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

[iacas]

Just for a minute, let's suppose the other players didn't know what was coming from Mickleson.

Why? By most accounts they knew (and agreed with him as much as they could - many weren't on the team in 2008).

I wouldn't read too much into what the other players did or didn't do, reacted or didn't react at this stage either way. What were they supposed to do?

They did what I would expect them to do if they agreed but knew it was going to be awkward.

Mickelson is a player (one of them) and quite probably a future captain who will quite feasibly be captaining the 2020 team (2016 comes too soon) and something tells me he'll duck the away assignments which will be harder to win. If you're in your mid 20's are you going to start a war of words on such a stage with someone who you suspect carries a grudge and could be your captain in the future?.

You seem to be assuming many of the U.S. players disagreed with Mickelson. There are plenty of ways to say "Well I wasn't on the team in 2008 so I can't speak to that, but I thought Captain Watson did a fine job, we just didn't play to our usual level."

Such a statement - if you truly believed it - would not have ruffled Mickelson's feathers at all, nor would it have meant sitting silently in agreement.

Yet that didn't happen, and so it's more likely that they agreed. Nobody offered a single word to contradict what Mickelson had just said.

One possible explanation is that which Graeme McDowell hinted at. He spoke about the importance of the fifth vice captain working the locker room and the practise range with the four players who'd been rested.

I think the number of vice captains should be limited, and it was ridiculous that Europe had so many people running around.

Keep it to three: one captain, two vice captains.

The issues go far, far deeper than a captain babysitting those who are not playing.

Boy... Hunter Mahan sure looked uncomfortable next to Phil as he was speaking.  I couldn't tell if he was mad or embarrassed.

I think he felt the same as Mickelson. He was on the team in 2008. He helped win the Cup.

He knew what was coming and knew it would be potentially big news. That's all it looked like to me.

Sadly, our country doesn't seem to care about the Ryder Cup.  I bet you could ask people in the street and 80% wouldn't even know what it is.

The same is probably true of Europe.

[misty_mountainhop]

Why? By most accounts they knew (and agreed with him as much as they could - many weren't on the team in 2008).

...

Why not? It's just as valid a position in light of what we actually know. I'm sure stuff will come out over time so some flesh will get put on the bones. IMO, if the other 11 were party to discussion and agreement that Mickleson's actions were the right way to go about this, they're just as bad as he is. However, I think it's trite at the moment to think they were all in agreement with this. Furyk, for one, to my eyes at least, wasn't at all happy about it.

It's done anyway and I think most are entrenched in whether they think Mickleson did it right or wrong. To me, it's simply not the way you go about doing things like this.

[misty_mountainhop]

...Yet that didn't happen, and so it's more likely that they agreed. Nobody offered a single word to contradict what Mickelson had just said....

Sorry, I know I didn't multiquote but thought of this after posting above.

No-one has yet offered a single word of public confirmation to substantiate the premise that they all agreed either. Have they?

[FarawayFairways]

You seem to be assuming many of the U.S. players disagreed with Mickelson. There are plenty of ways to say "Well I wasn't on the team in 2008 so I can't speak to that, but I thought Captain Watson did a fine job, we just didn't play to our usual level."

Such a statement - if you truly believed it - would not have ruffled Mickelson's feathers at all, nor would it have meant sitting silently in agreement.

Yet that didn't happen, and so it's more likely that they agreed. Nobody offered a single word to contradict what Mickelson had just said.

Not at all, it's you who's making the assumption that they all agreed (as you admit). What I said is that I wouldn't read too much one way or the other, so quite how you've inferred from that, that I'm assuming is slightly beyond me in truth. I think you're much more guilty of making your own mind up and then looking to interpret inconclusive evidence as support for your own view

What we do know is that 48 hours before Mickelson's broadside, Nick Faldo criticised Sergio Garcia for his performance back in 2008 which did provoke a reaction from players in support of Sergio. Mark James took to the airwaves to point out that a lot had gone on there, and if Nick was smart he'd shut up unless he wanted to open the whole thing up for people to forensically review Faldo's inadequacies. He also made the point that in stark contrast to the European players who rallied to the support of their team mate, none of the American's did. He went onto to explain that whereas Mickelson is popular amongst fans, he isn't always as popular "amongst his peers".

As I said, I wouldn't read it either way, but then I wouldn't be too surprised that players who've just been beaten quite heavily, with many having committed the ultimate professional sin of 'choking' something ranked only slightly above cheating in terms of the stain it carries, are going to be particularly receptive in the immediate aftermath to a senior player reassuring them that they've done nothing wrong and trying to deflect the blame to an expendable third party

Look, some of them hit some horror shots under pressure. That is what players are paid to do (albeit they don't get paid for the Ryder Cup) but you can't blame Watson for players who shank an aprroach shot, chip one right across the green, or miss putts from 3 foot. The players need to take some repsonsibility for their failures rather than looking to pass it off to the nearest lightning conductor they can scapegoat.

American failure goes back much further than this, but in most cases they're oblivious to its reasons and foundations (although I have found a blogger somewhere who'd succeeded in joining up the dots). There are reasons why this means more to Europe, and why the mainstream sports media run Ryder Cup stories everyday from about a month out. When Sergio finished his second or third round at Hoylake this year he was contending for the title. Asked straight after "what does this tournament mean to you Sergio?" He immediately replied "It's my second favourite". There was a supplementary begging to be asked now, and a palpable fear in the interviewers question, "What's your favourite then?" (don't say the Masters she must have been thinking) "Ryder Cup" was his instantaneous answer, given at a time when he was top 4 at the Open and the Cup was still months away. Compare that attitude to the answer Phil Mickelson gave at Valhalla about his future aspirations when the cup was 6 weeks away, and when he'd just qualified. Mickelson could only cite the personal vainglorious pursuit of an Olympic medal, never mentioned the cup, so I'm slightly sceptical as to why he's suddenly presenting himself as Mr America Ryder Cup Man, having shown very little interest until such time as Tiger got injured. I did say before any of this blew that I wasn't sure we'd put him on a European team, although I did find myself having to justify Stephen Gallacher's selection ahead of him, which I struggled to reconcile

America needs to address their whole mindset and conditioning to this event as they need to recognise they're playing a tough, talented, and motivated opponent, and will need to respond accordingly. If they aren't prepared to make the sacrifices needed to prepare properly, then they'll continue to lose more than they'll win. I don't know if they seriosuly think they can rock up in the week and come together and win, but if they do, then I suggest they look at the recent scoreboard and dwell on it. When they fail of course, the default is to point the finger of blame at the first person they can throw over board (we've heard all this before aka Curtis Strange, Hal Sutton, Tom Lehman). America needs to man up a bit instead of making excuses all the time

[Mr. Desmond]

Sorry, I know I didn't multiquote but thought of this after posting above.

No-one has yet offered a single word of public confirmation to substantiate the premise that they all agreed either. Have they?

And subject themselves to a firestorm like Mickelson, and make an enemy of Watson and his buds?

I think not.

The fact no one has said anything else about Watson tells me they want to put this experience behind them ...

[FarawayFairways]

That would be closer to my take. Tom represents the PGA so I doubt any young golfer weighing this up is going to want to align themselves until they know which way the winds blowing. In the final analysis though, any golfer who thinks their poor performance is purely down to a disengaged captain who was causing them to play bad shots looks like an excuse making sore loser. They can only play this card so far, but they need to accpet their own culpability too

The result is in the history books, I suspect most would simply not want to get invovled now. I'd be surprised if they don't harbour private opinions to some extent (surely they have to) but I wouldn't interpret their collective silence as being an endorsement of either side

Personally I think it's increasingly beholden on the PGA to call summit meeting now of its top-100 or so players and try and establish which ones are prepared to commit to a mission to regain this cup and stop this bi-annual humiliation. Call it a 'pledge to America' and make it a mission, 'to boldly go......'

[misty_mountainhop]

And subject themselves to a firestorm like Mickelson, and make an enemy of Watson and his buds?

I think not.

The fact no one has said anything else about Watson tells me they want to put this experience behind them ...

While I can understand that thinking, particularly from the rookies maybe, it's completely laughable and, if true, pathetic. Dare I suggest another example of not acting in a team spirit? What do they care about Watson and his buds? Demonstrably not a whole lot if the thesis they're all in this together has any grains of truth to it and they all sanctioned Mickleson's approach last Sunday. These are so-say self-employed, independent, millionaire, businessmen! What do they care about the opinion of an old man and his old friends?

The fact no-one else says anything tells you they want to put it behind them? Of course they do - I certainly would. However, if they were one-for-all and all-for-one, as many appear to be claiming, then if I were one of the group, I would have to say something in support of Mickleson. Are they all that weak that they can't?

Edit: Also, these are the men that discussed it in depth before Sunday's press conference, knew it would be awkward but 'the right thing to do' and, therefore, were man enough and went ahead with it anyway??? And yet none of them has the balls to back Mickleson up? Maybe they're all texting each other like mad and sorting out how to come out in public - they could be, I'll give them that. I await any forthcoming revelations with bated breath.

Just for a moment consider that it may not play exactly the way you'd like to paint it. Either way you cut it, you have problems.

[Goodfellow]

Mickleson seems to have forgotten all those makeable putts he missed.This was simply an assination.should have been left for the team room

[Lefty-Golfer]

Golf needs more guys willing to speak up! Yes men are not helpful in an organization - you need leaders and Phil, for better or worse in this case, is one of them. at least he is willing to man up and say what he believes. lets hope it leads to better things in the future.

[Mr. Desmond]

While I can understand that thinking, particularly from the rookies maybe, it's completely laughable and, if true, pathetic. Dare I suggest another example of not acting in a team spirit? What do they care about Watson and his buds? Demonstrably not a whole lot if the thesis they're all in this together has any grains of truth to it and they all sanctioned Mickleson's approach last Sunday. These are so-say self-employed, independent, millionaire, businessmen! What do they care about the opinion of an old man and his old friends?

The fact no-one else says anything tells you they want to put it behind them? Of course they do - I certainly would. However, if they were one-for-all and all-for-one, as many appear to be claiming, then if I were one of the group, I would have to say something in support of Mickleson. Are they all that weak that they can't?

Edit: Also, these are the men that discussed it in depth before Sunday's press conference, knew it would be awkward but 'the right thing to do' and, therefore, were man enough and went ahead with it anyway??? And yet none of them has the balls to back Mickleson up? Maybe they're all texting each other like mad and sorting out how to come out in public - they could be, I'll give them that. I await any forthcoming revelations with bated breath.

Just for a moment consider that it may not play exactly the way you'd like to paint it. Either way you cut it, you have problems.

It must be a Continent-USA Difference.

Over here, my observation is that we tend to be passive-aggressive instead of in your face. I'm speaking to my general experience of 35 years in business and disgruntlement with management, and personal observations.

The thinking is probably, "Phil said it, no need for me to pile on Watson."

[iacas]

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

Why not? It's just as valid a position in light of what we actually know. I'm sure stuff will come out over time so some flesh will get put on the bones.

That sort of stuff has already come out. Have you not seen the "insider" reports that talk about the dissension in the ranks? Has anyone (except perhaps Webb Simpson) had a positive story to say about Tom?

The void is evidence in and of itself.

IMO, if the other 11 were party to discussion and agreement that Mickleson's actions were the right way to go about this, they're just as bad as he is.

I disagree that he was "BAD." He spoke up because he was the leader.

However, I think it's trite at the moment to think they were all in agreement with this.

It's done anyway and I think most are entrenched in whether they think Mickleson did it right or wrong. To me, it's simply not the way you go about doing things like this.

I don't think it was trite at all, nor do I agree that there was a better way to go about it.

Sometimes you have to poke the bear to get the change that's required. Put it another way: Phil tried being "nice" the 7 previous times they lost. How'd that work out for him?

Sorry, I know I didn't multiquote but thought of this after posting above.

Then click "edit" and edit your post.

No-one has yet offered a single word of public confirmation to substantiate the premise that they all agreed either. Have they?

Why would they?

The point was made. The discussions have been done. Why pile on now.

Where are the public confirmations that people disagreed? Again, the absence of such is at least equally telling.

Not at all, it's you who's making the assumption that they all agreed (as you admit).

So are you. We're all assuming. But I consider myself a student of people, and I'm fairly well convinced that most of the team agreed. Some were too new to have much of an opinion - they don't know any differently. Hunter agreed, I'd wager, for example, as he was on the 2008 team. And Phil stuck up for him in 2010.

What we do know is that 48 hours before Mickelson's broadside, Nick Faldo criticised Sergio Garcia for his performance back in 2008 which did provoke a reaction from players in support of Sergio. Mark James took to the airwaves to point out that a lot had gone on there, and if Nick was smart he'd shut up unless he wanted to open the whole thing up for people to forensically review Faldo's inadequacies. He also made the point that in stark contrast to the European players who rallied to the support of their team mate, none of the American's did. He went onto to explain that whereas Mickelson is popular amongst fans, he isn't always as popular "amongst his peers".

That's a very different scenario, with wildly different people and situations at play. Where has the public support of Watson from any players been? Absent. Absent, you'll note, in spite of Phil's "FIGJAM" nature "amongst his peers."

Look, some of them hit some horror shots under pressure. That is what players are paid to do (albeit they don't get paid for the Ryder Cup) but you can't blame Watson for players who shank an aprroach shot, chip one right across the green, or miss putts from 3 foot. The players need to take some repsonsibility for their failures rather than looking to pass it off to the nearest lightning conductor they can scapegoat.

This discussion isn't about that. The Euros hit some stinker shots too.

Phil was asked the question about how 2008 differed. The Euros have a system that assures cleaner successions and so on. The conversations are being had, and the U.S. team will benefit from what Mickelson did. He may not even benefit from it - he might not make the team in two years, or captain it for a decade or so (where he may benefit then, but he could have also just implemented his own system when it was his time around anyway).

American failure goes back much further than this, but in most cases they're oblivious to its reasons and foundations

Suffice to say I doubt very much that you know the "reasons and foundations." In Phil's opinion a bit of it (or maybe a lot of it) has to do with what he spoke about.

There are reasons why this means more to Europe

Speculation. Not a fact at all.

Your Sergio story can be topped by Bubba Watson, who cried when he made the Ryder Cup team and who talked at length about it when he contended for (and lost) the PGA at Whistling Straits. Same exact type of situation.

In other words, not a fact at all.

America needs to address their whole mindset and conditioning to this event as they need to recognise they're playing a tough, talented, and motivated opponent, and will need to respond accordingly.

… which is, in large part, a job for the captain! Phil said that players were more "invested" in 2008. They "bought in" and "took ownership" of things.

I don't know if they seriosuly think they can rock up in the week and come together and win, but if they do, then I suggest they look at the recent scoreboard and dwell on it.

How'd they win in 1999? 2008? They didn't go on week-long bonding trips before-hand or anything.

The thinking is probably, "Phil said it, no need for me to pile on Watson."

Right. If you're any other player on the U.S. team, what's to be gained by piling on now?

Change is already happening. Discussions are being had.

What positive would come out of saying "Yeah, I agree with Phil, Tom sucked."?

[mvmac]

Video: Azinger Says "The Problem Is Deep"

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/10/3/video-azinger-says-the-problem-is-deep.html

Mickleson seems to have forgotten all those makeable putts he missed.This was simply an assination.should have been left for the team room

Ok, so you're saying he should have gone 3-0 instead of 2-1? If the other guys on Team USA played like Phil, they would have won.

I don't know if they seriosuly think they can rock up in the week and come together and win, but if they do, then I suggest they look at the recent scoreboard and dwell on it. When they fail of course, the default is to point the finger of blame at the first person they can throw over board (we've heard all this before aka Curtis Strange, Hal Sutton, Tom Lehman). America needs to man up a bit instead of making excuses all the time

They seem to do well at "coming together as a team" during the President's Cup.

The thinking is probably, "Phil said it, no need for me to pile on Watson."

Yeah, once Phil said it there's no need for anyone else to speak up. Especially since Mahan and Furyk were the only other players on the '08 team.

[FarawayFairways]

Video: Azinger Says "The Problem Is Deep"

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2014/10/3/video-azinger-says-the-problem-is-deep.html

They seem to do well at "coming together as a team" during the President's Cup.

Surely you don't hold the Presidents Cup to mean an iota though? As i said

"America needs to address their whole mindset and conditioning to this event as they need to recognise they're playing a tough, talented, and motivated opponent, and will need to respond accordingly".

Europe is a proper team (somehow and implausibly given that it isn't a sovereign country), the Rest of the World is an invitational money maker for countries that don't have access to the qualification of Ryder Cup. What is it?. A few Australians (two in particular), a Canadian, and sprinkling of South Africans with next to no common bonding to bring them together. Europe would beat them as well

As a matter of interest, does anyone know what Presidents Cup viewing figures are compared to Ryder Cup? That might be interersting to know?

We don't hold the Seve Trophy or EurAsia Cup in any light other than to see it as a training and development opportunity. Silent will tell you for instance that Super Joost has a very good matchplay record having played successfully with Dubuisson in it. Stephen Gallacher has a bloody awful one having played with Paul Lawrie, so the clue was there that he'd under perform (overlooked by McGinley I assume as he'd have been aware of it). Similarly Captains are often given their first full lead in this less important fixture. McGinley twice captained Seve Trophy matches, but it's increasingly the case that the Ryder Cup 'fixtures' don't play in it. We treat it as a nursery to learn what's required for team matchplay and see if any partnerships can be forged early

I found Azinger's comments particularly enlightening though.

He seems much nearer to understanding that this is engrained and runs deeper than blaming the latest expendable individual. If this all people are going to do after each defeat though, then you'll commit yourself to an excuse cycle and just go round in circles, losing more than you win, albeit you will pick up the occasional victory on home soil as you'd expect. In fact after the histrionics of 1991 (the best and worst of the cup imo) and the threat to the continuity that, that match posed, I did wonder if that might not be the future. Football type crowds would be used to generate such hostile atmospheres that it became a really unpleasent event where the winners would swap every two years in line with who hosted and was in a position to whip up a patriotic ferver. Luckily we never quite descended into that, but 1999 pushed it close in places, even to the point where Payne Stewart's conceding holes out of embarrassment

This is what I took from Azingers comments (my interpretaion in brackets)

1: Tom Watson his management or his tactics aren't at fault (in the context of being the sole reason)

2: There is no single issue explanation or solution

3: Europe has a business model, America doesn't, albeit it's a model that America could replicate in the medium term

4: The USPGA is more culpable for the way it fails to encourage and develop expertise, and retain it

5: His own pod system isn't a guarantee of success, it's no more than another management system (like any system its only as good as those implementing it)

6: The players didn't play well enough

7: (He's laying out his terms for putting this right, but doing it on a take it or leave it offer)

[rehmwa]

This is what I took from Azingers comments (my interpretaion in brackets)

1: Tom Watson his management or his tactics aren't at fault (in the context of being the sole reason)

2: There is no single issue explanation or solution

3: Europe has a business model, America doesn't, albeit it's a model that America could replicate in the medium term

4: The USPGA is more culpable for the way it fails to encourage and develop expertise, and retain it

5: His own pod system isn't a guarantee of success, it's no more than another management system (like any system its only as good as those implementing it)

6: The players didn't play well enough

7: (He's laying out his terms for putting this right, but doing it on a take it or leave it offer)

You nailed it.

[turtleback]

Isn't it funny that Tom Watson's biggest defenders in this thread are a couple of Euros?  Who are about as sincere and interested in improving the us team as democrat are when they talk about what the republicans should do, and vice versa.

[dsc123]

I think Azinger showed everyone how to handle the situation without throwing Tom Watson under the bus.  The problem isn't Tom, and the solution isn't Tom.

I'm still not convinced that having a say = better play, but I like a lot of Azinger's points about a coherent strategy and approach to training and selecting the captains.

[Mr. Desmond]

You nailed it.

Azinger nailed it... and was kind to Watson.

It's obvious.

Watson was a victim of the PGA/RC non-system of forming a team and his old ways -- he knew the POD system was a more scientific way to pair players and to form a team; he knew his team was not as strong as the Euros; he ignored new ideas; Naming a team is not forming a team. He should not have been chosen in 2014.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by FarawayFairways

Surely you don't hold the Presidents Cup to mean an iota though?

Why not? Their teams are often good. At the PGA Tour level, again, and over 18 holes every point is essentially a coin flip.

"America needs to address their whole mindset and conditioning to this event as they need to recognise they're playing a tough, talented, and motivated opponent, and will need to respond accordingly".

You act like they don't already realize (or "recognise") that they're playing a tough, talented, and motivated team. What proof or evidence do you have that they think the European Team is not tough, talented, and motivated?

Weak argument. Assumptions out the wazoo.

If this all people are going to do after each defeat though, then you'll commit yourself to an excuse cycle and just go round in circles, losing more than you win, albeit you will pick up the occasional victory on home soil as you'd expect.

Huh?

This has never happened before. Never before has, following a loss, there been so much talk about the "system" or "formula" in place for choosing, building, etc. a Ryder Cup team. It has not happened. What the heck are you talking about "if this is all people are going to do…"? They're going to blow up the whole thing and put a system in place. That they're even TALKING about it so much is WAY MORE than they've ever done in the past.

As for the OT stuff about crowds, let's stick to the topic, not try to recount (from a biased perspective) crowd behavior 25 years ago. :P