As an independent in the Ryder Cup discussion, can someone help me understand why the setup is seen as so anti-USA? If someone told me there was a tournament with narrow fairways and long rough I'd automatically think of the traditional US Open setups rather than the average Euro Tour stop. Bethpage Black anyone? I understand that the current US Tour setup is all about scoring and those setups have bred a collection of bomb and gouge artists but as most of the Euro's play on the US Tour why is it that only the guys born in the US can't hit a fairway? Are we saying that I should load up on Euros to win the next 3 or 4 US Opens?
Well, as a matter of fact, "non-U.S" players have won the US Open 50% of the time since 2001. That's a slightly higher rate than either the PGA or the Masters, and I think the same as the British.
As to the course setup, perhaps the term "anti-US" is a little to strong. Maybe a better way to think of the setup is valuing accuracy over length, both in terms of the height of the rough and the number of holes in which water comes into play. I think the conventional wisdom was that the US team benefits less from such a setup that the Euros. And for the record, I don't see anything wrong with that. The guys that can hit it long and straight, like Justin Thomas, did just fine.
I'm mention this again: Mark Broadie's pre-match analysis had the RC as a tossup, course setup aside. The idea that this was an massive upset is simply not supportable. The margin, yes, but not the Euros winning. That it is viewed as a massive upset by so many speaks directly to my take on this; the Euros somehow manage to maintain an underdog mentality year after year, and playing a sport as a talented underdog with something to prove and nothing to lose is the best way to play ANY sport.