Oxford defines a “Captain” as “... the leader of a team, especially in sports.” however, to those of us who have played team sports, we know it to an elected or appointed member of the team.
In many team sports the non-playing leader of the team is called a “Manager” because he manages and assigns the players to positions, which are all designed to maximize the team’s performance.
The Ryder Cup calls the non-playing leader of the team “Captain” when, I maintain, he ought to be called “Manager” because that is exactly what we have long asked our Captain to do. I think this is one of the major reasons why our teams, this most recent one for sure, fail to perform effectively.
Golf is not inherently a team sport. It, like tennis, does not lend itself well to individuals playing as teammates, which could give pause to the Davis Cup folks, but that’s another conversation for another day. Americans love their team sports, but revel in outstanding personal performances.
So, if the leader of the Ryder Cup team is more of a Manager than a Captain, why doesn’t the PGA choose a Captain who is particularly adroit at managing? Presumably he then would surround himself with others of equal management prowess, not more assistants who are not playing.
Presently, the Ryder Cup Captain is a player against whom, sometimes, week-in and week-out, the Ryder Cup Players will be playing along side. There has even been talk of a Player-Captain. I think that’s simply more proof that the PGA is virtually clueless as to what type of person is needed to lead Team USA.
I don’t necessarily think that the “pecking order” that is presently employed is advisable, nor faire to the players who qualify for the team. That “pecking order” would almost assuredly give us a Tiger Woods Captaincy. That’s Tiger Woods, who, once again this Ryder Cup proved once again that he “... does not play well with others ...” yet simply because he was next in line, he’d be installed as Ryder Cup Captain.
Think of it ... The Captain has to be an excellent judge of personality, master of strategy, and able to employ the plethora of statistics. The team’s performance counts on it. He needs to evaluate those personalities during a very concentrated time frame, decide who will team best with whom, make changes in mid-stream, and then do it five (5) times.
I maintain that there are those, well outside of the pecking order of the PGA, who could prove to be up to the challenge, and be a great breath of fresh air.
They don’t necessarily have to be golf people either. The Captain could be from another sport, or business, or education or even the military.
- If a leader in another sport were considered, one might immediately think of Coach K, but what about HIS mentor, Bob Knight? Would not a Lombardi or Landry bode well?
- If a business leader were considered, wouldn’t Jack Welch be an interesting person to consider?
- How many of us knew personalities in our educational experience who did not fit the bill like former Provost Condoleezza Rice.
- Who would not listen and be inspired by General Colin Powell?
Davis Love III is a very nice man, well intentioned, and, I’m sure, of a heart full of best intentions and hope, but he demonstrated none of the qualities Team USA needed. Those whom he chose to assist him did not either, nor do those mentioned as the next in the “pecking order.”
It’s time to think about who is best equipped to MANAGE Team USA, not just lead them from alongside.