chan

A bad moon has risen for the U.S. side and it's a full one colored in EURO blue and gold. http://www.southerngaming.com/?p=680 This article was in 2008 when the U.S. finally did win one. But Ballesteros the Ryder Cup legend was ever prophetic. “They need to win badly,” said the five-time Major winner. “I hope the Americans win this year in all seriousness. “I see the Ryder Cup getting very boring because we are beating them so badly. Everybody is losing interest. I think it will be good if they win the next one. It would give the Ryder Cup a lift. “I just hope the matches are a little bit closer because they have been no-contests. My heart is always with the Europeans but my head is with the Americans for the good of the trophy.”

Whether there's a reasonable chance to win rests on Furyk/Mahan now and that assumes Spieth/Reed hang-on which is no gimme yet. This could get ugly for the U.S. side in an eye-blink.

"It's getting late early." Yogi Berra The U.S. side is up against again. Many a Ryder Cup the EUROS just take an early lead after Day 1 and put on unrelenting pressure. Furyk/Mahan, Watson/Kuchar have to find a way to scratch out halves or else the singles climb tomorrow will be Everest like.

"If you don't 2nd guess, you're not trying to get better." Don Mattingly, former baseball all-star, now manager. Risk is a word that's easy to discuss upfront but tough to handle when it comes time to pay the piper. There will always be some who wimp out & 2nd guess when the pain hits, but that's a childish reaction. -- Nathan Myhrvold, co-founder Intellectual Ventures and former chief tech officer of Microsoft. It may come early in the game or late, a piece of good or bad luck, or 1 tremendous thrust not to be parried. An experienced watcher can put their finger on... the turning point of the match which causes one [side] to strike the stars with uplifted head, the other to feel broken. -- Bernard Darwin, golf writer Atlantic Monthly 1928 The ebb and flow and Monday morning quarterbacking are what make the Ryder Cup unique and compelling. I go back and forth for and against the blind-draw for the match-ups but it yields many unexpected outcomes and that's cool too. A split of the afternoon matches would mean EU 8.5 to US 7.5. I agree that the EUROS top 4 or 5 are having better seasons. I'm not so sure that the "bottom" 4 or 5 whether there's any advantage or perhaps even a slight edge to the U.S. All that's on paper though. 7 singles wins under that scenario is an outright win for either side. If your a U.S. fan fingers crossed that scenario will be in play.

Fowler/Walker losing the 2-up lead ending in a half is a direct punch to the solar plexus for the American side on Day 1. What started out promisingly for the U.S. ends up a 5 - 3 lead for the EUROS with Rose/Stenson leading the charge. Psychologically the EUROS can play free and easy tomorrow, w/U.S. having to constantly push uphill on Saturday. Hoping the score will be close enough so that Sunday singles will matter, but... Except for 2008, it always seems the EUROS have the answers. Usually they dominate in 4-bal if not, they comeback in alt. shot. Often the EUROS dominate the team matches, if not they roar back in singles. As a U.S. partisan, I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the ball with Lucy as the holder. Good grief!

Obvious statement: Fowler/Walker match for the U.S. side is a must hold and win in Alt. Shot to salvage Day 1.

My notes, reactions, comments after morning session: 1 The last alt. shot match is scheduled to tee off @ 2 PM British Standard Time. Alt. Shot plays quicker so all 4 matches should be on the back 9 at apx. 4 PM BST (11 am Eastern, 10 am Central, 8 am Mountain, 7 am Pacific). 2. 2 - 2 following the morning matches has stabilized things for the U.S. side for now, & not let the EUROS get that "4-ball emotional MOmentum" they are so used to. 3. The wind is averaging 25 - 30 mph. Not having watched-- How much impact has the wind had so far on play? 4. B. Watson/W. Simpson duo should be split up for Saturday 4-ball and Simpson should be sat down for the U.S. side. As for Bubba, not sure whom to pair with him with-- his level of play has been lukewarm since the Memorial and the U.S. side needs him to get things turned around soon.

In recent Ryder Cups, the team hasn't played nearly well enough where a captain's strategy might give the US team an edge to winning the matches. As for Azinger, he's not afraid of being direct, which may rub some potential team members the wrong way. After the recent results, I'm all for it. For me there were 2 other candidates. Larry Nelson a multiple major winner and Ryder Cup stalwart of the 70s. My other candidate from left field would've been Tom Watson. Nelson has the resume, but most of the players today probably has little idea of what he accomplished. Maybe having no personal ties might have helped. Watson is a guy that would've commanded respect, because potential team members have all seen the tape where he started down their hero Nicklaus 1-on-1 and beat the Golden Bear. In a future post I will look at the new team selection process and play it out from a past year to see how it would've changed a "mock" team.

Day 1 Morning Alt. Shot: Initial 4 pairings for Alt. Shot should be based on careful stat analysis of 4 areas: Scoring Avg., GIR, Putt Avg., Scramble. Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball: Winning pairs from Alt. Shot stay out for 4-ball. Losing or tying pairs sit out afternoon session. If players who lost in Alt. Shot have to go out for 4-ball session, they're recombined w/new partner. Those individuals who played best amongst losing player pool would form the new pairings. Day 2 Morning 4-Ball: Basically, guidelines same as above. Only exception would be if pair from Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball lost 1-up match that was an 8-7 or 9-8 birdie shootout. If that were the case, I would keep such a pair together. Day 2 Alternate Shot: By this point hope 2 obvious pairings have emerged, leaving 2 parings to mix & match. Summary: After all calculations poured into Day 1 Morning Alt. Shot pairings, US captain must read & react to game situations on course. It's not quantum physics, winning pairs play, losing or trying pairs usually sit. When recombining pairings, ideally ball-strikers/scorers paired with putters. Everybody plays once before singles. As for playing 5 times, only players 3-0 or won both Day 1 sessions then lost Day 2 morning session play all 5. Barring complete wipeout by EU team, any other permutation means losing player sits. EVEN STAR PLAYERS... Through Nassau games & practices, captain should find for each player 2 Alt. Shot & 2 4-Ball partners. Captain should assign & explain his rationale behind pairings to the players. But he shouldn't ask for their input . It's an executive decision with the goal of winning, not a buddy-fest . US captain shouldn't be afraid to thoroughly shakeup pairings up after losses. Finally, he should strongly emphasize the goal of winning 9 points from team matches. All pairing adjustment scenarios can be looked at in the attachment file.

Statistical analysis of 2002 EU pairings Pairings Stat-line (Scoring Avg., GIR, Putt Avg., Sand Saves) by rank Clarke 70.02 (10), 71.0% (30), 1.742 (7), 45.0% (164) Bjorn 70.19 (19), 66.9% (98), 1.731 (2), 53.6% (91) Comment: Clarke Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Bjorn (putting). Garcia 69.53 (3), 77.1% (T1), 1.847 (185), 47.1% (T148) Westwood 71.69 (108), 65.1% (127), 1.760 (27), 47.1% (T148) Comment: Garcia Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Westwood (putting). Montgomerie 69.75 (4), 75.1% (9), 1.738 (4), 48.8% (136) Langer 69.82 (T5), 74.6% (10), 1.774 (59), 78.9% (3) Comment: 2 Ball-strikers/scorers; Montgomerie putter, Langer scrambler Statistically a no-brainer pairing… Harrington 69.23 (1), 77.1% (T1), 1.723 (1), 71.1% (10) Fasth 70.27 (13), 62.2% (175), 1.745 (9), 59.3% (42) Comment: Harrington had an excellent year golfing his ball. All Fasth had to do was contribute a few putts. Harrington 69.23 (1), 77.1% (T1), 1.723 (1), 71.1% (10) McGinley 69.83 (T5), 75.6% (6), 1.766 (36), 53.9% (88) Comment: Scoring average of Irish duo indicated potential strong 4-ball pairing. Fulke 71.87 (122), 62.2% (175), 1.739 (6), 57.4% (59) Price 70.42 (18), 67.2% (90), 1.746 (10), 58.8% (46) Comment: Thought with this pair was maybe one of them would get putter hot. Fasth 70.27 (13), 62.2% (175), 1.745 (9), 59.3% (42) Parnevik* 70.12 [6], 66.9% [T8], 1.769 [10], 54.3% [6] * PGA tour #’s used, rank based on 1-12 of EU team Comment: Parnevik Ball-striking/scoring paired w/Fasth putting . Captain Sam Torrance paired players w/complementary skill sets. In other words, ball-strikers with putters in both Alternate Shot & 4-Ball formats. Now here’s my hypothetical 1997 Ryder Cup squad (Woods’ first team) in world ranking order: 2) Woods, 5) Love, 7) Mickleson, 8) Lehman, 10) O’Meara, 11) Leonard, 12) Duval, 13) Faxon, 16) Hoch, 20) Watson, 21) Furyk, 29) Maggert. Order of play: Day 1 Morning Alt Shot, Day 1 Afternoon 4-Ball Day 2 Morning 4-Ball, Day 2 Alt Shot Historically of the 3 formats, EU has greatest advantage in 4-Balls, slightly < advantage in Alt Shot and it’s relatively = in singles. US captain should start Day 1 & end Day 2 in format where US teams have fared slightly better, which is Alt Shot. Based on 1997 stats & world rankings my pairings for Day 1 Alt Shot would've been: Woods/Faxon, Mickleson/O’Meara, Love/Duval, Lehman/Leonard #2/13 #7/10 #5/12 #8/11 4 top scorers: Woods, Mickleson, Love. Lehman are paired with 4 of the top 5 players in putting average: Faxon, O’Meara, Duval, Leonard. None of my hypothetical pairings occurred in actual 1997 competition. Duval/Love would be paired at next 2 tournaments going 0-1-1. Next Post: Adjustment scenarios after opening Alt Shot matches.

The Ryder Cup has long been over and probably been over analyzed. But in having a chance as a sports fan to cool off, here are my amateur theories on how the US might improve their chance of being competitive. Qualification system 1 way is to have a more inclusive system whereby a finish among the top 10 American players in a tournament would earn points. Intuitively to me it doesn’t make sense. This issue most often comes into play during the majors & TPC Sawgrass. If an American can outperform an international player in the top fields & under the greatest pressure, why would I want him competing at the Ryder Cup? My hypothetical system was to be more exclusive. Players who finish in the top 5 earn points. Majors & TPC would be weighted > than regular tournaments. The issue of, “Is the best possible team being fielded?” is often about the last 4 players on the team. I said let there be 4 captain’s picks. I choose the 1996-97 qualification period (Woods’ 1st team) to analyze. My 8 players on points all made the actual 1997 team. Of my 4 captain’s picks, 2 clearly had > pts than the rest: Maggert & Furyk. They also made the actual 1997 team. For the last 2 picks there were 5 candidates: Couples, Duval, Janzen, Tolles & Watson. I would’ve selected Duval for his consistent play over that period and Watson (20th in 1997 world golf rankings) for his experience. Couples and Janzen were selected. It’s only 1 qualification period but my system “makes” no difference. New Blood An experience core of 4-6 players in their 30s usually wins the Cup. Not surprising, since golfers typically reach their prime in that age range. 2 notable examples of teams with young talent are: the 1983 EU team (Ballesteros, Langer, Faldo, Lyle, Woosnam) & the 1997 US team (Woods, Mickleson, Leonard, Furyk). These 2 teams with young core players both barely lost. Coincidentally, these players were part of winning teams at the next competition. While it would be great for the US team to add a core player under 30, veteran teams generally win. Rookies In team matches, rookies often hold their own, but struggle in singles. I wouldn’t hesitate to play rookies on the Day 1, or even pair rooks together. We saw this in Ireland. If you look at the debut records of EU’s big 4 in the 1980s (Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer & Olazabal) they were a combined 8-7-1 in team matches but 1-2-1 in singles. As for a rookie making the team as a captain’s pick however, I’m wary. For me, a rookie would need 1 win & a top 5 finish during the 2-year qualification period to merit serious consideration. Home course advantage You could setup the course to have 40-yard wide fairways & short par 5s (500-515 yards) to suit the big drivers on the American team. Wide fairways might mean US players having consistently shorter approach shots then their opponent. Having make-able eagle opportunities for both teams could be wildly exciting. European players have succeeded on such a course however; it’s called Augusta. The other approach is a US Open style setup. You could have a Par 70 course w/hourglass fairways and cornstalk high rough that protects par. Players & fans alike would hate it. But to give the American team a true home course advantage, this seems to be the way to go. Since 1960 only 1 EU player has won a US Open (1970 Jacklin, Hazeltine). From 1983 – 1997 (this 15-year period chosen as it marks Ballesteros & Woods respective rises as top 5 players in the world) only 4 EU players have been in contention at the US Open. Contention defined as finishing within 2 shots of the lead: Faldo 1988/1990; Montgomerie 1994/1997; Ballesteros 1985, Woosnam 1989. Only 1 other EU player during that span finished within the top 5 (Langer 1987) I wouldn’t want to watch a Ryder Cup under that latter setup. However, isn’t it about just winning baby? Future post: Pairing alchemy.

Feedback to Mr. Thrasher: EUROS dished out big can of whup to American's derrières. Long putts & chip-ins all part of Ryder Cup magic. US team doesn't have to match all spectacular shots. They need to do more mundane things like: hit GIR, sink more 5 - 15 ft birdie putts and laser guide green light yardage approach shots (150, 130, 115 yards) to within 6 feet. Nothing during President's Cup should be used as information toward Ryder Cup. Each tournament takes on its own personality. Go with “obvious” pairings on Day 1 morning session, mix and match all the way through end of the team competition. Pairings should be a reaction to what's happening on course. Everybody plays first day. Pairs that win stay on the course. Pairs that lose or tie get broken up. Among losing pairings, take players who made birdies and combine them into new pairings. Margins of victory this wide make what the captain does irrelevant. Recent winning EU captains had widely different styles and it didn’t hurt them. It's all about players executing their shots. Camaraderie is nice, makes team room more pleasant. Wearing feelings on the sleeve by either team’s players isn't relevant either. Making birdies bring smiles, nothing else. No more break even then win the singles matches stuff. Emphasis of US team should be urgency of winning team matches 9 - 7. Start Day 1 with morning alternate shot. Take winning pairings or players who made the most birdies and pair them for afternoon 4-ball. Would be good for new blood to make the US team. However EUROS have been relying heavily on veterans like Clarke, Harrington and Westwood to win. US hope to have Love, Furyk, maybe Glover in form during 2008. If not, they’ll be overwhelmed again.

As for captain’s picks, that’s a separate issue. My hypothetical point system rewarding top 5 finishes would be for the 10 who make the team on points . As for talent level let’s look at the elite level players, mid-level players and bottom of the lineup. Back 4 Without going through player by player, my feeling the level of talent is basically equal. My theory is what happens on the course is based on team momentum and match play unpredictability. Elite Woods is among the 3 greatest players ever to play golf (Nicklaus, Hogan). Great soloist doesn’t play well with others. Why he struggles in 4-ball is a mystery. Mickleson is ultimate tease. He may finish with 7 major wins, which would tie him with Palmer. He won in his early Ryder Cup career, now he can’t. He has to earn 3 pts next time for US team to have any chance at all. Garcia thrives under team format unlike Woods and he’s still young enough to have a better career than Mickleson. He has too much game not to eventually breakthrough and be a multiple major winner. Montgomerie is Mr. Ryder Cup. His game as it fits the majors is kind of odd. Not long enough to contend at the Masters and PGA. Accurate enough to contend at US Open, but not a good enough putter to finish the deal. Why he hasn’t contended more at the British is a mystery. Maybe it’s the pressure of playing just for him in front of the home crowd? Middle of the Order Here’s the EUROS decisive advantage in Clarke, Harrington and Westwood. Throw in Donald too. One way to project if the 2008 US team can keep the matches close into Sunday singles is by looking at the form of the middle of the US order the year of the cup. It might look like this: Love: He’s struggled at the Ryder Cup. But his length of the tee and talent means he should get himself back in contention at the Masters and PGA. It should also make him a 4-ball threat. He’s one of the few American players to have made a Cup clinching putt. Furyk: His is a self-made game, putting and scrambling well, mentally tough. It is the type of game someone watching at home should aspire to at his or her own level. But he struggles in team matches as well. One would think his steadiness and tenacity would be ideal for Cup play but the results say otherwise. Glover: Hope he improves his game over next 2 years so he can make the team on points. Long off the tee and a good ball striker. His issue is putting, but he could be a weapon in 4-ball. A singles match against Donald sound fabulous. Toms: I don’t worry about him. He’s a good putter and iron player and manages his game well. Throw in his temperament and he could be the ultimate utility guy. In a EURO-esque way, he’s the 1 American who could playing with anyone else in the lineup and carry his share of the load. So, hypothetical pairings would be Love/Glover and Furyk/Toms. Let Woods and Mickleson play with the rookies or bottom 4 of the line-up. Give them the responsibility of carrying the play like Ballesteros did in the early to mid 80s. Again the EUROS would still win, but maybe shaking things up would make the matches competitive once again.

Both Ryder Cup captains have a fair degree of control over 2 things: a. Helping his players prepare for the golf course. b. Managing the non-golf issues/distractions before the match. Pairings while all of us like to draft them; success is mostly a matter of who executes their shots better. During the age of all “big 4” EU players (Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer, Olazabal) none had much success at PGA championship. Ballesteros 1983: T-27; 1984: 5; 1985: T-32; 1986: Cut; 1987: T-10; 1988: Cut, 1989: T-12 Faldo 1983: Cut; 1984: T-20; 1985: T-54; 1986: Cut; 1987: T-28; 1988: 5; 1989: T-9 Langer 1985: T-32; 1986 Cut; 1987: T-21; 1988: Cut; 1989: T-61 Olazabal 1987: Cut; 1989 Cut So, the home captain has another weapon in his arsenal, its course set-up. My course set-up: Fairway width: 30 – 35 yards wide. Green speeds: 11 – 12 on Stimp meter. Rough height: 1.25 intermediate cut, 2.5 primary cut. Bunkers: furrowed a la Oakmont. Use Kerry Haigh who (sets up course for PGA Championship) let him go to work. These 4 factors set-up this way would give the US a home course advantage. Europe still wins, but hey, try getting any fair edge you can. 5 courses I would like to see the Ryder Cup played on: Turnberry, County Down, El Saler, Riviera, Inverness

In looking down road to next Ryder Cup. Change qualification process. Here how I would do it (Using my own made up #). Players earn pts for top 5 finishes . In year before cup- Regular tour event: 5)10 pts 4)20 pts 3)30 pts 2)20 pts 1)50 pts Majors/TPC Sawgrass: 5)20 pts 4)40 pts 3)60 pts 2)80 pts 1)100 pts Cup year: Regular tour event: 5)15 pts 4)30 pts 3)45 pts 2)60 pts 1)75 pts Majors/TPC Sawgrass: 5)40 pts 4)60 pts 3)90 pts 2)120 pts 1) 150 pts Non-cup year, corresponding finish, top 5 in majors/TPC worth double points of regular tour event. Cup year, corresponding finish, top 5 in regular tour event worth 1.5X > than non-cup year. Cup year, corresponding finish, top 5 in major/TPC worth 1.5X > than non-cup year. In other words, majors carry more weight than regular tour events. Regular tour event wins during cup year weigh more than non-cup year. Went back to 1996/1997 and 1998/1999 to find out how many US players would've met my criteria. Love, Leonard and Lehman were 3 top players in 1997-1998 and all made the Ryder Cup team. Without knowing their record on the regular tour 1997-1998, my points system would've meant that: Mark Brooks (97 PGA champ, top 5 British) Tommy Tolles (Top 5 1997 PGA, Top 5 1998 Masters, Top 5 1998 US Open These 2 workmanlike players would've earned significant Ryder Cup Points (without knowing all players regular tour record for those 2 years) No point system is perfect, but this what I thought would help to better discriminate who the best American players might be for the next Ryder Cup.