Does everybody who posts this tiresome **** actually think it's funny/clever, or are they operating at some kind of level of hilarious postmodern commenting irony that eludes me?
If it eludes you it eludes me as well.
I don't see any sense in the idea that if Andy loses it's Lendl's fault. Lendl doesn't tell Andy how to play. He also doesn't get the naughty chair and a big stick out when Andy loses.
Quarter finals in a slam was disappointing I suppose, but given that he'd won Wimbledon there was bound to be a reaction. Also, I don't care what anyone says, Andy was not physically right at the USO.
Given that Andy had reached the previous four finals of the majors he'd played, plus the Olympics as well, I don't see how people can criticise Lendl, or Andy for that matter. Andy, for what appears to me to have been more than one reason, was below his best at the USO. He's also simply not going to win every match he plays, but the fact is that he wins the vast majority, so it suggests he's getting something right.