FOUR vice captains? FOUR??

First topic message reminder :

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.

How many vc equivalents are there for football teams? Probably 4 or more i'd guess, each with a varying role to be fair. Same with other team sports. Not sure why people have such an issue with it, after all its good experience for later captains to draw from. The main justification for me is having a pair of eyes taking in everything during each match - just makes sense.

well i had 3 best men at my wedding because i simply couldnt choose and didnt want to disappoint anyone. perhaps this is a similar scenario?

I'm afraid I think it's utterly ridiculous to have four vice captains. On the first two days, there are only four games going on at any one time anyway. On the last day, there are 12 games but all singles with a pre-decided start order.

Ollie's creating a committee when he doesn't need one. He and one vice captain should be capable of figuring out who is playing well and who isn't. Also, the players should be capable of figuring out whether they are playing well or not. Here's a clue Luke - if you are 6 down, then you aren't playing well.

I think the Europeans will get a serious shellacking this year, the US seems to have a group of players playing much more consistently.

George1507 wrote:I'm afraid I think it's utterly ridiculous to have four vice captains. On the first two days, there are only four games going on at any one time anyway. On the last day, there are 12 games but all singles with a pre-decided start order.

Ollie's creating a committee when he doesn't need one. He and one vice captain should be capable of figuring out who is playing well and who isn't. Also, the players should be capable of figuring out whether they are playing well or not. Here's a clue Luke - if you are 6 down, then you aren't playing well.

I think the Europeans will get a serious shellacking this year, the US seems to have a group of players playing much more consistently.

Interesting - if you were running a book, what odds would you give me on a European win/retention?

Bob_the_Job wrote:

George1507 wrote:I'm afraid I think it's utterly ridiculous to have four vice captains. On the first two days, there are only four games going on at any one time anyway. On the last day, there are 12 games but all singles with a pre-decided start order.

Ollie's creating a committee when he doesn't need one. He and one vice captain should be capable of figuring out who is playing well and who isn't. Also, the players should be capable of figuring out whether they are playing well or not. Here's a clue Luke - if you are 6 down, then you aren't playing well.

I think the Europeans will get a serious shellacking this year, the US seems to have a group of players playing much more consistently.

Interesting - if you were running a book, what odds would you give me on a European win/retention?

It's a two horse race, so not good odds I'm afraid.

But you clearly don't think it's evens - right? Most of the bookies seem to have Europe as slight favourites at the moment (only just though - 6/4 or 11/8) . It will be interesting to see how the odds change in the run up to the event.

Bei nteresting to see the odds with an American bookie.

Bob_the_Job wrote:But you clearly don't think it's evens - right? Most of the bookies seem to have Europe as slight favourites at the moment (only just though - 6/4 or 11/8) . It will be interesting to see how the odds change in the run up to the event.

You said a European win, or Europe retaining the trophy. So, in a two horse race, you want odds on two of three possible outcomes (a European win, OR a tie). For that, no better than even money I should think. I'm pretty sure most bookies have the US as favourites, because it's on home soil. Europe wouldn't be favourites at 6/4 (except in betting heaven).

If bookies have Europe as a favorite, I'd put my money on an American win.

I certainly would not be that confident about the American team! Look for a very close contest, a toss up at this point IMO.

pedro wrote:If bookies have Europe as a favorite, I'd put my money on an American win.

Only bookies in the UK would make Europe favourites.

It's the same scenario as when there's a big international football tournament - England are one of the favourites according to bookies here, but only because people here put money on them for patriotic or jingoistic reasons.

US is favourite for the Ryder Cup at odds on, with Europe about 6/4 or 11/8.

Its not realy the sort of event you want to bet a lot of money on who will win, too unpredictable and not much between the sides. Id fancy the yanks but wouldnt be shocked if they lost.
Maybe more mileage in betting on top scorer or results in particular matches.

I wanted odds on one of two possible outcomes - Europe bringing the trophy home (as opposed to not bringing it home). You said "the Europeans will get a serious shellacking" - implying that you considered the Americans hot favourites, so I was trying to quantify what a serious shellacking is in terms of odds you would offer is you were a bookie And your odds, seem to be at odds with your prediction.

By the way, the odds I quoted we're from BetVictor and Paddy Power respectively. The odds on an American victory seem to range from 11/13 to 4/6.

In a two horse race, if you have odds "better" (i.e. shorter) than evens does that not make you the favourite by definition? So 6/4 means the bookies think Europe more likely to win than the Americans? No? As you can tell I'm not a bookie!

One thing is for sure, nobody is going to win big at the bookies on an event like this, unless they go for the more esoteric "who sinks the winning putt" type wagers.

As for Diggers point, I don't know how to find out odds at an American bookies online as due to US gambling laws, they are usually blocked outside of the US. That said, bookies in general aren't known for sentimentality or for letting patriotic pride get in the way of profit, so I'm not sure they'd differ that much, save for the usual distorting factor of the local take.

Bob_the_Job wrote:But you clearly don't think it's evens - right? Most of the bookies seem to have Europe as slight favourites at the moment (only just though - 6/4 or 11/8) . It will be interesting to see how the odds change in the run up to the event.

The Bookies couldn't have the favourites priced at 6/4 or 11/8 in a 2 horse race......................

Bob_the_Job wrote:I wanted odds on one of two possible outcomes - Europe bringing the trophy home (as opposed to not bringing it home). You said "the Europeans will get a serious shellacking" - implying that you considered the Americans hot favourites, so I was trying to quantify what a serious shellacking is in terms of odds you would offer is you were a bookie And your odds, seem to be at odds with your prediction.

By the way, the odds I quoted we're from BetVictor and Paddy Power respectively. The odds on an American victory seem to range from 11/13 to 4/6.

In a two horse race, if you have odds "better" (i.e. shorter) than evens does that not make you the favourite by definition? So 6/4 means the bookies think Europe more likely to win than the Americans? No? As you can tell I'm not a bookie!

One thing is for sure, nobody is going to win big at the bookies on an event like this, unless they go for the more esoteric "who sinks the winning putt" type wagers.

As for Diggers point, I don't know how to find out odds at an American bookies online as due to US gambling laws, they are usually blocked outside of the US. That said, bookies in general aren't known for sentimentality or for letting patriotic pride get in the way of profit, so I'm not sure they'd differ that much, save for the usual distorting factor of the local take.

Yes, you're right, I do think - as I said - that the US is going to hand the Europeans a shellacking. If I was a bookie, which thank the lord I'm not sir, then I'd have the Europeans at about 4/1.

In a two horse race, the favourite is always odds on, and (unless it would appear to be a hopelessly one sided contest like for example Man Utd v Crawley Town), the underdog is just about even money.

George

Faldo had only one vc and look what a balls up of he made, I think having 4 is sensible.

Ahh ok - you mean 4/1 against Europe. Wow. That is pretty confident. Cheers

oldparwin wrote:George

Faldo had only one vc and look what a balls up of he made, I think having 4 is sensible.

He might have made a balls up of it, but not because he only had one vice captain. Increasing the number of people involved in making the decision isn't good. It just increases the time spent on communicating and reduces the amount of time spent on figuring out what to do, and how to do it.

George,
Many Captains, going back to Jacklin anyway, have enlisted a number of Vice Captains, just never started calling them that until relatively recently.

Would have thought the appropriate number would be up to the skipper in question; I was always of the opinion that Faldo was out of touch with half his team, though others on here have disagreed.

As for the result, US must surely be longish odds on: 4/7 vs 6/4?

PS: I like John Cregan's comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kwini, I'm not saying Ollie shouldn't have vice captains, I just think four is way too many. Perhaps Nick Faldo should have had more than one to help him, but I think that it all boils down to the captain having to decide who plays on days 1 and 2, and with whom. I'm not sure that having another four people, all with their favourites no doubt, will help at all.

Just thinking about it, I doubt Darren Clarke will make much contribution after the bars open at lunchtime, so maybe having four is not so silly...

If the VC role was about decision making I'd agree that 4 is far too many. I might even venture so far as to say none is needed. However, as far as I can tell the purpose is to give the captain eyes on the ground with each match so he can get up-to-the-minute feedback on how games are going. If Luke is 6 down despite being -4 and someone else is winning a game but is +2, that type of info and feedback on how the players are feeling and their demeanour will be very useful in picking afternoon pairings.

Not quite Elves, as Dyna suggests, but certainly more underlings than understudies, albeit underlings with experience of what the players will be going through.

So surely the VC's could be replaced by an Ipad linked to scoring info?

Mac
Would have expected something silly from you, and you never disappoint!!!.

Don't know what you mean, OP, I'm sure there's a demeanour detection function in the latest iPad!

Thanks, I guess.

Def think that four is correct number. Faldo basically had olly, his son and dj spoony as his. No wonder we lost!! so def think mcginlay bjorn and clarke are excellent picks.

Sand wrote:Def think that four is correct number. Faldo basically had olly, his son and dj spoony as his. No wonder we lost!! so def think mcginlay bjorn and clarke are excellent picks.

Why - 'no wonder we lost'? Why do you think that having more people would help to decide the right combinations, help to motivate the players?

I'm sure with the technology being used in 2012, Ollie will know how each player in his team is playing, scoring, feeling and doing well before any of his vice captains can tell him.

As much as I don't like Nick Faldo, I have to respect the way he did things. The captain has to call the shots, and I don't think having four other people (and some of the more experienced players) each giving their two-pen'rth will help at all.

Whatever the reason, 2008 was the only year I've seen since Europe entered the fray that the USA had better esprit de corps.

It's a little presumptuous to assume the decision making will be along the 'design by committee' style. I would not be surprised if the vc role will be little more than twig gathering with Olazabal in control of decision making - not acting as a chairperson.

Sergio currently leading in America. Looks like Harrington will be staying at home tending his potatoes instead of going to the Ryder Cup. Thank goodness for that.

barragan wrote:It's a little presumptuous to assume the decision making will be along the 'design by committee' style. I would not be surprised if the vc role will be little more than twig gathering with Olazabal in control of decision making - not acting as a chairperson.

If they aren't going to be involved in deciding the team, what's the point in taking them?

How would you feel if you were a vice captain, reporting back to the captain on how the team was playing, what the pairings should be etc - and he ignored your advice?

Surely the job of a subordinate is to pass on all the relevant information to his manager, provide a recommendation if appropriate, and then respect the final decision the manager makes in light of the big picture?

Yes, it is, but these guys are not trained managers. They've spent their lives playing golf with a back up platoon to take care of their needs. Everyone of them will want their way, and will promote their pals.

George1507 wrote:Yes, it is, but these guys are not trained managers. They've spent their lives playing golf with a back up platoon to take care of their needs. Everyone of them will want their way, and will promote their pals.

That is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen on here. Think you'd better get a chip on the other shoulder or you'll fall over, George.

kwinigolfer wrote:Whatever the reason, 2008 was the only year I've seen since Europe entered the fray that the USA had better esprit de corps.

Tiger was not in the team. And USA were underdogs for the first time in long. That gives you the answer I guess.

pedro wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Whatever the reason, 2008 was the only year I've seen since Europe entered the fray that the USA had better esprit de corps.

Tiger was not in the team. And USA were underdogs for the first time in long. That gives you the answer I guess.

As if that makes a difference. Europe have won 9/12 being underdogs most times.

Whilst not quite as far as McLaren in suggesting it could all be done electronically, having a reasonably competent golfer to watch each match (up to the singles) would seem OK to me. Just giving feedback about the pairings are working etc. But by having a "name" as a VC, it can spread the burden of talking to the media and all the other non essential aspects of the tournament.

Would you prefer they were called lackies or lickspittles?

It's just a role, not a vital one, but one which reports how each pairing is doing together.

Why are people looking into this so deeply? I can't understand the outrage.

I think the VC will play a vital role in the outcome of the result, they will be there watching each hole and what club each player is using off the tee, and who has played the hole best, this information could be vital to the players, behind.

They will also be able to encourage players and keep them upto date on how all the other matches are going, and report back to the Captain on who is playing well and who is a little bit out of sorts etc etc.

Im not sure they will have that much input. Usually the big names will play most of the matches. Didnt Tiger start with a shocker last time out and end up being one of the top points scorers in the match ?
I cant see many Captains dropping their big guns just because they are a bit off in a match. And matching the pairings is pretty much down to instinct, certain pairs will be put together maybe because of good history or nationality.

Personally think that 4 VCs makes perfect sense. As has been posted, it's about having one VC dedicated to each match during the first 2 days, to provide the maximum amount of up-to-date info to the Captain. All decision-making will still be made by Olly.

As for the speculation as to the 4th VC being Robert Karlsson ... surely Miguel Angel Jimenez is a very likely shout, and Olly's just waiting to make sure he doesn't make the team?

super_realist wrote:

pedro wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Whatever the reason, 2008 was the only year I've seen since Europe entered the fray that the USA had better esprit de corps.

Tiger was not in the team. And USA were underdogs for the first time in long. That gives you the answer I guess.

As if that makes a difference. Europe have won 9/12 being underdogs most times.

Well, that's my point. The team being the underdog seems to come out on top. Too many stars on the team is not always good. If they falter early on (as we saw in 2008 with the European stars), it will (can) transpond to the rest of the team. But that's possibly where a good captain/VC team can make a difference.

I'd go with the 4 assistants/vice captains/elves/lackeys myself. I think with one in each group for the first 2 days the top job becomes easier.

The only argument I can see against it is if the Captain does allow it to become management by committee. But I guess this is unlikely as the Captain picks his 4.

Guess it's down to the Captain how many he wants or thinks he needs. I'd have 4, a few on here would have 2 and I dare say a few would go it alone.

Don't forget the upcoming "picks" of buggy drivers...

And the fourth is Jimenez

kwinigolfer wrote:And the fourth is Jimenez

= Sergio qualified as a player.

Can I be in the Euro Team Room? With Miguel and Clarke, it is going to be a lot more in there than the US Team Room.

Maybe Prince Harry will bring his Billiard party to Chicago!

pedro wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:And the fourth is Jimenez

= Sergio qualified as a player.

Nope Olly said today Jimenez wasnt announced last week as he had a chance of a wild card till he missed the cut this week.

So he didn't want to wait for Bjorn? (who's further up on both lists)

agreed.... But thats what he said anyway...