Mickelson vs Watson: Was Phil Right to Be Critical of Watson at the Press Conference?

[Fourputt]

Tom would rightly point out that he organised a session on the RC course at Gleneagles to allow players to get together and invited in the region of 25. "four or five" indicated they'd turn up, in the end just two did. That's not Tom's fault, that's a lack of appetite on the players part (some more so than others). The session was set for the a few days between the Scottish Open and Open at Hoylake. You can check the leaderboard to see which American's played at Aberdeen and could easily have made it to Gleneagles if they showed the slightest bit of interest in the team event. Couldn't you Phil Mickelson

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Isn't it the captains job to get the players motivated and interested in adding extra to their already busy schedules.

That seems too easy. I don't think it would be fair to blame the captain when players don't even accept invitations. To me it sounds strange that you even need to be motivated to represent your country in the Ryder Cup.

Two comments on this.

First, not all of the candidates were at the Scottish, so they wouldn't be expected to take a 5 hour flight for a meet and greet.

Second, the players are getting ready to play in a major championship.  Nobody needs that kind of distraction from the task at hand.  There are already enough distractions, and a lot of preparations to make in getting ready for the Open without detouring for a day or two to Gleneagles.  Then too, half the invitees wouldn't be at the Ryder Cup anyway, so it's hard to let oneself get too high for something  that may never happen.  There are good reasons for not coming to Watson's party.  Maybe if it was scheduled after the Open it might have gotten more interest, since many players take the week after a major off anyway.

[FarawayFairways]

Two comments on this.

First, not all of the candidates were at the Scottish, so they wouldn't be expected to take a 5 hour flight for a meet and greet.

Second, the players are getting ready to play in a major championship.  Nobody needs that kind of distraction from the task at hand.  There are already enough distractions, and a lot of preparations to make in getting ready for the Open without detouring for a day or two to Gleneagles.  Then too, half the invitees wouldn't be at the Ryder Cup anyway, so it's hard to let oneself get too high for something  that may never happen.  There are good reasons for not coming to Watson's party.  Maybe if it was scheduled after the Open it might have gotten more interest, since many players take the week after a major off anyway.

That's why I said you could check which American's played Aberdeen (others were injured or committed to the States). Unless the USPGA are going to block book the course, Gleneagles won't close it for the day just for the benefit of America, so there will have been an issue of availability, or they could take their chance on public tee times along with the rest of us. The course was open for play as recently as yesterday. It's a members course, with a high level of public accessibility

I'm not sure that their preparation would have been disrupted too badly though. Certainly playing the Scottish Open has proven to be a good stepping stone for the Open recently. Rickie Fowler played Aberdeen and came second at the Open, but Jim Furyk (who did attend) put in his best performance ever at an Open, so it's difficult to argue that he compromised his chances playing a day at Gleneagles

I think America is going to have to get smarter if it wants to win Ryder Cups, and that means going into training camps. Now it could be of course that they don't want to win them as much as they say they do? We'll find out. Perhaps they have a dastardly trick up their sleeve yet as I note that Stacy Lewis is calling for a mixed event now, and has seemingly got some tacit support from the PGA (not sure what the PGA could say otherwise in truth). Perhaps she should call for a mixed format for the Presidents Cup in the knowledge that she'll run into a load of South Koreans then

I think the point about the Scottish Open though, is Gleneagles is only a two hour drive from Aberdeen (assuming they drive?). It has a helipad. Whereas some players certainly couldn't make it, Mickelson was one who on paper at least could (so far as we know whereabouts in the world he was). Indeed, with his prospective doubles partner the only other confirmed attendee I think you could argue that this committed team man should have done. Everything about his behaviour points to him being a Johnny come lately sulking in Tiger's shadow, until such time as Tiger declared himself unfit. Only then did he wake up to the idea and came charging into the frame at the eleventh hour

I think you could read that Golf Digest article to suggest that it was Tom Watson (and VC team) who paired Spieth and Reed, and Phil Mickelson who was insturmental in them not playing again that afternoon

[dsc123]

Graeme McDowell writes a small coulmn for the BBC every week or so

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/29442461

I liked this: " Myself, Poults and Lee Westwood were handed the role of 'blooding' the rookies, which is hugely important, especially when the captain has the goal of introducing all the newcomers on that opening Friday."

The term "blooding" in that context never would have made it through the american press!   Though perhaps it has a different, or another, meaning in the UK?

[mvmac]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/9/30/pga-o-america-sounds-ready-to-blow-up-its-ryder-rules.html

From Lamport-Stokes we learn Bishop's view that the captain's picks might need to move to after the Tour Championship and his take on Mickelson's viewpoint about captains, which, at least publicly, isn't quite as shocked as you might expect.

"You know what, that was no surprise to me because I had a very similar conversation with Phil when we played together in the pro-am at the Scottish Open back in July at Royal Aberdeen.

"I had asked Phil a question about his perception of the Ryder Cup and he gave me the same answer that he gave on Sunday night, so it's clear to me that he feels very strongly about that."

Bishop, whose PGA of America organization represents more than 27,000 golf professionals, felt Mickelson's biggest mistake was not to speak out earlier, and in private with Watson.

"It would have been nice if he had maybe conveyed those feelings to Tom before the Ryder Cup rather than after the Ryder Cup," said Bishop. "And I wish he wouldn't have done it in that venue on Sunday night, but it is what it is.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/9/29/follow-ups-to-mickelson-watson-squabbling.html

Alan Shipnuck's assessment of Watson's work in contrast to that of Paul McGinley is less than gentle.

Watson made little effort to get to know his charges or do any team building beyond a few get-off-my-lawn speeches. He was a remote and disengaged figure in the run-up to the Cup, and once the competition began, he had little understanding of how his players were feeling, physically or emotionally. (It didn’t help that two of his vice captains -- Ray Floyd, 72, and Andy North, 64 -- are decades removed from playing the Tour and the third, Steve Stricker, 47, is now a part-timer.)

While Watson’s counterpart Paul McGinley, 47, was meticulously prepared, having spent years seeking the counsel of his players over long dinners and b.s. sessions on the range, Watson seemed to be making up his pairings willy-nilly. A series of botched decisions for the Friday-afternoon foursomes had a cascading effect that led him to bench his putative team leader, Phil Mickelson, and Bradley, the guy who could have been the team’s emotional juggernaut, for both Saturday sessions. (To that point they had teamed to go 4–1 in the Ryder Cup.) These proud major champions were understandably wounded by the slight, but according to a team insider, what left them more upset was the heartless way Watson delivered the news.

[Big C]

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/9/30/pga-o-america-sounds-ready-to-blow-up-its-ryder-rules.html

From Lamport-Stokes we learn Bishop's view that the captain's picks might need to move to after the Tour Championship and his take on Mickelson's viewpoint about captains, which, at least publicly, isn't quite as shocked as you might expect.

"You know what, that was no surprise to me because I had a very similar conversation with Phil when we played together in the pro-am at the Scottish Open back in July at Royal Aberdeen.

"I had asked Phil a question about his perception of the Ryder Cup and he gave me the same answer that he gave on Sunday night, so it's clear to me that he feels very strongly about that."

Bishop, whose PGA of America organization represents more than 27,000 golf professionals, felt Mickelson's biggest mistake was not to speak out earlier, and in private with Watson.

"It would have been nice if he had maybe conveyed those feelings to Tom before the Ryder Cup rather than after the Ryder Cup," said Bishop. "And I wish he wouldn't have done it in that venue on Sunday night, but it is what it is.

I think this excerpt supports the view that Phil was out of line in his press conference. I would guess that even those are critical of Phil would probably agree that there needs to be more collaboration and a greater focus on team-building than Watson demonstrated.

But if the above is true and he never voiced these concerns to Watson prior to the weekend, then he is completely in the wrong for his statements at the PC.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Watson made little effort to get to know his charges or do any team building beyond a few get-off-my-lawn speeches. He was a remote and disengaged figure in the run-up to the Cup, and once the competition began, he had little understanding of how his players were feeling, physically or emotionally. (It didn’t help that two of his vice captains -- Ray Floyd, 72, and Andy North, 64 -- are decades removed from playing the Tour and the third, Steve Stricker, 47, is now a part-timer.)

While Watson’s counterpart Paul McGinley, 47, was meticulously prepared, having spent years seeking the counsel of his players over long dinners and b.s. sessions on the range, Watson seemed to be making up his pairings willy-nilly. A series of botched decisions for the Friday-afternoon foursomes had a cascading effect that led him to bench his putative team leader, Phil Mickelson, and Bradley, the guy who could have been the team’s emotional juggernaut, for both Saturday sessions. (To that point they had teamed to go 4–1 in the Ryder Cup.) These proud major champions were understandably wounded by the slight, but according to a team insider, what left them more upset was the heartless way Watson delivered the news.

The more and more I read through all of these Ryder Cup threads, the less I care about what Phil said and the more I feel that Watson was a really, really, really, shitty Captain.  Just the absolute worst.

[FarawayFairways]

I liked this: "Myself, Poults and Lee Westwood were handed the role of 'blooding' the rookies, which is hugely important, especially when the captain has the goal of introducing all the newcomers on that opening Friday."

The term "blooding" in that context never would have made it through the american press!   Though perhaps it has a different, or another, meaning in the UK?

The phrase resolves to fox hunting!!!

[Mr. Desmond]

I think this excerpt supports the view that Phil was out of line in his press conference. I would guess that even those are critical of Phil would probably agree that there needs to be more collaboration and a greater focus on team-building than Watson demonstrated.

But if the above is true and he never voiced these concerns to Watson prior to the weekend, then he is completely in the wrong for his statements at the PC.

Bishop:

"We have to look for guys who are not afraid to roll their sleeves up and take a blue collar approach like McGinley did and Azinger did.”

How Elitist ... To actually think and do some brainwork is "blue collar."

Excuse me while I puke.

As to Azinger not returning a call ... hey, Ted, why not call him again? It's what normal people do when they want an answer.

First thing the PGA should do is fire Bishop, the guy who hired the out-of-touch Watson.

____

I think the excerpt is one man's opinion - Ted's, and after this RC, why take it into consideration?

And do you realize how difficult it is to voice an opinion to a dictatorial leader? You want to say something but you're conflicted. You might not be seen as a team man; it was Watson's team, not Phil'sl, and perhaps Phil had tried to talk with Tom, but found it non-productive.  Phil probably thought, "What's the use? He just won't play me."

From reading all the articles in the last day about Watson, I think Phil had a valid basis for thinking these thoughts.

Phil actually showed leadership in speaking up. Did you hear anyone else speak up? As one Cupper texted about Watson: He is rarely right but never in doubt. That USA Team Member did not speak up. Leadership is not always pretty and is sometimes awkward. Phil made a mistake in some of his comments.

But if his comments lead to a better Team USA organization, the juice is worth the squeeze.

[dsc123]

The phrase resolves to fox hunting!!!

oh, haha!  Thanks.  I was thinking of something else.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Alan Shipnuck's assessment of Watson's work in contrast to that of Paul McGinley is less than gentle.

Watson made little effort to get to know his charges or do any team building beyond a few get-off-my-lawn speeches. He was a remote and disengaged figure in the run-up to the Cup, and once the competition began, he had little understanding of how his players were feeling, physically or emotionally. (It didn’t help that two of his vice captains -- Ray Floyd, 72, and Andy North, 64 -- are decades removed from playing the Tour and the third, Steve Stricker, 47, is now a part-timer.)

While Watson’s counterpart Paul McGinley, 47, was meticulously prepared, having spent years seeking the counsel of his players over long dinners and b.s. sessions on the range, Watson seemed to be making up his pairings willy-nilly. A series of botched decisions for the Friday-afternoon foursomes had a cascading effect that led him to bench his putative team leader, Phil Mickelson, and Bradley, the guy who could have been the team’s emotional juggernaut, for both Saturday sessions. (To that point they had teamed to go 4–1 in the Ryder Cup.) These proud major champions were understandably wounded by the slight, but according to a team insider, what left them more upset was the heartless way Watson delivered the news.

This is the link to the entire Shipnuck article: Ryder Cup 2014 I found it quite in keeping with my observations on the situation.

[FarawayFairways]

And do you realize how difficult it is to voice an opinion to a dictatorial leader? You want to say something but you're conflicted. You might not be seen as a team man; it was Watson's team, not Phil'sl, and perhaps Phil had tried to talk with Tom, but found it non-productive.  Phil probably thought, "What's the use? He just won't play me."

From reading all the articles in the last day about Watson, I think Phil had a valid basis for thinking these thoughts.

Lets assume the Golf Digest article is well sourced, heaven knows it should be, they're well enough connected. They're hardly painting a picture of a Dictator. Quite the opposite. They paint the picture of weak leader who allows Webb Simpson to talk his way onto the team the morning of the wildcard announcements, and one who drops his form pairing for the afternoon Friday foursomes at the lobbying it would appear, of Phil Mickelson of all people. Mickelson gets Reed and Spieth removed in favour of himself and Bradley, and proceeds to play like a drain. Watson takes the flak at the press conference refusing to elaborate on the process that led to this decision. Perhaps we can see why now. If he'd done so, he'd have had to drop Mickelson in the frame, which he wasn't prepared to do

To be honest though, this team was falling apart from July, all the little warning signs were there, (Indeed I remember being rebuked on here for having the audacity to point some out) so I'll try making another observation. It would be a mistake to take aim at the most palatable explanation and confine the remdial action to a single area based on someone or something that is expendable. The fault lines run much deeper and over much longer temporal horizons, some of which America can address, some of which it can't

[Big C]

And do you realize how difficult it is to voice an opinion to a dictatorial leader? You want to say something but you're conflicted. You might not be seen as a team man; it was Watson's team, not Phil'sl, and perhaps Phil had tried to talk with Tom, but found it non-productive.  Phil probably thought, "What's the use? He just won't play me."

I do. As a sales rep, I deal with dictatorial leaders/business owners all the time. I seem to recall that you are an attorney, so I'm sure that you do as well.

It seems that on a weekly basis, my position requires me to initiate a conversation that I'd rather not have. But I have to suck it up and do it. Sometimes the conversations go just as poorly as I feared and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised by the outcome. But the one certainly is that nothing good will happen if I don't initiate the discussion.

I have no idea whether Bishop is speaking truthfully. He is closer to the situation than any on this board, so I give his comments more weight as a result. Again, if what he said is accurate then Phil's post game critique is bush league.

[mvmac]

The more and more I read through all of these Ryder Cup threads, the less I care about what Phil said and the more I feel that Watson was a really, really, really, shitty Captain.  Just the absolute worst.

Seems like it, sucks for him and his "legacy".

As to Azinger not returning a call ... hey, Ted, why not call him again? It's what normal people do when they want an answer.

I'd love to hear Azinger's side of the story on this one.

From reading all the articles in the last day about Watson, I think Phil had a valid basis for thinking these thoughts.

Phil actually showed leadership in speaking up. Did you hear anyone else speak up? As one Cupper texted about Watson: He is rarely right but never in doubt. That USA Team Member did not speak up. Leadership is not always pretty and is sometimes awkward. Phil made a mistake in some of his comments.

Yep, what a lot of guys on here have been saying, my point of view has definitely changed from my initial reaction. I do like what Phil had to say and think it will help things, I just didn't like that he indirectly threw Watson under the bus. His comments after his round were a calculated move to fuel the fire at the team press conference. To me that's a conversation you have face to face but it seems like Phil had already voiced his opinions to Bishop and Watson in private and the other players on the team were frustrated as well. Phil wanted to "get the word out" and the team press conference was the best venue to do it.

I don't think the pods system is the holy grail, but if the players believe it helps them and that it's the winning "formula", then I'm all for it.

[Mr. Desmond]

I do. As a sales rep, I deal with dictatorial leaders/business owners all the time. I seem to recall that you are an attorney, so I'm sure that you do as well.

It seems that on a weekly basis, my position requires me to initiate a conversation that I'd rather not have. But I have to suck it up and do it. Sometimes the conversations go just as poorly as I feared and sometimes I am pleasantly surprised by the outcome. But the one certainly is that nothing good will happen if I don't initiate the discussion.

I have no idea whether Bishop is speaking truthfully. He is closer to the situation than any on this board, so I give his comments more weight as a result. Again, if what he said is accurate then Phil's post game critique is bush league.

Good post.

I deal with dictatorial people ... they are called clients, and most of them think they went to law school.

I don't have a problem with Phil's comments ... well, most of them anyway. He was asked a question and the first answer was fine.

When the reporter asked about whether any participatory leadership was practiced that week, Phil should have said "Look, everyone has a different style of management. We may not agree with it, but we follow it the best we can. We do our best, and that's all I will say on the subject. Next!"

[Mr. Desmond]

Lets assume the Golf Digest article is well sourced, heaven knows it should be, they're well enough connected. They're hardly painting a picture of a Dictator. Quite the opposite. They paint the picture of weak leader who allows Webb Simpson to talk his way onto the team the morning of the wildcard announcements, and one who drops his form pairing for the afternoon Friday foursomes at the lobbying it would appear, of Phil Mickelson of all people. Mickelson gets Reed and Spieth removed in favour of himself and Bradley, and proceeds to play like a drain. Watson takes the flak at the press conference refusing to elaborate on the process that led to this decision. Perhaps we can see why now. If he'd done so, he'd have had to drop Mickelson in the frame, which he wasn't prepared to do

To be honest though, this team was falling apart from July, all the little warning signs were there, (Indeed I remember being rebuked on here for having the audacity to point some out) so I'll try making another observation. It would be a mistake to take aim at the most palatable explanation and confine the remdial action to a single area based on someone or something that is expendable. The fault lines run much deeper and over much longer temporal horizons, some of which America can address, some of which it can't

I gotta say, because I see a lot of it ... I have a client who is a dictator type, but he is not a leader and he gets willy-nilly with decisions ... flip-flop.

Rarely right but never in doubt.

[turtleback]

I think this excerpt supports the view that Phil was out of line in his press conference. I would guess that even those are critical of Phil would probably agree that there needs to be more collaboration and a greater focus on team-building than Watson demonstrated.

But if the above is true and he never voiced these concerns to Watson prior to the weekend, then he is completely in the wrong for his statements at the PC.

We now know that he voiced these concerns to the president of the pga who is Watson's boss.  We also know that for some time he has lobbied for changes.  He didn't throw Watson under the bus, IMO. Watson did that to himself with his arrogance and ignorance.  Phil just pointed out what we all knew all along.

[Dave2512]

You would think that with all the talk after Medinah there would have been more preparation. As things come to light it seems a lot of the planning was haphazard. To show up at Gleneagles flat and unprepared was a major blunder. Not sure you can place all the blame on Watson, the team are the ones swinging the clubs. But it seems his management style, or lack of, played a role in why some underperformed. Certainly didn't help he started making mistakes before they got to Scotland. Still considering a large part of the team were at Medinah they didn't really show up with fire in their bellies. The rookies looked up for it and the vets were just kind of there.

[Big C]

We now know that he voiced these concerns to the president of the pga who is Watson's boss.  We also know that for some time he has lobbied for changes.  He didn't throw Watson under the bus, IMO. Watson did that to himself with his arrogance and ignorance.  Phil just pointed out what we all knew all along.

Interesting take - Would you prefer it if one of your students came to you directly to discuss challenges they were having with your style of teaching math? Or do you think it would be better if he or she skipped you altogether and complained directly to the principal? After all, that's your boss, so it's one in the same, right? Wouldn't you feel a little blindsided and maybe a little hurt?

For all the vilifying of Tom Watson, I hope we can agree on one simple fact. As arrogant, aloof, stubborn.... (you name it) as he may have been, he was still managing his captaincy in the way he thought would give the U.S. the best chance to win. I'm willing to guess his leadership didn't change one iota from 1993, when captained the USA to the cup on European soil. Now it's 20 years later, and Watson hasn't changed. He's still the same stubborn guy, but today's players are different. His methods, which brought fantastic success at the Belfry are a dismal failure today. Yes, that's on Ted Bishop for selecting a horrible captain and to some extent it's on Tom Watson for not having the self awareness to recognize that he wasn't getting through to these guys.

But I will re-iterate yet again that if Phil Mickelson had all of these pent up concerns and never voiced them directly to Tom Watson (which is what Bishop is claiming), then his post game rant was passive aggressive, self serving and childish.