Tiger will have to earn his way onto Ryder Cup team says Captain Tom Watson

[tmac20]

His cup experience is that of a loser. Similarly, his individual record is the same. If he brings that to the table again as a vice captain or a player, Europe win. It's that straight-forward. America needs a more imaginative and daring answer than the Tiger and Phil show. Europe really ain't scared of either, and we'll happily face them. We're more weary of a big hitting slightly unknown element. Build the team round Ricky, Jordan, Dustin and Bubba and I think you have chance. Send out the usual suspects though, and all things being equal (which of course they never are) but all things being equal, you'll lose again.  The best thing flowing for you at the moment that I detect at least, is the level of intensity that is normally starting to build on the European side by this time, isn't really there, but we have time to crank it up

His singles record is 4-1-1...

[Wansteadimp]

In a similar effort at clarification, was the heckling fan who was ejected thrown out for calling McIlroy a 'taig' and is that term as derogatory in the UK as wikipedia indicates it is?

Its not something I've ever heard before, I relied on Wiki too.

However, I live in London. I can well believe that it is hugely derogatory in NI and certain parts of Scotland, but not something that you'd hear throughout the UK.

[iacas]

His cup experience is that of a loser. Similarly, his individual record is the same.

He's 4-1-2 in individual play in the Ryder Cup. His first loss came in his first Ryder Cup in 1997, toward the end of the season when he'd already started revamping his swing because he hated how it looked in his Masters rout.

Prior to 2012 he was one point under .500 all time in the Ryder Cup, but that obviously includes all the matches when he's paired with someone and thus is affected by their play .

The arguably greatest player of all time still plays pretty darn good golf in the Ryder Cup. He's just either:

a) Not a great partner.

b) Not given great partners.

I'm gonna go with b as the far more likely choice, with a dash of A.

Tiger's partners tend to suck when partnered with Tiger. They act like the pressure is on them (it is to some extent) and they often don't seem to play their game.

Tiger too isn't a great partner because, historically, he's more of a "par is a good score" player, while Ryder Cup matches often feature a lot of birdies.

He's often one of the leading point-earners on a team that loses a lot. That also speaks toward "b" being a factor.

Tiger Woods might be one of the best single-person match-play golfers of all time. You don't win six straight U.S. Junior Ams and U.S. Ams being a lousy match-play golfer.

P.S. I would choose him for the team if he rounds into form. He may be close, or he may be nowhere near close. The WGC + the PGA is all I'd need to see to pick him or not, if I were Tom Watson.

[FarawayFairways]

Very quickly, I'm afraid your presentation of his singles record (4-1-1) is wrong, (both of you who invoked it)

I suspect you're looking at a pre Medinah website?.

If you bring his record up to date, it will also throw a different light on this conclusion

"He's often one of the leading point-earners on a team that loses a lot"

Leading points earner has to be seen in the context of how many matches you play in order to make any sense of it as an indicator. Tiger frequently plays at least 4 matches and stands a better chance than most of finishing at the top of the pile. If you use the up to date data however, you'll know that he overtook Phil Mickelson at Medinah as America's all time losing most player. Two ways of looking at it

I will check out how frequently he has finished top of the pile to see if we could describe it as 'often'. I do seem to recall he did at Celtic Manor, but do note that you've invoked a slightly more fuzzy description of "one of the" (leading point-earners). If he plays 4 or 5 matches (played 5 at Brookline, Belfry, & K-Club, ) then he stands a chance of achieving this through weight of numbers

I'll also try and come up with a list of these useless players who America keeps saddling him with, and seeing if that stands up to scrutiny too. I can accept that in foursomes an individual asked to recover a partners poor shot might require a certain temperament, but in fourballs I don't believe the same pressure is quite so intense.

A quick look at his singles record incidentally show the following luminaires of the game

Rocca - Lost

Coltart - Won

Parnaevik - Halved

Casey - Won

Karlson - Won

Molinari - Won

Molinari - Halved

I'd have thought there'd be quite a few American's who would reckon they could generate a very similar sequence against that lot. Crikey, only three Italians have ever played in the cups history.

[iacas]

Very quickly, I'm afraid your presentation of his singles record (4-1-1) is wrong, (both of you who invoked it)

I edited my post within a few minutes to say 4-1-2 and then to add "prior to 2012." Refresh is your friend, as is quoting…

Leading points earner has to be seen in the context of how many matches you play in order to make any sense of it as an indicator. Tiger frequently plays at least 4 matches and stands a better chance than most of finishing at the top of the pile. If you use the up to date data however, you'll know that he overtook Phil Mickelson at Medinah as America's all time losing most player. Two ways of looking at it

I took that into consideration. A lot of the other players on the team also play in all five matches, especially since winning players tend to get re-used. I used winning percentages. Tiger's consistently one of the higher winning percentage players on a bunch of losing teams.

Heck, Nicklaus lost more points in the Ryder Cup than Chris Riley (playing against much weaker competition than Chris Riley). It'd be stupid to just look at points won in total, on a large (history) or small (one Ryder Cup) scale.

I'll also try and come up with a list of these useless players who America keeps saddling him with, and seeing if that stands up to scrutiny too. I can accept that in foursomes an individual asked to recover a partners poor shot might require a certain temperament, but in fourballs I don't believe the same pressure is quite so intense.

I think you believe incorrectly, then, that the pressure is not still as intense.

Tiger plays a very par-based game. That's how you win majors - making a lot of pars and taking advantage of the few opportunities (usually par fives) when you get them. If his playing partner knows that he is tasked with making a lot of birdies, then that affects how they play, and then that in turn affects how Tiger plays. For example, when the playing partner fails to hit the green, Tiger may have to try to hit the ball to five feet instead of his customary 25 feet. Or when Tiger hits a wayward tee shot (he might still find a way to make par, which is great in a major), his playing partner feels pressure to get a birdie since Tiger's out of position (though, again, it still may work in a major).

I think you're downplaying the role having a partner has on Tiger, particularly since none of his partners are anywhere near as good as he is at regular old golf.

Rocca - Lost

Coltart - Won

Parnaevik - Halved

Casey - Won

Karlson - Won

Molinari - Won

Molinari - Halved

He can only play the guys he's given. Fact of the matter is he's still got a .714 winning percentage in singles play.

You didn't respond to my P.S. That summarizes my feelings on Tiger, right now, this year. This thread is not about Tiger historically, but some history can be used to support either claim. I'm placing far, far, FAR more weight on his current play, in the WGC and the PGA. If he's close to being on form (and given that "his form" is higher than everyone else's), he gets the nod. If he's not, and there are better options, sorry Tiger. If he's not but he's close, and the other options are not on form either… that's when history and the fact that Tiger's arguably the greatest of all time may play a role.

[FarawayFairways]

Now I should say that crawling back through previous match results isn't much fun, and it's very easy to read from the wrong line and cross something in the wrong box etc so bear with me. But this is correct as far as I can see (open to be told otherwise)

In total Tiger has played with 12 different partners

I'll let you decide if its the case that he's " Not given great partners".

Mark O'Meara, Justin Leonard, Tom Lehman, David Duval, Steve Pate, Paul Azinger, Mark Calcavecchia, Davis Love, Phil Mickelson, Chris Riley, Jim Furyk, & Steve Stricker

Of those 12, he only has a winning record with two of them, and a halved record with another two.

Perhaps interestingly, if I asked you to rank that list in order of perceived strength, then it might be relevant that Tigers results have come alongside weaker players

The only two he has a winning record with are Davis Love & Chris Riley. The two who he's all square with are Jim Furyk and Steve Pate

As regards the notion that he's often the top points scorer, I'm not going to go through every match looking at every players score, but it was only at the K-Club and at Celtic Manor that he returned a positive score. Even in the single match that he's been a part of winning team, his own contribution was 2-3-0

I believe however, that he was top scorer (American) at the two matches mentioned, (taking that from memory). I'm struggling to believe he could have been at the others though with a best return of 2pts. I suspect he probably generated the lowest return at Medinah?

[iacas]

You continue to miss the point that past results matter very very little to me. I simply think it is incorrect to state that Tiger has been one of the poorer American players.

[FarawayFairways]

You didn't respond to my P.S. That summarizes my feelings on Tiger, right now, this year.

OK, I'll respond to it, although frankly I'm at a bit of loss to know what to say. Is it not just a statement of the blindingly obvious? That's how I interpreted it, and in that respect I didn't really feel it added much by way of insight, and therefore chose not to labour any point. If player X wins his next two tournaments we pick him, if he hovers around the cut mark, we don't. You could apply that to just about any fringe candidate to be honest, and that's why I tended to feel it didn't really merit a comment, anymore than I particularly want to set up a narrative addressing every point in every post etc

I suppose on reflection I can accept that there is a train of thought which clearly falls into the "pick Tiger regardless" camp and it's probably that line of thinking that you're challenging? Well for what it's worth, I'm sure that logic is flawed, and in that regard I'm sure you're right, which is why I read it as stating the obvious. To us, it just seems crystal clear.

[iacas]

:doh: By all means, continue to argue over a point we both agree is fairly inconsequential.

[FarawayFairways]

No problem. I'm sure we could pick a better team than Tom, but isn't that the fun of the fair. I've known for well over 30 years I can pick better football, cricket, and rugby teams than those charged with the task of doing so (the middle one of that trio being particular pertinent at this precise hour in time)

[ChrisP]

If he plays the next two tourneys like he did the British, then no, I don't think he should make the team. I don't care what his record is or his experience factor brings.....he needs to show some sort of form to be given a chance. All those years he won Ryder Cup matches he also was playing at the level of a top-10 player in the world.

That being said, Zach Johnson's a big X-factor. If he can make the team on points, I think Tiger's chances of making the team increase dramatically (right now he's #9). I think Phil is a lock to be a captain's pick. He's showed good form the last two weeks in Europe. Keegan Bradley is likely going to be another pick. I think Watson is also hoping Dufner stays in the top-9.

[jamo]

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/story/jack-nicklaus-says-rory-mcilroy-impressive-tiger-woods-should-make-ryder-cup-072414 [QUOTE]Nicklaus, of course, was asked about 14-time major winner Tiger Woods, who has looked rusty in five of his six competitive rounds since returning from March 31 microdiscectomy. Nicklaus said he thought Woods' swing looked good in an opening 69 at the Open and wasn't sure what went wrong after that. But he's optimistic Woods will return to strong form soon. "He'll be back and do pretty good," he said. Nicklaus didn't hesitate when asked whether Woods should be picked for the U.S. Ryder Cup team that will play Europe in late September in Gleneagles, Scotland. "Absolutely," Nicklaus said. "If I were the captain, I would be hard-pressed (not to select him). I don't care what he does (in his next two or more tournaments). I would choose him." Asked what advice he would give Woods now if he were his coach, Nicklaus said, "Tiger probably knows what he has to do. He's smart. He understands his game. I don't think it's my place to give him advice."[/QUOTE]

[FarawayFairways]

OK, this board is little more than snapshot of golfing opinion, but I'd say that outside of those who adopt a 'sit on the fence and wait and see' it's something like 80% No and 20% Yes based on the evidence we have to assess Tiger on at the moment. Have any of America's heavyweight commentators broken rank yet though? I'm under the impression that it's 100% Yes, as no one wants to take the plunge and be the first to say 'the Emperors in his altogether'

I'm increasingly thinking Tom is going to pick him, but quite possibly for reasons of an old weakness in all sports people

I was thinking abouit this the other day. If Woods suddenly denounced Amercia and found some ancient family line that qualified him as British, and we rushed a Zola Budd style passport through for him, would I want him on Europe's team. Well the answer was still no (just), but I suddenly found myself being a lot less unequivocal about it and gave it a lot more thought and consideration as I confess that a singles specialist who could play a couple of fourballs for me and might lock up say 2 or 2.5 from 3 was tempting

We have a phenonemon in sport of the talented problem player. The sort of guy who is clearly very good, but who trouble follows. Every time they get sacked or fall out with their most recent team you keep thinking that's it for them now, but there's always someone willing to take a chance on them, and despite the evidence which suggests they're bad news employees, a coach will overlook this and back themselves to find the key to them. This isn't really a criticism of the coach, a degree of unshakable belief in their own abilities is almost a necessity of the job. Neither would I necessarily bracket Tiger Woods in the category of 'bad apple' but the fact remains that his Ryder Cup record is nothing like that which his career record suggests it should be

In that regard I'm increasingly thinking Tom will become the latest to back himself to unlock Woods rather than looking at the evidence and perhaps saying, you know what, this has gone on long enough, lets try something else. If I were going to pick Woods, it would be as a support player perhaps playing just 2 or 3 matches and certainly not the 4 or 5 he normally plays, but for now at least, I'd move past him and try and build a different team

[boogielicious]

OK, this board is little more than snapshot of golfing opinion, but I'd say that outside of those who adopt a 'sit on the fence and wait and see' it's something like 80% No and 20% Yes based on the evidence we have to assess Tiger on at the moment. Have any of America's heavyweight commentators broken rank yet though? I'm under the impression that it's 100% Yes, as no one wants to take the plunge and be the first to say 'the Emperors in his altogether'

I'm increasingly thinking Tom is going to pick him, but quite possibly for reasons of an old weakness in all sports people

I was thinking abouit this the other day. If Woods suddenly denounced Amercia and found some ancient family line that qualified him as British, and we rushed a Zola Budd style passport through for him, would I want him on Europe's team. Well the answer was still no (just), but I suddenly found myself being a lot less unequivocal about it and gave it a lot more thought and consideration as I confess that a singles specialist who could play a couple of fourballs for me and might lock up say 2 or 2.5 from 3 was tempting

We have a phenonemon in sport of the talented problem player. The sort of guy who is clearly very good, but who trouble follows. Every time they get sacked or fall out with their most recent team you keep thinking that's it for them now, but there's always someone willing to take a chance on them, and despite the evidence which suggests they're bad news employees, a coach will overlook this and back themselves to find the key to them. This isn't really a criticism of the coach, a degree of unshakable belief in their own abilities is almost a necessity of the job. Neither would I necessarily bracket Tiger Woods in the category of 'bad apple' but the fact remains that his Ryder Cup record is nothing like that which his career record suggests it should be

In that regard I'm increasingly thinking Tom will become the latest to back himself to unlock Woods rather than looking at the evidence and perhaps saying, you know what, this has gone on long enough, lets try something else. If I were going to pick Woods, it would be as a support player perhaps playing just 2 or 3 matches and certainly not the 4 or 5 he normally plays, but for now at least, I'd move past him and try and build a different team

Well stated @FarawayFairways .  It may be easy for Watson not to pick Woods if he had a clear group of players ahead of him.  The trouble as I see it is that group is not clear at the moment.  Watson has to go with the best group that he feels can win the cup.  The US team for the World Cup made that mistake with Donovan.  If all went well, they would not need an attacking forward.  But it didn't and they lost one and were without one for most of the tournament.

Mickelson and Woods have a tremendous amount of experience.  If the last two spots are hazy, I would go with experience.

[David in FL]

My prediction is that unless Woods does something heroic, he doesn't get picked.

He's played so poorly this year that if Watson picks him and he doesn't play well, that pick could easily become Watson's Ryder Cup legacy.  Why would he chance that?

There's no downside to picking any number of players who are currently playing much better than Woods is.

[Golfingdad]

My prediction is that unless Woods does something heroic, he doesn't get picked.

He's played so poorly this year that if Watson picks him and he doesn't play well, that pick could easily become Watson's Ryder Cup legacy.  Why would he chance that?

There's no downside to picking any number of players who are currently playing much better than Woods is.

Totally agree.  Heck, if Woods doesn't improve, Watson would probably have a better chance picking himself.

In looking at the current standings and assuming that the top 9 stay as-is, I think I'd eschew Reed (same reason as Tiger - not playing well right now) and go with Mickelson, and of course his teammate, Bradley ... and for my third pick, I'll take Ryan Moore.  He's not winning, but he seems like he's always in and around the top.  (And he's made his last 5 cuts, finished Top 20 in 4, Top 10 in 2, and Top 5 in one. )

Extra bonus:  He looks like what I picture @cipher looks like - from what I can tell in his swing videos.  Down to the facial hair and Trues.

[ChrisP]

My prediction is that unless Woods does something heroic, he doesn't get picked.

He's played so poorly this year that if Watson picks him and he doesn't play well, that pick could easily become Watson's Ryder Cup legacy.  Why would he chance that?

There's no downside to picking any number of players who are currently playing much better than Woods is.

I think the key is really Zach Johnson. I think Zach is a lock for the team. If he makes it on points, that helps Tiger Woods' chances out because outside of Phil and Keegan, I don't see anyone right now making a push for that last spot. If Zach falls out and say a guy like Reed or Todd make it, then you have to use your captain's pick on Zach and Phil, and unless something changes, Keegan's going to get picked over Tiger.

That being said, if Tiger plays the next two weeks like he did the last two tourneys, no way he makes the team. However, I expect Tiger to gradually improve these next two tourneys and give Watson something to think about.

[cipher]

Totally agree.  Heck, if Woods doesn't improve, Watson would probably have a better chance picking himself. In looking at the current standings and assuming that the top 9 stay as-is, I think I'd eschew Reed (same reason as Tiger - not playing well right now) and go with Mickelson, and of course his teammate, Bradley ... and for my third pick, I'll take Ryan Moore.  He's not winning, but he seems like he's always in and around the top.  (And he's made his last 5 cuts, finished Top 20 in 4, Top 10 in 2, and Top 5 in one.:beer: ) Extra bonus:  He looks like what I picture @cipher looks like - from what I can tell in his swing videos.  Down to the facial hair and Trues. ;-)

LOL, good pick. I have been hearing that a lot lately. I guess it is somewhat "true" then. :D