Solheim Cup 2023

[Backsticks]

The Guardian's coverage of the SC was as full on as any mens major or the RC.

 

[AmandaJR]

Can I ask, what sort of exposure to the Solheim Cup result on the BBC website would give you satisfaction?

Having a look right now, they have their usual LIVE reporting link in top left corner. They then have 6 main headlines beside that, all given equal footing. There are 2 on the Rugby World Cup (Wales result against Oz and then a summary of what has happened), 2 on football (both related to the crazy 8-0 defeat of Sheff Utd), Green Sports awards and then the Solheim Cup. So, I'd say it is right up there, but you can't expect the Solheim Cup to just take over most of the headlines, otherwise you'll have football fans and rugby world cup fans complaining the BBC is not covering their sport effectively. It can also backfire, as some of those will then just use the "it is only getting more coverage because it is women" brigade.

You then go to the next section, and again the Solheim Cup is visible with a story highlighted by Ciganda celebrating (ohh, and another story about netball, which might be another indication that the BBC are serious in trying to value women's sport?)

You then go into the Golf section of the BBC website, and the Solheim Cup takes centre stage. Ryder Cup comes up this week, but you'd struggle to find anything about it. Just one story related to McIlroy and the Ryder Cup. But all your eye really sees is the blue of the European Solheim, Cup team and the many articles related to that.

Agreed Sky's coverage was poor, and I'd agree they will probably do a better job at Ryder Cup. So, questions probably need to be asked why that would have been? Just bad luck, or less investment?

I wasn't referring to the website...

 

[Swango1980]

I wasn't referring to the website...

If you are talking about the televised news, then they only have limited time to cover sport. What is the general interest in British sides competing in the World Cup or Premier League football across the UK? And, what is the interest in the European ladies playing golf? I'm guessing there are many many more people interested in the rugby and football. So, if the BBC have, I don't know, 3 or 4 minutes to cover sport, it is inevitable football and rugby will get key coverage. It can be no surprise that the most popular watched sports in the UK will nearly always be at the top of the sports bulletins. However, you could argue that any event / sport at all discussed in the short section of bulletins as gained enough popularity to earn its spot. Perhaps there will have been other great achievements in sport this weekend that we'll hear nothing about in those news bulletins?

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Finca Cortesin is a stunning course, and you do not appreciate how steep the hills are on the tv. Much like Augusta I imagine. Course just carved out, not tricked up and very playable from the right tees. Would rather play than Valderrama and the views are amazing. Could imagine having an apartment in the area, oh wait...

It’s a fantastic course. I managed to play it when it was relatively cheap. The TV doesn’t do the slopes justice.

My in laws have an apartment on Casares Del Sol.

 

[DPapas1982]

Im so glad that after the retention yesterday this thread still has people complaing about support. Maybe this negative energy alone explains why some peoplee get fed up with the narrative of forced equality

Since the women's World cup there's been a few posts on here that when pressed we shouldn't compare the women's games to mens and that it should just be accepted for what it is.

The mens rugby and Premier league will have both had significantly larger audiences this weekend. The same might not be true next Sunday.

Just enjoy the bloody golf.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I’m not really a fan of retaining the cup if it’s a tie.
Surely there’s a way of having a winner.

 

[Orikoru]

I’m not really a fan of retaining the cup if it’s a tie.
Surely there’s a way of having a winner.

Get all 24 players on the shortest par 3 and do nearest the pin. Or first hole-in-one wins.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Get all 24 players on the shortest par 3 and do nearest the pin. Or first hole-in-one wins.

YES

 

[DPapas1982]

I think the 14/14 is perfect. Same with ashes.

Imo it was probably to do with giving the away side a slight advantage result wise as they are at a disadvantage technically.

If you win at home, you have the bonus of having a extra chance to win (retain away), meaning to win at home you have to WIN

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think the 14/14 is perfect. Same with ashes.

Imo it was probably to do with giving the away side a slight advantage result wise as they are at a disadvantage technically.

If you win at home, you have the bonus of having a extra chance to win (retain away), meaning to win at home you have to WIN

The draw and the team “retaining” is the same for home or away

If the result is 14/14 at Robert Trent Jones then Europe would still keep the Solheim

The retain rule is about making the challenging team “win” the cup back as opposed to have home advantage

 

[DPapas1982]

The draw and the team “retaining” is the same for home or away

If the result is 14/14 at Robert Trent Jones then Europe would still keep the Solheim

The retain rule is about making the challenging team “win” the cup back as opposed to have home advantage

I know that the draw works for both. I simply mean that logically you expect home team to win. So the half is a bonus for any team who won at home on the last occasion.

Obviously if the team at home won away the time before they've got an extra advantage. Much like woth the Solheim this year.

 

[Swango1980]

I think the 14/14 is perfect. Same with ashes.

Imo it was probably to do with giving the away side a slight advantage result wise as they are at a disadvantage technically.

If you win at home, you have the bonus of having a extra chance to win (retain away), meaning to win at home you have to WIN

That makes no sense, particularly in this case. Europe won away, which means a draw was not good enough for the away side (USA) this time.

What makes more sense is that you have a current holder of the trophy, and for the other side to get it off them, they need to go out and beat them.

 

[Backsticks]

That makes no sense, particularly in this case. Europe won away, which means a draw was not good enough for the away side (USA) this time.

What makes more sense is that you have a current holder of the trophy, and for the other side to get it off them, they need to go out and beat them.

Yeh. Europe are queens of the castle and have the crown. USA made their assult to grab it, failed, and so go home empty handed.

 

[rulefan]

The principle of this type of competition (Ryder Cup, Ashes etc) is that the current holder has the trophy. The potential opponents are the challenger. The challenge is to beat the holder. If they don't have a better score they haven't beaten the holder.

 

[DPapas1982]

That makes no sense, particularly in this case. Europe won away, which means a draw was not good enough for the away side (USA) this time.

What makes more sense is that you have a current holder of the trophy, and for the other side to get it off them, they need to go out and beat them.

I'm saying it may be the historical reason for allowing a retention for a tie.

Home teams historically win. Meaning as an away team you need a slight advantage.

 

[Imurg]

The principle of this type of competition (Ryder Cup, Ashes etc) is that the current holder has the trophy. The potential opponents are the challenger. The challenge is to beat the holder. If they don't have a better score they haven't beaten the holder.

But they also haven't lost....

 

[Swango1980]

I'm saying it may be the historical reason for allowing a retention for a tie.

Home teams historically win. Meaning as an away team you need a slight advantage.

It still makes no sense. There are plenty of occasions where one team far exceeds the quality of another team, regardless of who has home advantage. So, it would be farcical to make any sound assumption that the winner of the last event would have been at home. Take the Ryder Cup for example. In the earlier years, the US pretty much dominated the event every time, so it was pretty much 50/50 as to whether the winning team at the last even was home or away.

The much more logical answer is what others have explained. The challenger has to beat the holder if they want to take the trophy from them. Simple.

 

[Swango1980]

But they also haven't lost....

Indeed. The US didn't lose this Solheim Cup, and nobody says they have. And, as the US were not in possession of the Solheim Cup, they have not lost the Solheim Cup by still not having possession of it.

 

[rulefan]

It still makes no sense. There are plenty of occasions where one team far exceeds the quality of another team, regardless of who has home advantage. So, it would be farcical to make any sound assumption that the winner of the last event would have been at home. Take the Ryder Cup for example. In the earlier years, the US pretty much dominated the event every time, so it was pretty much 50/50 as to whether the winning team at the last even was home or away.

The much more logical answer is what others have explained. The challenger has to beat the holder if they want to take the trophy from them. Simple.

The challenge to the non-holder is to beat the holder. No more no less.
They didn't.

If I remember rightly, the original Ryder Deed of Trust specified "In the event of a tie (14 points each) the Ryder Cup is retained by the team who held it before the contest."


I think there have only been 2 Ryder Cup ties. One retention each.

 

[D-S]

The result was a tie or a draw, as holders Europe retain the Solheim Cup.

The issue is that the holders (see the Women’s Ashes as well) always seem to act as if they have won the match or the Series. They haven’t, it was drawn.