It's Hypocritical to Question Colin Montgomerie's Ryder Cup Selections

When Colin Montgomerie selected Padraig Harrington as one of his three captain’s picks for the 2010 Ryder Cup, it was as if Monty had just selected Jean Van de Velde to hit a shot over a burn to save the world.

Uproar spread like wildfire from the shores of Scotland all the way to Paramus, NJ, where The Barclays was being held.

People were downright shocked over Montgomerie’s decision to select Harrington, who hasn’t won a sanctioned event in two years, over players such as Justin Rose (two PGA Tour wins in 2010) and Paul Casey (ninth ranked player in the world).

Monty’s decision was based almost solely on Harrington’s past accomplishments, most notably his three major championship victories.

Hmm, a selection based on past accomplishments rather than current form or Ryder Cup record… sound familiar?

You’d be hard pressed to find a golf writer, analyst or broadcaster that would question whether or not Woods deserves to be a member of the 2010 U.S. Ryder Cup team.

Almost unanimously across the board people believe that Woods should be selected to the U.S. Ryder Cup team.  But, if Woods were selected today, that decision would be based almost solely on his past accomplishments and not the current state of his game.

Now, Woods is obviously far more accomplished than Harrington.  After all, three major championships is a far cry from 14, and Harrington is ranked 19th in the World Golf Rankings while Woods is ranked number one (albeit, also largely based on past accomplishments).

But for the Europeans, Harrington is more similar to Woods than you may think.

No European since Nick Faldo has won as many majors as Harrington.

Harrington has three times as many major championships as anyone else on the European Ryder Cup team.

Harrington may very well win another major or two before he’s done, which would place him amongst the top-five greatest European golfers of all-time.

Unless Woods goes out and wins this week at the Deutsche Bank Championship, not questioning Corey Pavin’s decision to select Woods based on past accomplishments (if he does indeed decide to put Woods on the team) while bashing Monty decision to select Harrington based on past accomplishments is somewhat hypocritical.

Woods is obviously a much bigger name than Harrington.

But let’s not forget that Harrington is by far the most accomplished European golfer out there.

So, if Corey Pavin HAS to select the most accomplished active U.S. Golfer, why should we question Montgomerie’s decision to select the most accomplished active European golfer?