Can we stop talking about the Big Four Era? It should be Big Three.

I hear people and pundits, mostly British, or non-British pundits commenting on British channels (***-kissing, I suppose), refer to the era of the Big Four. There's also a page dedicated to the Big Four on Wikipedia. But surely, it should be the Big Three, the Holy Trinity: Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In that order! If we're going to lump other players in with the Holy Trinity just because they've won grand slams (or other tennis tournaments) then we might as well add Hewitt (2 grand slams (still playing)), Wawrinka and Delpo to the Big Four and call it the Big Seven - or Magnificent Seven.
 
Last edited:

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
The Muzz is definitely big 4. Only multiple slam winner in the past 15 years besides Fedaltron. He was there in the semis of slams with them all the time and usually one had to beat him to make the final.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
The Muzz is definitely big 4. Only multiple slam winner in the past 15 years besides Fedaltron. He was there in the semis of slams with them all the time and usually one had to beat him to make the final.

- Hewitt
- Safin
- Agassi
- Sampras
- Kuerten

All won multiple majors since 2000.

But non of them are playing or in their best years right now. They're an era or two ago.
 
The Muzz is definitely big 4. Only multiple slam winner in the past 15 years besides Fedaltron. He was there in the semis of slams with them all the time and usually one had to beat him to make the final.

Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.

You creat your own luck my friend. For example if you find a milion dollars on the ground you are lucky. But your luck came in work because you decided to take a walk in the park. Its not serious to speak about luck in Pro Sports. Murray even has more cases in which he wasnt lucky.
 
You creat your own luck my friend. For example if you find a milion dollars on the ground you are lucky. But your luck came in work because you decided to take a walk in the park. Its not serious to speak about luck in Pro Sports. Murray even has more cases in which he wasnt lucky.

Are you telling me Murray had something to do with Federer and Nadal's early exit in Wimbledon 2013, Federer's loss to Berdych in USO 2012 and Nadal's absence in USO 2012? I didn't think he had that kind of pull? Tell us what you know. Tell us all of it!
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Are you telling me Murray had something to do with Federer and Nadal's early exit in Wimbledon 2013, Federer's loss to Berdych in USO 2012 and Nadal's absence in USO 2012? I didn't think he had that kind of pull? Tell us what you know. Tell us all of it!

Murray is good enough to put himself in position to reach the late rounds and occasionaly he "gets" lucky wtih Nadal or Federer being eliminated.
 
Murray is good enough to put himself in position to reach the late rounds and occasionaly he "gets" lucky wtih Nadal or Federer being eliminated.

Murray getting to the later stages was not due to luck. I agree. After all, he is an awesome tennis player. However, just like many agree that Federer got lucky when he won RG 2009, I'm saying Murray was somewhat lucky when he won Wimbledon 2013 and USO 2012 because he didn't have to face them because they were knocked out early (or absent).
 
Last edited:

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.

Fanboi Mainad will crucify you for writing this.

Just wait for few minutes.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
The big 4 dominated everything, whenever one of them lost. one of the others picked up the reins, Murray was a part of that group and was just as dominant in that era and has had 2 slams more recently than Federer and has been in a slam final more recently than Federer AND Nadal.

Also, all the big 4 have called it the big 4. Ferrer (Who was the consistant #5 for so long) called it the big 4 and stressed that the gap between them and himself and the rest of the tour was huge. Media and commentators, former players and scattered players have called it the big 4. ...Whiney kid on tennis forum says it should be big 3? Nice arguement, im swayed.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Fanboi Mainad will crucify you for writing this.

Just wait for few minutes.

He's right though. Murray may be a good bit away from Novak, but the reason for why the "Big 4" moniker was established still stands.

Ignore him and the others Mainad.
 
How many other players have reached 20+ GS QF or better in the current crop of top players...

Murray - 22 (8 slam finals)
Nadal - 28 (20 slam finals)
Djokovic - 31 (15 slam finals)
Federer - 43 (25 slam finals)

How many have reached 20+ SF or better at the Masters 1000

Murray - 23 (14 finals)
Djokovic - 47 (34 finals)
Federer - 55 (41 finals)
Nadal - 56 (41 finals)

How many boast 40+ career finals

Ferrer - 46 (7 at Masters/Slams)
Murray - 49 (22 at Masters/Slams)
Djokovic - 76 (49 at Master/Slams)
Nadal - 94 (61 at Masters/Slams)
Federer 129 (66 at Masters/Slams)

How many boast 30+ titles

Murray - 33
Djokovic - 53
Nadal - 65
Federer - 85

He may be behind his other 3 members but he is still in the "BIG 4"
 
Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.

Murray should always be blamed. :twisted:
 
then we might as well add Hewitt (2 grand slams (still playing)), Wawrinka and Delpo to the Big Four and call it the Big Seven - or Magnificent Seven.

Hewitt is from a different era. His last Major win was at the 2002 Wimbledon (at this point Novak was a year from turning pro, Murray three years and Nadal had a 1-1 record in ATP matches) and his last Major final was at the 2005 AO (at that point neither Nadal, Novak or Murray had reached a Major QF).

Del Potro
Majors: 1 W, 0 RU, 2 SF
YEC: 1 RU, 1 SF
Masters: 0 W, 3 RU
Titles: 18
Highest Ranking: 4

Wawrinka
Majors: 1 W, 0 RU, 2 SF
YEC: 2 SF
Masters: 1 W, 2 RU
Titles: 9
Highest Ranking: 3

Murray
Majors: 2 W, 6 RU, 7 SF
YEC: 3 SF
Masters: 10 W, 4 RU
Olympic Gold
Titles: 33
Highest Ranking: 2

I love both of them but let's not act like Delpo and Stan are comparable to Murray. They played one phenomenal tournament each and got their Major. In regards to the ranking, the difference between weeks ranked in the top 3/4/5 will be massively in Murray's favour.

Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.

If Federer couldn't beat Berdych at 2012 USO, why can we assume he would beat Murray? Same story at 2013 Wimbledon.

Murray really broke through as a top player by winning Cincy 2008.

Since, and including, Cincy 2008, the stats are:

Majors finals reached
13 Nadal, Djokovic
9 Federer
8 Murray
--------------
2 Soderling
1 Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro, Roddick, Berdych, Ferrer, Nishikori

Master finals reached
27 Djokovic
24 Nadal
16 Federer
14 Murray
---------------
7 Ferrer
3 Roddick, Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga
2 Wawrinka, Monfils, Fish, Isner, Raonic, Simon
1 Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Davydenko, Soderling, Verdasco, Gasquet, Janowicz, Nishikori

Year-end Rankings
2008: 1. Nadal 2. Federer 3. Djokovic 4. Murray
2009: 1. Federer 2. Nadal 3. Djokovic 4. Murray
2010: 1. Nadal 2. Federer 3. Djokovic 4. Murray
2011: 1. Djokovic 2. Nadal 3. Federer 4. Murray
2012: 1. Djokovic 2. Federer 3. Murray 4. Nadal
2013: 1. Nadal 2. Djokovic 3. Ferrer 4. Murray (6. Federer - back issues)
2014: 1. Djokovic 2. Federer 3. Nadal 4. Wawrinka (6. Murray - back issues)

Add in that Murray is the only person to have beaten Federer, Nadal and Djokovic twice each over 5 sets.

I have no problems with calling it the Big Four era. Now of course there is the bigger 3 within the big 4, but Murray is so far above everyone else beneath him (Wawrinka, Del Potro, Ferrer, Berdych, etc.)

In many ways, Murray is the barometer for how good the bigger 3 are. This guy is so consistent, so good, easily better than all the guys from #5 down, yet he only managed 2 Majors.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Lol, this has been beaten to death too many times.

Big four or big three is a meaningless distinction. If you so desperately want to exclude Murray, then you should follow that logic and turn it into the big two, and then even big one.

The reason it's arbitrarily become the big four is because of usage and because these four used to occupy the four semi-final places during the time it was coined.
 
Lol, this has been beaten to death too many times.

Big four or big three is a meaningless distinction. If you so desperately want to exclude Murray, then you should follow that logic and turn it into the big two, and then even big one.

The reason it's arbitrarily become the big four is because of usage and because these four used to occupy the four semi-final places during the time it was coined.

I say Big Three, and indeed many do, because it is believed that when all is said and done, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic could be regarded as the three greatest tennis players of all time - in that order. Murray has consistently reached the latter stages of many tournaments. This is true. But do you think when the next "greatest tennis players of all time" polls or survey comes out or in the next ten years, Murray will be considered among the top 10 - of all time? Of course not.

It is therefore a disservice to the Holy Trinity to be lumped into the same "tier" (a word that's often bandied about on this forum) as a man who really in not on their level of greatness.

And if we want to stick to the "reaching the later stages in grand slams argument", why don't we put Maria Sharapova and Vika Azarenka in the same category as Serena Williams? Call them the Big Three. Because it would be fatuous. Just as the Big Four concept is fatuous.
 
Last edited:

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
OP, when you speak of Big 3, you mean something completely different than what the term Big 4 was initially introduced for.

The term Big 4 is not wrong in the correct context.

Your term Big 3 is not wrong in the context you describe.

That is all. Get it?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
"Tiers" being bandied about as fact is annoying, but it's criminal to call Fedalovic the Holy Trinity. They are the Trifecta :lol: - the Holy Trinity includes Stan Wawrinka.


https://youtu.be/kmdTWfL6w-U?t=267
Stan%20The%20Man_zpsp0bpgdfx.png
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
^^ Wasn't indian wells calling wawrinka, fed and nadal the holy trinity or something?

So much disrespect, so much hate and butthurtism towards the world #1
 
Last edited:
The big 4 dominated everything, whenever one of them lost. one of the others picked up the reins, Murray was a part of that group and was just as dominant in that era and has had 2 slams more recently than Federer and has been in a slam final more recently than Federer AND Nadal.

Also, all the big 4 have called it the big 4. Ferrer (Who was the consistant #5 for so long) called it the big 4 and stressed that the gap between them and himself and the rest of the tour was huge. Media and commentators, former players and scattered players have called it the big 4. ...Whiney kid on tennis forum says it should be big 3? Nice arguement, im swayed.

Ferrer says it so it must be true. :roll:

As for the media and scattered players, you refer to, they're the same ones who will say on one day, "Federer is the GOAT" and say on another, "Rafa is the GOAT". Take Agassi and McEnroe for example. Years ago, they were saying Federer was GOAT. Now, these same two say Rafa is GOAT.

Also, just because there is a consensus on something does not mean it's right. Learn to think for yourself. There was a consensus in Germany circa 1930 to mid 1940s too, you know? We all know what that led to, don't we?

Then again, I should know better than to expect common sense from you. After all, I'm trying to knock your boy off his pedestal.
 

Goosehead

Legend
op needs to get with the programme..:neutral:

//////////////////////.....................not a big3 its a big1.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
I say Big Three, and indeed many do, because it is believed that when all is said and done, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic could be regarded as the three greatest tennis players of all time - in that order. Murray has consistently reached the latter stages of many tournaments. This is true. But do you think when the next "greatest tennis players of all time" polls or survey comes out or in the next ten years, Murray will be considered among the top 10 - of all time? Of course not.

It is therefore a disservice to the Holy Trinity to be lumped into the same "tier" (a word that's often bandied about on this forum) as a man who really in not on their level of greatness.

And if we want to stick to the "reaching the later stages in grand slams argument", why don't we put Maria Sharapova and Vika Azarenka in the same category as Serena Williams? Call them the Big Three. Because it would be fatuous. Just as the Big Four concept is fatuous.

The label was never about their historical greatness at the end of their careers, but about their simultaneous domination at a very specific point in time.

Novak Djokovic ain't passing Sampras in most greatness hierarchies, so that's a moot point.

The "big four" label was coined before any such speculation anyways, so replacing it with a different label with a different meaning now is just confusing, meaningless and pointless.

It's very clear that it's just a case of fan-bias. Some want to hold up Djokovic and diss Murray. It really is as simple as that.
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
- Hewitt
- Safin
- Agassi
- Sampras
- Kuerten

All won multiple majors since 2000.

But non of them are playing or in their best years right now. They're an era or two ago.

and Hewitt and he is fading his way out.


Safin is a politician in Russia ....he always said he didn't like tennis.
 
The label was never about their historical greatness at the end of their careers, but about their simultaneous domination at a very specific point in time.

Novak Djokovic ain't passing Sampras in most greatness hierarchies, so that's a moot point.

The "big four" label was coined before any such speculation anyways, so replacing it with a different label with a different meaning now is just confusing, meaningless and pointless.

It's very clear that it's just a case of fan-bias. Some want to hold up Djokovic and diss Murray. It really is as simple as that.

I hope you're not including me among them. I'm all about this guy, baby:
rafael-nadal-3.jpg
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Is that because you can't read? Don't worry, many people can't read. The fault isn't yours. It's that of our broken education system.

Are you afraid that Murray fans will start to think that Murray is as great as Nadal and Federer if people will use the big 4 word out of context?

You don't have to worry. His fans will think that anyway, no matter what you do, so why bother :).
 
Total domination came from big4, Murray is a part of big 4.

Let me run the GS winners since 2005 by you. Tell me where on the list this total domination you speak of is, save for 2012, and maybe 2013, bear in mind Murray didn't even finish 2013:

  • 2005: Safin, Nadal, Federer
  • 2006: Federer, Nadal
  • 2007: Federer, Nadal
  • 2008: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal
  • 2009: Nadal, Federer, Del Potro
  • 2010: Federer, Nadal
  • 2011: Djokovic, Nadal
    [*]2012: Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Murray
    [*]2013: Djokovic, Nadal, Murray
  • 2014: Wawrinka, Nadal, Djokovic, Cilic

Big Three (Federer+Djokovic+Nadal) = 34 of last 40 GS

Big Four (Murray included) = 36 of last 40 GS.

Federer = 12 since 2005
Nadal = 14 since 2005
Djokovic = 8 since 2005
Murray = 2 since 2005

2 out of 36. Yeah, Murray's definitely part of that domination.
 
Last edited:

ledwix

Hall of Fame
Yeah, but I think he got incredible lucky in those grand slams. Nadal was absent in 2012 US Open and Berdych happened to knock Federer who looked set to meet Murray in the SF. Similar situation in Wimbledon 2013, Nadal and Federer were on his side of the draw but they got knocked out early stages. Now, I'm not blaming Murray for those situations. I'm just saying Lady Luck was awfully kind to him in his GS wins in reply to your post. My point stands though, Big Three. Not Big Four.

You're not looking at the big picture when you concentrate on individual random events. Nadal and Federer do not reach every major semifinal to face Murray; in fact since USO 2012, they have missed more semis than they have made. There is no obligation for Murray to wait for them to advance.

The big 4 are the guys in this era who make the final 4 noticeably more often than anyone else. Murray with his 8 slam finals has obviously earned the 2 titles against Djokovic. If anything he has been unlucky that he only faces all-time greats in finals.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
How many other players have reached 20+ GS QF or better in the current crop of top players...

Murray - 22 (8 slam finals)
Nadal - 28 (20 slam finals)
Djokovic - 31 (15 slam finals)
Federer - 43 (25 slam finals)

How many have reached 20+ SF or better at the Masters 1000

Murray - 23 (14 finals)
Djokovic - 47 (34 finals)
Federer - 55 (41 finals)
Nadal - 56 (41 finals)

How many boast 40+ career finals

Ferrer - 46 (7 at Masters/Slams)
Murray - 49 (22 at Masters/Slams)
Djokovic - 76 (49 at Master/Slams)
Nadal - 94 (61 at Masters/Slams)
Federer 129 (66 at Masters/Slams)

How many boast 30+ titles

Murray - 33
Djokovic - 53
Nadal - 65
Federer - 85

He may be behind his other 3 members but he is still in the "BIG 4"

Ok case closed. Thanks
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray getting to the later stages was not due to luck. I agree. After all, he is an awesome tennis player. However, just like many agree that Federer got lucky when he won RG 2009, I'm saying Murray was somewhat lucky when he won Wimbledon 2013 and USO 2012 because he didn't have to face them because they were knocked out early (or absent).

He had to face either the world #1 or #2 and a former champion in each of his Slam finals. I think that puts into context any helping hand he may have had from Lady Luck along the way. The history of the Slams is littered with similar kinds of occurrences for pretty nearly all the eventual Slam winners. The only thing that matters is that you beat the opponent in front of you for each of the 7 rounds at a Grand Slam. You can't do anything else. If certain players aren't good enough to meet you as scheduled, that's their problem! End of.
 
Are you afraid that Murray fans will start to think that Murray is as great as Nadal and Federer if people will use the big 4 word out of context?

You don't have to worry. His fans will think that anyway, no matter what you do, so why bother :).

original.jpg


Just kidding. I know it won't matter. But that's part of the fun of debating, isn't it?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
He had to face either the world #1 or #2 and a former champion in each of his Slam finals. I think that puts into context any helping hand he may have had from Lady Luck along the way. The history of the Slams is littered with similar kinds of occurrences for pretty nearly all the eventual Slam winners. The only thing that matters is that you beat the opponent in front of you for each of the 7 rounds at a Grand Slam. You can't do anything else. If certain players aren't good enough to meet you as scheduled, that's their problem! End of.

So, you really think Murray deserves to be in the same tier of all time greats as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Lol, this has been beaten to death too many times.

Big four or big three is a meaningless distinction. If you so desperately want to exclude Murray, then you should follow that logic and turn it into the big two, and then even big one.

The reason it's arbitrarily become the big four is because of usage and because these four used to occupy the four semi-final places during the time it was coined.

How many more threads are we going to get on this topic? As I've said over and over again in all the innumerable other threads on this subject: the solution is simple!

If you don't wish to include Murray in a Big 4, then fine. Just refer to the Big 3 + Murray if you need to refer to them collectively.

If, like I do, you think there are genuine reasons for including him, then the term Big 4 is perfectly fine!

Problem solved. Next! :)
 
How many more threads are we going to get on this topic? As I've said over and over again in all the innumerable other threads on this subject: the solution is simple!

If you don't wish to include Murray in a Big 4, then fine. Just refer to the Big 3 + Murray if you need to refer to them collectively.

If, like I do, you think there are genuine reasons for including him, then the term Big 4 is perfectly fine!

Problem solved. Next! :)

Big 3 + Murray + Wawrinka + Cilic + Del Potro = the Magnificent Seven
 
Last edited:
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Exactly! If, like I do, you think there are genuine reasons for not including him, then a term other than the Big 4 is perfectly fine!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
So, you really think Murray deserves to be in the same tier of all time greats as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic?

No, but that doesn't mean there is not a current Big 4 in tennis!

Only 4 current players have won multiple Slams and double digit Masters titles. Therefore, there is legitimate argument for a current Big 4!

Of course, there is also a legitimate argument for a Big 3 because there are certain things the other 3 players have achieved that Murray hasn't: eg. the number #1 ranking!

There is also a legitimate argument for a Big 2 because Federer and Nadal are the only current players to win double digit Slam titles!

You pays yer money and takes yer choice. It's all a matter of context!
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
No, but that doesn't mean there is not a current Big 4 in tennis!

Only 4 current players have won multiple Slams and double digit Masters titles. Therefore, there is legitimate argument for a current Big 4!

Of course, there is also a legitimate argument for a Big 3 because there are certain things the other 3 players have achieved that Murray hasn't: eg. the number #1 ranking!

There is also a legitimate argument for a Big 2 because Federer and Nadal are the only current players to win double digit Slam titles!

You pays yer money and takes yer choice. It's all a matter of context!

Yeah, I agree, so there isn't any problem and OP made this thread for nothing. It's just a matter of semantics. What terminology we use.

So, Murray fans didn't take it out of context. But, I still needed to ask you, just to make sure :).
 
Yeah, I agree, so there isn't any problem and OP made this thread for nothing. It's just a matter of semantics. What terminology we use.

You say I made this thread for nothing. I disagree. For I believe my goal was to elicit reactions and I've done that, including from you. So, it has not been entirely for naught, as you say. Unless, you're saying your opinions are nothing. If you are, please be clear and I'll be sure to file all of your opinions into the shredder henceforth.
 
Last edited:

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
But...you've posted on this thread.

See, this is what I don't get: the hypocrisy of some people. You say I made this thread for nothing, I believe my goal was to elicit reactions and I've done that, including from you. So, it has not been entirely for nought, as you say.

Also, surely, if this thread was nothing, you could have found something better to do with your time. Video game, maybe? Pleasure yourself, maybe? I don't know. Anything else (emphasis on the "thing").

Ok, if your goal was to convince people Murray is not as great as Fedal, it was for nothing, since nobody believed that in the first place.

So, in that sense it was for nothing. The thread didn't create its claimed purpose.

But, yeah, the goal of this forum is to have fun and discuss. So, none of the threads are for nothing in this sense. It's all good, I'm for fun, I'm not easily offended.
 
Top