You've covered just about every aspect of this, brilliantly exhaustive stuff guys
One point you raised really hit the nail on the head for me:
"Right now people seem to think it is ok to lose to Dupuis (because the grass was wet and the bounce was erratic), to Nalbandian (because he was inexperienced and lacking fitness), to Fish (because Fish was once ranked 19 in the world), to Carraz (no idea why)
But these were awful results (with the exception of Nalbandian - which was awful execution of a match he could have won)
If this carries on much longer Andy is going to struggle. He needs to learn fast."
I agree wholeheartedly. During Wimbledon he himself worked out that he needed to reach the quarterfinals to get top 100. He definitely should've beaten Nalbandian which would've put him far far closer than the 215 ish he was at having lost that match. Had he beaten Nalbandian and given Gasquet a walkover it'd still have meant that if he were to then win Aptos he'd be on the verge of the top 100.
I was frustrated to see him lose to Fish losing two sets from a break up, when as you say he would then hopefully have beaten Bastl again and picked up some 40 odd more points for the event than he did.
So the Nalbandian and Fish matches alone could've left him on the edge of the top 100 and the quandary of whether or not he should be pushing himself too hard now to try and get into the Aussie Open would never have come about.