Faldo's Failure?

Following Europe's heavy defeat in the Ryder Cup, Nick Faldo has come in for some heavy criticism. As the team captain responsible for making a number of key decisions, it is inevitable that his tactics and selections have been called into question in the wake of the defeat. It seems to me that Ryder Cup captains in general, and Faldo in particular, are often blamed, justly or unfairly, when their team loses. Ultimately, it is the players that win (or lose) the Cup out on the course, and in this instance there is little doubt that the Americans were just better on the weekend.

That isn't to say that the Ryder Cup captains do not sometimes make the most bizarre and baffling decisions. Hal Sutton's decision to pair Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson together despite the fact that they clearly loathed each other springs immediately to mind. In such instances, criticism of the Captain is justified. However, I believe that most of the decisions that Nick Faldo made at Valhalla were fairly sound. For the sake of argument I will go over them and other factors that might have led to the European defeat:

Wild Card Selections: Faldo was heavily criticized for his choice of Ian Poulter as a second wildcard over Darren Clarke. Poulter however, by scoring four points (which could easily have been a full five had he and Justin Rose not thrown away their foursomes match on the first day) has more than justified his selection. Any criticism now that Clarke, or Monty or anyone else might still have been a better pick seems spurious against the fact that Poulter turned out to be by far Europe's best performing player. Monty was seriously out of form and it is doubtful that his erratic play would stand up to Ryder Cup pressure. But all that is speculation. Poulter and Casey were chosen, they played well (especially Poulter), and it is facile to criticize Faldo in this regard.

Resting/Dropping Garcia and Westwood: Faldo was criticized for dropping Garcia and Westwood for the fourballs session on the second day. There seems some merit in this criticism given Garcia's tremendous fourballs record - he has never lost a fourballs match. Garcia and Westwood have also done tremendously well together in the fourballs in the past. However, I believe that Faldo did make the right decision. You have to choose your pairing based on how well the players are playing on the day, not their past record. Garcia and Westwood were not playing at all well (they failed to muster a single win between them throughout the Ryder Cup). Garcia's fourballs record was only preserved on the first day when the American's threw victory away on the last hole. Besides, the session when they were dropped was the only one that Europe won. Had Faldo stuck with Garcia and Westwood blindly, he would probably be criticized for putting too much faith in his trusted guns and for an inability to make tough decisions.

Bottom Loading the Singles: Faldo was criticized for leaving Europe's best players at the end in the singles, especially when their matches became redundant after the Americans had sealed the victory earlier on. It is suggested that had he top loaded the singles, and put some blue on the board, momentum would swing Europe's way. However, it is first worth noting that Europe lost the Ryder Cup in the middle order, not the front, and also the fact that the singles pairings is a notoriously fickle exercise. Starting things off with Sergio Garcia (with such an excellent Ryder Cup record) is hardly a slouch, but Anthony Kim looked like he was game to beat anyone on the day. Some of the Americans were just on amazing form - Oliver Wilson played his round 4 under (through 15 holes) and still lost to Boo Weekly. With Europe behind, Faldo was gambling on his players pulling some points back early and his big guns being inspired into sealing the deal. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Still, I give him full marks for having the guts to try.

Lack of Assistants: Faldo was criticized for only appointing Jose Maria Olazabal as an Assistant Captain, and of being too egoistic to have more support which was important for a European victory. Faldo has been dogged by claims that he is standoffish and arrogant throughout his career. The crux of the question is whether Faldo's leadership style and his purported need to make all the key decisions affected the team negatively. Would having more assistants have helped? It would certainly have meant that Faldo could afford to have more people on the course monitoring play and offering advice or just a calming word or two to the players where needed. In my opinion, it probably would have helped Faldo to have an additional assistant or two, if only to reduce Faldo's immense workload, and to provide a trusted ear, where needed. 

The issue with Faldo is, he probably wouldn't have wanted an additional advice. In the end, I think this issue had been played up too much - it would have been more significant had the Europeans had more inexperienced Ryder Cup players/rookies or if the rookies had wilted under the pressure. Instead, it was Europe's Ryder Cup old guard that failed to perform and you would hardly expect Faldo to have to mollycoddle them. Also, Faldo has his own style of captaining the team which should be respected. Seve Ballesteros before him was endlessly energetic - which extended to his offering advice while his players were out on course, including one occasion where one of the them proceeded to dump his next shot in the water. Faldo's style was different, a no-fuss assured style of leadership which I believe the Europeans responded to. Some players, notably Garcia, could have done with a more fiery, less phlegmatic style, but then again, not all of them.

There's No Place Like Home: The recent European success in America belies the difficulty of winning the Cup away from home, especially when there is a partisan crowd out in force. The crowd at Valhalla was most definitely partisan, though mostly in good taste (Westwood's complaints at Boo Weekly stirring up the crowd aside). Playing at home also gives an advantage in terms of setting up the course favourably to your side. The Americans certainly did that at Valhalla. If there was one factor that won or lost the Cup it was putting. The organizers made sure that the greens were slick and fast, which definitely favoured the Americans. Much has been made about the contributions of the American Ryder Cup rookies, about their enthusiasm, but the whole American team was buoyed by the crowd, which was a big X factor throughout the weekend.

So in the end, I would suggest, that the Americans won because they played better over the 3 days. That may be the most facile and unhelpful of statements, but that doesn't make it any less true. There is a understandable tendency in the wake of a defeat to dissect the decisions made, and engage in what if recrimination. This is especially the case with Ryder Cup captains. Perhaps we should give Faldo a break and in true Ryder Cup spirit, applaud the Americans for playing a marvelous weekend of golf.