Of late, a few TTW'ers are placing Murray in the same conversation as Fed, Nadal and Nole and making it a 'Big 4' discussion. Does the fact that he won USO and has a good H2H outside of slams ,make Murray deserve that recognition inspite of the fact that he currently has a poor H2H with the 3 on matches that count most (Majors) and also his slam record ( 1 vs 33) ? No one disagrees that in the next couple of years, he may have good chances to increase his slam count. Yet when it comes to discussions around the supremacy, aura, clutchness, greatness it seems ridiculuous to include Murray in the same discussions as Roger, Rafa and Nole. The top 3 dont lose to Bogomolov, Chardy, Donald Young for starters. What are your thoughts ?