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

[skydog]

I can't help but think of the irony...

One of the ideas behind picking an older, removed from the players captain was that it would allow him to be more objective with his pairings/picks than if he were buddy-buddy with the players like most of the captains are. It appears this failed on all fronts as Watson allowed Simpson to talk his way onto the team (a terrible decision) and allowed Phil to talk his way into playing Friday afternoon. But instead of these concessions brining him closer to the team, his poor demeanor and decision making did nothing but drive a deeper gap between them that ultimately resulted in most of the team having little to no confidence in him or desire to win for him.

This RC will be a cautionary tale for years to come for the PGA.

[HawkNballs]

I think it was a chump move to do what Phil did.

It's a guessing game when you set up matches.  Unlike the president's cup.  Our golfers need to play better.  Period.

We let GB&I; add Europe to make things competitive.  The European team now has twice as much population to choose from as the US does.  It's like a AA all boy high school dominating in sports because they have the same amount of boys to choose from as a AAAA school.

Thumbs down, Phil.

[FarawayFairways]

I think it was a chump move to do what Phil did.

It's a guessing game when you set up matches.  Unlike the president's cup.  Our golfers need to play better.  Period.

We let GB&I; add Europe to make things competitive.  The European team now has twice as much population to choose from as the US does.  It's like a AA all boy high school dominating in sports because they have the same amount of boys to choose from as a AAAA school.

Thumbs down, Phil.

It's a flimsy excuse, but carry on believing it if you want to. You're going to have to explain why the US continues to beat 'The Rest of the World' though, they've got about 2.3 billion people to choose from in China and India alone

The uS didn't so much as let GB & Ireland add Europe incidentally so much as it insisted on it. I'm sure right now we'd happily let you have Canada, plus Central and Southern America if you wanted. Indeed, there are some mischievous folk in the British media suggetsing just that

[Big C]

It's a flimsy excuse, but carry on believing it if you want to. You're going to have to explain why the US continues to beat 'The Rest of the World' though, they've got about 2.3 billion people to choose from in China and India alone

The uS didn't so much as let GB & Ireland add Europe incidentally so much as it insisted on it. I'm sure right now we'd happily let you have Canada, plus Central and Southern America if you wanted. Indeed, there are some mischievous folk in the British media suggetsing just that

Agreed - the US has plenty of talent to pull from. Population size is not even in the top 10 lists of reasons why the US has struggled in recent Ryder Cups, IMO.

[turtleback]

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.

Your analogy is wildly inapt (it is a career, not a one-shot gig - the principal presumably has actual expertise - he is my actual boss), but in a situation like that what I KNOW will happen is that the principal would relay the concerns to me.  I didn't hear Bishop say anything about talking to Tom about the concerns.

As to his style of leadership in 1993 - I highly doubt he went at it as Mr. Dictator with players so much closer to his own generation - I do not see that working with guys like Lanny Wadkins and Ray Floyd.  And in 1993 he did what he said he was going to do this time but didn't.  The teams that played well in the morning played in the afternoon.

[Big C]

Your analogy is wildly inapt (it is a career, not a one-shot gig - the principal presumably has actual expertise - he is my actual boss), but in a situation like that what I KNOW will happen is that the principal would relay the concerns to me.  I didn't hear Bishop say anything about talking to Tom about the concerns.

Leaving my bad analogies out of this, my point is that Phil should have talked to Tom. "Boss" or not, he was the decision maker for this Ryder cup and the primary person to whom concerns should have been addressed. Assuming Phil didn't, he has no right to grandstand in a press conference afterward. Do you disagree?

[FarawayFairways]

And in 1993 he did what he said he was going to do this time but didn't.  The teams that played well in the morning played in the afternoon.

I think this is really important. The article penned by Golf Digest clearly states, (unless I'm misreading it) that Phil Mickelson brought influence over Tom to play the afternoon foursomes on Friday with Keegan Bradley leading to Tom reversing a pledge made earlier in the day. Given how dire Simpson and Bubba were, they can't have been under consideration. We have to assume therefore that the casualties were Spieth and Reed. If that turn of events ever got back to Spieth and Reed, you'd pretty well have a divided team from then on in. Mickelson has effectively jocked them off the team in preference for himself (jocked them off being a racing term for a jockey who gets another one removed from a fancied horse - just in case it doesn't translate)

Now if this is true, and Golf Digest should have enough tentacles into the team, this is damning of Mickelson's behaviour.  He, of all the people on that team, is just about the last person in a position to accuse Watson of not listening and being inflexible and making poor choices etc I'd say Mickelson has let Tom down here by leading his captain into believing he could deliver something he clearly couldn't

Is it really surprising then when Mickelson comes forward the next day, with a similar suggestion, Watson decides to exercise his right not to select him. Phil duly slips off to the team room without a fifth captain to keep them engaged, and duly sets about reinforcing his grievances in the earshot of Bradley, and we assume Bubba and Webb who didn't play either

[Mr. Desmond]

I think this is really important. The article penned by Golf Digest clearly states, (unless I'm misreading it) that Phil Mickelson brought influence over Tom to play the afternoon foursomes on Friday with Keegan Bradley leading to Tom reversing a pledge made earlier in the day. Given how dire Simpson and Bubba were, they can't have been under consideration. We have to assume therefore that the casualties were Spieth and Reed. If that turn of events ever got back to Spieth and Reed, you'd pretty well have a divided team from then on in. Mickelson has effectively jocked them off the team in preference for himself (jocked them off being a racing term for a jockey who gets another one removed from a fancied horse - just in case it doesn't translate)

Now if this is true, and Golf Digest should have enough tentacles into the team, this is damning of Mickelson's behaviour.  He, of all the people on that team, is just about the last person in a position to accuse Watson of not listening and being inflexible and making poor choices etc I'd say Mickelson has let Tom down here by leading his captain into believing he could deliver something he clearly couldn't

Is it really surprising then when Mickelson comes forward the next day, with a similar suggestion, Watson decides to exercise his right not to select him. Phil duly slips off to the team room without a fifth captain to keep them engaged, and duly sets about reinforcing his grievances in the earshot of Bradley, and we assume Bubba and Webb who didn't play either

All players want to play ... it is up to the Captain to stick to his plan... McGinley did.

[Golfingdad]

I think this is really important. The article penned by Golf Digest clearly states, (unless I'm misreading it) that Phil Mickelson brought influence over Tom to play the afternoon foursomes on Friday with Keegan Bradley leading to Tom reversing a pledge made earlier in the day. Given how dire Simpson and Bubba were, they can't have been under consideration. We have to assume therefore that the casualties were Spieth and Reed.

Now if this is true, and Golf Digest should have enough tentacles into the team, this is damning of Mickelson. He, of all the people on that team, is just about the last person in a position to accuse Watson of not listening and being inflexible and making poor choices etc I'd say Mickelson has let Tom down here by leading his captain into believing he could deliver something he clearly couldn't

Is it really surprising then when Mickelson comes forward the next day, with a similar suggestion, Watson decides to exercise his right not to select him. Phil duly slips off to the team room without a fifth captain to keep them engaged, and duly sets about reinforcing his grievances in the earshot of Bradley, and we assume Bubba and Webb who didn't play either

I don't think it's damning at all for an athlete to want to go out and compete.  This analogy might be lost on you, but it is basically a daily occurence here in the summer when a pitcher is getting tired and the manager comes to pull him out of the game and he pleads his case to stay in the game.  That attitude is the attitude of a competitor.  Of a winner.  Its not his job to make the decisions, its the managers.  He's always going to want to play.

Same is (or should be true) of all of our golfers too.  It's up to Watson to make the decisions, but we want those guys to always have the confidence in themselves that they are going to play well.

Lastly, even if Watson was swayed by Michelson, why did he pull Spieth and Reed?  Why not pull Fowler and Walker?  If he's doing what he said he's going to do, then wouldn't it have made more sense for him to stick the two teams back out there that both won their matches??

[FarawayFairways]

All players want to play ... it is up to the Captain to stick to his plan... McGinley did.

Yes, but how many of them then go and give a Mickelson style press conference.

I also think that there are ways of communicating your enthusiasm too. I'd like to know if Mickelson has sat in an open team room and suggested he and Bradley should take the place of Spieth and Reed, or whether he's weaseled his way behind their backs. If he's done the latter (and we have to assume he has given comments made by both Reed and Spieth that this was the first they'd heard of it) then that is extremely disruptive for team morale. You simply can't hope to build a team ethos when you have a team member doing this kind of thing

[Mr. Desmond]

Yes, but how many of them then go and give a Mickelson style press conference.

I also think that there are ways of communicating your enthusiasm too. I'd like to know if Mickelson has sat in an open team room and suggested he and Bradley should take the place of Spieth and Reed, or whether he's weaseled his way behind their backs. If he's done the latter (and we have to assume he has given comments made by both Reed and Spieth that this was the first they'd heard of it) then that is extremely disruptive for team morale. You simply can't hope to build a team ethos when you have a team member doing this kind of thing

I guess the point is lots of players do it ... they are players. It's up to the Cap to put an end to it.

But we have two issues here:

1. Phil possibly lobbying to play (not unusual)

2. Phil complaining about the entire Team USA Organization and Captain's Style of Leadership (not unusual for Phil to speak)

I don't mind that Phil answered a question... but he could have held his tongue better.

Still, the after-effect will probably be that Watson and Ted of the PGA won't be Phil's BFFs; and this organizational issue will be resolved...

Next issue on the table: We do not allow the Captain to design uniforms... ugh ... those sweaters were puke-trid.

[rehmwa]

The uS didn't so much as let GB & Ireland add Europe incidentally so much as it insisted on it. I'm sure right now we'd happily let you have Canada, plus Central and Southern America if you wanted. Indeed, there are some mischievous folk in the British media suggetsing just that

In the women's events I'm calling dibs on Korea as US partners

[iacas]

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.

He did voice his concern to Watson prior. He said Watson still did not communicate with him. So he went to Bishop.

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

There's a helluva lot more to Bishop's job than choosing the Ryder Cup captain.

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

Bingo.

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?

I complained to my physics teacher once. He had both a poor question on a test (vague, didn't show that we'd learned anything at all, etc.) and one question to which he didn't understand how I got the right answer, despite me being able to explain it to him.

Failing to achieve a good result there, I went to the chair of the physics department. He failed to meet my needs. So I went to my faculty advisor in the chemistry department, and the dean of the college of sciences.

End result: I basically did Physics 3 as an independent study with the brightest physics professor on staff and got an A. I'd done a grad school level trick on my test and he knew what I'd done, while the original teacher had not.

Phil tried to talk to Watson. Having failed to get any sort of traction there, he went to Bishop - all in advance of the Ryder Cup.

I think what he did was fine.

P.S. My wife's a teacher. The principal only takes calls from parents if they've talked with my wife first, and the first thing he does after that is go to her to get the true story.

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.

So that means nobody is allowed to say anything bad about it? Particularly when asked the question?

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.

He did (or tried). Other articles have talked about how Phil tried to talk to Tom but Tom wouldn't even return calls or communicate with him.

It's a guessing game when you set up matches.  Unlike the president's cup.  Our golfers need to play better.  Period.

It's not that simple, sorry.

When the games are basically 28 coin flips, little things like "who is better prepared" and "who likes their partner" and so on can matter. Tipping the odds even 5% to 55/45 means a margin of victory of 15.5 to 12.5 points.

Little things matter.

We let GB&I; add Europe to make things competitive.  The European team now has twice as much population to choose from as the US does.  It's like a AA all boy high school dominating in sports because they have the same amount of boys to choose from as a AAAA school.

Population is a stupid excuse. Many of the European countries don't play much golf at all. U.S. participation rates are higher.

Leaving my bad analogies out of this, my point is that Phil should have talked to Tom. "Boss" or not, he was the decision maker for this Ryder cup and the primary person to whom concerns should have been addressed. Assuming Phil didn't, he has no right to grandstand in a press conference afterward. Do you disagree?

Again, he tried.

[HawkNballs]

I didn't like what Phil did, but I was surprised that no players really stuck up for Captain Watson.  They must have agreed with Phil.

If I see Webb Simpson on another Ryder Cup team... I'm going to scratch my eyeballs out with a spork.  Yes... a SPORK.

[Big C]

Bishop's comment indicated to me that no such effort was made. If he did reach out to Watson and was re-buffed or ignored, then I would certainly re-think my stance.

[Mr. Desmond]

NY Post

Azinger Speaks -- he wants to help overhaul the US Approach to the Ryder Cup and develop a system.

Paul Azinger couldn’t sleep Sunday night.

The last man to captain the U.S. to a Ryder Cup victory, in 2008 at Valhalla, was “sick’’ to his “stomach’’ about the most recent loss by the Americans, who were routed by Europe 16 ½ to 11 ½ at Gleneagles in Scotland.

Azinger was well aware of the international topic of conversation his name has become since Phil Mickelson lashed out at U.S. captain Tom Watson by lavishing praise on the job Azinger did in 2008.

“Unfortunately, we have strayed from a winning formula in 2008 for the last three Ryder Cups, and we need to consider maybe getting back to that formula that helped us play our best,” Mickelson said after the Americans lost the Ryder Cup for the third consecutive time, sixth in the last seven and eighth in the last 10.

But those aren’t the reasons Azinger couldn’t sleep. His insomnia was caused by his mind racing with ideas about how he can help the U.S. fix the broken Ryder Cup system it has in place.

“I was laying in bed and it was all flooding in my brain and I couldn’t sleep,’’ Azinger told The Post on Monday. “I’m thinking, ‘Jesus, do I want to take the risk and be captain again?’ Then I thought if I take the risk, it’s not going to be about winning or losing one Ryder Cup, it’s going to be about the beginning of a whole new system. I think I’m the only guy that can solve this, because I don’t think anyone else who can is seeing it like this right now.’’

The suits at the PGA of America need to look in the mirror and realize the good-old-boy Ryder Cup system they have in place is broken and Azinger can help fix it. Someone over there needs to pick up the phone and call Azinger immediately.

Remarkably, that’s something not a single big-wig at the PGA of America has done in the six years since Azinger helped lead the U.S. to its last victory.

Azinger said he “absolutely would never rule out’’ captaining the team again, perhaps in 2016 at Hazeltine, in Minnesota, but he does not want to be a Band-Aid fix; he wants to be a part of a big-picture fix.

“There needs to be more continuity … something that Europe has in place,’’ Azinger said. “Europe has a structure in place where generally you are a vice captain before you’re a captain, and after you’re a captain you’re around for a while. So they’re kind of all learning from each other, and when you have repeat players [from one team to the next] there’s not a lot of change in philosophy in how to run the teams.

“Their players know what to expect when they come to the Ryder Cup. We have a structure that’s more like a lone-wolf captaincy [Tom Watson], where everybody does something differently and they do it their way, so every two years it’s something completely different and unique.’’

Modal Trigger

Phil Mickelson vented after the US was routed this weekend in Scotland. Photo: Getty Images

All last week, European captain Paul McGinley spoke reverentially about the “template’’ he was following as captain, which had everything to do with sticking to the principles Europe’s previous captains had used successfully.

“We don’t need a maverick,’’ McGinley said before the matches began.

Another astute Azinger observation: The Europeans had future and former captains “roaming the fairways’’ at Gleneagles.
The vice captains for McGinley, who was a vice captain in 2010 and 2012, included 2012 captain Jose Maria Olazabal, a vice captain in 2008 and 2010, Sam Torrance, captain in 2002, as well as Padraig Harrington and Miguel Angel Jimenez, potential future captains.

Watson’s vice captains included only one former captain, Raymond Floyd, and one potential future captain, Steve Stricker.

“There needs to be a bridging of the gap between the PGA of America and the players, which is as wide as the Grand Canyon,’’ Azinger said. “I would like to be there as a part of the building of that bridge so that we can have the same continuity that the Europeans have when they pick their captain. I couldn’t be any more convinced of this.’’

Azinger defended Watson and Mickelson, calling them both “winners.’’

“Mickelson had the guts to step up and say something,’’ Azinger said. “Mickelson is a winner and he sees the bigger picture. I see Mickelson as the instigator of what is hopefully going to be a real effort by the PGA of America to fix what’s wrong. I believe that we’re only an eyelash away from winning these matches.

“This next Ryder Cup should not be whether we win or lose, it should be about us putting a system in place that is going to allow us to have to some continuity so that the repeat players aren’t getting shell-shocked every two years by a different captain’s philosophy. The next Ryder Cup should be the beginning of a new era. I would love to lead that.’’

Call him, PGA of America. Call him now. Or keep practicing your concession and congratulatory speeches.

[FarawayFairways]

Without stating the obvious, Europe's been doing this for years. The only concessions we made to bring lone wolf's in was because we reckoned Faldo was popular in the US and might help draw some of the sting. Turned out we'd have been better off enduring the usual level of hostility. I think Langer hadn't previously had any direct experience either? I think I caught Azinger saying 8 out of Europe's last 10 captains were graduates of cup management. Paul McGinley himself has spent the last 12 years associated with it, and the last 6 as a full time golf team Chief Exec. I don't see anything in Azinger's observations that wouldn't fall into the category of 'bloody obvious'

Mind you, I do remember a post on here from someone a month or two ago espousing how McGinley would be Europe's weakness because Watson had a superior playing record. We did point out that McGinley was probably the more experienced to handle the task at hand regardless of his playing record. In light of subequent events ........

[iacas]

I didn't like what Phil did, but I was surprised that no players really stuck up for Captain Watson.  They must have agreed with Phil.

Correct… It's likely because… they agreed with Phil.

Bishop's comment indicated to me that no such effort was made. If he did reach out to Watson and was re-buffed or ignored, then I would certainly re-think my stance.

The comments I've seen said Phil tried talking to Watson several times awhile ago, when he couldn't get anywhere, he went to Bishop.