As is the case every year, there has been an abundant amount of words spent on how difficult this year’s U.S. Open will prove to be. Some are calling this year’s site, the Oakmont Country Club, the toughest Open venue there is, which would be hard to believe after Winged Foot last year, and Pinehurst, Shinnecock, and Bethpage Black in recent years. But this year, the source of the carnage, if there is indeed any, will be of a different nature. At 7,230 yards, Oakmont is not one of the longer U.S. Open venues. In fact, the course is only slightly over 300 yards longer than when the first Open was held there in 1927. Granted, at par 70, it lends itself naturally to scores over par, but with the length being what it is, the major hurdles this week will come from on and around the greens. In fact, it’s been reported that greens will vary greatly in their speed (from 11.5 up to 15 on the stimpmeter) due to elevation and how much sun and wind they are objected to based on where they are located on the course. Not to mention the severe undulations that exist on nearly every green. While the two par fives on the course both measure over 600 yards and the 288-yard par 3 eighth hole is a bit ridiculous, it also has four par fours under 400 yards, almost unheard of by today’s standards. So it’s not the overall length of the course that will cause the heartache, it’s the greens, and three-putts and even four-putts may be commonplace.

All of this may add up to what a lot of golf fans have been waiting for; something that opens up the field to everybody, even the short hitters. Whether this actually plays out is anybody’s guess, and make no mistake, longer hitters will always have an advantage. Provided they can place it where they need to be. But this course may level the playing field somewhat. Figuratively speaking, of course.

Without further ado, here is who I think we’ll be watching come the weekend of the 107th U.S. Open.

Is it their time/Are they ready?

-Adam Scott-Greatness has been predicted and expected for this Aussie for several years. And those expectations got even greater after he won the 2004 Player’s Championship. His current driving accuracy stats (59.65% of fairways hit, 109th on tour) could be his undoing this week. But if he can find a way to maneuver his way around Oakmont, his putting (currently 10th on tour) could secure his first major. At just 26, is he ready? Perhaps.

-Luke Donald-His driving distance is nothing to write home to England about (159th), but his accuracy is (21st). This week, that’s a combination that may bode very well for the 29-year old. He also has five top-ten finishes in 13 events this year, and is ranked ninth in the world. He may be jumping up a bit after this weekend, if he has the maturity to be patient.

-Sergio Garcia-Believe it or not, Sergio is 27th in putting this year. He has long had a tee-to-green game rivaling anyone’s, but it’s been his putter which has let him down many times. Unfotunately, his driving accuracy is way down this year, as he currently ranks 161st on tour. But this week, he may be able to get around that. With Oakmont not being beastly long, as I mentioned, he can probably get away with hitting a fairway wood or long iron off the tee on many holes. If he has the mental discipline to do so. If he can keep it in the short stuff, I like his chances. A lot.

Is it now or never? These players have not won a major, and time is running out . . .

-Stewart Cink-Had a nice run at the Open from ’98-01, including three top tens. And other than his driving accuracy this season, his stats are all pretty good (33rd in both putting and greens in regulation this season). Find a way to keep it in the short grass, Stewart. Many of us are pulling for you. You’ve had many a close call in majors before, and we’d like to see you win one.

-Padraig Harrington-Hard to believe he is 36 already. Like Cink, he has hung around long enough to win a major on more than one occasion, but it just hasn’t happened for him yet. If not for his disastrous finish last year, he may be the defending champion. He has the game, and if he can put the close-but-no-cigars out of his mind long enough, which is much easier said than done, he could very well be your 2007 U.S. Open winner.

-Colin Montgemerie-No one will dispute the fact that Monty has the game. His achievements are well-chronicled. His best chance may have come last year. After hitting a near-perfect drive on the final hole, he had a mid iron into the green. Always a strong iron player, he hit the one shot that he no doubt will think about for the rest of his life if he never wins a major. His short-and-right second shot into thick rough led to a double-bogey, when a par would have won and a bogey would have put him in a playoff. Monty has had one of the world’s most well-rounded, and best, games for a long time. But he’ll be 44 later in the month, and the clock is ticking on his elusive first major victory. It would be a shame if he never wins one. It could very well be now or never for Colin.

Do no be surprised, even a little, ‘cause you heard it here first, if . . .

-Steve Stricker wins. There are certain players who always seem to show up in tournaments like the U.S. Open and the PGA Championship. Players who have a solid game and the mindset to compete in those; Payne Stewart, Lee Janzen, Corey Pavin, etc. Players who may not be much of a factor at other majors, but have the formula to fair well in certain venues like the two I mentioned. They hit fairways, hit greens, and make a few putts. In the late ‘90s, Stricker was becoming one of those, and appeared on the doorstep of the elite players’ home. He knocked a few times, but couldn’t get in. He finished fifth at the U.S. Open in both ‘98 and ’99, and second in the PGA in ’98. Great things were on the horizon. But as we all know, golf is one of the most fickle of sports. He did win the Accenture Match Play title in ’01, and finished tenth at the Masters the same year. But then, for whatever reason, he fell on hard times for the next few years. In 2005, he lost his fully-exempt card for the first time since ’97 after finishing outside the top 150 on the money list for the third straight year. But in ’06, he was back, winning comeback player of the year award. He’s back even farther now, and up to 22nd in the world rankings. Look for him to be a major factor this week. And don’t be surprised if he’s holding the trophy on Sunday.

-K.J. Choi wins. Another player who flies a little under the radar, but always seems to show up in major championships. He’s got the game for this layout. And his victory at the Memorial a couple weeks ago, where he came from five shots down at the start of the final round, showed a stalker’s mentality that I don’t think he knew he had. But he does. And he’s mentally strong enough to win this week.

Maybe someday, but not just yet

-Aaron Baddeley, Paul Casey, Charles Howell III, and Trevor Immelman-I would be surprised if all of these don’t win a major by the time they’re done. But the U.S. Open is as much of a mental test as it is about talent. Each of these are stellar shotmakers, and players on the rise. They will be a factor in this tournament for years to come. Perhaps as soon as next year. But not quite yet.

The Favorites

-Tiger Woods-If I need to expound on this, you’ve clicked on a golf blog by mistake. And it would be hard for you to explain why you’ve read this far.

-Phil Mickelson-Perhaps his name should be a question rather than a statement. Yes, I know his wrist injury will be a factor. But it may be a blessing in disguise. He may be forced to swing less than full from the tee with his driver, which may in turn put him in the fairway more often. If that’s the case, he would have longer shots to the greens, to be sure. But if he can stay out of the brutal rough, he could very well be in the mix on Sunday afternoon. How ironic would it be that he wins the U.S. Open at the place he first injured the wrist while practicing for this tourney a few weeks ago?

-Jim Furyk-He seems to have the game that fits this course perfectly, for what it’s worth. He’s won it before, and has all the prerequisites required of an Open champ. A lot of smart money is on him this week, and I can’t say I disagree much. As this Open starts, he’s about as steady and solid as anyone in the field.

-Vijay Singh-Just about the time people forget about him, he shows us why we shouldn’t. Winner of three majors in his career, it doesn’t appear that his game has tailed off any, even well into his 40s. He’s putting as well as he has in a long time, which could be a very scary thing for the rest of the field.

My pick for this year’s champion? Sergio Garcia. It seems like he’s older than 27, since he’s been a factor in majors for quite awhile now. Which has given him invaluable experience. And I think his mental game, which is what ultimately determines almost every U.S. Open winner, has caught up with his ability. He has all the tools to win. Is he ready? Yes, he is. And this could be the start of something big. Really big.

Thanks for taking the time to read.

As Phil Mickelson crouched over his suddenly meaningless putt on the 18th hole at Winged Foot Sunday, one couldn't help but cringe at the entire scene. The driver in the trees, the three iron off a tree, the plugged lie in the sand, the Phil-bashing that would surely follow, the second and third guessing, and on and on.

Johnny Miller said it was "one of the biggest collapses in U.S. Open history." Ouch. I wouldn't go that far, though. If Phil had blown a four shot lead in two holes, or took and eight when a seven would win, then, yes. But par was a tough score on that or any other hole, save maybe a couple, at Winged Foot. Colin Montgomerie made double bogey after hitting his drive in the middle of the fairway. Don't forget that the winner of the tournament did finish five over par, and this was the sight of a 'Massacre' in 1974, when Hale Irwin won with a score of seven over par. Par therefore actually was a very good score. Although I can understand Mickelson's reasoning for hitting driver, (i.e. if you're going to be in the rough, hit it long and in the rough), a long iron or the four wood he was carrying certainly would have been the more prudent play, with it being the final hole. That aside, I don't know how much he can be faulted for trying his second shot, a three iron around a tree from 210 yards off a decent lie, especially having just witnessed his five iron on 17 in 'rough'ly the same situation. He made the green there, and two putted for par. Watching him address his second shot on 18, I actually expected him to wind up on the green or very near it, and make par to win. I think most golf fans did. That's what he had been doing all day after missing fairways. Perhaps luck just ran out on him, having hit only two fairways all day, which would make the case for hitting a different club off the tee that much stronger. Mickelson's a smart guy, and we say he should have known better. He's also Phil Mickelson, and if any of us were in his shoes with that kind of talent, the chances are pretty good we would have done the same thing, because we've done it before and would bet that we can do it again. In fact, didn't a lot of us expect him to chip in from the rough to make bogey and force a Monday playoff?

The beauty of golf is simple, yet complex, and sometimes very hard to explain or comprehend. There are no bad calls. Usually there are no calls at all. There are no teammates to rely on, nor to blame. No timeouts when you get in trouble. No silly stats like fourth quarter comebacks or quality starts. No player strikes or owner lockouts (yet). Just the player versus the course and the field. The results a player gets are almost always what the player deserves. Your soul is bared to the world when you fail, and you are the sole recipient of the accolades when you win. It, perhaps more than any other sport, is a game based solely on the current status of your ability.

I've wondered many times since Sunday's conclusion what would have happened had Mickelson played more conservatively and hit an iron off the tee. (Can you imagine the outcry had he played it safe and still lost? "What the heck is he doing? That's not Phil! He never plays like that and he picks NOW to do it?!" That certainly would have been an interesting discussion, as well.) There is no guarantee he would have made par even then, though chances are he would have made no worse than bogey. But then the chances were he makes no worse than bogey with driver in his hand, either. (If I'm working at Titleist, I'm proposing a new driver to Lefty. The Callaway just doesn't seem to be 'cutting' it these days).

Arnold Palmer led Billy Casper by seven shots at the turn in the '61 U.S. Open. Palmer decided to go for the record score. His over-agressiveness not only squandered the seven shot lead, but he also lost a playoff the next day, and never won another U.S. Open, though he had already won that tournament in the past. Phil's fall at Winged Foot could very well result in the same fate, leaving him only with a handful of second-place finishes. Only time will tell. We may never know exactly what Phil was thinking on the last hole, but I have a feeling it was something along the lines of "win it here and now. Forget the playoff."

It needs to be noted that Geoff Ogilvy hit two great shots the last two holes to remain at five over--the chip in at 17 and the chip onto the green at 18. The U.S. Open is a war of attrition, and Ogilvy was the last man standing. He deserves 'major' credit for this, and this could catapult him to the next level. That would be bad news for the rest of the tour, since he's proven over the last few seasons that he has the game to compete with just about anybody. And now he has shown he has the mental moxie as well.

Mickelson handled his crushing disappointment with class, as he always does. That is why he has so many fans. He is famous as much for who he is as what he is. He is one of the most prolific autograph signers on the PGA tour, and the masses love him for it. One can only hope he'll be back in major contention, and soon. He said during the Open that he likes the tournament because it's a severe test and it shows him where his game is at. He got an answer he wasn't prepared for at Winged Foot. Where his game goes from here is how he'll be judged in the future. Here's hope that he returns to the top of it.

Thanks for taking the time to read. 

With Vijay Singh fresh off his win at the Barclays Classic, he heads to the U.S. Open with renewed confidence. If a fall from number two in the world to number three can be called a slump, he just broke out of it. And not a moment too soon. Singh now has to be considered a favorite again, and chances are he'll be in contention this week. But the player they all will be chasing is Phil Mickelson, who is the best big-game hunter on tour right now, having won the last two majors. Here's why he'll also win this week at the extremely difficult Winged Foot (or who might if he doesn't).

Favorites:

-Phil Mickelson-After bucking the #### off his back at the 2004 Masters, Phil has become arguably the best player in golf. As I mentioned, he's won the last two majors, showing a mental toughness to go along with the most talented arsenal in the game. All the while flashing a Cheshire cat grin, as if he knows something we don't. He knows, all right. He knows that he is currently the best player in the world. And whether he actually is or not, believing it is his big difference. He's finally been able to pair his exquisite shot-making ability with the grit shown by the all-time greats. The next hurdle he would like to jump--beating Tiger head-to-head in a major championship. (Coming soon to a theater near you.) The one thing going against him this week-he has been on the brink of a few U.S. Opens, and hasn't been able to close the deal. (Still the pick here, though. Possibly going away).

-Tiger Woods-True, he hasn't played any serious golf since the Masters, but can he ever really be counted out? He obviously has the mental aspect of these majors down, but what his game is going to be like after the layoff is the question. Keep this in mind, though: the Open finishes on Father's Day, and since this is the first major without Earl watching, what better motivation could Tiger possibly have than that?

-David Toms-Admittedly, he doesn't hit it as far as the big guns, but distance off the tee doesn't always equate to Open success (see Stewart, Payne; Janzen, Lee; Pavin, Corey; et al.) He's been there before, having a PGA Championship under his belt, and has everything else needed to win this week: a solid short game, solid putting, just solid in general. He has a game (and mindset) similar to Stewart, Janzen, and Pavin--very few mistakes. Keep the ball in play. Win U.S. Opens. If not this year, certainly soon.  

-MIchael Campbell-It seems that once a player wins a U.S. Open, he seems to contend for several years after that. (Stewart, Janzen, Els, etc.). After last year's victory, Campbell now knows how to play the disciplined, pressure-packed game to win. His final round 69 (-1) matched Tiger's and gave him a two-stroke victory over Woods. He'll draw on that if he's in the running Sunday.

-Vijay Singh-Phil Mickelson won the week before the Masters. Vijay won last week. Could be a good omen for Singh. No need to go into his credentials here. He's more than capable.

Don't Be Surprised If:

-Chris DiMarco wins. The temptation to say simply that he's due and leave it at that is overwhelming. But taking into consideration his top ten finishes in majors the last four years, it appears that he's, well, due. Like Toms, not a big hitter, but that's not a factor when he's playing well, as witnessed by his playoff with Tiger at the 2005 Masters, when both of them were seven shots better than the rest of the field. He came withing an eyelash of winning that, and you have to think that he's, well, due, right?

-Stuart Appleby wins. Good international, veteran player who has quietly crept up the world rankings. He's won just enough to stay in the headlines, but still tends to be overlooked by most when it comes to the Big Four tournaments. Doesn't have a weakness in his game, and could be the next great player to emerge.

-JIm Furyk wins. As I said earlier, former Open winners have a knack for playing well in subsequent Opens. He's as steady as they come under pressure, as witnessed by his Ryder Cup play in recent years. He cannot be overlooked. (Don't look now, but he's second on the money list this year).

Dark Horses:

-Kenny Perry-Look at total driving the last couple years (distance and accuracy). He's up there. In fact, he's up there in a lot of stats that matter. Can he do it on golf's grandest stage? No reason to think he can't, unless too many great players get in his way.

-Tim Clark-Finished third in last year's Open. Second in this year's Masters. Donated his first place money in the Nelson Mandela Classic in South Africa in November of 2005 to a deaf girl who needed implant surgery. Go Tim!

-K.J. Choi-Okay, a hunch. Strictly a hunch. But I think he's got the game.

Other 'dark horses' to watch: Scott Verplank, Justin Leonard, Darren Clarke, Padraig Harrington, Thomas Bjorn.

Not Quite Ready Yet:

-Adam Scott-A trendy pick by some. A solid pick in a few years. Great tools, great game. But not now. Too many good players with experience ahead of him.

-Sergio Garcia-As good a ball striker as there is, but his average (at best) putting won't get it done this week. But soon . . .

-Geoff Ogilvy-A real up-and-comer. He'll contend in majors in the next couple years, and could very well have a good showing this week. But he's not quite ready-yet.

What A Great Story It Would Be:

-Fred Couples-One of the most popular players on tour, it was great to see him in contention at Augusta. And it would be great to see it again this week. He still has the game, but time is his enemy. He's got maybe a year of top notch golf left?

-Mark Brooks, David Duval, or Colin Montgomerie, for various reasons. Brooks and Duval are former major winners who haven't done much in a long time. Montgomerie has never won a major, although he's had many close calls. Brooks had a very good stretch in the '90s, including winning the '96 PGA, but has finished out of the top 125 on the money list three straight years. A good showing by him couldn't come at a better time. Duval once had the best game in the world, though it was short lived. He'll certainly be overlooked here, so with no pressure, perhaps he can sneak up on the field. As for Monty, he was Europe's best player for about eight years running, but has no major victories to show for it. He still has a pretty solid game, but his margin for error will be almost non-existent. Granted, all three are (very) long shots, but that's what would make each a great story. 

Thanks for taking the time to read.