game" suggests to me a complete disconnect from real golf. If it isn't a real game, why do the rules address it? It may not be popular amongst the selfish play my own ball, 5 hour round golfing community that doesn't understand golf as a team sport. Perhaps that's part of the reason Europe dominates the Ryder Cup.
-
AG
I don't know the truth of what I wrote?
And, then you suddenly make the discovery that they do play foursome tournaments across the pond like I said. Are you discovering the truth of what you wrote? Or, are you still in denial?
And he gets it wrong by saying the majority of foursomes events are mixed. The suggestion that foursomes "isn't a real game" suggests to me a complete disconnect from real golf. If it isn't a real game, why do the rules address it? It may not be popular amongst the selfish play my own ball, 5 hour round golfing community that doesn't understand golf as a team sport. Perhaps that's part of the reason Europe dominates the Ryder Cup.
Let's be honest, Mark.
The VAST majority of foursome events over here in the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and Rockall, etc. ad infinitum (if you define an "event" as an adjudicated competition) are mixed. Certainly a very few very posh clubs (Rye, Muirfield, etc.) play a lot of "bounce game" foursomes on a daily basis, but these games are recreational rather than competitive and serve more to get the players from the first tee to the bar in as few minutes as possible rather than identifying who are the best players on the day.
That being said, it is a fact that ELITE amateur golfers in the UKNIIMCIR do in fact play foursomes in adjudicated team competitions, and are therefore more used to the concept than the Americans, who never play this format seriously.
Rich
-
The talk about foursomes being a format that shouldn't matter because no one plays it is making me really mad. Winning a foursome is not like winning a "running backwards competition" in Marathon but winning a relay team competition- a thrill of its own but an important part of track&field sports. If you are unable to see how much joy and variety a format like foursomes brings to golf i am sorry for you. What is the next thing? Abandon matchplay from golf because "no one plays it anymore"?
-
What percentage of total golf rounds globally are played in foursomes? I'd set the over/under at .75%, and take the under without a second thought.
That doesn't mean that the format shouldn't matter or should be wiped off the face of the earth, but AG isn't wrong when he says that it's rarely played.
-
If they want a real-world format it ought to be pseudo stroke play with gimme putts, double-bogey max, two off the first tee, roll them in the fairway and drop one in the rough if you hit your tee shot OB.
Brent - if you and me controlled the golfing universe, there'd be a lot more happy golfers...and we could even quantify it!!
-
IMHO here is why the Ryder Cup is doomed if things don't change with the PGA of America soon.
The PGA of America markets the event as though these guys are out playing for their country. Yet the actual players don't receive anything for the PGA Tour and the Europeans share of the profits from the RC go to their tour. The players see all of the corporate tents, all of the shopping venues and food vendors and get mad that they are providing the action and receiving nothing. And then you have the added pressure from endorsements which come down on the agents when a guy like Mickelson sits all day on Sat. Callaway is looking for a big day out of that and they get zilch. The Olympic event may go the same way with these guys. They are not into it and you can't blame them. Soon there will be a player that says thanks but no thanks when it comes to the RC... Come on a Mickelson could have gottne a good 2 mill for a week of appearance fees etc...it's screwed up...
-
IMHO here is why the Ryder Cup is doomed if things don't change with the PGA of America soon.
The PGA of America markets the event as though these guys are out playing for their country. Yet the actual players don't receive anything for the PGA Tour and the Europeans share of the profits from the RC go to their tour. The players see all of the corporate tents, all of the shopping venues and food vendors and get mad that they are providing the action and receiving nothing. And then you have the added pressure from endorsements which come down on the agents when a guy like Mickelson sits all day on Sat. Callaway is looking for a big day out of that and they get zilch. The Olympic event may go the same way with these guys. They are not into it and you can't blame them. Soon there will be a player that says thanks but no thanks when it comes to the RC... Come on a Mickelson could have gottne a good 2 mill for a week of appearance fees etc...it's screwed up...
Imagine the pressure of playing for country AND money
We might never win a back nine hole ::)
-
I hereby apologize to all who are, were, or will be offended by my comments denigrating the foursomes format in the Ryder Cup, or its place in the world of golf.
It is an ancient and honorable way to play the game, greatly misunderstood, underestimated, and unappreciated by provincial, chauvinistic American philistines such as myself.
I look forward to my next opportunity to play the foursomes format, whenever that might be.
-
I hereby apologize to all who are, were, or will be offended by my comments denigrating the foursomes format in the Ryder Cup, or its place in the world of golf.
It is an ancient and honorable way to play the game, greatly misunderstood, underestimated, and unappreciated by provincial, chauvinistic American philistines such as myself.
I look forward to my next opportunity to play the foursomes format, whenever that might be.
I love pure alternate shot because I understand the unselfishness of team competition and take pride in my spotless record including a victory against a much younger and more talented team with Tom Doak as my partner. People who can't or don't play alternate shot well are the same who believe golf is an individual sport. The only individual sport is auto-erotic asphyxiation. Play away and let us who enjoy the thrill of team competition revel in the spoils of our sport.
-
I hereby apologize to all who are, were, or will be offended by my comments denigrating the foursomes format in the Ryder Cup, or its place in the world of golf.
It is an ancient and honorable way to play the game, greatly misunderstood, underestimated, and unappreciated by provincial, chauvinistic American philistines such as myself.
I look forward to my next opportunity to play the foursomes format, whenever that might be.
Go over to play in the Buda Cup, pure foursomes every afternoon! Great after lunch game, very social.
-
IMHO here is why the Ryder Cup is doomed if things don't change with the PGA of America soon.
The PGA of America markets the event as though these guys are out playing for their country. Yet the actual players don't receive anything for the PGA Tour and the Europeans share of the profits from the RC go to their tour. The players see all of the corporate tents, all of the shopping venues and food vendors and get mad that they are providing the action and receiving nothing. And then you have the added pressure from endorsements which come down on the agents when a guy like Mickelson sits all day on Sat. Callaway is looking for a big day out of that and they get zilch. The Olympic event may go the same way with these guys. They are not into it and you can't blame them. Soon there will be a player that says thanks but no thanks when it comes to the RC... Come on a Mickelson could have gottne a good 2 mill for a week of appearance fees etc...it's screwed up...
Mike,
You have hit on the head. The PGA haven't a clue
Bob
-
Is it the suggestion that the American pros would play better if they were paid? Are the player sponsors not receiving value via product placement in front of a worldwide audience for three full days and the prestige of their players making this premier event? Might the players not be receiving bonuses and other consideration from their sponsors as a result of making the team?
What reforms does the PGA need to undertake to turn things around? I was under the impression from the two or three similar threads that the main problem was not the selection of the captain but the poor performance of pampered, pressure adverse veteran players.
Should the PGA be more open regarding the process? We would like for Phil to keep his opinions to himself. Would it be good if the PGA gave its reasons why guys like Larry Nelson are not picked (a good source has told me that serious- i.e. more than quirky eccentricities- personality issues weighed against him) for the very public position of captain?
How much have the President's Cup and the FedEx series diluted from the motivation and freshness of the top players. Maybe the veterans just need more rest. Ok, and give them each a $500k stipend for their troubles. But keep the "exhibition" largely unchanged. It is compelling golf that brings a lot of interest to the game.
-
Lou,
The players are paid by increased endorsements. These guys are a brand to themselves and Ryder Cup is an important factor. Jeff Overton may never win on tour but he will always have that.
-
Lou,
A few years back when the players were arguing "pay" etc for RC it was brought up that the same week they played the RC the La Cantera Open or something like that was being played. The PGA of America made like $35 million and gave none to the players or to charity. Meanwhile the LaCantera gave around 2 mill to charity the same week. There is a disconnect between the players and the PGA of America and it is rarely discussed. $500,000 stipend is not quite enough for such an event. The agents get involved and see the money being made and it goes from there....
-
.
-
This may all have been said/written, but I've neither time nor eyes to read through 4.5 pages of your brilliance, compadres mios.
1. Said "Yes." ~~ Why he said yes in the first place is beyond me. Like taking points off the board. No one remembers 1993 if he loses in 2014. Oops.
2. Got stuck in a year when no ones outside the automatic qualifiers were playing well. ~~ Horschel hadn't become Horschel, Haas-meh, Kirk had one win and didn't seem to care whether he made the team or not.
3. Picked Simpson. ~~ I'm a Wake guy and still couldn't understand this one: you take a guy who begs you over the phone, who then says "that's too early for me" to Bubba.
4. Bubba. ~~ Remember when Bubba lost the PGA at Whistling Straits to Kaymer after Dustingate, and all that Bubba cared about was making the Ryder Cup team? That Bubba is long gone.
5. Got stuck in a year when his veteran players offered no tacit leadership. ~~ Phil? Yut. Furyk? Hasn't closed anything but a door in years. Stricker? Oh, right, he's a captain's assistant-captain pick.
6. Picked old guys like himself as assistants, to make his own self feel comfortable.
7. Didn't defer to Larry Nelson (see my trilogy on the Larry Nelson curse.)
8. Didn't ask Mrs. Pavin to pick the uniforms (yaaah, I'm running out of funny stuff to say.)
9. Didn't ask Ben Crenshaw to pick the Sunday shirts (Almost completely on empty.)
10. Didn't ask Lynn S. for a copy of anything John Wooden ever wrote or said about coaching.
-
Pretty funny tyop there, "shits" instead of "shirts." But appropriate I guess. ;D
-
Pretty funny tyop there, "shits" instead of "shirts." But appropriate I guess. ;D
corrected!!
-
back in the stone ages (when I was playing), a lot of the club companies didn't offer much, if anything in bonuses
for making the Ryder Cup team. They got little exposure for it due to team uniforms/bags/head covers,
so they could care less.
Now in negotiating those contracts, being a Ryder Cupper couldn't hurt, but the reason for being the Ryder Cup member for most created the value anyway.
Not sure any more, the Ryder Cup is certainly bigger than it was then.
-
Let me count the ways....
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ryder-cup-2014-tom-watson-phil-mickelson-team-usa
-
This may all have been said/written, but I've neither time nor eyes to read through 4.5 pages of your brilliance, compadres mios.
1. Said "Yes." ~~ Why he said yes in the first place is beyond me. Like taking points off the board. No one remembers 1993 if he loses in 2014. Oops.
2. Got stuck in a year when no ones outside the automatic qualifiers were playing well. ~~ Horschel hadn't become Horschel, Haas-meh, Kirk had one win and didn't seem to care whether he made the team or not.
3. Picked Simpson. ~~ I'm a Wake guy and still couldn't understand this one: you take a guy who begs you over the phone, who then says "that's too early for me" to Bubba.
4. Bubba. ~~ Remember when Bubba lost the PGA at Whistling Straits to Kaymer after Dustingate, and all that Bubba cared about was making the Ryder Cup team? That Bubba is long gone.
5. Got stuck in a year when his veteran players offered no tacit leadership. ~~ Phil? Yut. Furyk? Hasn't closed anything but a door in years. Stricker? Oh, right, he's a captain's assistant-captain pick.
6. Picked old guys like himself as assistants, to make his own self feel comfortable.
7. Didn't defer to Larry Nelson (see my trilogy on the Larry Nelson curse.)
8. Didn't ask Mrs. Pavin to pick the uniforms (yaaah, I'm running out of funny stuff to say.)
9. Didn't ask Ben Crenshaw to pick the Sunday shirts (Almost completely on empty.)
10. Didn't ask Lynn S. for a copy of anything John Wooden ever wrote or said about coaching.
Ronald,
I'll disagree only with #2, and that as it pertains to Kirk. Kirk's second win of the year was at the Deutsche Bank immediately BEFORE Watson made his picks. At that point, Kirk not only had two wins, but led the FedEx standings by a wide margin before ultimately finishing 2nd. He shot 66-64-66 in the last three rounds in Boston, with the final 36 being head-to-head with McIlroy. Picking Kirk was an absolute no-brainer on ANY level.
Other than wanting Bradley to pair with Mickelson, Kirk's downfall may have been his comments immediately after the tournament when he was asked about being a captain's pick. He simply said, in essence, that if he wasn't picked, he'd go to a football game and be ok.
Omitting Kirk was just foolishness, as was picking Simpson; it appeared so at the time, and looks MUCH worse in retrospect. There were 7 Americans above Bradley in the FedEx standings, and 5 above Simpson; neither had won anything all summer. It appears that the simplest explanation is that Watson opted for the appearance of "passion" (Simpson's text message) instead of the reality of a player playing really, really good golf. Bear Bryant once said that enthusiasm is great until the kick-off; then you better have players!
If anyone wants to read an interesting take on Watson's captaincy and what the position means, try Alan Shipnuck's article from SI.com:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ryder-cup-2014-tom-watson-phil-mickelson-team-usa
-
AG
Good post, but I did post a link to the Shipnuck article above, but nobody listens to me anymore.... :'(
-
AG
Good post, but I did post a link to the Shipnuck article above, but nobody listens to me anymore.... :'(
Rich,
I read all your posts, still.
And I meant to mention earlier regarding your colorblindness...
Tom Huckaby does indeed have green hair, or so I recall.
-
AG
Good post, but I did post a link to the Shipnuck article above, but nobody listens to me anymore.... :'(
Rich,
Sorry! One post later has to be a new record (or at least tie the old record!) for reposting the same link. I read that article late last night in the print SI, and just knee-jerk posted the link after reading Ronald's post. I'll cop to having a "senior moment"...
In any event, it is rare that a writer like Shipnuck will be as blunt about a legend like Watson as this article. It really, really makes me wonder what else he heard and was told off the record that didn't get written.
-
AG
Good post, but I did post a link to the Shipnuck article above, but nobody listens to me anymore.... :'(
Don't sell yourself short, Judge. Nobody ever listened to you!
-
As an update/addition to the Shipnuck article, you should try to find and listen to what Ben Wright had to say about Watson on Matt Adams' show on XM today. Wright was just brutally frank and completely believable, and I think it is safe for me to say that I've never heard anything quite like it. If you have XM, I think it gets replayed tonight at 8?
-
AG
Good post, but I did post a link to the Shipnuck article above, but nobody listens to me anymore.... :'(
Don't sell yourself short, Judge. Nobody ever listened to you!
Dan, you are getting a bit Slouchy in your middle age, given that you must have listened to me before you wrote your reply above! Also, I've got Hutto and Crockett going for me....
AG
Not sure if we can get XM on the wireless over here, but I'm looking forward to somebody summarizing what Ben W. had to say.
Rich
-
What we need on the US team is more players that don't "need to be invested in the process."
How invested could Speith and Reed be? All completely new to them.
Sounds to me like a bunch of embarrassed blokes that have to make excuses. And with records like Phil and Furyk, they need powerful excuses.
-
As an update/addition to the Shipnuck article, you should try to find and listen to what Ben Wright had to say about Watson on Matt Adams' show on XM today. Wright was just brutally frank and completely believable, and I think it is safe for me to say that I've never heard anything quite like it. If you have XM, I think it gets replayed tonight at 8?
For those of us without satellite radio, can you give a synopsis? Also, Ben Wright knows his stuff but likes to hear the sound of his own voice so I take what he says with a grain of salt.
-
As an update/addition to the Shipnuck article, you should try to find and listen to what Ben Wright had to say about Watson on Matt Adams' show on XM today. Wright was just brutally frank and completely believable, and I think it is safe for me to say that I've never heard anything quite like it. If you have XM, I think it gets replayed tonight at 8?
For those of us without satellite radio, can you give a synopsis? Also, Ben Wright knows his stuff but likes to hear the sound of his own voice so I take what he says with a grain of salt.
Mike,
Among other things, Wright said that Watson's nickname on Tour was "Carnac", for obvious reasons, and that he had captained accordingly. He went further to say that Bob Murphy had been Watson's ONLY friend on Tour, and that Watson's letter to ANGC that resulted in McCord's Masters ban was related to his belief that McCord had somehow been responsible for Murphy being let go by CBS. (I'm not familiar enough with Murphy's career trajectory to know much about this.) Wright's point, obviously, is that Watson is capable of showing a high level of disregard and vindictiveness.
Wright went on to say that US captains simply don't have the work ethic of the Euro captains. He said the Euro captains view it as a job and seek and receive mentoring from previous captains, while the US captains tend to view the position as a crowning moment for a career. As a result, the US captains often don't show the same attention to detail; he used Pavin selecting rainsuits that leaked badly as an example, but was also referring to not taking the time or trouble to communicate with and get to know players that are much younger.
You get the gist...
-
So what did Watson do wrong? He thought he was the smartest guy in the room.
I think that's what he has in common with Mickelson -- and goes a long way toward explaining everything.
Or, in other words:
Carnac meets FIGJAM.
-
As an update/addition to the Shipnuck article, you should try to find and listen to what Ben Wright had to say about Watson on Matt Adams' show on XM today. Wright was just brutally frank and completely believable, and I think it is safe for me to say that I've never heard anything quite like it. If you have XM, I think it gets replayed tonight at 8?
For those of us without satellite radio, can you give a synopsis? Also, Ben Wright knows his stuff but likes to hear the sound of his own voice so I take what he says with a grain of salt.
Mike,
Among other things, Wright said that Watson's nickname on Tour was "Carnac", for obvious reasons, and that he had captained accordingly. He went further to say that Bob Murphy had been Watson's ONLY friend on Tour, and that Watson's letter to ANGC that resulted in McCord's Masters ban was related to his belief that McCord had somehow been responsible for Murphy being let go by CBS. (I'm not familiar enough with Murphy's career trajectory to know much about this.) Wright's point, obviously, is that Watson is capable of showing a high level of disregard and vindictiveness.
Wright went on to say that US captains simply don't have the work ethic of the Euro captains. He said the Euro captains view it as a job and seek and receive mentoring from previous captains, while the US captains tend to view the position as a crowning moment for a career. As a result, the US captains often don't show the same attention to detail; he used Pavin selecting rainsuits that leaked badly as an example, but was also referring to not taking the time or trouble to communicate with and get to know players that are much younger.
You get the gist...
Thanks A. G.
-
And if you haven't seen enough already, try THIS one!
http://m.espn.go.com/golf/story?storyId=11636089&src=desktop&rand=ref~{%22ref%22%3A%22http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FnjNfSQWdAJ%22}
-
I was able to get Watson's autograph after a round at the Senior TPC Championship one year when it was played in Dearborn, MI. In that short time it was easy to see he does not suffer fools. He was very kind to me in signing his name, he would not sign for a man he recognized as one who profited from these artifacts and he rebuffed a Golf Channel reporter who he did not respect. My impression was he had high standards and had little tolerance for those who capitalized on the success of others. It's not fair to project this to the recent events but I can imagine that if he was on the team he would have taken full responsibility for his play and not blamed others. However, this is 2014, the Ryder Cup is a high profile event and he does not seem to be taking any responsibility for his own failures as captain. Perhaps time has passed him by.
-
Brian S,
Don't draw too many grave conclusions from what you read. As we see in these pages regularly, many of us look at the same data and come up with diametrically different impressions. Tom Watson is a great man. All men make mistakes. Most of ours are in anonymity and we're mostly left a bit tattered but with some of our dignity intact.
Watson was a very poor captain this time. Nonetheless, he is the same guy who resigned from KCCC where his father was a prominent member over it denial of membership to a local Jewish businessman because of the candidate's religion. He remains the man who a good friend drew as the pro-am partner for his team, all business clients, in the Colonial National Invitational and shared five hours of warm fellowship with on the course and more in the men's grill afterwards. He is the tough-skinned businessman who gave a fantastic keynote address at a golf development conference and then handled my partner's highly inappropriate probes regarding his competency (something to the effect of what was he thinking when he chose fescues and bents for Spanish Bay, which subsequently burned-out), noting with a smile that sometimes things don't work out as you planned. He is the imperfect man who fought alcoholism with success and helped at least one fellow pro (David Feherty) during his own ordeal.
In hindsight he was probably a bad choice for captain. He is old school, perhaps too highly accomplished to have sufficient empathy for lesser professionals. Maybe the PGA should have known better, but, again, the decision makers there probably looked at it from most angles and didn't get it right. Learn from the mistake and move on.
-
Has anyone read "Caddy for Life"? One thing I remember from the book is a story Watson told about how he blanked a young kid and his Dad for an autograph in a scenario where he wasn't exactly being mobbed and the Dad called him a total asshole. That seemed to really hit home with Watson and he felt ashamed. Doesn't sound as if he's changed his ways too much but obviously the book does portray him in a positive light. I think he liked the fact that Bruce Edwards would never take his shit and so there was a respect. I tend not to gravitate towards those kind of people but there you go...
I'd really rather have lived in ignorant bliss than to learn all of this stuff about Watson. The McCord letter is something I would find very hard to forgive and I wonder if he regrets writing it.
Good for the Dad. I attended my first tournament in 1991 at Crooked Stick (John Daly's PGA) at one of the practice rounds. I was 10 and got some autographs, including Fred Couples who signed for quite awhile for kids at the peak of his popularity. Watson came off #18, saw a group of kids waiting for a possible autograph, then saw a hole in the fence in another direction, and took off almost at a run to avoid having to sign. Hopefully the incident in the book occurred after that date, because otherwise he didn't learn much.
At the end of the day, however, we're all flawed and have done things we would have done differently given another chance. Such is life.
-
Reading through this, I was reminded of an earlier generation of golfers: how different men like Hogan and Snead and Nelson and Demaret and Middlecoff and Palmer and Nicklaus and Trevino were from one another, and then imagining Ben Hogan as RC Captain and thinking about how he would interact with some of those (later) stars -- i.e. what he would expect of them, what they would accept from him. Night and Day, huh?
-
Brian S,
Don't draw too many grave conclusions from what you read. As we see in these pages regularly, many of us look at the same data and come up with diametrically different impressions. Tom Watson is a great man. All men make mistakes. Most of ours are in anonymity and we're mostly left a bit tattered but with some of our dignity intact.
Watson was a very poor captain this time. Nonetheless, he is the same guy who resigned from KCCC where his father was a prominent member over it denial of membership to a local Jewish businessman because of the candidate's religion. He remains the man who a good friend drew as the pro-am partner for his team, all business clients, in the Colonial National Invitational and shared five hours of warm fellowship with on the course and more in the men's grill afterwards. He is the tough-skinned businessman who gave a fantastic keynote address at a golf development conference and then handled my partner's highly inappropriate probes regarding his competency (something to the effect of what was he thinking when he chose fescues and bents for Spanish Bay, which subsequently burned-out), noting with a smile that sometimes things don't work out as you planned. He is the imperfect man who fought alcoholism with success and helped at least one fellow pro (David Feherty) during his own ordeal.
In hindsight he was probably a bad choice for captain. He is old school, perhaps too highly accomplished to have sufficient empathy for lesser professionals. Maybe the PGA should have known better, but, again, the decision makers there probably looked at it from most angles and didn't get it right. Learn from the mistake and move on.
Excellent post. Whatever happened during his captaincy this year, he is a man of high principles and one of the greatest competitors of the modern era.
-
Often greatness in a sport does not equate to excellence or even proficiency in leading, managing and inspiring others.
Team Europe has a structure, and seems to build on their successes, and correct their shortcomings.
Every two years we seem to fall further and further behind this model.
-
Brian S,
Don't draw too many grave conclusions from what you read. As we see in these pages regularly, many of us look at the same data and come up with diametrically different impressions. Tom Watson is a great man. All men make mistakes. Most of ours are in anonymity and we're mostly left a bit tattered but with some of our dignity intact.
Watson was a very poor captain this time. Nonetheless, he is the same guy who resigned from KCCC where his father was a prominent member over it denial of membership to a local Jewish businessman because of the candidate's religion. He remains the man who a good friend drew as the pro-am partner for his team, all business clients, in the Colonial National Invitational and shared five hours of warm fellowship with on the course and more in the men's grill afterwards. He is the tough-skinned businessman who gave a fantastic keynote address at a golf development conference and then handled my partner's highly inappropriate probes regarding his competency (something to the effect of what was he thinking when he chose fescues and bents for Spanish Bay, which subsequently burned-out), noting with a smile that sometimes things don't work out as you planned. He is the imperfect man who fought alcoholism with success and helped at least one fellow pro (David Feherty) during his own ordeal.
In hindsight he was probably a bad choice for captain. He is old school, perhaps too highly accomplished to have sufficient empathy for lesser professionals. Maybe the PGA should have known better, but, again, the decision makers there probably looked at it from most angles and didn't get it right. Learn from the mistake and move on.
Excellent post. Whatever happened during his captaincy this year, he is a man of high principles and one of the greatest competitors of the modern era.
No, it's not! OK, it's a good post. ;D
I'm much more sympathetic to Tom Watson's recent experience as Ryder Cup captain than most people here. I do not wish to attempt a full explanation.
-
I love pure alternate shot because I understand the unselfishness of team competition and take pride in my spotless record including a victory against a much younger and more talented team with Tom Doak as my partner.
I believe George and I were sandbagged that day. Also, in my own defense, George was my partner, so... I'd also dispute the more talented part. You and Tom aren't exactly chopped liver.
I also love playing alternate shot in some form every now and again. It makes for a very weird distribution of pressure. You really want to hit a good shot for your teammate, but if your teammate puts you in a bad spot, it almost makes it easier, because the expectations are so low. I really like that our round that day only took about 2.5 hours.
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
+1
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
+1
bingo
It still stuns me that after losing 80% of the last 10 Ryder Cups that this Captain, who changes every event, is the one being questioned.
Want a different approach?-hire a different Captain.
Imagine if any of these guys had actual bosses.
What a shite experience for all involved.
It's an exhibition, nothing more.
-
It's an exhibition, nothing more.
I'm afraid it become more than an exhibition when all the camo-fatigue-pants wearing morons showed up at Kiawah and started chanting U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A.
P.S. And I'm not sure it's purely coincidental that the PGA...err, I mean USA...team's losing ways started not too long after that.
-
Hands up, I'm in the camp that says Captains don't really matter very much as long as they don't get in the way (ie. Faldo). I'm also a huge fan of Watson. With that in mind it seems to me that the reaction to the US loss and the blaming of Watson is totally misplaced. Europe won because they played better over the three days.
Niall,
I completely agree.
If memory serves me right, Team Captains have zero influence on the play of their opponents.
And, if memory serves me right, THERE'S ONLY ONE SET OF HANDS GRIPPING THE CLUB AND THEY AND THEY ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS.
Much has been made of Watson dropping Mickelson when he wasn't playing too well. Surely that would have been seen as an inspired decision had Mickelsons team mates come up with a win. The guy is in his mid-40's and frankly looked jaded. In that respect reputation has nothing to do with it. Instead should Watson not take huge credit for backing the rookies who were possibly the stars of the competition ? It all seems very strange to me.
Contrast that with McGinley who is getting all manner of praise heaped on him. Imagine if Europe had lost, what would the press have said about continuing to play Poulter when he was clearly in no form. What about the comment from McDowell when he finished playing Speith and said he had felt at the start of the game that he was less than match sharp as he had only played foursomes to that point where he had hit very few putts and very few iron shots. Of course by the end, all the European players were asked by the media what they thought of McGinley and to a man they said he was great (even Gallagher) which just shows what a win does for you ;)
Niall
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
+1
+2
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
He makes some fair points. However, Watson did not receive any similar criticism in 1993. Of course, nobody is going to get criticism when they win. So in 21 years did Watson change or did the players?
The one big change is that in 1993 Watson was 44 and no doubt knew the players much more thoroughly ahead of time. Even if you think that players haven't changed in 21 years, these players no doubt knew Watson much less than the 1993 team.
Yes it is funny to picture PGA players having to report to a boss. But they don't have to do that, so why give them a coach that would take that approach? So are we blaming Ted Bishop now? European Tour players don't have bosses either.
Maybe Watson is the best Ryder Cup player ever? Palmer, Trevino, and Nicklaus only played against GB&I. Palmer's record is at the top of Posnaksi's list at 22-8-3, but the average score of the Ryder Cups he played in (1961-1973 except for 1969) were US 19.67, GBI 11.
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
+1
+2
It's an interesting article, from a guy doing a book on Watson.
Interesting the tone of the two "sides".
What I see in my admittedly biased angle, are two guys who are not afraid to voice any opinion.
Tom has never been afraid to voice any thoughts, as mentioned in the article. Doesn't seem it should be
a problem for Phil to have the same right, and based on the release today from Tom, seems he too can move beyond it.
As a 50+ guy, I always find it interesting to see comments about "today's" players.
My experience was that there were assholes, good guys, great guys spoiled guys, and everything in between in my interactions with
the previous generation's players I came across in my 10 years playing.
I have opinions on any of the guys I personally dealt with. As a rookie, and a golf fan, I had a great, great moment with Arnold, and a few, amazingly rude moments with other guys that I came across, who certainly were happy to treat me like shit because I was a rookie. As a wannabe hockey player, I simply "took a number" and stayed away from the asshats, there were too many other guys to play with, learn from, and have fun with.
-
Butch Harmon?
Time you guys changed the approach altogether, stopped looking at what Europe do right and consider simply how you get the best results out of what you have.
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
John,
I'll take this article as an accurate assessment of the type of PERSON that Watson is, and maybe even what would work best with the US players. But that is quite a different matter than the question of what type of CAPTAIN Watson was in real time, which is what the thread is about.
To briefly review:
With no explanation, he "gave back" one of his 4 captain's picks, and only made three selections.
He ignored the current leader (who ultimately finished second) in the FedEX standings who had won twice and had just beaten McIlroy head-to-head over 36 holes as a captain's pick. There were 7 Americans ahead of one of his picks and 5 ahead of another in the FedEx standings. Those two players, neither of whom had won in a year or more, went 1-3-1 for the event. (It is worth mentioning that Simpson missed the cut in three of the four majors, and was T45 in the one where he made the cut!)
He played an arthritic 44 yr. old for 36 holes in cool weather on the first day, including foursomes after watching him spray the ball all over Scotland in the morning four ball. Meanwhile, he sat a team of two 20-somethings who had won 5-4 in the morning on Friday; they would win 5-3 the next morning, and had a combined record of 5-1-2!
Then the next day, he sat a team that had a 4-0 four ball record for the morning four ball session.
That he sandblasted his team verbally on Saturday night before the singles is now a matter or record; Watson has now issued an apology.
So it isn't about what kind of PERSON he is. The question at hand is what he did wrong as captain, and the answer is plenty!
-
Everybody says they're all for "excellence" but everybody doesn't think through what that really means, the implications of putting excellence above all else. Watson is committed to excellence, in the meaning of both those words: "committed" and "excellence." Commitment to excellence in everything: broadcasting, playing golf by the rules, playing golf.
From the Greek concept of areté to the Raiders' slogan, commitment to excellence is not easy for many to accept in its pure, unalloyed form. When it's a slogan on a t-shirt, sure, I'll take two. But in practice...why is it hard for many to accept? In the main, because commitment to excellence crowds out everything else. In Watson's case, it crowds out activities like babysitting professionals at the top of their games and any goal or action that at worst interferes with and at best is irrelevant to excellence, which in this case meant winning the RC. A fake Ryder Cup? Please. That's offensive -- give me the real Ryder Cup, don't patronize me with a fake. ...What, now you're upset I don't want a fake Ryder Cup?! Now I'm supposed to apologize and hold your hand?! You know what I have to say to you? You know what "gift" I want? Just win, baby.
Aristotle struggled with something akin to the debate about Watson: if the areté is known, why do many not pursue it? Why do they purposely choose the less-than-excellent path? Part of Aristotle's answer is to dispense with the notion of a singular conception of areté. Those who choose to sit in judgment of a person's actions have to consider that person's notion of excellence. The Watson we see is the Watson striving to be the best Watson he can be.
Or as the headline to the Posnaski article puts it, aptly: "U.S. got the Ryder Cup captain it hired."
Of course, this narrative, this assessment of excellence, doesn't fit the narrative required for the circumstances, and so "the people" ignore or dispense with it. And what is the narrative the people require? Leviticus 16:20-22.
-
Mark
Watson may have been committed to excellence, but he didn't follow that commitment in his personal life, particulalry when he was top of the golfing world in the mid-80s. He should have been studying hubris rather than arete, and even nemesis, given his dismal performance at Gleneagles.
Rich
-
A.G. Crockett,
I agree that Tom Watson made some strange decisions for match play that look awful in retrospect. In addition, his remarks at the Saturday evening dinner did not appear to work well as a motivational tool.
Yesterday morning a good friend and I were talking about this. Let's suppose for a moment that Watson's opening salvo on Saturday evening was not delivered in an angry tone, but rather one of resignation. Sort of a matter of fact, head shaking "Man, you guys are terrible are foursomes." I imagined being there, and being the only guy in the room to burst out laughing, and then, oops! It's audacious, so honest and accurate, and the remark itself is not necessarily the end of the world. But the timing was very bad. I used to joke about situations like that in the past, breaking into a sing-song "Making friends..."
-
I like this analysis of the Ryder Cup captain and his team much better, and believe it to be a more accurate assessment.
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/joe-posnanski/us-got-ryder-cup-captain-it-hired/
John,
I'll take this article as an accurate assessment of the type of PERSON that Watson is, and maybe even what would work best with the US players. But that is quite a different matter than the question of what type of CAPTAIN Watson was in real time, which is what the thread is about.
To briefly review:
With no explanation, he "gave back" one of his 4 captain's picks, and only made three selections.
He ignored the current leader (who ultimately finished second) in the FedEX standings who had won twice and had just beaten McIlroy head-to-head over 36 holes as a captain's pick. There were 7 Americans ahead of one of his picks and 5 ahead of another in the FedEx standings. Those two players, neither of whom had won in a year or more, went 1-3-1 for the event. (It is worth mentioning that Simpson missed the cut in three of the four majors, and was T45 in the one where he made the cut!)
He played an arthritic 44 yr. old for 36 holes in cool weather on the first day, including foursomes after watching him spray the ball all over Scotland in the morning four ball. Meanwhile, he sat a team of two 20-somethings who had won 5-4 in the morning on Friday; they would win 5-3 the next morning, and had a combined record of 5-1-2!
Then the next day, he sat a team that had a 4-0 four ball record for the morning four ball session.
That he sandblasted his team verbally on Saturday night before the singles is now a matter or record; Watson has now issued an apology.
So it isn't about what kind of PERSON he is. The question at hand is what he did wrong as captain, and the answer is plenty!
Best assessment to date!
-
With no explanation, he "gave back" one of his 4 captain's picks, and only made three selections.
He gave an explanation. I remember it well. His explanation was that he wanted the players to earn their way on the team. I was fine with this.
His misfortune was the state of his team. No one else on this thread seems to have picked up on it, so I'll write it again. He had no DJ, no TW and no JD. Add to that the fact that no USA options were playing well, and you see the handcuffs. Freaking McGinley left Luke Donald off his team!! McGinely had a wealth of players to choose from.
I would suspect that Watson is a fire watcher and McGinley is an overachiever, in a battery of tests.
-
I'm bowing out of this thread but only becasue words fail me when I read some of the ongoing arguments on here.
Why is the Ryder Cup different from any other team event where the teams have non playing Captains/Managers?
Hands up, I'm in the camp that says Captains don't really matter very much as long as they don't get in the way (ie. Faldo). I'm also a huge fan of Watson. With that in mind it seems to me that the reaction to the US loss and the blaming of Watson is totally misplaced. Europe won because they played better over the three days.
Niall,
I completely agree.
If memory serves me right, Team Captains have zero influence on the play of their opponents.
And, if memory serves me right, THERE'S ONLY ONE SET OF HANDS GRIPPING THE CLUB AND THEY AND THEY ALONE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS.
The following reads as if the Captains have no influence, except ....when ...they do!
I agree with the analysis of Azinger. He did a decent job but lucked out getting Faldo, who was clearly unsuited to the job.
A smart person said (before Medinah), that two things were certain, the winning captain would get too much credit and the losing captain too much blame. I think that happened at Gleneagles. And it will happen again next time. And the time after ....
Especially like the part that what Azinger got right was beiing opposite Faldo (can't remember anything Faldo or Azinger did that week myself)
Mark B says the OWGR support him and prove a point but when challenged that maybe they don't, he says they are a lousy measure anyway!
Wow it seems you guys will believe anything except for the reason most Europe supporters believe thier TEAM keeps winning. i.e. they play as a team and they undoubtedly have Captains who take their role very seriously, take the best available advice and study management techniques and how to apply them in this situation.
Finally repeatedly downplaying the importance of the Ryder Cup by e.g. declaring it to be only an exhibition, and yet continuing to post on these threads 7 days after the event is ...nuts!
Goodbye I don't think I can change any minds on this one.
-
Watson would not have penned the open letter had he felt good about his captaincy.
-
With no explanation, he "gave back" one of his 4 captain's picks, and only made three selections.
He gave an explanation. I remember it well. His explanation was that he wanted the players to earn their way on the team. I was fine with this.
His misfortune was the state of his team. No one else on this thread seems to have picked up on it, so I'll write it again. He had no DJ, no TW and no JD. Add to that the fact that no USA options were playing well, and you see the handcuffs. Freaking McGinley left Luke Donald off his team!! McGinely had a wealth of players to choose from.
I would suspect that Watson is a fire watcher and McGinley is an overachiever, in a battery of tests.
Ronald,
The problem with the "earn your way on" philosophy is that players can do that the first year and stay on despite playing relatively poorly prior to the event, which is why prior captains had asked for the fourth pick in the first place. Mickelson is a prime example, with one top ten all year. Captain's picks allow for picking players with the hot hand at the time of the event, with Chris Kirk being the textbook example of that. Except he didn't get picked...
There is no doubt that the US team was hurt badly by losing Dufner and DJ, though I'll disagree on what losing Tiger meant. There is also no doubt that the Euro team was, on paper, clearly better. All of that, however, made it MORE important that Watson pick well and then be especially thoughtful with his choice of lineups. He did neither of those, and it isn't arguable.
(FWIW, I think we'll have to agree to disagree about how the US team, in general, had been playing throughout the summer coming in. I don't think they were in nearly as bad a form as you do. Still, it was a huge advantage to McGinley to know that he had 6 players playing as well or better than anybody on the US team.)
-
Tony, I'm with you. Have you ever seen a football team under poor leadership just not "show up"? Now I'll admit that football and golf are different as the manager does dictate the tactics that directly influence play in a way that the likes of a Ryder Cup captain never could. But you look at Man United in recent times and what Ferguson extracted out of the players at his disposal. I guarantee you that man management was absolutely key to that. Just this intangible confidence and desire to win the players get that comes from great leadership. The us against the world siege mentality that I am sure has been referenced in some of these recent threads. He was a master at it and I think the European captains of recent times really seem to be tapping in to that emotion.
Brian, you're correct. Captains / coaches make a difference. Those that say the captain has no influence on the outcome are simply wrong.
-
I think those of us who "don't believe a golf captain makes a difference", could be more accurately described as suggesting that golf is a very individual sport, and a captain will have less impact on the outcome of an event than almost any other major sport. In sports like American football, basketball, and even baseball, the coaches are calling plays and teaching techniques. In this case, the Ryder Cup captain has a minor role assembling his team, and then decides who will play. He doesn't teach technique, and he doesn't tell Bubba Watson to lay up on the par 5.
In American baseball, I remember (30 years ago) reading well-known statistician Bill James attempt to quantify the manager's impact on his team's success, and found that Billy Martin was one of the best of his era. If I remember correctly, Martin's impact was only 3-4 more wins per 162 game season over a typical baseball manager.
This type of analysis has not been done in golf. For one thing, insufficient data exists.
If you want to measure a Ryder Cup captain for his leadership, let me pick all 12 players. Let him pick his own guys. One suspects there was a considerable culture clash between the captain and most of the team.
We're saying it appears the golf captain's impact must be small in the grand scheme of sports leadership. We're (Mark Bourgeois, among others) also saying that no statistical evidence exists that proves your beliefs about golf team leadership at this high level are accurate. For you to say it's true because I say it's true is speculation.
-
I think those of us who "don't believe a golf captain makes a difference", could be more accurately described as suggesting that golf is a very individual sport, and a captain will have less impact on the outcome of an event than almost any other major sport. In sports like American football, basketball, and even baseball, the coaches are calling plays and teaching techniques. In this case, the Ryder Cup captain has a minor role assembling his team, and then decides who will play. He doesn't teach technique, and he doesn't tell Bubba Watson to lay up on the par 5.
In American baseball, I remember (30 years ago) reading well-known statistician Bill James attempt to quantify the manager's impact on his team's success, and found that Billy Martin was one of the best of his era. If I remember correctly, Martin's impact was only 3-4 more wins per 162 game season over a typical baseball manager.
This type of analysis has not been done in golf. For one thing, insufficient data exists.
If you want to measure a Ryder Cup captain for his leadership, let me pick all 12 players. Let him pick his own guys. One suspects there was a considerable culture clash between the captain and most of the team.
We're saying it appears the golf captain's impact must be small in the grand scheme of sports leadership. We're (Mark Bourgeois, among others) also saying that no statistical evidence exists that proves your beliefs about golf team leadership at this high level are accurate. For you to say it's true because I say it's true is speculation.
John,
I agree with you 100% that quantifying the impact of a captain on Ryder Cup player performance is essentially impossible. The baseball analogy is reasonable, though sabermetrics has come a long way since James pioneered it; they measure managers now by calculating a team's WAR and then extrapolating that the manager must be responsible for a lot of that. I think they believe it might be more like 8 or 9 games now, which is actually pretty impactful.
But none of that is pertinent to the question posed in the thread. Watson made at best odd captain's picks, and at best bizarre lineup decisions that were questioned at the time and in retrospect look even worse. Even less quantifiable is the impact of his apparently awful leadership style.
Would the outcome have changed if Watson had not been the captain, or if he had made none of the objectionable decisions? Probably not; McGinley went in knowing that his top six were playing better than anybody on the US team. IMO, it takes nothing away from the play of the Euros and their retention of the Cup to look at Tom Watson's captaincy and hold your nose.
-
I wonder if Chris Kirk knew something about Captain Tom and decided to eliminate his consideration by making public statements that were totally antithetical to the Simpson approach.
Speaking of Simpson, did anyone else see that thing about him saying to Bubba that their Friday tee time was too early for him? I can't find it on the web, but I swear I read it.
Saying Chris Kirk over Webb Simpson would have made the difference is like me saying that playing this RB (13 points) over that RB (4 points) would have won fantasy football for me this week. Kirk was probably not a game-changing addition.
In contrast, McGinley choosing Gallagher and thereby excommunicating either Westie or Luke was brilliant. PM knew that his players would respect him for selecting a guy who supported European tour, played his arse off and came up just shy of automatic qualifying, and represented Scotland.
The USA picks more Faldo characters than Azinger ones, and that's why. Maybe there are fewer inspiring captain choices in the new world, just as there were few captain's picks options.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
-
I know that I am not looking for excuses; rather, I am looking for explanations.
The Euros played very good golf. Should the USA have played better? Absolutely. Might they have, with better choreography? Absolutely.
Here's another notion that people are missing: all of these guys played college golf and some played Walker Cup, Palmer Cup or even Canon Cup as juniors. They must have an idea, however remote, that representing Old Glory on Ryder or President's Cup teams hearkens back to those halcyon days of youth. When a captain acts in a more divisive than unifying manner, it dashes then entire spirit. Crenshaw's speech? Supportive. Watson's suggested (not yet confirmed) speech? Not so much.
This is not my way of saying these guys need hugs and kisses, but they do need to feel that they are part of a smaller and bigger picture, as Azinger did.
-
For the record, I do not mean to take anything away from the Euros win, or to seem to be suggesting that Watson cost the US the Cup. I thought Europe had the clearly better team coming in, and they played that way.
But the thread is "What did Watson do wrong?", not "Did Watson cost the US the Ryder Cup?" I started with a bad attitude because I coached against Chris Kirk throughout his high school golf career, and the first day of the competition sent me over the edge. Take just three decisions.
Reed and Speith, both in their 20's, win 5 and 4 and sit out the afternoon foursomes. Meanwhile Mickelson, an arthritic 40 something with something like a 2-15-4 foursomes record, plays 36 holes in cold weather. Then in the Saturday four ball, Mickelson and Bradley, the first US team with a 4-0 four ball record in a couple of decades, sit out. That did it for me.
I was rooting for the Euros on Sunday.
-
For the record, I do not mean to take anything away from the Euros win, or to seem to be suggesting that Watson cost the US the Cup. I thought Europe had the clearly better team coming in, and they played that way.
But the thread is "What did Watson do wrong?", not "Did Watson cost the US the Ryder Cup?" I started with a bad attitude because I coached against Chris Kirk throughout his high school golf career, and the first day of the competition sent me over the edge. Take just three decisions.
Reed and Speith, both in their 20's, win 5 and 4 and sit out the afternoon foursomes. Meanwhile Mickelson, an arthritic 40 something with something like a 2-15-4 foursomes record, plays 36 holes in cold weather. Then in the Saturday four ball, Mickelson and Bradley, the first US team with a 4-0 four ball record in a couple of decades, sit out. That did it for me.
I was rooting for the Euros on Sunday.
AG,
agreed on your assessment of what he did wrong.
Kirk should've been picked for sure, and I said as much at the time.
Reed and Spieth should've played foursomes rather than Mickelson/Bradley, and those two should've played 4 balls Saturday.
While I also agree Watson could've said nothing when given the replica tropy, I must say that was a pretty stupid gift to give a crusty competive SOB like Watson BEFORE the outcome-especially when they had just fallen further behind.
And of course Mickelson should've ducked the press conference question.
For those wo have decided it's NOT an exhibition, what exactly is it?
and how do we get back to acting with the class, sportsmanship, and dignity that the event represented many years ago.
and finally, Pat has it right-well for a moron ;D
Well done by McGinley and the Euros
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
-
Sports is a great microcosm of life in that moral victories are few. Binary results--wins and losses--define lives. Unfortunately, frequently I see a society unwilling to attribute a negative result to lack of execution. Usually it's some other excuse that involves officiating, lack of clear direction, poor coaching, etc. See the current issues around the San Francisco 49ers for an example of players not liking a coach. Tom Watson said the truth.
Unfortunately, you can't do that. And he should've known as much. Good caddies have an almost mythical ability to surreptitiously remind their players of a prior poor result, whilst keeping their focus on the positive result for the next shot. That is Watson's job as the arguably worthless coach of the Ryder cup team.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
-
I understand the sentiment "golf is an individual sport, these guys are pros, etc.," but the more I think about this the more I believe the captain CAN make a big difference. The GD linked earlier was a great look into what can be done to build a team from individual athletes.
I also wonder what can be learned from the Team USA basketball experience? Here you have a team of All Stars, all multimillionaires, who are used to having their way at nearly all times with their teams. Hell, only 5 of them can start a game, the rest start on the pine, which for these guys probably hasn't ever happened in their entire lives.
Here's a great story from the Wall Street Journal discussing what Coach K did to "motivate" these guys to play for their country: http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885).
What should the next captain learn from Coach K?
Pat, per my earlier post, are these guys any less "professional athletes" than their NBA brethren? Clearly, the Euros played better (and had better players), but Team USA got waxed. Do you not believe, particularly in the case of highly spoiled, multi-millionaire, money motivated professional athletes, that a good/great coach can make a difference?
I don't think any level of "leadership" would have resulted in the USA winning this past Ryder Cup, but perhaps better leadership could have made it competitive.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Yes, Pat I'm serious. What makes you think a top athlete in the world doesn't need inspiration from time to time and to also help rally the troops. Do you think these golfers are immune to that. Did you see the press conference for the Americans afterwards. Did they look like the highly successful best golfers in the world to you. These full grown men looked battered, bruised, and completely deflated.
Pat, the bottom line is that a good captain is an essential part to a Ryder Cup TEAM. I like the fact that we can share our opinions on this site even though we disagree. The only real difference I see between your view and my view on this, is that mine is correct. If captains or coaches for that matter aren't an essential part of a team, then what am I missing here.
By the way, anyone that quotes John McEnroe can't be taken seriously.
-
The USA picks more Faldo characters than Azinger ones, and that's why. Maybe there are fewer inspiring captain choices in the new world, just as there were few captain's picks options.
Ronald,
if the US team were made up of Faldos they would win hands down as Faldo had a superb Ryder Cup record.
Jon
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails. The Europeans are representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation. We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years. The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that. Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround. Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire. Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British. There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails. The Europeans aren't representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation. We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years. The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that. Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround. Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire. Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British. There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
Or, alternatively, the European team has had better players and captains. Sheesh...
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails. The Europeans aren't representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation. We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years. The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that. Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround. Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire. Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British. There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
Or, alternatively, the European team has had better players and captains. Sheesh...
I believe the current rankings somewhat contradict that assertion. Nonetheless, I don't mean to dismiss the fact that ultimately it's about 12 golf swinfs against another 12 golf swings. I'm merely pointing out that there are other factors at work. Ultimately, humans are not robots and don't perform as such.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails. The Europeans aren't representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation. We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years. The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that. Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround. Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire. Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British. There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
Or, alternatively, the European team has had better players and captains. Sheesh...
I believe the current rankings somewhat contradict that assertion. Nonetheless, I don't mean to dismiss the fact that ultimately it's about 12 golf swinfs against another 12 golf swings. I'm merely pointing out that there are other factors at work. Ultimately, humans are not robots and don't perform as such.
You believe wrong about the current rankings, and that's with what many believe to be a (slight) bias in the ranking points toward play in the US.
Keep it simple. The thread is about what Watson did wrong. I don't think he represented the wrong failed empire. I think he made poor captain's picks, and even worse lineup decisions. I do NOT believe that cost the US the Ryder Cup, but that's not what the thread is about, either.
I won't bother to look it up again, but Mickelson's foursomes record is absurdly bad, something in the neighborhood of 2-15-4. His four ball record, though, is pretty good, and VERY good with Keegan Bradley. So what would YOU have done with him on Friday and Saturday?
-
AG,
OK, so the ranking bit I may have jumped the gun with. As for keeping it simple, although I fail to see why you feels that's so important, nothing could be more simple than pointing out that the situation does not need a scapegoat. It's Medina all over again. Regardless of the varying talents of the two sides, the American's did not play up to their potential. To simply blame this Mickelson or that Watson without considering the underlying reasons isn't going to get you anywhere.
-
AG,
OK, so the ranking bit I may have jumped the gun with. As for keeping it simple, although I fail to see why you feels that's so important, nothing could be more simple than pointing out that the situation does not need a scapegoat. It's Medina all over again. Regardless of the varying talents of the two sides, the American's did not pay up to their potential. To simply blame this Mickelson or that Watson without considering the underlying reasons isn't going to get you anywhere.
Paul,
Keep it simple. The thread title is "What did Watson do wrong?" I'm not looking for a scapegoat, be it Mickelson or Watson.
But answer my question, ok? YOU are the US captain, and you've got an arthritic 44 yr old with a comically bad record in foursomes and a very good record in four balls, especially with his current partner. You watch him win in a morning four ball, while spraying the ball all over creation. Meanwhile, a team of two 20 somethings demolishes their opponents 5-4 in the morning.
Which team goes 36 holes and plays the afternoon foursomes, and which one sits out? The next morning, do you play Mickelson and Bradley, with an undefeated four ball record, in the morning foursomes?
These aren't hard questions, and it isn't looking for a scapegoat to examine what Watson did and didn't do critically.
-
I won't bother to look it up again, but Mickelson's foursomes record is absurdly bad, something in the neighborhood of 2-15-4. His four ball record, though, is pretty good, and VERY good with Keegan Bradley. So what would YOU have done with him on Friday and Saturday?
A.G., not trying to catch you in a gotcha, just trying to buttress my point, but in another post somewhere you mention it's impossible to quantify the impact of the captain on the outcome, and I think John Kirk said there's insufficient data. To an extent you are both correct but that's mainly because no one has bothered to actually run the numbers using available data. In your quote above is a simple yet apparently meaningful statistic.
I suspect there is a meaningful amount of luck involved when the world's best golfers play the world's best golfers, perhaps even likely so much that no decisions have an impact on the outcome -- even seemingly "terrible" decisions like Watson's that you reference -- at least not before the fact and in a predictable way, and *on the margin*. (What is missing from a lot of these "pro-captain" arguments is that no one shows us how the outcome would have been different had Watson made this or that decision differently. People just assert or imply things as though they are fact, but they are far from fact.)
An analysis of the role / magnitude of luck can be done. I am not sure many will like what that probably says, that the captain matters little. BUT: there likely is some proportion of the outcome influenced by the decisions. Even if it's a small part, use data and analysis to get the part you can control correct. A machine can / should do that, leaving the captains to the all-important tasks of babysitting and sweater knitting.
-
AG,
OK, like I said, I'm not disputing the mistakes. He backed experience where youth may well have prevailed on the Friday afternoon but having been there I would equally argue that Sergio and Rory getting a point was about as likely as hell freezing over. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I will say this: Watson just wasn't the presence I expected him to be. It's all well and good to be respectful and Watson does that in Scotland with aplomb. It's OK however to be determined to win and I didn't see a jot of that from him. Think back and there was talk for quite a while about how Watson was a good pick as captain for a US team in Scotland because he was a popular figure over here. Sorry, but that sounds suspiciously like appeasing the opposition. I wasn't aware the aim of the game was to charm the Ryder Cup out of European hands. Now, I could bang on about how this has much to do with stumbling tentatively into a new role in the world but no doubt I'd only be shouted down for doing so. ;D
-
... Meanwhile Mickelson, an arthritic 40 something with something like a 2-15-4 foursomes record, plays 36 holes in cold weather. ...
This analysis has no meaning. If a more arthritic 60 something that is clinically obese can play his best golf in the second 18 of the day on steep terrain while climbing dunes to search for opponents balls, then Phil has no excuse.
People knowledgeable about sport know that adrenaline and competitive spirit make such minor problems such as this disappear during competition.
-
I owe Mickelson an apology; his foursomes record is better than I stated. It's 4-8-2 in the Ryder Cup if I'm counting correctly. My mistake.
-
I understand the sentiment "golf is an individual sport, these guys are pros, etc.," but the more I think about this the more I believe the captain CAN make a big difference. The GD linked earlier was a great look into what can be done to build a team from individual athletes.
I also wonder what can be learned from the Team USA basketball experience? Here you have a team of All Stars, all multimillionaires, who are used to having their way at nearly all times with their teams. Hell, only 5 of them can start a game, the rest start on the pine, which for these guys probably hasn't ever happened in their entire lives.
Here's a great story from the Wall Street Journal discussing what Coach K did to "motivate" these guys to play for their country: http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/how-coach-k-motivates-usa-basketball-1410474885).
What should the next captain learn from Coach K?
Pat, per my earlier post, are these guys any less "professional athletes" than their NBA brethren?
Yes, in the sense that their NBA brethren are "specialists.
Guard, forwards, centers.
And, you can break that down further.
Point Guard, shooting guard, power forward, etc. etc..
Pro Golfers have to do it all by themselves without assistance from other members of their team.
Clearly, the Euros played better (and had better players), but Team USA got waxed.
You must have missed the part about 70 birdies to 125 birdies
Do you not believe, particularly in the case of highly spoiled, multi-millionaire, money motivated professional athletes, that a good/great coach can make a difference?
No, I don't believe that a coach, good/great or poor can change the game of a PGA Tour Pro
I don't think any level of "leadership" would have resulted in the USA winning this past Ryder Cup, but perhaps better leadership could have made it competitive.
HOW ?
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Yes, Pat I'm serious. What makes you think a top athlete in the world doesn't need inspiration from time to time and to also help rally the troops.
Scott, if you're serious, you must be deranged and bordering on the moron category.
Now a PGA Tour Pro needs "inspiriation" in order to play his best in the Ryder Cup ? ? ?
He needs help to play his best ? To rally ?
Do you think these golfers are immune to that.
If they're not, a Knute Rockne pep talk ain't gonna fix it.
Did you see the press conference for the Americans afterwards.
Did they look like the highly successful best golfers in the world to you.
They LOST.
Did you expect them to by bouyant, vivacious, effusive and over joyed ?
These full grown men looked battered, bruised, and completely deflated.
Repeat.
They LOST.
They got outplayed.
70 birdies to 125 birdies. What does that number alone tell you ?
Pat, the bottom line is that a good captain is an essential part to a Ryder Cup TEAM.
Baloney.
What proof do you have of that.
Did Europe/UK have bad captains in all the years they lost ?
I like the fact that we can share our opinions on this site even though we disagree.
The only real difference I see between your view and my view on this, is that mine is correct.
Only in your mind.
If captains or coaches for that matter aren't an essential part of a team, then what am I missing here.
That it's the players, on the field of play that determine the outcome, not the "team captain"
By the way, anyone that quotes John McEnroe can't be taken seriously.
Have you seen the women that John McEnroe dated ?
That's some serious talent.
-
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails.
I wasn't obligated, I just made a statement of fact.
It wasn't like they were playing for their block party team.
Someone stated that they needed to be motivated and I felt that if you can't be motivated when playing for your country, you don't belong in the competition.
The Europeans aren't representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation.
By whom ?
We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years.
That's not true at all.
The competition took a turn for the worse at TCC.
In addition it went from a healthy, gentlemenly competition to an overly commercialized circus.
The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that.
Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround.
I don't see the relevance, especially since they all live in Orlando, Florida
Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire.
They live in Orlando, but are playing for THEIR team.
Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British.
For a response, I refer you to Samuel Clemens
There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
You'll have to refer me to those papers that equate the the success of the Ryder Cup team to the state of the respective Unions.
Learned or pedantic ?
-
In addition it went from a healthy, gentlemenly competition to an overly commercialized circus.
Pat
Was it a healthy, gentelmanly competition in 1967 when Ben Hogan dissed the entire opposing team in his opening speech?
http://www.pgamediaguide.com/rydercup_detail.cfm?tourn_name_id=9&dateid=1967&tournament_id=718&player_id=766
Rich
-
Pat,
Whilst I have genuine sympathy for your position, the fact that you felt obligated to write 'THEIR COUNTRY' is somewhat indicative of why your team fails.
I wasn't obligated, I just made a statement of fact.
It wasn't like they were playing for their block party team.
Someone stated that they needed to be motivated and I felt that if you can't be motivated when playing for your country, you don't belong in the competition.
The Europeans are representing a proud golfing continent which for many years was made to feel like the poor relation.
By whom ?
We invented the game and had it smugly wiped in our face every two years.
That's not true at all.
The competition took a turn for the worse at TCC.
In addition it went from a healthy, gentlemenly competition to an overly commercialized circus.
The non-Brits in the European team get that better than anyone, being the cavalry and all that.
Remember that it took a Spaniard and a Brit together to begin the turnaround.
I don't see the relevance, especially since they all live in Orlando, Florida
Despite the emotion, ultimately though they are playing for a golfing continent, not for a political cultural and/or empire.
They live in Orlando, but are playing for THEIR team.
Your boys are struggling to represent an all encompassing philosophy which is not the power it once was, but I'm sure you don't need me, yet again, to point out the staggering similarities between the death of your own empire and that of the British.
For a response, I refer you to Samuel Clemens
There are enough papers written on the subject by people far more learned than I.
You'll have to refer me to those papers that equate the the success of the Ryder Cup team to the state of the respective Unions.
Learned or pedantic ?
Seve and Jacklin are both currently living in Florida? Hell of a lot of Spaniards are going to be fascinated to hear this.
Never mind.
-
Tony,
It's different because these are PGA TOUR PROS who are playing individual matches.
There's no "game plan", no half time adjustment, you go out and play the golf course, you try to post the lowest score possible on each hole and a captain can neither alter that outcome or the outcome produced by your opponent.
This is a very simple issue.
The European team outplayed the American team and people are whining and looking for a scapegoat instead of praising the European team on their play
I believe the respective number of birdies was something like 125 to 70.
If that doesn't make you have a "light bulb" moment nothing will.
Everyone should stop whining and looking for excuses and congratulate the European team on an outstanding performance.
End of rant ;D
Pat, just disagree with you on this. A captain does have an impact on his players performances. The best captains / coaches can inspire their players, or bring in others to help inspire, to go out and do great things. I know this is off topic from what the thread was about, but I believe the Ryder Cup is more of a team effort. I look at it as a 12 man team and I feel you look at it as 12 individual players.
Scott,
Are you serious ?
These are full grown, highly succesful men who just happen to be the best golfers in the world, playing for THEIR COUNTRY.
And you think that they need to be "inspired" ?
That they need to be cajoled to "go out there and do great things"
In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"
Yes, Pat I'm serious. What makes you think a top athlete in the world doesn't need inspiration from time to time and to also help rally the troops.
Scott, if you're serious, you must be deranged and bordering on the moron category.
Now a PGA Tour Pro needs "inspiriation" in order to play his best in the Ryder Cup ? ? ?
He needs help to play his best ? To rally ?
Do you think these golfers are immune to that.
If they're not, a Knute Rockne pep talk ain't gonna fix it.
Did you see the press conference for the Americans afterwards.
Did they look like the highly successful best golfers in the world to you.
They LOST.
Did you expect them to by bouyant, vivacious, effusive and over joyed ?
These full grown men looked battered, bruised, and completely deflated.
Repeat.
They LOST.
They got outplayed.
70 birdies to 125 birdies. What does that number alone tell you ?
Pat, the bottom line is that a good captain is an essential part to a Ryder Cup TEAM.
Baloney.
What proof do you have of that.
Did Europe/UK have bad captains in all the years they lost ?
I like the fact that we can share our opinions on this site even though we disagree.
The only real difference I see between your view and my view on this, is that mine is correct.
Only in your mind.
If captains or coaches for that matter aren't an essential part of a team, then what am I missing here.
That it's the players, on the field of play that determine the outcome, not the "team captain"
By the way, anyone that quotes John McEnroe can't be taken seriously.
Have you seen the women that John McEnroe dated ?
That's some serious talent.
Pat, I stand corrected. Captains are useless when it comes to the Ryder Cup, no matter if they win or lose. For that matter, so are coaches in every sport. These teams should just captain themselves. What's the point, it's just an X's and O's thing and the players can handle that. I know the PGA is going to sit down and take a hard look at what needs to change in the future. Maybe a captainless team will be an option.
I would like to quote the great Knute Rockne though: "I've got nothing for you guys. Just go out and play your best".
Lastly, the girls that John McEnroe dated! I see women walk by me every day that are far more beautiful that the women John McEnroe dated. I could understand if you threw out the women that George Clooney dated, or Brad Pitt, Jimmy Connors, or thousands of other men, but John McEnroe. I actually threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read that comment.
I do appreciate you adding me to the "Mucci's morons" club. I am humbled. All in good fun Pat.
-
I wonder if those of us, who over the course of this thread, have tended to be more sympathetic to Tom Watson, and less supportive of the concept that a golf captain makes a significant difference, are "lone wolf" types who work best as individual contributors, and would make less successful captains and/or leaders.
On his website, Geoff Shackelford posted a (very unscientific) graph which showed that more egotistic, detached players tended to make poor Ryder Cup captains.
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/ryder-cup/2014/john-barton-ryder-cup-captains-scale-2014-2
The graph is baloney; it also makes a compelling case that British men are more passionate than American men. But his point is probably right.
-
To all those who think a Captain has no significant role in the Ryder Cup. I posted this on Geoff Shackelford's blog:
Vince Lombardi quotes. Here is what he said about teamwork:
Teamwork
“The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual.”
“People who work together will win, whether it be against complex football defenses, or the problems of modern society.”
“Individual commitment to a group effort – that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.”
Clearly, the Euros have accomplished this over recent years in making an individual sport a team sport.. Azinger did too.Players have to be invested in the team by their Coach, Manager or Captain. You just can't say anymore : "Win one for the Gipper" It doesn't work in today's world.
By the way, what's the Team USA's record in foursomes over the past 10 Ryder Cups? I think the USA's record is not very good as compared to singles and fourball.
Speaking of foursomes:
Here's an old golf joke....
A husband reluctantly agreed to play in the couples' alternate shot tournament at his club.
He teed off on the first hole, a par four, and blistered a drive 300 yards down the middle of the fairway.
Upon reaching the ball, the husband said to his wife, "Just hit it toward the green, anywhere around there will be fine."
The wife proceeded to shank the ball deep into the woods.
Undaunted, the husband said, "That's OK, Sweetheart" and spent the full five minutes looking for the ball. He found it just in time, but in a horrible position. He played the shot of his life to get the ball within two feet of the hole. He told his wife to knock the ball in.
His wife then proceeded to take her putter out and knock the ball off the green and into a bunker.
Still maintaining composure, the husband summoned all of his skill and holed the shot from the bunker.
He took the ball out of the hole and while walking off the green, put his arm around his wife and calmly said, "Honey, that was a bogey five and that's OK, but I think we can do better on the next hole."
To which she replied, "Listen , don't bitch at me, only 2 of those 5 shots were mine."
-
The competing argument is that the United States players are more selfish or individualistic, and less willing or able to be led.
Mr. Watson has already publicly apologized for his performance, in a rather broad and general manner. I see significant cultural differences between the older captain and his players.
-
Watson shouldn't have answered the phone when the PGA called.
-
Further comments:
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/john-hawkins/hawks-nest-ryder-cup-fallout-enters-week-2/
-
I'm curious to know if anything good has been said or written about Tom Watson's captaincy? Anyone herein or within golf and the media generally reckon he did anything, well um, right?
Just curious.
atb
-
My first post ... my 2 (Euro) cents ... I went to my first Ryder Cup in 1981 when the US fielded a team that paired Watson and Nicklaus and trounced Europe at Walton Heath. The tide was changing and Europe were unlucky not to win in 1983 - once they won in 1985 and several European players began to win Majors (Seve, Ollie, Woosnam, Lyle, Faldo) the European team began to believe that they could win and their standard of golf was on a par (pardon the pun) with the US players. Apart from a few lapses, as we all know it has been pretty much Europe all the way since. I believe the European Tour have found a winning formula from the administration where Richard Hills fronts the business administration side thru to the choice of Captain which is hotly contested and all the top players want to be Captain. Paul McGinley comes from a rich tradition of team golf in the Irish Amateur scene both inter club, provincial and international and he was also a Walker Cup player. He served his apprenticeship in the Seve Trophy and was a Vice-Captain in Medinah. He is a "current" tour player and spent a lot of time getting close to his team - they were a team from a long way out. Tom Watson is a legend but as others have pointed out, he is not close to the current players (ironically he is probably closer to Mickelson than any other member of the US team). I thought he cut a lonely figure at Gleneagles - even after the first morning at Gleneagles he was still doing interviews on the 18th green when the afternoon play had already started.
When it all boils down ...the Europeans outplayed the US team and although we will never know, I believe that Europe would have beaten any combination/permutation of the US players. Horschel, Kirk (Haas?) might have made some difference (not to mention Duffner and Johnson). I think Mickelson let himself down but one can understand the emotion of the moment - he is a winner and he wears his heart on his sleeve. I hope that the match at Hazeltine will be another epic battle with great golf on a terrific golf course. The US should pick a "current" player - Stricker, Furyk or Phil himself maybe but I wouldn't want to give any advantage to the home team ...
-
Stephen,
it is difficult to pick a captain who might make the team which to me rules out all the guys you suggest. I would suggest someone such as Duval as being a perfect candidate. He also seems to have the sort of meticulous eye for detail that would be needed to ensure success.
If I were the US Captain I would want the top 24 players to pair off and playoff in foursomes against each other to get in the team.
Jon
-
Pat, I stand corrected.
Captains are useless when it comes to the Ryder Cup, no matter if they win or lose.
For that matter, so are coaches in every sport.
On that, I'll have to disagree.
The drafting of game plans and adjustments as the game progresses and recruiting are all coach driven.
But, when it comes to playing on the field, there's not much a coach can do.
As Chris Carter told me, what can a coach teach me about catching a football ?
These teams should just captain themselves.
What's the point, it's just an X's and O's thing and the players can handle that.
Execution is done on the field, but, game planning is done in the film/coaches room.
You have so much to learn and I only have a limited amount of time.
I know the PGA is going to sit down and take a hard look at what needs to change in the future.
Maybe a captainless team will be an option.
Figureheads remain an important aspect of marketing
I would like to quote the great Knute Rockne though: "I've got nothing for you guys. Just go out and play your best".
So, if you were selected for the Walker Cup, you'd need a coach to pump you up ?
Lastly, the girls that John McEnroe dated! I see women walk by me every day that are far more beautiful that the women John McEnroe dated.
Dream on.
The John McEnroe you're thinking about was a male nurse in San Francisco
I could understand if you threw out the women that George Clooney dated, or Brad Pitt, Jimmy Connors, or thousands of other men, but John McEnroe. I actually threw up in my mouth a little bit when I read that comment.
Agree about Jimmy Connors.
Right now John Derek remains one of my heros
I do appreciate you adding me to the "Mucci's morons" club. I am humbled. All in good fun Pat.
Scott, the ranks are swelling at an ever increasing pace, I had to poll the committee to get you with an 8-1 vote.
Usually, it's unanimous.
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
I think Chamblee is spot on here...succinct and honest.
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
I think Chamblee is spot on here...succinct and honest.
I must have missed something; nobody who was actually there has contradicted Mickelson, have they? And even Watson's comments at the presser and his later statement/apology didn't say Mickelson was wrong, much less lying; he talked about different management styles and perspectives.
Chamblee is paid by the Golf Channel to be a flamethrower; it's what he does. Nobilo is the good cop, Chamblee the bad. The bigger the target, the more critical he becomes. He knows more about Tiger's golf swing than he did his own, and this is more of the same. Doesn't mean there isn't something to it, but calling Mickelson a liar is standard stuff for him.
And BTW, asking people to write down with whom they wished to play doesn't mean it happened, and I'm pretty sure Reed and Speith didn't ask to sit out on Friday afternoon after winning 5-4 that morning.
-
Not going to comment on "liar"
But before the uproar, there was no doubt that Watson's leadership style was chafing, if
not confusing to some.
I am certain Brandel's sources are as confident as mine.
What I will say, is that it certainly seems there is a competitive leadership vacuum from
the PGA down through players.
Without that vacuum, Europe may only have scored 14 1/2 points!!
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
Kind of sad and a bit pathetic you would write this. Was Brandel in the rooms and meetings? No. Has ANY player yet to contradict what PM said? That speaks volumes more than anything in my book.
You have a hard on for Watson and that's fine. But your continued arrows at Mickelson and his fellow pros has worn thin and subsequently have warranted your opinions on this and most everything else as tripe.
Presumably one or more players have contradicted what PM said, unless you are now calling Mr. Chamblee a liar. To presume credibility of Mr. Ryder Cup eight time loser PM seems to me to be a bit incredulous. As Mr. Westwood has said, Mr. eight time loser should keep his mouth shut.
Besides, you think Keegan and Phil were paired in spite of each of them asking for another pairing?
You want to know tripe? Tripe is assuming that you know that Reed and Spieth would be killers at foursomes and thereby criticizing Watson for not playing them on Friday afternoon. I call that myopic hindsight conjecturing.
-
Seems to me the US lost the Ryder Cup on the foursomes. That being the case then Watsons mistake was not realising that the key to foursomes is pairing a good iron player with a good putter and the US players mistake was not realising the importance of keeping the ball in play tee to green and hitting greens in regulation.
Jon
-
Has there been any players come out to defend Watson? Or take on Phil?
Hunter's comments were interesting about euros playing hard for their captain, and the need for US to
look more to the euro model
Would that be considered a shot at Tom ::)
-
Has there been any players come out to defend Watson? Or take on Phil?
Hunter's comments were interesting about euros playing hard for their captain, and the need for US to
look more to the euro model
Would that be considered a shot at Tom ::)
The only explanation for these guys still arguing must be that they don't know what you used to do for a living.
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
Kind of sad and a bit pathetic you would write this. Was Brandel in the rooms and meetings? No. Has ANY player yet to contradict what PM said? That speaks volumes more than anything in my book.
You have a hard on for Watson and that's fine. But your continued arrows at Mickelson and his fellow pros has worn thin and subsequently have warranted your opinions on this and most everything else as tripe.
Presumably one or more players have contradicted what PM said, unless you are now calling Mr. Chamblee a liar. To presume credibility of Mr. Ryder Cup eight time loser PM seems to me to be a bit incredulous. As Mr. Westwood has said, Mr. eight time loser should keep his mouth shut.
Besides, you think Keegan and Phil were paired in spite of each of them asking for another pairing?
You want to know tripe? Tripe is assuming that you know that Reed and Spieth would be killers at foursomes and thereby criticizing Watson for not playing them on Friday afternoon. I call that myopic hindsight conjecturing.
Garland
YOU are the jackass. I'd be interested in knowing if you can supply a quote of ONE member of the team's quote where they contradict PM's quote. My guess is that you can't but if you can supply one than I'll shut my pie hole.
Otherwise go back to your hole and blow yourself.
Anxiously awaiting your response.
How about we put this on equal footing. Please supply a quote of ONE member of the team where they support PM's statement that "they didn’t have any say in this Ryder Cup".
It seems everyone else besides PM is smart enough to keep out of it in public.
-
Perhaps it is instructive and revealing that, to date, neither Tom Watson nor the PGA of America have said anything that in any way contradicts or refutes what Mickelson said. Watson attributed it to "different management styles" at the presser; in his statement, you'd have to assume that he either ignored it or was including it in his apology.
But all of that is beside the point of the thread, which is "What did Watson do wrong?" Taken in total, his captaincy was a dumpster fire, regardless of the efficacy of what Mickelson did. That is another issue entirely.
-
http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/09/how-the-jordan-spieth-patrick.html
indicates that it was Stricker who got Tom to change the pairings and put Reed and Spieth out together. It also indicates the reasoning that they would be good in four-ball, but not in foursomes.
So it seems that the captain was listening more than many are portraying.
-
Has there been any players come out to defend Watson? Or take on Phil?
Hunter's comments were interesting about euros playing hard for their captain, and the need for US to
look more to the euro model
Would that be considered a shot at Tom ::)
Pat,
I appreciate your insight as you have more intimate knowledge of the players/Captains than most anyone here,
and have the courage to share your opinion.
To what do you attribute the losses of the other 7 losing teams Mickelson has been on?
or for that matter , his own record in the Ryder Cup?
or taking it a step farther, his own losing record under Azinger?
Thanks
-
In light of Chamblee's comments, this comes from Jeff Babineau's article in the current edition of Golfweek:
"Players weren't involved in setting pairings. Rookies Jordan Speith and Patrick Reed were told only midweek at Scotland that they'd be playing together, but they weren't clear on which format. Speith and Matt Kuchar talked about pairing together on Wednesday, and it never came to be. Watson said he had two strong pairings--Bubba Watson-Webb Simpson and Mickelson-Keegan Bradley--but both were abandoned after Day 1."
Each person may decide for themselves, of course, which source they consider to be more credible. It seems significant, at least to me, that Babineau's account is in line with every other account of the proceedings, while Chamblee's version is his and his alone. Even Tom Watson himself, at the presser or in his statement/apology, hasn't claimed he gave the players input.
-
The US has a better record in foursomes compared to four balls since 1985.
http://www.rydercup.com/usa/history/2014-ryder-cup-team-records
-
Has there been any players come out to defend Watson? Or take on Phil?
Hunter's comments were interesting about euros playing hard for their captain, and the need for US to
look more to the euro model
Would that be considered a shot at Tom ::)
Pat,
I appreciate your insight as you have more intimate knowledge of the players/Captains than most anyone here,
and have the courage to share your opinion.
To what do you attribute the losses of the other 7 losing teams Mickelson has been on?
or for that matter , his own record in the Ryder Cup?
or taking it a step farther, his own losing record under Azinger?
Thanks
Keeping in mind, I never sniffed being a Ryder Cup Player.
I'm shocked that Phil and Tiger don't have better records. Especially when they were pretty much head and shoulders the best in the world.
As far as losses, it sure seems that the European team answers the bell better. Every year,
it has been European players making hugely important putts at the right time.
The Europeans have two intangibles in their favor IMO
1) It IS a tighter knit tour over all. I played a few events, and it seemed most of us were in the same
hotels or areas. Lot of guys at dinner together etc. I feel there is more "us" due to the tightness in that situation
2) The European Tour is seen as a lesser tour by many. There is a chip on their shoulder to prove that they are not. Seve
was the beginning of "we are just as good or better", and they have built on it.
Again, Keep in mind, those are intangibles. The reality is, for the most part, it is amazingly close over those years, and the Europeans have just played better in crunch time. Not a surprise when in my best year, I was somewhere around 79th on the money list, and set my goals for the next year to try and improve 1/2 shot a round. A half shot a round better that year, and I would have been in the top 30. It doesn't take much to go from the top to the bottom.
I can tell you my personal feeling. If I was playing in something like this, there is nobody I'd want to play more than Phil (or Tiger).
A) nobody would expect me to win but me. B) I believe I would be better focused in the crazed atmosphere. I played hockey growing up, it would be so much fun to be in that atmosphere. I think everyone gets fired up to take down Phil, Tiger, and honestly, the USA.
-
Thanks Pat-great insight.
I've always felt that was the case as well, very good summary.
I've always been a Phil fan and thought he was given a bad rap by many for years.
Watson was never my cup of tea as a fan.
That said, I just haven't heard or seen any compelling reason to embrace ANY of Phil's philosophies or ideas for future success of the US Ryder Cup team-Or any reason to include him in the lineup decisions a Captain has to make-(my opinion might be different if he had a better record)
sounds like there was more than enough "help" and texts interfering with the process already.
Can you imagine sending Bobby Knight a text begging to be on the team or to play more ::) ::)
-
A general comment, not directed at any post / poster in particular but just based on a skim of the last page: do not discount the huge role luck plays. We are talking about two teams consisting of players with very closely matched levels of skill.
Had the USA not lost Johnson, Dufner, and Woods or perhaps even just one or two of them, we might not be having a debate. Who can say?
Had any number of events gone differently in 2012, really a lot of alternative scenarios to consider, just one shot here or there gone differently, we probably are not having this debate. Ditto for 2010. Who can say? Two consecutive 13.5-14.5 outcomes...and we're arguing like those results have more meaning than a coin flip?? Who can say?
Okay, sure, nobody's actually bothered to run the numbers, to do any amount of meaningful analysis, so who can say? Maybe in fact the selection criteria for the USA have suffered from specification error. Maybe Europe really is better. Who can say?
But I get it: once the battle lines are drawn and victory is the goal, no mooter wants luck in their corner, it's gotta be all black and white, 100% correlation between cause and effect in the mooter's argument. Who can say? The mooters, that's who. With 100% certainty.
Find your scapegoat, be it captains, players or the blood moon, line up your argument, draw your line in the sand...and start arguing.
-
Mark
In a team game with social aspects to consider, I find it hard to believe you think a computer can do the best all-round job. You can't have it both ways and say the US needs a computer to pick to get things right when the winning Euros are closer to the US model of picking a team and running the show then they are to a computer doing the same. I think the any model of how to run the show is too complicated for a computer...the group dynamics just can't be properly accounted for in a number crunching system. In any case, none of this should be that important that either PGA would want humans (as much as possible - which I don't believe is a lot) taken out of any equation. Its not like we are talking about road safety or air traffic control. Its a sporting event and at the heart of every sporting is people. I have a hard time with punters wanting replay reffing, so I am going to be a difficult person to convince that sporting events should look to remove the human element as much as possible.
Ciao
-
Sean
1) My main point is that luck plays a HUGE role, not that humans aren't central or that machines should take over. I don't want this point lost due to a discussion about machines. LUCK LUCK LUCK.
____________________________________________________________________
2) Do not extrapolate my comments regarding machines to other elements of the game. I believe very strongly in keeping human referees.
3) As for machines and the Ryder Cup, keep in mind that as far as the most important decision ie team selection, machines already make 2/3 - 3/4 of those. Machines are here, they already are being used. To argue against machines is to argue against the current state of affairs, not against "the future."
-
Well sure, luck plays a big role in sport...thats one of the reasons we watch. But luck, should it be true luck, evens out over time. If we go on the assumption that either team is made up of mostly players who are not lock choices (meaning any given 2 year cycle could see a majority of the team change), then the system for selecting players is relies heavily on personal perception. To me, we could interchange at least half of each team and it wouldn't make a difference...the guys are that good (and lucky :D). In other words, the competition is so even that luck will play a significant role...in terms of who actually does well and when to become an RC candidate, to selecting the candidates, to winning the Ryder Cup. That said, the more luck involved, the less effective a computer program would be in aiding the process. To me, when one side is outclassed, that is when advanced stats and a savvy Captain can make a huge difference...though I can't define "huge" ;D I also think a savvy Captain can be the difference between winning and losing when teams are fairly matched, but unless the Captain is exceptional, its pot luck if the right Captain is matched with the best fitting players.
I said before, if the Captain largely as no say in the player selection process, I think it is probably best if the players select a Captain not long before the event itself. Say a team is selected after the Masters, they then select a Captain (who may be a playing Captain) and then the Captain gets to pick four players as when he sees fit. That would of course mean a complete downsizing of the event...not a bad thing imo. Otherwise, I would prefer players and Captains from the last handful of RCs select a Captain, who then has the freedom to select his team as he sees fit using the guidance of whomever he sees fit. I would get rid of the automatic pick deal.
Ciao
-
Sean
1) My main point is that luck plays a HUGE role, not that humans aren't central or that machines should take over. I don't want this point lost due to a discussion about machines. LUCK LUCK LUCK.
If this is genuinely the explanation for the RC results in recent years we Euros must be due one hell of a downturn in our luck sometime soon ;)
-
Sean
1) My main point is that luck plays a HUGE role, not that humans aren't central or that machines should take over. I don't want this point lost due to a discussion about machines. LUCK LUCK LUCK.
____________________________________________________________________
Explanations like that have to be music to the ears of the Euros
-
Just because you write your "dream pairings" on a piece of paper does not mean the captain is going to implement. If Watson ignored the input he asked for then the players had no say in the pairings..
-
Europe has just been lucky so many times in the past 20 years ;) ;D
-
... If Watson ignored the input he asked for then the players had no say in the pairings..
:o :o
Are you telling me Phil and Keegan didn't put each other down as desired partners?
:o :o
-
Interesting to see that only ONE of the US players turned up to play in the World Matchplay. You would think if the players were serious about winning they would take the opportunity play in any event that would improve their performances at matchplay. Interesting that the ONE who did was one of the better performers.
Is it that most of the US players prefer to play courses and formats that suit their game rather than trying to improve the weaker points of their game. Maybe the Ryder Cup rankings for the US team should count points gained on tours outside the PGA Tour as double so as to encourage players to experience other conditions.
Jon
-
I heard Reed interviewed after he was eliminated from the World Matchplay. I have to say he is growing on me. Compared to so many younger PGA players he seems to have a bit of character.
-
I heard that interview also Mark and it made the same impression on me too.
Jon
-
The subsequent formation of an 11-man task force, as Nicklaus noted, amounts to a dangerous case of overkill. How many chefs do we need standing over the broth? Most sports-related task forces are born out of tragedy or scandal, not because a bunch of guys in Ralph Lauren sweaters couldn’t make a putt.
;)
-
The subsequent formation of an 11-man task force, as Nicklaus noted, amounts to a dangerous case of overkill. How many chefs do we need standing over the broth? Most sports-related task forces are born out of tragedy or scandal, not because a bunch of guys in Ralph Lauren sweaters couldn’t make a putt.
;)
Good quote GJ. and why include Woods who is not exactly a team player nor really any good in the Ryder Cup.
Jon
-
I heard Reed interviewed after he was eliminated from the World Matchplay. I have to say he is growing on me. Compared to so many younger PGA players he seems to have a bit of character.
No small coincidence he was the only American to turn up at a match play event.
The lack of performance athe RC is a PLAYER issue, not a coach issue, but then that would be preaching to the choir in Patrick Reed's case as he evidently is not part of the problem.
Let's hope pussyfooting, hand holding, Task Force bred future Captains don't taint him and teach him the repetitive habit of losing gracefully. ::) ::) ::) then blaming someone else.......
-
I would like to Congratulate the European team. Could anyone else imagine Trevino acting like PM in a press conference?? Looking forward to the Walker Cup.
-
Watson did nothing wrong. Our American players just do not like playing in team format as much as the European do and it means more to them. For example Tiger was one of the greatest, if not greatest match player of all time winning 6 USGA national championships in a row (which I think was more difficult than winning his 4 pro majors in a row - having volunteered as a rules official for over 25 years it is very difficult to win in match play two years in a row yet six years in a row). Yet in the Ryder Cup Tigers record is just OK.
Again Watson did no worng.
-
Stephen,
I am not sure if you can say which format is harder to win at as they are so different as to make such comparisons almost impossible. As for the USGA national championship 6 times in a row I might agree with you except which one is that?
Jon
-
Jon - Tiger won three US Juniors in a row (1991, 1992, & 1993) then starting the very next year he won three US Amateurs in a row (1994, 1995 & 1996). And in a few of them he was like four down going to the back nine.
-
Watson did nothing wrong. Our American players just do not like playing in team format as much as the European do and it means more to them. For example Tiger was one of the greatest, if not greatest match player of all time winning 6 USGA national championships in a row (which I think was more difficult than winning his 4 pro majors in a row - having volunteered as a rules official for over 25 years it is very difficult to win in match play two years in a row yet six years in a row). Yet in the Ryder Cup Tigers record is just OK.
Again Watson did no worng.
I agree with you. Other than not picking the FedEx points leader that had just won for the second time the day before the picks, and sitting his most successful team Friday morning team of two young guys on Friday afternoon to play an old guy who isn't very good at fourball, and then sitting an undefeated four ball team on Saturday morning, plus pissing on everybody on the team on Saturday night before the singles, I can't think of a single thing he did wrong.
And I thought his apology for not doing anything wrong was good, too.
I mean, c'mon! The Euros played great; they were the favorites coming in, and they played well enough to win, as they have for quite awhile now. But that doesn't mean Watson did a good job and did a good job. He was awful, in a league with Sutton and Strange Curtis for weird decision-making.
-
Watson did nothing wrong. Our American players just do not like playing in team format as much as the European do and it means more to them. For example Tiger was one of the greatest, if not greatest match player of all time winning 6 USGA national championships in a row (which I think was more difficult than winning his 4 pro majors in a row - having volunteered as a rules official for over 25 years it is very difficult to win in match play two years in a row yet six years in a row). Yet in the Ryder Cup Tigers record is just OK.
Again Watson did no worng.
I agree with you. Other than not picking the FedEx points leader that had just won for the second time the day before the picks, and sitting his most successful team Friday morning team of two young guys on Friday afternoon to play an old guy who isn't very good at fourball, and then sitting an undefeated four ball team on Saturday morning, plus pissing on everybody on the team on Saturday night before the singles, I can't think of a single thing he did wrong.
AG agreed on the first few points, but who's to say the American team didn't need pissing on Saturday night?
Mickelson's little undermining hand holding rah-rah certainly didn't help-they lost the singles as well.
We'll never know if Watson's "piss on" speech would've worked because Mickelson immediately undermined it.
I'm not one to go for negative coaching, and have chosen not to coach kids in that manner, but perhaps Watson felt little else had worked for 20 years and went with his gut to attempt to motivate them, and may have even felt it was his duty as he was selected as a hardass Captain.
Imagine a hoops player turning his back on Bobby Knight after a team scalding/motivational moment.
and now we are reduced to thinking "pods" are our answer.
Last I checked the only player/Captain on the committee without a losing record was Oprah, who I'm sure is about to be asked.
-
Jeff,
Apparently Watson himself is the one to say that his "talk" on Saturday night was inappropriate, if not counterproductive; he apologized for it! And remember, it wasn't just the team that he was talking to; the wives, caddies, etc. were all in the room. 40 some people in all, I think. It's one thing to give a hardass halftime speech; I was a HS coach for 40 years and did many, many of those. But that's behind closed doors; it's another thing entirely to embarrass your team in a semi-public venue. And we won't even get into the differences between golf and basketball or football...
And the Knight analogy doesn't work; those were scholarship athletes between 18 and 22 years old playing basketball. I attended two clinics that Knight taught for HS coaches, and he WAS the smartest person in the room w/o question. Watson is no Bobby Knight to begin with, and the clients and the venue were completely different.
As to Mickelson, his career in golf is arguably the equal of Watson's, and he had as much or more invested in the Ryder Cup team. He knows the guys in that room, and I'll go with his take on what would work best with them at least as much as a captain who had already pooped in the nest from the captain's picks on through lineup selection.
None of this takes away from Watson's career as a golfer, nor does any of it take away from what the Euros did. But Watson did a crappy job from start to finish as the captain of this team, and there just isn't any way around that.
-
So A. G., what was your record as a coach?
-
As to Mickelson, his career in golf is arguably the equal of Watson's, and he had as much or more invested in the Ryder Cup team. He knows the guys in that room, and I'll go with his take on what would work best with them at least as much as a captain who had already pooped in the nest from the captain's picks on through lineup selection.
None of this takes away from Watson's career as a golfer, nor does any of it take away from what the Euros did. But Watson did a crappy job from start to finish as the captain of this team, and there just isn't any way around that.
Ultimately, Watson failed to win. He may have been thrust into a position for which he was unsuitable- wasn't he always sort of a loner, a man who may have been "mentored" by Byron Nelson, but by and large followed his own counsel? I agree with A.G.'s comments above.
I think it makes all the sense in the world to break up the players into so-called pods based on personalities, playing style, etc. and have them develop their chemistry, familiarity, strategy, and confidence. I have to believe that this might create some competition among the pods and maybe have a positive impact on team performance.
Perhaps the PGA should go out on the limb and name Phil to be the next Captain. Or have the top 12 players on the the Ryder Cup standings following the US Open select the captain from a short list of candidates provided by the PGA.
Or maybe the team should just learn to close rounds and putt. The cycle will reverse.
-
So A. G., what was your record as a coach?
Without a doubt, far superior to yours as a player.
-
So A. G., what was your record as a coach?
Without a doubt, far superior to yours as a player.
Oh yea? How many national tournaments did he take teams to?
-
As to Mickelson, his career in golf is arguably the equal of Watson's, and he had as much or more invested in the Ryder Cup team. He knows the guys in that room, and I'll go with his take on what would work best with them at least as much as a captain who had already pooped in the nest from the captain's picks on through lineup selection.
Watson was selected as Captain.
Mickelson wasn't.
Comparing Watson to Knight is probably not correct, but would you stand for a player undermining a strategy you as the appointed coach attempted to employ?
What if Mickelson had not approved of Crenshaw's strategy in 99?
And what the hell are 40 people doing in the team room anyway?
We agree on many things regarding Watson's captaincy, but you started to lose lose me saying Phil's career is arguably the equal of Watson's.
Watson had Phils career in The Open Championship alone-and I've been a Phil fan and lukewarm on Watson.
You completely lost me though when you said "Phil knows what works best for them"
NO ONE knows what works best for them because almost nothing HAS worked during Phil's entire era.
The ONLY players who have played well have been the rookies of 2008 and the rookies of 2014, which leads me to believe Watson wanted to do something/anything different in hopes of a different result in a culture of losing.
Wrongheaded perhaps, but he's the Captain, and Mickelson merely another career unsuccessful Ryder Cup struggler.
Ironically Phil's record was much better under Watson than Zinger's (was he mispodded? ;D ;D)
Right or wrong, after this embarrassing task force,
what exactly do we do if we don't win in 2016?
-
Until then the powers that be and some of the US fans look like absolute morons by putting so much credence into "pods" and "Task Forces". and the Captain.
+1
Ciao
-
You know...we've heard many reasons why the Euros have DOMINATED this event over the past...I dunno.....20 years? "The Euros want it more......it doesn't matter as much to the Americans.....Us has bad captains.......the Euros have a top secret system to identify the best Captains......the event is boring so it doesn't capture the US team's attention..... the Euros seem to be having fun.....the US team looks like they're heading to the gallows.....(my personal fave...the Euros have more fire in their bellies...where I'm from that's referred to as ulcers or indigestion)....the US teams are just pampered rich pros (unlike their counterparts who are no doubt out hustling money at muni courses during the weeks they're not playing on tour)....the Euros want to win more....the US has hideous uniforms (hard to argue that point)......the Euros drink during the week.....Azinger woulda been a great General in the Army; did you ever hear about his theory on Pods and how it revolutionized the game as we know it?"
It dawned on me while reading something about Bob Knight in this thread. Nothing to do with Knight. The Euros simply have the US teams number.
Isn't there someone that you play with...or a course that is a ballbuster and you almost always get the better of him or it? It's an immeasurable called confidence. Now couple that with the immense talent that the Euros have and it doesn't take a team of Pods or Task Forces to realize that it's just one of those things that happens. Cycles change and I'm sure the US team will win one or two of these things in the next decade and then who knows: maybe the US side will start winning at a regular clip again?
Until then the powers that be and some of the US fans look like absolute morons by putting so much credence into "pods" and "Task Forces". The Euros have had a tough to beat combination for the past 20 years: mojo + confidence + talent= Victory.
I think there is a simpler answer. The US team seem to think they are playing for the country, American values, liberty, The Alamo, George Washington etc etc. The Euros don't have a similar mind set, they are simply playing for each other and their fans. That is a bit easier to focus on and respond to.
-
You know...we've heard many reasons why the Euros have DOMINATED this event over the past...I dunno.....20 years? "The Euros want it more......it doesn't matter as much to the Americans.....Us has bad captains.......the Euros have a top secret system to identify the best Captains......the event is boring so it doesn't capture the US team's attention..... the Euros seem to be having fun.....the US team looks like they're heading to the gallows.....(my personal fave...the Euros have more fire in their bellies...where I'm from that's referred to as ulcers or indigestion)....the US teams are just pampered rich pros (unlike their counterparts who are no doubt out hustling money at muni courses during the weeks they're not playing on tour)....the Euros want to win more....the US has hideous uniforms (hard to argue that point)......the Euros drink during the week.....Azinger woulda been a great General in the Army; did you ever hear about his theory on Pods and how it revolutionized the game as we know it?"
It dawned on me while reading something about Bob Knight in this thread. Nothing to do with Knight. The Euros simply have the US teams number.
Isn't there someone that you play with...or a course that is a ballbuster and you almost always get the better of him or it? It's an immeasurable called confidence. Now couple that with the immense talent that the Euros have and it doesn't take a team of Pods or Task Forces to realize that it's just one of those things that happens. Cycles change and I'm sure the US team will win one or two of these things in the next decade and then who knows: maybe the US side will start winning at a regular clip again?
Until then the powers that be and some of the US fans look like absolute morons by putting so much credence into "pods" and "Task Forces". The Euros have had a tough to beat combination for the past 20 years: mojo + confidence + talent= Victory.
I think there is a simpler answer. The US team seem to think they are playing for the country, American values, liberty, The Alamo, George Washington etc etc. The Euros don't have a similar mind set, they are simply playing for each other and their fans. That is a bit easier to focus on and respond to.
Martin
You forgot the American way of life and democracy.
Ciao
-
So you're saying winning an event for ones Country is harder than winning one for your Land Mass?
-
The US team seem to think they are playing for the country, American values, liberty, The Alamo, George Washington etc etc.
Do you really think there are many players on the team who believe that stuff? Sure, they feel some pressure to win for "America" ... probably more so than anybody feels for "Europe," since few if any of the Euro players grew up thinking of themselves as citizens of Europe ... but I don't think there are many players on the U.S. team who are truly delusional about some great importance to the event.
Indeed, it's just the opposite. Deep down, most of the American players think the Ryder Cup is far less important than winning a major. And the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
-
The quickest way to win the Ryder Cup is to come up with a selection process that picks the guys who are at the top of their game now, not 18 months earlier. Take our top 12 off the FedEx points list and roll. Webb Simpson might as well not have showed up, as one unfortunate example. The captain's job should be making up the pairings and figuring who has any chance in foursomes. What a fiasco that was!
-
What's wrong with a playing captain? That use to work well.
-
As to Mickelson, his career in golf is arguably the equal of Watson's, and he had as much or more invested in the Ryder Cup team. He knows the guys in that room, and I'll go with his take on what would work best with them at least as much as a captain who had already pooped in the nest from the captain's picks on through lineup selection.
Watson was selected as Captain.
Mickelson wasn't.
Comparing Watson to Knight is probably not correct, but would you stand for a player undermining a strategy you as the appointed coach attempted to employ?
What if Mickelson had not approved of Crenshaw's strategy in 99?
And what the hell are 40 people doing in the team room anyway?
We agree on many things regarding Watson's captaincy, but you started to lose lose me saying Phil's career is arguably the equal of Watson's.
Watson had Phils career in The Open Championship alone-and I've been a Phil fan and lukewarm on Watson.
You completely lost me though when you said "Phil knows what works best for them"
NO ONE knows what works best for them because almost nothing HAS worked during Phil's entire era.
The ONLY players who have played well have been the rookies of 2008 and the rookies of 2014, which leads me to believe Watson wanted to do something/anything different in hopes of a different result in a culture of losing.
Wrongheaded perhaps, but he's the Captain, and Mickelson merely another career unsuccessful Ryder Cup struggler.
Ironically Phil's record was much better under Watson than Zinger's (was he mispodded? ;D ;D)
Right or wrong, after this embarrassing task force,
what exactly do we do if we don't win in 2016?
Jeff,
I said that Mickelson career is arguably equal to Watson. While Watson has won three more majors and is one of the dominant links players of all time, Mickelson has more wins overall, and both men are just one major short of a career slam. We can quibble over that, but it isn't important; both men are among the top dozen or so to ever play the game.
And I never said that Mickelson "knows what works best for them." I said the Mickelson knew the guys in that room better than Watson, and that I'd go with his take over Watson's as to what would work best. Certainly Watson's approach to that point had been less than productive.
I think the answer to the question "What the hell were 40 people doing in the team room anyway?" is that it was a different type of gathering than a halftime locker room. My impression is that it was a function for all associated with the team on the last night of the event, with gifts to be exchanged, etc. But that's neither here nor there; the simple fact is that even Watson himself realized that he had jumped the rails at that meeting.
-
The quickest way to win the Ryder Cup is to come up with a selection process that picks the guys who are at the top of their game now, not 18 months earlier. Take our top 12 off the FedEx points list and roll. Webb Simpson might as well not have showed up, as one unfortunate example. The captain's job should be making up the pairings and figuring who has any chance in foursomes. What a fiasco that was!
Correct. Kirk won the Deutsche Bank the day before the selection were announced, beating McIlroy head-to-head over 36 holes on the weekend. It was his second win of the year, and at that point he led the FedEx standings by a wide margin before ultimately finishing second. How hard is that to get right?
That's not 20-20 hindsight; it was just an inexplicable omission at the time, which looks even worse now.
-
Ultimately, Watson failed to win. He may have been thrust into a position for which he was unsuitable- wasn't he always sort of a loner, a man who may have been "mentored" by Byron Nelson, but by and large followed his own counsel? I agree with A.G.'s comments above.
...
Ultimately, Watson was asked to take a team with a record of 2-7, and he extended the record to 2-8. Ultimately, those blaming Watson are myopic hindsight speculators.
-
... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
I think that is highly unlikely.
-
... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
I think that is highly unlikely.
Then why do so many major-less Euro Ryder Cup players keep performing better in this competition against major-winning US players?
-
The US team seem to think they are playing for the country, American values, liberty, The Alamo, George Washington etc etc.
Do you really think there are many players on the team who believe that stuff? Sure, they feel some pressure to win for "America" ... probably more so than anybody feels for "Europe," since few if any of the Euro players grew up thinking of themselves as citizens of Europe ... but I don't think there are many players on the U.S. team who are truly delusional about some great importance to the event.
Indeed, it's just the opposite. Deep down, most of the American players think the Ryder Cup is far less important than winning a major. And the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
Tom
I agree with everything you wrote in your 1st paragraph. But I think you screwed the pooch on your 2nd paragraph. From a purely visceral point I've never seen a collective group of gutted/dejected/sourpusses in my life than those Americans who sit at tables following another drubbing at the hands of the Euros in a Ryder Cup. I've seen better attitudes from those attending a child's funeral. And I'm not comparing the two but simply pointing out how disemboweled the US team looks after each defeat. I honestly have considered trying to get a press credential to attend one of these now bi-annual mournings just so I could say; "Are you dipshits aware that source of your angst/anger/depression/tears is a game where you coax a small ball into a slightly bigger hole in fewer strokes than your opponent? And you failed by a few whacks. Any of you assholes care to accompany me to Haiti or some other 3rd world country to view the atrocities? No? Ok..how bout riding shotgun with me through skid-fucking-row and try to help out a fellow man or woman who is at their rock bottoms? If it's ok with you we'll take my station wagon and not your Ferrari. What's that? You have a commercial to film that day? But I didn't tell you the day. OK. I understand. Godspeed Brother."
What a load of crock..... :(
Lots of golfers have faced difficult circumstances (Mickelson among others faced the very real prospect of losing his wife and his kids' mother), a fair number I'm sure do a lot of charitable work, and if they are truly charitable, none of us will ever find out about it.
These guys are competitors -- among the .001 percent of the populous that can do something extraordinarily better than the remaining 99.99 percent of us. That they look sullen after losing in something that is their life passion -- the way they make a living, really -- is hardly surprising.
I think Tom Doak is mostly correct; I would argue the U.S. players look that way because they can't seem to come to grips with why they keep losing this thing. I'm sure deep down all of them, or nearly all of them, view their Tour and their way of approaching golf as superior to that on the Euro Tour, and as evidence of that I'm guessing many would point to the majors they've all collectively won. I think if you poured a couple of beers down Justin Rose's throat, and got him to be truly candid, he'd view his participation on winning Ryder Cup sides with a bit more pride than his US Open win -- it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, for sure, but I think that's true for many Euro players.
I don't think it's true for many -- if any at all -- U.S. players. Lanny Wadkins might have been the last one.
-
... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
I think that is highly unlikely.
Then why do so many major-less Euro Ryder Cup players keep performing better in this competition against major-winning US players?
Probably for the same reason that the last five WGC Matchplay winners have not won a major, even though probably almost all major winners active are in the event, don't you think?
-
... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
I think that is highly unlikely.
Then why do so many major-less Euro Ryder Cup players keep performing better in this competition against major-winning US players?
Probably for the same reason that the last five WGC Matchplay winners have not won a major, even though probably almost all major winners active are in the event, don't you think?
Garland:
The World Match-Play tournament is like a PGA Tour stop, only worse. ;D It's a one-off thing where the odd characteristics of match play leads to some unpredictable outcomes. Plenty of good US Tour players have won it, but so have some Euro Ryder Cups stars, and tying it to major winners seems like a thin reed on which to hang your argument.
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
-
The thread has become one about why the US doesn't win the Ryder Cup, and of course there are multiple answers to that; if there was only one reason, there wouldn't be a discussion and there would be a clear path for the US to change things.
The simplest reason that the Euros have been winning is that they are better at the top of their lineup, and have been for awhile. You don't have to be better 1-12; if you have 6 guys who can contribute 2 points each, you only need a little bit from the other guys to win. This may not change anytime soon; if you take the best player from England and the best player from Ireland and the best player from Germany and the best player from Scotland and the best player from France and the best player from Spain, there's your 6 guys right there. Throw in the second best from each of those countries, plus Denmark, Italy, and so on, and the US is going to have it pretty tough. The competition isn't between the top 100 in each; it's only 12.
There are other intangibles, it seems; the Euros seem to be better at dealing with the pressure of the event (which ALL agree is huge); why that would be, I don't know. The Euros also seem to have a more closely knit group most years, and we could speculate endlessly as to why that is so.
I'm not very nationalistic, and it doesn't bother me in the least when the US loses in ANY international competition, including the Ryder Cup. I admire good golf, and like to think I can separate that from where the guy came from or his personal characteristics, etc. I thought the Euros were better going in, and I thought that the US perform admirably to lead the combination of the four ball and singles. That the Euros dominated the foursomes is of no great interest or concern to me, and that the Euros retained the cup is not causing me to lose any sleep, either.
But the thread started on Oct. 1st with the VERY simple question of "What did Watson do wrong?" That seems a simple question to me, and one distinct from which team was better, or what Mickelson said at the presser, or what Watson's legacy as a player is/will be, or why the Euros seem better at this stuff. The question and the answers to it don't detract from the Euros victory, nor give a clear path to the US winning.
In this case, at least, a simple question also has a simple answer, with multiple examples. Watson did a LOT wrong, beginning with really, really poor captain's picks (of which he made only three instead of four!), extending to unarguably multiple weird decisions about lineups, and concluding with personal behavior in front of 40 people for which he himself felt compelled to apologize just a few days later.
There is much to admire about Tom Watson as a player and a person, but there has been during his career much about him to question and NOT admire as a person as well. His captaincy of this Ryder Cup team will be an example of the latter.
-
What did Watson do wrong?
1) Left one obvious last-minute choice off the team. Seems in retrospect almost certainly an error.
2) Made some counter-intuitive (at best) choices of who to play and who to sit. Maybe a mistake but doubtful it made enough difference to swing the final result.
3) Did not stroke the egos of the prima donnas on his team and caused them to pout. I guess such ego-stroking is part of the job requirements, if so Watson failed miserably.
4) Came across as a old crotchety guy instead of a lovable mensch. That has nothing to do with causing the outcome but made him a brilliant fit for the role of goat according to the players and media.
-
The thread has become one about why the US doesn't win the Ryder Cup, and of course there are multiple answers to that; if there was only one reason, there wouldn't be a discussion and there would be a clear path for the US to change things.
The simplest reason that the Euros have been winning is that they are better at the top of their lineup, and have been for awhile. You don't have to be better 1-12; if you have 6 guys who can contribute 2 points each, you only need a little bit from the other guys to win. This may not change anytime soon; if you take the best player from England and the best player from Ireland and the best player from Germany and the best player from Scotland and the best player from France and the best player from Spain, there's your 6 guys right there. Throw in the second best from each of those countries, plus Denmark, Italy, and so on, and the US is going to have it pretty tough. The competition isn't between the top 100 in each; it's only 12.
A.G.:
While I agree with much of your sentiments about Watson, I'd differ that Euro has relied on a top-heavy line-up during its years of success in the Ryder Cup. Euro has almost always gotten significant contributions -- often in crucial moments -- from down-lineup players over the years:
-- Dubuisson won 3 points last month, including a singles win, and anyone who saw him play noticed it wasn't just McDowell carrying him during foursomes play.
-- Donaldson won 3 points, including a pretty big spanking of Bradley in singles.
-- Paul Lawrie has been one of Euro's best players in the Ryder Cup -- one of the few to come through in '99 in singles, and another huge singles win at Medinah. Colsaerts single-handedly won a fourballs match at Medinah with Tiger throwing everything at him with something like a 62 on his own ball, and of course had a big singles win.
-- Jimenez took down Bubba in singles in 2010; Rocca took down Tiger in '97.
-- David Howell, Philip Price, Thomas Levet, Paul McGinley, Mark James, Howard Clark, and Philip Walton have all had big singles wins on the last day that were crucial to Euro winning.
That's not a little bit of winning; it's a lot. I'd argue Euro's down-lineup has consistently outperformed the U.S. down-lineup in the last two decades.
-
Garland:
The World Match-Play tournament is like a PGA Tour stop, only worse. ;D It's a one-off thing where the odd characteristics of match play leads to some unpredictable outcomes.
But yet there are a good number here that presume they can predict match play and could have done better than Watson. I seriously doubt they could. Myopic hindsight, e.g., they don't seem to consider "the odd characteristics of match play" when they insist they know the key to success that Watson didn't.
Plenty of good US Tour players have won it, but so have some Euro Ryder Cups stars, and tying it to major winners seems like a thin reed on which to hang your argument.
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
I would suggest that if you scale to respective team win/loss records, you might just find non-major winning US players knocking of major winning Euro players. E.g. GMac had a very bad record in the previous Ryder cup.
-
It is really disappointing how defeatist some of the US posters on here are about the US team. You lost this time on the back of very poor foursomes play and the previous one due to a record breaking singles play by the Europeans otherwise things might have been different. Come on guys really???
-
Since the US lost the singles, how can you blame Watson? Because he chose Webb? Webb halved singles with the current Mr. Ryder Cup, Poulter. Because he chose Mahan? Mahan halved his singles with major winner Rose. Because he chose Bradley. Admittedly Bradley stunk at singles, but many of you think he had to be chosen to pair with perennial loser Mickelson. When it turned out that team stunk anyway, they got benched. Good on Tom. He had a losing team, as exhibited by their singles performance, and he did the best that could be done with them.
-
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
I would suggest that if you scale to respective team win/loss records, you might just find non-major winning US players knocking of major winning Euro players. E.g. GMac had a very bad record in the previous Ryder cup.
[/quote]
Garland:
See response #64 in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59626.50.html
-
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
I would suggest that if you scale to respective team win/loss records, you might just find non-major winning US players knocking of major winning Euro players. E.g. GMac had a very bad record in the previous Ryder cup.
Garland:
See response #64 in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59626.50.html
That does not address what I said.
-
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
I would suggest that if you scale to respective team win/loss records, you might just find non-major winning US players knocking of major winning Euro players. E.g. GMac had a very bad record in the previous Ryder cup.
Garland:
See response #64 in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59626.50.html
That does not address what I said.
[/quote]
In what way?
-
Over time, with a decent sample size, non-major winning Euro golfers have been far more proficient at the Ryder Cup than their major-winning US colleagues.
I would suggest that if you scale to respective team win/loss records, you might just find non-major winning US players knocking of major winning Euro players. E.g. GMac had a very bad record in the previous Ryder cup.
Garland:
See response #64 in this thread: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59626.50.html
That does not address what I said.
In what way?
You didn't show the top non-major winners from the US records.
You didn't attempt to correlate to overall team winning records.
You are just cherry picking a few facts.
-
You didn't attempt to correlate to overall team winning records.
I will run this by my two-year-advanced math 14-year-old high schooler and get back to you. 8)
-
Phil,
It may be just be that the US has such a plethora of talent that the turnover on the team is so high that the Europeans win simply by their players having much more Ryder Cup experience.
Run that by your 14 year-old.
-
The thread has become one about why the US doesn't win the Ryder Cup, and of course there are multiple answers to that; if there was only one reason, there wouldn't be a discussion and there would be a clear path for the US to change things.
The simplest reason that the Euros have been winning is that they are better at the top of their lineup, and have been for awhile. You don't have to be better 1-12; if you have 6 guys who can contribute 2 points each, you only need a little bit from the other guys to win. This may not change anytime soon; if you take the best player from England and the best player from Ireland and the best player from Germany and the best player from Scotland and the best player from France and the best player from Spain, there's your 6 guys right there. Throw in the second best from each of those countries, plus Denmark, Italy, and so on, and the US is going to have it pretty tough. The competition isn't between the top 100 in each; it's only 12.
A.G.:
While I agree with much of your sentiments about Watson, I'd differ that Euro has relied on a top-heavy line-up during its years of success in the Ryder Cup. Euro has almost always gotten significant contributions -- often in crucial moments -- from down-lineup players over the years:
-- Dubuisson won 3 points last month, including a singles win, and anyone who saw him play noticed it wasn't just McDowell carrying him during foursomes play.
-- Donaldson won 3 points, including a pretty big spanking of Bradley in singles.
-- Paul Lawrie has been one of Euro's best players in the Ryder Cup -- one of the few to come through in '99 in singles, and another huge singles win at Medinah. Colsaerts single-handedly won a fourballs match at Medinah with Tiger throwing everything at him with something like a 62 on his own ball, and of course had a big singles win.
-- Jimenez took down Bubba in singles in 2010; Rocca took down Tiger in '97.
-- David Howell, Philip Price, Thomas Levet, Paul McGinley, Mark James, Howard Clark, and Philip Walton have all had big singles wins on the last day that were crucial to Euro winning.
That's not a little bit of winning; it's a lot. I'd argue Euro's down-lineup has consistently outperformed the U.S. down-lineup in the last two decades.
Phil,
I didn't say the bottom half of the Euro lineup hadn't contributed! I said that if your top six are really strong and can just account for two points each, you only NEED a little help from the bottom. To get more than a little, as the Euros consistently have, is a huge bonus.
It's like a basketball team with a great post player, a great point guard, and a great shooter; they're going to be in every game if the other guys can just do the little things. If the other guys, though, are really, really good too, then you're onto something. Think the San Antonio Spurs; they'd be really, really good with Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili and any other 4-12 roster in the NBA. But throw in Leonard, Green, Splitter, and so on and you've got a great team. I see the Euros that way; they've got the single best golfer from each of a half dozen countries; throw in the second best as well and look out!
-
Meanwhile, looks like Ted Bishop will have to buy a ticket to the next Ryder Cup.
http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2014/10/in-wake-of-poulter-comments-pg.html
Bishop's statement: I want to apologize to Ian Poulter and anyone else that I might have offended with my remarks on social media that appeared on October 23, 2014. Particularly, I have great remorse that my comments contained the words “little girl” because I have always been a great advocate for girls and women in golf.
My two children, both girls, have made their careers in golf. I have a 4-year old granddaughter who I hope will someday play the game. In my 37-year career in golf, I have worked with many women to grow the sport and I have been a champion for inclusion and equal rights for women in golf.
However, this is a classic example of poor use of social media on my part and if I had the chance to hit the delete button on the things that I sent out yesterday, I would without hesitation. The PGA of America asked me to avoid any interaction with the media in the past 24 hours and that is why I did not issue a formal and public apology, which I have wanted to do since early this morning.
This afternoon I was asked by my fellow Officers to resign my position as President. I declined because I wanted to speak to our PGA Board of Directors, offer a personal apology and let the due process take place in this matter. The Board heard me out and then voted to impeach me as the 38th President. That is the due process and I respect that, as painful as it might be.
The PGA has also informed me that I will not become the Honorary President nor will I ever be recognized as a Past President in our Association’s history. These, along with the impeachment are drastic consequences for the offense I have committed, but I must live with them. I take great pride in what we were able to accomplish in the last 23 months. Hopefully, we laid the groundwork for a successful future for the PGA of America. Today, all I have left is my PGA membership and that will always mean the world to me.
Ted Bishop, PGA
-
Tim,
Ted will probably still get free tickets but what a circus at the USPGA at the moment.
Jon
-
Does the term "impeach" seem a little overblown here? Granted, it's probably a correct use of the term, literally, but he's representing a professional sporting organisation - not exactly a public figure. How can he no longer be recognised as a past President? He IS a past President. Silly, macho remark from him - I know nothing about the man except that he seems to have the support of the players - there is surely "previous" here...
Agreed and that statement is about as classy as it could be in the circumstances.
I know nothing of the man but it strikes me the original offending post was likely made in anger when he reverted to language more commonly used when he was a child. There's been a lot of flak in the past few weeks and he must have been pretty fed up. A lesson to us all about being too quick to type and press 'send'. This will live with him to the end of his days.
-
... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.
I think that is highly unlikely.
Then why do so many major-less Euro Ryder Cup players keep performing better in this competition against major-winning US players?
Phil
Let me suggest that major-less Euro's are at least just as good as the major-winning Americans, week in week out and not just at the Ryder Cup. While using the number of majors won is how we judge the great players, who in the main are international players, quite a few of the European team largely play in Europe which is a real disadvantage in terms of competing in majors since 3 of the majors are effectively on the US tour while the other major is played on links which is largely alien to both sets of players in terms of what they are used to playing on a weekly basis. I think this was the case back when the Ryder Cup started getting competitive with Seve etc. I don't think much has changed.
For instance even getting into the majors back then was a struggle and it is a real eye opener to see how few US majors that someone like Sam Torrance played in, and this was a guy who spent over a decade near the pinnacle of the European game.
Niall
-
Well, they're probably as good as Simpson and Bradley, a pair of minor major winners of ever there was one!
-
Yes, it's very sad. It's easy to paint someone like that with the "blue blazer, country club type" brush, but there is probably a lot more to the man than that and reading the reaction to the players confirms this to be the case. He may not have been the best "President of the PGA", but so what? Everyone needs to calm down and get real - this is a game! And I include Mickelson in that with all of his talk of pods and making life really difficult for Watson in recent weeks - as if it wasn't difficult enough.
Mind numbingly amazing attack of political correctness.
Bishop may well have already been on the ropes.
Perhaps too much time grandstanding and not enough on the future of the fate of the rank and file PGA member finally took its toll.
A simple sincere well written clarification and apology to the offended women of the world should've been enough.
Unless something else was brewing for a long time.
-
I don't know if this has been said in the previous 11.5 pages of the thread, but this notion came clear today:
Azinger may have been successful because he employed a captaining structure (the behavior pods) that was external to him.
Watson's captaining style was internal to him; he motivated the team the way he motivates himself, the way successful captains/coaches have motivated him.
-
I don't know if this has been said in the previous 11.5 pages of the thread, but this notion came clear today:
Azinger may have been successful because he employed a captaining structure (the behavior pods) that was external to him.
Watson's captaining style was internal to him; he motivated the team the way he motivates himself, the way successful captains/coaches have motivated him.
Ronald, this is a terrific thought. I've not heard it put that way before, but I like it.
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
I think Chamblee is spot on here...succinct and honest.
I must have missed something; nobody who was actually there has contradicted Mickelson, have they? ...
You may have missed something, because people of good character don't like to air their dirty laundry in public. Now Phil aired dirty laundry in public, whereas, Tom put forth an apology like a person of character would. Did Phil put forth a similar apology?
Now we see that someone "actually there has contradicted Mickelson".
“I thought Tom did a great job of talking to the guys,” Fowler said, according to The Telegraph. “He has been there plenty of times, and I enjoyed the time I got to spend with him. I respect him; he is a legend within the game. Some things may have gotten blown a little bit out of proportion. But obviously we didn’t play as well as we needed to in order to win.”
-
Hard to accurately cover an event if your source is a liar.
http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/10/9/6951403/brandel-chamblee-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup-press-conference
I think Chamblee is spot on here...succinct and honest.
I must have missed something; nobody who was actually there has contradicted Mickelson, have they? ...
You may have missed something, because people of good character don't like to air their dirty laundry in public. Now Phil aired dirty laundry in public, whereas, Tom put forth an apology like a person of character would. Did Phil put forth a similar apology?
Now we see that someone "actually there has contradicted Mickelson".
“I thought Tom did a great job of talking to the guys,” Fowler said, according to The Telegraph. “He has been there plenty of times, and I enjoyed the time I got to spend with him. I respect him; he is a legend within the game. Some things may have gotten blown a little bit out of proportion. But obviously we didn’t play as well as we needed to in order to win.”
I think Watson described to the press that Phil had texted him pleading to play on Saturday afternoon. I don't class this or what Phil said as airing dirty laundry, however both effectively breached each others confidence.
I like Fowler, but his quote is the usual clap-trap platitude that golfers come out with. Replace Watson with Sutton, Love, Lehman, Pavin and all the players say the same old nonsense after each biannual hiding.
Just like the opening ceremony about "playing the game in the spirit that Samuel Ryder intended". Golfers have mastered the art of saying a lot, without ever saying anything, ever. It was refreshing to see Phil say what was on his mind, albeit semi cryptically. Watson was an old grouch - save for wearing a silly hat, he was as bad as Hal Sutton.
-
... Watson was an old grouch ...
Imagine that. Ryan Coles calling someone a grouch. ;D
Old curmudgeon GJ ;D
-
... Watson was an old grouch ...
Imagine that. Ryan Coles calling someone a grouch. ;D
Old curmudgeon GJ ;D
I know. Worrying thing is I'm only 34. What will I be like at his age? To be fair he's a bit better at golf than me, though I reckon I could drink him under the table.
-
I know. Worrying thing is I'm only 34. What will I be like at his age? To be fair he's a bit better at golf than me, though I reckon I could drink him under the table.
Doubt it.
-
I know I stick up for Mickelson a fair bit, but I appreciate he can be annoying.
When he won the masters and hugged his kids: to the camera "thanks for sharing this with me you guys"
They're 6 & 8, Phil. They had no say in it, you flew them there.
-
I know. Worrying thing is I'm only 34. What will I be like at his age? To be fair he's a bit better at golf than me, though I reckon I could drink him under the table.
Doubt it.
No really he is. He's won majors.
-
I know. Worrying thing is I'm only 34. What will I be like at his age? To be fair he's a bit better at golf than me, though I reckon I could drink him under the table.
Doubt it.
No really he is. He's won majors.
Touche'.
-
Golf Digest runs a tell-all about what Watson did wrong....
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2015-02/ryder-cup-meltdown-jaime-diaz (http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2015-02/ryder-cup-meltdown-jaime-diaz)
-
OT but whoooah :o
-
"The unease continued during the matches. Mickelson and Bradley won their opening four-ball (best-ball) match on Friday and were expected to rest during the afternoon foursomes (alternate shot), mostly because the thick rough wasn't conducive to Mickelson's often-erratic driving. But late in the morning match, Mickelson told Watson that he had charted his foursomes matches over his last five years of Ryder Cups and Presidents Cups, and claimed that on his driving holes he had missed only three fairways.
It was a classic Mickelson exaggeration, but Watson sat the young and eager Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reed to go with Mickelson and Bradley, 4-0 at that point in two Ryder Cups. "
So much for FIGJAM's claim that players had no input!
Note, that in a Golf magazine article, PGA Pres. Bishop related that the plan had always been to sit Reed on Friday afternoon, because he had had very poor practice sessions coming in.
-
It's been five months since Phil Mickelson made his infamous comments about the methods of U.S. Ryder Cup captains, but people are still weighing in. The latest is Lee Trevino.
In an interview with Golf.com, Trevino said Mickelson should have kept his mouth shut after yet another U.S. loss to the Europeans.
"I thought it would have come out a lot better from someone like Patrick Reed, who went 3-0-1, instead of a guy who has been a part of so many losing teams," Trevino said. "If I had a losing record in the Ryder Cup, I'd keep my mouth shut."
Mickelson has played on 10 Ryder Cup teams, compiling a 16-19-6 record as the U.S. went 2-8. Trevino, 75, was 17-7-6 in six Ryder Cups.
Trevino was especially irked at the criticism of last year's U.S. captain, Tom Watson.
“Tom Watson is a good friend of mine,” Trevino said. “I’ve got a hell of a lot of respect for the guy, and I was really angry about the way they treated him [after the U.S. team lost, 16 1/2 to 11 1/2]. I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but the players have to understand he worked his butt off for two years and all they did was show up and go play."
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/trevino-says-mickelson-should-have-shut-about-watson/
-
It's been five months since Phil Mickelson made his infamous comments about the methods of U.S. Ryder Cup captains, but people are still weighing in. The latest is Lee Trevino.
In an interview with Golf.com, Trevino said Mickelson should have kept his mouth shut after yet another U.S. loss to the Europeans.
"I thought it would have come out a lot better from someone like Patrick Reed, who went 3-0-1, instead of a guy who has been a part of so many losing teams," Trevino said. "If I had a losing record in the Ryder Cup, I'd keep my mouth shut."
Mickelson has played on 10 Ryder Cup teams, compiling a 16-19-6 record as the U.S. went 2-8. Trevino, 75, was 17-7-6 in six Ryder Cups.
Trevino was especially irked at the criticism of last year's U.S. captain, Tom Watson.
“Tom Watson is a good friend of mine,” Trevino said. “I’ve got a hell of a lot of respect for the guy, and I was really angry about the way they treated him [after the U.S. team lost, 16 1/2 to 11 1/2]. I don’t know what went on behind the scenes, but the players have to understand he worked his butt off for two years and all they did was show up and go play."
http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/trevino-says-mickelson-should-have-shut-about-watson/
+1 Trevino