|
||||
![]() Anthony Kim could catch fire at this week's World Golf Championships-Accenture Match Play Championship (PHOTO: Eddie Meeks). From Tiger Woods’ rehabilitation following knee surgery in 2008 to his self-imposed hiatus following a car accident late last year, his absence at prominent PGA Tour events has fostered an unfortunate feeling of familiarity. But the absence of Woods and fellow Southern California superstar Phil Mickelson from a field designed to gather the 64 best golfers in the world just seems weird. That’s what will happen this week at the World Golf Championships-Accenture Match Play Championship in Marana, Ariz., where that pair will be M.I.A. from the single-elimination slugfest for the first time since 2001. That year, the tournament was held in Australia and no less than 40 eligible players skipped it because of its location and its awkward spot on the schedule. (Interestingly, the ’01 winner was Steve Stricker, who enters the 2010 edition as the No. 1 overall seed.) San Diego’s Mickelson announced in January he would skip the Match Play to embark on a family vacation that was postponed last year in the midst of his wife and mother’s breast cancer diagnoses. It had been rumored Woods would return at the Match Play this year much like he did in 2009 following his rehabilitation. That rumor never materialized, though, and the guessing game surrounding his comeback continues. The tournament, which begins Wednesday and ends Sunday, will proceed without the No. 1 and No. 3 players in the Official World Golf Rankings, and despite the absence of golf’s two most marketable names, the event still holds plenty of intrigue. For three Southern Californians, it presents an opportunity to win arguably the Tour’s most challenging gauntlet. Anthony Kim Match Play History: The Los Angeles native made his Match Play debut last year and cruised to a 7-and-5 win against Taiwan’s Wen-Tang Lin in the opening round, only to fall to England’s Oliver Wilson 2-and-1 in the second frame. Why He Can Win: What’s intriguing about Kim in this format is he can catch fire as quickly as anybody on the PGA Tour, a propensity illustrated when he made 11 birdies during the second round of the 2009 Masters. Plus, the layout at Ritz-Carlton Golf Club Dove Mountain, which measures a ridiculous 7,833 yards, is advantageous for long players like him. Why He Won’t Win: Just as quickly as the 24-year-old gets hot, he can go cold, as he did earlier this year in the Northern Trust Open when he squandered opening rounds of 71-66-69 with a closing 78. 2010 Draw: Kim, the No. 7 seed in the Bobby Jones bracket, is slated to face Matt Kuchar, who withdrew from the AT&T Pebble Beach National Pro-Am last week due to an unspecified medical reason. Should Kim make it through, a second-round duel with No. 2 seed Padraig Harrington looms. Kevin Na Match Play History: Na’s never played. Off the strength of top-10 finishes at the Northern Trust and Bob Hope Classic, he’s qualified for the Match Play for the first time in his career in ’10. His reward? A first-round date with golf’s pre-eminent wunderkind, Rory McIlroy of Northern Ireland. Why He Can Win: There may not be a better putter in the world right now than the 26-year-old. He ranks first on the PGA Tour in putting average and ninth in putts per green in regulation. Even when skated against a daunting first-round opponent like McIlroy, a hot flatstick can be a great equalizer. Why He Won’t Win: McIlroy is indeed a daunting opponent. Even though the 20-year-old’s been battling back issues at the start of this season, he’s tallied top-10 finishes in his first two starts on the European Tour. What also could hurt Na is the length of the course, since he’s not a particularly long (272.2 average driving distance) or accurate (63.9 percent of fairways hit) driver. 2010 Draw: Should Na, the No. 15 seed in the Ben Hogan bracket, get past McIlroy, he’ll face the winner of the match between Miguel Angel Jimenez and Oliver Wilson. Hunter Mahan Match Play History: The Orange native has competed twice before, winning his first-round match and nothing more in both 2008 and 2009. As a 12th seed in ’09, Mahan toppled Mike Weir before falling to McIlroy in the second round. Why He Can Win: He’s still only 27 years, and though he hasn’t won on Tour since 2007, he is still one of the most talented players in the world. Although Mahan hasn’t thrived in this event, he’s done well in match play over his career, making it to the final of the 2002 U.S. Amateur and scoring a 2-up win against Camilo Villegas at the 2009 Presidents Cup. Why He Won’t Win: Mahan hasn’t had the most ideal start to his 2010 season. Although he’s made the cut in two of his three starts, his best finish was only a tie for 27th in the Farmers Insurance Open at Torrey Pines. 2010 Draw: Mahan, the No. 8 seed in the Sam Snead bracket, has a tough opening-round test against South African Charl Schwartzel, who won both the Africa Open and the Joburg Open earlier this year. No. 1 seed Jim Furyk lurks as a possible second-round opponent. Local Focus is an online-only weekly analysis of the PGA Tour and other national circuits from a Southern California perspective. OTHER LOCAL FOCUS FEATURES: Winners and losers from Southern California portion of West Coast Swing Mickelson goes for unprecedented three-peat at Northern Trust Open |
||||
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/8/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/10/2010 |
| Comment at 9/11/2010 |
| Comment at 9/11/2010 |
| Comment at 9/11/2010 |
| Comment at 9/11/2010 |
| Comment at 9/11/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/13/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/14/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/15/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/16/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/17/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/18/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/19/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/20/2010 |
| Comment at 9/21/2010 |
| Comment at 9/21/2010 |
| Comment at 9/21/2010 |
| Comment at 9/21/2010 |
| Comment at 10/30/2010 |
| Comment at 10/30/2010 |
| Comment at 10/30/2010 |
| Comment at 10/30/2010 |
| Comment at 10/30/2010 |
| Comment at 9/9/2011 |
| Comment at 9/11/2011 |
| Comment at 9/15/2011 |
| Comment at 1/2/2012 |
| Comment at 1/25/2012 |
| Comment at 1/25/2012 |