Hello, and welcome to the Fried Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison and this episode is brought to you by Zero Restriction. Zero Restriction is not only a sponsor of the Fried Egg, they're also the official outerwear provider for Team USA at the Solheim Cup, and right now at zero restriction dot com there is a selection of official Solheim Cup gear available for a limited time. We're told that at the moment,
zero Restriction's best selling item is the Champ Hoodie. And it's not hard to see why this is a fantastic item. It's so good for so many different purposes and different kinds of weather. Not only is the Champ Hoodie windproof, but it's also a big help in the rain with its water resistant shell. And on top of all that, it's comfortable. It's got soft sleeves, it's got a soft liner on the inside, and just works really well as a go to layer. So follows approaching layering season is
almost here. Don't get caught off guard. Go to zero restriction dot com and use the code USA thirty three thirty percent off. It is September twenty twenty one, and this is the month of team match play in golf. We've got American women versus European women at the Solheim
Cup starting on Saturday, September fourth. If you're listening to this episode on the day it comes out, that's tomorrow, And then a couple of weeks from now, starting on September twenty fourth, we've got the Ryder Cup at Whistling Straits. Usually we don't get these events in the same year, but obviously COVID bumped the twenty twenty Ryder Cup to
this month. So the format of the Ryder Cup in the Solheim Cup team match play, where you have two days of pairs matches, foursomes and four ball, followed by a final day of singles matches, it's just undefeated. It's the best format in golf, so exciting, so dramatic, very often absurd. It's the pinnacle of golf entertainment, I think. But I also think we don't understand it very well,
and by we I mean mostly fans and media. I think when we talk about this of team match play, we tend to rely on assumptions, whether it's the assumption that a team needs to get along personally in order to do well, or the assumption that a player's past match play record can predict future performance in a team event. But according to Joseph Lamannia, a lot of those ideas either are incorrect or just sort of miss the point.
And he believes we can learn much more about the strategic aspects of the Ryder Cup in the Solheim Cup if we just pay attention to the data. Joseph is a great resource for this kind of thinking. He's the founder of Optimal Approach Golf, a company that consults with PGA Tour players. He's also the writer of an excellent newsletter called finding the Edge on Substack. So, without further ado, here is Joseph Lamannia on the strategy of team match play.
I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset.
When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.
And when I find my ball in a egg Frida egg, the dreaded Frida egg Frida egg frigg frid egg egg lie, I'm about ready.
To run off of the hump.
So, Joseph, I asked you to come up with three common misconceptions that you often see in the media about team match play strategy. So why don't we just dig right into those off the top here, what's your first big one?
Sure? So. One popular misconception that I've seen in the media, especially about what is indicative of success in the Ryder Cup, is looking at past records in the Ryder Cup, you know, picking a player because he or she has done well in the past. I think there are a couple shortcomings to that approach, which, for one, the golf course always changes, So if every Ryder Cup were played at Augusta, that
might be more meaningful. Especially since it's not and you're dealing with a variety of courses, it's not something that you really should be looking at. Another corollary to that would be that record in and of itself lacks a lot of context. So one example that I've looked at is the the singles match at the Golf Nationale site of the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup. If you were to look at who actually performed well on Sunday versus who won their matches, you get a little bit of different results.
The best example is that Ian Poulter beat Dustin Johnson that day, while Bryson d Schambeau lost to Alex Norrin. But if you look at how they actually played, hold a hole Bryson would have beaten Ian Poulter pretty handily. So just looking at a record loses a lot of that context, which is applicable to both the women's and the men's side, right.
And you figured out that disparity by looking at strokes gained data, right, like looking at strokes gained for different players, and just seeing that certain players who lost their matches played very, very well. They just happened to be playing somebody who was playing better that day, whereas some other players didn't play as well but won their matches because the person they were playing against was not in good form exactly.
And you know, I think somebody could argue, well, it was match play, it's not a stroke play event, and you can only play the person in front of you. But I think when you look at the results, there's a lot of information in how those players played that week and how it aligned with their skill sets. And the point is that record is just a bit reductive. It doesn't show you how well somebody played, did they win foeign two, or you know, what was the outcome of that match?
And part of the problem here is small sample size, right, because any given Ryder Cup produces a pretty small sample size of matches played. If we were to have one hundred years of matches, I mean, obviously that would be impossible. But if you were to have a lot of them at a lot of different courses over a great deal of time, and the data pool were bigger, then you can draw some more you know, significant conclusions from match play record.
Right exactly. And I'm glad you brought that point up because I think there's a good example. Tiger Woods has a pretty bad record in the Ryder Cup, and I think anyone who wouldn't want him as their partner in the early two thousands would be crazy. I mean, do you think that that Tiger Wood's bad record is a function of him not being great at golf or not being able to handle pressure, or is that probably a noisier result that you know is only occurring because there aren't that many data points.
So first misconception is a over emphasis on past match play record. What is the kind of second false narrative that you see a lot?
A big one that I've seen is that you want to pair players with similar skill sets. I disagree with that vehemently. You know, I've heard players say the same thing that they find it beneficial that, you know, you can get yardages from each other and kind of understand how the course is playing for your skill set, you're hitting shots that you're familiar with. I would push back pretty hard on that. For one, when a player is proficient in one skill, it's more likely that they're deficient
in another skill. For example, if a player doesn't hit the ball very far, they're probably a good putter, or else they wouldn't be on the team. So when you stack these skills up together, you want to spread out
where you expect the overperformance and the underperformance. So if I'm you know, thinking about Dustin Johnson and Jordan Spief for example, two players with very different strength and distance profiles, Dustin Johnson might outperform on the par fives and Jordan Speed might be really helpful on a short and narrow par four for example. Let's spread those out. Let's not overlap their birdies.
Okay, And then how about the third big misconception that you see.
You often hear somebody say that it's of benefit to hit first, especially on an approach shot or your first shot on a par three, because it gives you the ability to put pressure on the other player. I would argue the opposite, and I would encourage people to take the other side of that argument. When you hit second, you have additional information. You get to see where your opponent hit the ball, maybe how the wind reacted. But more than that, I mean, if they hit the ball
in the water, you can adjust your strategy. You can't do that when you go first, and I would argue that the benefit of having more information is far more important than the benefit of getting to apply pressure. I think a really good analogy here would be college football over time. For those who are unfamiliar, the way those rules work is somebody gets the ball first, somebody gets the ball second, and you each get a chance to score. Every time somebody wins that coin toss, the team elects
to defend. In other words, they want the ball second because they want to know what they have to do. Right, Do I need to score a touchdown? Can I settle for a field goal to win? That's very valuable information. The same applies for golf. Hitting second will always be an advantage. I think it's a subtle advantage to being a longer hitter in general in match play.
So let's go back to your second misconception that you identified and talk a little more about the strategy of pairing up players. This is obviously like a big topic in any Ryder Cup, any Solheim Cup, because there is an unusual sort of drama in it. Right. You don't this kind of stuff very often in golf where there are interpersonal relationships being considered. Golf is typically an individual sport.
This is one case in which we journalists get to write about different kinds of stuff, the relationships between players and how their games match up and things like that. Obviously, the problem is, as you have pointed out in your newsletter Finding the Edge, we often misinterpret how those pairings are best made. So why don't we talk about pairings
in general? What do you think is the best approach to pairing up players for foursome's and four ball in a team matchplay event like the Ryder Cup or Solheim Cup.
So the first thing that I would do when looking at the best way to pair is to figure out which holes are going to be most important, and you know, similarly, which shots are going to be most important. So to do that you have to accept that not all holes are equal and not all shots are so in other words, there are going to be some holes that almost every player makes par, or there might be a seventy five
eighty percent chance of making par. You don't want to prioritize your strategy as much around a hole like that, where the range of outcomes is much narrower. So I'd look at, you know, what are the holes that I should be prioritizing. When I looked at Inverness for the Salign Cup and Whistling Straights for the Ryder Cup, you know, I was able to identify, Well, it looks like one half of the holes, either the odd or the even holes,
is going to lean one way or the other. And there are a couple shots in particular that I want to make sure the player with the best skill set is hitting that shot.
You know, this would be especially relevant with foursomes with alternate shot where one player in each pairing is either teeing off on the odd holes or teeing off on the even holes. And what you're saying is, if there's a kind of tendency on the odd holes on a core, for the t shots to be more important, for there to be a greater range of outcomes that end up having an impact on you know the score on that hole, then you want the player in the pairing with the
right skill set teeing off on those holes. So what do we mean by right skill set? What can that look like?
Right? There are definitely a number of ways you can look at it. Almost every time I would say it's going to shake out, you're gonna want long players hitting T shots on par fives. That is the reality. You could argue, well, maybe you'd want the longer player hitting the second shot because it's an advantage for them to hit the long iron that's coming in high The reality is you're better off with Dustin Johnson hitting the drive,
for example, and Jordan Spiith hitting the second shot. In other words, you're better with Jordan Spiith hitting from two forty than Dustin Johnson from two sixty or a similar combination. So, again, number of ways you can look at who should be hitting each tee shot, but it's almost always going to shake out that you weren't going to want the long drivers hitting the T shots on the par fives or potentially like a driveable par four.
Can shot shape and whole shape have something to do with this?
It can, absolutely It is less impactful than a player's overall distance and dispersion profile, but it is something to consider. A great example would be whole eleven at Whistling Straits. Whole eleven is one of those holes that's about half the field will find the fair way and it does dog leg quite a bit to the right, so it'd be an advantage if you could hit a cut if
you're ready. But you know, those impacts aren't as significant in magnitude as something like distance on a really long par five.
So the big factor would be if one of the players in the pairing is longer than obviously you want that player teeing off on the longer holes as much as possible. Just a basic thing like that. But my feeling is that Tmosa sometimes misses the stuff. Yeah.
One example that I've highlighted was in the President's Cup in twenty nineteen, the US paired Dustin Johnson with Gary Woodland and they paired Patrick Reid with Webb Simpson. And this is just a classic example of where the skill sets are very similar of each of those players. Both Web and Patrick at that time hit a draw. Neither one of those players was very long. You know, they both have really good short games. Dustin Johnson and Gary
Woodland are very different. They both hit the ball really long, they hit a cut. And if you if you actually look at how those pairings did the Gary Woodland and the Dustin Johnson plus the Simpson Reed pairings combined for one in four record, it's not great and I think you'd get different results if you had those reconfigured.
What do you make of what seems like a common sensical argument that an an alternate shot you should pair a great driver of the ball with a great putter.
So, in general, focusing on putting is going to be a challenge, and the reason for that is that it's very difficult to predict where important putts are going to come. So if you build your strategy around wanting a good putter to hit important putts, being able to predict that is very difficult. So, for example, if you have a par three and you decide, I want the really good ball striker on the tee, the really good putter to hit the putt, Well, what happens when the really good
ball striker misses the green? Or what happens when the really good ball striker hits the ball to thirty five feet from thirty five feet. An elite putter isn't really able to differentiate herself or himself. That's a putt that almost every player is going to two putt, So that isn't the way I would look at the problem.
Yeah, it seems like in general, when you're pairing up players, what you're saying is that you want to optimize on the T shots. You want to look at what the course is giving you. You know, whether there are differences between the even holes on a course and the odd holes, and then consider which players in each pairing have the skill sets for those holes off the tee. Whereas things like putting, you know that that's just going to shake
out how it shakes out. But you can control the T shot who hits the T shots at least exactly.
That's a huge point is that you you know going into the round who's going to hit every T shot. And there are some subtle benefits of doing what I'm describing. So, for example, on a par five, if you have the longer hitter hit first, most likely the way we shake our pairings out, the player who's hitting second is going to be the shorter hitter. That also tends to mean that he or she is going to be the better putter,
because otherwise, again, how would they be on the team. Right, If they're a short hitter, it's more likely they're a good putter, And on a par five, it's pretty common that the fourth shot is going to be a put between five and ten feet. It's more likely than almost any other whole shape or length. So you kind of stumble into getting to have the most valuable put or putt in the most valuable situation by configuring your team that way.
So you know, the general argument that you're making, the kind of philosophical argument that you're making, is that things that you can learn from data are going to serve you better as a captain of one of these teams than the stuff that the media often talks about. And I'm including myself in the media in this sense. I love talking about intangibles when the Ryder Cup comes around, when the Solheim Cup comes around, I love talking about
the relationships between players. I love talking about team chemistry because these are things that golf writers don't often get to talk about. You can understand the excitement when these events come up that there is a different dynamic in play, but it seems like your general contention is that we over emphasize those intangible factors and don't think enough about kind of data driven strategies.
I don't want to be entirely dismissive of the roles of team chemistry and pressure, But when I'm thinking about who's going to hit a good shot from two hundred and twenty five yards with a wind coming from left to right, I want the player who's good at hitting two hundred and twenty five yard shots with the wind coming from left to right. I'm less concerned about how much experience that player has, how they've handled pressure in the past, because a lot of those narratives just end
up not being true. We've seen so many young players win majors when previously we thought that you needed a ton of experience. So I'd be really careful making too many inferences from a narrative.
You know. I mean. The thing that I think journalists are looking at when they see the Ryder Cup is that they see one team, the US team, with all the highly ranked players, and not all the highly ranked players, but but with higher ranked players. They're the favorites usually going into each Ryder Cup, and then they look at Europe the underdogs, and in recent years, obviously Team Europe
has kind of dominated the Ryder Cup. And the explanation that is often given for that is that while the European players just seem to get along a little bit better than the US players do, there have been legitimate beefs between US players and going into this Ryder Cup, it's obviously no exception with the brooks Kepka Bryson to
Shambau drama ongoing. And so I think the journalists look at, you know, the disparity in how talented the teams are and the results that they've gotten over the years, and then they look at the disparity between how well the team seem to get along, and they conclude Team Europe just has better team chemistry and has players that get along better and that's why they're successful. Do you see a problem with that narrative or are we missing some things when we buy into that.
The biggest issue I see with that narrative is that I think for a lot of people are paradigms of golf our PGA tour centric, and when we think about who the best players in the world are, a lot of the times that's testing a particular skill set that works on the PGA Tour, and a lot of those golf courses look similar, test similar skills. So then when you go to Paris and the United States gets destroyed,
that's not a very very different golf course. Then you see week to week on the PGA Tour, right, Phil Mickelson wasn't going to be valuable that week and he wasn't right, and so you could attribute that to a lack of chemistry or to dysfunction within the locker room. Sure, but I'd also be looking really hard at the skill sets of each of those teams and realize that the golf Nationale has played perfectly into the hands of the European team. It's not going to be the same thing
whistling straits. These are very different golf courses.
Do you think in general that Team Europe has done a better job at making data driven decisions than Team USA has?
I would say yes. I think there's clearly room for improvement on both sides. It doesn't seem to be a huge focus on the United States team, but maybe there's more going on there than I'm aware of. I'm skeptical based on some of the decisions that I've seen in the past. But what I would tell you, Garrett, there's no excuse for the United States team to not perform very well at Whistling Straits, So I think that will be very telling if they maximize their advantages.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying too. And we'll talk about Whistling Straits more in depth a little bit later, But as you say, it is going to be a very different kind of test than the Golf NASCU now. But first to dig into the Solheim Cup. Obviously, the Solheim Cup is going to start tomorrow and it's going to be an Inverness Club, which is a wonderful course that we at the front written about and done some videos about and things like that, and love the architecture of
this course. But I'm keen to kind of get a different perspective on Inverness Club. I know you've looked at it a little bit. What are some things that you can say about Inverness Club as it's going to play in a team match play scenario.
Sure, and yeah, admittedly less familiar with Inverness Club and with some of the skill sets on the women's side, But my takeaways from looking into Inverness. A lot of the holes are similar in their profile, but I do think that it will be advantageous for the longer players to be teeing off on the odd holes. The reason I say that is, for one, whole thirteen is a reachable par five, it may end up being the most
important shot that people hit all week. That drive could determine whether you're making birdy or par and then just generally the other benefit of having the longer player on the odd hole is that as you get later in the round, you're less and less likely to play each hole right. A lot of matches are going to end before Hoole eighteen, So if it's a toss up between odds or evens, you'd want to give the better drive or the odd holes because it's expected they're going to
hit more of them. So that's what I see from Inverness. It depends on how they set it up. Whole three could be a long par three. Again beneficial to have a longer player hitting that t shot. But overall that those are my takeaways from looking at Inverness.
Yeah, and one factor having been on the grounds there is that some of those odd holes three obviously a long par three. If it plays as a long part three, that is a significant hit, you know, and I think that they probably will set it up as a long part three. That's how it was intended to be played. Whole seven is a long par four with a heavily elevated green, and having a nice long drive on that
hole is very advantageous. And as you mentioned, whole thirteen par five again, this is obviously as part five, so it's going to be an advantage to a longer player to be farther up the fairway. But in addition to that, you have a big carry on that second shot. If you want to reach the green, you're trying to carry the ball over this gully to a green that is
elevated on the other side of the gully. And so obviously I guess the closer you can be to the green after your drive, you're just going to have such a significant advantage because the lay up there is not appealing at all. So the narrative right now going into the Solheim Cup is that the Europeans are the significant underdogs because of an obvious difference in the average world
ranking on that team. I wonder if you buy into that and whether there are some other factors, more sophisticated things that we should be looking at when we're comparing these two teams as they're going to match up in a team matchplay situation.
Sure, and again full disclosure, less familiar with the women's side. Right, But if it is true that the United States team is a lot deeper, and maybe Team Europe has a couple really good players, but then the world ranking falls off, one thing the captain has to be willing to do is sit some of those lower ranked players for many of the sessions. The goal is to win, and in
the NBA Finals, Jannis plays forty two minutes. Right, This idea that you need to work people into the lineup so that they're ready for the singles matches, I don't buy into that. It's not worth sacrificing a point up front, So I don't have a strong take on who should be favored and by how much. But if lack of depth is an issue for Team Europe, then you need to strongly consider keeping those best players in the rotation for every match.
Yeah, there is a one of those common narratives once again that if a player is saved for singles, if they kind of make their debut in the tournament and single we immediately assume that they're not going to do very well, and therefore that it would be better captaining better leadership to get that player in a foursomes or four ball match earlier. But you think that that's not a great idea.
You have to weigh the trade off of how much are you reducing your expectation on that first match and how much is it increasing the players win probability on the singles match. From my experience, it's probably very little and not worth sacrificing that point up front. Put the best players in and they're going to give you the best opportunity to win. Again. This is such an important point in looking at golf and analyzing golf in general.
Somebody might look back and say, well, when you leave somebody to only play their first match as singles, they lose seventy five percent of the time. I'm making up a number that could be true, but they're probably going to lose anyway. Like the reason they're sitting the first four round is because they're one of the weakest members
of the team. So you just always have to consider that, yes, they're probably going to lose the singles match, probably, but are you really increasing their win percentage by giving them around on Saturday?
Right? So getting into the Ryder Cup, the big topic right now is captain's picks. So let's start with the US team. I think there's an interesting scenario here. Obviously, six automatic qualifiers have already been determined. We have Colin Morikawa, Dustin Johnson, Bryson Deshambeau Brooks, Koepka, Justin Thomas, and Patrick Cantley, and then Steve Stricker is going to get six captain's picks. The ones that seem pretty locked right now are Tony Finow,
Xander Schaffle, a, Jordan Speith and Harris English. That leaves two captain's picks between Patrick Reed, Daniel Berger, Web Simpson, Scotti Scheffler Jason Kokrach. There are a lot of options for what I understand to be the two picks that are up in the air. Maybe there's something I don't know about those other four. I feel like Fein now, schofle, Afe, Speed and English are going to be on the team.
When you're looking at that list of players who could take those final two captain's picks, who are you looking at as the best candidates.
Yeah, and I do have Harris English on the team. He's probably less of a lock for me than maybe as being discussed, I would put him on the team. Okay, and then I agree with the other everything else that you said. The other two names that I would pick, I think are pretty common. Nothing crazy here, but I would pick Patrick Reid and Daniel Berger. Each of those players is bringing a distinct skill set that's extremely valuable
to the team. It is absolutely worth calling out that whistling Straits is going to favor a long hitter, and neither of those players is particularly long. There's a lot of length on the United States team, and if you can figure those teams properly, you'll be in a position where you have a balanced team that has all of those important shots on the golf course covered. Patrick Reid brings a very distinct skill set in his short game. He also hits the ball a lot straighter off the
tee than I think people may realize. A very very accurate driver of the golf ball. So if you pair him with somebody like a Dustin Johnson or a Brooks Koepka, that team is very difficult to beat. And Daniel Berger is a similar story. Not the longest hitter, but he does hit it very straight, really good long iron player, which is going to be important, and he has a really good short game as well. But it's a tough call, right, I mean, Sam Burns has a good argument to be made.
I think Web Simpson has an argument to be made. But clearly length is going to be a relevant factor.
What's the argument for web Simpson Because it seems like the course fit wouldn't really be there for web Simpson if this course is going to strongly prefer driving distance. Web Simpson is kind of the ultimate example of a player who might think Atlagolf not seen now as well as the other courses that are kind of like that on the PGA Tour, the sedge Fields and the Harbor Towns, et cetera. But maybe wouldn't do so well at Lo Golf. But you still think he's a good candidate.
Yeah, And anytime you're talking about leaning distance or leaning accuracy, it is all still relative and the other skills are relevant as well. You know, it doesn't mean that we just tilt all the way in the direction of distance and put Cameron Champ on the team, right, So you know, Web Simpson is a very skilled player. He has unbelievable short game, and particularly in the alternate shot format, he would provide a lot of benefit.
If you're going the course fit direction. Sam Burns might be a compelling pick, right.
I think Sam Burns is a compelling pick. It's tough to leave anybody of these few names off. I just feel the most confident that, given their skill sets, Reed and Berger would provide a lot of value, particularly in the all shot format.
Right. One player we haven't discussed so far who would be I think a great candidate because he's just been one of the best players in the world for the past year or so but doesn't get much attention is Scotty Scheffler. Is Scotty Scheffler someone who should be on Steve Stricker's radar.
It's tough. I mean, we're talking about some really good players. Should he be on Steve Stricker's radar? Absolutely he did. He wouldn't make Mike cutover, Burger and Reid. But Scotty Scheffler's extremely talented, hits the ball far, hits the ball straight as well. Not an excellent putter, and he is lacking there. But he's a really good player. It's hard to take some of these names and throw them off.
All right, So sticking with the US team, we'll get to the European team in a second. Do any pairings of players among those who are likely to be part of the US team. Do any pairings of players jump out at you as like this is an obvious one? Stricker should roll with this in those initial matches.
I say the biggest thing would be you have a number of guys who hit the ball very long, and they should be playing a lot, and that's would likely result in pairings where you're gonna have a long player with a shorter hitter just because of the way those skill sets are gonna shake out. So I think you could pull a number of these examples, like a Bryson Morikawa team, Like that team is strong. Bryson with anybody who's not one of the longest hitters on that team
is gonna be strong. I think Dustin Johnson will probably be a star of this Ryder Cup. He is an exceptional long iron player, hits the ball really far. You pair him with pretty much any one of these guys who isn't the longest, and they're gonna do really well. To be clear, if you put a really long hitter with Dustin Johnson, they do really well too. I'm not suggesting that bomber bomber is worse than bomber shorter hitter.
It's just a matter off. You got a field, a full roster, and so you got to distribute that length somewhere.
If you have Web Simpson and Patrick Reid on the team, if they get those kind of final captain's picks, then you wouldn't want to see them pair together again.
Right, Absolutely not. And I think that's a great, really good example of where you have a team like DJ and Read or DJ and Simpson, that's a dangerous team. And one point that I wanted to bring up that I think is interesting related to strategy in general, is that chipping as a skill is more important in the
alternate shot format than in the four ball. I think it's a really important point, and the reason behind it is that when you are chipping, it is often determining if you're going to make par or bogie, which will not matter that often in the best ball format it could. But if I'm chipping, the only way it matters is if both of my opponents make par or worse and my partner makes worse than par, which isn't going to happen.
It'll happen about fifteen percent of the time. So in general, when I'm thinking about how do I want to configure these teams, if a player is really really good at chipping and weaker in some of the other areas, there's a good chance that I'm going to have him play alternate shot.
Yeah. Patrick Reid and Jordan Spieth are real assets and an alternate shot, And maybe right now, specifically, Bryson de Shambeau may be quite a bit more valuable in four ball than he is in enforcomes, because he seems to be having some struggles chipping. I'm not sure how persistent those struggles are going to be, but that certainly seemed to be holding him back at the BMW Championship.
Agreed, and you're thinking about it exactly as I am. I'd probably play Bryson a lot, even in alternate shot, yeah, because of how well he fits the course. But agreed. If a player makes their money with chipping but don't make birdies at an extremely high rate, that's a player who's much better suited for the alternate shot format. Again, when you're chipping, it isn't going to matter that often in best ball, except on a par five sometimes, or like a driveable par four.
Right for your third shot on the par five, for your second shot on the driveable part four, That's where I could really factor in.
Right, I mean, you could hit you could hit an amazing chip on a par four really difficult to three feet and your opponent makes birdie. You could have shanked the chip and it doesn't make a difference.
Yeah, yeah, now, come to think of it, I just thought of this when I mentioned Jordan Spieth and Patrick Reid. But obviously they've been paired together quite a bit in past Ryder Cups. They have a reputation as a pairing that really works. And the argument that people usually make for that pairing is that the kind of personalities mesh in a way because they're competitive with each other, they
kind of fire each other up. But it seems like, following the logic of pairings that you've laid out for us, that they might not be the best match because, you know, matching up speed with somebody like with a longer player, matching up a reed with somebody like Dustin Johnson. Again, a longer player might be the smarter call.
That's the route that I would go. Yes, I think, especially in past Ryder Cups, when you're talking about the Reed speF pairing, those were two of the best players in the world. I mean, they still are right at the top, but you know, you're talking about some of their peaks each as players. So I think that it's reasonable to expect that they've had a lot of success in past Ryder Cups because they're very, very good players.
Obviously still are, but now I would be looking a little bit more at pairing them a little bit differently.
Yeah, all right, let's talk about Team Europe a little bit. You know, it's it's a little bit harder for me to figure out the European points system than it is the US point system. Obviously the automatic qualifiers haven't been totally determined yet. But there's the European points list, there's the world points list. It's looking like obviously John Rams is going to you know, he's the best player in the world right now, He's going to be on the team.
Tommy Fleetwood, Terrell and Roy McElroy, Victor Hovland, Paul Casey, Matt Fitzpatrick, those guys seem like they're going to be on the team. Lee Westwood and Shane Lowry are in qualifying spots right now, and I'm not sure how solid those spots are. They're both on the World points list. But among the captain's picks options, there are going to be three captain's picks that Patrick Harrington is going to make. You have players like Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and Ian Poulter,
obviously stallwarts of past European teams. But then you also have players who have been playing quite well on the European tour like Burn Wisberger, Victor Perez, Robert McIntyre, even Guidomigliosi who's been very competitive on the European tour but
maybe isn't well known worldwide. I mean, there are some interesting options there between really established, older experienced players who have a reputation for being great Ryder Cup players like Garciaan Polter, and then you have players who have been great on the European two who are for the past couple of years. What do you think is the route to go with those captain's picks?
So I have penciled in Sergio Garcia, Justin Rose, and Ian Bolter, and it's it's not even a you know, relying on past ryder cups. Take those three are playing better than anybody else that I ran through and looked at who could be performing well whistling straits. Admittedly I'm
looking less at some of those European Tour results. It's also worth calling out that oftentimes those European Tour fields are significantly weaker, So players who are playing on the PGA Tour and playing well like Sergio and Ian Poulter, it's often quite a different skill set there. But I have the I have Sergio justin Rosenian Poulter. Clearly the European team is lacking length, so you can make a case for somebody who hits it out there a little
bit farther. They're in trouble based on how you know they're distance. Their lack of distance stacks up with the United States team. But having a really hard time finding a name that you could replace either one of these three guys with.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know, you'd have to go pretty far down the list to find a real bomber. Maybe Erasmus Hoyguard. I'm not I'm not exactly sure who among these guys hits it really really far. I mean, Robert McIntyre gets it out there, but yeah, I mean Victor Hovelin obviously is going to be on the team, and John Ram is going to be a great fit for the course Roy McElroy. But as far as bombers are concerned, the US just has a huge advantage there.
It seems like absolutely and it can be gimmicky, but if I were the United States team, I would be really praying on that. And as an example that I've prepared, you know, a whole four at Whistling Streets is a long par four, and we've decided that we want to have our longer players hitting on the even holes, so
this works out. What's interesting about whole four is that at the length that a lot of players hit their driver, it gets very very narrow, like twenty five yards wide, and then it actually gets extremely wide when you get ten to fifteen yards past that. Huh, it gets like forty five yards wide. I would be putting that tea box exactly where my longest players are reaching that really wide part. Right, So your Bryson's your DJs.
Like the like the three fifteen carry range, like the DC yeah.
It depends on wind. It depends on wind exactly where that should be set. But that's one of those ways in which you can really maximize your advantage. I'd be setting the whole six driveable. Part four, Let's be really thoughtful about how far that whole plays. Again, we have our longer players hitting the even t shots. Let's set that yardage exactly where the longest players are in a position to maximize their advantage.
And whistling straits can be stretched out to like seventy eight hundred yards.
Right, you want to play that course again, if you really lean into what I'm suggesting, and you put your longest players on the even holes, you might have an afternoon where you want to set some odd holes shorter. Right, you have you have that information of who's going to be hitting off each t shot. So if you have guys like Spieth or Berger who aren't as long on odd holes, maybe you'll elect to set the course up a little bit differently. But absolutely you should be taking that into account.
So going back to the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, the US was strongly favored going into that event, and they obviously just didn't get anywhere close and going out of that Ryder Cup, A lot of the attention was given to personal conflicts between Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, conflicts between Patrick Reed and basically everybody else. Right, That kind of led the storytelling that we did after the event.
And I don't want to poo poo that because I found that incredibly entertaining and relevant and it was just a great moment to be in golf media to get to kind of dig sink my teeth into into that stuff. It was a lot of fun. But that may have overwhelmed what really happened in the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup at What would be your diagnosis of the way that that golf course La Golf Nacional fit with the skill sets of Team Europe versus Team USA.
Yeah, I think the golf nasci and l apologies for the mispronunciation.
Earlier, I don't think yeah nacional nasty? Who can it'saf? I like the golf just saying lak golf. I think that's a that's an attractive.
Name, perfect so at lea goolf. I think they set that golf course up to be about as one dimensional of a test as you can. It was who could hit the ball the straightest. Those fairways were narrow, and the rough was so thick that you know, obviously length is always an advantage, but Europe had a serious edge and how accurate those players were off the tee, whereas
the United States was no near it. I think I've calculated that of the top one hundred straightest players off the tee on tour, Europe had I believe nine of them on their team at the Ryder Cup in twenty eighteen and the United States had two. So really making that course as narrow and with as penal misses as possible. I've even heard them talk about they wanted the fans as far back as possible so that you weren't trampling down rough that the United States was going to end
up in. So they were asking the question, how straight can you hit the ball, and the United States didn't hit the ball straight.
Well, So I want to press on that a little bit because there are courses on the PGA Tour or that have been on the PGA Tour, like Beth Page, like Tory Pine's PGA National to an extent wing foot
at that US Open, these courses are narrow. They had heavy rough, and the emphasis didn't end up being on accuracy necessarily, though accuracy helped, It ended up being on length where the courses who thrat the players who thrived at those courses tended to be very long, and in fact, it seemed like they were the only people who really had a chance at those tournaments. Now you go to the golf for the twenty eighteen Ryder Cup, and accuracy did seem to be heavily prized because the fairways were
narrow and the rough was high. But you know what was really the difference between that venue and like Bethpage Black, where the golf was able to give the edge to accurate if shorter players.
Yeah, and I think this is a nuanced point that could probably go a while here. So for one irrelevant factor is how often you're taking driver out of a player's hands. So the golf course like Tory Pines, you're hitting driver on every single hole. And so when you have a course setup that's as long and narrow as some of those courses, the winner is going to be a long player who all so hits the ball straight that week. When you have a course that's just narrow
with thick rough and not as long. More similar to the golf, it brings some of those shorter, really more accurate players into the picture, especially on holes where it might get more narrow the farther you hit the ball, and you can hit less than driver. So generally speaking, there's also a difference between winning a tournament and what somebody's expectation should be for the day, Meaning like at Tory Pine's, Yes, the winner is going to be somebody
who bombs it and hits it straight. But in terms of just an if they don't hit it as straight, that thick rough is still hurting them, right. It's not that you know, thick rough rewards a bomber. It does still reward somebody who's accurate. It's just that when you create a dynamic where it's as long and narrow and thick as some of those courses you're mentioning, length is going to be a prerequisite or success, especially because you have to make birdies to win. It's not about making
the cut. Yeah, And I think another interesting point on Bryson. I know that he's the hot topic of every conversation, but you know one thing I've noticed in particular about his strategy. If you look at where the pin is. Bryson is often favoring a side of the golf course that's going to give him the most green to work with or the best angle. It's very noticeable. So when you have a hazard, Bryson doesn't really have that luxury.
But when you have a course that's just lined with rough on either side, it really enables him to favor a side of the fairway. If he finds the fairway, great, If not, he's in the rough with an advantageous angle. I would recommend people look through some of his shot trails. I think it's very evident that that's what his strategy is, and particularly at a place like Cave's Valley, that was going to work perfectly, and that's exactly what he did.
You know, there's no hazards. He's that worried about no out of bounds. I think that's a relevant part of thinking about some of the longest players, especially Bryson.
So wait, Joseph, are you telling me that Bryson Deshambeau is playing the angles?
Angles is a hot top Look. I don't want to suggest that. Yes, I mean, frankly, he is right, So it's less though, I think for Bryson about picking a target that gives him the best angle and more about picking a target that avoids some of those big penalty shots. There's some interaction between those two concepts. But yeah, look at Bryson's shot trails. I mean he's favoring a side of the fairway almost every time.
Yeah, yeah, I mean I think what he's doing is not what most people would imagine as hunting angles, as in, you know, like trying to thread the needle to get a good angle into the green. He's favoring sides of the course where he's going to have, you know, the
best chance at a successful next shot. And you know, maybe he's not super worried about being in the fair way, for is not being in the fair way if there aren't big hazards, because you know, if he's in the rough with a plenty of grain to work with, then he can get the ball close. Still, as he proved at wing Foot over and over and over again, he's hitting wedges out of the rough. Those shots seem to work out just fine for him, and he's applying that
strategy to a lot of places. So getting back to the upcoming Ryder Cup, we've got a super stacked US team. We've got a course that seems to favor their strengths. I'm coming out of this conversation thinking, once again, Team USA, they're the heavy favorites, and I feel like I'm getting fooled again into assuming that the US team is going to be successful here. But that has not worked out so often, And so what is the mindset that you're taking into this Ryder Cup as to what to expect.
So, for one, golf is inherently there's a lot of very and particularly in the Ryder Cup format, anything can happen on one day. It's hard to be a massive, massive favorite. I agree the United States are clearly the favorites, pretty heavy favorites, but some of the best players in the world are playing on the European team. John Rahm is playing at a level that nobody else on the PGA Tour is playing close to, and you can trot
him out there for every single session. He's dangerous. So it's hard to get to the point where you're like a seventy five eighty percent favorite. That's a really big burden to place on the favorite. So I am with you. I believe the United States should be strongly favored, but in a format that's ti variance and anything can happen on any given day. I think the markets have us around sixty sixty five percent. Seems reasonable to me.
Joseph, thank you so much for talking to me today. Where can people find your writing?
I mean I'm pretty active on Twitter, so you can follow me at Joseph Lamanna. The last name is l A M A g Na, or you can reach me finding the Edge dot substack dot com. Always welcoming new readers, so you can get me either way. All right, thanks a lot, Thanks so much, Garrett, thanks for having me.
If you've been enjoying the Friday Podcast, please consider leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Also make sure to give us a follow on Twitter and Instagram. We should be easily found both places. We'll be posting a lot about Inverness and Whistling Straights in the coming days of weeks, and it should be really fun to see how these team matchplay events turn out. Thanks for listening.