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

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Same question as that I posed to @David in FL: when should he have done it? When it wouldn't matter and nobody would care?

That's the dumbest time to say something that you want HEARD.

he should have said something along the lines of "we played really well in 2008 and I think Azinger did a great job and maybe there was something to the way he did that we should go back to..  But I know that Tom also worked his butt off and did a great job.  Ultimately it comes down to the players and we just didn't it get done."

Oh Puleeze.... why not give him his blankie and tuck him in at night too?  No sense calling him out for doing a crap job and utterly failing as a leader.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

That the players were not invested because Watson treated them like they were (sometimes insubordinate) soldiers under his command, not that they were players who deserved to be communicated with and treated with respect.

Maybe its just me, but I don't buy it.  There's nothing commendable about blaming someone else because you didn't care enough.  Look at the other guy's quote from Poulter.  Their captain says he's sitting and he's fine with it.

The other guy also had buy-in from the players because he was a leader, not a boss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

I agree with @iacas on this one.

There is no right or wrong time. People are going to try to find fault just because they want to. It's how the internet and media is now. It is all opinionated and fault driven. I find no fault in what Phil said.

This one's for you, @saevel25 .  Last thursday Joe Girardi reamed the team in the locker room before the game.  Someone leaked that it occurred.  Media asked Derek Jeter.  His response?  "You know better than to ask me a question like that."

One sure fire way to ruin a team's cohesion is to take pot shots at the leader in the media and make sure all the dirty laundry gets aired.

You keep missing the point that they were never a real team.  They were a bunch of independent contractors playing on the same side in a competition.  They had no leader to help them coalesce into a team.  The European players were a team because they had a leader who worked to make them a team.

By the time Phil made his comments in the press conference, they were no longer a team even in name, and Watson was no longer their captain.

Originally Posted by dsc123

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Not how I see it at all. Phil wanted the team to be MORE of a team, to have more input, not to have a "boss" and to be benched for stupid personal reasons.

I try to think of this by relating to the teams i've been a part of.  My work isn't really a team environment, but I think back to high school sports, or even the adult softball leagues I play in now.  None of those involve decisions by committee.  Its the opposite of that.  Why would a player expect to have a say in the matchups?

The part about being benched for stupid personal reasons, I assume you mean the claim that he overheard phil complaining to others about his decisions?  I agree that he shouldn't be benched for that, but how about Phil there?  For an influential member of the clubhouse to spread dissent in the middle of the competition is terrible.  Its childish and selfish.  .

You are talking about ongoing team play that lasts for a full season or more.  In this case, when the last match ends, so does the team's existence.  If there are perceived problems, then someone needs to speak out.  There won't be a next game, and one after that to work out the issues, not for 2 years.  The lack of anyone defending Tom Watson speaks at least as loudly as Phil's words.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Again, it was after they'd lost.

It still sets an example going forward.  The young guys on the team see a great player complaining to the media about the captain as soon as they lose.  They see that its acceptable to point fingers.  That's the opposite of what you want from a team.  Its an example for the next team.

Sometimes fingers need to be pointed.  As far as it going forward, these guys are all adults, they know what's going on, even if most of them are unwilling to risk the fallout from speaking out.  A few of them are going to be on the next team, and they will be expecting to see that some of Phil's criticism has been taken seriously.

I'm sure that Phil would be the first to admit that they just got beat, if that was all it was.  In this case they were beaten both on and off the course, and some of that off course trouble has to be laid at the feet of the captain.  A big part of the captain's job is mold these highly independent players into a team for 3 days of intense competition.  McGinley did so, Watson did not.

[RandallT]

I've also been persuaded by the opinions of some of you to change my mind a bit on Phils comments. It's something I'd never be able to do (I'm too much of a wuss and like everybody to like me), I acknowledge that what Phil did could have been in the best interest of the US Ryder Cup chances in the future.  And for that reason, I'll go ahead and say that I change my vote to A.  If hurting Tom Watsons feelings gets us to start winning the Ryder Cup again, it's a small price to pay, and I think even Tom Watson would be OK with that.

Ditto. I voted B but said I agreed with the spirit of Phil's point, but not the timing. After reconsidering and seeing replays and discussing with random people at the course today. I lean toward Phil being courageous at the press conference. He stood up for fellow players for the long-term good, and he can take the heat for the appearance of it all. He comes out looking bad to many, but he's tough guy. He will weather it and continue to push for better "teaming." He's no dummy- he knew it would look bad.

[iacas]

I don't know that its a lie, I haven't seen any suggestion that he didn't work hard.  The only thing I've seen on that topic is Furyk, who said he did. But its possible to give an honest answer to a question AND not be dick. If it wasn't his hard work it could have been something else. Hdcould have said something short and sweet about Azinger and complimented in captain for something.

WHY?

I don't know how to make this any clearer: I don't think Phil was being "a dick." I think he was perfectly justified in saying all that he said. I'd have even given him some more rope. He's clearly fed up, has tried to change things the "polite" way, and seems to feel that he needed to make a mini spectacle of things.

I'm ignoring a lot of possibilities about which I have no reason to know did or did not happen.  Why would you assume that it did?

No, you're flat out assuming that he didn't try anything behind the scenes. There's a difference.

I try to think of this by relating to the teams i've been a part of.  My work isn't really a team environment, but I think back to high school sports, or even the adult softball leagues I play in now.  None of those involve decisions by committee.  Its the opposite of that.  Why would a player expect to have a say in the matchups?

Because those are actual teams run by an actual coach. The "captain" here is not a "coach" - just a captain. Do you think the guy who wears the "C" on a hockey team involves his teammates in things? Or does he just boss them around, and punish those who he doesn't like?

You can't compare the Ryder Cup team to ****ing high school sports.

I'm a member of a rec soccer league. We have a team "captain" and he's responsible for telling us the schedule. That's about it. We are involved in everything else. The Ryder Cup is closer to THAT than high school sports where you have an actual COACH running things.

For an influential member of the clubhouse to spread dissent in the middle of the competition is terrible.  Its childish and selfish.

I disagree. And I'm not exactly a huge Phil fan. I've come around on him, but… He had his reasons, and by accounts we've now heard, he's been consistent in his complaints about the lack of communication.

It still sets an example going forward.  The young guys on the team see a great player complaining to the media about the captain as soon as they lose.  They see that its acceptable to point fingers. That's the opposite of what you want from a team.  Its an example for the next team.

GOOD!

They see that Phil ****ing cares about the Ryder Cup and is tired of losing. They see that he's willing to take the heat to stand up for what they all, seemingly, felt.

You don't seem to give any room to the possibility that they all WANTED Phil to say what he said. It seems to me that they did.

Again, sometimes you have to point fingers to effect CHANGE. The "polite" way wasn't working.

[Mr. Desmond]

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.

Nor did Watson want to go with Bradley and Mickelson, the American stars of the 2012 Ryder Cup. On Friday, the pair beat Rory McIlroy and Sergio Garcia 1-up in an exciting 18-hole match, and Phil had convinced Watson to let them play the afternoon alternate shot format as well. This went against what the captain had told the team, which was that the afternoon pairings would be determined by who played well in the morning. If that were the case, he would have played Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reed, the exciting rookie duo who beat Ryder Cup legend Ian Poulter and Scottish crowd favorite Stephen Gallacher in scintillating fashion, 5&4. Following their morning win, the young pair approached Watson wondering what time their afternoon match would tee off, and whether they had time to practice, when the captain broke the news that they'd be sitting out. Shocked and confused, they pleaded their case. Watson wouldn't budge, and Spieth and Reed finally had to accept the edict, but they didn't bother hiding their frustration from Watson, or from the media.

When Mickelson tired that afternoon, and he and Bradley lost to Dubuisson and McDowell, Watson made the reasonable choice to rest them on Saturday morning. But when he prepared to make foursomes pairings later that day, he delivered the surprising message that they wouldn't play in the afternoon, either. As on Friday, Phil appealed to his captain again to let he and Bradley play in the alternate shot session. He even tried a text message plea when the first entreaty failed, but this time, Watson wouldn't be swayed. (Maybe Phil should have had Webb Simpson send the text.) Nor would he play Bubba Watson, who had made six birdies in the morning in a losing effort. His gut told him instead to go with Fowler and Walker, fresh off 54 holes of stressful draws.

By the third hole of the match, it was clear that Jimmy Walker was tired. He hit a shot on that hole that, in McDowell's words, was poor even by amateur standards. The Northern Irishman sensed a deep fatigue in his opponents, and he approached Dubuisson with a simple message: "Let's show these guys how energetic we are. Let's show these guys how up for this we are."

McGinley's work with the engimatic Dubuisson was just one example of his deft touch.

Dubuisson heeded the advice, and the blitzkrieg was on. By the ninth hole, they were already 5-up on the Americans, who were wilting in the Scottish afternoon. By the 14th hole, it was over.

*

In that same Saturday afternoon session, McGinley led with Lee Westwood and Jamie Donaldson. Westwood, one of the great European Ryder Cup players of all time but in the waning stages of his career at age 41, was a captain's pick that surprised many. In late 2012, when McGinley was the presumptive favorite for the captain's position, his chief opponent was Darren Clarke, another Northern Irishman as well as a good friend for whom McGinley had pulled out of the 2006 PGA Championship when Clarke's wife died in order to attend the funeral and support his friend. McGinley was viewed as the natural captain in 2014, and Clarke had even written him a letter saying he wasn't interested in the job. Clarke changed his mind after the 2012 Ryder Cup, and became a candidate for a short period before withdrawing and declaring his support for Colin Montgomerie, stating that he didn't believe McGinley had the appropriate stature to stand opposite Tom Watson. McGinley had never won a major, and only played in three Ryder Cups. (How ironic that sentiment looks now...)

Montgomerie's cause gained support until Rory McIlory came out publicly in favor of McGinley, which prompted a series of endorsements from Luke Donald, Justin Rose, and Ian Poulter. McGinley won the job, but in the time when Clarke was considered an option, Lee Westwood was vocal in his support , comparing Clarke's resume favorably against McGinley's. So when the time came to make captain's picks, and the third and final choice came down to Luke Donald and Lee Westwood, it seemed like a no-brainer -- McGinley would reward loyalty by picking Donald.

Except he didn't. Westwood was pleasantly stunned, and Donald was upset, but McGinley had a plan. And that plan didn't hinge on holding grudges, or letting his judgment be clouded by ego and pride. Like McDowell, he saw Westwood as a bit stronger in the veteran leadership department, and someone he could pair with a Ryder Cup rookie. History was his guide; in previous Cups, Westwood had worked the same magic with rookies like Nicolas Colsaerts and Martin Kaymer.

That rookie this time, it turned out, was Jamie Donaldson, who had suffered through his own drama to make the team. The Welsh 38-year-old had narrowly missed making the Ryder Cup team on points when he failed to get up and down on the 18th hole at the PGA Championship in Valhalla, and when he saw McGinley in the caddie room after his round, he was distraught. The captain told Donaldson he wanted him to make the team, but that it would be tough to pick a rookie, and that he needed to earn his way on. Two days later, they spoke on the phone, and McGinley helped him formulate a plan. Donaldson would go to the Czech Republic to play in the European Tour event and try to earn the $20,000 it would take to make the team. McGinley advised him to play aggressively, to play without fear, and Donaldson heeded his words; not only did he earn the $20,000, he won the tournament.

The unlikely pair, which had delivered a win in the lead-off spot Friday afternoon, were facing Zach Johnson and Matt Kuchar, who hadn't played together in any practice rounds in the days leading up to the competition, and were a combined 0-3 up to that point. Like Fowler and Walker, they were playing instead of Keegan Bradley and Phil Mickelson, and Kuchar was chosen over Bubba Watson, his superior partner from the morning match.

The Europeans won on the 17th hole. "Every credit to Paul for having the confidence to send us out again," said Westwood, referencing their loss in the morning four-ball session. "It was a ballsy move."

"We seem to bring out the best in each other in the foursomes," Donaldson said.

[dsc123]

I don't know how to make this any clearer: I don't think Phil was being "a dick." I think he was perfectly justified in saying all that he said. I'd have even given him some more rope. He's clearly fed up, has tried to change things the "polite" way, and seems to feel that he needed to make a mini

You were clear the first time, I just think you're wrong on every point. :-P

[Valleygolfer]

He didn't need to trot out the usual platitudes, but maybe silence would have said a lot more .

Silence would not have done shit. Look at the scrutiny going on after someone speaks their mind. Next captain will more apt to open to outside input instead of solely trying to reinvent the wheel.

[natureboy]

No, you're flat out assuming that he didn't try anything behind the scenes. There's a difference.

This is a good point to consider in Phil's motivation.

I still think he could have effectively pushed the scramble button with an intentional sit-down with sports media or calling his own press conference after the team had 'officially' split up (home & uniforms off). To me that would have been more desirable and less open to 'bad team player' critiques.

[saevel25]

This is a good point to consider in Phil's motivation.

I still think he could have effectively pushed the scramble button with an intentional sit-down with sports media or calling his own press conference after the team had 'officially' split up (home & uniforms off). To me that would have been more desirable and less open to 'bad team player' critiques.

I don't think so. In the end people would have still bashed Phil because he is speaking out against Tom Watson. People crave the conflict and would have made a big deal out of it anyways. I don't think waiting on it would have made it anymore or less what it was, Phil being honest with what he thinks went wrong.

[FarawayFairways]

Golf Digest didn't report that the way Europe selects its captains has been changed after McGinley, precisely to stop the unedifying spectacle that developed as the media played hunt the golfer and tried to extract a name from each one. It was regarded as disruptive and devisive and just about the most destablising selection they'd had. The objective was to avoid a repeat of it as having something akin to an election restricted to a constituency of a few would more than likely lead to cliques, nepotism, and a splintering of the team as rival camps evolved. The most obvious one would involve the schism between continental europe and the traditional base of GB & Ireland

The story about Webb Simpson sounds plausible. Watson described it at the conference as "I woke up this morning and had a revelation". I said at the time that it sounded like someone who had a school assignment to hand in and didn't know the answer, and suggested he ultimately fell back on Wikipedia as that was the sum level of the insight. Despite my flippant remark, I'm not sure I was that far off

The decision not to send out Reed and Spieth in the afternoon was the first decision he was criticised for. Personally I'd be a little bit more convinced if it had come from people who'd advocated that pairing in the first place. I don't recall anyone putting these names into the frame. So Watson would be would one nil up at this stage on most judges. It's the nature of Ryder Cup that a lot of errors are concealed  as pairings that might have proven hugely successful aren't ever tried. You could be disingenuous and say it wasn't Tom's judgement that spotted this pairing. Tom himself acknowledged it was the vice captains who had persuaded him, but surely this is evidence of someone who was open to suggestion, and not the person that some are painting him to be.

He does appear to have gone back on his word regarding who would play in the afternoon though, as the notion that he'd established that the four who didn't play, plus the two most successful pairings would has been supported without contest. That he moved the goalposts a bit isn't completely out of character. He was doing the same to accommodate Tiger Woods throughout that entire soap opera. I'm not sure that Mickelson/ Bradley actually played that well against Sergio and Rory. I remember it being a scrappy match lost to who made the least errors

It would appear however if the GD report is correct (and I think we should assume it's been well sourced) that it was decision was taken on the intervention of Phil Mickelson, and Tom changed his mind. Phil has effectively lobbied for him and Keegan to play ahead of the two rookies. That's a bit naughty. You might even say its abusing his seniority. At the very least it has to be pretty devisive and disruptive to morale when one pairing is telling the captain (presumably in private behind the other pairs back) that they're better than them. At that evenings press conference Tom conceded it was an error but refused to elaborate on why he'd done it, explaining that there were reasons, and that the team (the management team) had agreed. Imagine the outcry if he'd hung Phil Mickelson out at that point, and said that "Phil sneaked behind the backs of other team members and persuaded me to play him. He proceded to play like a drain and cost us the point because he thought he was up to doing something that he palpably wasn't". I'd imagine Tom felt a bit let down by Mickelson, but would by now be seriosuly questioning whether Phil's judgement could be relied upon

It's hardly surprising when Phil came to him next time round making the same promise that he and Keegan could bring the bacon home, that Tom adopted the once bitten, twice shy approach.

The decision to bench Bubba I thought was strange given that he had played well in a top quality match, and you have to wonder if someone with his particular fragility carried that snub over into his singles. It's equally possible that he might have become wrapped up in a mini mutiny yet (we'll have to see what seeps out). You could see that Mickelson was shot on the Friday, but I couldn't see what was wrong with a Bradley/ Bubba pairing on the Saturday afternoon, unless Keegan had joined in Phil's insubordination which we're given to understand came to a head on the Saturday evening, but which in all likelihood had been brooding for days previous as a whsipering campaign

Still it makes Phil look a lemon when he was telling us how united this American team were a few days earlier because they don't litigate against each other. Transpires they were close to being at civil war with each other

[FarawayFairways]

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

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

[iacas]

You were clear the first time, I just think you're wrong on every point.

Ditto. :) Glad we can stop repeating ourselves tho

I still think he could have effectively pushed the scramble button with an intentional sit-down with sports media or calling his own press conference after the team had 'officially' split up (home & uniforms off). To me that would have been more desirable and less open to 'bad team player' critiques.

Nah.

He'd not have gotten anywhere near the same reaction. ALL of the Ryder Cup press was assembled, ready, and the loss was very fresh. To think that he could achieve the same days later, with far fewer press, is silly.

[saevel25]

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

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

Great article on the dynamics of the European team. It almost seems like the exact opposite of what Tom did.

When it comes down to it, golf is much a game of personalities. It was really striking at how in depth the European captain went to making sure the pairings would maximize the two man team's potential. Going as far as getting to know each player months in advance so he can make the right pairings, not just in terms of golfing ability, but in terms of who meshed well with another. Like putting Dubuisson, a Ryder Cup rookie, with Mcdowell. Who is a pretty easy going lad back type of guy, but also a Ryder Cup veteran.

At least to me, when Tom just basically says, "They have to play better". That is really a cop out to me, and seems he didn't understand the finer points of being on a team.

[FarawayFairways]

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

[saevel25]

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

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

[Silent]

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.

[saevel25]

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.

Well apparently the Europeans seem to be more UP for the Ryder Cup than the Americans. So, something needs to change to get that fire going again.

Honestly, if Tom just said, "Oh I set up this date at Gleneagles between these two tournaments, you are invited to show up if you want". You know, maybe he could have actually talked to each player and see what works best majority of the team. Maybe get the input from some of the players of what they think might work. Then you can get them involved and now they have ownership of the process.

The best thing you can do to get people motivated is to create a feeling of being appreciated enough to actually be involved in the process, especially more so with golfers who are use to playing and individual sport 99% of the time. I mean it is the players that are actually playing, not Tom Watson. It isn't like football were it is drilled into the player's heads from day one that that coach and the staff, and their methods are what win games, and if you buy into the process and do your job you will succeed.

Golf is highly individualistic, not team based. So, someway you need to take all those individuals, who rarely play on a team, and get them to be invested. I get it, the American team should be invested because it is America versus Europe, it is the Ryder Cup. Still, when they have the final say in all other aspects of their life, their golf game, how they practice, how they train, what tournaments they play in, what contracts they sign, ect.. I think it is a little off putting for Tom to assume the players should just do what he says, when 99% of the time when it comes to golf they are use to being the ones who make the decisions.

[FarawayFairways]

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

Only partly I'd say. The captain is entiteld to expect some commitment and motivation from his players, his job is to build on it and channel it. If he's having to provide additional motivation to a rag bag bunch of tourists then he's being distracted. I'd make the observation too that Phil 'Ryder Cup' Mickelsons enthusiasm for the cup was bi-polar at best and seems to have been motivated more by Tiger Woods's non-appearence. The Cup was such a pressing priority for Phil that when he was interviewed about his future ambitions immediately after qualifying at Valhalla, he never even mentioned it, and chose instead to paint a picture of himself standing on a podium with a gold medal in Rio hanging round his big fat neck. I'd have been terrified if I were Tom to hear such diffidence from a senior player just 6 weeks before the event.

After Tiger pulled out though, Phil suddenly became interested and went to Tom trying to play a more active role from what we can gather. He became the teamroon leader and crap chat merchant. He pulled out of the Fed Ex (with his chance gone anyway) to concentrate on the Ryder Cup. He could have backed the words up with deed of course and followed the same path as four Europeans and played Celtic Manor, but chose to stay at home

I think the error in judgement was probably Watsons for trusting Phil. If Mickelson had come to me as captain under these circumstances I'd have challenged him as to why he didn't feel able to raise a rallying call for the Ryder Cup after qualifying for it, why he never showed up for my scouting mission when he played at Aberdeen, and what some of the comments leading up to Valhalla were about when he suggested he wouldn't accept a wild card, and for that matter, why he'd framed all those answers about the cup through the prism of his individual achievement of consecutive appearances rather than the collective team need for redemption.

The picture that I was building of Mickelson throughout this summer was of someone who was disengaged from the team and the cup, and only became interested very late on after Tiger pulled out. Tom  Watson shouldn't have trusted nor touched Phil Mickelson with a barge pole for the role he was handed. He simply hadn't shown anything remotely close to the level of commitment needed. sadly my own idea was to miss a generation and ask Keegan Bradley to take the role (with one eye on Hazeltine) I say sadly because I suspect Mickelson would have got inside in Keegan's head and I'd have achieved the same result

[CarlSpackler]

Well apparently the Europeans seem to be more UP for the Ryder Cup than the Americans. So, something needs to change to get that fire going again.

Honestly, if Tom just said, "Oh I set up this date at Gleneagles between these two tournaments, you are invited to show up if you want". You know, maybe he could have actually talked to each player and see what works best majority of the team. Maybe get the input from some of the players of what they think might work. Then you can get them involved and now they have ownership of the process.

The best thing you can do to get people motivated is to create a feeling of being appreciated enough to actually be involved in the process, especially more so with golfers who are use to playing and individual sport 99% of the time. I mean it is the players that are actually playing, not Tom Watson. It isn't like football were it is drilled into the player's heads from day one that that coach and the staff, and their methods are what win games, and if you buy into the process and do your job you will succeed.

Golf is highly individualistic, not team based. So, someway you need to take all those individuals, who rarely play on a team, and get them to be invested. I get it, the American team should be invested because it is America versus Europe, it is the Ryder Cup. Still, when they have the final say in all other aspects of their life, their golf game, how they practice, how they train, what tournaments they play in, what contracts they sign, ect.. I think it is a little off putting for Tom to assume the players should just do what he says, when 99% of the time when it comes to golf they are use to being the ones who make the decisions.

As a captain, I would like to see different members of my team playing a few holes of the different formats together, whether at the tournament venue of somewhere similar. It seems that there is little preparation for the RCup. I remember going to a practice round at Oakland Hills in '04. The US team played 9 holes in the morning and then went to some local mall to have some famous cheeseburgers or something. You could call that team building, but 1 US foursome stayed and played the back 9. The Euros stuck around and practiced, signed autographs, etc. They were more friendly and won over the crowd too. I remember watching Langer grab the flag on 17 and hold it on the green where the Sunday position would be while the players would hit putts and chips from around the green. I much knew we were going to lose.