[Mark Bourgeois]

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."

[Sean_A]

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  ).  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"    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

[Adam Lawrence]

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 

[jeffwarne]

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

[Craig Sweet]

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..

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Europe has just been lucky so many times in the past 20 years

[Garland Bayley]

... If Watson ignored the input he asked for then the players had no say in the pairings..

 
Are you telling me Phil and Keegan didn't put each other down as desired partners?

 

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[Jon Wiggett]

I heard that interview also Mark and it made the same impression on me too.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

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.

 

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[jeffwarne]

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.......

[BCowan]

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.

[Stephen Kay]

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.

[Jon Wiggett]

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

[Stephen Kay]

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.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

[jeffwarne]

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.
 

[A.G._Crockett]

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. 

[Garland Bayley]

So A. G., what was your record as a coach?

[Lou_Duran]

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.

[Lou_Duran]

So A. G., what was your record as a coach?

Without a doubt, far superior to yours as a player.

[Garland Bayley]

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?

[jeffwarne]

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? )

Right or wrong, after this embarrassing task force,
what exactly do we do if we don't win in 2016?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()