Should the Ryder Cup feature the best
Europeans taking on the U.S. "or merely the best Europeans on
the European Tour?" asked James Corrigan of the London TELEGRAPH. This "is a question Paul Casey has been considering following his controversial decision to make himself ineligible for next year’s match." The Englishman "came under fire last month for declining to rejoin his
home circuit and thus, because of the Europe’s Ryder Cup regulations
which requires players to be Tour members, will miss the encounter at
Hazeltine." Darren Clarke, the
captain, declared his “disappointment,” saying he will concentrate “on
the players who are committed to the European cause,” while European Tour CEO Keith
Pelley was equally firm, claiming that "the
membership rules have just been relaxed." Pelley said, "We have made it very easy for players to retain their membership by
only having to play five out of 37 tournaments outside the majors and
World Golf Championships. If that is not feasible for
Paul, then there is not much else we can do." Casey "was not impressed by Pelley’s comment." Casey said, "I was a little bit miffed that Pelley said something like ‘I made it as easy as possible' for me to play. But it didn’t change for someone like me, who is inside the world’s top 50. Move something -- it’s still 13. My history is fuzzy but correct me if I’m wrong, but it was created to enhance relations between GB & I and the U.S. Is it an exhibition that’s turned into something else or even bigger than that? Would Samuel Ryder [the founder] like to see it tour against tour?" Casey "is not alone in wondering this." Like Casey, Rory McIlroy understands that "the cash cow that is the Ryder Cup is vital to the Tour’s survival, but clearly feels the integrity of the match is being compromised." McIlroy said earlier this year, "In truth, the Ryder Cup should be the 12 best players in Europe against the 12 best in the U.S. In an ideal world they would just go down the rankings and do it like that" (TELEGRAPH, 12/5).
