Building a Team: The POD System Explained with Comparison to USA Foursome/Fourball Scoring

**Mr. Desmond** · September 29, 2014

First, congrats to the European Team, consisting of captain, assistants, and players. Whatever system they use, if any, appears to work. We are not discussing merely the Europeans winning one RC, but 8 of 10. That is a disturbing trend. When that happens, the USA cannot act like it is business as usual, and assemble a real team by having the captain act like a dictator year after year.

Management

A dictatorial leadership style as Watson used works with 14 yr olds and the military, and in exigent circumstances. It is used in a more balanced manner in business (plus or minus), but the style depends on the circumstances, the goal, and the people involved. It is not the management style to use among a collegial group of millionaires whom are all on the same level, with similar talent and skill, and with whom you have little time to unify into a team that knows each other's tendencies and personalities.

Tom Watson says, "It takes 12 player to win, 12 players."

I do not see any team in Watson's quote, which echoes his theme -- it's about individual players. But a team plays together towards a common goal - in golf, it is victory, and in alternate shot, they need to work together. A team that knows the weakness and strengths of the other player, is familiar with their personality and develops empathy, has a higher probability of success. Players working as individuals do not.

Personally, I think it is lack of knowledge (ignorance) and ego that fails the USA process. Azinger took the initiative by saying whatever we are doing, does not work, and looked for an alternative way to assemble a team. Actually, he found the idea by watching two television shows and took the initiative to investigate the idea. Azinger wrote a book:

The book, written with corporate team-builder Ron Braund with help from author Steve Eubanks, stays away from shot-by-shot details from the matches. Instead, it reveals how Azinger sold the PGA of America on his concept and, more importantly, how he sold the players.

From golf.com:

Years before the PGA of America asked me to be 2008 Ryder Cup captain, I was considering how I might build and lead the team. Lying on my couch with my shoes off, I sipped sweet iced tea and watched a show about Gibson guitars on the Discovery Channel. When the show ended, I was too lazy to hunt for the remote, so I started watching a documentary on how the Navy turns raw recruits into SEALs, the most effective and feared fighting force ever assembled. Between segments on special weapons and tactics training and "drown proofing" the troops, one of the officers explained the strength of these Special Operations Forces. "We break the men into small groups," he said. "That's the core. Those guys eat, sleep, and train together until they know what the others are thinking."

Interesting concept, I thought. Small groups. Tight bonds.

I sat up as the officer continued, "Every man knows what his fellow SEAL is going to do before he does it. They bond with each other in a way you can't understand if you've never been there."

"Hmm, that might work," I thought out loud.

My wife, Toni, had just stepped into the room, and she asked, "What might work?"

"We've been trying for years to get all 12 guys to come together as a team," I told Toni. "Tour players are hardwired to beat the guys next to them, then one week a year we think they should go against their nature and become a championship team. But maybe twelve is too big. If you want to bring the Ryder Cup team together, maybe you have to break it apart."

Even as I was saying it, I realized the idea was something I had instinctively felt for years. Now it was coming clear. We needed to take the concept of the SEALs and somehow apply it to golf. Military experts knew that in the heat of battle you couldn't get a battalion or a company to gel as a single fighting unit. The numbers were too big. But you could get three, four, five, or maybe as many as six guys to lay everything on the line for the men beside them. Small groups — men who ate, slept, trained, hung out, and sometimes fought together — were a key to military success.

From golfweek.com:

For the first time, Azinger explains how he let the three players in each pod who qualified for the team ( Steve Stricker was included, even though he was a pick), choose who they wanted for a captain’s pick.

For example, Mickelson, Kim and Leonard were given a list of a half-dozen players they could have to fill out their pod. They chose Mahan, who went unbeaten for the week.

“That gave them full-blown ownership,” Azinger said in a telephone interview Monday afternoon.

Azinger said he wasn’t sure whether to have three or four pods, and that Mickelson persuaded him to have three. That way, no single player from a pod would be left during team matches. And while it was a team of 12, Azinger says Furyk starred in his own right. Not only did he fit into the “redneck” pod, but he accepted the role of the group’s cheerleader.

“I’ve been on teams before, but this was the first time I looked and grasped the idea of how I can make the other person feel more comfortable,” Furyk writes on the back of the jacket.

The highlight of the week came Monday night of the Ryder Cup, when Azinger brought the team together with their wives and caddies and explained for the first time how he had done personality profiles of each one, and how the eligible players were responsible for choosing the fourth player of their pods.

The pods did everything together all week, and even with his Sunday singles lineup, Azinger kept the pods stacked together.

“It didn’t dawn on me until later that what we created, they had naturally,” he said. “They were so bonded, it was a joke.”

The unity took on new meaning when Weekley described it as “compatibate.”

Is that why the Americans won? Not necessarily. They made more putts, which is the winning recipe for any Ryder Cup team. Azinger believes, however, that the small groups gave the Americans their best chance at performing at their highest level.

How he made the Captain's Picks:

"Who do I pick?" I said. "I have 20 choices and I don't like any of them."

Dave said, "Don't forget your pod system. Don't look at your choices in terms of the overall team; look at them in terms of how they fit in your pods."

Great advice, I thought. We hung up and I walked into my office. I looked at the eight players who had made the team and quickly came up with four two-man combinations. Knowing I was picking Stricker, I had nine players. After a little jumbling and shuffling around, and several phone calls to players already on the team, I soon came up with three three-man teams. Then I took my list of 20 possible picks whose profiles we had considered and imagined how each would fit in the system. Just like that, every player on the list made sense. I went from not wanting any of them to wanting all of them, once I saw how and where they fit in our plan. It was at that moment that I knew the pod system was going to work.

I could have picked any of them, but in the end, I didn't pick a single one.

I let the players do it.

That's when I called the guys one more time. I couldn't get Boo [Weekley]. He might have been knee-deep in a swamp hunting hogs, but I reached everybody else. I said, "I'm sorry to bother you again, but we're all in this together now. You're engaged and invested in the process, and I appreciate it. You all have ownership in your pod, but I want to take this one step further. I want to empower you."

To a man they asked, "What do you mean?"

I explained. "You currently have a three-man team. I'm going to give you a list of names that are green lights for your units, and I want you to pick your fourth man. I want you three to get together and fill out your pod. If you decide to pick outside the names that I give you, I'll explain to you why you're wrong. The choices I'm giving you are all playing well, and would all be green lights in your groups."

Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/his-new-book-paul-azinger-reveals-key-pieces-his-strategy-helped-us-team-capture-ryder#ixzz3Ei5OyiPG

The result of the POD system can be seen in alternate shote

2008 Ryder Cup Azinger - Alternate Shot USA Wins 4.5-3.5, Foursomes USA Wins 4.5-3.5

2014 Ryder Cup Watson - Alternate Shot Europe Wins 7-1,Foursomes USA Wins 5-3

Alternate Shot makes a difference of 3.5 points, and the POD system overall resulted in 3 more points than Watson's system.

Let's look at the teams:

USA

	Foursomes W-L-T	Fourball W-L-T	Singles W-L-T	Total W-L-T	Matches	Points
Phil Mickelson	0-1-1	1-0-1	0-1-0	1-2-2	5	2.0
Stewart Cink	1-1-0	0-0-0	0-1-0	1-2-0	3	1.0
Kenny Perry	1-0-1	0-1-0	1-0-0	2-1-1	4	2.5
Jim Furyk	1-0-1	0-1-0	1-0-0	2-1-1	4	2.5
Anthony Kim	0-1-1	1-0-0	1-0-0	2-1-1	4	2.5
Justin Leonard	1-0-1	1-0-0	0-1-0	2-1-1	4	2.5
Ben Curtis	0-0-0	0-1-1	1-0-0	1-1-1	3	1.5
Boo Weekley	0-0-0	1-0-1	1-0-0	2-0-1	3	2.5
Steve Stricker	0-0-0	0-1-1	0-1-0	0-2-1	3	0.5
Hunter Mahan	1-0-1	1-0-1	0-0-1	2-0-3	5	3.5
J.B. Holmes	0-0-0	1-0-1	1-0-0	2-0-1	3	2.5
Chad Campbell	1-1-0	0-0-0	1-0-0	2-1-0	3	2.0

Europe

	Foursomes W-L-T	Fourball W-L-T	Singles W-L-T	Total W-L-T	Matches	Points
Paul Casey	0-1-0	0-0-1	0-0-1	0-1-2	3	1.0
Sergio Garcia	0-0-1	0-1-1	0-1-0	0-2-2	4	1.0
S�ren Hansen	0-0-0	0-1-1	0-1-0	0-2-1	3	0.5
Padraig Harrington	0-1-1	0-1-0	0-1-0	0-3-1	4	0.5
Miguel Angel Jim�nez	0-0-1	0-1-0	0-1-0	0-2-1	3	0.5
Robert Karlsson	0-1-1	0-0-1	1-0-0	1-1-2	4	2.0
Graeme McDowell	0-0-1	1-1-0	1-0-0	2-1-1	4	2.5
Ian Poulter	1-1-0	2-0-0	1-0-0	4-1-0	5	4.0
Justin Rose	1-1-0	1-0-0	1-0-0	3-1-0	4	3.0
Henrik Stenson	1-1-0	0-0-1	0-1-0	1-2-1	4	1.5
Lee Westwood	0-0-1	0-1-1	0-1-0	0-2-2	4	1.0
Oliver Wilson	1-0-0	0-0-0	0-1-0	1-1-0	2	1.0

----

We are not talking about an All Star USA team. And the European Team, except for 2 names, one of which I did not recognize, was a strong team, 5 of which were on the current team. The current USA team had 3 players from the 2008 team, both of which did not include Tiger Woods.

If the role of the Captain is to get the most from your players and place them in the best position to win, then it seems clear that Azinger's POD system is superior to an ad hoc, cold, controlling, dictatorial management style that was described as used by Watson in this year's RC.

Collegial versus Dictator. Clearly, this situation calls for a style that is more nuanced than the dictator style. Collegial team members, members who know in what situations that other members are more comfortable on the course, in which you have built empathy and familiarity, has a better chance of success.

While the Euros played better and had more talent, team can trump talent when they are assembled as a team.

Let's face it, a lot of these commentators like Feherty, Colin Mongomery, and others who are slamming Phil do not have the knowledge of building team or management style. They slam without thinking -- they are Watsons. They were players who played on primarily an individual basis. They know little to nothing about team building or managing people.

At least Phil gave an intelligent response to a question. I can't say the same for his detractors, who come across as ignorant, conservative blowhards in the tradition of "If I say it loud enough and often enough, it must be true."

It is not.

Time for USA and the PGA to change its system of choosing a captain and building a team.

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

Great post, I thought Azingers POD approach was a great and proven method to manage the US team. I think other methods can work too, but the choice Watson made does not. Watson's choice to act as dictator clearly wasn't received well by the team as was indicated by Phil's post tournament comments. Phil has said some inappropriate things unknowingly but in this case I think it was said out of frustration not accident.

Watson could have given the illusion of a democracy, even if there wasn't one, by soliciting some feedback from the team about the captains picks and pairings but he chose not to. The next RC captain will hopefully learn that the right way to manage independent contractors (who all happen to be millionaires) is to do the opposite of what Watson did.

**saevel25** · September 29, 2014

These are golfers with basically 1-2 strokes between each other in terms of ability. When it comes to the best of the best, it is either who is playing hot during that stretch of the year or the Intangibles that make the difference. In these type of matches they need confidence and comfort to play free of distraction. If you pair up two people who are not comfortable, does that let doubt creep into their minds and adds unwanted pressure. Especially in Alternate Shot. Does one player suddenly think, "I need to really step it up", because they might not trust their partner to.

I think the POD system is a great idea. If you give the players a choice then they have some ownership in how the teams are made. This gives them confidence in their partners because they picked them instead of being forced to pair up with them.

**misty_mountainhop** · September 29, 2014

For some reason, it won't let me pick up a quote easily and I can't be bothered to fool around. Leaving aside the vomit-inducing quotes from Azinger, your last two full paragraphs are pretty poor. Sorry. FIGJAM is a jerk. There's ways, means and times to say what he said and he failed with all of them.

Who says Watson was entirely dictatorial? Etc? Let me get this straight - the players don't think the captain's style is any good so they effectively down tools??? You're implying, essentially, that in order to get one over on Watson, they threw the Ryder Cup? That's about as pathetic as I can possibly imagine. Just go and play golf - how hard can it be? What the U.S. needs is more Reeds, more Spieths and less of the ego-centric, self-entitled such as Mickleson. If Mickleson had any balls, he'd have shown some genuine leadership, got the players together and they'd have played for each other. Damn Watson and his VCs.

Perhaps, in actual fact, it's less to do with Watson (and the previous three Captains) and more to do with snide ego-maniacs undermining whatever they're trying to do.

No, Mickleson's a whining so-and-so - and all because he wasn't played on Saturday.

**Mr. Desmond** · September 29, 2014

For some reason, it won't let me pick up a quote easily and I can't be bothered to fool around. Leaving aside the vomit-inducing quotes from Azinger, your last two full paragraphs are pretty poor. Sorry. FIGJAM is a jerk. There's ways, means and times to say what he said and he failed with all of them.

Who says Watson was entirely dictatorial? Etc? Let me get this straight - the players don't think the captain's style is any good so they effectively down tools??? You're implying, essentially, that in order to get one over on Watson, they threw the Ryder Cup? That's about as pathetic as I can possibly imagine. Just go and play golf - how hard can it be? What the U.S. needs is more Reeds, more Spieths and less of the ego-centric, self-entitled such as Mickleson. If Mickleson had any balls, he'd have shown some genuine leadership, got the players together and they'd have played for each other. Damn Watson and his VCs.

Perhaps, in actual fact, it's less to do with Watson (and the previous three Captains) and more to do with snide ego-maniacs undermining whatever they're trying to do.

No, Mickleson's a whining so-and-so - and all because he wasn't played on Saturday.

You have your opinion.

Phil's error was not shutting his mouth right before he said ... "and none of that was done this week." (paraphrase)

And comments were made in the press and team about Watson's cold, dictatorial, non communicative style. He did not even bother to ride with the players on the plane.

Team?

Watson doesn't get it, that is apparent.

And neither do you.

To misquote Animal House, close minded and ignorant is no way to go through life. If you're not willing to embrace knowledge, that's on you, not me. It's your issue.

The point is when you lose 8 of 10, don't use the same methods. It's about building a team, not naming a team. Change the process, evolve or die. Because building a team can make a difference -- 2-3 points and a rout turns close, or into a win.

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

For some reason, it won't let me pick up a quote easily and I can't be bothered to fool around. Leaving aside the vomit-inducing quotes from Azinger, your last two full paragraphs are pretty poor. Sorry. FIGJAM is a jerk. There's ways, means and times to say what he said and he failed with all of them.

Who says Watson was entirely dictatorial? Etc? Let me get this straight - the players don't think the captain's style is any good so they effectively down tools??? You're implying, essentially, that in order to get one over on Watson, they threw the Ryder Cup? That's about as pathetic as I can possibly imagine. Just go and play golf - how hard can it be? What the U.S. needs is more Reeds, more Spieths and less of the ego-centric, self-entitled such as Mickleson. If Mickleson had any balls, he'd have shown some genuine leadership, got the players together and they'd have played for each other. Damn Watson and his VCs.

Perhaps, in actual fact, it's less to do with Watson (and the previous three Captains) and more to do with snide ego-maniacs undermining whatever they're trying to do.

No, Mickleson's a whining so-and-so - and all because he wasn't played on Saturday.

I get that you're not a Phil fan, but others, including Johnny Miller questioned Watson's decisions as well. People have to be put into positions where they can excel and perform to the best of their abilities. When people feel they don't have a voice or don't like how they are managed, their performance suffers.

RC Golfers by their nature have to be ego-maniacs. If they don't believe in their ability then they likely aren't going to be good enough to be on the Ryder Cup. The fact they are ego-maniacs is exactly why Azingers POD system works, it appeals to their large egos.

**misty_mountainhop** · September 29, 2014

You have your opinion.

Phil's error was not shutting his mouth right before he said ... "and none of that was done this week." (paraphrase)

And comments were made in the press and team about Watson's cold, dictatorial, non communicative style. He did not even bother to ride with the players on the plane.

Team?

Watson doesn't get it, that is apparent.

And neither do you.

To misquote Animal House, close minded and ignorant is no way to go through life. If you're not willing to embrace knowledge, that's on you, not me. It's your issue.

The point is when you lose 8 of 10, don't use the same methods. It's about building a team, not naming a team. Change the process, evolve or die. Because building a team can make a difference -- 2-3 points and a rout turns close, or into a win.

Where are the quotes, backed up with first-hand knowledge re. Watson? It's not "transparent" at all, although I didn't know Watson didn't travel with the team - that's a shame if it's the case.

As for your retort that I don't get it either - as if you'd know. You don't know me from Adam.

Mickleson was wrong. Pure and simple. He didn't have to leave out the "and none of that was done this week" either as it was transparently obvious what he was both saying and implying. He's poison for any future captain. I wouldn't want him anywhere near a Ryder Cup team again. Ever.

I agree with your last comment though. Something clearly isn't working though, so something needs to be done. It's a wonderful event that needs to be competitive over time. What isn't needed, however, are self-centred children such as Mickleson.

**misty_mountainhop** · September 29, 2014

I get that you're not a Phil fan, but others, including Johnny Miller questioned Watson's decisions as well. People have to be put into positions where they can excel and perform to the best of their abilities. When people feel they don't have a voice or don't like how they are managed, their performance suffers.

RC Golfers by their nature have to be ego-maniacs. If they don't believe in their ability then they likely aren't going to be good enough to be on the Ryder Cup. The fact they are ego-maniacs is exactly why Azingers POD system works, it appeals to their large egos.

Actually, I thought I'd grown to like Mickleson over the last few years. Seems FIGJAM was just suppressed though, rather than cauterised. You may well be right cf. this 'pod' idea and top golfers' egos. Guess there's only one way to find out....at least until the next loss. Azinger's idea (may have) worked once - I think we need more evidence before crediting it with the transformative aura it's being credited with.

What I'm amazed by is the implication that the U.S. players, basically, gave it up because they weren't 100% on the management side. What? These self-motivated, successful, talented ball-strikers couldn't even go out and give it some for their team, regardless of the management? Do they not like each other enough even for that? What was it that Spieth and Reed (like him or loath him) had that the established stars lacked?

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

Alan Shipnuck (Sports Illustrated, Senior Writer) didn't think too highly of Watson either...

GLENEAGLES, Scotland -- On Sunday the Ryder Cup captains will recede into the background, at least until one of them uses champagne for shampoo. Because the singles lineup is done in a vacuum, there’s not much to second-guess. (Unless you’re Mark James and you put all your scrubs out first and let the opponent build critical momentum.) No, Sunday singles is all about the players, so this is the perfect time to assess the Watson and McGinley administrations. (Trigger warning: may contain graphic metaphors and offensive criticism.)

Captain’s Picks
It’s fun to second-guess the choices as soon as they’re made, but this week is where the rubber meets the road. Tom Watson’s first mistake was asking for only three picks instead of the four the PGA of America was willing to grant him; one extra spot would’ve allowed him to take a flier on a Billy Horschel or a Chris Kirk. His second mistake was not pushing the selection date back until after the Tour Championship. If you ask for the world the PGA will give it to you. (See Azinger, Paul.) Watson’s third mistake was having the wrong revelation, as Webb Simpson was clearly a bad call. His fourth mistake was sending Simpson out in the very first match of the Cup (!), with a flighty partner no less, in Bubba Watson. Poor Webb was already on the hot seat, and he never recovered from his ghastly pop-up on the 1st tee, getting benched for the next three sessions. Keegan Bradley and Hunter Mahan were O.K. selections and played decent enough.
As for Paul McGinley, Stephen Gallacher seemed like a good choice at the time, based on his strong season, but he looked overwrought in front of the home folks in Friday fourballs and was benched thereafter -- but give McGinley credit for that, as there was considerable external pressure to play the only Scot on the roster. Any captain would have selected Ian Poulter, based on his body of work, so his shaky play doesn’t reflect that poorly on McGinley. At least Poults provided some fireworks down the stretch in Saturday fourballs, helping Europe earn an important halve. McGinley’s biggest quandary was whether to take Lee Westwood or Luke Donald. He went with the former, and the wily veteran responded with two key foursomes victories, mentoring rookie Jamie Donaldson in both.
Watson: C-
McGinley: B-

Wardrobe
When it comes to choosing clothes, the point is not to do something stupid, a la the Americans’ notorious Sunday shirts in 1999. Europe’s duds were entirely forgettable, which is the point. I liked the U.S.’s pinstriped pants on Friday, but Grandma’s crocheted American flag sweaters on Saturday provoked some of the funniest tweets of the week.
McGinley: Pass
Watson: Fail

Media Presence
Winning the press conferences is almost as important as winning the matches. McGinley exuded confidence and ease, and was expansive and good-natured throughout. He had a well thought-out answer for everything. Watson was crotchety and defensive, and that was before the matches even began. It got even worse once things went pear-shaped. His incoherent mumbo-jumbo in trying to explain his thinking -- or lack thereof -- in his Friday night presser will forever color how his captaincy is remembered. On Saturday night, instead of projecting Crenshaw-like belief, he was strangely subdued. Such a tone filters back to the team room.
McGinley: A
Watson: F

Pairings
What you have read above is fine and dandy, but the pairings are by far a captain’s most important chore. Oh boy, where to start with Watson’s blunders? His decision to send Simpson out first on Friday has been covered. Partially. It also speaks to Watson’s arrogance and rigidity. That was his way of saying, Y’all didn’t like my pick, so suck on this. That meant leaving Matt Kuchar on the bench, even though he’s 18th on Tour in birdie average. When Kooch and Bubba lit up Gleneagles in fourballs on Saturday, it only made the Simpson decision look worse.
Capt. Tom deserves credit for coming up with two inspired teams involving three rookies: Jordan Spieth-Patrick Reed and Jimmy Walker-Rickie Fowler. Unfortunately he mishandled both. The benching of Spieth-Reed for Friday’s afternoon session and playing Phil Mickelson and Keegan Bradley was extensively picked over that night -- never sit your hottest players, especially in favor of an arthritic 44 year-old who had already played 18 high-stress holes! -- but the ramifications continued to play out on Saturday. Because Phil was so gassed and needed a break, it broke up the U.S.’s best fourball team. And because the tired Mickelson-Bradley team struggled in alternate shot on Friday, Watson wouldn’t give them a second chance and exiled for all of Saturday his putative team leader (Phil) and potentially his emotional juggernaut (Keegan). It’s particularly curious that Bradley didn’t play in afternoon foursomes, given that he is one of the best drivers of the golf ball on the planet. Memo to the captain: Keegan doesn’t have to play with Phil. For that matter, why was two-time Masters champ Bubba sitting on Saturday afternoon? His style is certainly quirky for fourballs, but Watson played beautifully in morning fourballs. If he’s driving it in the fairway, and he was, who wouldn’t want to play from there? Instead Kuchar was given for a partner pea-shooting Zach Johnson, who was overmatched on the par-5s while getting whipped by Westwood and Donaldson.
Finally, there was the decision to trot out Jimmy-Rickie on Saturday afternoon even though the duo had already played three of the most intense matches of the Cup, each a nail-biter that went the full 18 holes. (Spieth-Reed’s stress-free 5-and-4 win on Friday morning made them better candidates to play every session.) Walker-Fowler had nothing left and predictably lost five of the first eight holes in a tone-setting ambush by fresh-legged Victor Dubuisson and Graeme McDowell. Even after a disastrous Saturday afternoon, Watson was asked by NBC’s Steve Sands if he was happy with the decisions he’d made. “Yes,” was the terse reply. This guy is either stubborn or delusional, or both.

McGinley certainly had the advantage of better players -- or, at the very least, players playing better -- but he also emerged as a canny tactician. The Justin Rose-Henrik Stenson coupling was inspired, and McGinley rode them masterfully, giving Stenson the afternoon off on Saturday but going to the whip with Rose in a fourth session. (JRo’s gritty play positioned him as the man of the match.) The Sergio-Rory team was the right call for two veterans who never had their A-game; neither panicked and their mellow vibe allowed them to keep scuffling, ultimately earning a halve and a win in their last two matches together. At the same time, McGinley was flexible enough to detach McIlroy on Saturday morning to help get Poulter going, and he responded with a pair of momentum-turning holeouts. Dubuisson-McDowell also emerged as a potential powerhouse, with a pair of victories in matches that never reached the 17th tee. It was such a good pairing that McGinley loses a few points for not rolling them out at least one more time.
McGinley: A-
Watson: F

Singles lineup
Time will tell, but there are no obvious screw-ups here, only minor annoyances. On Friday, Bradley’s girlfriend, Jillian Stacy, told me he had been up since 4:30 a.m. because he was so amped to play. The couple spent an hour in their room looking at pictures and watching videos of their new puppy, just to kill time. After sitting around all day on Saturday, Bradley is going to be crawling out of his skin to tee it up in his singles match. I would have sent him out early, but Watson is icing Bradley until the 10th match, at 1:36 p.m. The captain said on Saturday evening he knew the Euros would send out their best players first, so why wait until the fifth match to use Mickelson, his well-rested Hall of Famer? I do like young guns Spieth, Reed and Fowler going 1-2-3.
McGinley has his deck stacked just about right, except for Dubuisson in the 12th spot. His play has been pretty much perfect -- I’d have had that bad mofo Dubu in the first half of the draw to try to help end things quickly. And if it all goes wrong and the Cup comes down to the anchor match, I’m not sure you want a Ryder rookie there, no matter how well he’s swinging.
Watson: B+
McGinley: B+

So, if the U.S. storms back and somehow wins 8.5 points to steal the Cup, does that make Watson a great captain? No, it makes him a lucky devil. Likewise, if McGinley’s troops suffer an epic collapse, is it his fault? Nah. He’s given them every chance to succeed. That’s all he can do. Sunday singles will determine how the captains are remembered, but for me the grades are already in.
McGinley: A
Watson: F

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

Actually, I thought I'd grown to like Mickleson over the last few years. Seems FIGJAM was just suppressed though, rather than cauterised. You may well be right cf. this 'pod' idea and top golfers' egos. Guess there's only one way to find out....at least until the next loss. Azinger's idea (may have) worked once - I think we need more evidence before crediting it with the transformative aura it's being credited with.

What I'm amazed by is the implication that the U.S. players, basically, gave it up because they weren't 100% on the management side. What? These self-motivated, successful, talented ball-strikers couldn't even go out and give it some for their team, regardless of the management? Do they not like each other enough even for that? What was it that Spieth and Reed (like him or loath him) had that the established stars lacked?

I don't think they gave up, nor am I suggesting it. What I believe is they weren't put in a position by Watson to perform at their highest levels. Read the article I posted above it may shed some light on how Watson's decisions had a negative impact on the team.

**misty_mountainhop** · September 29, 2014

I don't think they gave up, nor am I suggesting it. What I believe is they weren't put in a position by Watson to perform at their highest levels. Read the article I posted above it may shed some light on how Watson's decisions had a negative impact on the team.

Interesting article. I wasn't trying to suggest you thought they weren't giving their all really but that would seem to be implicit in some comment, particularly in view of the (apparent) view re. Watson's captaincy. Are people seriously suggesting that Watson was so single-minded that no-one could say anything that would have any sway on what he wanted to do? Or that none of the players were consulted? About anything ?

That's all fluff though re. what Mickleson did. It was wrong in any context. It was wrong yesterday, it'd be wrong today and it'd be wrong in a thousand years time.

Whatever happens, I hope it's a good match in two years time and it's a shame to see infighting like this. It doesn't do anyone any credit.

**skydog** · September 29, 2014

The above article makes some good points but completely misses on others. Bubba looked terrible and like his usual head-case self most of the week. Not playing him in the afternoon on Saturday was right decision...the author of this article is literally the ONLY person I have heard/read who wishes there had been more Bubba this weekend. And claiming that Keegan is one of the best drivers on the planet is a large overstatement- one of the longest, yes, but he had been spraying his drives and doesn't make a great foursome player. He and Phil should have played both mornings and sat out both afternoons, it's that simple.

And then the author complains about putting Bradley (who looked terrible in his singles match) and Phil out too late on Sunday...but then said he liked the Spieth, Reed, Fowler 1-2-3 lineup....well which one is it?

No doubt that Watson performed terribly this week, both in front of the media, and with his pairings/picks. I've always been a TWatson fan, unfortunately, I like him considerably less after this week.

**chasm** · September 29, 2014

I've been in management and leadership positions for quite a lot of my life. It's almost never a good idea to be aloof and dictatorial - if that's what Watson was - but it's equally foolish to imagine that a formula that has worked in one set of circumstances with one group of people is "the answer" and should be adopted by evreryone, all the time. That's the problem with this rush to embrace Azinger's "pod" system. It may have worked out well, and Mickelson clearly liked it, but effective leaders have to lead in their own way. If you pick a Captain and tell him he has to use someone else's system or style, you're effectively hamstringing him - he won't be as good as he might have been because he won't be doing what comes naturally or playing to his own, and his team's, strengths. A dozen people isn't an unmanageably large number. There are all sorts of ways to turn them into a mutually supportive team. What the USA needs to do is not pick some formula or system, it needs to pick the right captain.

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

Interesting article. I wasn't trying to suggest you thought they weren't giving their all really but that would seem to be implicit in some comment, particularly in view of the (apparent) view re. Watson's captaincy. Are people seriously suggesting that Watson was so single-minded that no-one could say anything that would have any sway on what he wanted to do? Or that none of the players were consulted? About anything?

That's all fluff though re. what Mickleson did. It was wrong in any context. It was wrong yesterday, it'd be wrong today and it'd be wrong in a thousand years time.

Whatever happens, I hope it's a good match in two years time and it's a shame to see infighting like this. It doesn't do anyone any credit.

I agree with what Phil said, but I also agree with you the timing was wrong and it reflects poorly on him. He should have waited until everyone returned to the states and had an opportunity to perform a post mortem analysis.

**newtogolf** · September 29, 2014

The above article makes some good points but completely misses on others. Bubba looked terrible and like his usual head-case self most of the week. Not playing him in the afternoon on Saturday was right decision...the author of this article is literally the ONLY person I have heard/read who wishes there had been more Bubba this weekend. And claiming that Keegan is one of the best drivers on the planet is a large overstatement- one of the longest, yes, but he had been spraying his drives and doesn't make a great foursome player. He and Phil should have played both mornings and sat out both afternoons, it's that simple.

And then the author complains about putting Bradley (who looked terrible in his singles match) and Phil out too late on Sunday...but then said he liked the Spieth, Reed, Fowler 1-2-3 lineup....well which one is it?

No doubt that Watson performed terribly this week, both in front of the media, and with his pairings/picks. I've always been a TWatson fan, unfortunately, I like him considerably less after this week.

The author of the article was referring to Bubba's distance off the tee and how that could have been an advantage for Kuchar versus pairing him with Zach Johnson. Overall I agree with you, Bubba did not seem to have his head in the matches and doesn't play too well outside the US.

**14ledo81** · September 29, 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

For some reason, it won't let me pick up a quote easily and I can't be bothered to fool around. Leaving aside the vomit-inducing quotes from Azinger, your last two full paragraphs are pretty poor. Sorry. FIGJAM is a jerk. There's ways, means and times to say what he said and he failed with all of them.

Who says Watson was entirely dictatorial? Etc? Let me get this straight - the players don't think the captain's style is any good so they effectively down tools??? You're implying, essentially, that in order to get one over on Watson, they threw the Ryder Cup? That's about as pathetic as I can possibly imagine. Just go and play golf - how hard can it be? What the U.S. needs is more Reeds, more Spieths and less of the ego-centric, self-entitled such as Mickleson. If Mickleson had any balls, he'd have shown some genuine leadership, got the players together and they'd have played for each other. Damn Watson and his VCs.

Perhaps, in actual fact, it's less to do with Watson (and the previous three Captains) and more to do with snide ego-maniacs undermining whatever they're trying to do.

No, Mickleson's a whining so-and-so - and all because he wasn't played on Saturday.

You have your opinion.

Phil's error was not shutting his mouth right before he said ... "and none of that was done this week." (paraphrase)

And comments were made in the press and team about Watson's cold, dictatorial, non communicative style. He did not even bother to ride with the players on the plane.

Team?

Watson doesn't get it, that is apparent.

And neither do you.

To misquote Animal House, close minded and ignorant is no way to go through life. If you're not willing to embrace knowledge, that's on you, not me. It's your issue.

The point is when you lose 8 of 10, don't use the same methods. It's about building a team, not naming a team. Change the process, evolve or die. Because building a team can make a difference -- 2-3 points and a rout turns close, or into a win.

Because his opinion differs from yours, he is close minded and ignorant??? Seems a bit out of line to me.

**MSDOGS1976** · September 29, 2014

Because his opinion differs from yours, he is close minded and ignorant??? Seems a bit out of line to me.

Agree. I think we see who the ignorant one is here.

***iacas*** · September 29, 2014

@Mr. Desmond , don't you think that it's possible if not likely that Paul Azinger simply caught lightning in a bottle? He got some hot rookies and people on top of their games, he got a European team that wasn't playing particularly well, etc., and that is what helped him lead the U.S. to a victory?

I'm not willing at all to give all the credit for the U.S. victory in 2008 to the "pod" system.

Sign In

Building a Team: The POD System Explained with Comparison to USA Foursome/Fourball Scoring

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap

TST Partners

Posts

Important Information