What did Watson do wrong ?

[Sean_A]

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

[Martin Toal]

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.

[Sean_A]

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

[Brent Hutto]

So you're saying winning an event for ones Country is harder than winning one for your Land Mass?

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[Bill_McBride]

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!

[Michael Whitaker]

What's wrong with a playing captain? That use to work well.

[A.G._Crockett]

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?

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.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

... the Euros think it's more important than winning a major.

I think that is highly unlikely.

[Phil McDade]

... 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 McDade]

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.

[Garland Bayley]

... 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?

[Phil McDade]

... 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. 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.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Phil McDade]

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 Bayley]

Garland:

The World Match-Play tournament is like a PGA Tour stop, only worse. 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.

[Jon Wiggett]

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???

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Phil McDade]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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.

[Phil McDade]

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?

[Garland Bayley]

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.