Montgomerie left in lose-lose situation after settling on his Ryder Cup line-up

Montgomerie had perhaps the hardest job faced by a Ryder Cup captain and while some will have quibbled at his prevarication over that precious 30 minutes the fact was that even had he sought an extra day – or even a week – his choice would not have been made any easier.

Montgomerie rose yesterday morning knowing seven of the 12 players who would face the traditional foe on the banks of the Usk and he was working on the premise that two more would play their way into the team in the tournament at Gleneagles which finished yesterday afternoon. As it was, a stunning victory for Edoardo Molinari made sure he would receive one of the captain's picks; Montgomerie dare not do otherwise.

Miguel Angel Jimenez and Peter Hanson duly cemented their places by virtue of their high finishes in Scotland, which consigned Malton's Simon Dyson to the role of gallant but ultimately unsuccessful challenger.

With three of his remaining five places filled by competitors from the field in Scotland, Montgomerie's expected choice of three from the four who had chosen to play in the FedEx Cup event rather than cross the Atlantic and earn automatic qualification by way of adding to their points total came down to a choice of two from Padraig Harrington, Justin Rose, Luke Donald and Paul Casey. No wonder he asked for another few minutes.

Any other Great Britain and Ireland or, latterly, European captain would have been delighted to have four players of such proven talent available to him; no previous captain could have considered leaving out any of the four.

Montgomerie, pictured right, had no choice; he had to pick two from four and upset two world-class players. This time it was Rose, twice a winner this summer on the US PGA Tour, and Casey, one of the most feared match-play golfers in the game. It could just as easily have been Harrington, winner of three major championships, or Donald, whose Ryder Cup record reads six victories from seven outings.

There will be sympathy across the game for the unfortunate two but most of all there will be – hopefully – an understanding that Montgomerie was placed in a lose-lose position, albeit one of his own making.

He had demanded the right to make the final three picks at the conclusion of the points-gathering process which began last autumn in Switzerland.

Now he knows that no matter how many wildcards he was given, he could not win – his team could not be Europe's strongest because he could not tell the best players where to play.

The only way to achieve absolute fairness in selection is to have the 12-man team chosen purely on points earned with no wildcards; that way we would not have people who should be playing for Europe missing out because they put their own priorities before those of their peer group.

But to insist on such a system would remove from the captain what Colin Montgomerie last night insisted was one of the strengths of his team – the wildcard selections.

How many should there be? When should the decision be made? It is a subject which will figure in debates – lasting much longer than half an hour – in the bars and locker-rooms of European golf for the next month and more.

IN days gone by there would have been an outcry; instead there was a wringing of hands, shrugging of shoulders and a lack of anger which might just have indicated surrender.

The announcement from Lord's that next summer's seven home Test matches would all be played on grounds in the south and Midlands effectively means that cricket enthusiasts across Yorkshire, Lancashire, Durham, Northumberland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and Cumberland will have to travel far and wide if they are to see the national team in action. It was an indictment of the way our national summer game is being run.

But even worse was the statement issued by Giles Clarke, the chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, when the fixtures were confirmed. "We are looking at a reduction in the amount of domestic cricket," he warned. "Next summer could be a dangerous time for counties. If you reduce the amount of cricket there will be redundancies."

Clarke's priority is to fill Test grounds – not necessarily with Test cricket – and maintain the quality of "product" they can sell to Sky. But, being seduced by the money, they miss the point.

Playing less cricket means that producing cricketers of the quality required to play Test cricket becomes ever more difficult and we can see from the present inconsistent crew that we are not over-blessed with talent and that the next generation are not playing enough first-class cricket.

Reduce the number of players and the amount of cricket played and standards will continue to fall, until we arrive at a point when England cannot go into any Test series with any hope of success.

Not having a Test match in the north next season will not be good for the English game but it – particularly the traditional strongholds of Yorkshire and Lancashire – will survive.

Another swathe of changes to the way the game is played domestically will be far more damaging in the long term.