How can a Ryder Cup group be so strong "on paper" and yet get beaten so badly in the real event?
Since this week's Limerick Summary won't pop out till Tuesday (the Deutsche Bank has a Monday finish) and I'm planning to make my Ryder Cup picks on Monday (once I see how the opposite tournaments finish nowadays), I concept I'd take a few minutes to provide my opinion about one of the maximum difficult conundrums related to the Ryder Cup.
In years beyond the USA crew has sincerely been the most powerful in line with their international ratings, yet they have not performed the manner the ones scores may lead you to expect. Likewise, it's apparent the European team is a little frightened approximately being the strongest on paper this yr and are seeking to downplay it a bit. I think there's a feeling that your OWGR rankings may be a jinx!
If you want to understand why the OWGR isn't necessarily a good indicator of Ryder Cup potential, you have to realize that all ranking systems make certain assumptions... and those assumptions may not be completely accurate. The OWGR makes a couple of these assumptions, and most analysts never even recognize them.
The first assumption -- and, I believe, the most flawed one -- is the belief that strength of field alone is sufficient for a world ranking system. Although this assumption is never directly mentioned, you hear it voiced when someone complains about "playing the rankings."
For example, if the World #1 plays in a Japan Tour occasion -- an event where the ranking factors provided for a win would typically be quite low as compared to a PGA Tour occasion -- after which he wins that occasion (which you could count on if the #1 is truely that much better than the rest of the sector), the World #1 is "padding his points general" by using artificially inflating the variety of available factors at that event.
This is also why some oldsters bitch about small fields (like Tiger's World Challenge event) getting rating factors. The small wide variety of exceedingly-ranked players creates a large pool of global ranking points so as to be divided among them, thus giving them a disproportionate enhance inside the OWGR.
However, this is only one way in which the OWGR is skewed by the strength of field measure. While you can artificially boost your ranking if you play the numbers,the system can also hide player improvement by keeping their points artificially low.
This is why the European players "all of sudden" became top-ranked gamers. Let me explain.
There is a very real difference between American golf and European golf. (Forgive me for lumping the rest of the world under the "European" label, but it makes this post easier to write. Besides, we are talking Ryder Cup here!) American golf is "target golf" -- the ball is played primarily through the air, flown a specific distance to a specific spot, and made to land softly. European golf, on the other hand, is often played "along the ground," which simply means there is no one prescribed way to get the ball close to the hole. A wider variety of skills is required if you hope to take the best scoring option.
Perhaps the traditional instance of this disparity is how long it took Phil Mickelson to get properly enough to win an Open Championship. Despite a continually high role in the OWGR, Euro golfing calls for a fixed of capabilities that even a wizard like Phil struggles to grasp. In fact, you can have observed that Euro players have extra success adapting to American golfing than American golfers have adapting to Euro golfing.
And that's in which the OWGR's power of discipline measure falls brief.
The OWGR assumes that the nice players are in America although you could argue that the fashion of golfing right here is easier to research and excel at. American guides can be better groomed than many Euro courses, however they do not require the form of pictures that Euro guides do.
As a result, the OWGR has traditionally awarded Euro players fewer factors for an equal end than American gamers acquired, even when the talent stages of the Euro gamers were enhancing extra quick. By the time the Euro gamers had climbed high enough within the rankings to qualify for the majors and WGC events, their talent stages have been a great deal better than those of an equivalently-ranked American player. Their OWGR ratings -- presented by way of the energy of field measure on my own -- were not an correct indication in their gambling skills.
In other words, the OWGR accidentally causes certain gamers to be sandbaggers via undervaluing their talent stages. And the ones abilties supply them a real gain, specially in the Ryder Cup.
The second assumption -- which represents a misunderstanding by the rest of us as much as it does a flaw in the OWGR -- is that stroke play rankings accurately predict match play ability. The OWGR values consistent play over streaky play, which is a logical approach to stroke play.
While everyone wants to win, our game (predominantly stroke play) is different from most other sports (which are predominantly match play). We don't often play one-on-one, which typically produces one winner and one loser, at the professional level. Rather, we most frequently play one-on-150, and a player may play extremely well yet win only once every two or three years... if that often.
There virtually HAS to be some way to rank folks that do not win. The OWGR is our reaction to that factor of our game. Shooting -8 is a higher finish than taking pictures 2, so we award ranking points thus.
However, that attitude is defective whilst we technique in shape play. Consider this:
Stroke play is an absolute degree of performance; as I said, taking pictures -eight is a better end than shooting 2. We recognize that due to the fact we are measuring scores towards an absolute scale. That -8 is continually higher than a 2.
But it really is now not necessarily authentic in suit play. While the ratings of two competition will not often be so extensive aside, the way matches are scored -- triumphing or dropping a hole -- approach that every one strokes are not created same. It's possible for a healthy play winner to take more strokes than his losing opponent, relying on how the strokes fell and on which holes.
In addition, your opponent's play is the measure of your play, now not an absolute scale. You might win your in shape with a 2 stroke rating while another participant might lose their fit while shooting -eight. Scores are relative in match play.
The streaky participant who would not rating properly continuously may additionally have a susceptible OWGR rating but be a beast inside the Ryder Cup because of his ability to "seize fire" and win a couple of key suits. Likewise, the constant participant with a sturdy OWGR rating might also discover himself suffering to make sufficient birdies on the proper moment to scouse borrow the prevailing fit.
When it comes to the Ryder Cup, the OWGR is of limited value in predicting the winner. Highly-ranked players may improve your team's odds of victory, but it's the lightning bolts -- can you say Ian Poulter? -- who typically change the balance of power at critical moments.
That's why the OWGR has been so deceptive when trying to are expecting Ryder Cup winners... And possibly why the Euro team has been downplaying their "paper benefit" lately. They recognize the real energy gamers in match play rarely dominate the OWGR's stroke play rankings.
And this year, unlike other years, I think the US team may have gotten enough of our streaky players through the qualifying system to make the Euros a little nervous.
I'll make my Captain's selections for both teams day after today.
0 comments