Tiger Woods just finished his first tournament back in three months recovering from injury, and the majority of the media are describing his effort as "sloppy," "ordinary," or even just flat-out disappointing.
He finished at a +1, 281 for the four-day Bridgestone Invitational Tournament, 15 strokes off the leader, Adam Scott.
You know who finished worse than Woods?
Phil Mickelson. He shot a +3, 283, and doesn't have the luxury of claiming a long layoff or injury as an excuse for not doing well.
In fact, Mickelson has had a rather terrible season, especially when it's come to Majors (exception was the British Open). Here's where he's finished so far this year:
Masters - T27th
US Open - T54th
British Open - T2nd
He's played 15 events in 2011 so far, won just one, and finished in the top 10 five times. Last year, Phil won the Masters, but it was his only victory all year and he only had six top 10 finishes in 20 tournaments played. Is it just me, or does Mickelson play by a different set of expectations/rules?
I'm not surprised that Woods gets the criticism he does, after his seeming arrogance and domination of the sport for so long. Aside from the personal issues, though, he's dealt with a rash of injuries over the past few years that few athletes have had to endure.
However, it boggles my mind why Mickelson, who also gets a huge amount of attention, doesn't seem to get the same sort of hyper-critical analysis and underachiever tag these past few years.
No comments:
Post a Comment