You cant really say its a disaster if you have nothing to compare it to.  He played one full match on clay last year against simon and lost.  If you are comparing his match in Hamburg last year (or the 6 games that were played) then it is a disaster.  But he hasnt played like that since.  So most of his matches would be a disaster, especially if you compare this years matches to Hamburg last year.  

He's gained points and ranking places. How is that a disaster? You could more call Nadal and Fed's clay season a disaster than Andy's. Oh, and in comparison to the rest of the field, at least he's still standing!

I think it's progress. And he's made progress. He's hired Alex who has helped him with his movement, he's obviously getting stronger on the surface and his W-L record on the stuff is getting better. Ok, so he's not come out and stunned us all with being a top 5 player on clay. But did we really expect that. I just wanted him to make some progress on the surface. Play some of the best on it and hold his own. So in my book, no disaster. Couple more wins either here or at RG and I'd say it was a success!

I (reluctantly, pah) have to agree with Mark.

Andy's been pretty way off par this season, by what should be his standards.

Just because other people have also been rubbish, and (mostly by fluke) his ranking's improved, doesn't mean this has been anything but a disaster.
[To draw an inappropriate parallel, Germany did much better in the Second World War than the First, but it was still a disaster for them ... ]

So far this year, any clay tournament where Andy's won a single set has been a high point.
I can't see any way of considering that anything but a disaster ...
                             ... he's only doing marginally better than people who're not there, like Ivan Lendl.

I disagree. His form hasn't severely dropped on clay because he was pretty crap before then too!

The point is we can't judge his clay court performance against his normal form because clay is such a different surface. And one that he enjoys to play on but needs a heck of a lot more experience on to be anywhere near where he is on other surfaces. And that's why I think his simply making progress, and winning a couple of matches is enough to deem this effort a success.

Now admittedly I think he really needs to win back to back matches now, make a third or fourth round. But if he can do that here or at RG I'll be happy.

Again, I'm with Mark.
It doesn't matter how his performance compares with his usual.

That's like saying we can't call the Titanic's performance on Ice a disaster, because its normal surface is on Water so we have nothing to compare against.


(and yes, that point is slightly facetious   .......   )

Your point isn't slightly facetious, it's crap! It completely disregards how different clay is as a surface. Why are there so many who are specialists on it? And why are the Brits and Americans renowned for their crapness on it. Because it's different. And you can never judge how a player will perform on clay based on their form elsewhere. Cause for most players it's totally different. And for some decent players they never feel comfortable on the surface. Can't even win a match!

Sorry. I missed where Mark said that.
It does kinda mean he's not maintaining a logicially consistent stance, like the slippery eel he may well be .....

But I still stand by my opinion that his clay season is objectively a disaster, based on the results.

Note sure why you think my point is "crap".
If I went out and got the same results as Andy it would be a disaster.
Don't care if it's a different surface. Don't care if there are specialists. My point stands - the Titanic didn't do as well as a specialist icebreaker would have.

If you consistently don't win games at tournaments, it's a disaster.
unless you're only there for the air miles ...