Defending Phil (kind of)

Phil Mickelson made a major mistake on the 18th hole of the U.S. Open, costing him a chance at the "Mickelslam" when the British Open rolls around. But, his major mistake was hitting driver off the tee box, not trying to run a low cut up on the green after his tee shot went WAY1 left. How many birdies were there on 18 yesterday? There were 20 birdies over the four days and I think only 2 yesterday. There were 227 pars, 160 bogeys, 24 double bogeys, and 6 other (meaning triple bogey or worse, because there weren't any aces (double eagles) or eagles).

What I'm getting at is that if Mickelson had gone the "safe route" and pitched out into the fairway, chances are that he would have made bogey and been tied with Geoff Ogilvy. Why? Essentially, hitting a tee shot into the trees/gallery/deep rough and then knocking the ball back to the fairway does in two shots what should be done in one shot (assuming the one shot is a solid drive). Of everyone who played 18 during the week, of all the people who hit the ball in the fairway2, at most 20 made birdie. So, the chances of making par hitting your third from the fairway after taking the "safe" way out would have, in all likelihood, doomed Phil to, at best, a playoff. Or, he could have pulled a Monty (see 2 below) and lost it outright bailing out too.

So, Mickelson's best chance at winning on Sunday was to play the shot he played on his 2nd, given the horrible drive. I find it hard to believe that Mickelson is too arrogant or stupid to try a shot that wasn't reasonable. I think he just didn't execute correctly (Shaq doesn't shoot 2-12 from the FT line because free throws are difficult or because he can't make the shot, when he misses, it's a failure to execute properly), just like he didn't execute his drive properly. The interesting thing is that the commentators had remarked previously that Mickelson usually comes through in tight situations. The rationale given is that when he has a narrow target he focuses better and is able to execute the shot just like he is planning. It didn't work out for him on 18 on Sunday, but I'm pretty sure he played a similar type of shot just a few holes earlier and pulled off the low cut around the trees. I think he ended up running that ball up onto the front of the green. If he had obtained a similar result on 18, he probably would have ended up in about the same position as Ogilvy had for his third, after Ogilvy's shot rolled off the false front. Ogilvy made par, allowing him to escape Winged Foot with a 5-over for the tournament. Given Phil's short game, he probably would have ended up doing the same (making 4, that is) and he would have ended up 1 shot ahead of Ogilvy at 4-over. He'd be the U.S. Open Champion.

Comparisons to Frenchman Jean Van de Velde will be made, but that isn't really fair. The average score on 18 for the week was 4.5. Mickelson needed a four to win the tournament. Van de Velde needed a 6 on a par 4 to win the British Open. He ended up carding a 7 and ending up in a 3-way tie and didn't win that playoff. If a 5 would have won the tournament for Mickelson, I doubt he would have used driver and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gone for the green in two given his predicament off the tee. But, he wasn't allowed the luxury. Van de Velde had a meltdown. Mickelson didn't execute well, but what do I care, I wasn't pulling for him3 anyway.

---

1 Was anyone else disgusted that Mickelson had a chance to go for the green after hitting his tee shot off the tent left of the gallery (for reference, the gallery was left of the rough that was left of the fairway on 18)? What do you have to do to hit the ball out-of-bounds at the U.S. Open? At best, hitting a ball that far off-center, Mickelson should have had a lie that made it difficult to get the ball back out to the fairway, he shouldn't have even had the opportunity to go for the green in two. At some point, a shot needs to be bad enough to warrant a penalty. Structures, like the one Mickelson hit, should be far enough away from the fairway that they rarely come into play, and when they do, they should be treated under a special provision: if you hit the tent that is so far to the left that even a 30 handicapper would rarely venture into that territory, you just have to rehit your tee shot and you're hitting 3 (so, it would be like hitting it in the water, or out-of-bounds ... go figure!).

---

2 Colin Montgomerie hit his tee shot on 18 on Sunday into a great position on the right side of the fairway. However, he came up short and right with his 2nd shot and ended up making a double bogey 6 on the hole.

---

3 The biggest problem I have with Mickelson is having to look at him when I watch golf. The man has breasts! This isn't the LPGA! As Ozzie Guillen said (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote - in which I believe he was speaking, to some extent at least, about closer Bobby Jenks) "If you're heavy and good, you're strong, but if you're heavy and bad, you're fat." Mickelson is given a pass on his conditioning because he has a lot of skill. I don't know Mickelson, he may actually be in relatively good shape. But, it's hard to imagine that being in better shape would hurt his golf game. Is it too much to ask professional athletes to at least pretend to be in shape?