Molinari

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

And I am happy to correct Dave too.

He is correct about ties in football, except not about the frequency ... there have been all of 4 ties in the last 22 1/2 season (since November of 1989)  And the last one was memorable because it's when we found out that the players (in that case Donovan McNabb I think) don't even know the rules.

In MLB, it never happens except in the all-star game several years ago when both teams ran out of pitchers.  (Your late season weather delay scenario is certainly plausible, but I can't say I've ever heard of that happening)

In the NHL, they USED to have ties, but they switched to a shoot-out format, I believe, the same year they came back from their last lockout, which was what?  2004?  (One rules quirk is that the team that loses the shootout still gets credit for an "overtime loss" and 1 point in the standings - the same amount of points teams used to get for a tie)

LOL  True, I was wrong about it happening nearly every season.  That trend was more common before the 90's.  I guess it was happening so often when I was watching way more football (my youth) that I didn't notice the trend didn't continue.  You'll notice it was happening nearly every season during the 80's though, and we didn't seem to have any problem with it then.  While my stats were incorrect, my point remains that we have no problem with ties.

As for MLB, I was merely stating the rules.  Yes, they do everything possible to avoid a tie, but when the games don't matter (something perfectly related to this discussion about the Ryder Cup since the previous winner retains the cup in BOTH cases, tie or win) it is, indeed possible.  Here's an example of a tie from 9 years ago (again, it is rare but certainly possible).  http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=230918101

As for the NHL, the shootout was indeed added after the lockout.  I was wrong on that one, too.  But prior to that ties were indeed common.  I'd watch more hockey, but I'm a Coyotes fan and my golf game depresses me enough these days.

I'll stand by my point that ties aren't a big deal, particularly when the game/match didn't have some impact on where the "trophy" is going.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'll stand by my point that ties aren't a big deal, particularly when the game/match didn't have some impact on where the "trophy" is going.

I was being a little nit-picky just because I happened to know the answers to some of those.  But I should have included the 70's and 80's not in my comment, because you are right, it basically did happen once a year back then.

But I agree with your point.  Ties aren't totally uncommon and in certain situations, aren't a big deal when they don't have any impact on the result.

As a fan, I don't care ... but if I was a player on this years US team, or specifically Tiger Woods, it WOULD mean something to me to get that tie at the end there.  This may not make sense, but it would actually mean a lot less to me if I was Molinari.  If my team already "won" I wouldn't care that much what the final score was.  However, if my team "lost" then I would want to have that saving grace that we didn't actually lose, but rather tied, and lost on a technicality.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I think it mattered.  For me as a fan rooting for the US... I'd rather see a tie - and the Europeans retain the cup.  Than for them to win outright.  Tiger was the anchor of the team... His role was to go out and get a point for the US.  Not a 1/2 point.  He should've bared down and made the putt.

So you think Nicklaus was dead wrong when he gave Jacklin his putt in 1969?  Someone finally agrees with Sam Snead.

Quote:

It all came down to Jacklin vs. Nicklaus. On the 17th hole, Nicklaus led 1-up - until Jacklin sank a 50-foot eagle putt to square it. On the 18th green, Jacklin lagged his birdie attempt to two feet. But Nicklaus ran his own birdie putt five feet past the hole. "I was terrified," Nicklaus said after the match, talking about that 5-footer for par, but the Bear holed it.

Then Nicklaus picked up Jacklin's ballmarker, conceding Jacklin his par, saying to Jacklin, "I don't think you would have missed that Tony, but I didn't want to give you the chance." That halved their game, and it resulted in the 16-16 tie overall.

Nicklaus' gesture is now viewed as one of the great acts of sportsmanship in Ryder Cup history. Not everyone viewed it that way at the time, however. USA captain Sam Snead was very unhappy with Nicklaus - Snead wanted the outright victory, and that meant forcing Jacklin to putt in case Jacklin missed.

[dsc123]

I think Tiger didn't care.  I think he probably expected Molinari to concede in the fairway, and when he didn't, he just hit his shot.  Probably the longer the hole went, the more pointless it felt, and he eventually just conceded.  Maybe he figured just get a quick up and down and end it, and when that didn't happen he had enough and conceded.  The guy is fighting like hell for 17 and a half holes to win the ryder cup, then see's it all end in front of him.  To Tiger, there's winning and there's losing.  No ties, no second place.  I would imagine it would be hard to care much at that point.

[deronsizemore]

They asked Molinari about this in the press conference after. They asked why he didn't just concede and half the hole and he mentioned that he was told by someone (I assume another captain) to play the hole out because if he conceded, it meant they tied with the US for the Ryder Cup. Even though Europe still retained the cup, they didn't want to end in a tie. So, blame someone, but not Molinari, he was doing what he was told.

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by dave67az

LOL  True, I was wrong about it happening nearly every season.  That trend was more common before the 90's.  I guess it was happening so often when I was watching way more football (my youth) that I didn't notice the trend didn't continue.  You'll notice it was happening nearly every season during the 80's though, and we didn't seem to have any problem with it then.  While my stats were incorrect, my point remains that we have no problem with ties.

As for MLB, I was merely stating the rules.  Yes, they do everything possible to avoid a tie, but when the games don't matter (something perfectly related to this discussion about the Ryder Cup since the previous winner retains the cup in BOTH cases, tie or win) it is, indeed possible.  Here's an example of a tie from 9 years ago (again, it is rare but certainly possible).  http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=230918101

As for the NHL, the shootout was indeed added after the lockout.  I was wrong on that one, too.  But prior to that ties were indeed common.  I'd watch more hockey, but I'm a Coyotes fan and my golf game depresses me enough these days.

I'll stand by my point that ties aren't a big deal, particularly when the game/match didn't have some impact on where the "trophy" is going.

So, as you stated, the sporting culture of the US is generally to avoid ties - I assume this is a gambling thing? Or a Cultural thing?

We do get US Sports over here - 4 or 5 NFL games are shown every week and although I don't follow it closely (we have Rugby League and Union, which is like NFL only without the constant breaks and protective clothing) I don't recall a tie ever. We also have ESPN and they show baseball (which I think is great live but crap on TV because of the ad breaks) and I don't recall a tie. I'm guessing the NBA...no, don't recall ever seeing a tie there, but frankly, it's much bigger in Spain, Italy, Greece and the former Yugoslav states.

Anyway, thanks for the info. Still don't get why Euope should not have played for the win in a country where results and winning are so important, but there ya go. That's me.

All best. MtD.

[colin007]

i honestly dont think tiger cares that much about the Ryder Cup as a whole.  as much as i love eldrick, he is extremely selfish and looks out for number 1, namely himself.  the team concept here puts too much influence on others to sully his record, as stricker did this weekend.  if tiger is playing on his own and comes short he has no one to blame but himself and i think hes ok with that.  the fact that he has teammates and isnt playing for money makes it less relevant for him.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think Tiger didn't care.  I think he probably expected Molinari to concede in the fairway, and when he didn't, he just hit his shot.  Probably the longer the hole went, the more pointless it felt, and he eventually just conceded.  Maybe he figured just get a quick up and down and end it, and when that didn't happen he had enough and conceded.  The guy is fighting like hell for 17 and a half holes to win the ryder cup, then see's it all end in front of him.  To Tiger, there's winning and there's losing.  No ties, no second place.  I would imagine it would be hard to care much at that point.

I think Tiger does and did care. Maybe conceding Molinari's putt to ensure the US earned a loss was his way of saying thank you to DLIII for pairing him with an ice cold Stricker for 3 matches and putting him so late in the draw that either way his match wouldn't matter . . . again.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by colin007

i honestly dont think tiger cares that much about the Ryder Cup as a whole.  as much as i love eldrick, he is extremely selfish and looks out for number 1, namely himself.  the team concept here puts too much influence on others to sully his record, as stricker did this weekend.  if tiger is playing on his own and comes short he has no one to blame but himself and i think hes ok with that.  the fact that he has teammates and isnt playing for money makes it less relevant for him.

I think that's a shallow take. If you watched him on the course this past weekend it was quite clear that he was very into these matches and wanted to as always play his very best. I don't see any indication or proof that this was less relevant for him.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I think that's a shallow take. If you watched him on the course this past weekend it was quite clear that he was very into these matches and wanted to as always play his very best. I don't see any indication or proof that this was less relevant for him.

Exactly.  That is why I don't believe he wasn't trying on 18.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I think that's a shallow take. If you watched him on the course this past weekend it was quite clear that he was very into these matches and wanted to as always play his very best. I don't see any indication or proof that this was less relevant for him.

Of Course he cared, and about the right thing; the team. Woods conceded the putt simply because Europe already retained the cup. He actually didn't care about himself going into the record books with a tie instead of a win because the competition was over and his team failed in their only mission. He came across as very classy to me and I've been called a Tiger hater by the sychophants (doesn't take much, just say something like he hasn't shown anything on the weekend of majors this year).

[Lefty-Golfer]

he said on TV after the match that Ollie told him in the fairway that he had to finish so they had a chance to win.

personally i don't care what was said if i didn't pickup in the fairway (i think i would have) i would certainly have given the par putt on the green.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

Of Course he cared, and about the right thing; the team. Woods conceded the putt simply because Europe already retained the cup. He actually didn't care about himself going into the record books with a tie instead of a win because the competition was over and his team failed in their only mission. He came across as very classy to me and I've been called a Tiger hater by the sychophants (doesn't take much, just say something like he hasn't shown anything on the weekend of majors this year).

That.

Too much navel-gazing going on here, guys. Too much supposition on what is going on his Tiger's head & what his motivation is.

It's pretty simple. He was trying to win the Cup. When that was no longer possible he didn't care anymore. That's how competitors think.

[August]

Why should Molinari have conceded his match against Tiger if they had agreed to play all the matches, even if the Cup had already been decided? Yeah, maybe he could have given Tiger that putt, as Europe had already secured the Cup, it wasn't so important who wins that hole. But I don't think giving those putts was necesssary. And as they didn't give those putts for each other, I think Tiger showed some "I don't care" attitude after missing his putt and conceded the hole. He didn't care it it's a tie or a loss, they didn't win the Cup. And I can understand that attitude, I wouldn't blame him on that.

But don't blame Francesco, he was just doing his best, It would've been a big decision for him to throw away the chance of an outright win. As they started to play that hole, why not finish it? If Europe had conceded that hole, they should've done it right after the Cup was decided, and it should've been up to Ollie, not Francesco.

[x129]

I am pretty sure Tiger choose to play with Stricker.  As far as positioning, if DLIII had swapped Tiger and someone else, would you be complaining that in the last match that  the US should have saved it's best player for last rather than rolling out? I mean how would you feel if it would have been the 18th with Stricker or Furyk out there?

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think Tiger does and did care. Maybe conceding Molinari's putt to ensure the US earned a loss was his way of saying thank you to DLIII for pairing him with an ice cold Stricker for 3 matches and putting him so late in the draw that either way his match wouldn't matter . . . again.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by x129

I am pretty sure Tiger choose to play with Stricker.  As far as positioning, if DLIII had swapped Tiger and someone else, would you be complaining that in the last match that  the US should have saved it's best player for last rather than rolling out? I mean how would you feel if it would have been the 18th with Stricker or Furyk out there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think Tiger does and did care. Maybe conceding Molinari's putt to ensure the US earned a loss was his way of saying thank you to DLIII for pairing him with an ice cold Stricker for 3 matches and putting him so late in the draw that either way his match wouldn't matter . . . again.

Sorry, was I complaining about anything in that post?

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by x129

I am pretty sure Tiger choose to play with Stricker.  As far as positioning, if DLIII had swapped Tiger and someone else, would you be complaining that in the last match that  the US should have saved it's best player for last rather than rolling out? I mean how would you feel if it would have been the 18th with Stricker or Furyk out there?

I liked having Tiger last.  If it came down to it, I think he would have been least affected by the pressure of the situation.

[crayputter]

I liked having Tiger last.  If it came down to it, I think he would have been least affected by the pressure of the situation.

Actually...and I'm serious...DL3 is a genius... If only Furyk hadn't do a Mahan on the 15th with his 2nd shot, he might have beaten Garcia....and Tiger would have been in a position to get the clincher for US.... Ray