Did Keegan Bradley make the correct Ryder Cup decision?
Each week, we ask our panel of writers, PGA members and golf industry experts to weigh in with their views on the hot topics of the day.
Last week Keegan Bradley finalized his Ryder Cup team with his six captain’s picks and did not include himself. He also bypassed Top 12 finishers Maverick McNealy and Brian Harman to take #14 Cameron Young, #15 Patrick Cantlay and #16 Sam Burns. What do you think about Bradley’s picks and is the US team stronger or weaker without Bradley on it?
Jim Deeks, Fairways Magazine (@jimdeeks): I’ve said for weeks that Bradley should have recused himself from playing, and I applaud him for doing so. I don’t understand why McNealy and Harman were bypassed; what made them undeserving? Bradley’s fear that they might not be competitive? Come on. Anybody can win, or lose, in match play. Which is why I would also say Bradley’s team is neither weaker nor stronger without him on it, either way. (Go Team Euro!)
Craig Loughry, Golf Ontario (@craigloughry): I still say Bradley should have taken himself, he’s playing too well not to be on that team (better than all his picks pretty much especially Cantlay). Cantlay is the only questionable there for me here, Bradley should have taken himself and left hatless molasses off the team. Team USA is weaker without Bradley on the team, I’m not sure how you could argue otherwise.
Michael Schurman, Master Professional / Hall of Fame Member, PGA of Canada: The Captain should either choose all 12 or use the standings of the top 12. McNealy is a marvellous putter, and Harmon is a grinding, bulldog. I agree the Captain shouldn’t play, so any of the three he chooses is fine with me to replace himself. Weaker isn’t the word I’d use; ‘fair’ comes closer to it. Whenever you replace a higher finisher with a lower one, the team becomes weaker.
TJ Rule, Golf Away Tours (@GolfAwayTJ): He took the safe, veteran picks, but maybe not the best ones. Particularly on the US team, I believe it’s important to always inject new blood to bring some of the younger guys along. I think Maverick McNealy deserved a spot and not sure that Patrick Cantlay brings much to the team, especially on the team dynamics side of things. Although maybe all of the other guys like the childish not-wearing-a-hat type antics. I think the decision not to play himself was likely a good one in the end, he can concentrate on trying to bring the team together more than previous versions.
Peter Mumford, Fairways Magazine: I think Bradley weakened his team by not including himself. None of the replacements are as strong as the three who finished inside the Top 12. Burns proved twice this year that he can’t close and Cantlay is an annoying distraction for his own team as well as the fans. Bradley also missed a chance to do something historic; he chickened out by taking the safe route and it may backfire on him.
On Monday, Luke Donald finalized the European team and basically stuck with the rankings, except for ditching #12 Matt Wallace in favour of #24 Jon Rahm. Donald’s team is identical to the 2023 team that walloped the Americans in Rome except Rasmus Hojgaard is in and his twin brother Nicolai is out. With only one change from the 2023 winning team, do you think the Europeans will be favoured when the Ryder Cup is played in New York?
Deeks: Despite the almost identical team, and the inclusion of Rahm, I think Team Euro is at a disadvantage simply because of the location of the event. For each of the Euro players, competing at Bethpage will be like being a solo Spanish gladiator facing a pride of lions in the middle of the Roman Coliseum, with the crowd 100% in favour of the lions and screaming “KILL! KILL!” (Or to be more accurate, “NECA! NECA!”)
Loughry: I do think Team Europe should be considered the favourites, but this is in NY at Bethpage Black. New Yorkers are known to be a bit, uh, voiceful (hopefully in good taste). Rahm for Wallace is the right call (a tough one) but the right one. I’m not sure I’m going to miss a single televised shot in this Ryder Cup.
Schurman: I check the labels of everything I buy. My preference is European.
Rule: Not sure they will be favoured as they will be in very hostile territory on Long Island, and that has to give the US some advantage. From a player perspective, they are probably closer than ever in terms of talent and form, and given their unity and success in Italy, you’d have to give them a good chance, but they’ll have to deal with the rowdy NYC fans, so they better get off to a good start! I personally think they will and will make a good competitive competition out of it, but there’s lots of time between now and the event, so I check back with me in a few weeks!
Mumford: Hard to argue with the home field advantage, especially with the savage New York fans. The memory of them counting Sergio Garcia’s incessant regripping is still quite vivid. However, the Euros have more experience and, on paper at least, a stronger team. They should be favoured but I don’t expect a rout like in Rome.
This year the LPGA has had 23 different winners in 23 events. Quite a change from last year when Nelly Korda won seven times. Do you like it better when there’s such parity or do you prefer it when there’s a dominant player?
Deeks: I kinda like an even mix. A dominant player promotes more fan interest, but a different winner every week certainly indicates a wealth of talent. And while I’m delighted to see so many non-American winners, I’m equally sorry that there doesn’t seem to be a single American player in the leaderboard mix most weeks, since Nelly has faded from top form. Now, if only Brooke can take the CPKC win and return to former glory, THAT would be just terrific for her, for the LPGA, and for Canadian pride.
Loughry: Pretty crazy year for the winner’s circle in 2025 for the LPGA Tour. When one player dominates, it creates headlines and generates some interest week to week in the Tour. But I like a variety of players winning on Tour, especially if it’s an unknown player breaking through. I’ve noticed Lottie Woad (one win) go from 337th in the world earlier this year to 15th. She’s definitely one to watch at 21 years old.
Schurman: Parity brings many things along with it. More balanced treatment by the fans, less chance of favour by tournament officials, and more equal TV time. It also builds stronger initiative in younger players, as they know they can win. The greater good, growing the game around the world, is better served.
Rule: I hadn’t actually realized that, and that’s a crazy stat, it just goes to show the parity in the ladies’ game these days. But I still think it’s best when there is a dominant player for others to chase. It’s great watching Scottie do it on the men’s tour, and it was nice having Nelly in that role last year. Not sure who the next lady is to take that spot, but can we dream about it being Brooke in 2026 maybe? One can dream!
Mumford: A dominant player usually works best when there’s a foil or a villain. All the international players appear very nice and polite and respectful, which is terrific if you’re selling golf to little girls, but not so great when you’re trying to get fans invested in cut-throat competition and rivalries. Someone is bound to pull ahead eventually, and another will cast herself as the villain. Nelly Korda vs Charley Hull seemed like good casting this season to generate some fireworks but neither has shown up for work yet.
