[Guest]

Let me break it down to you. Since Amelie's appointment, Andy has lost to Nadal at RG in straight sets (the appt. was most probably done before RG and was announced right after RG). This is still not a big loss considering clay and the Nadal factor over there.

He has lost to Federer twice. At WTF, he was bagled in the 1st set and was able to win only 1 game in the 2nd set. This was the least competitive match Andy has ever played against Federer.

He has now lost 6 matches to Djokovic  under Amele's supervision and was bagled twice and in the finals (AO and Miami Masters) no less. That's altogether 0-9 losses since Amelie's appointment against the top guys on or off Slams including 3 bagels on big occasions.

The fact that he's getting bagled to these guys so easily is something to take notice of because it begs the attention. This didn't use to be the case in the past. There was a time not so long ago People couldn't guess which way the Andy/Novak match would go, but now it's too easy to predict (nowadays most objective fans know what the outcome will be). And if you are still unable to see this then I have nothing further to say.

Perhaps that's why he's having Bjorkman on board. Amelie will be let go in the future and she probably knows it too. This feels like a transition. She's a professional and probably understands that the problem that persists is beyond her capabilities. 

[Ruthie]

' a fangirl' eh?  Yes proud to call myself a fan (which doesn't mean I'm not capable of being critical of how Andy plays when warranted) but please take your sexism elsewhere.   And please consider context:  Andy has returned from a significant operation and with Amelie's help is back to 2nd best player in the world (as measured by the race) and 3rd best (as measured by the rankings).  I call that an achievement.  Of course, he has some way to go if he is to beat Nole as he himself has said. And he made some stupid errors yesterday.  But he is playing some wonderful tennis again and has beaten another nemesis - Berdych - twice under Amelie's tutelage.

[scotnadian]

.. The discussion is invalid and pointless..

Indeed.
And you sound oh so familiar.. 

[Iluvandy]

I didn't like one of Guest's sentences.    Actually I didn't really like any of them but I particularly disliked "This didn't use to be the case in the past".    It smacks of "He used to could" which is a joke.    Who writes like that?   

[amongsttheleaves]

'Guest' - pity you've chosen to hide behind such a generic name, it is always better to own your ideas.

Since I wrote the pre-Miami column you have posted a number of times on this thread and the news report, the contents of which, when the posturing is stripped away, boil down to two things which are based entirely on opinion:

1) Amelie Mauresmo cannot coach Andy Murray because she is a woman.
2) Andy Murray is stupid and mentally weak.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that you are wrong.

For someone who claims not to be putting down Amelie you have written several posts doing exactly that.

You say that women can't coach men because they don't understand how men think; yet you say men can coach women merely because they play a higher level game than women. Nothing about men being able to understand (or not as the case may be) how women think. 

You say Amelie cannot help Andy with his serve yet you do not explain why you think this. You will have to develop your argument beyond an arbitrary opinion of 'she is a woman'. Tennis experts have noted the work Andy has done with Amelie on his serve since the end of last year. It is an ongoing process. There is no overnight fix.

You say Amelie cannot help Andy mentally because she had her own battles mentally. Something that should be considered is that Amelie's own internal battles from her playing career give her a level of understanding of what Andy might be currently be struggling with that few others could bring. Worth mentioning at this juncture that Amelie did overcome these things so she knows what it takes to get through it.

You use the 'apples to oranges' idiom as a way of dismissing what work Amelie might be able to do with Andy because the WTA is different to the ATP. This particular idiom is something of a fallacy.

While we are on the subject of fallacies your breakdown of Andy's failings with Amelie as his coach fall firmly under the logical fallacy category of 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

I find the idea that Jonas Bjorkman might somehow intimidate Andy's opponents to be frankly laughable, I'm struggling to think of someone I might find less intimidating than Jonas Bjorkman. Just because he is a man it does not follow that he will 'fix' everything the moment he turns up for his trial with Andy and his team, merely because he is a man. We're back to 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

In February Andy was without a coach because he hadn't filled the position vacated by Dani Vallverdu. During that time Andy has publicly stated he felt his game regressed. He did not as you claim 'handle the rest of the tour' without a coach - in fact there were two losses to lesser players that angered a great number of people here on MW. Andy seems a bit anchor-less without a coach, and once the guiding hand and structuring presence of his coach was back by his side in March his level got back up to the level displayed at the AO. It is not yet at the level required to beat Djokovic, but as long as he is getting to finals he is putting himself in contention.

Andy spent the best part of 2014 not getting beyond the quarter finals of tournaments - this year the results are significantly better and we are only three months into the season. In their last five meetings Andy has only met Djokovic on slow hard courts, a surface which favours the Serb above all other players. The last time Andy played Djokovic in a Miami final Andy lost 1-6 6-7. Lendl was in his box.

You claim Andy had no game plan in the Miami final. That isn't what I saw. His plan was 'attack' and he did just that. The attacking tennis appears to be back, but the accuracy isn't there yet - hence the error count.

Djokovic's game plan seems to be 'outlast everyone' - even if that means throwing away a set as he did against Klizan and Dolgopalov. Djokovic appears to be willing to grind things out for the most part and wait until his opponents begin to fatigue before he preys on them.

As someone who loves tennis in general, and who supports Andy in particular, I'm proud of how 'clutch' he was on serve in the second set. If only he could have been that clutch in the first set things could well have developed in a different way in.

You say you want to discuss things in a constructive manner. Which is great. But you are not being all that constructive yourself.

[blueberryhill]

There's always one guest who overstays their welcome bbh 

My ex used to make a hot water bottle and stand at the door Did the trick!

[Iluvandy]

   

My ex used to make a hot water bottle and stand at the door Did the trick!

In the old days of wind up clocks, my husband stood in the middle of the floor winding up the alarm clock.   His best friend who had been our best man would go with us to the door to see other guests off then come back in and sit down.   After a while the alarm clock would make its appearance.