Speaker 1: I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When
Speaker 1: I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.
Speaker 2: And when I find my.
Speaker 3: Ball in a brid egg Frida egg the dread Frida
Speaker 3: egg Frida egg Frida, Eggrida egg.
Speaker 1: Bride egg Lie, I'm about ready to run off the golf.
Speaker 4: Welcome to the Frida Egg Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison,
Speaker 4: and today we're doing takeaways from the twenty twenty three
Speaker 4: Ryder Cup. The US has suffered yet another loss at
Speaker 4: the hands of the European team in Europe, and we're
Speaker 4: gonna break it all down for you in this episode.
Speaker 4: Who played well, who didn't, Which decisions by the captains
Speaker 4: worked out, and which field miserably all that good stuff.
Speaker 4: In the back half of the episode, I'll talk to
Speaker 4: Benkoley of sportinglife dot Com about all things Team Europe.
Speaker 4: But first up is Joseph Lamanna, a contributor to Friday Golf,
Speaker 4: and Joseph and I are going to perform a kind
Speaker 4: of post mortal for Team USA that's coming up right
Speaker 4: after this break. This episode of the Friday Golf Podcast
Speaker 4: is brought to you by Gooder. Gooder makes twenty five
Speaker 4: dollars active sunglasses that don't slip, don't bounce, and are
Speaker 4: one hundred percent polarized. My favorite pair is called just
Speaker 4: Knock It On. They're in what Gooder calls the BFG style,
Speaker 4: basically there for large noggins. I wear them all the time.
Speaker 4: I wore them earlier today when I was outside taking
Speaker 4: my walk in the morning. I basically wear them whatever
Speaker 4: I'm doing. These have been staples in my wardrobe. I
Speaker 4: don't know if you would call it a wardrobe when
Speaker 4: it comes to glasses, but they've been staples for me
Speaker 4: for months now. I recently took them out stand up
Speaker 4: paddleboarding and kayaking, and they worked beautifully for that purpose.
Speaker 4: They're one hundred percent polarized, They're very light, they just
Speaker 4: kind of sit comfortably on my face and are very steady,
Speaker 4: and you don't have to be precious about them because
Speaker 4: they're just twenty five dollars. So if you want to
Speaker 4: support the show and pick up a pair, Gooder is
Speaker 4: giving Friday listeners free shipping on your first order. You
Speaker 4: can go to gooder dot com, slash TFE and use
Speaker 4: code TFE to get free shipping. Gooder offers a thirty
Speaker 4: day money back guarantee and one hundred percent satisfaction. So
Speaker 4: find your pair at good r dot com, slash tfe
Speaker 4: and use codetfe to get free shipping. Joseph Leamania is
Speaker 4: here with me to perform a little autopsy of Team USA.
Speaker 4: Are you ready for that, Joseph?
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm ready for that, Garrett.
Speaker 4: Let's do it, okay, all right? So why don't we
Speaker 4: start with the players. There's a lot of focus on
Speaker 4: the captains, and for good reason, and you have always
Speaker 4: interesting things to say about captain's strategy, picks, pairings, things
Speaker 4: like that. There's plenty to get into on the American
Speaker 4: side there, But why don't we start with the players,
Speaker 4: just to make it clear that the players are accountable here,
Speaker 4: that this doesn't all rest on Zach Johnson, who were
Speaker 4: the biggest disappointments in your mind at this Ryder Cup
Speaker 4: for Team USA.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's hard to separate that from some of the
Speaker 3: captain's picks specifically, But the way that I would frame
Speaker 3: this entire Ryder Cup, some people don't want to hear this,
Speaker 3: I guess on the European side, but Team USA was
Speaker 3: deeper and the way the path to them losing was
Speaker 3: going to be bad play and some bad captaincy, some
Speaker 3: combination of both, but basically both had to happen for
Speaker 3: them to lose, in my opinion, and we got both.
Speaker 3: So the players absolutely like there should be some accountability.
Speaker 3: There were some massive disappointments. I think Shordan Speith, Justin,
Speaker 3: Thomas Cammore, Kawa, Xander Schoffley, Wyndham Clark. A number of
Speaker 3: players just didn't step up and perform. Some of that
Speaker 3: is a function of where they were positioned, though, and
Speaker 3: so when we look at something like strokes gained, for example,
Speaker 3: because that's something that it's one of the only things
Speaker 3: that people really can look at during the Ryder Cup
Speaker 3: to evaluate how players performed, which I appreciate that we're
Speaker 3: doing that instead of like number of birdies or something,
Speaker 3: but Ryder Cup strokes gained data is really noisy. A
Speaker 3: lot of players don't even make it to certain holes,
Speaker 3: so it's just it's kind of hard to only look
Speaker 3: at that. And it's also a function of the positions
Speaker 3: you were put in. If you're in foursomes, if you're
Speaker 3: in an alternate shot and you're a bad approach player
Speaker 3: and you were hitting a bunch of long iron approach shots,
Speaker 3: Your strokeskin isn't going to look very good. So I
Speaker 3: think the best way is to actually evaluate the pairings.
Speaker 3: Click through the shots, see what the shots people actually
Speaker 3: hit on the leader board, and that's an effective way
Speaker 3: of evaluating who played well and who did not, just
Speaker 3: reducing it down to strokes.
Speaker 4: Kan okay, So who did play well? What were some
Speaker 4: of the bright spots on the US team, places where
Speaker 4: the team could eventually build.
Speaker 3: I mean the Max Homa played excellent, Brian Harmon, they
Speaker 3: got some points.
Speaker 4: So yeah, and Brian Harmon was paired with Max Homa
Speaker 4: for three sessions.
Speaker 3: Homan Harmon played together three sessions.
Speaker 4: Yes, yeah, and then Harmon lost his singles match, and
Speaker 4: so you could argue that Max Hooma kind of carried
Speaker 4: Brian Harmon, but having watched the matches, Harmon made his contributions.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Harmon played well. Scotti Scheffler I think was better
Speaker 3: than he was given credit for.
Speaker 4: Really.
Speaker 3: I don't think the match that they got crushed nine
Speaker 3: and seven where he was partnered with And I think
Speaker 3: we should talk about some of the decisions that went
Speaker 3: into them being paired together. Like I definitely want to
Speaker 3: get into that. I don't think Scotty played as poorly
Speaker 3: as it may look, which is hard to say given
Speaker 3: that they lost nine to seven, But if you click
Speaker 3: through and look at his shot trails, he wasn't egregious
Speaker 3: in that match. Brooks was really bad and the other player,
Speaker 3: I mean, you got to call out Patrick Cantley, who
Speaker 3: played maybe the three most memorable holes of golf in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty three. The way that Patrick Cantley closed out
Speaker 3: that Saturday four balls match where he was partnered with
Speaker 3: Wyndham Clark to take down Fitzpatrick and Rory is some
Speaker 3: of the best golf that I saw all year. So
Speaker 3: on the American side, that would be a high level
Speaker 3: overview of who played well.
Speaker 4: And you know, given the context of what was going
Speaker 4: on with Patrick Cantley this week, obviously very very impressive
Speaker 4: to see him step up. And you know, I think
Speaker 4: that some of the reports that he was distant from
Speaker 4: the team or that he was complaining about not getting paid,
Speaker 4: I think there's a lot of validity to those reports.
Speaker 4: You know, maybe not all the details are fully in
Speaker 4: place yet. We'll find out more in the coming weeks,
Speaker 4: but I think that there's enough smoke there to say
Speaker 4: that there's a fire, But his performance, especially on Saturday
Speaker 4: and Sunday, would suggest that for him at least some
Speaker 4: of this noise around not being part of the team
Speaker 4: at least didn't affect his play. And so that's that's
Speaker 4: pretty interesting, all right. I can tell that you want
Speaker 4: to get into the captain's decisions, Zach Johnson. Really it
Speaker 4: became clear as the week unfolded that the US players
Speaker 4: weren't being put in their optimal positions to play. Well,
Speaker 4: why don't we start with the captain's picks, right, because
Speaker 4: that's the first set of like really major strategic captain's decisions,
Speaker 4: and then we can get to the pairings. But in retrospect,
Speaker 4: I know that a lot of this is Monday morning quarterbacking.
Speaker 4: You have made sure to comment on a lot of
Speaker 4: this stuff ahead of time. I don't do as much
Speaker 4: of that because, like, I don't think I'm an expert
Speaker 4: on this kind of stuff, and I always just assume
Speaker 4: that the people making these decisions no more than I do,
Speaker 4: and so I can look back and say, hey, this
Speaker 4: was wrong, this was right, But I don't really feel
Speaker 4: expert enough to comment beforehand. You have, and you made
Speaker 4: some pretty good calls ahead of time, So both in
Speaker 4: retrospect and when the picks were made, what some of
Speaker 4: your thinking was, how would you evaluate those captain's picks?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I made some good calls and some
Speaker 3: bad calls, and what's important to me is to make
Speaker 3: them ahead of time because after the event goes down,
Speaker 3: everyone has thoughts for Zach Johnson, and I even tweeted
Speaker 3: on Friday after those first two sessions like, I think
Speaker 3: Zak Johnson's bearing a little more blame than he should.
Speaker 3: Golfers really didn't play well, which I stand behind, but
Speaker 3: Zak Johnson.
Speaker 4: But especially in that first foursome session right where it's like,
Speaker 4: I mean, whatever position they were put in, they would
Speaker 4: have lost.
Speaker 3: Yeah, too much of the blame and maybe credit, but
Speaker 3: more importantly, too much of the blame goes on the
Speaker 3: captains in some of these situations. But that said, I
Speaker 3: still think Zach Johnson deserves an enormous amount of criticism
Speaker 3: for the way he handled this start to finish. The
Speaker 3: biggest thing on the captain's picks. We can argue so
Speaker 3: many different names. I don't think anyone can argue that
Speaker 3: Cameron Young shouldn't have been on this team. This golf
Speaker 3: course demanded great driving and long iron play, and that
Speaker 3: is what Cameron Young does to a t. There is
Speaker 3: no world where you leave Cameron Young off this team.
Speaker 3: And it's impossible to say, hey, he for sure would
Speaker 3: have played well. But he's the type of player that
Speaker 3: could have gone out there and got four points for
Speaker 3: Team USA. I mean, I'm not saying that he would
Speaker 3: have for sure. Obviously I can't say that. But Cameron
Speaker 3: Young absolutely should have been on this team. There's no
Speaker 3: doubt about it.
Speaker 4: All right, So Cameron Young should have been on than
Speaker 4: who who should have been off? What spot is he taking?
Speaker 3: Yeah? And I've heard the point may By didn't we
Speaker 3: give more critique to Ricky Fowler? We kind of just
Speaker 3: shoot him in. I think the way that Ricky and
Speaker 3: Spieth had played it was it was gonna be really
Speaker 3: hard to leave either of them off of the team.
Speaker 3: Sam Burns was a bad fit for this golf course,
Speaker 3: and that I wouldn't I would have absolutely taken Cam
Speaker 3: Young over Sam Burns. I wouldn't have had to think
Speaker 3: hard about that one. Sam Burns actually played a little better,
Speaker 3: especially the back half of this the final two days
Speaker 3: than I might have expected him to. He's a great player,
Speaker 3: but Cam Young, no doubt I'm taking him over Sam Burns.
Speaker 3: The Justin Thomas conversation is just much more like I
Speaker 3: would have taken Cam Young over Justin Thomas and said
Speaker 3: that at the time. I do think there's something to
Speaker 3: the team chemistry and Justin Thomas bringing some energy, bringing
Speaker 3: some flair to the event, getting guys engaged, and there's
Speaker 3: value to that. But I mean, the performance was really bad,
Speaker 3: as I would have expected, And a huge story here
Speaker 3: is that with both Sam Burns and Justin Thomas, those
Speaker 3: are players who make a lot of their money with
Speaker 3: a wedge in their hand, and this was not a
Speaker 3: golf course where you're going to be hitting wedge very often.
Speaker 3: So that's kind of a transition a little bit into
Speaker 3: the pairing stuff.
Speaker 4: Can we go into that, Yeah, well, I mean Sam Burns,
Speaker 4: I think that we can pretty much almost certainly say
Speaker 4: that he was picked because he was going to be
Speaker 4: paired with Scotti Scheffler, right, and so that pairing was preordained,
Speaker 4: That was a captain's pick pairing pairing, right, that both
Speaker 4: of those were considered together, he was inevitably going to
Speaker 4: be playing with Scotty Scheffler. I mean, what did you
Speaker 4: make of that pairing?
Speaker 3: Yeah, so, like I think there was a very clear
Speaker 3: formula to this Ryder Cup and the Europeans followed it.
Speaker 3: You needed a great driver off of the even numbered holes,
Speaker 3: and you needed a really good approach player off of
Speaker 3: the odd holes. Okay, because the second shot on a
Speaker 3: lot of the even number holes, you're gonna hit a
Speaker 3: lot of long irons. You were also gonna have three
Speaker 3: of the part threes, So good long iron player off
Speaker 3: the odd holes, you're gonna have driver in your hand
Speaker 3: a lot on the even number holes, good driver needs
Speaker 3: to tee off there. And when you start to look
Speaker 3: at this United States team and say, well, who are
Speaker 3: the truly great drivers of the golf ball, it's a
Speaker 3: pretty interesting conversation and another important thing to comment on
Speaker 3: the force because we're specifically talking about the alternate shot,
Speaker 3: the Forsom's format. That is a format where you need
Speaker 3: to have your best golfers on the course. When they
Speaker 3: hit a bad shot, you're almost certainly gonna lose the hole.
Speaker 3: Versus in four balls in the best ball format, you
Speaker 3: can get away with hitting a lot of bad shots
Speaker 3: and you see that. All due respect to Bobby McIntyre,
Speaker 3: that's what the Europeans did. They hit him in the
Speaker 3: best ball format, as you should. So to take a
Speaker 3: step back and say, well, who are the great drivers
Speaker 3: on the American team? For example, two of the best
Speaker 3: drivers are Xander Schoffley and Patrick Cantlay. But we just
Speaker 3: took it for granted that they're gonna pair together, and
Speaker 3: there's no even there's not even a conversation of hey,
Speaker 3: you know what, maybe we should split these two up
Speaker 3: and ensure that we have good drivers on all of
Speaker 3: these teams. So that's a natural place to talk about
Speaker 3: the Scotty Scheffler Sam Burns pairing, where Scotty Scheffler is
Speaker 3: one of the great drivers of the golf ball on
Speaker 3: Team USA, but you wanted him hitting all these important
Speaker 3: approach shots. Therefore they had him go off the odd
Speaker 3: numbered holes. Well, that leaves Sam Burns a bad driver
Speaker 3: of the golf not bad, but he's not one of
Speaker 3: the top drivers. He can spray it. He's going off
Speaker 3: the even number holes. That's a bad pairing that they're
Speaker 3: gonna have issues all day Xander and Patrick Cantlay, Right,
Speaker 3: they didn't even get a point, and we stacked two
Speaker 3: of the best drivers of the team on two of
Speaker 3: the best drivers on the team on this for some's pairing,
Speaker 3: and then we had on Saturday they played Jordan Speith
Speaker 3: and Justin Thomas, neither of whom is a good driver
Speaker 3: of the golf ball right now, and they're both shaky
Speaker 3: with their long irons. That was a disastrous pairing. So
Speaker 3: these pieces all fit together. And when you see the
Speaker 3: way Europe did it, for example with the Victor Hovelin
Speaker 3: love theg a Oberg pairing, it was just it was
Speaker 3: much more well done. And we got to have a
Speaker 3: conversation about the role that Buddy ball played because the
Speaker 3: sam Brns Scheffler pairing and then insisting on can't Land
Speaker 3: Shoffley being paired together, it imposes these artificial constraints and
Speaker 3: you want to have maximum flexibility.
Speaker 4: Now, Okay, In Zach Johnson's defense, some of these pairings
Speaker 4: had been successful in the past. Right at Whistling Straits,
Speaker 4: some of these specific pairings were pretty dominant, and Speith
Speaker 4: and Thomas clearly have a history of playing quite well together.
Speaker 4: And so how do you make the decision, if you're
Speaker 4: Zach Johnson to go away from that. In this particular instance.
Speaker 3: I put a lot less stock into those kinds of
Speaker 3: things because they're different golf courses and those players' skill
Speaker 3: sets look a lot different at that time. So when
Speaker 3: people want to say, well, you got to take Justin
Speaker 3: Thomas on the team because of his small sample size
Speaker 3: record and Ryder Cups, then what do you say now
Speaker 3: when he just put a couple losses in the column?
Speaker 3: Does he have a good record still? And the conversation
Speaker 3: starts to get hairy. I would focus way more on
Speaker 3: what are the shots that are going to be hit
Speaker 3: and who are the players best equipped to hit those shots,
Speaker 3: which is I think a really important point about the
Speaker 3: chemistry and the makeup and the spirit of Team USA
Speaker 3: versus Team Europe. I believe firmly that the Team Europe says, hey,
Speaker 3: just give me a player that's going to be complimentary
Speaker 3: with my skill set and will go make it happen.
Speaker 3: And I've heard plenty of anecdotes about that. Hendrik Stenson
Speaker 3: had said that when he was playing. Justin came out
Speaker 3: this week and said, you know, playing a good pairing
Speaker 3: doesn't necessarily mean playing with your best friend or whatever.
Speaker 3: He said. I think Team Europe just takes that approach
Speaker 3: more in general versus Team USA. I think the players
Speaker 3: are dictating a little bit more of that, and I
Speaker 3: would not be scared to break up pairings that have
Speaker 3: done well in the past, and I don't think Team
Speaker 3: Europe's scared to do that either.
Speaker 4: I really agree with that, and I think that a
Speaker 4: great representation of that dynamic was just in the Friday
Speaker 4: foursome's matchups, where you had going first out Scheffler and
Speaker 4: Burns buddy ball, you had Xander Cantlay batting cleanup right
Speaker 4: in the fourth match of that session, going up against
Speaker 4: Scheffler and Burns for Team Europe was John Rahm and
Speaker 4: Tyrrel Hatton and Rom said something during the week to
Speaker 4: the effect of, well, I've gotten a lot more familiar
Speaker 4: with Tyrel over the past few weeks, as in we
Speaker 4: didn't really know each other that well before we heard
Speaker 4: that we might be paired up in this Ryder Cup
Speaker 4: and we might have to get familiar with each other.
Speaker 4: I think that that's a great example of how Team
Speaker 4: Europe isn't as guided by these traditional pairings, buddy ball,
Speaker 4: whatever you want to call it. There just aren't these
Speaker 4: pairs that you can't break up. It's almost like Team
Speaker 4: USA is imposing certain constraints on itself, saying that we
Speaker 4: can make whatever decision we want, except we can never
Speaker 4: split up Skeethan Thomas. We can never split up Burns
Speaker 4: and Scheffler, we can never split up Xander, and can't lay.
Speaker 4: We just can't do that. But anything else we can do, well,
Speaker 4: you've already really limited your decision making. And that doesn't
Speaker 4: mean that you make these last minute decisions in a
Speaker 4: hectic state of panic, and that you put two guys
Speaker 4: together who didn't expect to be together. That's not clearly
Speaker 4: what happened with Team Europe, but there as a plan
Speaker 4: for the European team, and that plan doesn't appear to
Speaker 4: have been guided by what the pre existing friendships were,
Speaker 4: and that seems to be the core of the difference
Speaker 4: when it comes to the pairings philosophy here, Ram Manhattan,
Speaker 4: what do those guys have to do with each other?
Speaker 4: I mean, the personalities might might seem to kind of
Speaker 4: be similar to each other in some ways, but I
Speaker 4: don't think those guys were buddies. But they I guess
Speaker 4: Dodo Molinari probably saw something in their games for this course,
Speaker 4: where he was like, yeah, these guys should go out.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I think a great example of Europe sticking
Speaker 3: to their game plan and abandoning any kind of artificial constraints.
Speaker 3: Garrett of the So, I think you can make an
Speaker 3: argument that Forsome's is more important, right, each shot is
Speaker 3: more important, and you need to have your talent on
Speaker 3: the golf course when you're in the Forsomme's format. Yeah,
Speaker 3: we already you.
Speaker 4: Need to avoid mistakes, you just need to enforce some's
Speaker 4: mistakes or deadly four ball mistakes are manageable.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good way of putting it right. And
Speaker 3: already mentioned that that's what they did with Bobby McIntyre.
Speaker 3: That's what Europe did of the Forsome's pairings. Garrett on
Speaker 3: between Friday and Saturday, how many of those teams do
Speaker 3: you think we're the same for Team USA? And how
Speaker 3: many of those teams were identical from Friday to Saturday
Speaker 3: for Team.
Speaker 4: Europe three to one or something like that.
Speaker 3: Euros Europe's teams were identical both days of the alternate shot.
Speaker 3: And I don't even know if anyone's brought that up,
Speaker 3: but they were the exact same McElroy, Fleetwood, Straka, Lowry, Hoveland,
Speaker 3: Abert Obern, and Romhattan. And that is to me a
Speaker 3: signal of intelligent pairing and sticking to a game plan.
Speaker 3: But but Team USA they're mixing them up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's interesting, and so they they you know, Foursom's
Speaker 4: is kind of like a specialty, and it's like, we
Speaker 4: gotta we got to identify the guys who are gonna
Speaker 4: thrive in this format and use them both times.
Speaker 3: And they're gonna because players.
Speaker 4: Right, and it's yeah, it's got to be. It's got
Speaker 4: to be the guys who are making the fewest mistakes.
Speaker 4: And if you if you were to just if you
Speaker 4: were to just look at a Team USA and try
Speaker 4: to consider who's making the fewest mistakes right now, you
Speaker 4: probably wouldn't choose Ricky Fowler. I mean, it wouldn't take
Speaker 4: long to determine that he's probably making some mistakes. Did
Speaker 4: he end up only playing in two sessions?
Speaker 2: Rich?
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, he played the singles and then he played
Speaker 3: one on the Friday.
Speaker 4: Which was he played that he played that Forsomes match
Speaker 4: exactly and so and yeah, and so that just tells
Speaker 4: you right there. I mean, here's a guy who's only
Speaker 4: playing in two sessions. Basically, they're hiding Ricky. They knew
Speaker 4: they needed to hide Ricky, and so why are you
Speaker 4: putting him in a forsomes match if you want to
Speaker 4: hide him, if you want to hide somebody, As you
Speaker 4: said with with Bob McIntyre, you know, uh, four ball
Speaker 4: is sort of the way to do it.
Speaker 3: And one other one other thing on that. On that point,
Speaker 3: there are certain skill sets that interact and wedge and
Speaker 3: potter is one of those. Right, if you're hitting a
Speaker 3: lot of good wedges, you'reving yourself short range putts, which
Speaker 3: is where the best putters in the world they capitalize.
Speaker 3: Sam Burns is an excellent example of a player who
Speaker 3: has that wedge putter interaction, really good wedge player, really
Speaker 3: good putter. When you put him an alternate shot with
Speaker 3: Scotty Scheffler, those skill sets no longer interact. A there
Speaker 3: aren't a lot of wedges, but when there are, he's
Speaker 3: going to hit some wedges close that Scotty Scheffler is
Speaker 3: notoriously struggling with his putter and he's not going to
Speaker 3: cash them in. Also, in the best ball format, you
Speaker 3: let Sam Burns, you let those skill sets interact. Right
Speaker 3: on the first hole when he played four balls on
Speaker 3: Saturday to short par four, it's like four hundred and
Speaker 3: seven yards. He hit a three foot off the tee,
Speaker 3: hit a wedge in close, made the putt. Those skill
Speaker 3: sets interacted in the best ball format. You're not allowing
Speaker 3: them to interact in the alternate shot format. And that
Speaker 3: is where it's just another example of why Sam Burns,
Speaker 3: if he's only going to play two sessions, put them
Speaker 3: put him in the four balls both times. He's probably
Speaker 3: gonna be one of the weaker links on Team USA,
Speaker 3: and his skill sets better suited for it. Do that, right,
Speaker 3: And if you pair them with Scotti Scheffler, who's not
Speaker 3: an amazing he's a good wedge player, but not an
Speaker 3: amazing putter, you're probably gonna make birdies on different holes.
Speaker 3: That's the way to pair players. Instead, they went with
Speaker 3: him in foursoms, which didn't make any sense. Does that
Speaker 3: make sense, Garrett?
Speaker 4: That totally makes sense, right. It's it's sort of like
Speaker 4: each each player has a really unique skill profile in
Speaker 4: a way that they get things done, and some of
Speaker 4: those skill profiles lend themselves to foursomes more than others.
Speaker 4: You know, if a guy is a great driver of
Speaker 4: the ball and a great putter, that that might be
Speaker 4: a that might be a pretty cool combination for a
Speaker 4: Forsome's player. But when you have somebody like Sam Burns
Speaker 4: who's making so much of his money just inside one
Speaker 4: hundred yards, then that's that's maybe not as fruitful. But
Speaker 4: that said, Burns did end up playing pretty well. We
Speaker 4: don't know what Cameron Young would have done. What would
Speaker 4: Cameron Young have done if paired with Scotti Shefflin. Maybe
Speaker 4: that wouldn't be the best pairing because neither of those
Speaker 4: guys can can really put right now. But whatever I mean,
Speaker 4: this course, I think that you've said this before. This
Speaker 4: course didn't exactly prioritize putting, so there were other possibilities
Speaker 4: on the board for Team USA. Let's go back to
Speaker 4: the JT pick, though, because that's the interesting hinge for
Speaker 4: me here, because when you're talking about Cameron Young, the
Speaker 4: guy he replaces on this team is Sam Burns, not JT.
Speaker 4: So I think that once you start talking about whether
Speaker 4: JT should have been on this team or not, you
Speaker 4: start considering players like Keegan Bradley, Russell Henley. Who am
Speaker 4: I forgetting Bryce Bryson. Yeah right, Okay, well, then let's
Speaker 4: talk talk about it from that. That's the most interesting
Speaker 4: way to talk about this is JT versus Bryson. That's
Speaker 4: the This is the juiciest. This might not be the
Speaker 4: right way to discuss it, but it's the juiciest way
Speaker 4: to discuss it. We can talk about Bryson and JT together.
Speaker 4: How do you make the decision to put Bryson on
Speaker 4: this team given that he's been playing so much of
Speaker 4: his golf on a tour where the information that we're
Speaker 4: getting about what guys are doing competitively is a little
Speaker 4: bit it's new at the very least. I don't know
Speaker 4: if it's unreliable, But when you compare it to what
Speaker 4: we get the information that we get about how guys
Speaker 4: are playing on the PGA Tour, it's just got to
Speaker 4: be a little bit less credible. So how do you
Speaker 4: make the decision to put Bryson on this team over
Speaker 4: a guy like JT.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't have put Ryson on the team, and you're
Speaker 3: speaking largely to why I wouldn't have, and I would
Speaker 3: have considered him. Brandon and I talked about that on
Speaker 3: an episode of The Shotgun Star like, yeah, you gotta
Speaker 3: consider Bryson, but the data is limited. There are a
Speaker 3: bunch of golfers in the live fields that at this
Speaker 3: point it's really hard to evaluate them, and so when
Speaker 3: you're trying to think about field strength of those live events,
Speaker 3: it's difficult. There's not crossover in those golfers, especially at
Speaker 3: the bottom of the live roster. Playing a bunch of
Speaker 3: other events, you don't have a whole lot to go
Speaker 3: off of besides things like major championship performances, and Bryson
Speaker 3: wasn't exactly stellar in those. He struggled at the Open Championship,
Speaker 3: was decent at the US Open, finished T. Twenty the
Speaker 3: PGA Championship.
Speaker 4: He was good at the PGA Championship, he.
Speaker 3: Finished type for fourth okill you could kind of spray
Speaker 3: that's a Bryson golf course, like very much winked foot
Speaker 3: type course. And then he missed the cut at the Masters.
Speaker 3: So he didn't give us a whole lot to go
Speaker 3: off of besides some big moments on the live tour,
Speaker 3: which are legitimately hard to evaluate. Do I think that
Speaker 3: Bryson would have given you a better chance than Justin
Speaker 3: Thomas if you take out the team can all that stuff,
Speaker 3: you just take out the team chemistry altogether. Yeah, probably, probably,
Speaker 3: But it's really hard to, in my opinion, have full
Speaker 3: confidence in somebody with a really limited data set. Like
Speaker 3: just for example, Bryson's driver he has sprayed over the
Speaker 3: last two to three years. How much is he spraying
Speaker 3: it right now on live? I don't know. The data
Speaker 3: is not good enough to even evaluate that. Right You
Speaker 3: can't see how straight somebody's hitting the ball, so that
Speaker 3: that's Bryson's I don't know if I want to use
Speaker 3: the word fault, but it's a trade off Bryson made
Speaker 3: by joining that tour.
Speaker 4: Yeah, now JT didn't play well at this Ryder Cup,
Speaker 4: and so that means something and we can hand out,
Speaker 4: you know, demerits and a grades to people's pre Ryder
Speaker 4: Cup takes according to that. I know that's how it works,
Speaker 4: and that's fine. But the argument that I would make
Speaker 4: in defense of the JT pick right now is the
Speaker 4: same as the argument that I may before the Ryder Cup,
Speaker 4: and that is not necessarily that he is a team
Speaker 4: room galvanizer, that he's a great cheerleader or whatever. Some
Speaker 4: of that may be true. I can't really evaluate that.
Speaker 4: What I do think I know is that Justin Thomas
Speaker 4: has established himself as one of the best players of
Speaker 4: his generation over the course of his career, and everybody
Speaker 4: on the US team is aware of that. And so
Speaker 4: if he were not picked by Zach Johnson, and especially
Speaker 4: if his spot appeared to be taken by Bryson Deshambo,
Speaker 4: there would have been some discontent and some ill feeling
Speaker 4: about that within the team. Not because the guys like
Speaker 4: JT better, though that may be very much the truth,
Speaker 4: but because they think of him as one of the
Speaker 4: greatest players of his generation and they want the best
Speaker 4: players on their team. Even if JT has had a
Speaker 4: miserable year. I still believe that guys like Max Homer,
Speaker 4: Patrick Cantley, I still think they think of JT in
Speaker 4: the same way that they did in twenty twenty two
Speaker 4: when JT won a Major. And so I think that
Speaker 4: that is part of the logic of that pick that's
Speaker 4: not necessarily backed by valid recent data. That is convincing
Speaker 4: to me. You know this is you had you had
Speaker 4: to pick them in that spot, because it just would
Speaker 4: have been it would have been weird to the team
Speaker 4: if if you hadn't.
Speaker 3: I don't disagree with you, And here's why I felt
Speaker 3: strongly that Justin Thomas was going to perform poorly. Over
Speaker 3: the last few months, he has given us very few
Speaker 3: strong performances. A couple of those were Fortinet, which at
Speaker 3: a lot of wedges, Windham Championship, which is again like
Speaker 3: kind of a wedge and on and around the greens
Speaker 3: that that's sort of what Sedgefield tends to test. In
Speaker 3: the Travelers Championship, which was another like really sawid set
Speaker 3: up a lot of wedges in your hand. Outside of that,
Speaker 3: there's a lot of missed cuts and some really ugly data, right,
Speaker 3: some almost last place in a couple majors, US Open
Speaker 3: and the Open Championship were really bad. Finished T. Sixty
Speaker 3: five at the PGA, missed cuts at the three cut
Speaker 3: at three M Memorial. I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: bad data in there. None of the players on the
Speaker 3: US team are following the data like that, right, It's
Speaker 3: not like Max Home and Patrick Kntley are going through
Speaker 3: that rationale. So I agree with you that if they
Speaker 3: didn't pick him, it probably would have taken some air
Speaker 3: out of the room a little bit, and no one's
Speaker 3: thinking about the fact that the fortinet's a wedge contest,
Speaker 3: so I think they did kind of have to pick them,
Speaker 3: and even saying that I wouldn't have, but I'm not
Speaker 3: the captain of Team USA, and I don't even know
Speaker 3: how to think about some of the team chemistry stuff
Speaker 3: because I've never been in one of those rooms.
Speaker 4: That's interesting, And I think that if you don't pick JT,
Speaker 4: and you have the rationale that you're like out right now,
Speaker 4: that you just need a captain who is really good
Speaker 4: and really authoritative in explaining to the team why this
Speaker 4: decision puts them in the best spot to win, because
Speaker 4: I think that that's what those guys care about. There's
Speaker 4: this narrative out there that they care about having their
Speaker 4: buddies on the team and yucking it up in the
Speaker 4: team room, and I don't really think that that's what
Speaker 4: it's about. I think they all want to be in
Speaker 4: the best position to win. I think they don't want
Speaker 4: to be embarrassed. But they have a certain set of
Speaker 4: beliefs about which players around them are going to give
Speaker 4: them that best chance to win. And some of that
Speaker 4: is maybe based on personal feelings that they're not entirely
Speaker 4: aware of, and so you would have needed a leader
Speaker 4: who was really convincing and had a lot of credibility
Speaker 4: on the team to explain why JT is being left
Speaker 4: home in this situation. And I'm not sure that Zach
Speaker 4: Johnson was that guy this time. He just didn't appear
Speaker 4: to be. And that leads us to some of these
Speaker 4: team team dynamics, some of the intangible, some of the
Speaker 4: stuff that's really hard to discuss from the outside. You're
Speaker 4: somebody who's deep in the data and who is really
Speaker 4: conversant in that kind of stuff. You know, in your
Speaker 4: own thinking about the Ryder Cup, how often do you
Speaker 4: try to even bring in some of this soft science stuff,
Speaker 4: sports psychology, sports performance things like that. How do you
Speaker 4: bring that into your thinking from the outside evaluating a
Speaker 4: Ryder Cup performance? Can you even do that?
Speaker 3: Really difficult? I am a believer in that stuff. I
Speaker 3: think you hear it from enough golfers that I trust
Speaker 3: them because they're smart, they are they're some of the
Speaker 3: best people in the world of their craft, and I
Speaker 3: think it's really hard to I watch a lot of sports, right,
Speaker 3: not golf, not just golf, every sport, and it's pretty
Speaker 3: clear that team chemistry can be important. There are also
Speaker 3: other instances, like in professional basketball, where some guys don't
Speaker 3: like each other in the locker room and winning seems
Speaker 3: to take care of everything. And I think I come
Speaker 3: a little bit from the mindset of give players a
Speaker 3: chance to let their performance lead like let because if
Speaker 3: you didn't have Justin Thomas on this team, I think
Speaker 3: there's an argument of, hey, who are the leaders in
Speaker 3: that team room? And that might be more of an
Speaker 3: indictment of some of the characters in that team room
Speaker 3: than it is a valid point, like who are the
Speaker 3: galvanizers if you remove Justin Thomas? And what I would
Speaker 3: say to that is, well, you wouldn't have said Patrick
Speaker 3: Cantley going into this Ryder Cup and he ended up
Speaker 3: being one because his clubs did a lot of the talking.
Speaker 3: There were some of the other storylines too, But I
Speaker 3: think it's unfair to penalize Cam Young for potentially a
Speaker 3: perceived lack of leadership or your gift Justin Thomas that
Speaker 3: leadership credit, but you're not giving it to Cameron Young.
Speaker 3: What if Cameron Young would have played and balled out
Speaker 3: and guys would have rallied around him, like it's hard
Speaker 3: for me to team chemistry is tough because just giving
Speaker 3: Justin Thomas that check in his giving him a tally
Speaker 3: for that, but not giving it to some other guys
Speaker 3: who haven't even had a chance to assert that doesn't
Speaker 3: necessarily feel one hundred percent fair to me. The only
Speaker 3: other thing I'll say on that, and because I'm being
Speaker 3: long winded on this answer, is that I think an
Speaker 3: important part of the intangibles, which maybe this shouldn't be
Speaker 3: considered an intangible, is rest and rest slash preparation. And
Speaker 3: I do believe that the layoff the United States had
Speaker 3: leading into this Ryder Cup was a disadvantage. It's a
Speaker 3: little bit difficult to troubleshoot say, hey, more guys should
Speaker 3: have showed up for the Fortnet. No, I don't think
Speaker 3: that's the answer. I don't think showing up in NAPA
Speaker 3: would have been an unbelievable, you know, a way to
Speaker 3: prepare for this event. But even like rest, Garrett, in
Speaker 3: the fact that both John Rahm and Scotti Scheffler rested
Speaker 3: on Saturday afternoon, that was a signal they were going
Speaker 3: to be teeing off first in the singles match. These
Speaker 3: teams are thoughtful about that kind of stuff and energy
Speaker 3: levels is something that should be considered. So the team
Speaker 3: chemistry and energy level stuff is really interesting, and that's
Speaker 3: not strokes gain stuff.
Speaker 4: Right, and you need people around who know about that stuff.
Speaker 4: And I think, by the way, this is why Dodo
Speaker 4: Molinari is such a weapon for the European side, because
Speaker 4: it seems like on the US side this is an oversimplification,
Speaker 4: but to an extent, I think it's true that you
Speaker 4: have your data guys and you have your golf guys,
Speaker 4: and the two of them try to communicate and try
Speaker 4: to establish links in decision making between the two camps.
Speaker 4: But maybe there's not a whole lot of people who
Speaker 4: can kind of sit in the middle and do both.
Speaker 4: Dodo Molinari can do both. He is every thing at once.
Speaker 4: He is a widely respected professional golfer who speaks golfer
Speaker 4: and also somebody who is deep, deep in the data
Speaker 4: and understands it. And so I think that's a major
Speaker 4: advantage for the European side here somebody who brings together
Speaker 4: the hard and soft sciences a bit. And then you know,
Speaker 4: when it comes to team chemistry, it's so funny. There's
Speaker 4: so many different versions of teams that function well psychologically
Speaker 4: and collectively. And it's not just the teams who all
Speaker 4: like each other. It's really not. I mean, it's not
Speaker 4: that simple. I think that the common thread between teams
Speaker 4: that perform well together, and this is just speaking from
Speaker 4: my own, you know, very very low level experience coaching
Speaker 4: and being an athlete, it's belief in the other guys.
Speaker 4: It's trust that they're great and that they're going to
Speaker 4: do their best for you. And yeah, some of that
Speaker 4: can create bonds of loyalty and friendship, but really it
Speaker 4: doesn't require that. And that's why you get certain teams
Speaker 4: that you know, guys don't like each other very much,
Speaker 4: but they believe in each other. They believe that the
Speaker 4: other guy is a great player and is going to
Speaker 4: come through in big moments. Shaq and Kobe ended up
Speaker 4: blowing up, and maybe some of the interpersonal issues were
Speaker 4: a contributing factor to that, but the fact is that
Speaker 4: for a time they were a great, great team without
Speaker 4: liking each other at all. And that's because both of
Speaker 4: those players believed that the other player was one of
Speaker 4: the best and that was a fact that they couldn't
Speaker 4: ignore and that provided enough, you know, trust and team
Speaker 4: chemistry to get things done. And so you know, when
Speaker 4: it comes to the US team, I think that people
Speaker 4: maybe overstate the role that buddiness plays. What they've really
Speaker 4: got to have is other players that they really believe in.
Speaker 4: They've got to look for the best players for this
Speaker 4: particular course, and they've got a captain. They've got to
Speaker 4: have a captain who can articulate to players why certain
Speaker 4: decisions are being made, Why is this guy, why is
Speaker 4: this pairing going to be the best for me? And
Speaker 4: if you can make those arguments, then you're going to
Speaker 4: create much better team chemistry.
Speaker 3: I think that was very well said. I totally agree
Speaker 3: with you. Belief and part of belief is putting players
Speaker 3: in the best position to succeed. The only thing I'll
Speaker 3: add on that from an organization, I don't know. I'm
Speaker 3: not an expert in building an organization and some of
Speaker 3: the I don't have my MBA and organizational studies or specific.
Speaker 4: Yeah, you need an NBA to be valid in this.
Speaker 3: Country, right right, But I think investment in the process
Speaker 3: is important when you're building an organization and having the
Speaker 3: members of the team aligned on the mission and the
Speaker 3: decisions that are being made, which is a little bit
Speaker 3: of a slippery slope because the more you involve the
Speaker 3: players and the decisions, the more they advocate for potentially
Speaker 3: some of their friends. And that is the fine line.
Speaker 3: So I totally agree with you. I think education is
Speaker 3: a big piece here where the captain needs to understand
Speaker 3: this stuff, needs to explain to the players, like I
Speaker 3: want some of your input on potentially who you think
Speaker 3: are good players, who would be good fits for the
Speaker 3: team room and stuff. Ultimately, I'm making the call and
Speaker 3: I'll tell you why I'm making the call, and it's
Speaker 3: going to be data driven and we're gonna get the
Speaker 3: course fit stuff right. And you need a unique skill
Speaker 3: set to be able to do both of those things,
Speaker 3: to pick the right players, to get buy in from
Speaker 3: the team, but to not let the buy in become
Speaker 3: a buddy system to where you roll out Jordan Speeth
Speaker 3: and Justin Thomas and Forsomes, and that is the balance
Speaker 3: that needs to be struck. And I agree with you
Speaker 3: that not just Molinari, who was excellent, but I think
Speaker 3: Louke Donald deserves an enormous amount of credit for the
Speaker 3: way that they navigated that entire equation.
Speaker 4: All right, So coming up next in this podcast, I
Speaker 4: have Ben Coley on to discuss some of those European dynamics.
Speaker 4: But thank you so much, Joseph. Always a pleasure to
Speaker 4: have you on after a big event. And I guess
Speaker 4: we get a bit of a break now between now
Speaker 4: and the Masters.
Speaker 3: Yeah, sounds good. I'll see you in two years at
Speaker 3: the Ryder Cup.
Speaker 4: I am here with Ben Coley. Ben, is this as
Speaker 4: glorious a victory as I am assuming it must be
Speaker 4: for everybody who lives in Europe?
Speaker 2: I think so. Yeah, it doesn't really get much better.
Speaker 2: I don't think. I mean, obviously, I probably would have
Speaker 2: said the same in twenty eighteen and twenty fourteen and
Speaker 2: twenty ten and so on and so forth. Life has
Speaker 2: been European Ryder Cup victory basically, which is fantastic on
Speaker 2: home soil at least. But yeah, this is pretty sweet.
Speaker 2: I mean in terms of where we were two years
Speaker 2: ago and where we are today, I mean, they've done
Speaker 2: exceptionally well. I know that a lot of the aftermath
Speaker 2: will be about the United States and their various failings,
Speaker 2: and a lot of that is valid, but I hope
Speaker 2: that there's still plenty of time and space to talk
Speaker 2: about how well Europe did, because I really don't think
Speaker 2: they missed a beat. I mean, I know, Captaincy is
Speaker 2: such that you win and everything was right, and you
Speaker 2: lose and everything was wrong, But I don't think that's
Speaker 2: a long way from the truth here. So yeah, a
Speaker 2: fabulous victory for Europe. And I kind of, like Luke
Speaker 2: Donald said when he was asked if he would do
Speaker 2: it again in two years, I don't really care about
Speaker 2: Beth Page right now. We're just enjoying what was a
Speaker 2: fantastic victory and one that was in no doubt really
Speaker 2: from a very early stage.
Speaker 4: Well, let's start with the players, specifically the leading trio
Speaker 4: of Rory McElroy, John Rahm, and Victor Hovland. Going into
Speaker 4: this Ryder Cup. I think almost everyone acknowledged that they
Speaker 4: were three of the four best golfers in the world,
Speaker 4: maybe the three best golfers in the world based on
Speaker 4: kind of recent form and complete game, because the other
Speaker 4: player in that mix might be Scotty Scheffler, who has
Speaker 4: sort of openly struggled with putting lately, whereas these three
Speaker 4: players have been more or less firing on all cylinders
Speaker 4: for this year of twenty twenty three. Tell me about
Speaker 4: their performances, their collective performance at this Ryder Cup and
Speaker 4: what it meant to the European team.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, obviously I think the timing in that respect
Speaker 2: was really really good for Europe. Obviously, Victor coming off
Speaker 2: winning the FedEx Cup and John Fanny his form again
Speaker 2: at Wentworth and Rory obviously has barely missed a beat
Speaker 2: this year. But it was great to see Hoveland in
Speaker 2: particular really confirm his assent has been kind of on
Speaker 2: a nice, steady trajectory, but two years ago it was
Speaker 2: a little bit soon for him, and yet he played
Speaker 2: five games and it really tells you a lot about
Speaker 2: that European side and the problems they had. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's easy to forget, but Tommy Fleetwood was not quite
Speaker 2: at his best. Matt Fitzpatrick was not the player he
Speaker 2: is now, tyrrel hatton the same and we had to
Speaker 2: rely on Victor without any choice. But this time it
Speaker 2: was clearly he was ready for it. And the way
Speaker 2: he played in the singles in particular, I mean obviously
Speaker 2: guiding Ludwig through those Foursom's matches on both mornings and
Speaker 2: the record win on Saturday was fantastic, but the way
Speaker 2: he went out and looked at simply a better player
Speaker 2: than Klinmarakara. I think was a really nice sort of
Speaker 2: symbol of where those two players have gone over the
Speaker 2: last couple of years and their respective directions. John is
Speaker 2: just I mean, he just loves it, doesn't they. I
Speaker 2: think he's got that wonderful balance of I mean, we
Speaker 2: all hear him speak and he's so well grounded, but
Speaker 2: he's got a real chip on his shoulder as well.
Speaker 2: And I actually thought watching him in the press conference
Speaker 2: last night, like you could see he was quietly fuming
Speaker 2: that no one was asking him questions and all the
Speaker 2: questions were going to Rory. He's sitting there thinking that
Speaker 2: I'm the best player in this team.
Speaker 4: I can tell they were joking about it, but John
Speaker 4: was like, no, but really, I mean and Rory Roy
Speaker 4: kind of saved it a little bit at one point
Speaker 4: by saying, oh, He's only the best player in the world.
Speaker 4: And so that was a nice bit of diplomacy from Rory.
Speaker 4: But yes, it bothered him.
Speaker 2: And it says so much about the European team that
Speaker 2: they're still fundamentally individual sports people. But they can put
Speaker 2: that aside. And John said it himself you come into
Speaker 2: the team room on a Monday and it doesn't matter
Speaker 2: who you are, and we just only when the competition
Speaker 2: was finished. See that Ego come back right because he
Speaker 2: was fine with being sat out of Saturday afternoon, which
Speaker 2: is one of probably the two or three decisions that
Speaker 2: had things gone wrong on Sunday, obviously Luke Donald would
Speaker 2: have had to answer for. But as for Rwal as well,
Speaker 2: I mean you probably know Garrett that I'm a bit
Speaker 2: of a romantic and a massive Rory fanboy, so to
Speaker 2: say this week was just how I'd have wanted it
Speaker 2: to go, It's probably an understatement, even down to what
Speaker 2: happened on Saturday night and having that extra sort of
Speaker 2: twist to it. But he's a player who cares deeply
Speaker 2: about this competition. We know that he cares about the
Speaker 2: legacy he leaves behind, and it was his best ride
Speaker 2: a Cup and I was a little bit surprised he
Speaker 2: played all five matches, and I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people will be surprised that it was him and not
Speaker 2: John who'd played fewer holes as well and probably played
Speaker 2: better over those first three sessions. So I think that
Speaker 2: probably tells you something about McDonald actually, and probably he
Speaker 2: spent a lot of time thinking about how best to
Speaker 2: get Rory firing, and actually saying to him after Whistling
Speaker 2: Straights that no, you are going to play five. You
Speaker 2: are still my guy was another little thing that Donald
Speaker 2: got absolutely right.
Speaker 4: So looking at these past two Ryder Cups in retros,
Speaker 4: I admit that I didn't have this narrative in my
Speaker 4: mind going into this Ryder Cup, But looking at this
Speaker 4: European team and how it has shown up in twenty
Speaker 4: twenty one and then in twenty twenty three, it seems
Speaker 4: like there's a bit of a changing of the guard
Speaker 4: going on. And Live has a lot to do with that,
Speaker 4: because all of a sudden, Sergio Garcia is not around,
Speaker 4: Ian Poultter's not around, Lee Westwood's not around, and they
Speaker 4: were all very much factors at Whistling Straits and kind
Speaker 4: of now give the impression that that Whistling Straits Ryder
Speaker 4: Cup was kind of the last gasp of a particular
Speaker 4: era of the European Ryder Cup. And now we have
Speaker 4: a new looking team, but one holdover from the previous
Speaker 4: era is Justin Rose. And he had quite a week,
Speaker 4: sort of a surprising week in a lot of ways,
Speaker 4: although he's shown, you know, that he can play well
Speaker 4: on a given weekend, as he clearly did at Pebble
Speaker 4: Beach fairly recently, you know, he hasn't been a super
Speaker 4: consistent factor in the world's biggest tournaments, but he really
Speaker 4: showed up this week. What are some of your takeaways
Speaker 4: about the Justin Rose Ryder Cup of twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: Well, first of all, on LIV, I think actually what
Speaker 2: it did was it removed any awkwardness from Europe in
Speaker 2: terms of how you phase those players out. It's really
Speaker 2: difficult to leave out players like Sergio Garcia from the
Speaker 2: Ryder Cup. I think there would have been outrage had
Speaker 2: he remained eligible and not been selected. And actually all
Speaker 2: those problems were taken away from Luke Donald and in
Speaker 2: a way it was the US who had to answer
Speaker 2: those questions because their players were eligible and they had,
Speaker 2: particularly Bryson de Chamber obviously, the way he played the
Speaker 2: last couple of months, someone sort of banging loudly on
Speaker 2: the door. So it just shows you how much can
Speaker 2: change in two years. As for Justin Rose, I think
Speaker 2: one of my very favorite things in sport in general,
Speaker 2: it's seeing guys answer questions and remind you of their
Speaker 2: class in any sport at any level really, but Rose
Speaker 2: in particularly, you know, he's got a fabulous Rider Cup record,
Speaker 2: he's a major champion of world number one, He's done
Speaker 2: most things in this game. He should really be a
Speaker 2: Master's champion as well. Obviously, he really has achieved most
Speaker 2: things in this game. His hold massive putts at big moments,
Speaker 2: and I think his character is one that relishes that
Speaker 2: role he was given. And again we come back to
Speaker 2: Luke Donald and Okay, it might seem obvious what would
Speaker 2: you do with Justin Rose and to put him in
Speaker 2: that role where he can guide someone through, very much
Speaker 2: as Graham McDowell did with Victor de Buisson and Glenn
Speaker 2: Eagles back in twenty fourteen. That was a task given
Speaker 2: to Rose and it was an important task in a
Speaker 2: way that he was never going to be able to
Speaker 2: play five matches. It never would have been appropriate for
Speaker 2: him to do that. And I think he was rewarded
Speaker 2: for doing that so well by going out quite early
Speaker 2: on Sunday in the singles, whereas I would have thought
Speaker 2: he might have been one of the last guys on
Speaker 2: the course. And actually, although he lost his singles match,
Speaker 2: to a brilliant Patrick Cantlay and the pots he hold
Speaker 2: late in that match to keep it going were phenomenal,
Speaker 2: and I think you know, ultimately he's been vindicated. And look,
Speaker 2: this is not it doesn't have to be a big
Speaker 2: you know, it's not right or wrong. Everybody makes their
Speaker 2: own choices in life. But his choice was very, very clear.
Speaker 2: He could give up on his Ryder Cup future and
Speaker 2: join Live and make a heck of a lot of
Speaker 2: money and take one big payday, as others have chosen
Speaker 2: to do, or he could go the other direction. And
Speaker 2: that other direction came with no guarantees. When he made
Speaker 2: that decision, he was not in the world's top fifty,
Speaker 2: he was not on the Ryder Cup radar. So to
Speaker 2: go and make that decision and commit to that idea
Speaker 2: and then achieve it, it's spectacular. And you know, Rose
Speaker 2: is a player. I've made plenty of jokes in the past.
Speaker 2: You know, we all know that the logo even when
Speaker 2: he shouldn't be wearing a logo and all the rest
Speaker 2: of it. But I think you know, as we've seen
Speaker 2: with the Rose Lady series in the UK that came
Speaker 2: about during the pandemic and gave female golfers a platform
Speaker 2: and a place to go and earn some money. I
Speaker 2: think his heart is in the right place and it
Speaker 2: certainly it was focused on getting back in his righter
Speaker 2: cup side, and I fallen him very very happy that
Speaker 2: it worked out so well.
Speaker 4: Now, there were also some potentially squeaky wheels on the
Speaker 4: European side, some rookies, some players who have not yet
Speaker 4: been proven really in professional golf that much or over
Speaker 4: that long a period of time, and certainly not in
Speaker 4: the Ryder Cup. And so those were to my eye,
Speaker 4: Bob McIntyre Ludvigobert and I'm going to go with that pronunciation,
Speaker 4: and Nikolai Hoygard Cepstraca also a new face but thirty
Speaker 4: years old and a relative veteran. Those three players that
Speaker 4: I just mentioned a little more green needed to be
Speaker 4: guided through this Ryder Cup by people like Justin Rose
Speaker 4: a bit more, but perhaps future stalwarts of the team.
Speaker 4: How would you evaluate their performance this week?
Speaker 2: Well, McIntyre, first of all, obviously was the one who
Speaker 2: ended up being the most successful of them two and
Speaker 2: a half points, one of three unbeaten players. I think
Speaker 2: above anybody's expectations. If I can say that safely. I was.
Speaker 2: You know, he tried his hardest to get into this
Speaker 2: team two years ago and he didn't make it. He
Speaker 2: really committed to what he and his team felt was
Speaker 2: the best path into this team, ie via the European
Speaker 2: points list this year because statistically he really wasn't one
Speaker 2: of the best twelve, but he qualified and therefore his
Speaker 2: place is owned earned Rather clearly, Rose played a massive part.
Speaker 2: I mean, Bob really didn't play well on Friday. He
Speaker 2: hadn't been playing well in practice. He'd had a poor
Speaker 2: weekend at or a poor week at the French Open.
Speaker 2: But I do think he's got something intangible about him.
Speaker 2: I think it's something we saw in the Scottish Open
Speaker 2: when he was so unfortunate to lose to Rory, and
Speaker 2: I'm not at all surprised that he could. He could
Speaker 2: do it on his own against Wyndham Clark and that
Speaker 2: was a fantastic performance. You know, who knows what the
Speaker 2: future holds for him. He's going to have to take
Speaker 2: his game up another level I think to still be
Speaker 2: in this team in two years. But he might be
Speaker 2: able to do that. And he has so much talent
Speaker 2: and flair and a real center purpose and I have
Speaker 2: a lot of time for him, and I'm sure a
Speaker 2: lot of people have. And Nikola was probably the disappointment.
Speaker 2: You know, he wasn't necessarily his best, he did still
Speaker 2: hold some clutch puts. I'd love to know what Zander
Speaker 2: said to him as they did the sort of guard
Speaker 2: of honor thing afterwards, because he seemed to have a
Speaker 2: really good word in his ear, and I'm sure there
Speaker 2: were some really positive things said there. Unless they were
Speaker 2: talking about money, who knows. And as for Ludwig, I
Speaker 2: suppose for Ludwig, I quite like that it was a
Speaker 2: he was really disappointed when he came off the course
Speaker 2: having lost to Brooks Kepka, who obviously in singles golf,
Speaker 2: is yet to lose in the right It was a
Speaker 2: tough drawer for Luodviig in some respects although Brooks had
Speaker 2: played poorly. I think it's kind of nice that there's
Speaker 2: been a slight sense that he's back down to earth, because, okay,
Speaker 2: he's gone into the Ryder Cup record books. Four or
Speaker 2: five months after turning professional, he's already won on the
Speaker 2: DP World Tour. This week, he's going to be the
Speaker 2: favorite for a PGA Tour event everything has come pretty easily,
Speaker 2: but over the last few weeks he's obviously surrendered. The
Speaker 2: leader Wentworth and after a perfect start to the Ryder Cup,
Speaker 2: he ended feeling that, Okay, this isn't all going to
Speaker 2: come easily to me, and that will probably be a
Speaker 2: good thing in the long run for him. Rory said
Speaker 2: he'd be part of fifteen or twenty Ryder Cups. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure it'll quite be that many.
Speaker 4: I think we may have got how old is it
Speaker 4: going to be Ryder Cups from now? He's going to
Speaker 4: be what fifteen fifty eight sixty two around there?
Speaker 2: He really is.
Speaker 4: Maybe he seems like a healthy young man, so we'll
Speaker 4: see absolutely.
Speaker 2: But yeah, look, you can't ask for a lot more
Speaker 2: than what he achieved on debut. I think some people
Speaker 2: were expecting even more, such as the regard in which
Speaker 2: he's held, such as his talent, and I think I'm
Speaker 2: sure if you were to asking Brooks Kopka what he
Speaker 2: thinks of Ludwig Alberg, he would have only good things
Speaker 2: to say. And he did fight hard in that match,
Speaker 2: So yeah, look, the story of the European team really
Speaker 2: was that the big three did what they needed to
Speaker 2: do and the weaker three did more than some people expected,
Speaker 2: I think, and that all lads up to a win.
Speaker 4: All right, let's talk a little bit about the leadership
Speaker 4: and the organization on the European side. This was a
Speaker 4: point of distinction potentially with the American side, even though
Speaker 4: the story recently and there is some validity to this,
Speaker 4: is that the US side has picked up a little
Speaker 4: bit of the some of the techniques that Europe has
Speaker 4: used in recent years in the Ryder Cup, but it
Speaker 4: seems like still Europe has the lead in that category. So,
Speaker 4: starting with Luke Donald, you mentioned one decision that could
Speaker 4: have potentially come back to bite him in not playing
Speaker 4: John Rahm in all five sessions. And so if Europe
Speaker 4: happened to lose this Ryder Cup, if a couple of
Speaker 4: matches swung the other way, maybe we would be questioning
Speaker 4: more of his decisions. But what do you think is
Speaker 4: the core of what Donald did really well?
Speaker 2: I suppose two things. One is that commitment to the
Speaker 2: statistics and to the data, and I think that's really
Speaker 2: how Luke Donald became the world's best player. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm sure a lot of your listeners know this. But essentially,
Speaker 2: rather than do what a lot of people with his
Speaker 2: skill set do and try and get good at the
Speaker 2: thing you're not good at. Luke Donald, through working with
Speaker 2: people like Edward I Molnari, realized that what he had
Speaker 2: to do was get really good at the things he
Speaker 2: was already good at. And he took that all the
Speaker 2: way to the very top of the sport. And it's
Speaker 2: you know, clearly that was always going to be the
Speaker 2: color of his captaincy to invest in that idea, to
Speaker 2: have a particularly close bond with Dodo, who obviously is
Speaker 2: a very sharp mind and someone who is helping members
Speaker 2: of this European team and help Matt Fitzpatrick become a
Speaker 2: major champion. I think you can see a real distinction
Speaker 2: in the way he talks about data and the way
Speaker 2: Zack Johnson talks about data. And although Luke Donald, at
Speaker 2: his heart will also know that data is one part
Speaker 2: of a bigger picture, Zach Johnson almost seemed to be
Speaker 2: saying that as an excuse really to use the data
Speaker 2: to confirm what he already wants to do. When the
Speaker 2: data disagreed with him, I suspect Zak Johnson moved away
Speaker 2: from it, whereas lou Donald would use it to look again.
Speaker 2: So that was first and foremost. The second thing, I
Speaker 2: mean first and foremost. I suppose you know the character
Speaker 2: of the man. He's very, very popular, He's always been popular,
Speaker 2: and he speaks well. I thought he's opening ceremony speech,
Speaker 2: although basically a waste of time, I thought he did
Speaker 2: that expertly. It was really touching. But I also think
Speaker 2: that he understands or understood what he had to do
Speaker 2: with his team, which you know, things are changing in Europe.
Speaker 2: We had a guy on the team who was raised
Speaker 2: in Georgia, but he made them a team and the
Speaker 2: Hero Cup in January was a small part of that.
Speaker 2: Sepstraker coming over to play in that certainly will have helped,
Speaker 2: even down to those details of getting these guys in
Speaker 2: the three balls that went with together all twelve members
Speaker 2: of that team playing that wentworth playing in groups with
Speaker 2: people they're going to be working with. It's an attention
Speaker 2: to detail, but also an understanding that you can't win
Speaker 2: or ride a cup just on numbers and on course
Speaker 2: set up and on moving a T box. You've got
Speaker 2: to have a shared purpose, right, and he conjured that
Speaker 2: and it looks it's quite easy to do that. With Europeans,
Speaker 2: I suppose, but you've got new faces coming in every time,
Speaker 2: and to get them all in that same mindset is
Speaker 2: no small achievement. And whether he takes it again in
Speaker 2: two years or not, I don't know. I do think
Speaker 2: what's happened with Live gives Europe the excuse to go
Speaker 2: and try something they wouldn't previously have done. We don't
Speaker 2: have that line of succession, I suppose. But the other
Speaker 2: thing I would say is that I think Europe and
Speaker 2: Donald's a bad example of this because he was a
Speaker 2: world number one, but Europe is probably that bit more
Speaker 2: willing to look beyond achievement on the course than the
Speaker 2: United States are when it comes to a captain, and
Speaker 2: Paul mcginley's a great example of that. Thomas Bjorn even
Speaker 2: these are not golfers who reached the very very top
Speaker 2: of the sport. And when people say, well, I don't
Speaker 2: see where the next European captain is. We've got no McDow,
Speaker 2: we've got no polter Well, Doda Molinary, Francesco Molinary, Nicholas
Speaker 2: Colsarts and Colesarts is a great example because to a
Speaker 2: lot of casual golf fans, who is Nicholas col Starts.
Speaker 2: Really they sort of vaguely remember him playing well for
Speaker 2: a bit of the Ryder Cup in twenty twelve. They
Speaker 2: might remember he used to be a bit of a
Speaker 2: party boy. But Luke Donald's I think the words are
Speaker 2: used yesterday were He's one of the best people I've
Speaker 2: ever met. And it's those characters that Europe is invested in,
Speaker 2: whereas the United States seem to feel that you are
Speaker 2: defined by what you achieved as a player and only
Speaker 2: through that can you go on to achieve great things
Speaker 2: as a captain. And I think we've proven that to
Speaker 2: be completely the wrong way to think about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean in one indication that the US side
Speaker 4: was moving beyond this was the appointment of Steve Stricker
Speaker 4: as a captain and his very effective reign as a captain.
Speaker 4: Steve Stricker obviously very accomplished on the course, and indeed
Speaker 4: every captain who's ever been a Ryder Cup captain is
Speaker 4: very accomplished on the course. But there are different degrees.
Speaker 4: It used to be the case that, especially on the
Speaker 4: US side, you needed to have a major or two
Speaker 4: to even be considered, and obviously that has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with how effective you are as a captain that's
Speaker 4: been proven over and over. Paul McGinley is one of
Speaker 4: the best captains in the history of the Ryder Cup,
Speaker 4: and he perhaps has the thinnest resume of any Ryder
Speaker 4: Cup captain. If you look at other sports, the great
Speaker 4: coaches are not necessarily great players. They're often players, and
Speaker 4: they often got the best out of their ability. But
Speaker 4: Greg Popovich, Bill Belichick, I mean, you know, these are
Speaker 4: not necessarily the cream of the crop when it comes
Speaker 4: to players, whereas a lot of really great players didn't
Speaker 4: end up being effective coaches. And so we should know,
Speaker 4: we should know that there is no correspondence really between
Speaker 4: super elite playing ability and super elite coaching or captaining ability.
Speaker 4: But it seems like, of course Europe is learning that
Speaker 4: lesson a little quicker than the US is, as Europe
Speaker 4: has learned these lessons traditionally more quickly when it comes
Speaker 4: to organization and leadership than the US side has. Now
Speaker 4: you mentioned that there's this possibility that Luke Donald could
Speaker 4: be captain again at Bethpage in twenty twenty five. Do
Speaker 4: you think he should be should they start to move
Speaker 4: toward more of a term structure when it comes to
Speaker 4: captains as opposed to a one off bit of service.
Speaker 2: I think they should. I think if I was Luke Donald,
Speaker 2: i'd be maybe I'm just too negative a person, but
Speaker 2: I think I'd be slightly wary of trying to repeat
Speaker 2: something like that. Right, It's a moment in time, a
Speaker 2: period in his life. He's given a lot to it,
Speaker 2: you know, he's a dad and he's got other things
Speaker 2: going on, and it's a big commitment. So I don't
Speaker 2: know whether, in the cold light of day, when things
Speaker 2: have settled down, whether he would really want to or
Speaker 2: would be wise to do it again. But in terms
Speaker 2: of Europe and having the best chance to succeed at
Speaker 2: beth Page, which will be a phenomenally difficult thing to do,
Speaker 2: I think it selecting Donald nice and early would give
Speaker 2: us the best chance of doing that. So obviously, as
Speaker 2: a European fan, I would like to see that happen,
Speaker 2: But the real message from me is that if it doesn't,
Speaker 2: then actually, although there, as I said, there may not
Speaker 2: be obvious options waiting in the wings, there are plenty
Speaker 2: of good ones. And look, Luke might do what Thomas
Speaker 2: Bjorn has done and make a really handy vice captain
Speaker 2: for somebody else. So I think it's probably quite possible
Speaker 2: that it is offered to him again, as I say,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be sertain he'll take it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's interesting, you know, what would they want to
Speaker 4: We're talking about, you know, should captains serve for for
Speaker 4: two terms or two events? But it is it is
Speaker 4: quite a commitment, you know. You see what these captains
Speaker 4: do when they're when they're not, you know, at the
Speaker 4: Ryder Cup in the couple of years leading up now.
Speaker 4: Of course, Luke Donald was a replacement captain for for
Speaker 4: Henrik Stenson and so he didn't even you know, have
Speaker 4: that full period of time where he was working, which
Speaker 4: in a way makes what he accomplished here even even
Speaker 4: more impressive. Now, you know, one particular thing that you
Speaker 4: can point to between Europe and the US when it
Speaker 4: comes to leadership. One thing that we know about, right
Speaker 4: we can spect about what happened in the team room
Speaker 4: or what Dodo Molinari said to Luke about particular data.
Speaker 4: We don't know all of those details ourselves from the outside,
Speaker 4: but one thing that we can point to as a
Speaker 4: difference between the two sides is how the players approached
Speaker 4: the lead up to this Ryder Cup how the team
Speaker 4: approached the lead up. The US players really were left
Speaker 4: to make the decision on their own whether they were
Speaker 4: going to play at the Fortnet Championship or at the
Speaker 4: BMWPGA Championship or do really any competitive preparation whatsoever for
Speaker 4: the Ryder Cup. The US team did visit Marco Simone,
Speaker 4: Xanderschoffle and Patrick Cantley were not along for that trip,
Speaker 4: and they didn't have the excuse that Jordan Spieth had
Speaker 4: that they were having a kid or something like that.
Speaker 4: They just weren't there because they wanted to do something else.
Speaker 4: But at least there was that for the US. Europe
Speaker 4: did some like that themselves, and they also all played
Speaker 4: at the BMWPGA Championship, every last one of them, and
Speaker 4: they played well, and so there was a distinct. You know,
Speaker 4: there is a distinct difference between how these teams prepared
Speaker 4: for this Cup. Do you think that that's a major
Speaker 4: thing that we should remember about why the outcome happened
Speaker 4: as it happened.
Speaker 2: I think it's one of the most likely contributing factors.
Speaker 2: Without having any sense of certainty about that, I mean,
Speaker 2: you put it down on paper, you've got twelve guys
Speaker 2: who basically hadn't played a lot golf. You know, obviously
Speaker 2: Justin Thomas, Max, Homer and Brooks kept it would be
Speaker 2: the exceptions, you know, eleven rounds between them in the
Speaker 2: month of September. I think it was. And by the way,
Speaker 2: one of those was the standout player on the US side. Now,
Speaker 2: again that's neat and it doesn't tell the full story,
Speaker 2: but effectively, this Ryder Cup was lost in the very
Speaker 2: first session when Europe were absolutlutely ready to go and
Speaker 2: the United States weren't. And I think part of that
Speaker 2: has to the question has to be asked, why did
Speaker 2: they not play? And I hope it's as seriously behind
Speaker 2: the scenes, I understand why in a press conference afterwards
Speaker 2: you wouldn't you know, you wouldn't go down that road.
Speaker 2: And I think the US press conference was really good
Speaker 2: actually and showed it togetherness that a lot of people
Speaker 2: did not necessarily believe was there. But ultimately, in the aftermath,
Speaker 2: there are a number of things you have to reflect
Speaker 2: on and okay, great, if you got the team spirit right, well,
Speaker 2: that almost makes it harder to understand why did these
Speaker 2: twelve world class golfers not perform if there was no
Speaker 2: problems in the in the in the changing rooms, the
Speaker 2: golf course, for me, is not a very good excuse.
Speaker 2: Europe will have maximized every possible advantage in terms of
Speaker 2: t box and routing even but it's not a sufficient
Speaker 2: excuse because Marco Simoni is not Paris National. So then
Speaker 2: we come back to why did they Were these guys
Speaker 2: ready to perform? And the answer was clearly no, And
Speaker 2: I think a good a good explanation is that they
Speaker 2: didn't play. And the thing that really sums it up
Speaker 2: for me, it's really not about how much we can
Speaker 2: gauge or whether we are fully invested in the belief
Speaker 2: that they played poorly because they hadn't played. But it's
Speaker 2: the idea that any of them could turn up there
Speaker 2: and think that that's okay. That's what I can't get
Speaker 2: my head around. Rory McElroy alluded to it. He said,
Speaker 2: I cannot imagine turning up a Ryder Cup after five
Speaker 2: weeks off, and that seems so obvious. I mean, who
Speaker 2: can imagine it? It seems it seems remarkable to me.
Speaker 2: And the fact is they do not do this before
Speaker 2: majors and yeah, Okay, the majors happen in the season.
Speaker 2: This is postseason for the United States players. I get that,
Speaker 2: but there are places you can play golf. Whether the
Speaker 2: DP World Tour wanted to issue twelve invites to let
Speaker 2: them warm up at Wentworth, I don't know. Maybe they'd
Speaker 2: have played hardball with that, but the four Tonet Championship
Speaker 2: was an option, and a good option. It's competitive golf,
Speaker 2: and you hear these guys talk about it all the time.
Speaker 2: You know. You go back and read the transcripts for
Speaker 2: the Houston Open and back in the day when it
Speaker 2: used to be the week before the Masters, and you'll
Speaker 2: hear guys saying, yeah, just wanted to get scorecard in
Speaker 2: my hand, make sure I'm ready for next week, whether
Speaker 2: it's there, whether it's the Texas Open, whether it's the
Speaker 2: Scottish Open, the week before the Open Championship now, whether
Speaker 2: it's the John Deere Classic. As Zach Johnson and Jordan
Speaker 2: Speed know all too well, help them prepare to win
Speaker 2: the Open. Playing golf is what you need to do
Speaker 2: to be sharp, and they would not sacrifice that for themselves.
Speaker 2: So the fact that they would sacrifice it for the
Speaker 2: Ryder Cup I find very hard to believe or understand,
Speaker 2: and I think it speaks to a simple difference at
Speaker 2: the core of this, which is that the Europeans cared
Speaker 2: just that little bit more. I really think that's true.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and I believe that. I also think that there's
Speaker 4: an additional dynamic here, and that is that a big
Speaker 4: part of the Task Force Era on the US side
Speaker 4: has been this kind of moved toward player empowerment or
Speaker 4: toward individualized planning for each of the players, because I
Speaker 4: think that a lot of leaders on the US side
Speaker 4: are convinced that part of the problem with the twenty
Speaker 4: fourteen Ryder Cup and with Tom Watson's leadership there is
Speaker 4: that he tried to fit everybody into the same mold
Speaker 4: and get the whole team doing the same thing, and
Speaker 4: went about this in a kind of dictatorial way where
Speaker 4: he was suppressing the individual differences between players and not
Speaker 4: allowing them to be different or to do what they
Speaker 4: do well as individual athletes. And so a big part
Speaker 4: of what Davis Love and company have been working on
Speaker 4: is figuring out how to let players be themselves at
Speaker 4: these Ryder Cups. But of course, on the European side,
Speaker 4: it seems like, this is not as much of a
Speaker 4: conflict that you can ask all of them to show
Speaker 4: up at the BMWPGA Championship and that's not some big
Speaker 4: offensive thing to their individuality or to who they are
Speaker 4: as players, or to their own expertise about what they
Speaker 4: need to prepare for the Ryder Cup. They just do it,
Speaker 4: and they're there as a team, and some of them
Speaker 4: play better than others. But this is what they're doing.
Speaker 4: It doesn't seem like the US team is capable of
Speaker 4: doing that, because at every turn there are players who
Speaker 4: are like, oh, well, that's not how I like to
Speaker 4: do it. Even down to the type of water that
Speaker 4: they like to drink, the leaders of the US team
Speaker 4: are concerned with that. One guy likes Fiji water and
Speaker 4: another guy likes smart water, I guess, and that's a
Speaker 4: big deal and all the stuff. You know, it seems
Speaker 4: convincing when you think in terms of all of these
Speaker 4: guys are experts at their own games, and what they
Speaker 4: do well is be individual golfers. That's how they perform,
Speaker 4: and so it kind of makes sense to try to
Speaker 4: provide a structure where they can do that. But the
Speaker 4: problem is that doesn't always work, and when you have
Speaker 4: an issue like how should we prepare competitively for the
Speaker 4: Ryder Cup given that there is this substantial gap between
Speaker 4: the Tour Championship and the Ryder Cup. Maybe there is
Speaker 4: some kind of team wide decision making, some collective action
Speaker 4: that is necessary in that case where you say, Okay, Xander, Patrick,
Speaker 4: you may not want to do this, but this is
Speaker 4: what we're doing as a team, and we're going to
Speaker 4: ask you to fit your individual personality and planning into
Speaker 4: this larger plan. Can you find a way to do that?
Speaker 4: Can you find a way to adjust just a little
Speaker 4: bit to do something as a team. It seems like
Speaker 4: the European players can do that, and that the American
Speaker 4: players don't think that they have to do that, or
Speaker 4: in fact, they think that that hurts them absolutely.
Speaker 2: And one of the examples for me would be that,
Speaker 2: you know, Patrick Cantley being allowed to skip the gala dinner, right,
Speaker 2: I mean, I can't imagine any European wanting to skip
Speaker 2: the garlic. This is a real privilege. You know, you
Speaker 2: might not like pomp and ceremony and eating really nice food.
Speaker 2: I understand that I'm sort of in some way in
Speaker 2: agreement with that idea that you might want to quiet night,
Speaker 2: no tell Ran, but this is this is one week
Speaker 2: of your life, this is what we do. We're all
Speaker 2: going to be there as a team. Patrick Cantley having
Speaker 2: had neck ache and not slept very well the night
Speaker 2: before is a hideously weak excuse. But the fact that
Speaker 2: he's looking for that excuse, I think is what tells
Speaker 2: us that there's a problem there. And I think it's
Speaker 2: all the more jarring this year when your thirteenth man
Speaker 2: was probably Keegan Bradley, someone who would do anything to
Speaker 2: be on that team, and I do feel sorry for Keegan. Actually,
Speaker 2: if you have got guys and the stories come out
Speaker 2: today about Xander Chofley and a dispute over over some
Speaker 2: financial aspects of a deal that you know may or
Speaker 2: may not have kept them off the team had things
Speaker 2: gone differently, it's hard not to feel that, you know,
Speaker 2: you've got guys who actually want to be there, And
Speaker 2: that's what it really comes down to, the people who
Speaker 2: want to be there versus the people who really don't
Speaker 2: mind either way. And that's a really big thing. And
Speaker 2: what it means is that Europe of foundations in place
Speaker 2: and a general mindset of being able to overachieve. The
Speaker 2: United States achievement in the Ryder Cup is limited to
Speaker 2: their abilities now. Fortunately, they are extremely capable golfers and
Speaker 2: that's why you know, in two years time they will
Speaker 2: very probably win back to the Rider Cup, or at
Speaker 2: least they will have a very good chance to do that.
Speaker 2: But if they want to win away, you know, it
Speaker 2: is a long long time now, it would be thirty
Speaker 2: four years if they want to do that. You have
Speaker 2: to do things, you have to sacrifice, You have to
Speaker 2: do things that can make you a little bit better
Speaker 2: as a team than you are as individuals, and there
Speaker 2: are loads of things to that. I'm sure you know,
Speaker 2: Luke Donald would have a far better understanding of that
Speaker 2: than me. But the American team structure needs to understand
Speaker 2: it as well, and it needs to spend time talking
Speaker 2: with the players and getting that point of view across.
Speaker 2: And if there are players who refuse to accept it,
Speaker 2: then they simply shouldn't be playing. It really seems that straightforward,
Speaker 2: and it's one of those things. We have a qualification
Speaker 2: system and that's what it is. But in other sports,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think you mentioned some American football coaches
Speaker 2: I believe earlier, so I'm going to mention it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm sorry, I was trying to think of a
Speaker 4: soccer coach like at pep GUARDI all, I don't know
Speaker 4: if he was a good soccer player or not, so
Speaker 4: I really I can't speak on or cricket for that matter.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, probably the best example, despite my being
Speaker 2: an Arsenal fan, is Sir Alex Ferguson, a great football
Speaker 2: manager over here, a very good player himself, but a
Speaker 2: great football manager, and he had he had all the
Speaker 2: power effectively, and when he had a great football player
Speaker 2: who did not fit in with his team, that football
Speaker 2: player left the club for the greater good. And I
Speaker 2: suppose in Ryder Cup terms, it's not that simple. Zach
Speaker 2: Johnson could not have left Brian Harmon at home. Obviously,
Speaker 2: Brian Harm's a bad example. I'm sure he's fully invested,
Speaker 2: but he didn't really have that choice. I mean, maybe
Speaker 2: that's one option they can look at in future. Let's
Speaker 2: just pick the twelve players we want to pick that
Speaker 2: we believe will make a team. Because any system where
Speaker 2: people are turning up who don't necessarily want to be there,
Speaker 2: and I just I mean on that clearly they want
Speaker 2: to be once they're there, they want to win their
Speaker 2: competitors and we saw that from Patrick Cantlay. Of course
Speaker 2: he's going to want to win that match on Saturday night.
Speaker 2: Of course he wants to beat Justin Rose. But that's
Speaker 2: not really the whole of wanting to be there. Wanting
Speaker 2: to be there is wanting to be a teammate, is
Speaker 2: being willing to sit out a session, is being willing
Speaker 2: to play with brooks Kepka or Brian Harmon whoever. Doesn't
Speaker 2: have to be with the as Justin Rose pub, it
Speaker 2: doesn't have to be with the best mate. It's making
Speaker 2: those sacrifices and until the US as a whole show
Speaker 2: that they're willing to do that, or a captain shows
Speaker 2: that he's willing to make them do that. And obviously,
Speaker 2: as you said, Tom Watson kind of tried and maybe
Speaker 2: that that there has to be a middle ground and
Speaker 2: that's what good management is, right, but being able to
Speaker 2: manage difficult personalities, big egos, world class individuals and make
Speaker 2: them into a coherent team. And I think really that's
Speaker 2: where Zach fell short. But he's not alone, and you know,
Speaker 2: the players take a good deal of responsibility as well.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and this middle ground that you mentioned is the
Speaker 4: key part, because we're not saying that everybody needs to
Speaker 4: be the same type of player or do the exact
Speaker 4: same thing at the Ryder Cup. These are individual athletes
Speaker 4: and they know what they need. But there needs to
Speaker 4: be a little bit of give there, just a little bit, right.
Speaker 4: We need to be able to meet halfway, just a bit,
Speaker 4: and not just make the captain somebody who is constantly accommodating. Now,
Speaker 4: one thing we haven't talked about is the Rory versus
Speaker 4: Lacava situation. And you know, I'm not that interested in
Speaker 4: getting super deep into it because there are a million
Speaker 4: other podcasts that you can listen to that will probably
Speaker 4: do a blow by blow of that. They've already talked
Speaker 4: about it. Brendan and Andy have already talked about it
Speaker 4: in a great way on the Shotgun Start. But I
Speaker 4: thought that one really interesting thing about that situation was
Speaker 4: how Luke Donald handled it. You know, I would imagine
Speaker 4: that the expectation for American, an American captain would be
Speaker 4: that he would come out and beat his chest with
Speaker 4: the media and fully get behind his player and say, yeah,
Speaker 4: he was justified, And I'm right there with him and
Speaker 4: that's the accommodating, uh, you know, a way of dealing
Speaker 4: with that kind of situation as a leader, saying that
Speaker 4: every single thing that any player does I completely agree with.
Speaker 4: I don't think Luke Donald really took that approach. He
Speaker 4: was more like, you know, I'll have a discussion with
Speaker 4: Rory about it and we'll move on from there. And
Speaker 4: so he didn't. It didn't seem like Luke Donald felt
Speaker 4: the need to show Rory, oh, I completely support you.
Speaker 4: I'm I'm right there with you, I'm in this, I'm
Speaker 4: in this fight with you. He didn't do that, and
Speaker 4: you have to respect that because it's clear that Donald
Speaker 4: wasn't just there to be an advocate for his players.
Speaker 4: He was an advocate for the team as a whole.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I mean, they said that there's no hierarchy, and
Speaker 2: although that's not true, in practicality, of course, there is
Speaker 2: a hierarchy. There's a range of abilities. The essence of
Speaker 2: the messages that you know, this is the team and
Speaker 2: this is what you do and this is what I
Speaker 2: expect and if anybody falls out of line, then then
Speaker 2: there'll be repercussions. And I agree with you totally. The
Speaker 2: way he responded on Saturday night. I thought it was
Speaker 2: a really good idea to diffuse it a little bit.
Speaker 2: And I think he's a very different response you've got
Speaker 2: from maybe even a Padrick Harrington whistling straits, you know,
Speaker 2: certainly a Thomas Bjorn, but a number of captains previously
Speaker 2: would have dealt with that very very differently because I
Speaker 2: think ultimately, again without going into the detail, I think
Speaker 2: Rory was probably very justified in his anger, if not
Speaker 2: the way he displayed it. And it would have been
Speaker 2: very easy for lou Donald's come out and say that's
Speaker 2: simply not acceptable of a caddy, but he didn't. And
Speaker 2: I thought although Victor Harvlin seemed to suggest that that
Speaker 2: wasn't a message that had been got across to them,
Speaker 2: and I know, you know, everyone prepares differently, and Rory
Speaker 2: was reading on the bus and all this stuff, but
Speaker 2: I thought there was a real It was really interesting
Speaker 2: to see the demeanor of all of the European players
Speaker 2: on Sunday. It was as if they'd learned some lessons
Speaker 2: from even Rory against Patrick Reid at Hazeltine and conserved
Speaker 2: a little bit of energy. It was a determined reaction
Speaker 2: to everything that went right. It was a very similar
Speaker 2: aesthetically fist bump. It was not a whipping up of
Speaker 2: the crowd. It was business and focus and determination. And
Speaker 2: again I think that in some way, whether it was
Speaker 2: a directive or not, in some way that comes back
Speaker 2: down to the captain and the mood that he set
Speaker 2: in that team room about getting the job done, and
Speaker 2: they did him proud in the end.
Speaker 4: Ben Coley, thank you for coming on the podcast. People
Speaker 4: can find your work at sportinglife dot com. You have
Speaker 4: a really good five takeaways article that you wrote just today.
Speaker 4: I believe on there, and we ran through some of
Speaker 4: that material in this discussion. But it's always fun to
Speaker 4: read your work and always fun to have you on
Speaker 4: the podcast.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Gar, it's been fun a Yain.
Speaker 4: This episode of the Friday Golf Podcast was produced by
Speaker 4: Matt Ruschius. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Matt.
Speaker 4: One thing that you can do a simple thing to
Speaker 4: support Friday Golf is just rate and review the Friday
Speaker 4: Golf Podcast. Have you been enjoying what you've been hearing
Speaker 4: from this podcast this year? If so, go and give
Speaker 4: us a rating. Tell us what you think of the
Speaker 4: show in your review, give us some feedback. Just doing
Speaker 4: that helps us find new listeners and slowly help them.
Speaker 4: Podcast brow all right, thank you for listening. We'll be
Speaker 4: back again soon with another episode.