Where next for Murray?
He is in a hazardous place, Andy Murray, and he doesn't need reminding of that.
No confidence, no explanation. Nine sets lost, four matches lost. The worst run of his career. These slumps emphasise fallibility, weaken locker room reputation and raise more questions about his ability to mix it with the very best when it really matters.
He knows how badly he's been playing ("I've messed up," was just one of his quotes following defeat by Alex Bogomolov on Friday), so what is important now is the future. What is he going to do about it?
The debate for the past few days here in Miami, and no doubt among all his supporters, has centred on his coaching situation. And what makes this debate so interesting, not to mention the constant speculation linking him with possible coaches such as Ivan Lendl, is that nobody can guarantee one way of working is better than another.
Who knows best? Nobody knows.
There are too many imponderables, as shown by this list of questions. How many of these can we all give a definitive answer to?
1. Can a player have sufficient natural talent to win a major on his or her own?
2. How much influence does the coach actually have when the player is world class?
3. Does a successful player make a good coach?
4. Is a part-time adviser as good as a full-time coach?
5. Is a bit-part player who never made the top level capable of coaching a major champion?
We all have opinions, and a lot of people think they have all the answers, but the issue is too complex, too individual, to say anything with any certainty. For example, I still believe Murray has sufficient talent to turn up at Wimbledon without a coach and win the title if things go his way. That's my guess at number one.
Murray has failed to win a set in three matches since losing in the Australian Open final
On number two, I would say that the coach can influence a world class player's mood and mindset much more than strategy or technique, but every relationship is different and if the player won't listen, the coach has no influence at all.
Many people can claim to be successful coaches having never played professionally: the parents of Serena and Venus Williams, Richard and Oracene for example, Piotr Wozniacki, the father of current number one Caroline and, perhaps the best example of all, the Australian Bob Brett who, while a handy player at domestic level, has his entire reputation based around his coaching (and it is rare for someone's reputation to be so universally admired in tennis).
That would respond to number three and, as for four and five, my reply would be simply, "Who can tell?"
If Andy Murray had won the Australian Open, as his form suggested he was capable of doing up to the final, would Dani Vallverdu, the 25-year-old Venezuelan who accompanies Murray most of the time these days, be hailed a genius and the next coaching guru?
Murray has said for a long time that he doesn't want someone travelling with him full-time for 40 weeks a year, so that situation seems unlikely to change. He has also said that if he brings anyone new into the team, it would probably be someone with Grand Slam winning pedigree, either as a coach or player.
So that's where we come to Ivan Lendl.
Many greats have talked up their desire to coach Murray in the past - John McEnroe and Mats Wilander are just two of them - and Lendl simply joins that group. A new name every week, it seems.
I have been told by his management there has been no contact with the eight-time former Grand Slam champion. He is surely too busy to take on the role and why would he want to go back on the road to be at the beck and call of someone with a chequered history of coaching relationships?
And why would Murray want to hire someone with so many current commitments and no experience of coaching?
The thing with Murray - something you understand watching and listening to him at close quarters over many years - is the more people tell him to do something, the less likely he is to do it.
It would take something truly remarkable for that relationship to happen. Andy Murray has more chance of hiring Ivan the Terrible than Ivan Lendl.
Having said that, Murray needs help from someone to sort out a worrying slump in form. As Nadal, Federer and Djokovic battle at the top of the game and the returning Del Potro shows the sort of form which took him to the US Open in 2009, Murray is well off the pace at the moment.
Against Bogomolov, in his second successive defeat to a player ranked outside the top 100, he lost his serve seven times out of 10 and failed to hold successively in the entire match. His backhand looked tentative, his movement was inexplicably bad and, in general, he appeared like a student lost for a subject without a textbook.
This is not the Murray we know. Yes, people question his style of play, but normally his movement is as magically preemptive as predictive text. It is the key to everything else in his game when things are tuned and ticking.
Murray is low on confidence and everything stems from that, it seems. As Novak Djokovic told me a few days ago, it proves what a mental game tennis is. Murray hasn't suddenly become a bad player for the rest of his life. He looks bad at the moment but will soon be reminding us of his talent again.
The worry is that the same post-Australia slump happened last year, only this time it's worse. He says he doesn't know how it's happened or why it's happened, which is why he needs to talk to someone who has been there.
Andre Agassi's book emphasises the importance of the coach to winning major titles. They are there to help - that's their job - and even though he has the talent to win one on his own, Murray needs some rescuing.