Was Clarke a good captain?

[LanDog]

I've not seen another thread on it, forgive me if there is.

But was Clarke a good captain?

In the build up to the Ryder Cup he seemed to be saying the right things and taking it seriously.

His captain's picks at the time seemed fair enough, Knox was the only real debate but there is always one of those eg Casey in 2010.

However when the week came he did not impress me, dealt with the PJ Willett 'controversy' very poorly, I think the point should've been made that the article was clearly written in jest and was not to be taken seriously.

His biggest failures came with his pairings though I believe, not recognising who was on form and trying to protect his rookies too much, for instance Andy Sullivan deserved another run out I thought.

What are your thoughts?

 

[full_throttle]

but in all honesty does it really matter now?

Europe lost, perhaps we need to get over it and focus our attention on world peace :clap:

 

[HankMarvin]

In short NO

 

[Pin-seeker]

I've not seen another thread on it, forgive me if there is.

But was Clarke a good captain?

In the build up to the Ryder Cup he seemed to be saying the right things and taking it seriously.

His captain's picks at the time seemed fair enough, Knox was the only real debate but there is always one of those eg Casey in 2010.

However when the week came he did not impress me, dealt with the PJ Willett 'controversy' very poorly, I think the point should've been made that the article was clearly written in jest and was not to be taken seriously.

His biggest failures came with his pairings though I believe, not recognising who was on form and trying to protect his rookies too much, for instance Andy Sullivan deserved another run out I thought.

What are your thoughts?

I wouldn't say he was a bad captain,but I wouldn't say he was good either.
Personally I would have picked Kaymer & Pieters.
I wouldn't have picked Westwood,but the other players in contention weren't exactly exciting either.
I don't think anyone else would have beat the US team this time.
The European team just wasn't that great imo.

 

[Hacker Khan]

I've not seen another thread on it, forgive me if there is.

But was Clarke a good captain?

In the build up to the Ryder Cup he seemed to be saying the right things and taking it seriously.

His captain's picks at the time seemed fair enough, Knox was the only real debate but there is always one of those eg Casey in 2010.

However when the week came he did not impress me, dealt with the PJ Willett 'controversy' very poorly, I think the point should've been made that the article was clearly written in jest and was not to be taken seriously.

His biggest failures came with his pairings though I believe, not recognising who was on form and trying to protect his rookies too much, for instance Andy Sullivan deserved another run out I thought.

What are your thoughts?

It has been discussed ad nuasium in the official Ryder Cup thread. In summary I agree with you regarding the pairings but others don't.

 

[JT77]

I agree with you LD, think wood is another who could have done with more than one game, the fact he played Westwood again after a shocking display with the putter wasn't good, and you could see keymar was having a hard time too, think Willet was unlucky as his brother ruined his week. Although it was meant in jest it wasn't great timing and think that maybe spoilt Clarke's plan.
IMO for a guy they said was very organised he seemed to quick to play his picks over guys that made the team on merit. Of course I have no idea what went on in team room so who knows what was said or decided there so may not be all Clarke's fault.

 

[Tongo]

So much about being captain is down to the strength of your team and the opposition. So, for instance, Woosie in 2006 probably didnt have to do too much cos Europe were extremely strong and the US were just awful. Some teams arguably win despite the captain; Seve in 97 and, to some extent, Monty where it seemed they both let their passion get the better of them.

Clarke faced the exact opposite of 2006; a European team in transition against an extremely strong US side. Plus i believe that you need a certain type of captain for when the US host the RC. Faldo and Clarke may perhaps not have been the best choices in that regard.

Of Europe's recent captains i would say that Langer and McGinley were excellent. Possibly Torrance as well.

 

[hovis]

no. first signs was his wild card pick. seconds was his Saturday afternoon picks.

 

[IM01]

Got a few key decisions wrong in my opinion but will make the inevitable book sell better explaining his reasons. Get him a few quid in the barren years when your no longer competitive on the main tour and waiting to get the wheelbarrow out on the senior tour.
Definitely put to bed the "experience over rookie" myth. Maybe 25 years ago but not in the modern golfing game.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

no. first signs was his wild card pick. seconds was his Saturday afternoon picks.

This plus poor management of Wood, Sullivan and Fitzpatrick. Major howlers.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Average and I guess we can only imagine how hard it is once the event is under way, especially trying to work out afternoon pairing with the foursomes still going. He made mistakes (the Willett saga, playing Westwood as much, not keeping the Spaniards together) but he wasn't the worse we've had

 

[USER1999]

I had to laugh when I heard the mcilroy Pieters interview after their foursomes win. When did you find out you were playing together, about 20 minutes before we tee'd off, have you practised together, no, how did you decide who played the opening drive, we tossed a coin.
Clarke, a man with a plan.

Good Captain? No.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This plus poor management of Wood, Sullivan and Fitzpatrick. Major howlers.

In what way were they managed poorly ?

Clarke and his VC made their decisions based on what they saw and the players were always told what was going on and why

Now he may have made poor choices in regards the pairs he picked but the players themselves seemed to know exactly what was going on and none where left in the dark - they all seemed up for it and part of the team ethic and spirit

A hell of a lot goes on behind the scenes and that's where most of the management of the players comes into it so yes he could have played different people and different times and the results could have been different but there is no guarantee and I can't see how it can be judged that he managed any particular player poorly. They were all involved at some point throughout the three days.

So many judgements came be made after the event - the two Spanish guys the perfect example , when the pairings had to be announced they were four down and looking like losing again.

He reacted to the situation by making judgment on pairings on his feet - got McIlory and Pieters together after seeing them play in the morning and thought they would work in the Fourballs

 

[Lord Tyrion]

L.P., those three were played once and were then sidelined. None had played badly, Wood even gained a point, but they were dumped whilst Clarke returned to his tried, tested and clearly out of form picks of Westwood and Kaymer. The minute those three saw the Saturday afternoon picks their hearts must have sunk. If Clarke fancied those two above them they knew he didn't rate them. Confidence must have dropped.

Pieters in his post singles interview said he felt confident as Clarke had kept playing him and it showed he had faith in him. The reverse must have been true for those three.

I thought his handling of those three players was from the Mark James handbook. Poor man management.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It's a results based business and is the same in all sports. We lost and that's what he'll be remembered for when Captains are discussed, behind the scenes, organisation, commitment etc he may of been the best ever with the weakest team, he may of come up against one of the strongest US teams ever assembled, the record shows he lost and it will divide opinion indefinitely.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

L.P., those three were played once and were then sidelined. None had played badly, Wood even gained a point, but they were dumped whilst Clarke returned to his tried, tested and clearly out of form picks of Westwood and Kaymer. The minute those three saw the Saturday afternoon picks their hearts must have sunk. If Clarke fancied those two above them they knew he didn't rate them. Confidence must have dropped.

Pieters in his post singles interview said he felt confident as Clarke had kept playing him and it showed he had faith in him. The reverse must have been true for those three.

I thought his handling of those three players was from the Mark James handbook. Poor man management.

But you don't actually know how the players felt though ? That's all guesswork - can't say how they felt unless they have actually come out and said that it shattered their confidence.

A number of players over the years especially rookies have only played the once and then into the singles - it's not a new thing

The players could just as easily have understood Clarkes choices and then gone out to support their teammates - play and support as a team was a very big message that Clarke and the VC emphasised and it was something the players also kept saying

Wood did win a point but with Rose and he wanted to go with the successful partnership of Rose and Stenson again , Fitzpatrick and Sullivan both lost their previous matches and it was a very crucial stage in the Comp and went with the guys who had been there before and I have a fully the rookies fully understood that.

 

[One Planer]

But you don't actually know how the players felt though ? That's all guesswork - can't say how they felt unless they have actually come out and said that it shattered their confidence.

A number of players over the years especially rookies have only played the once and then into the singles - it's not a new thing

The players could just as easily have understood Clarkes choices and then gone out to support their teammates - play and support as a team was a very big message that Clarke and the VC emphasised and it was something the players also kept saying

Wood did win a point but with Rose and he wanted to go with the successful partnership of Rose and Stenson again , Fitzpatrick and Sullivan both lost their previous matches and it was a very crucial stage in the Comp and went with the guys who had been there before and I have a fully the rookies fully understood that.

Plenty of supposition in their Phil.

 

[craigstardis1976]

I thought Darren did a reasonable job at Captain but made some decisions with good intentions that did not pan out the way he envisioned. This happens. I think he was a good ambassador for European Golf and I commend him for seeing it as a match, a game and not a life or death struggle.

Sergio will be a great captain one day. and despite his poor play this year, I would love to see Westwood get a go.

 

[HankMarvin]

So LP your are saying that the rookies who were there on merit would have understood that playing both Westwood & martin who were both out of form and still had no points would do a better job, trot on and keep telling yourself that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Clearly none of us know, we can only surmise. However, a captain who keeps going back to two failing players, ignoring three lads who had not played badly and would have been desperate to get out there had to be deflating. Not only that it shows poor captaincy not to recognise that those two were having a mare and should have been dropped. You need to acknowledge something is not working and adapt. Just keeping going back to plan A is too rigid.