Name Your Team USA Ryder Cup Squad

[FarawayFairways]

I actually quite like Jim Furyk. He might be considered, but I'd also be asking who I'd drop? In Ryder Cup Jim's got a particularly ropey record (more so than Phil). I suspect Phil's issues can be solved if someone sticks a rocket up his arse

[RJH999]

I actually quite like Jim Furyk. He might be considered, but I'd also be asking who I'd drop? In Ryder Cup Jim's got a particularly ropey record (more so than Phil). I suspect Phil's issues can be solved if someone sticks a rocket up his arse

Yeah the big issue is that he has a poor RC record. But he has had a better year than Phil, Donald, Poulter, Westwood, Donaldson, and Bjorn.

[Chris223]

so Tiger is not scheduled to play between now and the Ryder Cup, and he failed to make the playoffs obviously.  If Tiger has the desire to make the Ryder Cup which we would all presume he does - why doesn't he go out and play this week at the Wyndham for example?  It's not exactly a tournament with a stacked field typically.  If he feels he's physically good to go - why not go out and play, win the damn thing like a healthy Tiger could, and pretty much be picked at that point?  Tournament like that should be a walk in the park for a healthy Tiger.

[FarawayFairways]

I don't know whether Tom's fallen into the Tigers Web, or whether he's been quoted accurately in context, but his latest blatherings are a worry that he's starting to lose the plot now

"The answer can only come from Tiger. I am confident he will give us an honest answer," Watson said.

Ugh...... does the title " Captain Watson" mean anything to you Tom. Look you've procrastinated long enough over this, to try and abborgate your own responsibility to someone who is clearly emotionally too close to the epicentre to be relied upon is darn right irresponsible at best, and cowardly at worst. You're the captain and you have responsibility to build a team ethic and not give the impression that you react as soon as Tiger pulls your string. You said yourself that you wanted to see evidence of form and fitness, well on that threshold he's spectacularly failed on both counts. Think yourself lucky. What if he'd made top 50? , you'd have something to cling to then. As it happens he's failed on any possible measure you could possibly invoke. Clear the decks now and start to concentrate on building what you've got left, unless of course you're admitting that Tiger Woods picks the team, in which step down and ask him to take over

Watson continued

"The biggest question is his health and right next to that it is how is he playing,"

Well if that's the case, it's no different to where you were at the Open when you said you'd try and find him for a chat. This doesn't look good on you Tom, and it's bound to start to corrode the team morale when the Captain is so preoccupied about player who hasn't shown anything like the level of form they've been required to, adn whom your seemingly admitting will be selected provided he says he woke one day and felt a bit better. It damages morale Tom. It has to. The best teams are those of equals, not those where different rules apply to different individuals.

At the very least give him an ultimatum to play in Europe and prove his fitness. If he refuses, then tell him you've heard and seen enough, and that you'll make the decision for him. Thank him for the courage he's shown in trying to get himself ready (and I believe he has) but simply tell him that you believe the clock has beaten him

Now I'm trying to be nice to Tom and cut him as much latitude as I can. I'm hoping that he's basically invited Tiger to step aside, and given him the revolver and bottle of scotch if he isn't going to play again. There is no way Tiger Woods can be expected to self-diagnose his fitness though. That's unfair on him, and not a little bit sneaky on Tom's part (in fact its borderline appalling)

If Tiger says he's fit and plays badly that Toms been lied to by dishonest Tiger (the corner that Tom has painted him into). If Tiger says he's fit and plays well, Tom is a tactical genius for allowing him all the time needed and taking it up to the wire

Very naughty. He's let this soap opera run long enough now in the hope that the storyline might develop. It hasn't. In fact it's got worse. Now it's your turn Tom to earn your money and make the decision. Tiger's tried to do what was asked of him, but is palpably injured. Very rarely are injured players a benefit to any team, in any sport.

[Gunther]

so Tiger is not scheduled to play between now and the Ryder Cup, and he failed to make the playoffs obviously.  If Tiger has the desire to make the Ryder Cup which we would all presume he does - why doesn't he go out and play this week at the Wyndham for example?  It's not exactly a tournament with a stacked field typically.  If he feels he's physically good to go - why not go out and play, win the damn thing like a healthy Tiger could, and pretty much be picked at that point?  Tournament like that should be a walk in the park for a healthy Tiger.

I believe you've made an incorrect presumption. I don't think he gives a rat's ass about the Ryder Cup this year. He's focused on getting healthy. These guys have one of these every year, whether this or President's Cup. I just don't think it's as meaningful to them anymore, and I don't blame them at all.

[FarawayFairways]

I'm not sure that's right in Tiger's case Gunter. I think the RC does mean something to him, in fact I think it's grown to mean a hell of a lot more to him than he lets on, quite possibly because it offends his competitive instincts having been humiliated too many times in it now. People like Tiger who are used to being on the apex don't enjoy oppositions laughing at them

Let me give you an example from Medinah that first caused me to raise an eyebrow and consdier for the first time that Tiger is plugged into the RC

He was on the 18th against Fransceco Mollinari 1up. He was in a strong position on the hole, just as Kaymer hit the winning putt. Tiger knew the significance of it. The match was over. Now Tiger hadn't won a single point up until now. Had he done so, he'd be putting to win the cup. It must have been very tempting for him to add a little score to his individual record and at least remove the big fat zero sitting next to his name. Would have 2 minutes. He conceeded to a half.

Now the question I pose, is would 'Mr America' Phil Mickelson have done this? Or would he have played to enhance his own personal record? I don't know, and I don't believe that there is actually a wrong or right to it as it happens. All i do believe is that the person who conceeds is confirming that they regard the team result as the only , thing that matters.

FWIW I think Tiger has put himself through this ordeal over the last few weeks to try and show how much he wants to play. The easiest thing in the world for him would have been to walk off on Friday. he refused to do so, and showed a bloody minded determination. What we don't know is how persuasive Tiger can be in private? What if he's turnign round to Tom and saying all the things Tom wants to hear about commitment, determination, character, team ethics - what if he is pressing all the right buttons privately. I can easily see how Tom might get seduced into allowing him more grace and favour than perhaps he should. Let's be honest, there isn't a single scrap of evidence since his return from surgery that supports a selection. Even his one good round at the Open, was only average in the context of the standard he's going need to be at

Now let me return to Peter Perfect again. He was asked last night about the rest of the season and said he was "concentrating on next year when Olympic qualification begins". He actually said that! Now that is the answer of a man who doesn't give a rats arse

He's already got the money banked. (play off sdon't mean much to him)

There's no more Major titles for him (nothing for his glorification there then)

So what is there left for him this year? Nothing (in his mind) - oh apart from the pride of his country, but that doesn't matter to him we have to assume, and pales into insignificance at the prospect of him standing on the top of a ego-podium in 2 years time with a gold medal round his big grinning smiley face.

Surely the correct answer should have been the one that every European gave when asked similar variants of the same question.

The play offs

Then the Ryder Cup

Phil could have said;

The play-offs

We have a scoe settle in the RC and I'm looking forward to doing so Gleneagles

and then next year I'm really keen on the Olympics

Why did he omit the first two? and what might it tell us about him? Does it explain his mid 40% record? He's played on winning RC teams (not many) but he can at least tick the box, and perhaps he's settled for that and doesn't want to get into the tribal scrap that RC can become. Tiger by contrast might be the more competitive, the more instinctive warrior, and so far as he's concerned his own pride, and that of his country has been slanted. He wants revenge, and he's going to try and do what he can to get it. Sadly for Tiger time is running out, but if he has been beating the drum privately to Tom, then I could certainly understand why Tom is holding out for him, and almost appealing to him to do the sensible thing now

I still think Tom is going to have to make the decision for him, but I do believe Tiger has grown into the Ryder Cup, whereas Phil has grown apart from it. Come to think of it, Phil made those strange comments at Medinah too which were pretty well an admission that he hadn't really been playing the RC for about a decade, but that Keegan Bradley had stirred something in him that was otherwsie switched off

[pabird]

As a European and hoping to continue RC dominance please select Tiger Woods ;-)

[FarawayFairways]

Very strange quotes being attributed to Tom Watson this morning

Sadly he's given the impression of being at sea now for quite a few months, and it's always possible that he's being presented selectively with a narrative being built round it, but..... one is rather left with the notion that he's handed over the reins of this team to Tiger Woods

"I can't assess his medical conditional and I honestly can't assess how he's playing"

I can Tom, as can anybody capable of reading a leaderboard. That's really all the evidence you need

"I will continue to speak with Tiger over the next three weeks to monitor his situation"

Well if you've said, that you can't honestly assess him, what's the point of speaking to him?

You said previously that he'd be picked only if he was: "fit and playing well"

The evidence is overwhelming, he's neither, but even if you chose to argue the semantics of the first criteria of fitness, there is no way you can defend the second one, and you did say "and" you didn't say "or". This moving of the goalposts just looks dishonest now and it's going to become an even bigger disruption and distraction than you've already allowed to become when you could moved much more decisively months ago

"If he has the ability to play and he's healthy. I'd be a fool not to consider him"

Well he's not going to play between now and the naming of the team, so he'll retain his 'ability' to play, but on the evidence of last weekend, the ability is that of a good handicapper. In which you'd be an even bigger fool to pick him

Reading between the lines then (and it isn't difficult) he seems to be saying Tiger Woods decides whether or not he wants to play. Nine of the twelve players are handed to Tom, and he's now given 33% of his own discretionary picks away to a team member. Suddenly I'm wondering if there's a silent hand behind the drafting of Steve Stricker? This sort of one rule for one, and one rule for everyone else will nearly always undermine a team's spirit (despite what the players might say publicly). There has to be those on the bubble now enduring additional angst brought about by Tom's vaciliations (and sadly it has to be said) contradictory statements. Tom doesn't look like he's handling this on the level. He looks a tiny bit duplicitous. What Tom is clearly saying is that he regards a crippled Tiger as being better than the three he ends up picking. That's a terrible message to send out to a team which can't be that confident as it is. It comes so soon after his criticism of their fitness levels too, so how does he rationalise this final quote from the most recent press conference

"I think the European team is the stronger right now on paper" (that's fair enough, he could be accussed of being deluded to say otherwise, and adopting the nothing to lose underdog title is worth doing) "Their team is full of star power players that have been playing well" (No problem with that either, see if you can heap expectation and pressure onto the hosts "But I have extreme confidence in the players we have on our team"

No you don't. In fact you've got very little confidence. You've criticised Dufner and Kuchar, and you still can't bring yourself to end this Tiger Woods farce, believing as you clearly do that someone who spectacularly missed the cut at Valhalla is a stronger player than numbers 10-12 on your own order of merit. That's a damning indictment of your own team Tom, and your attempts to transfer the responsbility for selection to Tiger is very disingenuous

[David in FL]

I believe you've made an incorrect presumption. I don't think he gives a rat's ass about the Ryder Cup this year. He's focused on getting healthy. These guys have one of these every year, whether this or President's Cup. I just don't think it's as meaningful to them anymore, and I don't blame them at all.

I don't think that he doesn't care about the Ryder Cup this year......I think he's pragmatic enough to realize that there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of being selected.

Other than the "muscle spasms" from 2 weeks ago that everyone seems confident were unrelated to his back surgery, he continues to assert that he feels fine.  I think he's more focused on finding some semblance of a repeatable golf swing before he puts himself on stage again.......and rightfully so.

Reading between the lines then (and it isn't difficult) he seems to be saying Tiger Woods decides whether or not he wants to play. Nine of the twelve players are handed to Tom, and he's now given 33% of his own discretionary picks away to a team member. Suddenly I'm wondering if there's a silent hand behind the drafting of Steve Stricker? This sort of one rule for one, and one rule for everyone else will nearly always undermine a team's spirit (despite what the players might say publicly). There has to be those on the bubble now enduring additional angst brought about by Tom's vaciliations (and sadly it has to be said) contradictory statements. Tom doesn't look like he's handling this on the level. He looks a tiny bit duplicitous. What Tom is clearly saying is that he regards a crippled Tiger as being better than the three he ends up picking. That's a terrible message to send out to a team which can't be that confident as it is. It comes so soon after his criticism of their fitness levels too, so how does he rationalise this final quote from the most recent press conference

Disagree.

I think Tom's doing it in order to give those players on the bubble one last chance to really convince him.  Who's gonna step up under that additional pressure.  Tiger's out.  Everyone knows that....and everyone knows that everyone knows.

[FarawayFairways]

First bookie to price up Toms picks

Now i'm curious given that Ryan Moore is 9/2. Does anyone know what happens if Kurcher and Dufner both decalre injured? Does Moore become the pick? Or is Tom given more wildcards?

Also in terms of trying to bet it, you need to find someone who you think is going to do well over the next 3 weeks lurking around the big prices unless you decide to lay into a shortie. I don't think Keegan should be that heavily odds on though. If he has a bad 3 weeks he won't be picked, that simple, as indeed won't any of them

[RJH999]

First bookie to price up Toms picks [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/103908/] [/URL] Now i'm curious given that Ryan Moore is 9/2. Does anyone know what happens if Kurcher and Dufner both decalre injured? Does Moore become the pick? Or is Tom given more wildcards? Also in terms of trying to bet it, you need to find someone who you think is going to do well over the next 3 weeks lurking around the big prices unless you decide to lay into a shortie. I don't think Keegan should be that heavily odds on though. If he has a bad 3 weeks he won't be picked, that simple, as indeed won't any of them

I think Moore would slide over to ten if Dufner can't play. If Kuchar doesn't play as well I believe Moore gets an AQ spot.

[FarawayFairways]

Disagree.

I think Tom's doing it in order to give those players on the bubble one last chance to really convince him.  Who's gonna step up under that additional pressure.  Tiger's out.  Everyone knows that....and everyone knows that everyone knows.

I realise you want to view Tom in as a positive light as possible (so do I) but if he's really reconcilled to playing without Woods then surely now is the time to say so. Everything is in his favour

He has a responsibility as captain to build up the players who he does envisage as being possibles, and not undermine them by leaving open this Tiger thing. What he's saying to them, is that if Tiger says he's woken up feeling better today, and even though I haven't seen a shred of evidence to justify it, I'm going to pick him ahead of you lot, because I reckon he's better than all of you. On his career record, he clearly is, but this isn't a computer game, it's about who is likely to put together the best 3 days on a snapshot in time, and right now Tiger can't posssibly qualify on that score.

If Tiger is really out, now is the best time to say so. Only the truly blinkered Tigerists could protest. Any fair minded individuals would conclude that Tom had given him every chance, maybe too much (imho) but there reaches a point where you have to draw the line and start working with the hand you've been dealt. He can issue the open challenge to all of the fringe players then unburdened, telling them categorically that three places are up for grabs, that he's looking for candidates with character to whom Ryder Cup means something, and tell them that the one who does their talking on the course by dint of deed will be making his job difficult to omit them.

Go out and claim it, prove it etc, make your omission impossible etc Instead he's faffing about with this bizzare idea that Tiger's deciding whether or not to play first, and then once Tiger has made that decision the captain will follow suit. If he really wants to see how they'll perform under pressure then Tiger's failure to satisfy either of Tom's requirements as gifted the captain the opportunity to lay the challenge down. I think Tom's nightmare scenario would have been Tiger throwing in a top-25 finish. He hasn't done that, so Tom's response (if he's good to his own words of a few months ago) should be clear now.

I think he's mucking this up now. Perhaps Steve Stricker needs to say something to him, he's supposed to be Tom's eyes and ears

[FarawayFairways]

Tiger calls time on his Ryder Cup bid and finally admits what was apparent since April

Now the US can at least concentrate on what will line up

I actually think he showed a bloody minded determination to try and reverse what was never going to happen, so credit to him for that, but this whole thing could have been called much earlier without Tom jumping round like a performing dog. The decision could have been pretty well taken at Hoylake even

[David in FL]

[FarawayFairways]

You seem to enjoy picking on Tom Watson, one of the most successful, esteemed, professional golfers of all time. Ok, team loyalty and all that, but I'm curious, what you think of your own captain?

Paul McGinely is at best a journeyman pro who pretty much defines mediocrity in his own professional career.  He's got a helluva team and will almost certainly win, but did they really need to reach that far down towards the bottom of the barrel to find someone willing to take on the job?

I think you're being very selective or forgetful (not for the first time) in how your're interpreting what I've said.

Right at the very start I said if we had to lose to the US, then Tom Watson would be right at the very top of the list of people I want to lose to. I can't really pay him a greater tribute than that. Hell, I even wrote to Alex Salmond (Scotlands first minister) asking them to investigate the creation of the title Lord Turnberry to bestow on Watson (I did get a reply). So the idea I "enjoy" picking on Watson is actually palpable nonesense. I've even just about got one foot in the camp that says he should give serious consideration to picking himself. I think what you've developed is a myopic world view of him, as he's making lots of mistakes at the moment, and giving an object lesson in how not to present a team. He's even quoted now as saying he wants to pick Rory McIlroy as his wildcard (albeit I'm prepared to accept that's mischievous out of context presentation) but it remains to be seen how its edited and sent round cyberspace. I'm reminded of a scene from the film the Battle of Britain, where the actor playing Herman Goering is berating his commanders and then asks them what they want? anything you want I'll supply you etc and one of them requests "spitfires". What Watson said about McIlroy was "I wish he was playing for my team, I can tell you that,". Now you could say that's a statement of the bloody obvious, but there were certainly better ways of answering the question, or not answering it, as Tom should have done, rather than saying words to the effect of I don't rate my team

I'm not a great fan of McGinlay as it happens, and I'm not entirely sure that he wasn't set up to fail. There was a lot of division with his selection ahead of Darren Clarke, and for about 3 weeks it seemed every leading light of the European tour was given the opportunity to say something on the subject. It developed into something reminescent of a dreadful television phone vote show, which will have left some of those who didn't vote for McGinlay (as that's what it looked like) a little bit exposed (lets see how Westwood fares now)

There was also a dark rumour that has circulated a few times that Ryder Cup Europe were getting a little bit concerned that winning was becoming too easy and it posed a threat to the competition. America's penchant for disengaging from sports it doesn't win (tennis being a great example) is well documented. Indeed, we've seen people express the view on this forum that they aren't that interested in Ryder Cup anymore because they can't win at it (tickets have been returned from the US to Scotland). Others in fairness have taken the opposite view and openly admit to being hacked off and want to fight for the win. But even if 25% adopt the churlish view of "I'm not playing if I can't win" then there is a very serious threat to it's continued attraction

Certainly the selection of the course, and the captain, were both heavily criticised at the time and the explanation that it was done so with the view to trying to even things up a bit was the most common whispered explanation. Indeed, Darren Clarke didn't really whisper it!!! I'll let you decide whether there's any currency in that or not, by own inclination is to believe that no one sets out to lose, but by the same token we know that the mathc needs to be competitive, and Europe thrashing the US is the very worst result

As regards the notion that you need to be an apex player to captain/ manage a team, that's been proven time and time again across a whole range of sports not to be a pre-requisite for success. Indeed, it tends to be the apex players who struggle most when they're asked to bring teams together.

I think your explanation that he was a journeyman player at best is of course correct, and he's no where remotely close to Watson's standard, but there is a weakness in your argument here. Neither of them are being asked to play! I think it's quite possible you can therefore turn this round in terms of their suitability for the tasks they're being asked to perform. McGinlay has been vice captain to both Colin Montgomerie in 2010, and Jose Maria Olazabal in 2012. That means he has first hand experience of two quite dramatic wins. In 2009 and 2011 he's successfully captained GB & Ireland against Europe in the Seve trophy. That means his record as captain or vice captain in these types of formats is 4-0 which includes access and interaction with all of the players. Tom captained a team in 1993 at the Belfry and won, but this remains his only real exposure. I think you could easily argue that in terms of contemprary experience of team matchplay events, Paul McGinlay is better qualified than Tom Watson.

Now I also think its true that unfortunate things keep happening to dysfunctional teams (I'm thinking of some England cricket teams) and that these 'events' will expose the deficiencies in the captain under pressure even more as they try to parry them.

Actually there was an interesting comment attributed to the BBC's golf correspondent (Iain Carter) this morning on the subject of Tom's captaincy.

"The uncertainty over whether Woods would receive a wildcard was already starting to have a corrosive effect on the captain's authority".

Now you can snear if you want and say what does a journalist know etc? Well in truth golf and journalism co-exist in a bubble. Carter as the correspondent of an apex news and media organisation is going to have his sources in both teams. "Starting to have a corrosive effect" might be his own words, but he won't have picked them out the air. They'll be as a result of his own observations plus those of players and players associates whispering in his ear

It's been obvious to me (and believe me, I'm sad about it) that Tom is struggling, and has been for some time. For all that, I secretly hope that perhaps the US can win, but that's another story

[David in FL]

I think you're being very selective or forgetful (not for the first time) in how your're interpreting what I've said.

Entirely possible.  I have to admit, I tend to only read about a third of what you write in any given post.  I just tend to lose interest after the first 4 or 5 paragraphs......

[FarawayFairways]

Fair enough it's well documented that different people have different attention spans, but if you've negotiated 4 or 5 paragraphs you're probably doing quite well, but failure to take in the complete picture does risk leading you into inaccurate conclusions. Now on an internet forum that's harmless and of little consequence, but when a President says he has to have everything on no more than 2 sides of A4 and he makes a decision based on that, we have problem - actually - the world had a problem. Also as a moderator there has to be a reasonable limit as to how much you can read, yet alone retain in your own mind about building up opinion profiles of posters and who said what, when etc

Personally I don't like the cult (for that's what I believe its become) of 140 character communication/ twitter speak. Everyone uses fora differently though. I don't tend to read the one liners that much, as they'll rarely contain much that I find thought provoking, but then in fairness they're normally designed to be pithy more than informative, although one will occasionally make me smile. I do tend to read the articles however. It helps that I'm a fast typist, but i don't proof read so mine own stuff will contain errors that can break up continuity of flow and lead to someone saying 'no mas'

So just to clear that up. I'm actually a very big Tom Watson fan, and am desperate for him to do well. Sadly I think he's increasingly making a fool of himself, and it started about April time. He certainly hasn't been helped by some of his players with their luke warm enthusiasm for his captaincy, and some notable ones (one in particular) has been very poor I think. Tom's errors just keep mounting though. Having said that, you sometimes see a tennis player getting run ragged from one side of the court to the other who ends up winning the point. Other teams can win despite their leadership rather than because of it

[David in FL]

Fair enough it's well documented that different people have different attention spans, but if you've negotiated 4 or 5 paragraphs you're probably doing quite well, but failure to take in the complete picture does risk leading you into inaccurate conclusions. Now on an internet forum that's harmless and of little consequence, but when a President says he has to have everything on no more than 2 sides of A4 and he makes a decision based on that, we have problem - actually - the world had a problem. Also as a moderator there has to be a reasonable limit as to how much you can read, yet alone retain in your own mind about building up opinion profiles of posters and who said what, when etc

Personally I don't like the cult (for that's what I believe its become) of 140 character communication/ twitter speak. Everyone uses fora differently though. I don't tend to read the one liners that much, as they'll rarely contain much that I find thought provoking, but then in fairness they're normally designed to be pithy more than informative, although one will occasionally make me smile. I do tend to read the articles however. It helps that I'm a fast typist, but i don't proof read so mine own stuff will contain errors that can break up continuity of flow and lead to someone saying 'no mas'

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Surely you're a Shakespeare fan, no?