Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

TEE TO GREEN: Beware the 2016 outlier; in the Ryder Cup, experience counts most

Matt Wallace is embraced by Thomas Bjorn after victory in the Made in Denmark tournament.
Matt Wallace is embraced by Thomas Bjorn after victory in the Made in Denmark tournament.

Unlike most recent years, there seems to have been little intrigue and debate about Thomas Bjorn’s wildcard selections for the Ryder Cup, which he announces tomorrow.

Well, until now at least.

The points race was a fairly straightforward process. Only Thorbjorn Olesen made a significant move in the late going, and it took adventurous imagination to believe that either Eddie Pepperell or Matt Fitzpatrick was going to leapfrog him on the final weekend in Silkeborg.

Thus the eight confirmed were largely as we’d thought they’d be in June. It was no fun.

Perhaps because Bjorn has kept his own counsel on his options – unlike three of his last four predecessors – there’s not been much discussion about wildcards at all until the choice is about to be made.

Ian Poulter, with a return to form over the last 18 months allied to his famously formidable record in the event, is the only certainty agreed by everyone.

Henrik Stenson is questionable because of his long-term elbow injury. Paul Casey’s outstanding form has dipped, although after the way he’s been courted back to the fold by Bjorn, a failure to select him would be at least a little awkward.

There’s the Sergio question, although as you might have gathered from the last couple of T2Gs, I don’t believe he is indispensable or actually deserving of a pick.

The high-season, big order events were the place for him to show he couldn’t be left out, and his response was to miss the cut in all four majors and fail to qualify for the FedEx Cup. A tied eighth in the French Open on the host course, although enough to raise an eyebrow, isn’t going to cut it.

Russell Knox really had to win again after Ireland, and he didn’t. Rafa Cabrera Bello and Thomas Pieters, standouts from a well-beaten team at Hazeltine, have kept their hats in the ring but without anything startling.

But matters were truly complicated by Matt Wallace’s astonishing finish in the Made In Denmark event at the weekend. He birdied seven of the last eight holes to win his third event of year.

Wallace, undeniably a top lad and very popular with his peers, is for many of them now a racing certainty.

His finish was reminiscent of Stevie Gallacher’s in Italy four years ago that convinced Paul McGinley – apparently at the 11th hour – to pick the Scot for Gleneagles. Except, of course, Wallace actually won and Stevie didn’t.

As far as we can ascertain, only Johann Edfors in 2006 has won three events and NOT been picked for that year’s Ryder Cup team. But maybe that’s more significant than it would appear.

The man who didn’t pick Edfors was Ian Woosnam. Woosie had two wildcards and spent them on Lee Westwood and Darren Clarke.

The result? The most successful wildcard selection of any captain on either side in either the Ryder or Solheim Cups in the last 20 years. Clarke and Westwood won their two fourballs in partnership, both won their singles, and Westwood had two halves in foursomes. Unbeaten. It’s the only time it’s ever happened.

Westwood is now used, even by this column recently, as a reason to be wary of experienced campaigners running out of gas after his dreadful performance on a wildcard at Hazeltine.

In the same kind of way, Pieters’ amazing four wins from five outings two years ago is now used as incontrovertible evidence that picking a rookie as a wildcard is not a risk.

But a detailed examination – I’ve got the Ryder Cup wikipedia pages on bookmark, I’m that sad – shows that both Westwood (Martin Kaymer too) and Pieters at Hazeltine bucked the trend. Rookie wildcards – rookies in general actually – struggle in the Ryder Cup, experienced players perform.

Including Pieters, the five rookies picked as wildcards by Europe since 2002 have returned just 8.5 points out of a possible 18. The US don’t do much better (they tend to pick rookies as wildcards more often) with 11.5 out of 23.

Even during a hugely successful spell for Europe, debutants have won just 38 points out of a possible 83. You do well to get fifty percent out of your rookies – and only McGinley and – of all people – Nick Faldo have done that.

The “current form” argument for picking rookie wildcards is also misleading. All the rookie wildcards were in great form when picked, they must have been, or they wouldn’t have been picked.

It helps if you’re not hitting it sideways, of course, but players can easily lose form between selection and actually playing. Even the Americans’ TASKFORCE! solution to this problem, picking someone the week before, has not proved particularly fruitful.

It’s because the Ryder Cup is very different to normal golf. History prefers tried and tested players in the format.

Non-rookie wildcards, since 2002, have returned 38 points out of a possible 58. Take out 2016’s statistical outlier, it’s 37 points out of 51. That’s a 73% return.

If they can’t hit their hat like Sergio, then by all means don’t pick. But experience beats a rookie almost every time.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

[[title]]

[[text]]