So said Australia's own Geoff Ogilvy after completing what was a dramatic 4 days of the hardest golf anyone could imagine, viewers and players alike.
Poor Mickelson. He is once again labeled "el-foldo", as he unsuccessfully navigated his way around Winged Foot on the final day....and once again, we are being too harsh.
Golf is a lucky game.....as the greatest golfers have been humbled by putts that have lipped out, iron shots that have been tugged too hard, or drives that didn't come off the face just right....we've seen it over and over again. Why do we hold golfers to a higher standard? Baseball players gets 3 strikes......Here Phil, tee it up again, that's only strike one...
Mickelson didn't lose the US Open....he just didn't win because, (and this will be viewed as the shot that won the Open), Ogilvy caught a lucky break. Let's look at it this way: if Ogilvy's chip doesn't go in on 17, Montgomerie stays with his original iron selection on 18 and stiffs it, and Furyk doesn't second-guess himself a million times and makes his putt on 18....oh yes, and Harrington pars-in, we'd have a different winner. Suddenly, Mickelson playing bingo-bango-boingo on the 18th is not so relevant.
I think what this Open in particular should remind us, is that sports in general, are the original reality show. The only scripts written Sunday were the one's over at Callaway minimizing damage control over drivers: "Here's the new Small Bertha platinum set...featuring...no drivers....!
Yes, Geoff got a lucky break. But I think the whole golf world needs to put perspective on the outcome. Everyone in the field had lucky breaks...both good and bad....(To wit: Ogilvy only hit 3 fairways on the back nine, Mickelson hit only 2 all day, so tell me who was getting more breaks). So what makes one guys' break (good or bad) more critical than the other guy's?
It comes down to who you're rooting for in the real "Survivor".
Thanks for reading. Keep it in the short-grass,