"Poulter’s remarkable feats at Medinah illustrated what nonsense it is to attach too much importance to the role of the captaincy."
Nice mini-rant from Tom English about the over-importance of Captains in the Ryder Cup.
Colin Montgomerie is a “winning captain”, as he constantly told us on Sky Sports, but he’d have been a dud captain had Graeme McDowell not held his nerve in the last match on the golf course at Celtic Manor and won the day for Europe.
The same with Jose Maria Olazabal, another lucky captain whose shortcomings in the job will be buried for posterity because Ian Poulter played like God. Poulter’s remarkable feats at Medinah illustrated what nonsense it is to attach too much importance to the role of the captaincy. As long as they’re not Mr Bean – or Nick Faldo – they should be okay so long as their players are on form.
The captain has to be respected and needs a touch of the statesman about him, as well having very deep pockets for all the cash he can make from the job, but spare us the cosmic talk of strategists and tacticians.
Reader Comments (11)
A good captain is relatively neutral but a bad captain can ruin a good team. And, in spite of agreeing with Tom that the form of the players is the ultimate key, the captain's strategy is important too.
Keep em comfortable and well fed...let the chips fall where they may is the best strategy...but if you lose, you'll get ripped a new one. Anybody who would lobby for that kind of deal deserves whatever they get in the end. Ollie got very lucky in that sense.
Captain in this case is just another name for coach, and one could make an argument that any team could really play without their coach. The whole thesis is stupid and pointless.
If you lose you screwed up.
Don't matter who you are.
O course, it has nothing to do with the players.
John
I am one who thinks a captain is an important component of a winning team. I have stated why many times- to repeat would be poor blogsmanship.