[John Kirk]

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/

[Sean Leary]

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

[jeffwarne]

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.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

[Garland Bayley]

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

[JLahrman]

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.

[Pat Burke]

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.   

[Paul Gray]

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.

[A.G._Crockett]

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!

[Mark Bourgeois]

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.

[Rich Goodale]

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

[John Kirk]

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..."

 

[noonan]

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!

[Ronald Montesano]

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.

[Tony_Muldoon]

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.

[noonan]

Watson would not have penned the open letter had he felt good about his captaincy.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.)

[Scott McWethy]

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.

[John Kirk]

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. 

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

[Ronald Montesano]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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  

[Ronald Montesano]

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.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()