Ryder Cup 2016

Joe_ Public

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Agreed.

The only things that I believe were mistakes by Clarke were making such a big deal of P.J. Willett's article; he could have taken that on himself and left Danny out of it altogether, and his selections for the Saturday afternoon fourballs.

I can't really fault him for his picks. It'd be hypocritical of me to do it as I really couldn't see any viable alternatives at the time other than possibly Knox, but that was a 50/50 call at best.

Yeah, I know Clarke made the excuse of having to have his pairings in early, but it was still a mistake not to have put RC-B back out for sure and he handled Willett terribly though I don't think that was a huge surprise.

Somebody quoted a line there a while back which nails it for me: how Clarke was bigging up the rookies in interviews but when it came down to it, he didn't have faith in them as a whole. I don't believe he ever did. I think deep down he probably felt he was dealt a bad hand and he doesn't possess the set of motivational skills that might have made the best of it.

Somebody also suggested the idea of benching players until the singles, but I don't believe that works either. In an alternate dimension, it's possible a captain might have picked Pieters and Knox as wildcards, gone to an away RC with 7 rookies, and talked of a new era, saying how he believed in these guys and that they had no fear and then building a team that gave them a central role, not the peripheral role they had in Hazeltine. But what captain would actually have done that and risked the obvious derision if it had all fallen apart? Not sure one exists to be honest.

Letree

AnneFrank wrote: »

Who would you guys like as the next captain ? I presume Bjorn is the frontrunner ?

Someone who is not British or Irish at this stage.

abff

AnneFrank wrote: »

Who would you guys like as the next captain ? I presume Bjorn is the frontrunner ?

I thought Padraig Harrington was supposed to be the front runner, or will the fact that the last two captains have been Irish go against him?

ligerdub

I don't think Bjorn fits the bill really, nor do I suspect he really wants it. He seems happy enough to be a head honcho on the admin side of things and keep a part of the senior guys in the background staff. A sort of affable consultant to the captain, good link to the players sort of guy.

That being said I think he has earned his stripes if he were to push himself for the role.

There are no real obvious candidates at this point. I'd like to see Monty take another crack at it personally. Europe has run out of marquee players using a one-term policy.

In regards the Westwood pick debate, I think it's good to remind ourselves of the qualification rankings.
http://www.europeantour.com/rydercup/points/

European Points
1. Kjeldsen
2. Pieters
3. Hatton
4. Kaymer
5. Dubuisson
6. Olesen
7. Lowry
8. Westwood (15th overall)

World Points
1. Knox
2. Pieters
3. Kjeldsen
4. Kaymer
5. Westwood (14th overall)
6. Hatton

Looking at these lists I think it would have been almost unthinkable for Clarke to pick Hatton over Westwood. The world list was always going to be more significant in terms of the picks anyway, as the European list is essentially there as a gesture to those playing more on the European tour. So of the guys above Westwood, 2 of them ended up being wildcard picks. Of the remaining there lies Knox and Kjeldsen, both players who could have had reasonable hopes of being selected. Did they really have sufficient pedigree or standing in the game to give Clarke a selection headache? Yes. Was the selection of Westwood based on final standings and relative choices surprising? Not at all.

The selection of Kaymer is clearly not even debatable in terms of it being right or not, it clearly was. A selection of Knox, Pieters ands Kjeldsen would have probably led to an angry mob at the press conference announcing the team!

abff

ligerdub wrote: »

There are no real obvious candidates at this point. I'd like to see Monty take another crack at it personally. Europe has run out of marquee players using a one-term policy.

Am I missing something here? Surely Harrington must be considered a marquee player? Or does winning 3 majors no longer qualify someone for that status?

daithi7

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Agreed.

The only things that I believe were mistakes by Clarke were making such a big deal of P.J. Willett's article; he could have taken that on himself and left Danny out of it altogether, and his selections for the Saturday afternoon fourballs.
......

So you don't consider the following mistakes!?

1. Selecting Westwood (with no form, and an inability to putt and/or chip like a pro) as a wildcard ahead of Knox
2. After selecting him in the team, then picking him in a 4somes match to start the European challenge
3. Then when he was absolutely useless at that, selecting him again on the Saturday evening (head& wall )
4. Breaking up the two Spaniards (Yes he gave the excuse re early registration of teams, funny how Love doesn't need any such excuse mind)
5. Announcing his wildcards ~3 weeks before Love (advantage America!!)
6. The hysterical reacton to Willet's brother's article, totally disproportionate on an issue Danny Willet couldn't control. (You've acknowledged this one to be fair)

Overall, Clarke was out thought, out prepared and out selected by captain Love. He beat him at every aspect of leading his team, sorry. So with this deficit in leadership and Europe's lower average ranking away from home, they were primed for a hiding, which what they got.

P.s. I'd like to feel sorry for Clarke, but after his disgraceful attempted undermining of the( ironically) excellent captain McGinley, he deserves every criticism he's now getting imho. He was a poor captain, who was underhanded in his seeking of the job in the first place, who made repeatedly poor selection mistakes with his team, & then of his session pairings,(again& again) and was a poor man manager to boot (e.g. Willet bro issue). He wasn't quite as bad as Faldo, (or James) but worse than Monty imho & that's not exactly gold standard (e.g. Jacklin, Olazabel, McGinley, etc). Pity but what goes around comes around.

ligerdub

abff wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Surely Harrington must be considered a marquee player? Or does winning 3 majors no longer qualify someone for that status?

An oversight on my part. Now that you mention it though I'm unsure if the captaincy suits Harrington. Nothing to do with the talent of the man, more so a quirky personality type, a very laid back kind of guy.

abff

daithi7 wrote: »

So you don't consider the following mistakes!?

1. Selecting Westwood (with no form, and an inability to putt and/or chip like a pro) as a wildcard ahead of Knox
2. After selecting him in the team, then picking him in a 4somes match to start the European challenge
3. Then when he was absolutely useless at that, selecting him again on the Saturday evening (head& wall )
4. Breaking up the two Spaniards (Yes he gave the excuse re early registration of teams, funny how Love doesn't need any such excuse mind)
5. Announcing his wildcards ~3 weeks before Love (advantage America!!)
6. The hysterical reacton to Willet's brother's article, totally disproportionate on an issue Danny Willet couldn't control. (You've acknowledged this one to be fair)

Overall, Clarke was out thought, out prepared and out selected by captain Love. He beat him at every aspect of leading his team, sorry. So with this deficit in leadership and Europe's lower average ranking away from home, they were primed for a hiding, which what they got.

P.s. I'd like to feel sorry for Clarke, but after his disgraceful attempted undermining of the( ironically) excellent captain McGinley, he deserves every criticism he's now getting imho. He was a poor captain, who was underhanded in his seeking of the job in the first place, who made repeatedly poor selection mistakes with his team, & then of his session pairings,(again& again) and was a poor man manager to boot (e.g. Willet bro issue). He wasn't quite as bad as Faldo, (or James) but worse than Monty imho & that's not exactly gold standard (e.g. Jacklin, Olazabel, McGinley, etc). Pity but what goes around comes around.

Harsh, but a lot of truth in it (particularly regarding his disgraceful attempt to undermine McGinley).

Joe_ Public

ligerdub wrote: »

An oversight on my part. Now that you mention it though I'm unsure if the captaincy suits Harrington. Nothing to do with the talent of the man, more so a quirky personality type, a very laid back kind of guy.

Harrington doesn't actually strike me as being laid back when it comes to his golf, very finicky, always tinkering, almost to an obsessive compulsive degree. He's so meticulous that he'd make even McGinley look a bit slapdash. That's not a criticism by the way, just an observation. I think he'd be a fascinating Ryder Cup captain, but not guaranteed to be a rip roaring success.

Seve OB

abff wrote: »

I thought Padraig Harrington was supposed to be the front runner, or will the fact that the last two captains have been Irish go against him?

abff wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Surely Harrington must be considered a marquee player? Or does winning 3 majors no longer qualify someone for that status?

ligerdub wrote: »

An oversight on my part. Now that you mention it though I'm unsure if the captaincy suits Harrington. Nothing to do with the talent of the man, more so a quirky personality type, a very laid back kind of guy.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Harrington doesn't actually strike me as being laid back when it comes to his golf, very finicky, always tinkering, almost to an obsessive compulsive degree. He's so meticulous that he'd make even McGinley look a bit slapdash. That's not a criticism by the way, just an observation. I think he'd be a fascinating Ryder Cup captain, but not guaranteed to be a rip roaring success.

Harrington has pretty much already ruled himself out. Said he wants to play on the team rather than being captain.

Joe_ Public

Seve OB wrote: »

Harrington has pretty much already ruled himself out. Said he wants to play on the team rather than being captain.

Very understandable. What's the rush anyway? His time will come. It's possibly a long shot, but wouldn't entirely rule him out of qualifying or at least putting himself in the running for a wild card next time around.

HighLine

There is as much of a chance as Monty getting a wild card pick for 2018 as there is Paddy.

ionadnapóca

HighLine wrote: »

There is as much of a chance as Monty getting a wild card pick for 2018 as there is Paddy.

That's why he will be an automatic choice!
Legend

abff

ionadnapokot wrote: »

That's why he will be an automatic choice!
Legend

I agree he's unlikely to get a wildcard. But I wouldn't rule out the chances of him winning another major and qualifying automatically.

Russman

Rightly or wrongly I can't see them going for 3 Irish captains in a row, regardless of Harrington's merits.

Maybe Jimenez would be a good fit for 2018, followed by Harrington in 2020 in America where he's hugely popular, and then Westwood or Robert Karlsson for 2022 which could be back in continental Europe again. Followed by Luke Donald in 2024 back in America where he lives.

Would Harrington give Sergio a wildcard or maybe have him as a vice captain ??:D:D

AnneFrank

Bjorn was on skynews this morning saying he wants the job, i think he's a cert for it now to be honest.
Padraig is a little odd and always has been since his juvenile days in stackstown, but a very interesting guy and got the very last drop out of his talent so i don't see why not.He's not half as odd as monty and has three more majors

benny79

How did Clarke undermine Mcginley again??

paulos53

I would be surprised if Padraig gets a chance to be Ryder Cup captain if he doesn't get it in 2018

In 2020 the likes of Westwood, Poulter and Donald will all be looking for the captaincy. 2022 will be Harrington's first full season on the Champions Tour and he may not want any distractions.

By 2024 the mainstays of recent teams like Garcia, Rose, McDowell and Stenson will all be in their mid 40s and potentials to be captain

alxmorgan

benny79 wrote: »

How did Clarke undermine Mcginley again??

From this: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/ryder-cup-captain-darren-clarke-says-sorry-to-paul-mcginley-after-five-year-feud-34556935.html

The pair infamously fell out after Clarke changed his mind on supporting McGinley's bid to captain the European team at the 2014 tournament, deciding instead to also run for the top role.

The Dungannon man caused further friction when he then also suggested that Europe should appoint Colin Montgomerie as captain instead.

The pair's relationship became increasingly bitter and McGinley told the Irish Independent at the time that he and Clarke were barely on speaking terms.

At the time McGinley said: "Our conversations are short and sweet. It's: 'How are you?' 'Fine'. Move on."

valoren

benny79 wrote: »

How did Clarke undermine Mcginley again??

After Medinah, the PGA of America with a special committee decided to appoint Tom Watson as the next captain.

It was known that McGinley was long thought of as a nailed on European captain for Gleneagles (having been vice captain, Royal trophy, Seve trophy captain, he had served his time, courted the role and had earned a call up). Clarke had publically endorsed McGinley for the role.

Following the bombshell that Watson would be the captain, the last to win on European soil, and all the iconic status he brought, it was felt that Europe required a captain of 'prominence', 'stature', 'experience' within the game to counter the selection of Watson.

Following this Clarke decided to seek the appointment, the implication here was the McGinley was an unknown, in the US particularly and Europe would require someone known and with some clout I guess.

It was here that Colin Montgomerie also threw his hat into the ring at the 11th hour. Clarke ultimately took himself out of consideration and subsequently backed Monty which was looked at as him throwing McGinley, his long time friend, under the bus.

It took a tweet from McIlroy, who was the in form player in the world at the time, and a number of other vocal supporters of Paul that swayed the selection committee to choose McGinley over Monty with their selection vindicated in the end as Paul did an exemplary job.

Seve OB

valoren wrote: »

It took a tweet from McIlroy, who was the in form player in the world at the time, and a number of other vocal supporters of Paul that swayed the selection committee to choose McGinley over Monty with their selection vindicated in the end as Paul did an exemplary job.

In fairness, I don't think there was a lot of swaying needed.

ionadnapóca

Russman wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly I can't see them going for 3 Irish captains in a row...

Would Harrington give Sergio a wildcard or maybe have him as a vice captain ??:D:D

Wrongly!
Third times a charm. Luck of the Irish. faith and begorrah Etc

Harrington select El Niño - enfant terrible - best player yet 2 win major - El puttsallot - El fat 1 - insert other witty about fat Spaniard with crooked putter
Yes he would. Because Sergio is a great RC player.
Particularly when paired with the right player.
Oh. Dear.

Rikand

Russman wrote: »

Would Harrington give Sergio a wildcard or maybe have him as a vice captain ??:D:D

He would definitely give him a wildcard, though I dont suspect he would need to. Garcia is improving as a player year on year by improving his temperament, I expect he will qualify by rights to every ryder cup team for the next 10 years at least.

Garcia wont need another vice captain role till at least 2026 and I'd reckon most likely 2028 - In fact, I reckon he will be captain in 2030 - A decadian year for the player with the most points scored in Ryder Cup history. (he'll probably have about 40 points by then )

CMOTDibbler

daithi7 wrote: »

So you don't consider the following mistakes!?

1. Selecting Westwood (with no form, and an inability to putt and/or chip like a pro) as a wildcard ahead of Knox

No. Look back on this thread to when he was picked. Not many people thought it a bad idea. And Knox's putting isn't great either. Look at his stats.

daithi7 wrote: »

2. After selecting him in the team, then picking him in a 4somes match to start the European challenge

Putting the experienced players out first with a couple of rookies isn't a bad idea.

daithi7 wrote: »

3. Then when he was absolutely useless at that, selecting him again on the Saturday evening (head& wall )

That's what I said...

daithi7 wrote: »

4. Breaking up the two Spaniards (Yes he gave the excuse re early registration of teams, funny how Love doesn't need any such excuse mind)

Again, what I said.

daithi7 wrote: »

5. Announcing his wildcards ~3 weeks before Love (advantage America!!)

That's been the European procedure from way before Clarke had the job. You can hardly blame him for that.

daithi7 wrote: »

6. The hysterical reacton to Willet's brother's article, totally disproportionate on an issue Danny Willet couldn't control. (You've acknowledged this one to be fair)

Yes, I have. As with the other two above as well.

daithi7

So by acknowledging 3 out of the 6 major mistakes that I highlighted that Clarke made as captain, and then since I did point out beforehand that Westwood was a crap selection, tacitly acknowledging a 4th (I.e that Westwood was a crap selection& that Knox should have been preferred) , are you now agreeing that Clarke made multiple errors , and hence that he was a (piss) poor captain!?!

Cos imho he was, sorry.

alxmorgan

My issue with all of this is that the result leads the argument far too much.

Take McGinley for example. He puts Gallagher out with an out of form Poulter. If we had lost he would have been slated for that. absolutely slated.
You would also have heard noises about him not being a big enough name to go against Watson and how he micro-managed everything.

If Clarke had won no doubt Westwoods experience in the locker room would have been invaluable and we couldn't have done it without him however badly he played. History is written by the victors.

Did he make all the right decisions ? Of course not, no captain does. This good captain/bad captain thing is all too binary for me. Like most things in life this is all shades of grey.

First Up

alxmorgan wrote: »

My issue with all of this is that the result leads the argument far too much.

Take McGinley for example. He puts Gallagher out with an out of form Poulter. If we had lost he would have been slated for that. absolutely slated.
You would also have heard noises about him not being a big enough name to go against Watson and how he micro-managed everything.

If Clarke had won no doubt Westwoods experience in the locker room would have been invaluable and we couldn't have done it without him however badly he played. History is written by the victors.

Did he make all the right decisions ? Of course not, no captain does. This good captain/bad captain thing is all too binary for me. Like most things in life this is all shades of grey.

Of course it is easy to second guess after the event. However Clarke put way too much faith in Westwood and there's good reasons to wonder if he was being entirely objective about it.

Picking Westwood was understandable, even though there could be questions about how big a factor was their friendship and business relations. Clarke wanted someone whose judgement he trusted and every captain needs that.
His real mis-judgement was persisting with Westwood in a quasi-leadership role on the course when it was obvious that he was really struggling with his own game. I think Clarke's heart ruled his head on that one.

I don't blame him for not picking Knox. Pieters was a non brainer and both Kaymer and Westwood brought some much needed experience to balance the rookies. Besides, Knox is hardly an appropriate representative for the European Tour. He was equally if not better qualified for the US team.

mickmackmcgoo

First Up wrote:

Picking Westwood was understandable, even though there could be questions about how big a factor was their friendship and business relations. Clarke wanted someone whose judgement he trusted and every captain needs that. His real mis-judgement was persisting with Westwood in a quasi-leadership role on the course when it was obvious that he was really struggling with his own game. I think Clarke's heart ruled his head on that one.

Agree on this , it was poor judgement. In one sense Clarke got lucky that they were not beaten by more due to Pieters forcing a pick . If Pieters hadn't won the last tournament before the captains picks there is no way Clarke would have picked him. He would have went with Donald I think

DiegoWorst

alxmorgan wrote: »

My issue with all of this is that the result leads the argument far too much.

Take McGinley for example. He puts Gallagher out with an out of form Poulter. If we had lost he would have been slated for that. absolutely slated.
You would also have heard noises about him not being a big enough name to go against Watson and how he micro-managed everything.

If Clarke had won no doubt Westwoods experience in the locker room would have been invaluable and we couldn't have done it without him however badly he played. History is written by the victors.

Did he make all the right decisions ? Of course not, no captain does. This good captain/bad captain thing is all too binary for me. Like most things in life this is all shades of grey.

well said
its getting like football, if the team doesn't win the manager gets it in the neck.

The entire US team played great golf and holed a lot of important putts, a few of Europe's players couldn't match that level. It was a fair result.

Rikand

Westy winning in England. Maybe the pick was right, he just didn't peak at the right time