Ryder Cup 2021 Teams

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,494
Location
Watford
Visit site
Mickelson's record in the RC is woeful though for a player of his standing in the game. Don't think his name has ever had the same cachet as Garcia's.

Just checked, Mickelson has won 5 out of 12 singles matches but only 2 out of the last 9! He won his first 3 in 95, 97 and 99 but losing to Phil Price in 2002 seems to have sent his singles play on a nosedive. And his win % overall is only 46%.

Garcia's singles record is only 4 from 9 but he lost 3 of his first 4 singles matches so his recent record in singles is very good. And overall his win % is nearly 54%.
This only proves what I said? You can't rely on your name forever.
 

Tongo

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
3,460
Location
Southampton
Visit site
This only proves what I said? You can't rely on your name forever.

Very much so. But even when Mickelson was in his pomp winning majors I don't think he had the same aura as Garcia has had in the RC. That loss to Price and his poor performance at Oakland Hills in 04 probably put paid to any aura.
 

pendodave

Tour Rookie
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,164
Visit site
Re. Picks, i heard ph saying he was happy with 2 rather than 6 as there would be a better team atmosphere. This because everyone would know that they had qualified by right rather than as a mate of the skipper.
Makes some sense, and there's plenty of examples of the sceptics picking duffs (3 out of 4 in Paris got 0 points!).
6 gives them plenty of rope to hang themselves.
 

memememe

New member
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
10
Visit site
I think there should be a set method of qualification and picks that both sides have to follow.
The same number of tournaments over a similar time frame and the same number of picks.
6 is too many when we get 3
It allows the Captain to pick 3 more players who have shown form in the last couple of weeks but haven't made the team..and
It allows players who have dropped form in recent weeks to fall out of the automatic spots.
10 qualifiers and 2 picks feels right to me.
And the picks should be named on the same day, one after the other on a live feed.

Really can't agree with this. In what other sports do the teams agree to use the same basis for selection?

The US players all play pretty exclusively in PGA Tour events with only a few exceptions. Many of the European team players play both tours.

How can you come up with a method to accommodate two very different sets of players?
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
5,081
Visit site
This is a good thread. Will be interesting to look back on my wayward predictions.

Fundamentally, Harrington is starting with a big disadvantage having only 3 picks v 6 picks. Imagine telling Gareth Southgate he only has 3 picks for his European Championships squad. The way the qualification process works, a player can have a strong start to the season, win the Masters, and then disappear completely but still qualify automatically.

I would feel confident if some of the more experienced European players were in the automatic slots, e.g. Stenson, Rose, Casey, Garcia. I see some weak links at the moment like Fitzpatrick and Willet, who I can't imagine winning a point. On the other hand I think some of the newer names will be fine, e.g. Hatton, Rahm, regardless of prior scoring record.

The US squad looks so much stronger on paper. Reed 100% guaranteed wildcard. I know Europe have a habit of winning as underdogs, but on current form I can see this being a repeat of 2016.
 

sunshine

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2018
Messages
5,081
Visit site
Re. Picks, i heard ph saying he was happy with 2 rather than 6 as there would be a better team atmosphere. This because everyone would know that they had qualified by right rather than as a mate of the skipper.
Makes some sense, and there's plenty of examples of the sceptics picking duffs (3 out of 4 in Paris got 0 points!).
6 gives them plenty of rope to hang themselves.

There's also plenty of examples of the picks scoring valuable points, whilst the automatic qualifiers score zero.
 

Grizzly

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
676
Visit site
For the European team, I think the weighting of points means that nothing from the above list is that certain, and I would go as far as to say there are only four names nailed on in Rahm, Rory, Hatton, and Fleetwood. Of the other five currently in qualification places, Perez and Wiesberger are in poor form, Westwood is up against Olf Father Time and Willett and Fitzy are only edging in (and neither has a game that would see them get captains picks). I would actually say Hovland is the next most likely, and in addition to the names already mentioned Casey, Peiters, Hojgaard, MacIntyre and even Andy Sullivan could easily have a run at the right time and "do enough"...
 

Imurg

The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
36,866
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Visit site
Really can't agree with this. In what other sports do the teams agree to use the same basis for selection?

The US players all play pretty exclusively in PGA Tour events with only a few exceptions. Many of the European team players play both tours.

How can you come up with a method to accommodate two very different sets of players?
Firstly, why does it need to conform to the way other sports work? In Football, Rugby etc you have a squad to pick from - a squad of 25(?) All have the same number to pick from.
Golf is, certainly at Tour level, a primarily solo sport - all of a sudden youre playing 12 a side. Any other sport that does that? I don't know...
Have a set number of events, say, 30 on each Tour starting at a set date, finishing at a set date.
As now, players have to play a certain number of events on their Tour.
Top 5 from the Tour events, top 5 from the World points ( as Europe does now) plus 2 picks.
I doubt you'd get agreement but that's the way I'd like to see it.
 

birdyhunter

Active member
Joined
Jun 11, 2020
Messages
128
Visit site
Danny Willett, no - nothing against the guy but I sincerely hope he doesn't make the team.

He had a dreadful Ryder Cup in 2016 after his brother insulted 300 million Americans and as the cup is over there this year it will be like a lamb to the slaughter, he won't stand a chance. It will be giving away at least 3 points to USA before we start.
 

Curls

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Mar 25, 2011
Messages
3,268
Visit site
I think Harrington said he preferred fewer picks, meant most people earned their place the way everyone knows is fair.

I’d pick Poults. Even in the events he hasn’t played well he brings a lot to the team imo and he doesn’t need to play all the matches.

Hovland could be a great fit for the venue.

I’ve a feeling Rose will rise again this year.

Let’s face it they will be two immensely strong teams and the venue will have a lot to say in it. A big course set up for the bombers will suit more of them than us (not that we’re all shorties).
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,494
Location
Watford
Visit site
I would be fine with 12 picks each. The Captains would then have 'their team, and not have a single player they didn't want.
I was just thinking this. Why not let the captains pick the entire team? It wouldn't be wildly different as they'd still pick guys who are high in the rankings, but it would make it fair and eliminated the guys who qualify early and then have poor form for months.
 

azazel

Assistant Pro
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
519
Location
Kintyre
Visit site
I was just thinking this. Why not let the captains pick the entire team? It wouldn't be wildly different as they'd still pick guys who are high in the rankings, but it would make it fair and eliminated the guys who qualify early and then have poor form for months.
The danger there is that it turns into something of a closed shop with the same faces and big names getting picked every time to satisfy sponsors and the media.
 

azazel

Assistant Pro
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
519
Location
Kintyre
Visit site
Would that matter?
It would to me, I don't want to watch Woods and Mickelson taking on Westwood and Poulter but you can bet Sky and, more importantly, the American networks do.

Well if they want to win they'll pick the best players? Otherwise what's the point of it.
Money via media exposure. As above, Tiger and Phil draw the crowds (and money) but they're not the best players.
 

Orikoru

Tour Winner
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Messages
25,494
Location
Watford
Visit site
It would to me, I don't want to watch Woods and Mickelson taking on Westwood and Poulter but you can bet Sky and, more importantly, the American networks do.


Money via media exposure. As above, Tiger and Phil draw the crowds (and money) but they're not the best players.
USA get six picks now so they'd still just as likely pick Tiger and Phil for the same reason then surely??
 
Top