Just One More Solheim Post And I'm Done...
by hound dog on Aug 28, 2009 4:43 AM PDT
9 comments
I got my copy of Golfweek Golf World (can't ever keep those two straight) yesterday (yes, I actually read magazines every once in a while) and loved the cover shot of Michelle Wie and the several pages of coverage devoted to last weekend's competition. But one line in the primary article stuck in my craw, just as it did when its author spoke similar words during a Golf Channel interview Sunday afternoon.
The final score was 16-12, the Americans' third consecutive rout as they extended their domination in the biennial competition to 8-3
16-12 is a rout? Even without the context of how the matches played out, you couldn't properly label that score as a rout no matter what sport you're covering. With the context, you would know that the U.S. clinched the victory with three matches left on the course - somewhat decisive but certainly not an easy victory. Factor in the closeness of most of the matches (14 of the 28 went to the final hole) and Mr. Sirak's description gets obliterated.
So were the last two Solheims routs? 2007's margin was 16-12 and 2005's was 15.5-12.5. 2003 was probably a rout - 17.5-10.5. Too bad for Sirak that Team Europe won that one. Maybe this Cup is more competitive than he thought. But wait - later in the article he actually insinuates that Europe came close to winning:
Europe almost overcame a better team, but it couldn't overcome the emotion of the home crowd.
"Almost overcame" doesn't sound like they got routed, does it? Make up your damn mind! And how could the Americans be as dominant as you say if the home crowd made the difference?
During the two-weeks' lead-in to this year's Cup, a whole lot of people got tunnel-vision from the on-paper superiority of the U.S. team, their 7-3 (now 8-3) record in the competition, the fact they had never lost at home, and decided that the Solheim Cup has become a huge mismatch. Almost every article I've read about Solheim talked about changing the competition, the Americans' (perceived) domination of the event or both. Yes the Americans have won most of these Cups but to call any of the last three Solheims routs is a ridiculous overstatement.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
It’s that kind of story that made me finally give up my subscription to Golfweek. You’d think that a single sport magazine would be able to hire people who have some sort of clue about the subject.
The Euros were leading in enough matches early on to win the Cup on Sunday, but they couldn’t sustain their play.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I don’t read print media, I believe the format is obsolete. But about this competition between the best women’s golf tour in the world and a not-one-of-the-top-3-in-the-world golf tour… considering all the Americans had to do to win a session was show up, and they only won 2 of the 5. It should have been a rout, and Team Europe had no right to expect anything less than a rout, but luckily for them, team USA got off to a slow start Friday morning, then took the next 2 days off before finally deciding to win the cup late Sunday… of course criticizing anyone is easy, especially for us amateur players who have never played at that level. That being said, the key point here is that in the end, the Americans got the job done, and the Europeans kept the competition a lot more interesting than anyone thought possible. If we applaud both teams for that, the criticisms will wind up swept under the rug in short order.
I expected a more decisive win for the Americans too but I don’t believe that the Cup wound up being close because they “took two days off”. Any player ranked in the world’s top 150 could be good enough on any given day to give a top 30 player a tough match – the talent differences at that level are small enough for upsets to be fairly common (witness the number of times a lower seeded player has won in PGA and LPGA match-play events). Toss the unusual formats of four-ball and foursomes into the mix and that playing field gets even more level.
It's a math thing..
The author does not realize that point that you lose goes to the other team, unlike baseball or football… so had the US lost one match… it would have been 15-13… another match… and it was 14-14… so not a rout at all…
What do you expect
From a press pool that covers a sport that celebrates a tournament’s 30th anniversary one year early. 30th tournament is 29th anniversary not 30th. Too many people around who can’t or refuse to do simple math.
Thanks for this post, HD. I almost wrote a guest post on this very subject. I’m in total agreement with you. I think I know how Sirak got on this rout kick. The closest-ever Solheim Cup has been 3 points (15.5 to 12.5). Meanwhile, from 1987-1999, the Ryder Cup had seven consecutive matches whose final margins were closer:
1987: Eur 15, USA 13
1989: Eur 14, USA 14
1991: USA 14.5, Eur 13.5
1993: USA 15, Eur 13
1995: Eur 14.5, USA 13.5
1997: Eur 14.5, USA 13.5
1999: USA 14.5, Eur 13.5
That incredible streak is what has distorted Sirak’s (and a lot of other people’s) perceptions.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
