| |
Main
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:14:57
From: multi
Subject: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
It doesn't seem that long ago that sports writers were hyping the Big
Three of Woods, Singh, and Els, who were closely bunched at the top of
the world rankings, and were going to give us a new rivalry like that
of Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus. Singh even managed to dislodge Woods
from the number one spot for a few weeks. Every once in a while, the
writers would notice Goosen, and talk about the Big Four. Goosen was
the Billy Casper of our time.
That's blown all to hell now. Singh, Els, and Goosen are gone from
the top three, and only Singh is even in the top five. Tiger's WGR
point average is more than triple that of number four Singh's, and
almost double his own average of just a couple of years ago. And the
new number two is Jim Furyk, who makes Goosen look like Robin
Williams.
Well, congrats to Furyk, who is having a career year, and would be
having a phenomenal year if Earl Woods had been a hockey fan. But his
new ranking gives Tom Lehman a slight problem: it's been assumed for
the last couple of years that Tiger and Furyk would play their Ryder
Cup matches together. But how much sense does it make to have the
world #1 and #2 paired together? If you were Woosnam, wouldn't you
put your two worst players against them, and have a great shot at
winning every other match?
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 13:08:02
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
multi wrote:
> If the Ryder
> Cup is blind, then I guess luck has a lot to do with how the matches
> come out.
USA is sending a formidable armada over the Atlantic. As I see it only
luck and some clever captaincy from Woosnam will save us the blushes. A
huge step for us might be if Tiger would lose his first match,
unsettling the US team. But this is, of course, only a speculation. F
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:50:09
From: Herbert
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
sfb wrote:
> Who besides you is assuming the Lehman plans to pair Tiger and Furyk?
Probably Tiger Woods and Jim Furyk.
They were unbeaten in three matches together in last year's Pres Cup.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 11:42:52
From: Herbert
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
multi wrote:
> Cup matches together. But how much sense does it make to have the
> world #1 and #2 paired together?
While the World Rankings might be slightly useful for predicting
indivdual stroke play results they are useless for determining the
relative strength or weakness of a foursome or best-ball team. Team
synergy (or lack thereof) is a big factor in performance, and can
easily trump that ranking system.
If you were Woosnam, wouldn't you
> put your two worst players against them, and have a great shot at
> winning every other match?
See above...
Also, I don't think the Ryder Cup works that way. You post your lineup
for matches #1/#2/#3/#4 without knowing you opponent's lineup. Pres
Cup does allow each side to alternate and set a match between specific
opponents, I think. I might be wrong there, but that's what I recall.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:08:41
From: multi
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
On 11 Sep 2006 11:42:52 -0700, "Herbert" <humphrey_Herbert@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Also, I don't think the Ryder Cup works that way. You post your lineup
>for matches #1/#2/#3/#4 without knowing you opponent's lineup. Pres
>Cup does allow each side to alternate and set a match between specific
>opponents, I think. I might be wrong there, but that's what I recall.
That's what I was thinking of, as well. IIRC some PC coverage showed
Player and Nicklaus during the actual match setting. If the Ryder
Cup is blind, then I guess luck has a lot to do with how the matches
come out.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:31:37
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
You are reading much too much into the machinations of the world rankings.
The only guys sweating their rankings are numbers 60 to 70 since only 64 get
into the World Golf Championships.
The ranking is a 2 year average with double points for the last 13 weeks and
older results being discounted so taking a few weeks off now and then can
move some of these guys around a few places..
Who besides you is assuming the Lehman plans to pair Tiger and Furyk?
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:4s8bg2l0okjm5fhd7jisfh0e5aom1pltmv@4ax.com...
> It doesn't seem that long ago that sports writers were hyping the Big
> Three of Woods, Singh, and Els, who were closely bunched at the top of
> the world rankings, and were going to give us a new rivalry like that
> of Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus. Singh even managed to dislodge Woods
> from the number one spot for a few weeks. Every once in a while, the
> writers would notice Goosen, and talk about the Big Four. Goosen was
> the Billy Casper of our time.
>
> That's blown all to hell now. Singh, Els, and Goosen are gone from
> the top three, and only Singh is even in the top five. Tiger's WGR
> point average is more than triple that of number four Singh's, and
> almost double his own average of just a couple of years ago. And the
> new number two is Jim Furyk, who makes Goosen look like Robin
> Williams.
>
> Well, congrats to Furyk, who is having a career year, and would be
> having a phenomenal year if Earl Woods had been a hockey fan. But his
> new ranking gives Tom Lehman a slight problem: it's been assumed for
> the last couple of years that Tiger and Furyk would play their Ryder
> Cup matches together. But how much sense does it make to have the
> world #1 and #2 paired together? If you were Woosnam, wouldn't you
> put your two worst players against them, and have a great shot at
> winning every other match?
>
>
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:27:33
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
multi wrote:
> Well, congrats to Furyk, who is having a career year, and would be
> having a phenomenal year if Earl Woods had been a hockey fan. But his
> new ranking gives Tom Lehman a slight problem: it's been assumed for
> the last couple of years that Tiger and Furyk would play their Ryder
> Cup matches together. But how much sense does it make to have the
> world #1 and #2 paired together? If you were Woosnam, wouldn't you
> put your two worst players against them, and have a great shot at
> winning every other match?
Well, the fact that Furyk is now #2 on the World Golf Ranking shouldn't have
any effect on Lehman's decisions. Furyk was always the 2nd or 3rd best
player on the team, anyway.
And as far as Woosnam matching his worst up against Woods and Furyk? It's a
blind draw so he can't guarantee that. He can only guess what position
Lehman would put them out in and then put his desired opponent in that same
position. It's not like the President's Cup where the captains sit down
and go through each match one by one.
Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:34:09
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
"R&B" wrote:
[snip]
> Who says Tiger and Furyk make a good pairing?
Well, Tiger and Jim for one since they are the ones
that suggested it at the past Presidents Cup.
> I would think in Foursomes (alternate shot), they'd make a HORRIBLE pairing,
> since they hit such disparate-length shots off the tee.
They did alright at the President's Cup.
> Tiger's best pairings would be with some of the younger guys -- perhaps the
> rookies. He usually plays better -- and generally feels more "at home" --
> when paired with guys around his own age. He's like that.
Except of course at the President's Cup you mean right?
FWIW, this time, I think Multi has stumbled upon something.
As much as they might like being paired together, it could be a mistake
much like pairing Phil and Tiger. Jim is definitely on his game right
now and taking your two strongest players and putting them together
doesn't seem like the best move. I do have to admit though that
for some of the alternate shot stuff, pairing the "best with the worst"
or some such balance may not be the ultimate strategy. You might
wanna pair guys closer together in some sense so one guy feels
like he's still playing in the "same league" as his supposedly
stronger partner. Quite honestly pairing Cink with one of the younger
guys may be the best game. He can be responsible for keeping
the rookie calm, but the rookie feels like he's the stronger player.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:55:12
From: multi
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
On 12 Sep 2006 10:34:09 -0700, "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com"
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
>FWIW, this time, I think Multi has stumbled upon something.
Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day :-)
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 17:52:14
From: Darrell Jefress
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1158082449.497949.321150@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> I do have to admit though that
> for some of the alternate shot stuff, pairing the "best with the worst"
> or some such balance may not be the ultimate strategy.
Do any of the other guys on the American team play a Nike ball? (I can never
keep track of equipment, except for a very few guys, and the ones I can
remember from "Titleist" commercials.)
What are the chances that Toms or Dimarco will want Signboy walking with
them?
DJJ
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 12:17:17
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:4s8bg2l0okjm5fhd7jisfh0e5aom1pltmv@4ax.com...
> It doesn't seem that long ago that sports writers were hyping the Big
> Three of Woods, Singh, and Els, who were closely bunched at the top of
> the world rankings, and were going to give us a new rivalry like that
> of Palmer, Player, and Nicklaus. Singh even managed to dislodge Woods
> from the number one spot for a few weeks. Every once in a while, the
> writers would notice Goosen, and talk about the Big Four. Goosen was
> the Billy Casper of our time.
>
> That's blown all to hell now. Singh, Els, and Goosen are gone from
> the top three, and only Singh is even in the top five. Tiger's WGR
> point average is more than triple that of number four Singh's, and
> almost double his own average of just a couple of years ago. And the
> new number two is Jim Furyk, who makes Goosen look like Robin
> Williams.
>
> Well, congrats to Furyk, who is having a career year, and would be
> having a phenomenal year if Earl Woods had been a hockey fan. But his
> new ranking gives Tom Lehman a slight problem: it's been assumed for
> the last couple of years that Tiger and Furyk would play their Ryder
> Cup matches together. But how much sense does it make to have the
> world #1 and #2 paired together? If you were Woosnam, wouldn't you
> put your two worst players against them, and have a great shot at
> winning every other match?
Who says Tiger and Furyk make a good pairing?
I would think in Foursomes (alternate shot), they'd make a HORRIBLE pairing,
since they hit such disparate-length shots off the tee.
Tiger's best pairings would be with some of the younger guys -- perhaps the
rookies. He usually plays better -- and generally feels more "at home" --
when paired with guys around his own age. He's like that.
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 10:05:47
From: multi
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:17:17 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Who says Tiger and Furyk make a good pairing?
Come on, anybody who follows golf knows that they are expected to be
paired. I'll bet you *another* steak dinner (you still owe me one
from the 2003 POY) that either they are paired, or if they are not,
the print and TV media talk about how surprising it is that they are
not. Note that this should be easy money for you, since Sutton's
decision to put Tiger and Phil together as the then #1 and #2 at the
last Ryder Cup was widely considered a blunder.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 22:31:14
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Furyk #2 --- Ryder Cup Implications?
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:17:17 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Who says Tiger and Furyk make a good pairing?
>
>I would think in Foursomes (alternate shot), they'd make a HORRIBLE pairing,
>since they hit such disparate-length shots off the tee.
>
>Tiger's best pairings would be with some of the younger guys -- perhaps the
>rookies. He usually plays better -- and generally feels more "at home" --
>when paired with guys around his own age. He's like that.
He also might be more willing to mentor a kid than to mentor Furyk.
|
|
