I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this weeks Tour Confidential will be more forward-looking than is typical...so, shall we join the Sports Illustrated scribes?
1. Phil Mickelson has long been the most unpredictable player in golf. So what’s your prediction for Mickelson this week at Pinehurst?
Joe Passov: Lefty showed some life at Memorial, and played very well at Memphis, in spite of the very real
distractions. Plus, he's handled Pinehurst nicely in the past. Yet, his once genius short-game arsenal has displayed some cracks, and he's been iffy with the kind of four-footers one has to sink with regularity to win a U.S. Open, so those are negatives. Add it up, and I believe that the distractions will work in his favor, and he's peaking at a good time. I see him among the final groups on Sunday -- but not winning.
Michael Bamberger: Seventh second. No FBI interviews. Two putters.
Gary Van Sickle: Phil will have at least one compelling early round that grabs the nation's attention then revert to the inconsistent golf he's been playing of late and won’t be a factor.
Josh Sens: Based on an insider tip from Carl Icahn, I'm shorting him. Big.
Mark Godich: Phil will have his moments, but I don't see him contending. He looks tired to me. Hope I'm wrong.
Jeff Ritter: Phil still doesn't have a single top 10 this season, so you might say something like T35 is most likely, which is why he'll probably either win or MC.
Alan Shipnuck: The forecast on Phil: cloudy ... with a chance of meatballs.
My Take: I'm just relieved that Joe didn't consider Phil's T3 in the San Diego Mixed Pinehurst his sophomore year in high school to be a favorable development. That boy would give you three graphs in response to a Yes-No question.
Pinehurst should be an absolutely perfect U.S. Open for Phil. Not a square inch of rough, 'cause you know Phil does miss the occasional fairway, and it rewards short game prowess. But not the Phil we've seen in 2014, who doesn't have a Top Ten and missed the cut at the two biggest events to date. I agree with him that it's the little things that have hampered his performance, if by little things we mean driving, iron play, chipping, pitching and putting.
But we've seen golfers in general and Phil specifically turn it on a dime, so this is why we all love sports. No one knows nothing, and just remember you heard it here first.
2. Other than Mickelson, who are the most compelling U.S. Open contenders?
SHIPNUCK: Rory and Adam Scott, for sure. Both have been playing well but still have much to prove. Bubba, too, for that matter. Pinehurst is probably the best Open venue he'll face -- can he win a major outside of Augusta city limits?
GODICH: It's the usual suspects: Bubba, Adam and Rory. The game is sorely in need of a dominant star. I'll also be interested to see how Jordan Spieth handles the spotlight. He may be only 20, but he's already set the bar awfully high.
VAN SICKLE: The soap opera that is Rory McIlroy is pretty interesting. Plus with two majors, he's playing for history. Steve Stricker, who has never won a major and is one of the most popular players on the tour, would be very compelling.
BAMBERGER: McIlroy, Scott and a player to be named later. But he will be an American, under 30, possibly a heavyweight, but he could be exceedingly skinny, and he will captivate us for three days.
SENS: But of the guys with a serious shot, I think Furyk is interesting to watch (despite the agonizing putting routine). He's won an Open, come through a bunch of recent heartache, and he's been playing well.
PASSOV: Watch out for Carolina boy (and former Open champ) Webb Simpson, who shook off some rust with a final-round 65 at Memphis to finish third. Matt Kuchar will also make some noise. Sans Tiger, and coupled with the new, unfamiliar version of Pinehurst No. 2, this is the most wide-open Open in years.
RITTER: I want to see if any of the guys who've been blanked in majors can finally snag one, particularly Spieth, Fowler, Kuchar, Snedeker and Westwood. Rory winning No. 3 would be massive. Jimmy Walker could win and become the front-runner for POY. And what about Watson getting halfway to a Bubba Slam? If you love golf, there are plenty of reasons to be psyched for this week.
My Take: Is Joe's man-crush on Adam Scott officially over.
I might have taken Kooch based upon his scrambling stats, though that Williams guy grabbed him in the dark of night. Then again, Kooch hasn't exactly been the best closer this year...
The set-up might work for Bubba, but guys just don't win back-to-back in the age of parity.
Justin Rose is the best ball-striker out there, but see above.
The bombers might be able to bomb it, so perhaps Dustin John warrants a mention, though last I looked he's still, you know, Dustin Johnson.
Jason Day is due to break through one of these days, but he hasn't played in a tournament since the Carter administration.
Can I get back to you?
3. Where does Pinehurst No. 2 rank among the courses on the unofficial U.S. Open rota (Pebble, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, etc.)?
PASSOV: I'll give the nod to Pebble Beach for aesthetics and Oakmont for the "sternest but fairest" test. Shinnecock Hills gets my vote for the most complete test of all, thanks to its variety, terrain and potential for wind, which amps up the shotmaking requirements.
VAN SICKLE: Pinehurst No. 2 has hosted only two Opens, and now it's a different, remodeled layout. It's too early to tell where No. 2 should rank. I didn't think the old version was among the top-tier sites. Maybe the new version will be, but I'll withhold judgment.
BAMBERGER: Really hard to say because it seems we will have seen three different Pinehurst courses. The first two -- don't shoot me -- never did much for me. I haven't seen the new version yet. In the snaps, it looks great.
GODICH: I'm not ready to put No. 2 in my top three, but I like the unique challenges the greens present. I think we're going to see a lot of creativity around the greens.
SHIPNUCK: Hard to say just yet. It was a perfect test in '99, but they bitched the setup in '05, with greens that were too firm and too much sand in the chipping areas. It's much more visually interesting but may be a tad too easy to rank as a preeminent Open venue.
RITTER: With three Opens in 15 years, it's clear the USGA loves Pinehurst. I happen to think Pebble is America's best Open venue, and might put Pinehurst in the next tier with Oakmont, Shinnecock and Bethpage.
SENS: It can't compare with the scenery of Pebble or Shinnecock, but it's every bit as tough as all of them. Architecturally, it ranks behind all but Winged Foot on Golf Magazine's Top 100 list, and I agree with that placement.
My Take: Ummm Josh, what scenery at Shinnecock? It's near the ocean, but that doesn't mean you can see it... I would also quibble with Shipnuck's assessment of the '99 set-up, as anything involving deep Bermuda rough is a crime against humanity.
I wish the question had been more precisely worded, because it's not clear whether they're ranking venues as a golf course or as a U.S. Open venue, which are two entirely different matters. I think one of the truly great things about Pinehurst is how well it plays for Resort guests, as they can spray the ball a bit and survive.
Many of the wider universe of golf writers have predicted that No. 2 will play harder than any other Open venue, including Oakmont. That will depend on the USGA's ability to keep the greens firm and fast in the face of thunderstorms predicted for each day this week. Watch the boys play into the 5th and 9th greens, then draw your own conclusions.
4. Tiger Woods will miss his second consecutive major this week as he continues his recovery from back surgery. How much of a shadow does Woods’ absence cast on Open week?
GODICH: There is always a void when Tiger isn't in the field. I'm always curious to see whether he still has any major magic left. Who wouldn't love to see him make one more run?
BAMBERGER: Oh, really none at all, by the time Thursday afternoon rolls around, and you have 156 other guys playing for our national championship. But I certainly hope his recovery is going well. The game is more exciting when he's in contention.
SENS: A giant shadow, a Mordor-over-Middle-Earth size shadow. He's by far the greatest of his era, probably the greatest ever, and despite all his recent struggles, any major he doesn't play in still has an asterisk beside it.
SHIPNUCK: He was missed at the Masters because the news was still sinking in, but at this point he's merely an afterthought. It will be awesome when Tiger returns, but until then, the game is doing fine.
RITTER: For the media, Tiger's absence will loom largest from Monday to Wednesday. Once the tournament begins, we'll have fresh stories and new faces to distract us. But I have a hunch the Tiger Void will play a role in another round of sagging TV ratings, just as it did at Augusta.
VAN SICKLE: Tiger's absence will be duly noted Tuesday and Wednesday, I suppose, but Phil's presence more than makes up or it. Like any tournament, once the Open begins, the focus is on the players who are there and the heroics they are performing, while the players who aren't there are of absolutely no consequence.
PASSOV: Just as with the Masters, Tiger's absence casts a gigantic shadow. What's great is that there are so many other compelling storylines to distract us, but the reality is that we will miss Tiger, just as he will miss Pinehurst.
My Take: Less than at Augusta but, as the boys note, it's always good to have the alpha dog in the mix.
But I'll take exception to Josh's asterisk comment. I felt that way about a couple of Padraig Harrinton's majors when the Striped One was on the DL. But the man hasn't won a major since 2008, and the presumption that on the Thursday of a major he's the guy to beat is no longer operative.
5. For the first time ever, the U.S. Open will be played on a course with no rough. Barring severe weather, does this mean we’ll have an atypical U.S. Open winning score – significantly under par -- or do you expect to see a typical U.S. Open winning score – somewhere around par or a little under?
VAN SICKLE: If the winning score isn't under par at an Open, that course has either been overly tricked up or subject to unusual weather conditions. These guys are that good, they should shoot under par. I think under par wins at Pinehurst.
SHIPNUCK: I think 6 under wins it, which is definitely atypical.
 |
| The maniacal fifth green. |
Rory McIlroy told me that he won't fire at a single pin all week -- his plan is to hit it to the center of every green and two-putt. Add it all together, and even par feels like another winner this week.
GODICH: Remember how worried everybody was at this time last year, how little old Merion was going to be defenseless? How'd that work out? It's the U.S. Open.
BAMBERGER: First off, I LOVE the idea of no rough. A course doesn't need rough, at all. Some of the great links land courses would be hugely more fun if -- oh, the sacrilege -- they'd go in there with sheep and mowers and CUT IT DOWN. The lack of rough will have almost no impact on scoring, as the greens will be so hard, in every sense. Five under, if there's not rain, will win by at least a shot. (Note: I am almost always wrong about these bold statements.)
PASSOV: Even with rain, the sandy subsoil and superb drainage will let No. 2 play like No. 2. However, to play as it should in its newly restored incarnation, it needs to be crispy, especially on the edges, where the extra roll out will cause all sorts of havoc. If they can keep it dry, scores will hover around par. If it's soft, the lads will go low, due to the extra width.
SENS: The winning scores at Pinehurst in 1999 was 1 over. In 2005, it was even par. The prime defense at Pinehurst has always been its greens, and that's still the case. Given those crowned surfaces, the USGA won't have any problem protecting par, which it always seems intent on doing.
My Take: I have given absolutely no thought to the winning score, a subject that doesn't interest me greatly. But I can't see it too crazy under par unless the course is playing way too soft.
The phrasing of the question implies that the waste areas will play easier than the rough, which I think remains to be seen. But the fairways are a good bit wider than they were before the C-C restoration, so even with the firmer edges the guys should hit more fairways.
6. Fox Sports is taking over the U.S Open from NBC Sports in 2015, so this will likely be our last U.S. Open with Johnny Miller on the mic. How much will you miss Miller next year?
BAMBERGER: Johnny Miller is the voice of the U.S. Open. It is actually a lesser event without him. Fox could bring in Tom Watson, or maybe Curtis Strange, and that would be a good thing. But nobody is replacing Johnny.
VAN SICKLE: Miller will be badly missed. The only two golf analysts who even remind you remotely of Johnny are Brandel Chamblee and Paul Azinger, neither of whom has the top job in the tower at 18 for any network. Miller's departure will leave a definite void of objectivity.
GODICH: I appreciate and look forward to Johnny's candidness. He'll be sorely missed. As will the best broadcast team in golf.
PASSOV: Johnny Miller will be hugely missed from U.S. Open telecasts. Sure, he defaults to some of the same commentary and analysis at times, but nobody was better prepared, or could break down swings as to what went wrong, or be as on-the-spot candid as Johnny, and for this jaded viewer, that was very much appreciated. As with my favorite football analyst John Madden, I'm partial to the guys that can and do predict what's going to happen before it happens.
RITTER: I think Norman will be a good analyst for Fox, but there's no one else in sports like Johnny. I'll miss him.
SENS: A lot. He's my favorite guy to listen to. He might not always be right but he's consistently interesting. In an age of bromides, he's not afraid to administer a few bitter pills. Polarizing, of course, but the fact that so many people feel strongly about him one way or the other is a sign that he's doing his job well.
SHIPNUCK: Terribly. Have you ever heard about the 63 he shot at Oakmont?
My Take: Johnny shot 63 at Oakmont? Who knew? You'd think he'd have mentioned it at some point...
I'm guessing that Greg Norman will make us miss Johnny to a great extent. He;s always been at his best in the biggest events, and his love of and respect for the U.S. Open comes through vividly. He of course drives the guys crazy, but he's not there to make friends and he's as brutal talking about his own game as he can be about other players.
Though I think this misses the bigger issue with the Fox broadcasts is how they'll populate the rest of the team. With all of the experienced cameramen, on-course reporters and unpaid interns (OK, just kidding with that last one) still under contract to either CBS or NBC, what will the full team look like?
No comments:
Post a Comment