Ryder Cup 2016

Seve OB · 03-10-2016 01:56PM

luvthegame wrote: »

http://www.sportinglife.com/golf/news/article/585/10603007/ben-coley-reflects-on-mistakes-made-by-europe-captain-darren-clarke-as-usa-won-the-ryder-cup

This article pretty much sums it up

Hmm, firstly this has nothing to do with his captaincy

The first real concerns over Clarke's leadership arrived on Wednesday night, when news of Peter Willett's ill-judged column first broke

then this. Well the media get things like this and do be like a dog with a bone. he had to address it, and he did so in a pretty decent manner IMO.

proceeded to explain to the media that which did not need explaining: that this was not the view of Team Europe

then this, what wrong with saying to the guys, look sorry about PJ, that whole masters thing went to his head and now he thinks he belongs on "Have I got news for you"

Danny Willett went a step further, personally apologising to Davis Love III and his team, none of whom had been referenced in an article

Then go on about Clarkes speech. I didn't watch the opening ceremony, but we all know some people are just better at that kind of stuff than others. It doesn't mean the that it was another "rookie mistake"

I've had enough of the straw clutching at that and haven't bothered with the rest of the article. Sometimes, you don't have to grasp and clutch so hard. Sometimes, the better team just wins...... :P

Rikand · 03-10-2016 01:59PM

Seve OB wrote: »

Hmm, firstly this has nothing to do with his captaincy

then this. Well the media get things like this and do be like a dog with a bone. he had to address it, and he did so in a pretty decent manner IMO.

then this, what wrong with saying to the guys, look sorry about PJ, that whole masters thing went to his head and now he thinks he belongs on "Have I got news for you"

Then go on about Clarkes speech. I didn't watch the opening ceremony, but we all know some people are just better at that kind of stuff than others. It doesn't mean the that it was another "rookie mistake"

I've had enough of the straw clutching at that and haven't bothered with the rest of the article. Sometimes, you don't have to grasp and clutch so hard. Sometimes, the better team just wins...... :P

The rest of the article gets better

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 02:06PM

Seve OB wrote: »

Hmm, firstly this has nothing to do with his captaincy

then this. Well the media get things like this and do be like a dog with a bone. he had to address it, and he did so in a pretty decent manner IMO.

then this, what wrong with saying to the guys, look sorry about PJ, that whole masters thing went to his head and now he thinks he belongs on "Have I got news for you"

Then go on about Clarkes speech. I didn't watch the opening ceremony, but we all know some people are just better at that kind of stuff than others. It doesn't mean the that it was another "rookie mistake"

I've had enough of the straw clutching at that and haven't bothered with the rest of the article. Sometimes, you don't have to grasp and clutch so hard. Sometimes, the better team just wins...... :P

My gut feeling when it was reported that Clarke had gone to see Danny Willett about the article was that it was the wrong thing to do. It felt like the teacher going to the parents about what Little Johnny said in class. By all means give him a heads up to prepare for the inevitable questions, but coupled with Willett going to the US team to apologise, gave the overriding impression of Clarke making Willett responsible for something he had no hand, act or part in.

When something like that happens, it's surely the captain's job to support the player and play it down. Not make a fuss about it, broadcast to the world that you've gone straight to the player and make it look like it's his problem and that he has to apologise for it. Then drop the player.

03-10-2016 02:50PM

I don't like Clarke in the slightest and do agree that he was a very unconvincing captain but that sportling life article is completely benefit-of-hindsight / rear-view-mirror stuff.
The better team won - mostly on form.
Clarke picked Westwood and Kaymer for experience but should have recognized that their form was poor and not picked at least one of them in the first place and and also in general should have been better at recognising form during the event when it was in front of him. (the one point the article gets right).

First Up · 03-10-2016 02:54PM

luvthegame wrote:

This article pretty much sums it up

Good article. Maybe a bit too much 20-20 hindsight but its undeniable that Clarke overly relied on and favoured his chums.

It could be argued that giving it to Bjorn next time runs a similar risk but he is less prone to schmoozing with the US media and I think would be more objective and hard-nosed in his decisions.

I hear Poulter being touted as a captain which I can't decide if its meant to be a joke or what.

Joe_ Public · 03-10-2016 02:58PM

glasso wrote: »

I don't like Clarke in the slightest and do agree that he was a very unconvincing captain but that sportling life article is completely benefit-of-hindsight / rear-view-mirror stuff.
The better team won - mostly on form.
Clarke picked Westwood and Kaymer for experience but should have recognized that their form was poor and not picked at least one of them in the first place and and also in general should have been better at recognising form during the event when it was in front of him. (the one point the article gets right).

So you're suggesting he should have picked a team with 7 rookies (potentially 8 if both Westwood and Kaymer were overlooked)? Maybe there's a case for having done so but I doubt he'd have got much credit for it at the time or that many in his position would have done anything differently.

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 03:08PM

glasso wrote: »

I don't like Clarke in the slightest and do agree that he was a very unconvincing captain but that sportling life article is completely benefit-of-hindsight / rear-view-mirror stuff.
The better team won - mostly on form.
Clarke picked Westwood and Kaymer for experience but should have recognized that their form was poor and not picked at least one of them in the first place and and also in general should have been better at recognising form during the event when it was in front of him. (the one point the article gets right).

I'm not sure it's all hindsight. There were a lot of people here questioning the pairings at the time. There's nobody really disputing the original selections for the Friday morning foursomes apart from perhaps the inclusion of Westwood and dropping Danny Willett. But it was the calls that were made for Saturday afternoon that most people had issues with and especially breaking up Sergio and RCB. I appreciate that he had to make the call early, but they were actually playing well with three birdies on the front nine and if he wanted to know who Sergio wanted to play with, he should have been asking him before he had to get the names in. That seems stupid if true.

ligerdub · 03-10-2016 03:13PM

I think it's fair to say that Willett had a really bad experience. I dare say he didn't want to be there at all in the end.

As far as I know they changed the rule regarding the home team setting the course up a certain way. I recall Paul McGinley stating that he couldn't setup the course the way he wanted as it had to go through other channels of communication (possibly even an agreement between both countries PGA). In any event the difference in length was practically non-existent, about 3 yards on average drivage distance comparing the two teams.

They seem to set it up fairly easy for the Ryder Cup over there about half the time. I think the most ridiculous example of this was Valhalla. There was absolutely no rough there....and more to the point there seemed to be hardly any trees there either! I don't think it favoured one team over the other in terms of big hitters, better putters etc, what it does though is increase the chances of birdies. More birdies = more cheering = building the crowd up into a frenzy = noise going around the course, encouraging for the home crowd, intimidating for the away crowd! You always hear about the away team wanting to silence the fans, there's a reason for that, they feel the pressure of the noise!

The course in Paris is one tough course, no matter how they set that one up rough wise there is a real premium on accuracy. It's one of my favourite courses on the European rota. I can't see that one being a particularly partisan crowd, and I can see a lot of Americans willing to make the trip. Any time I'm in Paris the overriding accent I hear (after French) is American! In fact I'd imagine the logistics for Americans travelling to Europe is fairly straight forward. The same is rarely true in reverse, probably deliberately. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Chicago, Kentucky, Missouri, Massachusetts, New York State, South Carolina...............only two of those are easy to access. Compare this to pretty much all of the European ones, fly to London, direct, chances are you'll be near the venue.

Benicetomonty · 03-10-2016 03:31PM

Don't agree with Rose's comments on the course set-up; Augusta has virtually no rough and almost any missed fairway still gives you the chance of a recovery but nobody criticizes that place. Fans and audiences want to see birdies and eagles not pars and bogeys winning holes, so in my view, Hazeltine was perfectly set up. It's not as if there were no bogeys or worse being made.

Overall, it was a very entertaining tournament. USA went in as favourites and completely justified the label, they played incredible golf. Reed in particular was a revelation.

I'm no fan of Patrick Reed, and felt he got a little too excited once or twice, noticeably against McIlroy on (I think) the 6th hole when he started shushing him, but holy moly, do I respect how he performed this week. He made himself a serious target after Gleneagles and managed to embrace the challenge in a way I've not seen by any other American. To date, only Poulter and Colin Montgomerie have proven themselves European equivalents, and I'm not sure that I'm not more impressed with Reed. Stenson for one, wouldve been absolutely gunning for him after losing the singles in Scotland, and Reed stared him down 2 out of their 3 matches.

Then, to go up against Rory, who was close to his best and play simply outrageous golf for 8 holes before turning it back on when it counted was seriously impressive. He would've known what McIlroy did to Fowler when Rickie was first man out in 2014 but he was able to overcome all that and prove himself the 'intimidator', as opposed to the intimidated! The guy's got an ego like I've never seen but it'll be even larger after this, and justifiably so.

Finally, having just watched the European press conference, I can only commend them on how they've conducted themselves this week. McIlroy in particular has again proved himself as a class act, with well-thought out, measured responses to questions that would have resulted in inflammatory responses from a less patient player. He is a world class golfer but an even better ambassador for the game, with any brief lapses in judgement on or off the course being dwarfed by his general play and conduct. Possibly the biggest embarrassment for the small percentage of the US galleries that give at least some credit to the pennings of our man PJ Willet is that they chose to target Rory. I always thought Monty was deluded when he said he felt he was targeted at the event because of the threat he posed to US success as opposed to how much of a pompous, spoiled brat he was, but maybe he had a point.

ligerdub · 03-10-2016 03:44PM

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Don't agree with Rose's comments on the course set-up; Augusta has virtually no rough and almost any missed fairway still gives you the chance of a recovery but nobody criticizes that place. Fans and audiences want to see birdies and eagles not pars and bogeys winning holes, so in my view, Hazeltine was perfectly set up. It's not as if there were no bogeys or worse being made.

Overall, it was a very entertaining tournament. USA went in as favourites and completely justified the label, they played incredible golf. Reed in particular was a revelation.

I'm no fan of Patrick Reed, and felt he got a little too excited once or twice, noticeably against McIlroy on (I think) the 6th hole when he started shushing him, but holy moly, do I respect how he performed this week. He made himself a serious target after Gleneagles and managed to embrace the challenge in a way I've not seen by any other American. To date, only Poulter and Colin Montgomerie have proven themselves European equivalents, and I'm not sure that I'm not more impressed with Reed. Stenson for one, wouldve been absolutely gunning for him after losing the singles in Scotland, and Reed stared him down 2 out of their 3 matches.

Then, to go up against Rory, who was close to his best and play simply outrageous golf for 8 holes before turning it back on when it counted was seriously impressive. He would've known what McIlroy did to Fowler when Rickie was first man out in 2014 but he was able to overcome all that and prove himself the 'intimidator', as opposed to the intimidated! The guy's got an ego like I've never seen but it'll be even larger after this, and justifiably so.

Finally, having just watched the European press conference, I can only commend them on how they've conducted themselves this week. McIlroy in particular has again proved himself as a class act, with well-thought out, measured responses to questions that would have resulted in inflammatory responses from a less patient player. He is a world class golfer but an even better ambassador for the game, with any brief lapses in judgement on or off the course being dwarfed by his general play and conduct. Possibly the biggest embarrassment for the small percentage of the US galleries that give at least some credit to the pennings of our man PJ Willet is that they chose to target Rory. I always thought Monty was deluded when he said he felt he was targeted at the event because of the threat he posed to US success as opposed to how much of a pompous, spoiled brat he was, but maybe he had a point.

They don't criticise Augusta because it's synonymous with Bobby Jones, a legend of the game. Also the real skill around there is the greens. Miss them and you're in serious trouble....even hitting the greens is no automatic relief, you have to hit the right spots. They probably don't play on tougher greens all season. Having said that I find the lack of punishment on poor driving to be a serious weakness of the course, and for me it's why I don't view it as the number 1 major of the year. Spieth nearly won the Masters this year and his swing was all over the shop, I felt it would have been a bit of a joke had he ended up winning it.

Rory is smart, he knows he's going to be in the mix in the majors over there and he can't afford to Sergio up his persona and put a bullseye on his back for the fans. So he'll give it the big one on the course, and then revert back to the Uncle Tom "I love Americans" after the golf is done. The Ryder cup is big for him, but he knows it's merely a brief factor of his life, he has business to attend to for the rest of the 2 year cycle.

valoren · 03-10-2016 03:54PM

There is no rough at Augusta. There is however the Second Cut

It's known that Augusta's primary defence are the greens, there's a litany of bunkers on the course that are present more purely for aesthetics for the Masters albeit would be practical from the members tees.

The Ryder Cup is Golf's showpiece team event. It would hardly induce more viewers were it a par-bogey suffer fest. If anything, such a course would slow down the already ridiculous pace of play on these 'easy' course set ups.

sky88 · 03-10-2016 04:23PM

valoren wrote: »

There is no rough at Augusta. There is however the Second Cut
It's known that Augusta's primary defence are the greens, there's a litany of bunkers on the course that are present more purely for aesthetics for the Masters albeit would be practical from the members tees.

The Ryder Cup is Golf's showpiece team event. It would hardly induce more viewers were it a par-bogey suffer fest. If anything, such a course would slow down the already ridiculous pace of play on these 'easy' course set ups.

Matchplay i would much rather just a birdie shootout look at phil vs sergio phenomanal game. Thats much better to look at then if there choppy around the course winning holes with pars and bogeys

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 04:28PM

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Don't agree with Rose's comments on the course set-up; Augusta has virtually no rough and almost any missed fairway still gives you the chance of a recovery but nobody criticizes that place. Fans and audiences want to see birdies and eagles not pars and bogeys winning holes, so in my view, Hazeltine was perfectly set up. It's not as if there were no bogeys or worse being made.

Augusta may not have rough (although it does on some holes), but you get in the trees and it's goodnight to any chance of a par unless you're extremely lucky or very good (Bubba Watson in his first win or Phil in any of his). That's the point of hitting fairways really. Courses like Hazeltine need rough to punish the wayward and that was taken out of the equation completely.

But the fact that out of twenty-four players only one was over par says it all really.

Player|Holes|Score
Patrick Reed|18|-4
Rory McIlroy|18|-3
Jordan Spieth|16|-4
Henrik Stenson|16|-8
JB Holmes|16|-2
Thomas Pieters|16|-5
Rickie Fowler|18|-3
Justin Rose|18|-1
Jimmy Walker|16|-2
Rafa Cabrera Bello|16|-5
Phil Mickelson|18|-9
Sergio Garcia|18|-9
Ryan Moore|18|-2
Lee Westwood|18|-2
Brandt Snedeker|17|-4
Andy Sullivan|17|Par
Dustin Johnson|18|-5
Chris Wood|18|-4
Brooks Koepka|14|-6
Danny Willett|14|Par
Matt Kuchar|18|-4
Martin Kaymer|18|-5
Zach Johnson|15|-3
Matthew FitzPatrick|15|+1

captbarnacles · 03-10-2016 04:36PM

I want it played on Carnoustie..1999 open setup.

captbarnacles · 03-10-2016 04:39PM

Re the Saturday pairings: Clarke was probably in a group of one who thought ww and kaymer should be played. Noone I spoke to or read of thought they should play so not hindsight

G1032 · 03-10-2016 04:54PM

sky88 wrote: »

Matchplay i would much rather just a birdie shootout look at phil vs sergio phenomanal game. Thats much better to look at then if there choppy around the course winning holes with pars and bogeys

But a course set up for a birdie shootout just turns into a putting competition. Knock it down the fairway, knock it on the green and see who can make the putt. No real course management required. No risk/reward dilemma. As Rose says... Look at 17. Pin should have been over near the water. If you need to win the hole then go attack the pin. Full duck or no dinner so to speak. While the putting competition can be very exciting it doesn't test the full repertoire of the golfer.

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 04:59PM

G1032 wrote: »

But a course set up for a birdie shootout just turns into a putting competition. Knock it down the fairway, knock it on the green and see who can make the putt. No real course management required. No risk/reward dilemma. As Rose says... Look at 17. Pin should have been over near the water. If you need to win the hole then go attack the pin. Full duck or no dinner so to speak. While the putting competition can be very exciting it doesn't test the full repertoire of the golfer.

+1

As I (and others) said, it's not golf. The example of Jimmy Walker missing the green so badly that he missed the water too and still having a birdie putt makes a nonsense of it. Granted it can happen with a good lie and a bit of luck, but not all the time. But the US were the hosts and they set up to play to their strengths and to negate their weaknesses is fair enough. It doesn't make what Rose said wrong either.

Benicetomonty · 03-10-2016 05:20PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Augusta may not have rough (although it does on some holes), but you get in the trees and it's goodnight to any chance of a par unless you're extremely lucky or very good (Bubba Watson in his first win or Phil in any of his). That's the point of hitting fairways really. Courses like Hazeltine need rough to punish the wayward and that was taken out of the equation completely.

But the fact that out of twenty-four players only one was over par says it all really.

Player|Holes|Score
Patrick Reed|18|-4
Rory McIlroy|18|-3
Jordan Spieth|16|-4
Henrik Stenson|16|-8
JB Holmes|16|-2
Thomas Pieters|16|-5
Rickie Fowler|18|-3
Justin Rose|18|-1
Jimmy Walker|16|-2
Rafa Cabrera Bello|16|-5
Phil Mickelson|18|-9
Sergio Garcia|18|-9
Ryan Moore|18|-2
Lee Westwood|18|-2
Brandt Snedeker|17|-4
Andy Sullivan|17|Par
Dustin Johnson|18|-5
Chris Wood|18|-4
Brooks Koepka|14|-6
Danny Willett|14|Par
Matt Kuchar|18|-4
Martin Kaymer|18|-5
Zach Johnson|15|-3
Matthew FitzPatrick|15|+1

Listed scores dont take account of concessions or when players are racking up a cricket score and just pick up. Also plenty of trees in Hazeltine. The tee shot on 7 with water either side is arguably more demanding than any shot in Augusta, so there were a few holes where the guys had no bail out. Even if the semi rough and rough was short, it is still harder to control approaches than from the fairway so I really think youre overstating how the conditions may have influenced the outcome. USA played and putted better. No other explanation.

luvthegame · 03-10-2016 05:28PM

Benicetomonty wrote: »

USA played and putted better. No other explanation.

Correct. And if they don't pick players who can drive straight the Europeans will play and putt better in 2018.

adox · 03-10-2016 06:22PM

Watching the highlights now on the BBC.

Just feels right watching on the Beeb even though I know the unfortunate outcome.

FixdePitchmark · 03-10-2016 07:01PM

The reason Rose would say it - is because, he is a great ball striker and a very versatile player.

The end of the course was off the wall and a joke, pins were also laughable.

Traditionally European players excelled in ball striking - this was considered due to variety in their tour, in weather , conditions etc.

They are the type of golfers I like. I also admire American golfers with that variety too - likes of Phil, Tom Watson, Nicklaus, Stewart, Tiger. Even out there one like Bubba and Daly.

If you turn it into a putting contest - it makes it spectacular for TV and the fans , but it totally removes so many aspects of the game I value , and most people who love the game value.

Recovery
Bunker play
Shot shaping
Course management
Accuracy from distance

So the yanks did what they had to do to win.

I actually admire it in a way.

But for a while the golf was so unreal - I began to think there is something not right here.

I hope Darren didn't know this in advance - because, what on earth would you be picking Martin and Lee for, in a greens comp.

Jayop · 03-10-2016 07:14PM

The Scotch lad who talks golf on Off The Ball there was saying keymer was the worst pick possible really. That's fine, but who else would you put in his place? Luke Donald? The fact was we had 5 Rookies already qualified and he was never going to pick more than 1 more Rookie imo so that reduced his options.

bren2001 · 03-10-2016 07:16PM

Jayop wrote: »

The Scotch lad who talks golf on Off The Ball there was saying keymer was the worst pick possible really. That's fine, but who else would you put in his place? Luke Donald? The fact was we had 5 Rookies already qualified and he was never going to pick more than 1 more Rookie imo so that reduced his options.

Knox, form player. I never cared about that rookie stuff too much. Easy to say in hindsight, I didn't criticise Clarke when he picked them though, I could see why.

yaboya1 · 03-10-2016 07:26PM

The worst European defeat since 1981. Darren Clarke proved himself to be a truly shocking captain, even worse than Faldo in 2008.

Europe recovered well from a 4-0 session loss on the first day to grab all the crucial momentum, going into the final fourball session trailing by a solitary point. His critical selection errors for that session put a stop to the momentum they had gained, undoing all the good work and giving them no chance going into Sunday. A captain is judged on these sort of decisions and he failed miserably.

An out of form Westwood got a wildcard pick, obviously based on his stellar Ryder Cup record. That was fair enough, but he proved on Friday morning when getting murdered in the foursomes that the event hadn't been able to revive his game and he should have been left on the bench after that until Sunday. He is Clarke's mate though (not what you know......).

Martin Kaymer was awful in his two games on Friday, while Rafa Cabrera-Bello shone on his Cup debut with fellow Spaniard Garcia. An ominous new partnership appeared to have been formed for Europe, one the Americans wouldn't have fancied taking on again after a heroic comeback against one of their most formidable pairings on Saturday morning. Yet again Clarke again made a woeful selection choice, dropping the big hitting rookie for the out of form German. I don't think anyone understood that one.

All this may have been irrelevant to the overall result in the end and America may have gone on to win the singles (and the Ryder Cup) anyway. But those idiotic picks on Saturday afternoon cost Europe the vital momentum they had gained and any opportunity they had to win their fourth Cup in a row.

Clarke deserved the losing 17-11 scoreline to highlight his blindingly obvious mistakes.

ligerdub · 03-10-2016 07:31PM

All very well complaining after the fact if it was either 1) obviously poor wildcard selections and 2) there was a vocal opposition to Clarkes selections.

The fact is neither of these are true. As "if my Aunty had balls" as it is, if matches were only 16 holes duration then Westwood would be talking about the 2 points from 3 matches he scored. If Westwood wasn't picked and Knox was picked and was anything but exceptional then you'd have even louder voices about leaving a guy who was runner up in this years Masters, a leader, an experienced man in a vastly inexperienced team, one of the best Ryder cup golfers of all time, at home.

The wildcard picks were fine lads, stop clutching at straws. One was great, one was a bit meh, and one was at times awful, at other times excellent, but poor overall.

Jayop · 03-10-2016 07:33PM

Clarke had to announce the afternoon pairings before Garcia and Bello had made their fight back. That one's a bit of a false accusation, although if he had been told how well they were playing together then it's a fair argument that he shouldn't have pulled them.

I don't really think the scoreline is reflective of Clarke's ability to captain the side. 1/2 games going the other way on the final day and the score wouldn't have looked half as bad. I think the American's were just that much better this time and they set the course up 100% for their strengths which is their right.

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 08:01PM

Jayop wrote: »

Clarke had to announce the afternoon pairings before Garcia and Bello had made their fight back. That one's a bit of a false accusation, although if he had been told how well they were playing together then it's a fair argument that he shouldn't have pulled them.

I don't really think the scoreline is reflective of Clarke's ability to captain the side. 1/2 games going the other way on the final day and the score wouldn't have looked half as bad. I think the American's were just that much better this time and they set the course up 100% for their strengths which is their right.

But why did he go to Garcia after the fact and ask who he wanted to play with when he'd already put Kaymer's name in?

They were up against Reid and Spieth and were two under at the turn against five under. It wasn't as though they were playing badly. I thought it was a bad choice at the time to break that pair up and we'd already seen how poor Westy was. I'm not complaining about the picks; he needed experience in the team and it seemed reasonable to pick Westwood and Kaymer but having found pairings that worked, he really shouldn't have broken them up.

As for the course conditions and the short rough; Clarke had to have known about this. FFS Mickelson had even complained about the rough at the Tour Championship not being the same as Hazeltine. It may not have influenced his picks, but it certainly should have factored into his lineups.

yaboya1 · 03-10-2016 08:01PM

ligerdub wrote: »

All very well complaining after the fact if it was either 1) obviously poor wildcard selections and 2) there was a vocal opposition to Clarkes selections.

The fact is neither of these are true. As "if my Aunty had balls" as it is, if matches were only 16 holes duration then Westwood would be talking about the 2 points from 3 matches he scored. If Westwood wasn't picked and Knox was picked and was anything but exceptional then you'd have even louder voices about leaving a guy who was runner up in this years Masters, a leader, an experienced man in a vastly inexperienced team, one of the best Ryder cup golfers of all time, at home.

The wildcard picks were fine lads, stop clutching at straws. One was great, one was a bit meh, and one was at times awful, at other times excellent, but poor overall.

Don't know if this is directed at me, but I didn't criticise the wildcard pick(s). I'm saying after Westwood proved himself out of form, he shouldn't have been selected again before the singles.

Number 2 is true. Martin Kaymer had lost 2/2, while Cabrera-Bello won 1/1 and was playing well staging a fightback when the pairings had to be submitted.

By the way, I dont believe I even used the word 'if' in my entire post, so this "if my aunt had balls" stuff is irrelevant. Matches are 18 holes long, unless you win before that, which Westwood didn't and went on to lose (by the 14th on Friday). Again, not criticising his wildcard selection or the fact that he played on Friday. Just that he shouldn't have played again before Sunday having shown such poor form in the first session.

Hoof Hearted2 · 03-10-2016 08:03PM

yaboya1 wrote: »

The worst European defeat since 1981. Darren Clarke proved himself to be a truly shocking captain, even worse than Faldo in 2008.

Europe recovered well from a 4-0 session loss on the first day to grab all the crucial momentum, going into the final fourball session trailing by a solitary point. His critical selection errors for that session put a stop to the momentum they had gained, undoing all the good work and giving them no chance going into Sunday. A captain is judged on these sort of decisions and he failed miserably.

An out of form Westwood got a wildcard pick, obviously based on his stellar Ryder Cup record. That was fair enough, but he proved on Friday morning when getting murdered in the foursomes that the event hadn't been able to revive his game and he should have been left on the bench after that until Sunday. He is Clarke's mate though (not what you know......).

Martin Kaymer was awful in his two games on Friday, while Rafa Cabrera-Bello shone on his Cup debut with fellow Spaniard Garcia. An ominous new partnership appeared to have been formed for Europe, one the Americans wouldn't have fancied taking on again after a heroic comeback against one of their most formidable pairings on Saturday morning. Yet again Clarke again made a woeful selection choice, dropping the big hitting rookie for the out of form German. I don't think anyone understood that one.

All this may have been irrelevant to the overall result in the end and America may have gone on to win the singles (and the Ryder Cup) anyway. But those idiotic picks on Saturday afternoon cost Europe the vital momentum they had gained and any opportunity they had to win their fourth Cup in a row.

Clarke deserved the losing 17-11 scoreline to highlight his blindingly obvious mistakes.

Quoting the scoreline to back up your points only serves to highlight your ignorance of how the ride her cup works, a win is a win is a win, the scoreline is irrelevant and doesn't tell the full story. Even given all your "expert" points, the fact is had Westwood made the putt on Saturday evening there would have been only 2 points in it on Sunday and had Rory won his game like he should have the momentum (which by the way cannot be underestimated) would have been with the Europeans and almost certainly would have lead to victory.
It's normal for fans to bitch and moan after a defeat, but Jesus 99.99% of the waffle in thread misses the point completely and that is that the Americans performed better and deserved the win.

CMOTDibbler · 03-10-2016 08:11PM

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Quoting the scoreline to back up your points only serves to highlight your ignorance of how the ride her cup works, a win is a win is a win, the scoreline is irrelevant and doesn't tell the full story. Even given all your "expert" points, the fact is had Westwood made the putt on Saturday evening there would have been only 2 points in it on Sunday and had Rory won his game like he should have the momentum (which by the way cannot be underestimated) would have been with the Europeans and almost certainly would have lead to victory.
It's normal for fans to bitch and moan after a defeat, but Jesus 99.99% of the waffle in thread misses the point completely and that is that the Americans performed better and deserved the win.

Hmmm.

That works out to about half a post since the Ryder Cup was lost not being waffle. :pac:

Ryder Cup 2016

Comments