Should Phil Have Been Allowed To Skip Ryder Cup?
Hello. Phil Mickelson announced he was through for 2006. Personally I say great for him. As someone who will be out of a job soon, I'm looking forward to spending more time with my children. The fact Phil can do it without financial worries is even better than my situation. I admire his "family first" values.
Of course, Phil's sponsors and tournament directors may not share that view. Obviously they want Phil to play. Then again, maybe Phil gets more media attention by not playing. And maybe it's easier to stay at #2 in the world rankings without playing.
My question is, if Phil's personal season ends with the PGA Championship, then why was he 'forced' to go to the Ryder Cup? Wouldn't it be great for him if he could've opted out of it (assuming he wanted out)? Wouldn't it be better for the US Team?
For all those Captain Tom Lehman fans who thought he did a great job leading the US Team to a tie for their worst defeat ever, I'll submit that Saturday afternoon's decision to sit Chris DiMarco and play Mickelson showed he was not in touch with the situation.
DiMarco symbolizes the Ryder Cup - an ordinarily talented player reaching extraordinary heights through guts, determination and spirit. Mickelson this year ran out of spirit after the US Open. He was not in it at all any time I saw him.
Should the players who will qualify no matter what criteria is used have to play if they don't want to? Or should it be like the World Cup, where two guys who want to go end up going? I favour the latter. And once the tourney starts, I think the fans do too. Especially at tourneys that are used to not seeing the big guns.
Give Phil an out for the President's Cup in 2007. I say this even though it will be played in Montreal. Let's have someone there who wants to be there.
Regards,
Steve
Of course, Phil's sponsors and tournament directors may not share that view. Obviously they want Phil to play. Then again, maybe Phil gets more media attention by not playing. And maybe it's easier to stay at #2 in the world rankings without playing.
My question is, if Phil's personal season ends with the PGA Championship, then why was he 'forced' to go to the Ryder Cup? Wouldn't it be great for him if he could've opted out of it (assuming he wanted out)? Wouldn't it be better for the US Team?
For all those Captain Tom Lehman fans who thought he did a great job leading the US Team to a tie for their worst defeat ever, I'll submit that Saturday afternoon's decision to sit Chris DiMarco and play Mickelson showed he was not in touch with the situation.
DiMarco symbolizes the Ryder Cup - an ordinarily talented player reaching extraordinary heights through guts, determination and spirit. Mickelson this year ran out of spirit after the US Open. He was not in it at all any time I saw him.
Should the players who will qualify no matter what criteria is used have to play if they don't want to? Or should it be like the World Cup, where two guys who want to go end up going? I favour the latter. And once the tourney starts, I think the fans do too. Especially at tourneys that are used to not seeing the big guns.
Give Phil an out for the President's Cup in 2007. I say this even though it will be played in Montreal. Let's have someone there who wants to be there.
Regards,
Steve
posted by Irrelevant at 1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home