Padraig Harrington.....2015 Honda Classic Champion

Trampas

Padraig Harrington has confirmed that he will play in the Vivendi Cup 2010, as he looks to hone his game ahead of taking his place in the European Team for The 2010 Ryder Cup.

Speak Now

Russman wrote: »

Ahh come on, they're hardly the most reliable indicator, despite their name. Tiger still no.1 when he's been anything but the best player in the world for the last 18 months ??

As I said previously I've no particular preference between Casey and Harrington, there is little to choose between them, but most of Casey's points were earned in early 2009. As far as I know PH has earned more points in the last year (open to correction on this).

I go back to the point of rankings, why not just abandon Captain's Picks altogether if we want to use rankings (of any sort) as the barometer ? The whole idea of the pick is to give the captain freedom to choose from outside a given list.

Tiger has had a bad 6 months but with the rolling 2 years system with points depreciating weekly he wont be staying top for long without winning again. 7 wins last year and 3 seconds gave him an almighty lead before that late night incident last November. Top 33 players in the rankings have actually gained more points than Tiger this year :eek:

Russman

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Tiger has had a bad 6 months but with the rolling 2 years system with points depreciating weekly he wont be staying top for long without winning again. 7 wins last year and 3 seconds gave him an almighty lead before that late night incident last November. Top 33 players in the rankings have actually gained more points than Tiger this year :eek:

That's exactly my point, its very unfair to criticise Monty for overlooking the ranking of Casey when the rankings themselves are open to some debate and not necessarily the most current/accurate indicator. I agree they're the only official ones we have and are worth something but with captain's picks the captain shouldn't be constrained to a ranking as a his criteria for picking anyone. The captain makes the call based on whatever he wants, and ultimately will be judged on it after the event. He shouldn't have to explain himself to Sky

Who knows, it might well turn out to be a crazy call and PH might lose every match he plays but he might also win every match and Monty will be called a genius.

conno16

i dont think monty took any notice of points scored..
its a personality thing and ryder cup record thing when selecting the wild cards

harpsman

thelongfellow wrote: »

If your willing to go back to the last two majors-one of which you got Caseys result wrong-why not go to total majors won?

How someone can say that Casey is a better golfer than Harrington is beyond me. It must be an opinion since facts definitely do not back that statement up.

Casey has a bad rep on tour as being arrogant and aloof. That might have something to do with him being overlooked as well.

1)because majors in 07,08 dont indicate RECENT FORM
2)totally agree as i said in last post
3)could be right-might not be popular,although i see he was guest at montys wedding and is mates with english lads

jackal

Neither Casey or Harrington played themselves into the team. The choice was Monty's and was clearly not based on stats. Thats what captains picks are for... hunches, giving rookies a shot, whatever, its the captains call.

Casey took it on the chin, so why are there so many stat monkeys still whining about it?

conno16

to conclude: harro is mates with monty
so monty is taking his sorry ass to the ryder cup at the expense of others who have showed good (if not truly exceptional) form during 2010

AnneFrank

conno16 wrote: »

to conclude: harro is mates with monty
so monty is taking his sorry ass to the ryder cup at the expense of others who have showed good (if not truly exceptional) form during 2010

all these arguments were had about poulters inclusion at the last ryder cup and he finished top point scorer for europe,
fact is monty is captain and feels ph is a better choice than casey,
it doesnt matter why its montys call,
if casey was that bothered he could have played more in europe than he did ,
but id say monty would have picked him had it not been for molinaris brillance to win the last tournament,
its a great team and we should walk the event this time round,
back harrington for top points scored

f22

AnneFrank wrote: »

all these arguments were had about poulters inclusion at the last ryder cup and he finished top point scorer for europe,
fact is monty is captain and feels ph is a better choice than casey,
it doesnt matter why its montys call,
if casey was that bothered he could have played more in europe than he did ,
but id say monty would have picked him had it not been for molinaris brillance to win the last tournament,
its a great team and we should walk the event this time round,
back harrington for top points scored

While some of what you've had to say makes sense you're last comment would bring a smile to any bookmakers face!

thelongfellow

harpsman wrote: »

1)because majors in 07,08 dont indicate RECENT FORM
2)totally agree as i said in last post
3)could be right-might not be popular,although i see he was guest at montys wedding and is mates with english lads

Well if winning Majors doesn't indicate who the better golfer is surely world ranking points over the past 12 months will.... oh and Harrington has more of them than Casey. Unless you want to pick some arbitrary point in time and say Casey has more points....maybe in the past 3 months and 2 weeks or something like that.

Mister Sifter

It's pretty scary how good a player Paul Casey has became over the past two weeks. He's now almost as good a golfer, as Joe Cole was a footballer after England's first game of the World Cup.

Benicetomonty

Deleted User wrote: »

The rest of your post is excellent, but I don't agree with this part because



Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/rydercup/7970989/Ryder-Cup-2010-Paul-Caseys-omission-proves-hard-to-justify-for-Colin-Montgomerie.html

Btw: The rest of that telegraph article is the biggest load of bitter crap i've seen on the matter.

Interesting find and not something I was aware of I must admit...maybe it was Jocelyn Monty was more interested in inviting though!

Again though, my view is that Harrington has proven himself under the most severe of Ryder Cup pressure and Casey hasn't yet had the chance (and won't for at least 2 more years). Whatever else it was that swayed Monty, whether it was a hunch, their success in the event together over the years, his status as a multiple major winner or whatever, Padraig deserved his pick.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

thelongfellow

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No problem.

Casey points total for last 52 weeks................... 175.76

Harrington points total for last 52 weeks............. 189.52

This is the total points achieved per player in the last 52 weeks i.e these figures are NOT weighted

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

antoobrien

European Ryder cup points list (both): http://www.europeantour.com/rydercup/points/index_RyderCupPoints.html

PH WR: http://www.owgr.com/players/bio.sps?ID=5716&name=Padraig&Rank=20&TotalPts=216.45093

PC WR: http://www.owgr.com/players/bio.sps?ID=7108&name=Paul&Rank=9&TotalPts=244.07067

The first shows that monty picked his top 3 not qualified from the world rankings list, which are point sover a 12 month period. Can't really argue with that.

Dr.Silly

I was confident of the yanks winning before the picks happened,
and now I'm even more confident....will putting on lashings for the yanks to win it again

harpsman

thelongfellow wrote: »

Well if winning Majors doesn't indicate who the better golfer is surely world ranking points over the past 12 months will.... oh and Harrington has more of them than Casey. Unless you want to pick some arbitrary point in time and say Casey has more points....maybe in the past 3 months and 2 weeks or something like that.

READ THE POST
Over and out

thelongfellow

harpsman wrote: »

READ THE POST
Over and out

I read a few of them thanks. One minute your going to pick Casey, next minute you prefer Harrington. Got lost after that.

When your answering someone post with this

1)
2)
3)

lark it might help other boards member if you quote the original questions.

Dr.Silly

thelongfellow wrote: »

Well if winning Majors doesn't indicate who the better golfer is surely world ranking points over the past 12 months will.... oh and Harrington has more of them than Casey. Unless you want to pick some arbitrary point in time and say Casey has more points....maybe in the past 3 months and 2 weeks or something like that.

Or the face that Harrington has SUCH a wonderful Rydercup record compared to Casey :rolleyes:

Let's get real here

thelongfellow

Dr.Silly wrote: »

Or the face that Harrington has SUCH a wonderful Rydercup record compared to Casey :rolleyes:

Let's get real here

So your taking the view that one event defines how good a golfer is? Really?

You made your points earlier on in this thread. You prefer Casey. You tried to use stats (money won since January? ha) to back this up and then a terrible article from sky.

You, sir, do not know what you are talking about.

AnneFrank

thelongfellow wrote: »

So your taking the view that one event defines how good a golfer is? Really?

You made your points earlier on in this thread. You prefer Casey. You tried to use stats (money won since January? ha) to back this up and then a terrible article from sky.

You, sir, do not know what you are talking about.

all this is irrelevant it was montys choice and he picked harrington,
he knows both players personally and professionally so is in a much better place to judge.
After the Ryder cup is the time to ask if it was the right choice or not.
Again I point to Poulter in the last Ryder cup who finished top point scorer.
its the reason captains have "picks"

Dr.Silly

thelongfellow wrote: »

So your taking the view that one event defines how good a golfer is? Really?

You made your points earlier on in this thread. You prefer Casey. You tried to use stats (money won since January? ha) to back this up and then a terrible article from sky.

You, sir, do not know what you are talking about.

A terrible article from sky, really ?!!

By the sounds of things I can certainly know more about this than you do.
I wonder if Harrington wasn't Irish, would you have the same opinion, I seriously doubt it.

Russman

Dr.Silly wrote: »

A terrible article from sky, really ?!!

In fairness, it is an awful article.....

By the same token if Casey wasn't English then Sky wouldn't be bleating on about it either. As stated by lots of people there's f--k all between the two players in the stats over the last year, you could successfully argue for either. Captain made his choice and obviously had his reasons, simple as.

After the event we'll have a better idea if he's right or wrong - and even then we'll only be surmising as to how Casey may have gotten on had he played. What if PH wins all his matches and Europe still lose ? or vice versa ?

Padraig sure isn't a world beater these days right enough, but Casey isn't as good as some people are making out either. Its a bit like "the older I get, the better I was" !

Dr.Silly

Russman wrote: »

In fairness, it is an awful article

ok,
so let's pick no. 20 in the world (who can't make a cut and is in sh1te form, with an awful rydercup record) instead of no. 9 in the world (who's in good form, with a good ryder cup record)...
yup...it makes perfect sense alright....

Oh how I can't wait to go on the Sunday

Russman

Dr.Silly wrote: »

ok,
so let's pick no. 20 in the world (who can't make a cut and is in sh1te form, with an awful rydercup record) instead of no. 9 in the world (who's in good form, with a good ryder cup record)...
yup...it makes perfect sense alright....

Oh how I can't wait to go on the Sunday

Anyone in the top 50 or top 100 can beat anyone else on a given day, there's little or no difference between the top 50 players.

As I said previously, the nature of a captain's pick is that he's not constrained by a ranking or order of merit position.

I've no preference for either (I probably would have picked Sergio myself !), but in a tight singles match Harrington v Casey, I'd put my money on Harrington.

Dr.Silly

Russman wrote: »

Anyone in the top 50 or top 100 can beat anyone else on a given day, there's little or no difference between the top 50 players.

honestly, this is just a terrible terrible statement

Russman

If thats your opinion then we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

How would anyone ever beat somebody ranked higher than them then ? Does the no.1 win every time he tees it up ? Does the top ranked player in a tournament field win every time ? How did YE Yang hold off Tiger down the stretch in the USPGA ? How did Philip Price beat Phil Mickelson in the Ryder Cup singles ?

Whatever about a difference between players ranked 50 or 60 places apart , really, there's no difference between players ranked 11 places apart.

Dr.Silly

Russman wrote: »

If thats your opinion then we'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

How would anyone ever beat somebody ranked higher than them then ? Does the no.1 win every time he tees it up ? Does the top ranked player in a tournament field win every time ? How did YE Yang hold off Tiger down the stretch in the USPGA ? How did Philip Price beat Phil Mickelson in the Ryder Cup singles ?

Whatever about a difference between players ranked 50 or 60 places apart , really, there's no difference between players ranked 11 places apart.

there's little or no difference between the top 50 players

this is what you said,
You're right...of course players beat each other on a given day,
but that statement is just so wrong ..

there is a huge difference between no. 1 or 2 in the world and no. 49 or 50 in the world....HUGE difference, and consistency is one of those top of the list.

Martin567

Dr.Silly wrote: »

ok,
so let's pick no. 20 in the world (who can't make a cut and is in sh1te form, with an awful rydercup record) instead of no. 9 in the world (who's in good form, with a good ryder cup record)...
yup...it makes perfect sense alright....

Oh how I can't wait to go on the Sunday

I think the form comparison has been dealt with in detail already. Just look at www.owgr.com and click on both Harrington & Casey to see there is little to choose form wise. Harrington has more points in the last 12 months and also has far more top 10s in the last 6 months. Casey also had a bad Ryder Cup in 2008, that's one out of three poor results compared with Harrington's two out of five.

Lee Westwood also had a bad Ryder Cup in 2008. Imagine if he has another poor one this year as he is carrying an injury. Just say in 2012 he has a bunch of top 10s but no wins and just misses out on qualifying automatically but then gets a captain's pick. Do you think Sky will be writing articles saying what a crazy decision it was? Because that is the position Harrington is in this year.

Since your last line makes it clear that you are hoping the Harrington pick doessn't work out, anything you have to say is pretty meaningless anyway.

Russman

Dr.Silly wrote: »

there's little or no difference between the top 50 players

this is what you said,
You're right...of course players beat each other on a given day,
but that statement is just so wrong ..

there is a huge difference between no. 1 or 2 in the world and no. 49 or 50 in the world....HUGE difference, and consistency is one of those top of the list.

There certainly isn't a huge difference, not at that level. You only have to see the difference one big win can make to a players ranking. Any difference between 1 and 50 is more than compensated for the "on any given day" nature of a match, particularly over 18 holes.

Consistency over a season or extended period of time maybe, but that hardly comes into it in a Ryder Cup.

At the lower levels of course there's a difference.

thelongfellow

Martin567 wrote: »

Since your last line makes it clear that you are hoping the Harrington pick doessn't work out, anything you have to say is pretty meaningless anyway.

Watch out for the inevitable 'your blinded by patriotism' response!

Dr.Silly

thelongfellow wrote: »

Watch out for the inevitable 'your blinded by patriotism' response!

I won't bother....
such clueless people..

I look forward to the 3rd October.
last post till then...

Martin567

thelongfellow wrote: »

Watch out for the inevitable 'your blinded by patriotism' response!

I know but if someone makes it clear that he is hoping the Americans win and Harrington plays badly just so he can come on here and say "I told you so" afterwards, he is hardly the most objective, is he?

You'd really wonder what someone like that gets out of it.

thelongfellow

Martin567 wrote: »

I know but if someone makes it clear that he is hoping the Americans win and Harrington plays badly just so he can come on here and say "I told you so" afterwards, he is hardly the most objective, is he?

You'd really wonder what someone like that gets out of it.

I think objectivity is just one thing that the poster is lacking.

Should be a good cup though. There can really be no excuses from either side as they are both sending their strongest possible respective teams.

veetwin

Dr.Silly wrote: »

there's little or no difference between the top 50 players

this is what you said,
You're right...of course players beat each other on a given day,
but that statement is just so wrong ..

there is a huge difference between no. 1 or 2 in the world and no. 49 or 50 in the world....HUGE difference, and consistency is one of those top of the list.

Who is the World No 1 again? Hardly a poster boy for consistency in the last couple of years...Think most of the European Team would fancy their chances on the Sunday against him.

thegen

Dr.Silly wrote: »

I won't bother....
such clueless people..

I look forward to the 3rd October.
last post till then...

Great!!!!! Come on Europe

fullstop

Dr.Silly wrote: »

ok,
so let's pick no. 20 in the world (who can't make a cut and is in sh1te form, with an awful rydercup record) instead of no. 9 in the world (who's in good form, with a good ryder cup record)...
yup...it makes perfect sense alright....

Oh how I can't wait to go on the Sunday

And why's that? Going to cheer whoever is playing against Harrington :rolleyes:

At least you won't be posting again for nealy a month....Dr Silly indeed.

heavyballs

Dr.Silly wrote: »

I won't bother....
such clueless people..

I look forward to the 3rd October.
last post till then...

ffs,and this coming from somebody who reckons there is a "huge difference between No 49 and No 50 in the world",do you know how the ranking points work?joke of a comment by you

thelongfellow

And yet another reason why Casey isn't on the team.

Talk about choking the win away...

Dr.Silly

Firstly,
I didn't mention there was a huge difference between 49th and 50th in the world. I was saying there was a difference between the TOP 50 in the world against someone saying there was little or no difference between these players, which is just non-sense.

Longfellow: Yes, casey did choke, but where the f*ck was harrington, miles and miles apart is where.

And I can't wait for the Sunday, this comment was made meaning that I can't wait, because I'm going to be there watching

WacoKid

thelongfellow wrote: »

And yet another reason why Casey isn't on the team.

Talk about choking the win away...

Been following Harrington since he came on tour with Bjorn in 1996.

If there is anyone who falls back once they get near the top unfortunately its Harrington.

Dr.Silly

and casey is a choker...

lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsU5kEGQQrs

fullstop

Dr.Silly wrote: »

and casey is a choker...

lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsU5kEGQQrs

Not even close to the same thing. When this happened Harrington was maybe tied for the lead or 1 off the lead...the tournament could still have been won by 4 or 5 players easily. Casey was 3 clear last night with 6 to play...the tournament was his for the taking. Hell of a difference there. Anyway, I thought you weren't posting until after the Ryder Cup...

Dr.Silly

fullstop wrote: »

Not even close to the same thing. When this happened Harrington was maybe tied for the lead or 1 off the lead...the tournament could still have been won by 4 or 5 players easily. Casey was 3 clear last night with 6 to play...the tournament was his for the taking. Hell of a difference there. Anyway, I thought you weren't posting until after the Ryder Cup...

OMG

ok ok , you are so right, it's not the same thing

fullstop

Dr.Silly wrote: »

OMG

ok ok , you are so right, it's not the same thing

Dr.Silly wrote: »

I won't bother....
such clueless people..

I look forward to the 3rd October.
last post till then...

Man of your word...

thelongfellow

Dr.Silly wrote: »

Firstly,
I didn't mention there was a huge difference between 49th and 50th in the world. I was saying there was a difference between the TOP 50 in the world against someone saying there was little or no difference between these players, which is just non-sense.

Longfellow: Yes, casey did choke, but where the f*ck was harrington, miles and miles apart is where.

And I can't wait for the Sunday, this comment was made meaning that I can't wait, because I'm going to be there watching

We see your not a man of your word anyway-last post till then my ar$e!

On regular 4-day tour events there is a difference yes, not as major as you make out, but yes a difference. In a matchplay situation though there is damn all difference.

Look at the WGC Matchplay winners.

2010 - Ian Poulter def. Paul Casey, 4-and-2
2009 - Geoff Ogilvy def. Paul Casey, 4-and-3
2008 - Tiger Woods def. Stewart Cink, 8-and-7
2007 - Henrik Stenson def. Geoff Ogilvy, 2-and-1
2006 - Geoff Ogilvy def. Davis Love III, 3-and-2
2005 - David Toms def. Chris DiMarco, 6-and-5
2004 - Tiger Woods def. Davis Love III, 3-and-2
2003 - Tiger Woods def. David Toms, 2-and-1
2002 - Kevin Sutherland def. Scott McCarron, 1-up
2001 - Steve Stricker def. Pierre Fulke, 2-and-1
2000 - Darren Clarke def. Tiger Woods, 4-and-3
1999 - Jeff Maggert def. Andrew Magee, 1-up (38 holes)

Most of the winners were nowhere near the top 10 in the OWGR (except Tiger, obviously).

Casey is a far better golfer than Poulter. Yet another occasion that he threw it away.

Russman

Exactly, at a regular European tour event, say something like an Irish Open, where there's a big rankings gap between the highest and lowest ranked players there is a clear difference between the players, you can even see it on the range. However at say, a WGC event, there is little noticeable difference between 1,2 & 49, 50 and also they are all noticeably better than most of the field at a regular tour event.
Any difference is more than offset by the one off nature of an 18 hole match. I stand by that opinion.
Plus with Harrington and Casey its not rankings 1 & 50 its 8 & 20 we're comparing so any difference is minute.

BTW what happened to Casey could happen to anyone so I wouldn't use that as a stick to beat him with, but it just shows how 3 bad shots can drastically affect a result and therefore his ranking, so we maybe shouldn't get too hung up on lists IMO. He may well be a choker but he hasn't improved or disimproved since Monty made his picks.
Sure look at the way the fed ex rankings were changing by the minute as players held or missed putts, if someone dropped 20 places because someone else held a 20 footer or chipped in it doesn't necessarily mean they're 20 places a lesser player than they were 5 minutes previously.

And, yes, Casey ss a far better golfer than Poulter.

Martin567

Despite all of the Casey/Harrington discussions recently, there is no question about the fact that Casey is a very good golfer. I just don't think his overall form this year is as good as the British media have tried to make out. Before Monty made the picks, I thought he would go for Harrington, Molinari & Casey.

In my opinion, he is the most talented of the English players, with the possible exception of Lee Westwood, and is the most likely to win a major. Westwood should have won at least one by now but the fact that he has had so many close calls may mean that he is destined never to win one. I think Casey's game is such that he is more likely to put himself in position to win majors than Donald, Poulter or Rose. Poulter probably has the strongest mind of the four but is less likely to get in position as often.

Casey is around 6 years younger than Harrington and his position in the game is now fairly similar to Harrington's 5 or 6 years ago - a number of wins (maybe not quite as many as he should have), top 10 in the world and some good finishes in the biggest events. If he wins a major in the next three years, he would be matching Padraig's 2007 Open win. I also think that if he wins one, he could win more than one. He needs to establish himself as a top 10 regular and the rest will surely follow.

heavyballs

Dr.Silly wrote: »

Firstly,
I didn't mention there was a huge difference between 49th and 50th in the world. I was saying there was a difference between the TOP 50 in the world against someone saying there was little or no difference between these players, which is just non-sense.

Longfellow: Yes, casey did choke, but where the f*ck was harrington, miles and miles apart is where.

And I can't wait for the Sunday, this comment was made meaning that I can't wait, because I'm going to be there watching

did you not?no?you're talking such nonsence you're mixing yourself up
this is a direct quote from you,
"there is a huge difference between no. 1 or 2 in the world and no. 49 or 50 in the world....HUGE difference"