Young guns to dominate majors

First topic message reminder :

Jasons quote

Day agrees that a group of young players are on the verge of something special in the game while acknowledging the task of pressuring McIlroy.

"This is the start of it, and obviously Rory is leading it, and there’s a bunch of other great golfers out there that obviously we need to work a little harder to get to the level of Rory," he said.

"But you’re right, we really are going to start a new generation, and it’s really fun. I think it’s great for golf."


Jason for multiple majors

Harrison, what's the reason you hate Murray?

MustPuttBetter wrote:You guys must have all been watching a different 1990 World Cup to me!!

A very average group of players??
Shilton, Pearce, Robson, Waddle, Beardsley, Lineker, Barnes, Platt, Gascoigne
These guys were arguably up there with the best in the world in their positions at the time

We were certainly not the best team in that tournament and the expectations going into it reflected that. This was also largely the same group of players that did not even qualify for the Euro's in '92, again highlighting what an achievement '90 was. And surely a point on how good these players are in their individual positions is also applicable to a lot of England teams over the past decade or so...

They play 16 majors every 4 years compared to just two major football tournaments SR, so you can make maths work anyway you like. The only statistic you cant change is the fact that there is a big fat 0 next to the column of major wins for Lee.
Sharrison why do you think Federer is dull, if you read anything about him he is engaging and opinionated and has plenty to say. He plays a brand of tennis that is truly stunning to watch. Why would you say that Nadal is more interesting, cant really say I get that, he plays a much duller game and is really completely corporate (allbeit in a charming way) off the court.

Diggers, I'm not denying the statistics however the simple fact is that Westwood is a better golfer than England are a football team. So my original question of why we continually bash one of our best yet hang forlorn hope on a bunch of deadbeats who could NEVER win a tournament, despite every tournament they enter they have the best squad, great indidvidual players and are "the golden generation" (again)

The comparison between Westwood and England is thus: Westwood is capable of winning a major, England are not. Even if there were four tournaments a year, England couldn't win, because they never learn from their mistakes.

Super, I can honestly say that I don't really like anything about him. His on court behaviour annoys me with his fist pumps and screams when his opponent makes a mistake, his arrogance of throwing his sweaty tennis gear into the crowd like a rock star at the end of a "thrilling" 5 setter in the QF's, his scruffiness in general, his mum and girlfriend and obviously his comments in the media.

If I thought that he had any intelligence whatsoever then I would enjoy his irony but that is, alas, not the case.

Sharrison
Give me a better group of players in the competition than those 9?

And no it wasn't the same group of players who failed for 92. They were without Shilton, Robson, Lineker, Waddle, Beardsley, Barnes and Gascoigne.
Pretty much all the important playes i listed above!! If that's the same group.......

And aside from possibly around 1996, the same cannot be said for having as many world class players - no matter what the newspapers tell you

Fair enough Harrison, I can see how that could irritate, I get irritated by silly things like Gerrard having a hairline that begins just above his eyebrow or Nadal biting the trophy again, I thought it might have been the "banter" regarding the England football team when he was 17. I think you overlook his intelligence though, although he's dreadfully monotone, he's got quite a dry sense of humour which most people including the journalists interviewing him seem not to understand it, he's taking the pi££ without them realising.

Thats just conjecture on your part, England could win a big event, its just unlikely right now. And the England football team has won a world cup whether you like it or not and whether it was a long time ago or not. Westwood hasnt won a major or even a WGC and he has entered what maybe well over a 100 of them. England have probably played in or had the chance to qualify in about 30 major championships.
Now as it goes Id love Westwood to win a major (though Donald more) but I just completely disagree with your theory that its possible you will just continue to be unlucky and losing to someone else better on the day.
He has 4 days and umpteem events to impose his game and he needs to start doing it. He seems to me to be getting better at talking about winning majors than actually winning them.

Diggers, tbh I don't really follow Federer's off court behaviour - I am very much in agreement that on court he is one of the most talented and exciting sportsman across any sport. I like the fact that Nadal appears to have a life outside of tennis and as you evidently know more about Federer than me, I will take your word for it and leave Federer out of my "dull" category of sportsman to reflect my confidence in your word...

Diggers, be reasonable, yes England won a world cup 45 years ago, but the career of England spans every generation in perpetuity. Westwood has a 20 year career at best.
Of course it's conjecture on my part, but can you really suggest that England are more likely to win a major tournament than Westwood? Westwood is so near, yet England would have to undergo a catatrophic sea change in scores of elements to even challenge. There is a chasm of difference between the two, and in Englands sense it is probably even widening.

The fundamental difference between golf and football is that in golf you can do nothing to influence your opponent, so Westwood can only do as well as he can play on the day, if someone beats him, it isn't because he's played badly, has lost bottle or is incapable of closing out a mojor, however England routinely fail to turn up regardless of how poorly the opposition play, (Algeria 2010 for instance) Westwood does impose himself in majors, England do not, and never look like doing so.
What is more, in a world cup you only have to get through a fairly straight forward group then win 4 more games, to win a major you have to be better than 150 other players.
In any event, the question is, is there a new breed of youngsters, yes there are, but the "oldies" are not finished yet.

Don't you think Federer's mo these days is to project the squeaky-cleam image, protecting his brand if you will. Phil Mickelson does exactly the same and even Tiger used to when he had something to smile about.

Not sure about comparing England's football fortunes with Lee Westwood. At least Westwood cares and places the Majors (and RC) above everything else he does - can't think off-hand of a single England footballer who places National success about club and income. May be unfair, but if it is, then England's footballers disguise their passion well.

Even the Young Guns!

MPB, lets not get personal by telling each other what we have read in the media. I'm pretty sure that the newspapers that I read do not tell me anything of the sort.

England were, I think, something like 6th or 7th in the world going into that world cup behind at least two of the other semi-finalists with the fourth being the hosts. Even in the semi finals we were not the best team still in it and I think that you'll find that if you google "team of the world cup in 1990" then Gazza was the only England player in it.

As for since then, Gary Neville, Ferdinand, Cole, Hargreaves, Beckham, Scholes, Gerrard, Lampard, Owen were all up there with the best.

I dont agree with you at all SR. The great players find a way to win despite someone else putting in a fantastic performance. How did Mickleson find the game and the nuts to to win the Masters last year and not Westwood ? Simple, he's a player who has found the ability to raise his game when it has mattered and thats why despite the fact that he has never been world number one I would bracket Mickleson as a much better golfer than Westwood.

Good point Kwini regarding the priorities and that also applies to a lot of football fans - I think most put club over country but then maybe that is more to do with the way that the national team performs.

Comparing Westwood with the England football team is not really that interesting as a comparison. There are so many other factors affecting both of their success and they are such different sports that its apples and oranges.

I would probably agree that Mickelson is a better player, but there seems to be an ascertion that because Westwood hasn't won a major that he never will. He's in a group of 20-30 who have a good chance to win every time they tee it up, those are quite long odds in reality. He's raised his game on many occasions to win competitions, and in Ryder Cups, just not as yet to a sufficiently high level in a major.
People used to say the same about Mickelson, and indeed Vijay until they won.
Winning a major doesn't always make you are better player than someone who hasn't won one, there are loads of players who win just one, Hamilton, Curtis, Micheel, Oosthuizen etc, I'll remember Westwood as a better player than any of them.

Sharrison, my apolgies if my comment came across as personal. It certianly wasn't intended to. I was trying to say that the media build them up as the best in the world rather than the facts. I was not telling you what you had read.
For example Neville, Hargreaves or Owen have never been anywhere near to being the best in the world in their positions.

The 'teams of the tournament' and world rankings are both nonsense and can't honestly be used to make any sensible judgements. Are Uruguay currently the 7th best team in the world? No clearly they are not. Are England the 6th? No

I still doubt anyone could give me a better collection of players in that World Cup than Englands and believe we were the best side in it

Again dont agree, it would make him a much better player in my eyes because it would prove he had the ability to impose his game and win the biggest events.
You can not be a great player and win a major but IMO you cant be a great player unless you win majors.
But Im not saying he wont, Im just giving my opinion regarding his lack of ability to win big golf tournaments, as I said before its very strange for a guy in any sport to be ranked number one in the world and yet not win big events whan all his peers play especially when he has at least 10 chances a year. You seem to conveniently skip the fact that he hasnt won a WGC either.

I think that the difference of opinion with Mickelson is that he was always expected to win majors straight out of college and you could possibly argue that his potential as a young player has not been fulfilled. Even before Westwood had his slump, there was very little expectation of him winning a major but all credit to him, he worked hard and came back as a major contender.

He now very much deserves one but regardless of outstanding performances by the winners, it has just not happened for him and I do not think that he has the game to make it happen. A player like Mickelson has the ability to raise his game and shoot low when he needs to in a major but Westwood does not have this in his locker. I think that Westwood's best chance will come when a major course is set up ridiculously difficult and he can shoot level par or a couple under through four rounds and win it. I think that in the US Open he shot his lowest round ever at a major of something like -5 and this is because he cannot raise his game to go on a birdie rampage. This might also suggest the different opinions on Westwood but hopefully a tough major set up will let him win it with consistently solid scores, which is what he does best.

MPB, Football is not about the best collection of players, it is about who plays best as a team. England have been hung up on the individual quality of their players for years, one of their major failings IMO, rather than picking the best players for their position, or those in form, hence why they can never beat teams like Sweden who as individuals are poorer but perform better as a team.

If England were the best team in it, they would have won, but they weren't so they didn't. Square pegs in round holes, regardless of how good they are individually they have never understood team philosophy. It was the closest they've been, but still miles away.

I'm aware of that SR but i thought it was undisputed that Bobby Robson brought England together and they played like a team in 1990. That has already been stated and not by me
Ergo, if they were playing as a team and had the best players = they were they best team.
I'm quite surprised anyone's trying to argue otherwise regarding 1990.
They were simply unlucky. We outplayed Germany in the semi but were beaten. It happens
Much the same as the reasoning you're putting forward for Westwood

I agree with many of the things you say SR but i'm not sure how you can say if England were the best they would have won but at the same time Westwood can be the best but have reasons for not winning

I like Westwood but you can't have it all ways

Its also an utter crock about team selection. Its actually very rare England have gone into a game and not picked the team that most of the public and the press would have picked. Its just that quite often that team hasnt performed and then they get hammered and the manager gets hammered.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Sharrison, my apolgies if my comment came across as personal. It certianly wasn't intended to. I was trying to say that the media build them up as the best in the world rather than the facts. I was not telling you what you had read.
For example Neville, Hargreaves or Owen have never been anywhere near to being the best in the world in their positions.

The 'teams of the tournament' and world rankings are both nonsense and can't honestly be used to make any sensible judgements. Are Uruguay currently the 7th best team in the world? No clearly they are not. Are England the 6th? No

I still doubt anyone could give me a better collection of players in that World Cup than Englands and believe we were the best side in it

Neville and Hargreaves are two of the most decorated players in European football and Owen won the European player of the year in 2001 - that's up there in my opinion.

The seedings were done differently back then because there was less International football than there is now and it was skewed towards performances in the major tournaments. Hence, they were a better indication and the rankings put Italy, West Germany, Argentina, Brazil and Belgium ahead of us which turned out to be pretty accurate.

How about Maldini, Baresi, Donadoni, Baggio, Schillaci for Italy. Or maybe a certain Diego Maradonna - Argentina were hardly a goal scoring team but he won them the '86 WC almost single handedly. And of course Germany - players like Lothar Mattheus and Jurgen Klinsmann are why the were the best team that year. England scraped through the groups with a win and two draws, scored a late goal against Belgium and then narrowly beat Cameroon before losing to Germany - hardly riveting stuff.

SHarrison, Neville and Hargreaves are because they play for top clubs, but Djimi Traore also won the Champions League. That doesn't make them the best in the world. Owen went to Real Mardid and couldn't get in so can't be that special.

Of those sides better than us only Germany and Argentina got further! and Germany only just

Aside from Maldini those Italians are no better than their English counterparts and you've only listed 5 compared to 9 world class players for England.
Maradona was clearly great but that's one player.
And two for Germany

Being the best team isn't necessarily about hammering everyone 4-0. It's about getting through, digging in, all of that stuff

We can agree to disagree but no-one will convince me that we were not the best team at Italia 90

Diggers, that's what I mean though, England have always picked the biggest names rather than the players who might actually be better for the TEAM, which is the issue.
The public are constantly on the managers back about the players that are selected and the shape they play in.

Heskey was picked for years despite much public conjecture, Le Tissier perhaps was the best player of his generation but was never given the chance because perhaps he played for Southampton and wasn't a big time charlie.

MustPuttBetter wrote:SHarrison, Neville and Hargreaves are because they play for top clubs, but Djimi Traore also won the Champions League. That doesn't make them the best in the world. Owen went to Real Mardid and couldn't get in so can't be that special.

Of those sides better than us only Germany and Argentina got further! and Germany only just

Aside from Maldini those Italians are no better than their English counterparts and you've only listed 5 compared to 9 world class players for England.
Maradona was clearly great but that's one player.
And two for Germany

Being the best team isn't necessarily about hammering everyone 4-0. It's about getting through, digging in, all of that stuff

We can agree to disagree but no-one will convince me that we were not the best team at Italia 90

Am happy to agree to disagree but you are in a minority in your nostalgia. I'm guessing from your age that this was for you, like me, the first big football tournament that you got into and at the time I was convinced that we were the best. Unfortunately, our media was little different to what it is now and since then I have read many things that have made me think differently. I still look at this world cup as a great achievement because England played with heart and courage and, imo, punched above their weight.

And all of those players were in the Euro '88 squad that played three and lost three in Germany...

The trouble with England is that they think the rest of the world see their football team the way they do. In truth, no one really fears them, and while they might agree that they have good individual players, they are lamentable as a team and simply aren't as well thought of as people think.
Probably one of the top 16 teams in the world, but not much better, borne out by consistently poor tournament results and real struggling performances against the might of Trinidad and Tobago and Algeria.

super_realist wrote:The trouble with England is that they think the rest of the world see their football team the way they do. In truth, no one really fears them, and while they might agree that they have good individual players, they are lamentable as a team and simply aren't as well thought of as people think.
Probably one of the top 16 teams in the world, but not much better, borne out by consistently poor tournament results and real struggling performances against the might of Trinidad and Tobago and Algeria.

I think that is more to do with the media and subsequently the fans. I regularly go to watch England play and at no point have I ever thought that we have a team that could get past the semi's. Maybe the team in '02 that went out to a very good Brazil despite having players missing but other than that, England have been far from favourites for any tournament.

The simple fact is that the players do not care as much as they do for the clubs that pay them and realistically, why should they?!? Capello gets paid >£5m per year, the FA live on fat lunches and conferences in exotic locations and the players get comparably very little. I think that if there is a problem in the English National team then it is from the top down and the players can hardly be blamed for not wanting to create more FA wealth that can't even be spent developing an academy. Friendlies midweek involving 11 substitutions against a second rate team at Wembley to pay for it's development is hardly motivating...

It was the first tournament i properly remember (those were the days!!...) but there's no nostalgia involved. Facts are facts and we had more good players than anyone else and played as a team unlike the current lot.
We didn't win, that happens.

Re 88, true but you can do that with anything. Luke Donald - number one in the world but was how many over par at the US Open. Isn't he rubbish? No of course not.

In football the best team always wins but in golf Westwood is capable of being the best but never winning?
We can't have it both ways

MustPuttBetter wrote:It was the first tournament i properly remember (those were the days!!...) but there's no nostalgia involved. Facts are facts and we had more good players than anyone else and played as a team unlike the current lot.
We didn't win, that happens.

Re 88, true but you can do that with anything. Luke Donald - number one in the world but was how many over par at the US Open. Isn't he rubbish? No of course not.

In football the best team always wins but in golf Westwood is capable of being the best but never winning?
We can't have it both ways

There is good reason for that in that luck plays a far more important role in golf than most sports and there is a lot more factors that affect performance. Football is less so and Tennis is at the other end of the scale in that it is a "pure" sport - the court is the same for everyone, unaffected by weather, the balls are the same and to win a match there are so many points that each one individually has less relevance - the best player nearly always wins, hence certain players have a period of dominance (Federer, Sampras etc). In football, the best teams are usually successful for a period and to not even draw or win a match in '88 would not make England favourites in '90.

I didn't list all of the other players for those teams better than us as that would not be the most interesting but I merely listed players that would keep our English ones out of a hypothetical "best in their positions," as per your original point.

Aside from Maradona and Maldini, i don't think any of those players would keep the English alternative out of a combined side.

I would actually disagree with you that it's easier for the best to fail to win in golf than football.
A football World Cup is mostly a series of one off games where, despite being the better team, an upset can happen and you're out. The other side raise their game for that day or you get a bad bounce and you're gone, no comnig back.
Whereas in golf, nothing anyone else can do can affect you. You may get a bad bounce but have 4 days (opposed to 90 mins) for that to even out. There is no one off element to it. If you truly are the best player that week you will win

I'm not making a golf v football argument. I prefer golf for precisely those reasons!
What i am saying is you can't have it both ways. We've got people trying to argue that LW is the best golfer and there are such and such reasons why he doesn't win, whilst at the same time saying England football team are rubbish because the best team always wins in football and that's not England.

If poeple think that way then fair enough but i can't agree with it

I think that generally the best team does always win in football. A knockout competition obviously increases the element of chance but there have been very few big knockout competitions where the winners were not deserving - Greece in '04 springs to mind but very little other than that. However, Italy and Germany were both semi finalists in '88 and Argentina came third in the Copa America in '89 behind the winners Brazil - all making them favourites ahead of England.

And as for the players that I listed, I forgot Romario and Bebeto who would run rings around Linekar and Zegna was a far better keeper at that time than an ageing Shilton, but then maybe that was because their defence was superior. Mattheus would also fit into any England team.

Mattheus aside (one of only two Germany players, the other being Klinsmann, who would make the England team), i disagree with so much of that i propose we just agree to disagree!

I love this.
English guys chewing the fat over why thier golfers and football team can't win trophies.
Carry on boys.

DTW ha cheers!!

My final point on this Sharrison is you're just naming one or two players from different coutries. I'm not saying the team of the tournament would be all English. What i'm saying is no other country had as many world class players as the 9 English i listed

If you can name 9 players from any one country better than those 9 English then i will concede

Doon the Water wrote:I love this.
English guys chewing the fat over why thier golfers and football team can't win trophies.
Carry on boys.

Whereas you sweaties are winning all over the place, of course.

The difference with the sweaties is that we don't claim to be good at anything, whereas England think their national team is the nuts when in fact they are rubbish, well at least the media and a large section of fans do.

MustPuttBetter wrote:DTW ha cheers!!

My final point on this Sharrison is you're just naming one or two players from different coutries. I'm not saying the team of the tournament would be all English. What i'm saying is no other country had as many world class players as the 9 English i listed

If you can name 9 players from any one country better than those 9 English then i will concede

My original point was that England punched above their weight in the '90 world cup. We were poor in '86 and lucky to even get the chance to be put out by Maradona and his Hand of God, lost three out of three in the '88 Euros in Germany and then were even lucky to be at World Cup 1990 with a draw in the final qualifier putting us though by a point. This is not the record of a team that is likely to win a world cup, regardless of how talented each player is individually. For me, this makes our achievement in 1990 ever the better because we succeeded above all expectations and at least went out with some pride.

However, if we were talking about best song by a football team...

super_realist wrote:The difference with the sweaties is that we don't claim to be good at anything, whereas England think their national team is the nuts when in fact they are rubbish, well at least the media and a large section of fans do.

That's not fair - up until the last 50 years or so you were one of the world's greatest inventors. Since then, no one can take heroin in a council flat with as much dignity as a Scot. And I'm pretty sure that none of our managers are under 24 guard because the fans have got nothing better to live for...

All that past stuff is irrelevant. It's like saying Westwood isn't world number 1 becuase he used to be world number 250.

They had the best bunch of players at the tournament as is proven by it being impossible to name a better bunch, and there's no allegation that they were not united as a team

It just happens that the best team lost out narrowly over a one off game to another very good team. This happens

Sharrison

That would be 'your' Scottish managers then.
How many in the EPL now?

MustPuttBetter wrote:All that past stuff is irrelevant. It's like saying Westwood isn't world number 1 becuase he used to be world number 250.

They had the best bunch of players at the tournament as is proven by it being impossible to name a better bunch, and there's no allegation that they were not united as a team

It just happens that the best team lost out narrowly over a one off game to another very good team. This happens

In football the immediate past is very relevant because it gives a good account of how a team is playing coming into a tournament and England were not in good form going into 1990.

You and I are both too young to actually remember the other players on display so I have just listed the ones that I remember - apparently Vialli, Mancini and Ancellotti were also in the Italy team. It was also in a time when European football was not as big as it is now and so the best individual players are difficult to judge but it is easy to just list our English players as being world class because those were pretty much the only ones we watched - with no Sky, Goal Italia in a Sunday was about your lot for European football.

I think this debate has pretty much run it's course - you evidently believe that having the best individual players makes England the best team yet I am content with looking at them as a team and then assessing their team performance coming into the tournament to judge their achievement. It is a team game after all.

Hang on, could have sworn I clicked on the golf section?

Not sure how this has become a football debate.

I for one think it is ridiculous to cast aside 'older' players. Angel Cabrera is certainly an example that age is no barrier. If you have the game, you can win a major.

It was an amazing performance by Rory no doubt, but let's not get too carried away. He is only 22 and has got miles ahead of him. Looking at Jack Nicklaus's record is a bit too soon. Jack had amazing longevity. To think he was 22 when he won his first Major and 46 when he won his last. There's a long way to go.

It shall be interesting to see how the rest of the golfing calendar turns out.

Doon the Water wrote:Sharrison

That would be 'your' Scottish managers then.
How many in the EPL now?

That's part of the Scottish dream - work hard and you get to enjoy life in England...

Sharrison, form coming into a tournament gives you a good estimate of who's doing well yes. It does not give you a definitive answer on who is the best team.

I don't believe having the best individuals makes the best team. I haven't said that. I do though think it's a huge contributing factor that's true.

What i believe it that we had the best team. But that team did not win. I accept that sometimes the best team does not win and it is this concept that you seem to either unable to grasp or strongly disagree with. Either are fine, that's up to you

This has run it's course, that much is agreed

'That's part of the Scottish dream - work hard and you get to enjoy life in England'

Nah I did it the other way, moved to England, worked hard, took thier money then retired back to beautiful Scotland.

MustPuttBetter wrote:Sharrison, form coming into a tournament gives you a good estimate of who's doing well yes. It does not give you a definitive answer on who is the best team.

I don't believe having the best individuals makes the best team. I haven't said that. I do though think it's a huge contributing factor that's true.

What i believe it that we had the best team. But that team did not win. I accept that sometimes the best team does not win and it is this concept that you seem to either unable to grasp or strongly disagree with. Either are fine, that's up to you

This has run it's course, that much is agreed

I'm pretty sure that I can grasp that very simple notion. Those very players that you believe to be "world class" and the best in the world in 1990 were evidently world class for just one tournament because they were not world class in '88 and neither were they in '92. Contrast that to "world class" performances by Germany in '86, '88, '90, '92 and Argentina in '86, '87, '89, '90, '91, '93 during which neither team finished outside the top 4 then I will stand by my original statement that England were not the best team coming into and at that world cup.