Take a mulligan: Phil Mickelson got what he deserved
One hole -- that's all it takes in golf to go from near legendary status (joining Tiger and Ben Hogan with 3 majors in a row) to goat. Phil had the chance to lay claim to being the No. 1 golfer in the world and true rival to Tiger. Instead, Phil let it all slip away, on one hole.
After Monty was out, I was rooting for Mickelson to close the deal. But the self-proclaimed "idiot" Phil chose to hit driver on 18, and it cost him dearly.
That was the stupidest decision Phil made --- even more stupid than Phil trying to hit his 4-wood out of thick rough from only 147 yards away, only to whiff the ball about 1 foot. Before the 18th hole, Phil had sprayed his driver all over the course, hitting only 2 of 13 fairways. For all of his weeks of meticulous preparation, Phil played wild and reckless in the final round. Phil admitted that he "couldn't hit a fairway all day," but then, amazingly in the same breath, thought driver was the club to hit on 18 because he thought he could hit his "bread and butter" cut fade. The illogic in that reasoning should've been apparent to someone in the Mickelson camp, like how about Bones, his caddy. Bones should've told Phil that his "bread and butter" was toast.
True, there's no guarantee that Phil would've found the fairway with his 4-wood (he didn't have a 3-wood in the bag) or even an iron. Remember the Ryder Cup when Phil, playing with Tiger, sliced his 3-wood so far left on the 18th hole that he left Tiger with an unplayable lie along the fence? Still, Phil should have played the percentages because he had the lead; anything but driver would've been safer and smarter on the final hole.
And, even after Phil got a lucky bounce off the hospitality tent to stay somewhere in play, Phil went for broke attempting to hit a huge slice 3-iron through the trees. Before he hit, my sister asked me: "Why doesn't he just pitch out? He can still make a playoff with a bogey." I had no good answer other than: "This is the tournament. If he hits a tree, he's dead." Sure enough, he did. Game over, man.
6 Comments:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as Phil is standing on the tee, isn't he watching Oglivy hit an approach shot from the fairway to the 18th green? And at that point he knows that Monty has doubled and that Geoff is alone is second place, just one stroke behind him? If I'm Phil I'm assuming the Geoff birdies and that I need to make par for a playoff. Therefore I'm taking out driver.
However, before he hits the second shot, he knows Geoff made par. He just needs to punch out, get up and down to win. An almost certain bogey gets him a playoff, where he will have an enormous advantage in experience and crowd support. Yeah, the second shot was dumb, not the decision to hit driver. Now the 4 wood from the rough earlier.....????? Still don't think it was VandeVeldian though. He didn't have a 3 shot lead on the tee at 18 and bogey at Winged Foot is a normal score.
Yeah, but if he saw Ogilvy's approach, he could have heard the murmurs and the ball roll off the green and Ogilvy kinda slump over. Phil then would have known that birdie was not in the offing for Ogilvy.
Here's a new take. I think that Phil's collapse is worse than the 1999 British Open debacle of Jean Van de Velde. Phil is considered one of, if not the, top player in golf. Van de Velde is a good player, but he was never, and never will be, one of the game's top players. Top players aren't supposed to blow major championships the way that Phil (and Monty) did at Winged Foot. Phil showed a complete lack of thinking in his decisions on Sunday. I hear people blaming his caddie for failing to talk him out of hitting driver. That's hogwash because the decision is ultimately Phil's and his alone. He should have hit a 4-wood or long iron and made his par or, at worst, bogey. His second shot might have been even worse. Why in the world would you not punch out and rely on your short game (your supposed strength) to get up and down?
Nicklaus and Tiger and the other great players never would have played that way. Maybe you like Phil because he's a gambler, but his style cost him a US Open. If you like that style of play, fine, but if the object is to win tournaments, you win by whatever it takes to win. If that means playing safe, do it!
Two very good points, thanks.
First, I just read a comment from Bones. They definitely could tell that Geoff did not hit the green on 18 with his approach. Still, Phil would have to assume Geoff would get up and down and Phil would need a par to win. Nobody with any confidence is going to be playing for bogey-playoff in that situation. Therefore, I think it is unfair in hindsight to criticize the choice of driver off the tee. The mistake was the second shot and probably the third. Also the 4 wood in the rough on an earlier hole is just as huge.
The Mickelson/Van DeVeld comparison is a good one. Arnie's double at 18 at Augusta in '63 is not looking good in that light. I mean, Arnold Palmer doubling an relatively easy hole that he's played a hundred times? Would be clearly worse than Phil, except that apparently he just made some bad swings. Like Vandy, Phil made course management errors.
In my opinion all this shows the greatness of the game of Golf and nothing else.
I found myself behind tree yesterday and I asked myself. "What would Phil do?"
Got to get that "What would Geoff do?" mentality.
Post a Comment
<< Home