He trails in PGA Tour wins, 62-33, and in major championships, 13-3, and the gap in world ranking points (11.06) is substantial, too.
    
But if you think that Phil Mickelson is concerned about the space between him and Tiger Woods in the golf world they share, then put yourself down for a triple-bogey. The lefthander has designs on solving some world problems, but overtaking Woods for No. 1 is not one of them. That might actually be the reason why Mickelson is firmly entrenched in the No. 2 spot in the world, because unlike others, he is not obsessed with Woods.

OK, he’s fixated on the newest toys in the equipment world and he’ll debate the benefits of a 9 ½-degree loft as opposed to one that is 9 5/8. He has carried two different drivers in his bag and been able to explain why.

Thanks to his assistant, the mad scientist Dave Pelz and his top-secret attaché case, the “Pelzmeter,” Mickelson was able to tell you last summer the speed of the green running left-to-right at Oakmont Country Club’s seventh green when the air temperature was 81 degrees as opposed to 84.

As for any sort of “three-year plan” for ascending to the top spot in the world order, Mickelson hasn’t got one. You’ll have to refer to Ernie Els on that matter, and if you want to get into a discussion with players who have an idea as how they might be in position to challenge Woods, well, travel down to No. 24 in the world rankings for Ian Poulter, or to No. 131, where young Jason Day resides.

Together, they have zero PGA Tour wins, but extraordinary grand plans, and like many of their colleagues, they have spent countless hours talking about what it takes to beat Woods.

At 37 and in his 17th year on the PGA Tour, Mickelson has assessed the world around him and while he feels there is a way to solve the energy crisis and the home mortgage mess — and there’s a good chance he was consulted by NASA about the falling satellite, too — he knows there is no way to solve the phenomenon that is Tiger Woods.

That is why Mickelson has simply set his sights on being as good as he can be with no proclamations that it could lead to No. 1. He’s aloof, not nuts. The latest installment was the victory in the Northern Trust Open, which added to an impressive resume:

— With 33, Mickelson is 13th on the list of career wins.

— He now has victories in 15 of his 17 PGA Tour seasons, adding Riviera to a list of golf courses that includes Augusta National, Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, Baltusrol, and Colonial.

Does it make him a greater threat to Woods? Not in the least. The incomparable one, let’s not forget, skipped Riviera and will take into today’s WGC-Accenture Match Play Championship a streak of five wins in his last six starts, dating back to 2007. So it’s not like the world rankings have been turned upside down by Mickelson’s win at Riviera. But the victory did reinforce the notion that the lefthander is one resilient chap, because it was only a year ago that Mickelson squandered a chance to win at that famed Los Angeles layout. There is also his well-documented record in the major championships as a professional, 0-for-his-first-42, then 3-for-his-next-9.
    
That is why all this talk of Woods possibly capturing the coveted Grand Slam is curious, because it seems to push aside Mickelson as if he were, well Poulter, let’s say for an example. OK, there’s no doubt Mickelson is an enigma, but from 1999 to 2006, he was a combined 50-under in 40 rounds at Augusta National, with sub-par efforts and top 10 finishes each spring, two of them being victories. During that same stretch, Woods was a combined 43-under with only five top 10s, though three were wins.

To say that Woods is the favorite at Augusta National is legitimate, but it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that Mickelson has proven himself to be quite capable amid the tall Georgia pines and treacherous greens.

Stop No. 2 on the major championship trail will be Torrey Pines, where Woods has won four straight times in the Buick Invitational and six overall. Again, dominating evidence as to why he’s the clear-cut favorite, but given that it’s virtually his hometown course and a place where he’s won three times himself, Mickelson is not exactly, well, Ian Poulter, let’s say for an example.

By this point in his career, Mickelson has proven himself to be a variety of things to a variety of people and it’s fruitless to argue which aspect of his personality you align yourself to (that is a whole different subject for another day, but suffice to say, fans and colleagues view Mickelson differently). If you stick strictly to the golf, it’s hard to see anything but an incredible talent who has proven that he’s got the game to win and win and win, at times in major championships and even when faced eyeball-to-eyeball with Woods.

You could find those who would argue that when it’s all over, both Els and Vijay Singh will have better complete bodies of work than Mickelson, whose resume could be criticized as being overloaded with wins in California and the desert. But that’s a tangent onto which you can travel years from now; right now, there’s no doubt Mickelson remains the most fascinating PGA Tour storyline not named Woods.

Remarkably, he very well could go his entire career without ever having won player of the year, leading money-winner, or lowest scoring honors. There’s also the reality that while men named Langer, Woosnam, Couples, and Lehman — not one of them his equal — will forever be able to say they were No. 1 in the world, Mickelson never will.

We’re guessing that’s a fate he has resigned himself to. He is, after all, a rock-solid No. 2, and considering who is No. 1, that is a testament to Mickelson’s brilliance, not an indictment of deficiencies.