Ryder Cup Leftovers

They're still talking up a storm....  Thanks, Patrick.

First and foremost, we've got that handy alliteration of the results:

The Pummeling in Paris: 14 observations from the 2018 Ryder Cup

That's not bad, though perhaps we can do better....  I'll have to work on it, but shall we see what he's got for us?

1. Jim Furyk wasn't a genius, but this can't be laid at his feet. Furyk did his best with a lineup of highly-ranked but mostly out-of-form players, while trying to cater to the

desires of his best players and limiting the exposure of his weakest charges. By midweek, it was clear Furyk was struggling to find foursomes that could keep the US' collective heads above water in a format they simply don't process well. Breaking up Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reed may have made Spieth happy to play with US all-star Justin Thomas, but it appeared to leave Reed wandering and without an obvious partner.

The best argument here is that the margin of the loss was way beyond the ability of a captain to affect, and yet....

5. Phil Mickelson, who also stinks in the Ryder Cup, is built for one Ryder Cup format. For Mickelson, the only format where he's not, at-best, a 50-50 proposition is in fourballs. What did Jim Furyk choose to do with Mickelson in the first two days? One match of foursomes, where he is a disaster. It's unlikely we see Mickelson on the road again in 2022 unless he gets a transfusion of some Raymond Floyd blood. Woods could make the 2020 team on points, and he could deservedly get the Phil treatment at Whistling Straits.

I think we all agree that Jim Furyk isn't a genius, though that really understates the case.  Not only does Phil's game not suit foursomes, but he was obviously off-form and the tight course set-up exacerbated the problem, and yet his captain sent him out there anyway.  And kinda the same deal with Bubba.... 

As I said ad nauseum in the months and weeks leading up to the event, his biggest challenge was to identify his eight foursomes teams, and use his captain's picks to fill any gaps.  Everyone got sucked into the improved Tiger driving bit, but the only one of the four picks remotely suited to alternate shots was Bryson, and he threw that away, not only by the Phil pairing, but also by having them tee off on the wrong holes.

Not a genius?  OK, you convinced me...

Jason Sobel can't limit himself, and has a full 100 observations for us.  I know, I'm still trying to get through them all, though you might be relieved to know that he uses these to argue with himself to good effect.  For instance, on the subject of captain's picks:

14. Furyk’s picks were Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, Bryson DeChambeau and Tony Finau. Other than a few boobirds calling Mickelson a homer pick, there was hardly any

dissension from the masses when these picks were announced. 

15. All of which makes the revisionist history from American fans so cringe-worthy. Exactly one week earlier, Woods was being celebrated for his long-elusive 80th career PGA Tour victory, but on Sunday, there were those who insisted he shouldn’t be on the team. They blamed Mickelson for his part in the loss. 

16. I understand. Those two, in particular, posted a combined 0-6-0 record for the week and deserve to be lambasted for their poor performances.

But to insinuate now, after the fact, that neither one of them should’ve been picked is the lamest form of Monday morning quarterbacking. 

17. I mean, who else did you want on this team? 

18. Xander Schauffele? He ranked 122nd in driving accuracy this past season. 

19. Kevin Kisner? He had one top 10 in the past five months. 

20. Keegan Bradley? His first win in six years came an hour before the final pick was made.

He's quite right that those guys, and you might recall that I also threw out Brian Harman, played poorly down the stretch.  Furyk had way too few options as to how to fill out his roster.  

And this is about as cogent an explanation of Furyk's pairing strategy I've heard, though ultimately it's further proof of the "Not a genius" assessment:

25. I realize there was criticism of Mickelson playing foursomes instead of fourballs on the first day. But there was a reason for that. 

Furyk put his four best pairings out to get an early lead, gain some momentum and take the crowd out of it. That’s exactly what happened, for a little while.

Would you have preferred to play Mickelson over Finau or Rickie Fowler or Brooks Koepka? Those guys all helped earn a point in those matches.

So, if you want to look at it from a statistical standpoint, you’re saying you’d take a point off the board in favor of an unknown commodity in Mickelson. 

26. Whoever replaced him likely still would’ve gotten whupped that afternoon by Sergio Garcia and Alex Noren, who played lights-out.

Sorry, but in this scenario, I think the Day 1 score, which was ultimately 5-3, had a better chance of being 6-2 than 4-4.

What's the worst indictment possible of a strategy?  That it worked as intended but still proved insufficient to the task.... In fact, as soon as I saw the Friday morning pairings I knew the American team was in trouble in the afternoon.

The obvious flaw in the plan is that you need to manage all twelve players, and it obviously left Phil and Bubba in spots that didn't suit them.  So no, I wouldn't have replaced Finau, because you don't take Tony if you're not going to play him in fourballs.  Let's remember that Phil took down Bryson with him, and Bubba damn near did the same to Webb Simpson.

But Jason, really?

70. The task force — the one we all chuckled about four years ago — is actually working. I know it doesn’t seem like that, based on the score alone, but the team’s demeanor after this loss was still that of a cohesive unit, unlike the dumpster fire that unfolded four years ago.

71. Mickelson wasn’t afraid to call out the captain back then, but after this one, he only had good things to say about the experience.

“We had phenomenal leadership,” he said. “We had great vice captains. We were put as players in a position to succeed. These guys up here are such great players that if you put these players in a position to succeed, they most often will. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen this week.”

OK, maybe I'm missing his point here, but that Task Force's mission was to win Ryder Cups, and they flamed out in spectacular fashion this week.  And Phil's hostile takeover of the event made him the man out front, and he managed to under-perform his good buddy Tom Watson.  So, if that's success....

Now is also the time for the inevitable thumsuckers, such as this:

Does the Ryder Cup mean more to Europeans than Americans?

Yes, next question.  While true, it doesn't actually help to explain anything, does it?  The U.S. team hates losing and the resulting criticism enough to figure it out, and it seems far more likley that at this point their guilty of caring too much.

Shane Ryan goes all existential on us, first with some data:

In the 18 Ryder Cups since 1983, the first year that the modern era became truly competitive, the United States has accumulated 108½ singles points to Europe’s 107½. The Americans have won the 12-match singles session in 10 of those 18 years. It’s remarkably tight, but a look at the pairs matches in that time span tells a very different story. In those matches, Europe leads the U.S. 158½-129½ and has won the cumulative battle (16 matches over four sessions) in 14 of the 18 competitions. 

The Euros have been so dominant, in fact, that it’s hard to think their pairs success hasn’t bolstered their singles record—there have been several Ryder Cups where the Sunday session was a mere formality, and on those occasions a palpable sense of prolonged dread infected the American teams. The not-infrequent death marches certainly yielded more losses than they might have in a less enfeebling atmosphere. In other words, the razor-thin singles margin would probably be significantly better for the Americans if they weren’t so bad in pairs.

Not so quick there, big guy.  There's a structural factor at play here, as the team format has always allowed the Euros to somewhat hide the inferior depth of their rosters.  In singles there's no hiding anybody, just ask Mark James.  He famously has his three weakest sticks not play at all in the team formats, only to have them all lose badly in singles in that famous 1999 comeback.

Here's the gist of his ill-formed argument:

The answer is cultural. The answer is about teamwork, and fellowship, and collective spirit. 

Wait, let me stop. Let me admit that I don’t know the answer, or at least that I don’t know it precisely. I’m not a cultural anthropologist, and I hesitate to make unprovable

generalizations. When I posed the question on Twitter, ESPN’s Kevin Van Valkenburg wrote, “Abject capitalism instills a winner-take-all, screw-the-underperforming-bloke strain of individualism that gets woven into our DNA, whereas Europe’s willingness to bond together as a collective...is in theirs.” And I agree with him, and I suspect he’s right. But I don’t know for sure, and even if he is, I don’t know if it’s a complete explanation. 

Here’s what I know: Even on the odd years when the Americans win the pairs matches, there is something stiff and repressed and a little awkward about them, as though they’re feeling things that beg to be expressed, but have been confined to the subconscious. (I don’t come from the exact same background as most professional golfers, but it’s close enough, and I feel the same things. I am stiff, repressed, awkward.) And while there may be such a thing as the “strong-but-silent” type, most times when we talk about emotional stoicism, we are in fact talking about a repression that can be harmful in life and relationships. 

Here’s what I believe: Americans are preternaturally good at neglecting certain emotions, especially as they pertain to the hidden things that bind us to each other. We are encouraged to do so; we are tacitly rewarded for isolating ourselves.

He might as well blame it on Trump, which I'm sure someone will do by tomorrow.  Everybody looks great when they're winning, and sullen when they're getting beaten.  

It goes without saying that no one had these insights at Hazeltine, and isn't this the mission of that Task Force?  My problem with Phil in '14 essentially revolves around him making excuses for playing badly, and this strikes me as more of the same.  Support for my contention was found in a predictable corner:

If you were looking for a frank discussion of what happened in France, you had to wait until Golf Channel’s post-game show. Brandel Chamblee lit into an American team that “on paper, was almost twice as good” as the European team but couldn’t hit enough fairways. 

He came down hard on the game’s two biggest stars. Chamblee described Mickelson’s “erratic style of play” as “tough to partner, it’s tough to captain,” and took issue with Mickelson’s “leadership skills.” 

“Leaders take responsibility for their losses; they don’t blame other people for their losses. That’s what Phil Mickelson did in 2014…” Chamblee said. “Some people might call this karma, what happened this week. But you cannot mistake the fact that Tiger and Phil should be Ryder Cup legends, but they’ve been anything but.”

But has Brandel been saying that since September 2014?  Hold on, I might have pulled a little something patting myself on the back....

Brently Romine also does the letter grade thing, very similar to the installment we had yesterday:

Rory McIlroy, B

Still has yet to sit a Ryder Cup session. He went 3-1 in the team formats before falling on the 18th hole to Justin Thomas in singles. He would’ve gotten a B+, but we still can’t get those few shots on the final hole out of our heads. 

Justin Rose, B

Continued to be a reliable option for the Europeans, winning twice in foursomes with Stenson. His singles loss to Webb Simpson was surprising.

To me, one of the more discouraging perspectives is that the Americans got hammered despite Europe's two stalwarts playing surprisingly poorly.  I still can't get over how poorly Rory played Friday morning, and Rose got crushed by Webb on Sunday.

But we're more interested in the other guys, I'm sure:

Webb Simpson, B

Answered his doubters with a nice showing in Paris. He went 2-1 and took down Rose in a hard-fought singles match. Like Finau, Simpson should’ve played more as he was one of the few players hitting fairways and making putts.

 I'd have him much higher, saddled with Bubba in foursomes that 1-1 result was awfully good.

Phil Mickelson, F

Sat out all day Saturday and played just two matches, losing both of them and winning just six total holes. Should be his final Ryder Cup after this performance. 

Jim Furyk, F

Not only did his pairings and captain’s picks under-perform, but his post-match comments showed that he had few regrets – if any. Also, his role in the Reed-Spieth debacle hurts his grade.

We're still grading on a curve, I see....  And we'll get to it soon enough, but Reed-Spieth wasn't a debacle, as the latter went 3-1 with his new partner.   Patrick Reed was a debacle, but that's not new data..

Christopher Powers has a useful summary of comments from the post-match pressers, including Rory calling out a certain golf writer:

Rory McIlroy, calling out Golf.com senior writer Alan Shipnuck for a column he wrote about the U.S. team's potential to dominate the event for years to come: "I think collectively, we all have one question: Where is Alan Shipnuck?"

 And this little back-and-forth:

Molinari on his career year:"My summer has been great, but it's been about, like I said before, these guys have been on two winning teams doing a little bit, but not a lot and my record was pretty shocking, really, coming into this week. So statistically, there was a good chance of winning some points, and.. 

Tommy Fleetwood interjecting: "So arrogant. So arrogant. Get over yourself."

As for the losers, Phil said what needed to be said at the time:

Phil Mickelson, who infamously took shots at captain Tom Watson following a U.S. loss in 2014, when asked if this loss was better or worse: "This is an awesome team and we had phenomenal leadership. We had great vice captains. And we were put as players in a position to succeed, and these guys up here are such great players; that if you 

put these players in a position to succeed, they most often will. 

"Unfortunately it didn't happen this week. But we had a very special week here. We'll continue to build on it, and improve in a couple of years, and this is a very meaningful, special team for me, personally, too, because our captain is one of, I think, the best people in golf, and somebody that I've always looked up to and cherished our friendship. I thought that the way he brought everybody in together on decisions; I think that we -- you know, some of you might question some of the decisions, but everything was done with reason, input, thought through, and then it's up to us to execute, and we just didn't quite -- we didn't execute. 

"And let's be honest. The European side played some exquisite golf. I mean, it was some phenomenal golf, and they flat-out beat us. But they beat us on the course. I thought that this was really a special week for all of us, and we -- there have been two years, this year and 2006 with Tom Lehman, where it breaks my heart a little bit more than others, because those two, we didn't execute while we were given every opportunity to succeed."

If only he could have been as gracious in 2014....

Jordan and the Captain had these comments on that certain abandoned partnership:

Jordan Spieth on whether he was surprised he didn't play with Patrick Reed: "No, we weren't -- we were totally involved with every decision that was made. This was a -- Jim allowed it to be a player-friendly environment, and we were involved and we thought that the teams that came out of our, you know, four-man squad, what do we call it, fire team -- what is it, Tiger We had two potentially fantastic teams, and we went out and -- we went out confidently and tried to play our best." 

Jim Fuyrk's follow-up to Spieth's quote about not playing with Reed: "If I may, we put all four of those players out together in practice for most of the week, I think two of the three days. They were always a grouping, and I talked about it in the press room after the first day of pairings; we felt like we've got two really good pairings. Jordan and Patrick have been great in the past. I felt like, you know, whether that's a point of contention or not, I felt like we had two great pairings out of it. So it was totally my decision and my call, and I think I had a few of you tell me that -- I think someone used the word, it was a gutsy -- they might have said something else, but a gutsy call or a gutsy play, but the one I thought it was the right thing to do. It was my call."

We'll use this as a segue to our Patrick, with a brief detour to this quite amusing Moliwood morning after video, with a bonus Sir Nick slam of Monty.

OK, shall we have some fun with our Patrick, who I've been informed polled poorly in the voting for Miss Congeniality....  Haters gonna hate.

Joel Beall has this interesting premise:

Patrick Reed's not a problem. He's exactly what golf needs

 Here's the gist of his argument:

There was an ugly PR dust-up with the PGA Tour during the Dell Technologies

Championship last month, Reed airing his grievances about free tickets to a game at Fenway Park. Earlier in the summer, Reed got into a verbal spat with a European Tour camera crew, an altercation caught on tape. Also captured in March was a discussion with a rules official at the Arnold Palmer Invitational in which Reed, unhappy with the decision, claimed Spieth would have received a better ruling.

In short, golf has the makings of a true villain. Something it hasn't had in forever.

Villain or just an a*****e?  You make the call....

 Beall presents a rogues gallery of former members of this tribe, and it's quite the curious list:

There have been other antagonists, at least purported. Rory Sabbatini, Ian Poulter, Sergio Garcia, Vijay Singh, Robert Allenby, Bubba Watson of recent memory. Colin Montgomerie, too. Fuzzy Zoeller said something that will forever stain his name.

Fuzzy?  Pulleeze, the Fuzz made a stupid comment about Tiger, but no sentient human ever thought it meant anything.  But see what you think of his ultimate villain:

As has golf, for that matter. The only real, indisputable villain the sport has had was … Jack Nicklaus. The Golden Bear had the audacity to challenge the thrown of the people's king, Arnold Palmer, and it took years for crowds to warm up to the chubby kid from Ohio. He was booed, heavily. Fans held signs that said, "HIT IT HERE, JACK" next to bunkers. His success was met with yawns. Yet Nicklaus, while arrogant, wasn't offensive. His biggest knock was he stood in the way of Arnie's march. Bad timing, that's all.

Not much there, eh?  Sure, Jack took the wrath of the galleries in taking down their icon Arnie, but Jack was never a villain to the other players.  A rather big difference, methinks.

Joel's point is valid to an extent, for sure.  If, say, Jordan and Patrick meet in a final round pairing or at the match play, that'll generate some heat.  

Dan Kildridge makes a point that had crossed my mind as well:

The reigning Masters champ who seems to thrive on slights real and perceived entered the 2018 matches with a 6-1-2 all-time record. He earned 3.5 points in four matches during the U.S. win at Hazeltine and seemed like a lock for significant action in Paris.

Exactly... He goes out of his way to manufacture the slights, but it sure didn't work for him here....   But articulating the slight after the fact, especially given his poor play, just comes across as whiny.

Shack parses the effect and fallout from reed's comments:

—Goodbye Spieth Pairings. By stating that Jordan Spieth “obviously” didn’t want to play with him, Reed killed any chances of a future pairing with Spieth who “obviously” just preferred a coupling with longtime buddy Justin Thomas. Reed should not be surprised since several pundits projected this happening in part because of Spieth’s so-so 2018 and not needing to be subjected to the bizarro dynamic that has made the Reed-Spieth duo work in past Cups. But more enjoyable in this part of the Reed detonation is his conclusion that he’s not fun to play with for Spieth. Yet in no way did he suggest, at least as quoted by Crouse, that this might prompt reflection on how he approaches, say, life?

Not to mention guaranteeing awkward team rooms for the foreseeable future....  I was glad that audio from the ruling at Bay Hill was mentioned above, because I failed to cite that yesterday in explaining why Spieth was justified in opting out of the pairing.   It's really a nasty comment to have made, as it implies that Spieth's success might have been the result of favorable treatment.  Geoff's point is a good one, that the Reeds don't think there should be any implications from their bizarre behavior.

—Insulting Tiger. Reed bluntly stated that Tiger Woods was his second choice as a partner. Take that, one of the two greatest players of all time! Sure, Patrick drove into the 7th hole chalets somewhere in the South of France and donated other balls to Le Golf National’s hazards. And sure, Tiger Woods took him on when he could have his pick of partners. And sure, Jim Furyk put them out in four-balls twice before finally breaking up the duo Saturday afternoon following two losses, but don’t openly tell the world Tiger Woods is your second choice.

I don't actually agree with Shack here, in that a preference to recreate the successful pairing with Jordan shouldn't connote any insult to anyone else.  But the eejit can't see that Furyk gave him a far more important role, trying to ensure that Tiger would be a force in the team competition.  And Patrick was too busy with his self-inflicted hissy fit to play any real golf.

—Task Force Exposure. Suggesting Jim Furyk didn’t consult you while the team professed the open book nature of the process, could suggest the old boys vibe of the Task Force did play favorites. This is also a reminder that whoever was in the cool kids club didn’t make very shrewd decisions. So while Patrick feels left out of the process, this could also just highlight that he wears headphones way too much and isn’t the easiest lad to approach. Particularly with wife Justine in the wings and pounding out conspiracy-theory driven line drives on Twitter.

At best, Patrick was a loner...  That's now off the table, and any future Ryder Cups in which he plays will require him to qualify automatically.  The old boy vibe will hopefully take its justifiable hits, but this issue shouldn't be included.  I don't have any issue with Furyk breaking up the pair, nor with sitting Patrick both afternoons.

—Irony needs to become part of Patrick Reed’s life. At the end of Crouse’s piece, Reed notes the “Leave your egos at the door” posting on team room walls, then compliments the Europeans for doing so better than the United States. But he seems oblivious to his massive ego entitling him to pairings and opportunities that did not happen this time around when he left his golf swing behind the team room doors.

The Reeds don't do irony, so we shouldn't hold our breaths.  But Geoff is spot on that Reed can't understand how poorly he played the first two days, and the extent to which his griping is noxious.

Forget his former Captain America persona, he's creating a nightmare for Captain Stricker should he qualify for Whistling Straits.  Of course, before we have to worry about that we have the 2019 Presidents Cup, the U.S. Captain of which just happens to be..... wait for it, Tiger Woods.  Maybe Patrick does do irony after all....