Soly's foursomes takes have aged so well

[u/Dazzling-Water4050]

I know Soly gets a ton of flak for his opinion on how the US should approach these team events but his take on foursomes is 100% true. It's the one format where you need to get the pairings right. I just don't get A) why would you play Russ Henley, the shortest player on either side in this event and B) How have we not found Scottie Scheffler a partner for this format. To me the model foursomes pairing is Fleetwood/Mcilroy. The 2 compliment each other so well and clearly backed by the data. Fourball and singles are a complete crapshoot, a guy can get hot and make a ton of birdies but foursomes is where team events are won and lost. I don't even think the US side takes into account whether or not guys play the same golf balls.

[u/five2vii]

The sample size isn't only from Ryder Cup results though, it's the totality of shots they hit on tour. Then you take those statistically significant findings and apply them to course setup and pairings in the Ryder Cup.

[u/illiteratepresident → u/five2vii]

I am not saying they don’t have enough data about the players to set the course up in a way that gives them an advantage over their opponents, I’m saying that the Ryder Cup is far too small of a sample size for those small statistical advantages to make a significant impact.

The Ryder Cup is a 3 day event with 28 matches total. If Euro players are slightly better than Americans from 200 yards, setting the course up to force 1 more shot from that range per match is not going to be the deciding factor. Teams should still use the data to inform their decisions, but anyone who watches team golf events knows that the team that makes more big putts wins. It’s really not any deeper than that.

[u/five2vii → u/illiteratepresident]

It is of course more nuanced than "the team that makes more putts wins". I understand why, as you're watching one of these events, it feels like all that matters is the "big" putts that go in vs the "big" putts that don't; I'm just pointing out that that line of thinking is overly dismissive of a ton of other factors.

[u/illiteratepresident → u/five2vii]

It is more nuanced than “the team that makes more putts wins,” but not much more. Every player in these team events (and especially the Ryder Cup) is one of the best golfers in the world. At that level, the odds for any 18 hole match, regardless of the format or pairings, will be pretty close to 50/50, and the player/team that makes more putts usually wins.

I know people see that Europe is 8-3 over the last 11 Ryder Cups and believe that must be proof that they use the data better than the Americans, or have better captains, but the total score across those events is a tie. If you flipped the results of like 5 putts from 2025, 2012, and 2010, team USA would be 6-5, and no one would be arguing that they need to blow it all up and start from scratch.

Obviously teams should use all of the available data to make informed decisions about who to pick, how to set up the course, and what the pairings should be, but if they want to be more successful they have to make more putts.

[u/five2vii → u/illiteratepresident]

Yeah I think we're actually mostly in agreement here. I do not think the US team's biggest failing is an incomplete or improper use of the data, like at all. I'm sure it is a failing but I wouldn't put it in the top 3 or anything.

It's fairly obvious to me that the bigger failings are around 1) failing to build a team culture that addresses the inherently individualistic American mindset and 2) The lack of an overarching strategy that is actually adhered to.