Tiger Woods, who’s overall record is 13-14-2 in the Ryder Cup, has shouldered much of the blame for Team USAs 2-5 record in golf’s biggest team event since he turned pro, as indicated by his remarks in yesterday’s press conference.
“Certainly I am responsible for that, because I didn’t earn the points that I was put out there for. I believe I was out there, what, in five sessions each time, and I didn’t go 5-0 on our side. So I certainly am a part of that, and that’s part of being a team. I needed to go get my points for my team, and I didn’t do that.”
In truth, Woods has only cost the USA one or two of the five Ryder Cups that they’ve lost since he started competing in them. Still, if the USA had won the 1997 edition and halved the 2002 cup, which they would have had Woods had played like he can, then the USA and Europe would be 3.5 – 3.5 over the last seven Ryder Cups!
1997 Europe (14.5 –13.5) – Woods: 0-3-1 in team, Won Singles
Woods cost USA the cup.
1999 USA (14.5 –13.5) – Woods: 1-2-1 in team, Lost Singles
USA won despite Woods’ poor record.
2002 Europe (15.5 – 12.5) – Woods: 2-2-0 in team, Halved Singles
Partly responsible. If Woods went 3-1 and won his singles, USA ties and retains the cup.
2004 Europe (18.5 – 9.5) – Woods: 1-3-0 team, Won Singles
This was a team loss. Woods was not responsible.
2006 Europe (18.5 – 9.5) – 2-2-0 in team, Won Singles
This was a team loss. Woods was not responsible.
2008 USA (16.5 – 11.5) Did not play.
2010 Europe (14.5 – 13.5) – Woods: 2-1-0 in team, Won Singles
Woods won 3 of 4, did his part. Not responsible.
RSS
3 responses so far ↓
1 BD // Sep 26, 2012 at 7:49 am
I think only 1997 should go on Woods’ tab (as far as losses are concerned). The way I look at it, the question is whether the USA would have won had Tiger had performed as well as the rest of the team. That’s true in 1997. It’s not true in any other year.
BTW, if we were being more careful about this, wouldn’t we give more weight to a player’s performance in singles matches than in team matches? (Of course, there are more fourball and foursomes matches played than singles, but still. ) Tiger’s 4-1-1 record in singles play is pretty respectable.
2 Phil // Sep 26, 2012 at 8:12 am
BD - Woods expects to outperform his team, and so does most everyone else. In 2002, he would have had to perform a little better than what should be his typical average - a win in the singles and 3-1, as opposed to a theoretical average of 2.5 - 1.5 in team play. This slight over performance would have given the US a tie. I did not go overboard, as Woods did with the media, and presume that he should go 5-0 in each cup. And yes, Ryder Cup records are biased. They should cut each player’s points in team play in half. If they did this, Woods career record would be 8.5 - 7.5, with the ties a wash (.75 - .75).
3 BD // Sep 26, 2012 at 3:44 pm
I hear ya, but I don’t think it makes a lot of sense in this context to hold Tiger (or any Ryder Cup team member) to a standard of having to win more than 51% of their matches. Even though Woods was #1 in the world throughout most of his Ryder Cup career, by definition, he is playing against the best-of-the-best from Europe, and usually with a partner, whose performance Tiger obviously can’t control.
But mainly, why grade Tiger on the curve for purposes of the RC when we don’t grade any of his other golf achievements this way? We don’t say, “Meh, he won 14 majors but, as good as he is, he should have won 10 automatically, so really he’s only won 4.”
Leave a Comment