Why a new Ryder Cup captain?

15 posts / 0 new
Why a new Ryder Cup captain?
I'm sure this subject has been done to death, but I find it very strange that Langer should stand down as captain. I understood it is accepted procedure for Ryder Cup captains only to do it once, but why? Would Sven stand down or be sacked if England won the World Cup? No. The FA would do all they could to keep him. We won the Ryder Cup, by a record margin and Langer was arguably the best ever captain. Crazy!!! Now we've got a choice between Nick 'non-teamplayer' Faldo and Woosnam. Great.

I think you'll find that even if Langer was offered the chance to do it again he'd decline as he wants to try and make the team next time out. Had this not been the case i agree totally. He's the best man for the job by a mile.

He stood down. Langer removed himself from the pick so there has to be a new captain.

I can empathise with your new avatar Longshot !

I thought it was fitting Paul :D

It's an accolade and largely ceremonial post. Many golfers deserve this recognition. That is why, win, lose or draw it should only be done once.

Trouble is, if we lose it looks a bad decision. I'm not sure Langer will make the team either, got too much competition I think, same for Montgomerie.

Raises the interesting question, Evan. If another player was a pretty rubber-stamp captain's pick, and with one left Cap'n Falsnam had to pick between Langer and Montgomerie, both on good form but for some reason short of either top five, which would be the better pick?I'd have to go with Monty, who has shown he really, really rises to the occasion. And I'd be a little sorry for anyone who made the team in such a circumstance over Monty, given the scenario I posed that both he and the other were in good nick and relatively evens in terms of performance.Let's hope THAT dilemma does not arise.Langer I think would have to make the team on merit in order to be at his best; as the former (and really unexcelled) Captain, to get in on a pick would put him in a hell of a position. He should have been picked for the Belfry, when he was playing marvellously going in, but Sam had foolishly declared ages earlier that he was picking Garcia and Parnevik if they did not qualify. I understood his motivation; they had paired exceptionally well at Brookline. But anyone with an eye in his head that whole year would have seen that Parnevik was dead weight. If Faldo gets Captain, I think he'll pick at the last minute. Not so sure about Woosie -- he's part of that James-Torrance crowd that tends to be personal. James should have picked Faldo (instead of Andrew Coltart, for heaven's sake) for Brookline, but went for a chap he liked rather than the better player, whom he didn't. He would have been better off if he had picked Karlsson, number 11 in the OM that year, but he didn't know him as well so he went with a favourite. I fear Woosie could make the same sort of gaffe.

Good question and good point about Mark James' team selection.Impossible to answer the Monty/Langer scenario, one of them could be playing so much better than the other at the time. If Woosie gets the job hopefully with the improved selection criteria the team will more or less pick itself.

I agree with Harry, it is a ceremonial / honorary post to a certain extent. With their RC pedigree, Woosnam and Faldo should both get a "turn" at the captaincy. Woosie in 06, Faldo in 08.And if we lose? So what - worse things happen at sea.

Worse things do happen at sea, but why put a hole in your own boat!

Of course, losing the Ryder Cup is, in the great scheme of things, less important than a cat being run over by a car.But when considered in it OWN lights, the object is to put the best team forward, on whatever terms you determine matter most. If the Europeans think it is more important that certain players have a "turn" than that you pick the best available players (when choosing, and in fact in creating qualification criteria)and captains, then so be it. But "Buggins' Turn" is responsible for a lot of what goes wrong in many walks of life. Happily, the one who is deemed to deserve a "turn" usually has the credentials to back up that feeling. I may prefer Faldo to Woosnam, but it's simply a preference, between two people who bring different skills, abilities and characteristics to the task. I was very concerned about James' echo, Torrance, when he was picked, but in the event he did a good job. I think he made a mistake in Parnevik, but it ended up not costing what it might have. By all accounts, his preparation was meticulous, and I applauded his frequent attendance at events, pairing with his players occasionally to check out both their form and their temperament, and asking various combinations to practise together to get used to the process. By setting up an atmosphere both friendly and with "everything under control," the players were totally freed to do what they had to do on the course.But, McAlan, it's not just ceremonial. Look at the nonsense that ensued when Sutton could not get a grip on his players. Riley opting out because he had NEVER played foursomes -- I mean, really. And being "too exhausted" to play (after one round). And Mickelson off practising on his own; well, THAT really worked out, didn't it.And his inane decision to tell the players not to mingle with the crowds, while the Euros did, making friends in previously hostile galleries while the US team dissipated home team advantage by being aloof. That's all part of the tone the captain sets.Same with Strange. He never had control of the team, especially that rugged individualist, Woods. That team never had any coherence. "I Did it My Way" is not a very productive anthem for the Ryder Cup. Lehman's a twank in many ways, but he's not quite the dumbest squirrel in the forest. Langer's captaincy set the standard; he wrote the book on how to do it. I would be a little concerned that Woosie would have a mission of making his own mark, doing it "his" way, to differentiate, while over in America two self-styled "men of God" would get together at the weekly PGA Tour prayer sessions (yes, they do) and, as a fellow born-again Christian, Langer would not hesitate in telling Lehman exactly what he has to do. Faldo brings something to the table that Woosie never can: the fear factor. That seems to me the tipping point.

V, I agree that a bad captain will sink the ship. I guess it boils down to what is more important - winning, or honouring a RC "great".Thankfully, the names in the frame have the makings of good captains, albeit with their own strengths and weaknesses.Not everybody can get their turn, which is just as well (sorry, Sandy!). But I don't see the European RC committee picking a donkey just because there's a feeling they're due a shot.

I don't think there are any donkeys in contention. But I think Sutton was picked because he had a good Ryder record. The PGA seems to be "rewarding" people in a way that seems to have more to do with honouring people than thinking about how to mount a successful campaign. Mind you, Strange started out well (Sutton never had a clue). Strange came over and played at The Belfry in 2001, at the B&H. (Missed the cut, but had a look at the course and scoped the competition). He worked extremely well with Sam to try to overcome the foul taste Brookline had left, and in this both he and Sam are still to be highly commended. But he had the Woods problem in spades that year. Woods toned down his act a bit in 2004 (to be replaced by Mickelson, who seemed to figure if Eldrick could be a prima donna so could he). As I've said before, that team is ungovernable till their captain tells the dirty dozen who's the boss. I'm still not happy about Woosnam. But if he gets it, he does seem to have the affection of the players, and if that translates into respect -- and they tend to GIVE their captains respect in Europe, unlike in the US -- then it's down to his organising skills. Maybe he has them...

If he recognises his weaknesses, and picks his backroom team to complement them, then it should be OK ?