Screw Your Head Back on Tight: Tiger Woods Still Good for Ryder Cup Team

This article is in response to Adam Lindemer's article, "Why the U.S. Ryder Cup Team Doesn't Need Tiger Woods Anymore," as well as other articles and comments from various media sources that suggest that the U.S. Ryder Cup team was or is better off without Tiger Woods.

Here's a link to Adam's article.  You may want to read his first.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/59981-why-the-us-ryder-cup-team-doesnt-need-tiger-woods-anymore

Without further ado...

Some golf analysts insist on sticking to the notion that the U.S. Ryder Cup Team is better off without Tiger Woods.

My feeling is that they are simply looking to start an argument.  Luckily for them, I will oblige.

The most obvious objection to their argument is that Tiger Woods is the No. 1 player in the world by a significant margin and quite possibly the greatest golfer of all time.  To suggest that the greatest golfer of all-time is weakening or hurting the strength of a golf team just doesn't make sense.

The counter-argument is that Tiger has fared poorly in foursome and fourball matches.  His won-lost-tied record in those team matches is 7-12-1, so this seems like a legitimate point.

But the entire argument focuses on Tiger.  Tiger's record in each of those matches is influenced greatly by his teammate and the opposing team.  When Tiger needs a teammate to hit half the shots in foursomes, you naturally should expect that Tiger will be less dominating in those matches than if he could hit every shot himself.

In addition, to suggest that Tiger is somehow hurting the team implies that there is someone better suited to replace him.  Are we really supposed to believe that Tiger wouldn't have earned more points this year than Steve Stricker (0.5), Stewart Cink (1.0), and Ben Curtis (1.5)? 

Tiger's average in 5 appearances is 2.2, and he has never earned less than 1.5 points in a single Ryder Cup.

In 2006, his most recent Ryder Cup appearance, Tiger had a record of 3-2-0 and earned a team-leading 3 points.  If Tiger did not belong on that team, then neither did the rest of the team, which is an absurd notion.

In 2004, Tiger was second on the team with 2 points and a 2-3-0 record.

In 1999, the only time the U.S. won with Tiger, he had 2 points.  We expect more out of Tiger because he is so dominant in stroke play. 

But at the same time, we praise Anthony Kim, J.B. Holmes, Jim Furyk, and Boo Weekley for leading the U.S. team to victory this year.

All of them had 2.5 points.

Further, now that the U.S. won the Ryder Cup without him, we're hearing that this is more evidence that Tiger has been hurting the team.

This gives no credit to the job done by Captain Paul Azinger and doesn't distinguish the U.S. performance this year from past years, when they couldn't buy a putt.

I think it is fair to expect Tiger to do better in the Ryder Cup, but I also think that if Isaac Newton took the SAT and only scored a 700 on the Math, he would still be accepted into college.

So give the man a break, don't kick a man when he is down with an ACL injury (even if you could steal a million dollars from his wallet), and face the facts.

Tiger Woods belongs on the U.S. Ryder Cup Team, and you better believe that he will lead the team in points at Medina in 2012.

And if you don't, find out what happened in the 1999 and 2006 PGA Championship.