WEBVTT - Takeaways from the 2023 Ryder Cup 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.800 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When 0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:04.920 I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:05.960 And when I find my. 0:00:05.880 --> 0:00:08.719 Ball in a brid egg Frida egg the dread Frida 0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.320 egg Frida egg Frida, Eggrida egg. 0:00:11.160 --> 0:00:24.400 Bride egg Lie, I'm about ready to run off the golf. 0:00:34.520 --> 0:00:37.720 Welcome to the Frida Egg Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, 0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:41.800 and today we're doing takeaways from the twenty twenty three 0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:47.000 Ryder Cup. The US has suffered yet another loss at 0:00:47.000 --> 0:00:50.200 the hands of the European team in Europe, and we're 0:00:50.200 --> 0:00:52.239 gonna break it all down for you in this episode. 0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:56.160 Who played well, who didn't, Which decisions by the captains 0:00:56.200 --> 0:00:59.440 worked out, and which field miserably all that good stuff. 0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:01.720 In the back half of the episode, I'll talk to 0:01:01.920 --> 0:01:06.720 Benkoley of sportinglife dot Com about all things Team Europe. 0:01:07.040 --> 0:01:10.959 But first up is Joseph Lamanna, a contributor to Friday Golf, 0:01:11.640 --> 0:01:13.680 and Joseph and I are going to perform a kind 0:01:13.720 --> 0:01:17.600 of post mortal for Team USA that's coming up right 0:01:17.640 --> 0:01:25.720 after this break. This episode of the Friday Golf Podcast 0:01:25.880 --> 0:01:29.320 is brought to you by Gooder. Gooder makes twenty five 0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:33.360 dollars active sunglasses that don't slip, don't bounce, and are 0:01:33.400 --> 0:01:37.520 one hundred percent polarized. My favorite pair is called just 0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:41.480 Knock It On. They're in what Gooder calls the BFG style, 0:01:42.040 --> 0:01:45.440 basically there for large noggins. I wear them all the time. 0:01:45.760 --> 0:01:49.440 I wore them earlier today when I was outside taking 0:01:49.600 --> 0:01:54.120 my walk in the morning. I basically wear them whatever 0:01:54.200 --> 0:01:58.120 I'm doing. These have been staples in my wardrobe. I 0:01:58.120 --> 0:01:59.560 don't know if you would call it a wardrobe when 0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:02.600 it comes to glasses, but they've been staples for me 0:02:02.880 --> 0:02:06.960 for months now. I recently took them out stand up 0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:11.079 paddleboarding and kayaking, and they worked beautifully for that purpose. 0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.120 They're one hundred percent polarized, They're very light, they just 0:02:15.160 --> 0:02:19.559 kind of sit comfortably on my face and are very steady, 0:02:19.600 --> 0:02:22.040 and you don't have to be precious about them because 0:02:22.080 --> 0:02:25.079 they're just twenty five dollars. So if you want to 0:02:25.160 --> 0:02:28.280 support the show and pick up a pair, Gooder is 0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:32.320 giving Friday listeners free shipping on your first order. You 0:02:32.360 --> 0:02:36.160 can go to gooder dot com, slash TFE and use 0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:40.280 code TFE to get free shipping. Gooder offers a thirty 0:02:40.360 --> 0:02:44.960 day money back guarantee and one hundred percent satisfaction. So 0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:50.040 find your pair at good r dot com, slash tfe 0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:58.920 and use codetfe to get free shipping. Joseph Leamania is 0:02:58.919 --> 0:03:03.640 here with me to perform a little autopsy of Team USA. 0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:05.040 Are you ready for that, Joseph? 0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:06.480 Oh, I'm ready for that, Garrett. 0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:10.320 Let's do it, okay, all right? So why don't we 0:03:10.320 --> 0:03:12.600 start with the players. There's a lot of focus on 0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.280 the captains, and for good reason, and you have always 0:03:15.400 --> 0:03:20.600 interesting things to say about captain's strategy, picks, pairings, things 0:03:20.639 --> 0:03:23.239 like that. There's plenty to get into on the American 0:03:23.320 --> 0:03:26.200 side there, But why don't we start with the players, 0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:29.360 just to make it clear that the players are accountable here, 0:03:29.400 --> 0:03:33.480 that this doesn't all rest on Zach Johnson, who were 0:03:33.520 --> 0:03:37.720 the biggest disappointments in your mind at this Ryder Cup 0:03:37.760 --> 0:03:38.600 for Team USA. 0:03:39.080 --> 0:03:41.080 Yeah, it's hard to separate that from some of the 0:03:41.120 --> 0:03:45.920 captain's picks specifically, But the way that I would frame 0:03:45.960 --> 0:03:49.840 this entire Ryder Cup, some people don't want to hear this, 0:03:50.000 --> 0:03:52.800 I guess on the European side, but Team USA was 0:03:52.880 --> 0:03:58.160 deeper and the way the path to them losing was 0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:02.160 going to be bad play and some bad captaincy, some 0:04:02.360 --> 0:04:05.720 combination of both, but basically both had to happen for 0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:10.160 them to lose, in my opinion, and we got both. 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.960 So the players absolutely like there should be some accountability. 0:04:13.960 --> 0:04:18.200 There were some massive disappointments. I think Shordan Speith, Justin, 0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:24.440 Thomas Cammore, Kawa, Xander Schoffley, Wyndham Clark. A number of 0:04:24.440 --> 0:04:27.599 players just didn't step up and perform. Some of that 0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:30.560 is a function of where they were positioned, though, and 0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:33.600 so when we look at something like strokes gained, for example, 0:04:33.760 --> 0:04:36.120 because that's something that it's one of the only things 0:04:36.120 --> 0:04:38.200 that people really can look at during the Ryder Cup 0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:41.680 to evaluate how players performed, which I appreciate that we're 0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:44.440 doing that instead of like number of birdies or something, 0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:48.640 but Ryder Cup strokes gained data is really noisy. A 0:04:48.640 --> 0:04:50.720 lot of players don't even make it to certain holes, 0:04:50.760 --> 0:04:52.600 so it's just it's kind of hard to only look 0:04:52.640 --> 0:04:56.160 at that. And it's also a function of the positions 0:04:56.200 --> 0:04:58.040 you were put in. If you're in foursomes, if you're 0:04:58.040 --> 0:05:00.919 in an alternate shot and you're a bad approach player 0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:02.960 and you were hitting a bunch of long iron approach shots, 0:05:03.000 --> 0:05:04.839 Your strokeskin isn't going to look very good. So I 0:05:04.839 --> 0:05:07.680 think the best way is to actually evaluate the pairings. 0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:10.679 Click through the shots, see what the shots people actually 0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:13.080 hit on the leader board, and that's an effective way 0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:15.080 of evaluating who played well and who did not, just 0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:16.599 reducing it down to strokes. 0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:18.640 Kan okay, So who did play well? What were some 0:05:18.680 --> 0:05:21.600 of the bright spots on the US team, places where 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:23.599 the team could eventually build. 0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:29.400 I mean the Max Homa played excellent, Brian Harmon, they 0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:30.479 got some points. 0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:33.719 So yeah, and Brian Harmon was paired with Max Homa 0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:35.880 for three sessions. 0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:39.480 Homan Harmon played together three sessions. 0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:42.000 Yes, yeah, and then Harmon lost his singles match, and 0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:44.080 so you could argue that Max Hooma kind of carried 0:05:44.080 --> 0:05:48.279 Brian Harmon, but having watched the matches, Harmon made his contributions. 0:05:48.400 --> 0:05:51.520 Yeah, Harmon played well. Scotti Scheffler I think was better 0:05:51.560 --> 0:05:53.040 than he was given credit for. 0:05:53.920 --> 0:05:54.240 Really. 0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:58.240 I don't think the match that they got crushed nine 0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:00.960 and seven where he was partnered with And I think 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:03.840 we should talk about some of the decisions that went 0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:06.000 into them being paired together. Like I definitely want to 0:06:06.000 --> 0:06:08.599 get into that. I don't think Scotty played as poorly 0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:11.559 as it may look, which is hard to say given 0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:13.279 that they lost nine to seven, But if you click 0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:17.120 through and look at his shot trails, he wasn't egregious 0:06:17.360 --> 0:06:21.479 in that match. Brooks was really bad and the other player, 0:06:21.480 --> 0:06:23.520 I mean, you got to call out Patrick Cantley, who 0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:29.760 played maybe the three most memorable holes of golf in 0:06:29.800 --> 0:06:34.160 twenty twenty three. The way that Patrick Cantley closed out 0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:37.280 that Saturday four balls match where he was partnered with 0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:40.200 Wyndham Clark to take down Fitzpatrick and Rory is some 0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:42.839 of the best golf that I saw all year. So 0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:45.920 on the American side, that would be a high level 0:06:45.960 --> 0:06:47.320 overview of who played well. 0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:49.800 And you know, given the context of what was going 0:06:49.839 --> 0:06:53.720 on with Patrick Cantley this week, obviously very very impressive 0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:56.560 to see him step up. And you know, I think 0:06:56.600 --> 0:06:59.800 that some of the reports that he was distant from 0:06:59.800 --> 0:07:04.640 the team or that he was complaining about not getting paid, 0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:07.080 I think there's a lot of validity to those reports. 0:07:07.120 --> 0:07:10.360 You know, maybe not all the details are fully in 0:07:10.440 --> 0:07:12.800 place yet. We'll find out more in the coming weeks, 0:07:12.840 --> 0:07:16.200 but I think that there's enough smoke there to say 0:07:16.200 --> 0:07:21.720 that there's a fire, But his performance, especially on Saturday 0:07:21.800 --> 0:07:26.160 and Sunday, would suggest that for him at least some 0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:29.800 of this noise around not being part of the team 0:07:29.840 --> 0:07:33.720 at least didn't affect his play. And so that's that's 0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:35.920 pretty interesting, all right. I can tell that you want 0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:41.120 to get into the captain's decisions, Zach Johnson. Really it 0:07:41.160 --> 0:07:44.920 became clear as the week unfolded that the US players 0:07:45.000 --> 0:07:48.640 weren't being put in their optimal positions to play. Well, 0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:51.840 why don't we start with the captain's picks, right, because 0:07:51.840 --> 0:07:56.160 that's the first set of like really major strategic captain's decisions, 0:07:56.160 --> 0:07:59.760 and then we can get to the pairings. But in retrospect, 0:07:59.800 --> 0:08:02.280 I know that a lot of this is Monday morning quarterbacking. 0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:04.960 You have made sure to comment on a lot of 0:08:04.960 --> 0:08:07.200 this stuff ahead of time. I don't do as much 0:08:07.200 --> 0:08:09.440 of that because, like, I don't think I'm an expert 0:08:09.480 --> 0:08:11.480 on this kind of stuff, and I always just assume 0:08:11.880 --> 0:08:14.640 that the people making these decisions no more than I do, 0:08:14.760 --> 0:08:16.960 and so I can look back and say, hey, this 0:08:17.080 --> 0:08:20.200 was wrong, this was right, But I don't really feel 0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:24.800 expert enough to comment beforehand. You have, and you made 0:08:24.800 --> 0:08:27.880 some pretty good calls ahead of time, So both in 0:08:27.960 --> 0:08:32.280 retrospect and when the picks were made, what some of 0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:37.240 your thinking was, how would you evaluate those captain's picks? 0:08:37.320 --> 0:08:39.480 Yeah, I think I made some good calls and some 0:08:39.559 --> 0:08:41.920 bad calls, and what's important to me is to make 0:08:41.920 --> 0:08:44.720 them ahead of time because after the event goes down, 0:08:44.760 --> 0:08:48.760 everyone has thoughts for Zach Johnson, and I even tweeted 0:08:48.760 --> 0:08:52.160 on Friday after those first two sessions like, I think 0:08:52.240 --> 0:08:54.680 Zak Johnson's bearing a little more blame than he should. 0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:57.720 Golfers really didn't play well, which I stand behind, but 0:08:57.800 --> 0:08:58.640 Zak Johnson. 0:08:58.559 --> 0:09:01.760 But especially in that first foursome session right where it's like, 0:09:02.000 --> 0:09:04.120 I mean, whatever position they were put in, they would 0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:04.520 have lost. 0:09:04.760 --> 0:09:07.600 Yeah, too much of the blame and maybe credit, but 0:09:08.120 --> 0:09:10.240 more importantly, too much of the blame goes on the 0:09:10.280 --> 0:09:12.679 captains in some of these situations. But that said, I 0:09:12.720 --> 0:09:16.239 still think Zach Johnson deserves an enormous amount of criticism 0:09:16.240 --> 0:09:18.440 for the way he handled this start to finish. The 0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:21.240 biggest thing on the captain's picks. We can argue so 0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:23.800 many different names. I don't think anyone can argue that 0:09:23.800 --> 0:09:26.360 Cameron Young shouldn't have been on this team. This golf 0:09:26.400 --> 0:09:31.240 course demanded great driving and long iron play, and that 0:09:31.360 --> 0:09:34.240 is what Cameron Young does to a t. There is 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:36.600 no world where you leave Cameron Young off this team. 0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:39.080 And it's impossible to say, hey, he for sure would 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:40.560 have played well. But he's the type of player that 0:09:40.559 --> 0:09:44.160 could have gone out there and got four points for 0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:46.160 Team USA. I mean, I'm not saying that he would 0:09:46.160 --> 0:09:49.160 have for sure. Obviously I can't say that. But Cameron 0:09:49.200 --> 0:09:51.240 Young absolutely should have been on this team. There's no 0:09:51.280 --> 0:09:51.920 doubt about it. 0:09:52.400 --> 0:09:54.400 All right, So Cameron Young should have been on than 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:58.120 who who should have been off? What spot is he taking? 0:09:58.480 --> 0:10:00.400 Yeah? And I've heard the point may By didn't we 0:10:00.400 --> 0:10:03.280 give more critique to Ricky Fowler? We kind of just 0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.480 shoot him in. I think the way that Ricky and 0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:09.000 Spieth had played it was it was gonna be really 0:10:09.040 --> 0:10:11.080 hard to leave either of them off of the team. 0:10:12.120 --> 0:10:14.640 Sam Burns was a bad fit for this golf course, 0:10:14.840 --> 0:10:18.120 and that I wouldn't I would have absolutely taken Cam 0:10:18.200 --> 0:10:20.400 Young over Sam Burns. I wouldn't have had to think 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:22.960 hard about that one. Sam Burns actually played a little better, 0:10:23.200 --> 0:10:26.040 especially the back half of this the final two days 0:10:26.120 --> 0:10:29.040 than I might have expected him to. He's a great player, 0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:33.480 but Cam Young, no doubt I'm taking him over Sam Burns. 0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:37.240 The Justin Thomas conversation is just much more like I 0:10:37.240 --> 0:10:39.840 would have taken Cam Young over Justin Thomas and said 0:10:39.840 --> 0:10:42.280 that at the time. I do think there's something to 0:10:42.360 --> 0:10:46.080 the team chemistry and Justin Thomas bringing some energy, bringing 0:10:46.120 --> 0:10:48.480 some flair to the event, getting guys engaged, and there's 0:10:48.559 --> 0:10:52.280 value to that. But I mean, the performance was really bad, 0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:55.960 as I would have expected, And a huge story here 0:10:56.040 --> 0:10:59.000 is that with both Sam Burns and Justin Thomas, those 0:10:59.000 --> 0:11:00.800 are players who make a lot of their money with 0:11:00.840 --> 0:11:02.520 a wedge in their hand, and this was not a 0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:04.640 golf course where you're going to be hitting wedge very often. 0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:08.240 So that's kind of a transition a little bit into 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:09.240 the pairing stuff. 0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:14.760 Can we go into that, Yeah, well, I mean Sam Burns, 0:11:15.800 --> 0:11:20.360 I think that we can pretty much almost certainly say 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:23.360 that he was picked because he was going to be 0:11:23.400 --> 0:11:29.240 paired with Scotti Scheffler, right, and so that pairing was preordained, 0:11:29.400 --> 0:11:34.840 That was a captain's pick pairing pairing, right, that both 0:11:34.880 --> 0:11:37.520 of those were considered together, he was inevitably going to 0:11:37.520 --> 0:11:41.040 be playing with Scotty Scheffler. I mean, what did you 0:11:41.040 --> 0:11:41.720 make of that pairing? 0:11:41.920 --> 0:11:45.679 Yeah, so, like I think there was a very clear 0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:49.800 formula to this Ryder Cup and the Europeans followed it. 0:11:51.000 --> 0:11:54.400 You needed a great driver off of the even numbered holes, 0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:57.640 and you needed a really good approach player off of 0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:02.640 the odd holes. Okay, because the second shot on a 0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:04.800 lot of the even number holes, you're gonna hit a 0:12:04.800 --> 0:12:06.319 lot of long irons. You were also gonna have three 0:12:06.320 --> 0:12:09.959 of the part threes, So good long iron player off 0:12:09.960 --> 0:12:13.320 the odd holes, you're gonna have driver in your hand 0:12:13.320 --> 0:12:16.120 a lot on the even number holes, good driver needs 0:12:16.120 --> 0:12:18.280 to tee off there. And when you start to look 0:12:18.320 --> 0:12:20.200 at this United States team and say, well, who are 0:12:20.240 --> 0:12:24.959 the truly great drivers of the golf ball, it's a 0:12:24.960 --> 0:12:31.120 pretty interesting conversation and another important thing to comment on 0:12:31.160 --> 0:12:33.880 the force because we're specifically talking about the alternate shot, 0:12:33.920 --> 0:12:36.800 the Forsom's format. That is a format where you need 0:12:36.840 --> 0:12:39.080 to have your best golfers on the course. When they 0:12:39.120 --> 0:12:42.400 hit a bad shot, you're almost certainly gonna lose the hole. 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:45.040 Versus in four balls in the best ball format, you 0:12:45.080 --> 0:12:46.720 can get away with hitting a lot of bad shots 0:12:46.760 --> 0:12:50.079 and you see that. All due respect to Bobby McIntyre, 0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:52.600 that's what the Europeans did. They hit him in the 0:12:52.640 --> 0:12:56.400 best ball format, as you should. So to take a 0:12:56.400 --> 0:12:58.360 step back and say, well, who are the great drivers 0:12:58.360 --> 0:13:02.360 on the American team? For example, two of the best 0:13:02.480 --> 0:13:06.400 drivers are Xander Schoffley and Patrick Cantlay. But we just 0:13:06.480 --> 0:13:10.720 took it for granted that they're gonna pair together, and 0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:13.400 there's no even there's not even a conversation of hey, 0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.840 you know what, maybe we should split these two up 0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:20.760 and ensure that we have good drivers on all of 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:24.400 these teams. So that's a natural place to talk about 0:13:24.440 --> 0:13:29.000 the Scotty Scheffler Sam Burns pairing, where Scotty Scheffler is 0:13:29.040 --> 0:13:31.040 one of the great drivers of the golf ball on 0:13:31.520 --> 0:13:35.680 Team USA, but you wanted him hitting all these important 0:13:35.679 --> 0:13:37.760 approach shots. Therefore they had him go off the odd 0:13:37.840 --> 0:13:40.760 numbered holes. Well, that leaves Sam Burns a bad driver 0:13:41.000 --> 0:13:42.760 of the golf not bad, but he's not one of 0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:45.920 the top drivers. He can spray it. He's going off 0:13:45.920 --> 0:13:49.040 the even number holes. That's a bad pairing that they're 0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:54.079 gonna have issues all day Xander and Patrick Cantlay, Right, 0:13:54.640 --> 0:13:56.920 they didn't even get a point, and we stacked two 0:13:56.960 --> 0:13:58.920 of the best drivers of the team on two of 0:13:58.960 --> 0:14:01.400 the best drivers on the team on this for some's pairing, 0:14:01.720 --> 0:14:05.200 and then we had on Saturday they played Jordan Speith 0:14:05.240 --> 0:14:08.040 and Justin Thomas, neither of whom is a good driver 0:14:08.080 --> 0:14:10.000 of the golf ball right now, and they're both shaky 0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:13.080 with their long irons. That was a disastrous pairing. So 0:14:14.240 --> 0:14:16.880 these pieces all fit together. And when you see the 0:14:16.880 --> 0:14:19.440 way Europe did it, for example with the Victor Hovelin 0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:23.720 love theg a Oberg pairing, it was just it was 0:14:23.800 --> 0:14:26.280 much more well done. And we got to have a 0:14:26.320 --> 0:14:29.800 conversation about the role that Buddy ball played because the 0:14:29.960 --> 0:14:34.800 sam Brns Scheffler pairing and then insisting on can't Land 0:14:34.840 --> 0:14:39.040 Shoffley being paired together, it imposes these artificial constraints and 0:14:39.080 --> 0:14:40.640 you want to have maximum flexibility. 0:14:41.200 --> 0:14:44.880 Now, Okay, In Zach Johnson's defense, some of these pairings 0:14:44.920 --> 0:14:49.080 had been successful in the past. Right at Whistling Straits, 0:14:49.240 --> 0:14:53.240 some of these specific pairings were pretty dominant, and Speith 0:14:53.320 --> 0:14:57.320 and Thomas clearly have a history of playing quite well together. 0:14:58.000 --> 0:15:00.600 And so how do you make the decision, if you're 0:15:00.680 --> 0:15:04.640 Zach Johnson to go away from that. In this particular instance. 0:15:05.040 --> 0:15:07.080 I put a lot less stock into those kinds of 0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:09.760 things because they're different golf courses and those players' skill 0:15:09.800 --> 0:15:13.320 sets look a lot different at that time. So when 0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:15.200 people want to say, well, you got to take Justin 0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:19.160 Thomas on the team because of his small sample size 0:15:19.240 --> 0:15:21.960 record and Ryder Cups, then what do you say now 0:15:22.080 --> 0:15:25.680 when he just put a couple losses in the column? 0:15:25.920 --> 0:15:28.360 Does he have a good record still? And the conversation 0:15:28.480 --> 0:15:30.880 starts to get hairy. I would focus way more on 0:15:30.920 --> 0:15:32.320 what are the shots that are going to be hit 0:15:32.800 --> 0:15:36.240 and who are the players best equipped to hit those shots, 0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:40.760 which is I think a really important point about the 0:15:40.840 --> 0:15:44.120 chemistry and the makeup and the spirit of Team USA 0:15:44.280 --> 0:15:48.440 versus Team Europe. I believe firmly that the Team Europe says, hey, 0:15:49.040 --> 0:15:52.280 just give me a player that's going to be complimentary 0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:54.400 with my skill set and will go make it happen. 0:15:54.760 --> 0:15:57.400 And I've heard plenty of anecdotes about that. Hendrik Stenson 0:15:57.720 --> 0:16:00.640 had said that when he was playing. Justin came out 0:16:00.640 --> 0:16:03.400 this week and said, you know, playing a good pairing 0:16:03.440 --> 0:16:06.160 doesn't necessarily mean playing with your best friend or whatever. 0:16:06.200 --> 0:16:08.880 He said. I think Team Europe just takes that approach 0:16:09.000 --> 0:16:11.680 more in general versus Team USA. I think the players 0:16:11.680 --> 0:16:15.960 are dictating a little bit more of that, and I 0:16:15.960 --> 0:16:18.480 would not be scared to break up pairings that have 0:16:18.520 --> 0:16:19.960 done well in the past, and I don't think Team 0:16:19.920 --> 0:16:21.080 Europe's scared to do that either. 0:16:21.800 --> 0:16:23.720 I really agree with that, and I think that a 0:16:23.880 --> 0:16:28.600 great representation of that dynamic was just in the Friday 0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:34.120 foursome's matchups, where you had going first out Scheffler and 0:16:34.160 --> 0:16:40.600 Burns buddy ball, you had Xander Cantlay batting cleanup right 0:16:40.680 --> 0:16:45.600 in the fourth match of that session, going up against 0:16:45.640 --> 0:16:49.760 Scheffler and Burns for Team Europe was John Rahm and 0:16:49.840 --> 0:16:54.280 Tyrrel Hatton and Rom said something during the week to 0:16:54.320 --> 0:16:56.640 the effect of, well, I've gotten a lot more familiar 0:16:56.720 --> 0:17:00.400 with Tyrel over the past few weeks, as in we 0:17:00.480 --> 0:17:04.520 didn't really know each other that well before we heard 0:17:04.600 --> 0:17:07.040 that we might be paired up in this Ryder Cup 0:17:07.080 --> 0:17:08.840 and we might have to get familiar with each other. 0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:14.040 I think that that's a great example of how Team 0:17:14.080 --> 0:17:19.520 Europe isn't as guided by these traditional pairings, buddy ball, 0:17:19.640 --> 0:17:22.560 whatever you want to call it. There just aren't these 0:17:22.800 --> 0:17:25.800 pairs that you can't break up. It's almost like Team 0:17:25.920 --> 0:17:30.399 USA is imposing certain constraints on itself, saying that we 0:17:30.480 --> 0:17:33.440 can make whatever decision we want, except we can never 0:17:33.440 --> 0:17:36.640 split up Skeethan Thomas. We can never split up Burns 0:17:36.640 --> 0:17:40.240 and Scheffler, we can never split up Xander, and can't lay. 0:17:40.480 --> 0:17:43.080 We just can't do that. But anything else we can do, well, 0:17:43.119 --> 0:17:46.800 you've already really limited your decision making. And that doesn't 0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:50.240 mean that you make these last minute decisions in a 0:17:50.320 --> 0:17:53.639 hectic state of panic, and that you put two guys 0:17:53.640 --> 0:17:56.760 together who didn't expect to be together. That's not clearly 0:17:57.240 --> 0:18:00.560 what happened with Team Europe, but there as a plan 0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:04.439 for the European team, and that plan doesn't appear to 0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:08.400 have been guided by what the pre existing friendships were, 0:18:08.880 --> 0:18:11.399 and that seems to be the core of the difference 0:18:11.440 --> 0:18:14.639 when it comes to the pairings philosophy here, Ram Manhattan, 0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:16.480 what do those guys have to do with each other? 0:18:16.520 --> 0:18:19.760 I mean, the personalities might might seem to kind of 0:18:19.760 --> 0:18:22.080 be similar to each other in some ways, but I 0:18:22.080 --> 0:18:26.200 don't think those guys were buddies. But they I guess 0:18:26.240 --> 0:18:29.320 Dodo Molinari probably saw something in their games for this course, 0:18:29.359 --> 0:18:32.160 where he was like, yeah, these guys should go out. 0:18:32.520 --> 0:18:36.399 Yeah, and I think a great example of Europe sticking 0:18:36.400 --> 0:18:40.919 to their game plan and abandoning any kind of artificial constraints. 0:18:41.520 --> 0:18:43.399 Garrett of the So, I think you can make an 0:18:43.440 --> 0:18:47.359 argument that Forsome's is more important, right, each shot is 0:18:47.400 --> 0:18:50.760 more important, and you need to have your talent on 0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:52.920 the golf course when you're in the Forsomme's format. Yeah, 0:18:53.040 --> 0:18:53.480 we already you. 0:18:53.440 --> 0:18:56.359 Need to avoid mistakes, you just need to enforce some's 0:18:56.359 --> 0:18:59.280 mistakes or deadly four ball mistakes are manageable. 0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:01.719 Yeah, it's a good way of putting it right. And 0:19:02.000 --> 0:19:04.480 already mentioned that that's what they did with Bobby McIntyre. 0:19:04.960 --> 0:19:08.760 That's what Europe did of the Forsome's pairings. Garrett on 0:19:08.920 --> 0:19:12.280 between Friday and Saturday, how many of those teams do 0:19:12.320 --> 0:19:14.800 you think we're the same for Team USA? And how 0:19:14.800 --> 0:19:18.040 many of those teams were identical from Friday to Saturday 0:19:18.040 --> 0:19:18.560 for Team. 0:19:18.359 --> 0:19:20.560 Europe three to one or something like that. 0:19:20.680 --> 0:19:25.200 Euros Europe's teams were identical both days of the alternate shot. 0:19:25.480 --> 0:19:27.040 And I don't even know if anyone's brought that up, 0:19:27.080 --> 0:19:30.600 but they were the exact same McElroy, Fleetwood, Straka, Lowry, Hoveland, 0:19:30.880 --> 0:19:34.800 Abert Obern, and Romhattan. And that is to me a 0:19:34.840 --> 0:19:37.960 signal of intelligent pairing and sticking to a game plan. 0:19:38.160 --> 0:19:40.040 But but Team USA they're mixing them up. 0:19:40.760 --> 0:19:44.160 Yeah, that's interesting, and so they they you know, Foursom's 0:19:44.200 --> 0:19:46.800 is kind of like a specialty, and it's like, we 0:19:46.920 --> 0:19:49.960 gotta we got to identify the guys who are gonna 0:19:49.960 --> 0:19:53.480 thrive in this format and use them both times. 0:19:53.720 --> 0:19:55.600 And they're gonna because players. 0:19:55.720 --> 0:19:58.040 Right, and it's yeah, it's got to be. It's got 0:19:58.040 --> 0:20:00.680 to be the guys who are making the fewest mistakes. 0:20:01.000 --> 0:20:03.399 And if you if you were to just if you 0:20:03.440 --> 0:20:06.880 were to just look at a Team USA and try 0:20:06.920 --> 0:20:10.480 to consider who's making the fewest mistakes right now, you 0:20:10.560 --> 0:20:14.000 probably wouldn't choose Ricky Fowler. I mean, it wouldn't take 0:20:14.080 --> 0:20:18.320 long to determine that he's probably making some mistakes. Did 0:20:18.359 --> 0:20:20.360 he end up only playing in two sessions? 0:20:20.720 --> 0:20:20.920 Rich? 0:20:21.359 --> 0:20:23.399 Yeah, Yeah, he played the singles and then he played 0:20:23.520 --> 0:20:25.480 one on the Friday. 0:20:25.080 --> 0:20:27.280 Which was he played that he played that Forsomes match 0:20:27.560 --> 0:20:30.480 exactly and so and yeah, and so that just tells 0:20:30.480 --> 0:20:32.160 you right there. I mean, here's a guy who's only 0:20:32.240 --> 0:20:36.160 playing in two sessions. Basically, they're hiding Ricky. They knew 0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:39.040 they needed to hide Ricky, and so why are you 0:20:39.080 --> 0:20:41.439 putting him in a forsomes match if you want to 0:20:41.480 --> 0:20:44.280 hide him, if you want to hide somebody, As you 0:20:44.359 --> 0:20:48.280 said with with Bob McIntyre, you know, uh, four ball 0:20:48.320 --> 0:20:49.760 is sort of the way to do it. 0:20:50.040 --> 0:20:52.120 And one other one other thing on that. On that point, 0:20:52.640 --> 0:20:56.879 there are certain skill sets that interact and wedge and 0:20:56.960 --> 0:20:59.200 potter is one of those. Right, if you're hitting a 0:20:59.200 --> 0:21:02.360 lot of good wedges, you'reving yourself short range putts, which 0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:05.560 is where the best putters in the world they capitalize. 0:21:06.080 --> 0:21:10.080 Sam Burns is an excellent example of a player who 0:21:10.160 --> 0:21:13.359 has that wedge putter interaction, really good wedge player, really 0:21:13.359 --> 0:21:15.320 good putter. When you put him an alternate shot with 0:21:15.320 --> 0:21:20.280 Scotty Scheffler, those skill sets no longer interact. A there 0:21:20.280 --> 0:21:22.640 aren't a lot of wedges, but when there are, he's 0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:25.600 going to hit some wedges close that Scotty Scheffler is 0:21:25.720 --> 0:21:28.119 notoriously struggling with his putter and he's not going to 0:21:28.200 --> 0:21:33.280 cash them in. Also, in the best ball format, you 0:21:33.800 --> 0:21:37.520 let Sam Burns, you let those skill sets interact. Right 0:21:37.560 --> 0:21:40.359 on the first hole when he played four balls on 0:21:40.400 --> 0:21:43.200 Saturday to short par four, it's like four hundred and 0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:45.440