The Night of Long Knives

I deliberately put this off to see how I'd feel about things in the light of day.  And with the usual caveats that no one died and it's just golf, our hero Phil takes a deserved drubbing...  But let's make sure everyone's on the same page, here's from the transcript of the late Sunday team presser:

Q. Anyone that was on the team at Valhalla, can you put your finger on what worked in 2008 and what hasn't worked since?

PHIL MICKELSON: There were two things that allow us to play our best I think that

Paul Azinger did, and one was he got everybody invested in the process. He got everybody invested in who they were going to play with, who the picks were going to be, who was going to be in their pod, who -- when they would play, and they had a great leader for each pod.

In my case, we had Ray Floyd, and we hung out together and we were all invested in each other's play. We were invested in picking Hunter that week; Anthony Kim and myself and Justin were in a pod, and we were involved on having Hunter be our guy to fill our pod. So we were invested in the process. And the other thing that Paul did really well was he had a great game plan for us, you know, how we were going to go about doing this. How we were going to go about playing together; golf ball, format, what we were going to do, if so-and-so is playing well, if so-and-so is not playing well, we had a real game plan. Those two things helped us bring out our best golf. And I think that, you know, we all do the best that we can and we're all trying our hardest, and I'm just looking back at what gave us the most success. Because we use that same process in The Presidents Cup and we do really well. Unfortunately, we have strayed from a winning formula in 2008 for the last three Ryder Cups, and we need to consider maybe getting back to that formula that helped us play our best.

Q. That felt like a pretty brutal destruction of the leadership that's gone on this week.

PHIL MICKELSON: Oh, I'm sorry you're taking it that way. I'm just talking about what Paul Azinger did to help us play our best. It's certainly -- I don't understand why you would take it that way. You asked me what I thought we should do going toward to bring our best golf out and I go back to when we played our best golf and try to replicate that formula.

Q. That didn't happen this week?

PHIL MICKELSON: Uh (pausing) no. No, nobody here was in any decision. So, no.

OK, so no quotes out of context.... and here's Watson's retorts:

Q. Can you tell us what you think of what Phil said about Paul Azinger?

TOM WATSON: I had a different philosophy as far as being a captain of this team.

You know, it takes 12 players to win. It's not pods. It's 12 players. And I felt -- I based my decisions on -- yes, I did talk to the players, but my vice captains were very instrumental in making decisions as to whom to pair with. I had a different philosophy than Paul. I decided not to go that way. But I did have most of them play in the practise rounds together who played most of the time in the matches. I think that was the proper thing to do. Yes, I did mix-and-match a little bit from there, but again, you have to go with the evolution of the playing of the match and see who is playing the best and who to play with whom, and that's what I did.

Q. Every two years the two captains come in and say the hardest part of their job is benching people. Four years ago with all the problems at Celtic Manor, we had everybody playing in every format. Would you like to see that as part of the game? Seems to have 12 of the best players in the world and each time having four sitting in each session.

TOM WATSON: Yes, I would. I would like to see the change in that format. Then everybody knows they are going to go 36 holes and then everybody knows that they have to be in shape to play. That's one of the important decisions that I may have missed is playing, say, Jimmy Walker for four straight rounds, two 36-hole matches. And if that wasn't up to my decision, then every player wouldn't understand that. 

The video is available from Golf Channel here, but it's only of the first lengthy answer from Phil, and it excludes his Academy Award-worthy reaction that anyone could possibly construe his comments to reflect poorly on Captain Watson.  But it is worth a watch just to see the unfortunate Hunter Mahan's eyes darting around as he realizes where this is going...

So, wondering how the pundits have reacted?  Wonder no more (and I'm going to piggyback on Shackelford's extensive aggregation services):

Rex Hoggard had a relatively mild reaction:

In one of the most awkward moments in U.S. Ryder Cup history, Watson seemed to fire back moments later. 

“You know, it takes 12 players to win. It's not pods. It's 12 players,” he said.

Hoggard also helpfully provided this follow-up from Jim ("Alas, Poor") Furyk, who was asked about the comparisons between Azinger and Watson:

“I think that I have a lot of respect for both gentlemen. I've known Phil my entire life. And I have a lot of respect for our captain,” Furyk said. 

“I know he put his heart and soul in it for two years. He worked his ass off to try to provide what he thought would be the best opportunity for us. I don't think it's wise for either one of us to be pitted in the middle of that.”

There's a wiley vet who wants no part of this, at least at that moment of peak raw nerves.  Gene Wojciechowski  had this take at ESPN:

It was a stunning moment. No USA player has played in more Ryder Cup matches than

Mickelson. So when he questioned the logic of Watson, and by association, 2012 captain Davis Love III and 2010 captain Corey Pavin -- and does so in a public setting and not long after the latest loss -- it carried considerable weight.

The 65-year-old Watson stared wearily ahead as Mickelson spoke. Asked if he thought Mickelson was being "disloyal," Watson said, "Not at all. ... That's OK. My management philosophy is different than his."

It was bizarre, odd and surprisingly candid. But most of all, it was revealing. If Mickelson felt this way, how many others on the team shared his feelings?

I think Gene's most useful contribution is to remind us that Phil threw Corey Pavin and Davis Love under the bus with Cap'n. Tom, though does anyone remember similar comments at the Medinah press conference.

Then there's Martin Samuel, who doesn't pull any punches:

There was a war; an American, and not particularly civil, war. At the post-Ryder Cup inquest, Phil Mickelson sat on the right wing of the top table and took down his captain Tom Watson as brutally as any field assassin. 

That he did this in cool, measured, very reasonable tones typical of the man only added to the brutality. It was a polite destruction; a highly restrained mugging; a thoroughly decent battering.

Jason Sobel has some analogies he'd like to share with us:

In the demure world of golf, this was the verbal equivalent to Reggie Jackson brawling with Billy Martin in a dugout or Latrell Sprewell going for the throat of P.J. Carlesimo.

I was hoping to live out my remaining days without further mention of Latrell Sprewell, and certainly didn't think I would trip over him on the golf beat.  Later in the piece Sobel gets off his best line, referring to Phil's comments as a "Passive-aggressive coup," though perhaps some kind reader can point me to the passive part.

You'll also no doubt be glad to know that Brandel Chamblee hasn't been scarred by his time in the woodshed, as John Strege reports:

Golf Channel’s Brandel Chamblee slammed Phil Mickelson for his post-Ryder Cup comments, made with U.S. captain Tom Watson sitting on the same dais, calling it “as close to a one-man mutiny” that he’s ever seen.

“If you’re looking for a reason why the United States continues to lose, you just saw it in one man. Phil Mickelson. Phil Mickelson, along with the best players of that era, have so corrupted the experience of the Ryder Cup for their fellow competitors by not having records anywhere near what they should, given their rank in the game. 

“Players of an era who are the best go to the Ryder Cup and show off. And not goof off. Phil Mickelson in 2004 changed clubs at the Ryder Cup the week of. And the day before, he went to practice to another golf course. This is yet another example of not coming together as a team.

Yeah, I'll come back to this later, but Phil is, to say the least, an imperfect messenger given his Ryder Cup record.

You might also be interested on this Tim Rosaforte Golf Channel piece in which he reveals that he and Phil texted Saturday evening about Phil's frustration at the lack of communication from Watson, and asserted that he's not the only one that felt that way.

No doubt you're getting the gist of the reaction, but on the day after everyone jumped on the knifing analogy.  First, from the Sports Illustrated roundtable:

BAMBERGER: I thought Brandel's response was more interesting. Phil obviously doesn't like Watson and he had the ideal platform to let the world know. Watson's been doing the same thing to others for years, most notably Woods, Gary McCord, liberals. I've been worried that Brandel lost his bite ever since GC dressed him down after he took on Woods' moving ball at the BMW last year. He was consistent here, standing up for golf's gentlemanly tradition. I happen not to agree with Brandel -- I think Phil was doing to Watson what he's done to Finchem and Mike Davis and various others. Letting them know how he feels. He makes golf more interesting. How about Mahan when Phil was going on about pods? His eyes were like, What fresh hell is this? Watson sat Phil, and Phil wasn't going to sit there and take it.

LYNCH: It is clear there is a mutual antipathy between Mickelson and Watson, which wasn't helped by the fact that Watson made public Phil's texting plea to play on Saturday. I suspect that Watson's gaffe was a case of being tone deaf, Phil's was calculated. Autopsies should wait until the corpse is cold. The press conference was not the place to make his point.

As did Neil McLeman, Paul Hayward and James Corrigan.

So, I've gone deep into this post without rendering mush in the way of opinion on the matter.  First of all, I'm with Johnny Miller that the importance of captains is way overrated, though it's of course far easier than figuring out where to go for better players.  

I've noted previously that I never was on board with the Watson selection, as I anticipated that his unburdened-by-doubt personality might not play well with these crazy kids.  It was also a bit strange that he didn't use his vice-captains to somewhat bridge that gap.  But also remember the terms of his retention in the aftermath of the Meltdown at Medinah....  He wasn't hired to be a warm and fuzzy older brother to these guys, he was hired to kick ass and take names.  

Now, I have my criticisms of Watson's decisions as we all do.  I obviously have no insight into the communication, though Watson tacitly admitted above that he left it to his henchmen to communicate, which seems a bit sketchy.

Here's my brief summary of criticisms of Watson's decisions:

1. The Webb Simpson pick:  I hated it, but we all have to acknowledge that there were no good choices.  Yes Chris Kirk had won a tournament, but only because Billy Horschel spit the bit and Billy, of course, got too good too late.
2. Friday Afternoon - To me this is where it all went wrong, as Phil and Keegan should not have been out there.  They didn't play well at all in the a.m., and they're a decidedly better fourball than foursomes team.  I've already given my thoughts on not playing the young guns that day, and they each played four of five sessions.
3. Saturday Morning - I'd love to know how many times he planned to play Phil, because if he's on the team he has to be out there playing his own ball.  That's why you sit him in Friday foursomes (also the windiest day, and Phil is, Muirfield notwithstanding, not a great wind player).  To me it's obvious that you sit them on Friday afternoon and keep your options open for Saturday.
4. Saturday Afternoon - Fowler and Walker were gassed, and sending them back out was a mistake that Watson acknowledged.
5. Sunday - My only critique here was the red pants.  By then it was obvious that he needed early energy on Sunday, but equally obvious that it wouldn't be enough.
6. Other - Not sure where to put this in, but he also sold Webb Simpson down the river.  If he's important enough for a Captain's pick, doesn't he warrant more than one tee time?  

Now I also think McGinley made some mistakes, most notably in his treatment of Stephen Gallacher.  I'm sure McGinley thought he was doing him a favor in sending him out early with Poulter, but it's hard to pin that fiasco on the rookie.  I'd have thought he'd give him another fourball partner on Saturday, especially with a bit of a lead.  

Now, about our Phil, I don't have much good to say in this instance.  I get that he was angry and frustrated at sitting on Friday, indeed how could it have been otherwise?  He was the senior player, and it would be hard to chart a winning scenario in which he wasn't a factor.  He should have been out there Saturday morning, but he also contributed to the benching with his play.

But there is no justification, whatever his issues, for putting the shiv into Watson publicly at that moment.  I'm sure Ted Bishop would be eager to hear Phil's constructive thoughts down the road a bit, but you only need to see Mahan in that video or read Furyk's tortured evasion to understand that he was catching his teammates in the crossfire.  That was a time to console friends and teammates, not to assign blame.

So, we've got that out of the way, let's address one last issue.  Is anyone buying what he's selling, i.e., that it was the pod system that resulted in the 2008 win?  Really?  Does anyone remember seeing the Euros, who have won a few of these things, use such a system?  And didn't Watson have the guys playing practice rounds with those with whom they were paired?  Somehow Reed and Spieth played well together without a pod system, but other didn't?

I think it's inarguable that you need to make the players feel part of the process, not least because of the fact that they play pro bono whilst others make a pretty penny off their labors.  No doubt Paul Azinger did a good job of it, though Davis Love did as well, just only for two days.  This search for an easy fix is a bit silly, as it fails to survive first contact with reality.

But Phil has hurt himself, and it will be interesting how this manifests itself down the road.  I'd think that it would add question marks to his selection as a captain's pick or, dare I say, a captain, in future years.  We all love Phil, at least most of the time, but he'd be well advised to start mending fences in a hurry.

And, just to cheer everyone up, there are two names being bandied about for 2016 captain, namely the aforementioned Azinger and Fred Couples.  Does anyone believe that either is the answer?