Big four maybe not best ever: Federer.

[Paul Murphy]

Roger Federer counters comments made by John McEnroe and Andre Agassi that this is the toughest era in men's tennis, with the so-called Big Four of Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, and Andy Murray winning almost every significant tournament.

“I'd say no, but I don't know,” Federer told reporters. “Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don't know who else. Those guys weren't good or what? You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren't good either? I mean, I don't know. So for me I think that's respectful.

It's just different times and definitely more athletic, there's no doubt about that. But then again we don't play doubles. We don't play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it's more taxing, but we do play less best of five set tennis than they used to play.

You can't compare really, but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It's nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It's definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It's very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. But then best ever? The four of us? That's a really difficult call.”

Tennis.com

 

[kishnabe]

Best top 3 but not the best top 4. That would be McEnroe,Borg,Connors and Lendl.

 

[Cup8489]

Interesting....

 

[Towser83]

nice to see once again giving credit to past eras. He was asked after wimbledon and he said he didn't see himself as the best in history or better than anyone else. People call him arrogant (which he can be at times), but i could definitely see murray and djokovic (maybe even rafa) talking about hos this is the toughest era (i think both Djokovic and Murray have in the past expressed dismay at playing in this era)

 

[NadalAgassi]

I agree it is the best top 3 perhaps ever but not likely the best top 4. Murray being slamless brings the whole group down a bit talking about "top 4".

 

[Mustard]

The media always presents the current era as the best ever. They will do the same in 10 years time, "oh, today's players are better than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray", blah, blah, blah.

 

[Tafmatch]

How arrogant!

 

[Hawkeye7]

People are totally misquoting players and taking stuff out of context. Really tiring.

 

[Hawkeye7]

Best top 3 but not the best top 4. That would be McEnroe,Borg,Connors and Lendl.

Actually, no. Lendl only won his first slam when Borg was already retired and Connors was in decline. When they were "the Big 4" Lendl was just as slamless as Murray.

 

[zagor]

One of the smartest things Fed ever said in an interview, way to stick it to yapping media idiots Roger.

People can talk all they like about how arrogant Fed is but you have to admit he has always shown plenty of respect to former tennis greats, it's nice to see.

 

[Hawkeye7]

edit.......

 

[zagor]

nice to see once again giving credit to past eras. He was asked after wimbledon and he said he didn't see himself as the best in history or better than anyone else. People call him arrogant (which he can be at times), but i could definitely see murray and djokovic (maybe even rafa) talking about hos this is the toughest era (i think both Djokovic and Murray have in the past expressed dismay at playing in this era)

That's not the first time he said that even (the last time before this was when he won 2010 WTF) yet you still have people here claiming all the time that Fed bought into the GOAT hype, said he was the best ever etc.

I agree, Fed can be arrogant and sore loser at times but he never publicly said he was the best ever (or better than any former tennis great for that matter), not even once.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Isn't saying, "This may not be the best big 4 ever," the same as saying, "This may be the best big 4 ever"? :lol:

Anyway, I think this is the best top 4 in Tennis history. Of course, it's impossible to compare across eras and noone can say for sure. These guys have 33 Grand Slams combined and will most likely finish with over 40. That's true and utter domination. Murray may not have contributed to that tally but he has gotten big wins over Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the past. I believe he's the best slamless player ever (and I'm pretty sure it won't be for long, because he will chime in with his own slams soon). They've been incredibly consistent and versatile (though that may be due to surface homogenization). To sum it up, it's considered an upset when any of these guys loses before the semis of any tournament. That, for me, is greatness.

 

[DragonBlaze]

One of the smartest things Fed ever said in an interview, way to stick it to yapping media idiots Roger.

People can talk all they like about how arrogant Fed is but you have to admit he has always shown plenty of respect to former tennis greats, it's nice to see.

You pretty much wrote what I was going to. He has ALWAYS paid respect to the past champions. Fed's "arrogance" stems more from him being a sore loser IMO (which he certainly can be, much worse in the past though).

 

[MichaelNadal]

One of the smartest things Fed ever said in an interview, way to stick it to yapping media idiots Roger.

People can talk all they like about how arrogant Fed is but you have to admit he has always shown plenty of respect to former tennis greats, it's nice to see.

He has a real understanding of where the game came from, and is a really knowledgeable student of it. Huge respect for Fed.

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

Glad to see neutral fans, or fans of other players say something like this to Fed.

 

[tennis_pro]

Actually, no. Lendl only won his first slam when Borg was already retired and Connors was in decline. When they were "the Big 4" Lendl was just as slamless as Murray.

I think the current top 4 has a bigger arguement for being the best top 4 ever, especially if Murray goes on to win a couple of majors. Borg retired in 1981 and Lendl never reached his peak for another 3-4 years, it was virtually 1 year when all of them mattered (1981), the Fed-Nads-Djok-Muzz quartet has been going on since 2008.

 

[Alchemy-Z]

maybe not best top 4 or 3

but Best Rivalry in history is Fed/Rafa

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

maybe not best top 4 or 3

but Best Rivalry in history is Fed/Rafa

Yep, best 'rivalry' in history.

Nadal-Djokovic is pretty underrated too. Lots of twists and turns and historic finals played (Roland Garros 2012, Australian Open 2012, US Open 2010).

 

[SQA333]

I think Federer-Djokovic is a much better rivalry than the Federer-Nadal one.. if not a less prolific one.

 

[Chillaxer]

Best top 3 but not the best top 4. That would be McEnroe,Borg,Connors and Lendl.

I agree. Murray nowhere near the best no.4, in fact I don't know why they say big four when it's big three really.

 

[DRII]

nice to see once again giving credit to past eras. He was asked after wimbledon and he said he didn't see himself as the best in history or better than anyone else. People call him arrogant (which he can be at times), but i could definitely see murray and djokovic (maybe even rafa) talking about hos this is the toughest era (i think both Djokovic and Murray have in the past expressed dismay at playing in this era)

Wouldn't you be dismayed, having to compete against Federer and Nadal your entire career?

 

[Chillaxer]

Wouldn't you be dismayed, having to compete against Federer and Nadal your entire career?

It'd be Sampras Agassi the last era. I think it's just a bit lame to complain. It makes no sense, like the generational comparisons. They should face, well, Murray should, that he hasn't been good enough to win a slam, instead of saying 'I'm playing in the wrong era'.

 

[pug]

Comments like that make me appreciate Fed even more. And I agree with him, this is a golden era. Too bad so many here will miss it because they can't see anything past their favorite player.

 

[90's Clay]

Nothing "golden" about now. Who knows about Nadal and if he will ever return back to normal. Djoker has been stinking it up just about all year.. Murray can't win a slam and the field outside of the top 4 in the world is by far the WORST its ever been.


Hows that "golden". Compare it to the 80s-early 90s (true golden age of tennis with multiple talented players and very deep and talented field) and this era is a joke overall


In terms of the overall depth of the field (top 5 or 6 to 50-100) its WTA BAD!!!


I mean "depth wise" this makes 2003-2007 look like a complete golden age of tennis

 

[フェデラー]

Yep, best 'rivalry' in history.

Nadal-Djokovic is pretty underrated too. Lots of twists and turns and historic finals played (Roland Garros 2012, Australian Open 2012, US Open 2010).

Not Wimbledon, US Open 2011?

 

[Towser83]

Wouldn't you be dismayed, having to compete against Federer and Nadal your entire career?

would I? Weren't other eras just as tough and tougher?

Federer doesn't reckon this is definitely the toughest era ever, Murray and Djokovic would probably say it was.

Though to be fair Murray might not mind anymore, given that he took Federer apart in 3 straight sets at Wimbledon in the olympics which not even Nadal has done. So maybe he is now raising the level of play even higher to top the other players in this era.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

The media always presents the current era as the best ever.

Agreed--it is part of the desperation of men's tennis marketing in this era--which certain fans walk right into--eyes and mouth open. Federer is right about the so-called "big four" of today, but then again, he actually witnessed enough history to know the truth of the matter.

They will do the same in 10 years time, "oh, today's players are better than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray", blah, blah, blah.

...if the sport is around in ten years...

 

[Mustard]

if the sport is around in ten years...

Of course it will be around.

 

[dysonlu]

The media always presents the current era as the best ever. They will do the same in 10 years time, "oh, today's players are better than Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray", blah, blah, blah.

So true and not only in tennis but everything else.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

That's not the first time he said that even (the last time before this was when he won 2010 WTF) yet you still have people here claiming all the time that Fed bought into the GOAT hype, said he was the best ever etc

Yes, where is Devila?

 

[timnz]

Early 80's Lendl

Actually, no. Lendl only won his first slam when Borg was already retired and Connors was in decline. When they were "the Big 4" Lendl was just as slamless as Murray.

But in those days slams weren't everything. Lendl had won the Masters and the WCT finals (both over McEnroe in 1982). They were regarded as big titles. He also had an amazing 1982 where he won 18 tournaments (23 finals in all) in the one year - Murray hasn't done anything to approach that. Hence, Connors and McEnroe viewed him as extremely dangerous back then. He completely dominated McEnroe from 1981 to early 1983. Therefore, Lendl was definitely one of the big guys.

 

[Mustard]

But in those days slams weren't everything. Lendl had won the Masters and the WCT finals (both over McEnroe in 1982). They were regarded as big titles. He also had an amazing 1982 where he won 18 tournaments (23 finals in all) in the one year - Murray hasn't done anything to approach that. Hence, Connors and McEnroe viewed him as extremely dangerous back then. He completely dominated McEnroe from 1981 to early 1983. Therefore, Lendl was definitely one of the big guys.

Until Lendl won the 1984 French Open, they would say that Lendl "couldn't win the big ones". And in late 1984 and early 1985, a myth started developing that Lendl had only won that French title because McEnroe had "thrown it away". The most crucial win of Lendl's career was beating McEnroe in straight sets in the 1985 US Open final, after trailing 2-5 in the first set. Lendl had gone into that match as the clear underdog.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

Yes, where is Devila?

Banned shortly before completing 8 years of ******** trolling.

 

[R.Federer]

Yep, best 'rivalry' in history.

Nadal-Djokovic is pretty underrated too. Lots of twists and turns and historic finals played (Roland Garros 2012, Australian Open 2012, US Open 2010).

its abit lopsided as nadal"the impossible" lost 7 times in a row to joker on 3 different surfaces at 3 different continants and at 3 slams in a row the best rivalry is federer vs the history books federer has the upper hand at the moment :twisted:

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Great stuff from the great man. Absolute respect!

 

[kiki]

Best top 3 but not the best top 4. That would be McEnroe,Borg,Connors and Lendl.

best ever foursomes:

Tilden and the 3 Mousketeers

Perry,Budge,Crawford and Vines

Gonzales,Kramer,Sedgman and Rosewall/Hoad

Laver,Rosewall,Gonzales and Hoad

Borg,Mac,Connors and Lend

Lendl,Wilander,Edberg and Becker

Becker,Agassi,Sampras,Edberg ( and Courier for a few months)

Federer,Safin,Hewitt and Kuerten/Agass is bigger than the current one, due to Murray´s weakness.

 

[kiki]

Actually, no. Lendl only won his first slam when Borg was already retired and Connors was in decline. When they were "the Big 4" Lendl was just as slamless as Murray.

1 Davis Cup, 2 Masters, 1 WCT title, owning Mac and drawing Borg....against an exo called "Olimpic Games".LMAO¡¡¡

 

[kiki]

Isn't saying, "This may not be the best big 4 ever," the same as saying, "This may be the best big 4 ever"? :lol:

Anyway, I think this is the best top 4 in Tennis history. Of course, it's impossible to compare across eras and noone can say for sure. These guys have 33 Grand Slams combined and will most likely finish with over 40. That's true and utter domination. Murray may not have contributed to that tally but he has gotten big wins over Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in the past. I believe he's the best slamless player ever (and I'm pretty sure it won't be for long, because he will chime in with his own slams soon). They've been incredibly consistent and versatile (though that may be due to surface homogenization). To sum it up, it's considered an upset when any of these guys loses before the semis of any tournament. That, for me, is greatness.

They all play the same way, although some times in an hour Federer may try something 10% different...while Borg,Connors,Lendl and Mac were so completely opposed...while you see one game today, you have seen all, the 1980´s quator gave so many different matches, all of them excellent...

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

its abit lopsided as nadal"the impossible" lost 7 times in a row to joker on 3 different surfaces at 3 different continants and at 3 slams in a row the best rivalry is federer vs the history books federer has the upper hand at the moment :twisted:

It doesn't matter. People will look at that period and assume that Nadal's level dropped. Nadal STILL leads the H2H 19-14 despite that. Want to know what's lopsided? Being 2-8 in slams against someone. That's hardly a rivalry, it's utter domination.

 

[kiki]

Agreed--it is part of the desperation of men's tennis marketing in this era--which certain fans walk right into--eyes and mouth open. Federer is right about the so-called "big four" of today, but then again, he actually witnessed enough history to know the truth of the matter.




...if the sport is around in ten years...

I have the same impression as you, Thundervolley...unless they make dramatic changes such as NBA in the early 80´s...or simply, come back to where it was 25 years ago...

 

[TheFifthSet]

best ever foursomes:


Federer,Safin,Hewitt and Kuerten/Agass is bigger than the current one, due to Murray´s weakness.

How can you compare those guys with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? Federer and Nadal are top 5 in the open era, and Djokovic is far better than the ones on that list (peak Safin is just as good but not around very often)except for Agassi but Agassi was 33-34 by the time Federer emerged.

Say you're David Ferrer or other guys on the outside looking in. Which field would you like to face more? The one where you possibly have to beat Federer Nadal and Djokovic back-to back-to back (ever consistent at reaching the last 8 ), or the one where you have to go through Fed and a bunch of guys that could possibly flame out in the earlier rounds? Remember that Kuerten wasn't much of a threat in 3 of the 4 majors, Safin often flaked in the early rounds, Hewitt often got out-gunned by superior baseliners, and Agassi was a shell of his former self. I think it's pretty clear which group of players are better.

 

[kiki]

How can you compare those guys with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray? Federer and Nadal are top 5 in the open era, and Djokovic is far better than the ones on that list (peak Safin is just as good but not around very often)except for Agassi but Agassi was 33-34 by the time Federer emerged.

Say you're David Ferrer or other guys on the outside looking in. Which field would you like to face more? The one where you possibly have to beat Federer Nadal and Djokovic back-to back-to back (ever consistent at reaching the last 8 ), or the one where you have to go through Fed and a bunch of guys that could possibly flame out in the earlier rounds? Remember that Kuerten wasn't much of a threat in 3 of the 4 majors, Safin often flaked in the early rounds, Hewitt often got out-gunned by superior baseliners, and Agassi was a shell of his former self. I think it's pretty clear which group of players are better.

Yepp, I threw it out without much thinking.You are probably right.

I think any quotor from 1995 or so on has been pretty weak.Although, at least, there are Federer,Nadal and Djokovic.But, problem has much more to see with styles than quality

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Federer doesn't reckon this is definitely the toughest era ever, Murray and Djokovic would probably say it was.

How arrogant of Federer to not think, that this is the toughest era ever.

:razz:

 

[kiki]

How arrogant of Federer to not think, that this is the toughest era ever.

:razz:

If he thinks, he at least is an elegant guy and has style ( probably has learned from those Gillete ads), not the false modesty of Nadal and the hilarious lack of class of Djokovic and Murray ( who looks like a MIlwall hooligan)

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yepp, I threw it out without much thinking.You are probably right.

I think any quotor from 1995 or so on has been pretty weak.Although, at least, there are Federer,Nadal and Djokovic.But, problem has much more to see with styles than quality

Agree with you on that one. It would be nice to see someone like Tsonga break out. I had high hopes for Tsonga -- his performance against Nadal at the '08 Australian Open was anything but "robotic"-- beautiful, beautiful display of all-court tennis, rife with chip and charge approaches, blistering passing shots, otherworldly drop volleys, smashes, serves, gets, and even a few lobs executed with precision. It was a throwback performance. That's why watching Federer at the net in the Wimby final was such a treat. Hopefully as the great man ages he'll mix it up some more, it'll do wonders for him in preserving himself.

I dearly hope we get a few youngsters in the forthcoming years who can emulate the variety of the players of yesteryear, like Edberg or Stich. Sure its harder to shy away from the baseline with the technology at players disposal, but I blame the mentality of todays tennis landscape most -- its just assumed that it's "impossible" to s & v or mix it up with good success. Hell Stepanek isn't exactly the most physically gifted on tour, yet he was near the top 10 a couple years ago despite being in his early 30's while s & v'ing as much as anyone out there, so if he can do it others surely still can.

 

[R.Federer]

It doesn't matter. People will look at that period and assume that Nadal's level dropped. Nadal STILL leads the H2H 19-14 despite that. Want to know what's lopsided? Being 2-8 in slams against someone. That's hardly a rivalry, it's utter domination.

its lopsided and nadal knows this outside of clay he mite aswell not show up his performances at last years eimbledon final and us open was dispicable and he should be fined for even turning up as he handed the finals to joker without any fight even choked at the aussie opne hahahaah great mental toughness there, :twisted:

also federer is the king :lol: bagels nadal on 3 different surfaces on 3 different arenas in 3 different years :twisted: against rafail "the imposter" nadal

 

[Povl Carstensen]

It doesn't matter. People will look at that period and assume that Nadal's level dropped. Nadal STILL leads the H2H 19-14 despite that. Want to know what's lopsided? Being 2-8 in slams against someone. That's hardly a rivalry, it's utter domination.

“Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes,” uncle Toni said. “If there wasn’t Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible.”

 

[robbo1970]

I suppose the comment from Mac can be backed up by these top 4 dominating the semi's and finals of the major tournaments over the past few years. That would demonstrate this top 4 to be a slight cut above the 5th and 6ranked players.

And to try and be positive about Murray's lack of a major, I think that is just a testament to the dominence of the other 3 above him.

In terms of how a top 4 dominate most tournaments, Mac has a good point. I think Federer is just respectful of those who went before him and helped make the game as popular as it is today.

 

[Hawkeye7]

The thing is, the top 4 in the past have never been nearly as consistent as these guys. At least 3 of them have reached the semis in the last 10 majors or so. Upsets happened much more frequently in earlier eras.