Last week I mentioned the Ryder Cup. I did manage to watch a lot of it over the weekend, though I missed the decisive hour with another commitment.
The Ryder Cup makes for absolutely gripping TV. Normally, I don’t watch golf, finding it rather slow and repetitive, but this is different. The tension builds slowly, but, just like a test match at cricket, there is something gripping all the way through for days on end, with wonderful twists and turns occurring as we watch. The emotions of the participants are also very much on display. Even if you hate golf or do not understand it, I can recommend the Ryder Cup.
It was interesting watching for the first time on US television, and I have to say that overall I was impressed with both NBC and ESPN. In Europe, Sky are excellent at golf as at so many other sports, but at the Ryder Cup they can become overly partisan. The same is true in the USA, but not to an undue extent. Apart from persisting in showing every shot of Tiger woods many times over, the coverage was pretty balanced.
The result was perhaps the greatest come-back victory the event has ever seen, with away team, Europe, managing to claw their way back from 10-4 down to win 14.5-13.5. We have seen this sort of comeback before by home teams, egged on by wild crowds. We also became used to seeing the USA dominate the last day singles, even when Europe had built a lead on the first two days. This come back bucked both those trends.
It is also remarkable just how dominant the USA had been on the first two days. Most of the matches that they won were by multiple holes, while the only games they lost were by tiny margins, rescued by sheer stubbornness of one or two Europeans, notably Ian Poulter, to succumb to superior opposition. Well done Davis Love and the USA team for finding a formula for the first time ever that seemed to enable the USA team to play well in pairs.
But then it all changed. On Sunday, Europe won the first five matches, then shared the rest to sneak ahead overall. This happened despite more than half of the European team appearing down and out before Sunday, either hopelessly off their game (Hanson, Kaymer), or just exhausted (Westwood, McDowell). At times on the first two days, Poulter looked like the only one who could compete.
So then, the question is why? How did this turn around come about? Many explanations have been offered in the press, but in my view the most important factor has been overlooked.
Undoubtedly Jose Maria Olazabal did a good job as European captain in maintaining hope, evoking the spirit of his dead friend and exceptional leader Seve Ballesteros. Poulter’s ability to cling on almost single handed, plus Olly’s speech making, managed to send the team out alive rather than dead. By the way, until about ten years ago, European teams did go out dead on the last day, even when they were ahead in the match, so sure they were of their own individual inferiority.
Europe also had luck. The close games always depend on a few putts, some of which shave the hole while others go in. Luck has to play a part. Justin Rose holed a truly wonderful putt on the seventeenth, testament to himself, but that had to require luck as well as skill. By the way, the reaction of Mickelson to losing was truly fantastic. Kudos to him. The talk of gamesmanship in these matches (crowd or players) is always very partisan, and it is important to recognise that both sides have their heroes.
Love was criticised for the order he put out his players. I always find this hard to accept. It is little more than random, although he must have known that Europe would have hidden the weakest players near the end, and maybe he should have been tempted to match his form players at that end of the draw.
No, for me there was a bigger decisive factor. The USA were over-confident, not ready for an unlikely fight back. Johnny Miller, an excellent commentator, looked at the matches on Saturday afternoon, and said that when he looked at the form of the players, he could see that USA would win more than they lost. Fair enough, that is his job, and I agreed with him. But the job of the team and the team captain is to guard against thinking the same at all costs, and to try to avoid the same mentality in the crowd.
Love did no such thing. His body language and interviews betrayed a sureness of success that I believe was the team’s undoing. He predicted who would hole the winning putt – a position in the draw implying an easy win. He talked about how great his own team were playing, without warning of the risk of Europe upping their game.
Then, when the unlikely resurgence did start to take place, the USA team were off guard and not ready. They will still mentally preparing their acceptance speeches and perhaps even relying on their colleagues (“we are so superior that even if I drop my point we will still win”). By the time they realised, it was too late. The crowd were adding to pressure rather than relieving it, and the players could not respond.
This is an extraordinary part of human nature that I have witnessed in myself too often. When I was leading a bridge tournament, my thoughts would wander into the winner’s circle, and it invariably led to a disaster. By the same token, if I entered a tournament feeling inferior, the results duly proved it. A tiny change in mindset leads to a marked change in performance.
I blame Love for this. It is not rocket science. How often do you hear a player from a winning soccer team quote the team talk from his manager? “We knew it would be a tough game, they have great players”. “We knew they would come back at us after half time”. This demonstrates good psychology by the coaches. Love, and his vice captains and advisors, should have known better. This is especially true since I remember him making the same mistake as a player in many Ryder Cup matches. Someone in the USA should have been able to stop it, but no one was.
The lesson for all of us is clear beyond sports. It is amazing what we can achieve if we perform at our peak. Most of us need remarkable support to reach our peak (a coach in our ear, some anger, lots of belief). And most of us are pulled from peak performance too easily when distracted, notably by momentary over-confidence.
If we remember this in all our activities, we can perform much better. It may be the secret at why some of us are overtaken by people we believe are less talented or deserving. While we are blaming the boss or the system, maybe we should look at our own psychology. And maybe the ability to perform at peak is a talent as well, even the most important one.
In the meantime, arise Sir Ian. Living here, you could be forgiven for thinking that there was only one adjective in US English. We laugh and joke about it whenever we hear the word now. But sometimes a performance deserves the adjective – Mr Poulter, that really was awesome.
