mattosgrant
Banned
When we look back at this era should it remembered as the big 4 era with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Or is it now silly to include Murray in that group when he is probably going to end with 2-4 slams, and that group are probably going to be 3 of the 5 best players in tennis history when all is said and done, and all double digit slam winners and dominant players.
If you dont feel Murray should be included as part of a big 4 should he be given his own category. On the other hand since Stan could end up with the same # or more slams (note I said could, Murray still could well end up with more) should he even be considered in a group solely with Stan, or even as just the clear best of the second tier which would stretch downwards to others of this era like Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych. Murray's career has been far more complete with much more consistency and longevity as a contender, and so many other achievements beyond Wawrinka though.
I am not saying what I feel one way or the other though. I am not arguing for or against Murray being included in this big 4, or what he should be considered as if he isnt. I am asking your views.
For me personally I am fine including him as the 4th member of the big 4. It doesnt matter how far behind historically he is to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, 3 of the absolute best players in history. Despite winning only 2 slams, he has been the player in the last 8 years consistently ranked top 4, consistency winning Masters, consistently making slam semis, finals, in addition to winning sometimes, and consistently challenging and beating all those other 3. Which is not true of Wawrinka for instance who is only a contender the past 3 years, and even then only in slams and clay event Masters. He is clearly the weak link of those 4, but he deserves to be included amongst that group. Even if Stan achieved enough to surpass him historically (which IMO would have to be 4 majors and Murray staying at 2, although I know many will disagree) I would still include Murray in that big 4 group more than Stan, for the reasons I said.
If you dont feel Murray should be included as part of a big 4 should he be given his own category. On the other hand since Stan could end up with the same # or more slams (note I said could, Murray still could well end up with more) should he even be considered in a group solely with Stan, or even as just the clear best of the second tier which would stretch downwards to others of this era like Cilic, Tsonga, Berdych. Murray's career has been far more complete with much more consistency and longevity as a contender, and so many other achievements beyond Wawrinka though.
I am not saying what I feel one way or the other though. I am not arguing for or against Murray being included in this big 4, or what he should be considered as if he isnt. I am asking your views.
For me personally I am fine including him as the 4th member of the big 4. It doesnt matter how far behind historically he is to Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, 3 of the absolute best players in history. Despite winning only 2 slams, he has been the player in the last 8 years consistently ranked top 4, consistency winning Masters, consistently making slam semis, finals, in addition to winning sometimes, and consistently challenging and beating all those other 3. Which is not true of Wawrinka for instance who is only a contender the past 3 years, and even then only in slams and clay event Masters. He is clearly the weak link of those 4, but he deserves to be included amongst that group. Even if Stan achieved enough to surpass him historically (which IMO would have to be 4 majors and Murray staying at 2, although I know many will disagree) I would still include Murray in that big 4 group more than Stan, for the reasons I said.
