PDA

View Full Version : Is there actually a big four?


joeri888
06-07-2009, 12:13 AM
I think there isn't. I started thinking about it when Mats Wilander said during Fed-Delpo, that the top 4 was expanding to a 'top 5', and I thought, then you can say there's just a top 30. I mean, there are four best players, but I think this is starting to be a weird time in tennis.. There is a clear no. 1, Rafael Nadal, but it's not like the top 4 are really separating themselves from the rest.

Del Potro is not that far behind Djokovic in race points. Makes the semis of Roland Garros in Djokovic's quarter. Has beaten both Murray and Nadal this season and had Federer at the brink of elimination in a Slam.

Roddick has beaten Djokovic twice this year, amongst which was a grandslam quarterfinal. Came as far as Rafa at Roland Garros, further than Novak, and came also further than both Novak and Andy Murray in Australia. Did not make at least the quarters of a tournament he participated in for the first time in Roland Garros. Matches up really bad to Roger Federer and lost three times already to him this season. other than that he lost just 4 matches.

Verdasco kicked out Murray at the Australian Open, has been having great results and is constantly putting Nadal to the test whenever they play. Lost to Federer this season in a third set tiebreaker.


Nadalhas already lost to Monfils, delPotro and Soderling
Murrayhas lost to del Potro, Monaco, verdasco
Federerhas lost to Wawrinka, came really close against Berdych, del Potro and Haas
Djokovichas lost to Roddick twice, lost to Kohlschreiber, to David Ferrer, to Tsonga, to Nieminen, to Gulbis.



I mean, sure they are the best 4 players in the world, but isn't there a bit too much hype about "the Big four". It's weird, yet great, times in tennis I think. We all think those top 4 players are 'easily' gonna win every single time and predict 'Rafa in 2' all the way. yet it's very very open right now.

How big do you think the difference is between top 4 and the rest?

DarthMaul
06-07-2009, 12:14 AM
I don't think you can talk about the big four, but you can certainly talk about the big TWO (Nadal and Federer)

Rhino
06-07-2009, 12:20 AM
That loss to Wawrinka was because Federer had just gotten married and didn't practice coming into Monte Carlo. But a loss is a loss I guess.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 12:22 AM
It's the big 2.

05 French-Nadal d. Puerta
05 Wimbledon-Federer d. Roddick
05 USO-Federer d. Agassi
06 AO-Fed d. Baghdatis
06 FO-Nadal d. Federer
06 Wimbledon-Fed d. Nadal
06 USO-Fed d. Roddick
07 AO- Fed d. Gonzalez
07 FO- Nadal d. Fed
07 Wimby- Fed d. Nadal
07 USO- Fed d. Djokovic
08 AO-Djokovic d. Tsonga
08-FO Nadal d. Fed
08 Wimby- Nadal d. Fed
08 USO- Fed. d. Murray
09 AO - Nadal d. Fed
09 FO- Soderling/Federer

Of the last 17 slam finals, only 1 hasn't involved either Federer or Nadal. 7 of 17 have been Federer vs Nadal. They are the big 2 of tennis, with Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Verdasco, etc all curtain jerkers at this pt.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 12:24 AM
This has to be the longest run of 2 guys winning slams. They've won 16 of the last 17 slams, and 19 of 21 if you go back to 2004. Impressive.

Rhino
06-07-2009, 12:27 AM
^^^Yes when you look at the past few slam finals it definitely does look like the big two. I don't see Verdasco or Del Potro, even there at all.

joeri888
06-07-2009, 12:30 AM
Sure, you can arguably talk about the big two. However, with Federer's season record against Murray and djokovic that would look weird again too, right?

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 12:35 AM
Yeah, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the slams. Credit to Djokovic for taking out Roger in a slam, but he hasn't followed that up as of yet and was never able to beat Rafa at the French or even in Madrid when he had so many chances.

As for Murray, wait and see. He lost to Fed at the USO, which sort of for now outweighs the regular losses. Until Novak and Andy can beat Roger and Rafa in the slams, it's still the big 2 to me.

joeri888
06-07-2009, 12:41 AM
Until Novak and Andy can beat Roger and Rafa in the slams, it's still the big 2 to me.
Interesting and I sort of agree. Would you feel the same way had Murray overtaken Federer in Madrid for instance? It's kinda weird to talk about a big 2 if they are 1 and 3 in the world.

vegeta SSJ4
06-07-2009, 12:46 AM
well, i dont think murray should even be in the conversation, he hasn't won a slam, until he proves himself on the big stage then its just the big 2 - with djokovic and roddick behind - if you go on GS records

P_Agony
06-07-2009, 12:53 AM
I have a feeling that's going to change. Federer isn't the old Federer anymore, and it's tougher for him to win matches. I think Del Potro will prove to be a major threat, he's improving at a really fast level. Murray and Djokovic have yet to prove they are a major threat at slams. Djokovic has underperformed in slams this year, with a QF at AO being his best results. Murray has done about the same. Roddick is showing consistency, but his problem is and always has been Federer. Nadal is up there, but right now with the injury news it is unkonwn whether he will be a major facotr in the upcoming tournys.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 01:01 AM
Interesting and I sort of agree. Would you feel the same way had Murray overtaken Federer in Madrid for instance? It's kinda weird to talk about a big 2 if they are 1 and 3 in the world.

To me personally, it still would have been similar as the situation in the WTA. Though Safina's #1, Serena's still looked at as "the real no 1", in her own words. Fed would have still been looked at as by and large the "real #2", until Murray wins a slam.

FlamEnemY
06-07-2009, 01:02 AM
It's big 2, I agree. Djokovic is trailing behind with 'only' one slam (still great achievement) and Murray has yet to live up with the hype.
Still if I had to pick someone to break the Nadal-Federer combo, my first pick would be Djokovic, then Del Potro.

joeri888
06-07-2009, 01:04 AM
I have a feeling that's going to change. Federer isn't the old Federer anymore, and it's tougher for him to win matches. I think Del Potro will prove to be a major threat, he's improving at a really fast level. Murray and Djokovic have yet to prove they are a major threat at slams. Djokovic has underperformed in slams this year, with a QF at AO being his best results. Murray has done about the same. Roddick is showing consistency, but his problem is and always has been Federer. Nadal is up there, but right now with the injury news it is unkonwn whether he will be a major facotr in the upcoming tournys.

So basically youre prediction is Del Potro year end no. 1?:)
Wonder how he will cope with defending all those points over the summer.

I'm not sure what will happen to Federer. He doesn't play great imo this fortnight, but if he wins.. that could change a lot. It could take away his heart and motivation, but it could also give him back his confidence. Federer will not reach Agassi's Master series titles record I think, not before Nadal does at least.

maximo
06-07-2009, 01:07 AM
Verdasco kicked out Murray at the Australian Open, has been having great results and is constantly putting Nadal to the test whenever they play. Lost to Federer this season in a third set tiebreaker.


Hold on there, Murray whooped Verdasco 6-1 6-2 in Miami. Murray is way better than him.

To add to that, i find it hilarious how you don't even mention that Murray has beaten Federer the last three times they have played. And quite convincingly.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 01:07 AM
To me, Wimbledon is going to be huge for Murray, not just b/c its the home tourney for him, but b/c he's got to step up to the big stage in the slams. AO was a disappointment for him, especially after all the hype w/him coming in as the odds on favorite. If he doesn't make the SF or Final of Wimbledon, the "when's he gonna" question is going to start being asked about Murray.

P_Agony
06-07-2009, 01:16 AM
So basically youre prediction is Del Potro year end no. 1?:)
Wonder how he will cope with defending all those points over the summer.

I'm not sure what will happen to Federer. He doesn't play great imo this fortnight, but if he wins.. that could change a lot. It could take away his heart and motivation, but it could also give him back his confidence. Federer will not reach Agassi's Master series titles record I think, not before Nadal does at least.

No, I don't, but I certainly think he has a chance to eventually pass Djokovic in the rankings, and maybe even Murray too. So far, DP has done better than both Djokovic and Murray in this year's slams. True, he is yet to win one or even a Masters Series title, but he's getting there.

What I see from him is huge consistency, sort of like Roddick this year. semi finals, quarter finals, good results. Soon they would become finals, and after that winnings.

batz
06-07-2009, 01:25 AM
Yeah, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to the slams. Credit to Djokovic for taking out Roger in a slam, but he hasn't followed that up as of yet and was never able to beat Rafa at the French or even in Madrid when he had so many chances.

As for Murray, wait and see. He lost to Fed at the USO, which sort of for now outweighs the regular losses. Until Novak and Andy can beat Roger and Rafa in the slams, it's still the big 2 to me.

Murray has beaten Rafa in a slam. I do accept your broader point though. Murray and Novak need to step up to the slam plate - Murray especially.

maximo
06-07-2009, 01:25 AM
far, DP has done better than both Djokovic and Murray in this year's slams.

I think you mean just the FO.

BTW, Federer is lucky to have a Masters in his cabin so far.

Unlike Murray, who played great and well derserved the Miami Masters.

joeri888
06-07-2009, 01:28 AM
I think you mean just the FO.

BTW, Federer is lucky to have a Masters in his cabin so far.

Unlike Murray, who played great and well derserved the Miami Masters.

Like Federer played a poor match against Del Potro or Nadal. he played well.. you are really ignorant if you are running out of excuses so blame it on being lucky. If you make the semis of every masters series except for one and you end up winning 1, you aren't lucky imo. wasn't Murray 'lucky' del potro took out Nadal.. If you consider Fed's win luck, then that was luck as well

maximo
06-07-2009, 01:33 AM
Like Federer played a poor match against Del Potro or Nadal. he played well.. you are really ignorant if you are running out of excuses so blame it on being lucky. If you make the semis of every masters series except for one and you end up winning 1, you aren't lucky imo. wasn't Murray 'lucky' del potro took out Nadal.. If you consider Fed's win luck, then that was luck as well

You do realise Nadal was obviously tired when he played Federer, you are very ignorant if you deny that.

Murray would have beaten Nadal regardless, you seem to forget that Murray has beaten him in the past.

I have noticed Fed fans are the ones who hate Murray the most, most probably due to the fact he has beaten Federer convincingly the last three times.

And finaly, Federer was lucky to win Madrid.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 01:36 AM
Whatever. Madrid isn't the topic. It's the big 4. Or lack thereof. MS titles don't make you part of the big boy group, if the big boy group has 19 slams.

1&2: 19 slams
3-20: 2 slams

joeri888
06-07-2009, 01:39 AM
You do realise Nadal was obviously tired when he played Federer, you are very ignorant if you deny that.

Murray would have beaten Nadal regardless, you seem to forget that Murray has beaten him in the past.

And finaly, Federer was lucky to win Madrid.

Nadal was a bit tired yes, but Federer played a very good tournament there. It was clay so basically if Nadal plays his best no one else can ever win a clay tournament. You do know Murray was extremely lucky to win Miami, and toronto, Madrid last year right? If Federer had brought his hardcourt best he'd obviously won all those tournaments. See? I can do exactly the same. it's absolute nonsense to talk about luck. The best player always wins the tournament

NandoMania
06-07-2009, 01:39 AM
"Big Four" is a big, fat bore! :D

There are several players I prefer to watch play.

maximo
06-07-2009, 01:41 AM
You do know Murray was extremely lucky to win Miami, and toronto, Madrid last year right?

You are clearly an incompetent individual.

jamesblakefan#1
06-07-2009, 01:43 AM
You are clearly an incompetent individual.

Please, not another flame war. Let's just have a gentemanly discussion, is that too much to ask w/o personal attacks?

shadows
06-07-2009, 02:01 AM
I think you mean just the FO.

well delpo did better than Andy at the AO (1/4s as opposed to 4th rnd) and matched Nole, then outdid them both at the FO, so as a whole you can say he's done better than them in the slams this year imo.

I personally call it the big 4 because I think it's those guys who are in contention for the bigger events, I'm not talking just GSs, but the MS events and so on.

I think DelPo has started to bridge the gap lately (helped by Noles GS falloff) but he'll need to start taking that final step to get a bigger title under his belt.

Dutch-Guy
06-07-2009, 02:36 AM
Neither Nole or Murray or other top-10 players have been able to break Fed-Nadal combo so far(except AO 07,USO 07 and USO 08).So to me it's still a big 2.