If everything were to happen based on the past then we would have been living in a very predictable and determined world. I mean there were some very sold predictions by many that Andy was never going to win a Slam and that was based on the so called 'realism' and 'facts' based on the past.
The sun will always rise on the east and that's reality and a fact. Andy will always lose to a top tenner on clay is a false fact, because his past is not based on a clear reality or a solid fact. In fact, it's always subject to change. I hope people understand the difference when they bring 'realism' into it.
I'm not arguing that. However I would suggest it is fairly realistic to suggest that, given his relatively poor clay credentials, the chances are not in his favour of beating Simon, Berdych and Wawrinka/Tsonga in succession.
Way I'm looking at this clay season is no expectations, so anything gained is a bonus. I would be over the moon if he makes the final, and it would be all the sweeter with lowered expectations. That's not to say I wouldn't be disappointed or frustrated with a defeat, before anyone brings this up after his next loss.