Ryder Cup is not a superpower challenge

The tension is building as the Ryder Cup is now less than a day away from getting underway at Celtic Manor. It’s a huge occasion, massive, but the Telegraph’s Brian Moore has moved to play party pooper by attempting to rein the media, of which he is now one.

After Europe thumped the US in the 2006 Ryder Cup, captain Ian Woosnam publicly slated the BBC for not awarding his men the Sports Personality Team of the Year award, which went to St Helens rugby league club.

Perhaps he should have noted that, first, it was a vote by the fans that determined that award, and second, Europe that year had a far better team, were expected to win and did so; you should not get awards for doing the expected.

Behind Woosnam's displeasure lay the assumption that the Ryder Cup was such a special event that the winners, provided it is Europe, automatically deserve the accolade. That supposition appears to have evolved along with the purposeful portrayal of the tournament as something akin to war.

The structure of the Ryder Cup creates a number of interesting variables. Chief among these is that the US compete as a country outside their own borders, which is not the case in their three major sports. It is interesting to see how essentially solo performers react when asked to be part of a team. Moreover, the way in which the pairings and singles matches ebb and flow during the four days is fascinating, but let's get one thing straight – this is a golf competition, not some form of superpower challenge with attendant political ramifications.

This 2010 contest has the potential to be memorable, but for the wrong reasons. The choice of Tiger Woods in the US team has given some writers what they wanted: another chance to try to needle Woods into giving an undiplomatic reaction to a plethora of regurgitated and irrelevant questions about his personal life, many of which have the most tenuous connections to golf.

In a press conference on Tuesday one reporter showed not a shred of respect for Woods when he sneeringly put the following question: "You don't win majors any more, you don't win regular tournaments, you're about to be deposed as world No 1… is the Ryder Cup now your most important thing now you're almost an ordinary golfer?"

When Woods was faced with this impertinence he should have left the conference as no sportsman should have to put up with insulting behaviour. He stayed and tried to laugh it off because he knew that had he departed he would have been pilloried.

Had something similar been put to Sir Alex Ferguson about Manchester United the questioner would have got the answer he deserved. Had anyone mockingly asked me something similar in my playing days he would have got a righteous slap.

Nobody is asking for sycophantic toadying, but Woods is entitled to expect the basic courtesy that should be given to any interviewee; it is common decency.

Another reporter tried to generate sensation by asking what reaction Woods had seen from the US team's wives given that they play such a large part in the Ryder Cup. A large part; are they now involved in the planning and playing? And there were we just thinking they dressed smartly and cheered on their men.

There is sufficient rivalry, both on a team and a personal level, without the need to manufacture a personal spat between Woods and Rory McIlroy. The young Ulsterman's original comment, that he would not mind playing against Woods, came after Woods had shot 18 over par at Bridgestone.

When facing the media this week McIlroy was again peppered with questions about Woods and stressed the context of his comments. When pressed, McIlroy said nothing that could justify the claim made by the media that he had continued to stoke the supposed rivalry. What this should make plain to McIlroy is that no matter how neutral he thinks he is being, anything that he says can and will be twisted to suit the ends of those pursuing their own agenda.