FOUR vice captains? FOUR??

Jose Maria Olazabal is apparently going to elect four vice captains for the Ryder Cup - Darren Clark, Paul McGinley, Thomas Bjorn and another to be announced in September.

What on earth are they all going to do (apart from block the spectators' view)?

Since when did deciding anything important become EASIER when you have a load of people to discuss it with?

Madness.

Can see the point. One at each match.

one following each match makes sense to me to be honest. i remember Monty said that at some point he had to choose afternoon pairings before the AM groups were finished and without the report of the vicecaptains he wouldnt have been able to make an informed decision on who was playing well and if partnerships were working

I dont think it says much for the respect he has for the players views if he needs that many VC's. The likes of Westwood and Donald should be able to help and take decisions, you dont need a management team of 5 especially when one is just a beer monster like Clarke who will just be there as a glorified cheerleader.

digs - probably better for the players to focus solely on their matches - start adding responsibilities will just cause loss of focus on what their primary job is. one following each match is ideal as with 2 dipping in and out of 2 matches will not get a complete picture of how each pair is performing throughout each tie. i'm sure dc can manage to focus for a couple of rounds each day to provide helpful feedback, other than that his job is to provide encouragement to his norn irish mcilroy /mcdowell combo no doubt in his best cheerleading manner

Makes perfect sense to me; Faldo could certainly have used extra help at Valhalla, Westwood (with Garcia and Harrington) one of those floundering on course when things began to go sideways. Agree that having Donald on the Team (sadly absent in 2008) adds leadership on the ground.


Wonder if the VC-in-waiting is Karlsson, with Olly wanting to see if he reaches (and progresses in) the Play-Offs before announcing him. Quite possible that Karlsson might say he'd do it, subject to his FedEx commitments - very respected and someone lw1 used to speak highly of when he posted on 606.

On the flip side Barragan is it good for the players to know a VC is following them around analysing their every shot ? And the players should be able to give an honest enough answer to how they played in a debrief and there is a stack of data to show how they have played, fairways hit etc. Two on carts flitting between matches plus the captain is easily plenty.
4 seems massive overkill but its all part of the jolly that is the RC.

to be honest, i think the pressure of the event will outweigh any anxiety about what the vc is writing down in his notebook. as for stats, observation of how players bounce back or otherwise in specific circumstances is far more valuable than saying rose hit 65% fairways this morning ergo... personally i think 4 is bang on as it gives olazabal the freedom to roam.

Fair enough, complete overkill in my book. Hard to see past a fairly easy win by the Yanks this time round, more depth and home advantage should see them home comfortably.

That's what everyone usually thinks though Diggers, yet Europe have won 6 of the last 8.

America probably have a better chance than ever though this time provided all the god botherers have been praying, although European players seem to up their game.

Probably good for the competition though if America get a win. One sided competitions are boring.

Wasnt really one sided last time out, very narrow win on homes soil for Europe, which to be honest if it hadnt been for the weather issues and schedule changes they may well have won. Whilst the previous one in the States was easy for the Americans.
Dont think you need to go any forther back to than 4 years to guage historical form really as becomes irrelevant.

Diggers wrote:...which to be honest if it hadnt been for the weather issues and schedule changes they may well have won...

What are you basing this on?

True Diggers, what I'm saying though is that in this competition, current form, perceived depth and how big a player you are counts for very little.
I think it will be tight, perhaps the septics winning by a point or two.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

Diggers wrote:...which to be honest if it hadnt been for the weather issues and schedule changes they may well have won...

What are you basing this on?

His distaste for all things European and his equally all-embracing adoration of the PGAT.

I reckon if you randomly picked four punters at the start of each day as the VC's it would make no different to the final outcome.

The VC's may as well be Ollie’s four favourite plush toys.

NOt looking forward to the American crowds, retarded shouts of "mashed potato" ( a capital offence in my opinion) and dreary, boring chant of USA.

Bob_the_Job wrote:

Diggers wrote:...which to be honest if it hadnt been for the weather issues and schedule changes they may well have won...

What are you basing this on?

On what happened.

So Mahan wouldn't have bottled it if it hadn't been wet?

Diggers wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:

Diggers wrote:...which to be honest if it hadnt been for the weather issues and schedule changes they may well have won...

What are you basing this on?

On what happened.

No. You're trying to tell us what didn't happen. Do you have insider knowledge that the weather and changes adversley affected the Americans more then the Europeans? If not, then you're voicing an opinion so stop stating it like it's a fact.

Even if it did, so what? Golf is an outdoor sport so the ability to deal with changing conditions and schedule is an important part of any player or team ability. Not so much an opinion as a fact there. So in fact ..you're just saying the American team that year was flawed by its inability to deal with these factors?.

Bob, when did I say it was fact, if you look back all Ive done is given an opinion, if you dont like that then maybe its not a good idea posting on a debating board eh ?
Of course it could still have gone either way but the yanks had the momentum and they lost it in unusual circumstances, hence my opinion things could have been different.
It doesnt alter the fact it was an incredobly close match that could have gone either way or indeed that the previous one certainly wasnt...and that was the point I was making in my reply to SR. That OK with you ?

I think the word vice captain gives the wrong impression.
Got to be a better description.Elves maybe

Diggers wrote:Bob, when did I say it was fact, if you look back all Ive done is given an opinion, if you dont like that then maybe its not a good idea posting on a debating board eh ?
Of course it could still have gone either way but the yanks had the momentum and they lost it in unusual circumstances, hence my opinion things could have been different.
It doesnt alter the fact it was an incredobly close match that could have gone either way or indeed that the previous one certainly wasnt...and that was the point I was making in my reply to SR. That OK with you ?

Not really - now you're just being obtuse because you don't like getting called out for talking balls. If you don't like that, maybe "its" not a good idea posting on a debating board...because we'd all hate to be debating on a debating board. If nothing else, the weather might change and you'd lose.

Diggers wrote:Bob, when did I say it was fact, if you look back all Ive done is given an opinion, if you dont like that then maybe its not a good idea posting on a debating board eh ?
Of course it could still have gone either way but the yanks had the momentum and they lost it in unusual circumstances, hence my opinion things could have been different.
It doesnt alter the fact it was an incredobly close match that could have gone either way or indeed that the previous one certainly wasnt...and that was the point I was making in my reply to SR. That OK with you ?

Hard to debate on a debating board if there's nothing to talk about... backing up your opinion when someone queries it by saying it's based "on what happened" isn't exactly furthering the discussion, in fairness.

I'd be amazed if a half wit like you actually knows what obtuse means.

Diggers wrote:I'd be amazed if a half wit like you actually knows what obtuse means.

Whereas resorting to personal insults is always a sure sign of great intelligence? I suggest you give up while you're behind.

And of course telling someone they are obtuse and talking balls is polite ? Always the same with posters like you, love to act the big guy but bleat like a baby when you get some back.
If you want to pretend it was a perfectly normal RC go ahead.

Re. 2010: the Americans didn't have suitable rain gear to begin with. Ms. Strange forgot, so she had to run to the pro shop later on. One could argue it cost them a hole or two. Yes, their own fault, but I think it's fair to say it did influence them negatively.

Again no, I said you were being obtuse, not that you are obtuse. Hey! I thought you implied you knew what the word means? I still contend you were talking balls, and you're right - that's not very polite. But impolite and insulting are not the synonyms – so what’s your point?

Chill out you two

My point is that you are the one who comes on all aggressive because another poster dares suggests that had variables been different it's just possible another result may have happened. Hardly the most contentious statement and indeed only a small part of the point I was making to SR who didn't even dispute my comments.
And yet somehow you feel you are the poor soul who has been wronged. Bizarre.

Bob - having read through the conversation, I'm on your side.

Diggers - I'm not sure I'd last 5 minutes in the same room with you if you're the same in "real life". I've had a couple of differences of opinion with you and they seem to go around in circles and descend into "Where did I say that?" & "That's not what I said", etc. I'm not sure how you can accuse anyone else of being aggressive.

I still think Robert Karlsson may be the 4th VC-in-waiting . . . . .

Tinmar, the first thing you ever said to me out of the blue is I must hate golf and why do I bother, or words to that effect. Do you really expect me to have any time for you ? Another example of someone reacting to one of my posts and choosing to have a go at an opinion or indeed me.
Try showing some posts where I have a go at someone I have no previous rapport with and you'll struggle. As far as I'm concerned anyone can say what they like but if they start having a pop or getting personal just because they dont like my opinion they can go swivel as far as I'm concerned.

kwinigolfer wrote:I still think Robert Karlsson may be the 4th VC-in-waiting . . . . .

Perhaps. Did anyone else think his withdrawal from the Open was very strange? It seemed to pass by with very little comment from anybody.

He only withdrew on the Wednesday and then tweeted that he was going away to work on his game as he was unhappy with a few things. He didn't even pretend to be injured. Maybe he did the right thing if he felt he couldn't do himself justice and so opened up a place for someone who might do better. It just seemed a bit unusual.

Diggers - I questioned the point of your posts about the Open. You said you were more interested in the cricket which is a perfectly valid preference. I just couldn't understand why you kept making that point on a golf thread.

If I went on a Test Match thread and my only contribution was to say I didn't care who won, the match was boring, the grounds were ugly and I couldn't engage with it, what do you think would happen? I think there is a fair chance that at least one or two people would ask me what I was doing there if I found the whole thing so disagreeable. Life doesn't have to be so negative. Why not follow and comment on the things you enjoy and ignore the things you don't?

I post plenty of positive comments, you seem intent on picking up on the negative ones and making an argument. You got completely the wrong end of the stick re the Olympic thing and weren't even big enough to admit it which speaks volumes about you.
All you have to do is block my comments and your woes are over, I can assure you I don't read any of yours that aren't directed at me.

Tinmar,
The account I read suggested he was experiencing Kevin Na-like problems in taking the club back and transitioning at the top of his backswing. But he's lost valuable ground in any effort to save his PGA Tour card and is certainly out of contention for Ryder Cup consideration - as a player at least.

Just a hunch, that's all.

Diggers, I don't accept getting the wrong end of the stick about anything. I picked up your point regarding Golf & the Olympics exactly as you wrote it. I don't even completely disagree with what you wrote, it's certainly worthy of discussion. I thought we might have a reasonable discussion and I certainly wasn't attacking you but you don't seem to like to be questioned about anything you say.

I let things lie re the Olympics because the conversation was going nowhere and it looked like it could go on "Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat" all day. It seems the only way to ever end things is to allow you to have the final say. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that means I've conceded some mythical point.

That's hilarious! I think you can guess the three letter word I wrote just before "-for-tat" in my post above. Obviously this site found it objectionable. Strange word it replaced it with though!

If you say so. The simple fact is for some reason you like to pick up on my comments and seem to feel its OK to tell me your opinion of me when it was certainly never asked for. Like I say, I have no wish to converse with you and again I would not respond to your posts as we clearly dont see eye to eye.
Again today you had to put in your 2 penneth knowing where it would lead. You could have just left it at saying you agreed with Bob, fair enough, I'm sure plenty would and that's fine. But no, you had to have yet another go at telling me what you thought of me and how I should be acting. You can't seem to help yourself for some reason.

Is david beckham not worthy of a captains pick for VC, after all he has done for the game? It might be good to get the perspective of someone from another sport.

How about Bez from the Happy Mondays? He's got plenty of vices.

Anyone else get the impression Diggers isn't the tallest poster on here?

Im with the OP here...........picking 4 vcs is just part of the "love in" where Ollie will be able to tell the world he needs them as his "eyes and ears"..............McGinley seems to get particularly overcome every time he has a walkie talkie in his hand, acting like he's on some undercover mission with this worried look on his face all the time...........he treats the Seve Trophy as if it's as important as a Major.........................

For the dignity of the Event(and the RC is a great event) each captain should be limited to 2 Vice captains

@Smithers......zzzzz. Surely you can do better than that. I'm just amazed you didn't end it by telling everyone you are 6 2".

Did anyone see McGinely when he was on sky sports coverage of one of the PGA tour events earlier this season. He was so useless and offered nothing more than a stream of meaningless comments.

I see no one has offered up any real reason for the VC's inclusion in the ryder cup? Sort of adds to the Sun reader atmosphere the event has developed.

If you haven't prepared the team by the time they are on the first tee, I don't think the presence of a Vice Captain (and I'm commenting on both the US and Euro side) matters even a little bit. Really, what can these guys tell the players mid match? These are among the top players in the world.

McLaren wrote:Is david beckham not worthy of a captains pick for VC, after all he has done for the game? It might be good to get the perspective of someone from another sport.

You ARE joking I hope Mac?? I had enough of that 'Emperor's New Clothes' of a man with the Olympics!

McLaren wrote:Did anyone see McGinely when he was on sky sports coverage of one of the PGA tour events earlier this season. He was so useless and offered nothing more than a stream of meaningless comments.

I see no one has offered up any real reason for the VC's inclusion in the ryder cup? Sort of adds to the Sun reader atmosphere the event has developed.

The fact is Mac, both sides for a good few years have seen fit to have VCs and feel they need them. Still, I'm sure you're more likely to be right than they are .

I think that ollie realised how wrong Faldo got it with only 1 vc, so he is making sure with 4 vc that he knows exactly how each player is playing.