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

[Mr. Desmond]

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 ........

No one likes Faldo... lol.

How many business dealings has he entered and was quickly divorced?

I think .... several.

[Keep It Simple]

I voted Yes.  The coaching this year was so bad it deserved some spotlight.  From my chair I saw Watson phone it in all the way.  Sure you can say the players needed to play better but look at Patrick Reed.  He stayed fired up the whole way despite discouraging moments and ground out a victory.  If the US could have rallied under some decent leadership the others could have done the same.

[natureboy]

NY Post

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

a big-picture fix.

“There needs to be more continuity

[European captains]… they’re kind of all learning from each other,

there’s not a lot of change in philosophy in how to run the teams.

Their players know what to expect

[for U.S.] every two years it’s something completely different and unique.’

a bridging of the gap between the PGA of America and the player

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

All excellent points by Azinger.

Ryder Cup - representing your country - is inherently anxiety inducing. Players put tons of pressure on themselves to rise to the occasion. Focus on their game and the situation at hand is essential to perform up to their proven ability.

Continuity in the European management system and approach creates a sense of familiarity for players which promotes ease and minimizes distraction from the critical task - playing golf at the highest level. A mentoring / apprenticing track for captains to learn first hand how best to handle pairing strategy and players personalities and emotions probably enhances this (a 'steady hand' at the wheel).

One of the biggest 'vibes' I picked up from the two captains' public comments - which could be emblematic of management style - was that Watson seemed to be sitting a bit 'on high' like a judge saying "show me what you've got", while McGinley came across to me more like he was the team's agent - focused on doing what he could to create conditions for the players to perform their best. Which style would put you more at ease or make you feel like you've got someone in your corner if you give it your best, but come up short?

What Watson did behind the scenes, I don't know. I have no doubt he worked his butt off and gave it his best using the style that he knew / trusted, but in terms of the public face of the team, that's what I saw stick out.

[mvmac]

“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.’’

Good stuff

[RandallT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Ted Bishop Quotes (Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/30/us-golf-ryder-bishop-idUSKCN0HP2OU20140930 ):

"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."

"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."

Did Ted Bishop just incriminate himself? He KNEW about Phil's issues with the team. Phil told him the SAME thing to Ted in July that he said at the conference after the Ryder Cup.  And Ted did nothing constructive about it????  A good manager would resolve that red flag asap. Certainly letting it fester didn't help. He made no mention of trying to resolve the issue in any way.

His third quote above implies Phil did NOT speak to Watson about it, but I know I have seen accounts elsewhere (can't find them now) that Phil tried to get a discussion with Tom, but Tom was standoffish and shut down talk about how the team would be run. So is Ted simply unaware that Phil had reached out to Tom, or is he stretching the truth?

Either way, Ted Bishop chose not to address this fundamental issue from July to September. Phil did not "go around" Tom to Ted. Ted directly solicited Phil's feedback at the pro-am at the Scottish Open. Phil as always it seems, answered the same question the same way.

Anyway, the original vote in the OP is close. I changed mine from B to A, as I think maybe one other person did (because I wrote "Ditto" as I recall when I wrote my switch post). It's 45-43 A over B, if you count those two votes switches. 45-43, if you count original votes.  Interesting that at the outset, it seemed that every news outlet and reader comments had this issue as a tidal wave against Phil.  The vote here was 60-40 or so for a day or two, as I recall, then it tightened up. Are people swaying to Phil's side as time goes on?

[rehmwa]

I finally watched the interviews.

Phil - I think he was sincere in the pitch actually not hacking on Tom so much as putting out what needs to be done going forward - and the press in the room jumped on it like wolves and pressed it way beyond what was needed.  Not impressed with the press there at all.  Impressed with Phil.

Tom - He answered like he was a player (12 guys gotta play better) rather than as a coach - result was unflattering to his guys - I don't think he intended to throw them under the bus, just that he was identifying as the player he was rather than as a leader - so his "mea culpa" was what the players would state.  Pretty clear he absolutely 'knew' what was coming and trying to steel himself for it. He was on the defensive the whole time, even before Phil's comments and did a medium good job in dealing with Phil's notes at first.  Until the press started pushing him, then it was just plain uncomfortable.  Pretty clear he knew he'd do things differently if he had to do again, but he really just couldn't seem to get himself to come out and admit it except for some minor items.  He was trying though.  It didn't look like he was ditching it, more like he knew if he threw out anything substantial for them to chew on it would be a crap fest at his expense.  I wasn't impressed or unimpressed, I was just mixed between not liking his answers and being sympathetic for the shit storm that was clearly blowing his way.  The body language of the players during his answers spoke volumes to me though.

Very uncomfortable - I was pretty sick of the way the press handled it there.

Favorite line was when one guy asked Phil if he KNEW the correct formula and Phil jumped in with something like "Hell no, I've lost 8 of the last ten" or something like that.

I'd like it very much if the winners would invite the losers to stand with them during the ceremony at the end and to have them stay and celebrate too.

[misty_mountainhop]

Apparently, the whole team should have stood up against Watson in the presser.

More details are being leaked and Watson looks bad ... very bad.

He is rivaling Hal Sutton ... Watson was overwhelmed and unprepared .. like me on a golf course...

From golf digest:

It was only the latest in a series of perplexing decisions by Watson that almost seemed designed to handicap his team. It began the day before he made his captain's picks, when, as the Golf Channel's Jason Sobel reported, he told those close to the process that his final pick was a player other than Webb Simpson (Sobel didn't name the third player). Early the next morning -- as in, 4:30 am early -- Webb Simpson texted Watson in a desperate last minute campaign to earn a place on the team. Watson texted back, and then the two spoke on the phone. Simpson sold himself, and it worked -- Watson changed his mind, Simpson made the team, and the previous pick was out. The impulse decision (this week, Watson has endlessly referred to making decisions with his "gut") backfired almost immediately, when Simpson went out in the Ryder Cup's first match with Bubba Watson -- a move that was hard not to read as the captain trying to justify his pick immediately -- and imploded. He didn't make a single birdie, and things got so bad that he began taking five or six practice swings before every shot. Bubba did his best, but Justin Rose and Henrik Stenson blew them out, 5&4. After Simpson's miserable performance, there was no question of playing him again before Sunday.

.....

I love this 20:20 hindsight journalism. Walker hit a tired shot? Diddums. Garcia hit one of the worst drives I've ever seen by a top pro - no-one mentions tiredness in association with that. Some of them had played (shock! horror!) four whole rounds in two days! Without carrying their bags! Sometimes with only half the shots they'd normally hit. Maybe evening going a couple of holes only hitting putts! Ohhh....the horror!!!! Mahan had an utter brain fart on 18? Oh, that'll be Watson's fault then. Reed lipped a short one on 16? Ahh, Watson again. Etc, etc, etc.

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.

Just for a minute, let's suppose the other players didn't know what was coming from Mickleson. Mickleson's back-stab could have been spur of the moment (the actual act) albeit he's been chewing over how to trash his Captain for some days. I would not be at all surprised if no-one else who was there knew what to say in response. I cannot believe the 12 players unanimously thought this was a good way to go about it. If one of them had publicly backed Watson and taken umbrage at Mickleson then and there, the press conference becomes a blood-letting farce.

Here's a thought for chuckles. Let's imagine that maybe, just maybe, Mickleson hasn't spoken to all the players re. what he's about to do. How ironic (does Mickleson have this word in in his lexicon?) that he thinks it's a good plan to publicly complain about poor communication and inclusion in decisions by going it alone at a press conference and by not both discussing it and agreeing the approach with the rest of the team? That would be too funny. Wouldn't it?

[Mulligan Jeff]

Thank God Mickelson is not a "yes" man! With criticism comes evaluation, root cause analysis and "big picture" mentality.

[Golfingdad]

Anyway, the original vote in the OP is close. I changed mine from B to A, as I think maybe one other person did (because I wrote "Ditto" as I recall when I wrote my switch post). It's 45-43 A over B, if you count those two votes switches. 45-43, if you count original votes.  Interesting that at the outset, it seemed that every news outlet and reader comments had this issue as a tidal wave against Phil.  The vote here was 60-40 or so for a day or two, as I recall, then it tightened up. Are people swaying to Phil's side as time goes on?

Yeah, that was me as well.  I voted B, and have since come around to A.

Further, on the topic of Phil, I have decided that a lot of the stuff I've "learned" about him on here may be wrong as well.  I used to really like him, and think he was great, for all of his candor and how he was with the fans, etc.  Then after reading a bunch of stuff here about how he's a big phony, and everybody hates him and he's FIGJAM, etc, etc, I started to see him in a less than flattering light.

Now, I'm starting to think that maybe my original impression was accurate.  Maybe he's honest and sincere and not a phony at all.  I mean, if you're just saying what everybody wants to hear, are you saying what he said last week??  I doubt it.

I gained (or perhaps re-gained is better) a lot of respect for Phil from this.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big C



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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

You are hanging an awful lot on one quote:

Quote:

"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."

1) Bishop is the guy who picked Watson and created the whole problem this time.  All he is doing is covering his own butt.  He has no way of knowing what Phil may or may not have said to Watson ahead of time.  But as someone pointed out, if he knew there was a problem back in July why didn't he intervene??   This is as if in your analogy a student went to my principal with complaints and the principal did nothing.

2) Based on everything we know about Phil, I find it vanishingly unlikely that he suffered under Watson in silence.  I cannot conceive that a guy who a) sees himself as a leader on the team, and b) has always been vocal and outspoken, would not speak up to Watson.  And was there ANYTHING in Watson's after event presser that indicates that he thinks he did ANYTHING wrong structurally?  I did not hear it, which to me shows just how tone deaf he was - which further indicates he wasn't listening to anyone or anything except his own "gut".

It is the arrogance of thinking he is so smart he does not need a plan or a system or a structure  Hell, he is so smart he can just go out and wing it because he is a tough old school guy and he'll get those players whipped into shape.

[Mr. Desmond]

Yeah, that was me as well.  I voted B, and have since come around to A.

Further, on the topic of Phil, I have decided that a lot of the stuff I've "learned" about him on here may be wrong as well.  I used to really like him, and think he was great, for all of his candor and how he was with the fans, etc.  Then after reading a bunch of stuff here about how he's a big phony, and everybody hates him and he's FIGJAM, etc, etc, I started to see him in a less than flattering light.

Now, I'm starting to think that maybe my original impression was accurate.  Maybe he's honest and sincere and not a phony at all.  I mean, if you're just saying what everybody wants to hear, are you saying what he said last week??  I doubt it.

I gained (or perhaps re-gained is better) a lot of respect for Phil from this.

I think Phil has a big personality, some like him, others don't ... just like regular guys in real life.

I'm guessing FIGJAM came about because he was so good, so young, that he had a certain brashness and cockiness to him, and a  gambler's attitude. You can see that in his game -- successes and failures.

And yet, some people grow over time. Life causes them to re-evalutate themselves, they grow (or diminish) and subtle changes take place.

But first impressions are sometimes everything, even though they are not real. The person you met 5 years ago may not be the same person today. The person you see today is real.

[FarawayFairways]

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?

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?. Watson by contrast is finished. He has one or two more walks to make across the Swilcan Bridge next year (wouldn't it be funny if they pair him with Phil) and that'll be it. There is little to be gained by any of the current players nailing their colours to Watson. By the same token though, they need to realise that he's a USPGA appointment. The PGA isn't without influence. It would be a brave, a silly young player who was prepared to back Phil, with their career ahead of them. If Phil had their interests at heart, he would have told them not to do so if he had premeditatedhis volley and thought there was a danger that an emotionally charged youngster with less currency in the bank might follow him over the top and into no-mans-land

I'd imagine most of them elected to do the sensible thing of see no, hear no, speak no. They aren't going to change the result, but I would make the observation that we have heard all this before from America and it's all been solved before. Variously poor captaincy, bad tactics, poor wildcard selections, or bad course set up have all been offered as excuses. This is just the latest airing of the same track.

I'd be curious to know what Corey Pavin might like to say on the subject actually since he's also in Mickelsons cross-hairs

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. McDowell wanted to play the morning fourballs and was disappointed to be left out. However, he felt engaged as he had a vice captain assigned to him and Victor to have them ready to hit their straps the moment the tape went up in the afternoon. He didn't feel left out and neglected. Contrast that with the how the Saturday afternoon American room might have been with Phil Mickelson holding court alongside Keegan, Bubba, and Webb. It isn't a massive stretch to think that Bradley is going to be sympathetic to Mickelson, and Bubba was probably treated badly after his morning fourball showing. In any event, Bubba was 0-2 at the time and Webb Simpson had failed as well. Both would be receptive to someone telling them it wasn't their fault

It'll run and run one suspects, but the detail is probably going to dribble out now over the next few months. One suspects it'll come down to different accounts of who said what to whom and when

[Mr. Desmond]

Phil -- not wrong to answer the question. Did not use the correct phrasing when comparing 2008 to 2014. People get thrown under the bus everyday. I'd rather do it in front of them and the team, and not in a public news conference. But it's a balance. He was partly wrong, but lots of good will probably come from it.

Solution?

Gosh, just do what NBA or NFL teams do.

They copy the champion and might put their own spin on it.

Tired of losing 8 of 10?

Copy the European Model and modify it with science whether it be POD, personality profiles, testing, and then playing together.

It's not that hard ... golf is hard ... copying successful ways of doing things is not, and is commonplace.

No need to reinvent the wheel when someone else found a better wheel.

[Valleygolfer]

“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.’’

Continuity with selection would let performance dictate who plays and less hard feelings.

[HawkNballs]

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

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.  Most would guess a car or sailing race.  Maybe if people loved the Ryder Cup like we love the Superbowl... kids would grow up dying to play on that team.  Just a thought...

Nobody can honestly tell me that Webb Simpson is one of the best 12 players we have.  Our selection process needs to change for sure.

To Tom's credit.  He paired our two young rooks together in what was a ballsy and brilliant move.

[Valleygolfer]

Boy... Hunter Mahan sure looked uncomfortable next to Phil as he was speaking.  I couldn't tell if he was mad or embarrassed.   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.  Most would guess a car or sailing race.  Maybe if people loved the Ryder Cup like we love the Superbowl... kids would grow up dying to play on that team.  Just a thought...   Nobody can honestly tell me that Webb Simpson is one of the best 12 players we have.  Our selection process needs to change for sure. To Tom's credit.  He paired our two young rooks together in what was a ballsy and brilliant move.

Imagine if he had Russell Henley and Billy Horshel too...

[FarawayFairways]

Our selection process needs to change for sure.

One of many things you need to do.

I don't see why you shouldn't abandon completely the idea of using the rankings to select a team and simply move to a selection panel and make all 12 subject to this procedure. You could always select the top 12 if you wanted to of course, and it seems inconceivable that the rankings wouldn't have a large influence on the decision, but it would give you more flexibility, and allow to take a view on players who 'beat' the qualifying system and whose form then falls apart

You also need to expose to greater scrutiny this notion that you have to pick teams in early September to allow families to prepare. Come on. Do you want to win this or not?

I suspect the difference is that Europe's players really want to win it, whereas America's would like to, but they aren't prepared to make any sacrifices in their own schedules to do so. It's about hunger, and no pod system addresses that. All a pod system will do is perhaps bring a team together in a better frame of mind for the week concerned.

I've just read an account for instance about how Paul McGinley decided to deal with Victor Dubuisson once it became obvious he was going to qualify. Everyone warned McGinley that he was a closed book and would be near impossible to integrate. Paul made an arrangement to go stay with him for 3 days as Victor's guest. During the day they played golf together, in the evening they eat together and talked about golf and life etc allowing both the chance to get to know and like each other. From this Paul had a much clearer idea as to how Victor ticked, and the Frenchman had also found he'd be brought into the family

Can you imagine Tom Watson doing the same, or more to the point, could you imagine a tour pro allowing him in?

[Golfingdad]

I don't see why you shouldn't abandon completely the idea of using the rankings to select a team and simply move to a selection panel and make all 12 subject to this procedure. You could always select the top 12 if you wanted to of course, and it seems inconceivable that the rankings wouldn't have a large influence on the decision, but it would give you more flexibility, and allow to take a view on players who 'beat' the qualifying system and whose form then falls apart

You also need to expose to greater scrutiny this notion that you have to pick teams in early September to allow families to prepare. Come on. Do you want to win this or not?

I like both of these ideas.  Especially the second one.  Even somebody as dumb and thick headed as Tom Watson apparently is could probably have been able to choose Billy Horschel over Webb Simpson after his run the last couple of weeks after the picks were made.

It would also allow them the ability (even if they chose not to exercise it) to consider excluding a guy like Bubba Watson when it's in Europe, knowing how badly he seems to play over there.