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

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
I agree. The big three tower over all others.

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.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
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.

This thread is new and refreshing. What a unique thought you had here. Brilliant post sir! Keep up the good work. You're a credit to TTW.
 

spirit95

Professional
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 could say he was unlucky not to win many more.

His numbers but him well ahead of the rest of the field, even if he's not quite on the level of the other three. It makes more sense to refer to the big 4 rather than the big 3 or else you'd end up qualifying a lot of the things you said with 'the big 3 and Murray'.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
I say "Big 4" Murray has been consistently the 4th best player since 2008, 7 years now. Murray is better or more consistent than the rest of the field, at the same time he isn't better or more consistent than Djokovic, Nadal or Federer...how about that?

As a well known Muzzette, We all know that Murray isn't on par with the trio and nobody I know who likes Murray has suggested that other than the media, so I suggest you chuckle whenever the tennis "experts" say that, you know they get paid to say that? Then bog roll like the Sun or the Daily Fail rub it in whenever Murray loses...the "build up/put down" the British media plays.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I say "Big 4" Murray has been consistently the 4th best player since 2008, 7 years now. Murray is better or more consistent than the rest of the field, at the same time he isn't better or more consistent than Djokovic, Nadal or Federer...how about that?

Not in historical terms, no. However, as of right now, he is more consistent than any other player except Djokovic as can be seen from the race to London rankings.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Can we please stop calling 6'4'' people tall? After all, 6'7'' people are significantly taller.

That is all.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
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.

Good post and effectively the end of the thread. It is the big 4 era, and Murray is certainly a part of it, even if he was not as successful as the other 3.
 

jhhachamp

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"

More evidence of the big 4 era. Good post.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
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.



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.

Good post. I think by now the original poster must feel kind of foolish.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
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.

Calling Murray a part of the big 4 era has absolutely nothing to do with saying that he is in the same tier as any of the other players. I think you simply don't understand what the term means or why it was created in the first place.
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
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.

Bingo.....
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
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.

Good poast, Terenigma. It has spread through wide usage that was very logical at the time, and that's why it's unnecessary to shift the label now. It just creates an unnecessary confusion of terms, and seems motivated by fandom more than anything.

Of course, had the term been coined now, we could have reasoned differently and chosen something arbitrarily different. But the term has already been coined a good while ago, and it has been (and is still) used widely.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Murray hasn't accomplished enough to be apart of the Big 3 and making it a big 4.

He only has one more slam than guys like Wawrinka, Cilic, Del Potro etc.

Now if he had 4-5 slams or more than it would make more sense to consider it a "big 4". But at this point in time he needs to win more slams.

Thats not even to mention his slam final record is so damn abysmal
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Since Muzzard's slam # is so low compared to the big three he should have a #1 ranking but he doesn't even have that.
Even a slamless Rios got the #1 ranking.
 

G A S

Hall of Fame
with this thread, the only way for murray to redeem himself and give an answer, is to win the tournament, otherwise.....
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
Oh no please don't call Murray a member of the big 4!

Cry me a river guys, he's miles ahead of the non big 4 players. Time to accept it.

Or keep whining about it on a forum if you wish, won't make a difference.

Now can someone please make a dam Federer Vs Nadal thread?
 

MonkeyBoy

Hall of Fame
These graphics should show why its the big 4 and not 3

Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_9_08_48_PM.png


Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_9_08_32_PM.png
 

Talker

Hall of Fame
It was pretty much Murray trying to win something big for quite awhile, so he's always been very close.
If there's a big four then Murray's included but the least accomplished in the group.

But it doesn't really matter much now, that ERA looks about over with Nadal falling back and Fed having tough times with so many now.
 

Bukmeikara

Legend
Marketing - Big 4 covers the Globe, Big 3 leaves out the the snobs/the "Sir"s/ the gentlemans/people who like tea and Kevin Spacey.
 

G A S

Hall of Fame
It was pretty much Murray trying to win something big for quite awhile, so he's always been very close.
If there's a big four then Murray's included but the least accomplished in the group.

But it doesn't really matter much now, that ERA looks about over with Nadal falling back and Fed having tough times with so many now.

this time is the time for murray to up his game, let's see if he can do it...
 

Anti-Fedal

Professional
Oh no please don't call Murray a member of the big 4!

Cry me a river guys, he's miles ahead of the non big 4 players. Time to accept it.

Or keep whining about it on a forum if you wish, won't make a difference.

Now can someone please make a dam Federer Vs Nadal thread?

That doesn't make him part of the big 3/4 though
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
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.



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.
this.

end thread/

These graphics should show why its the big 4 and not 3

Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_9_08_48_PM.png


Screen_Shot_2015_05_31_at_9_08_32_PM.png
I've got no idea whatsoever what the graps are depicting?
 
Last edited:

wangs78

Legend
I would put it this way: the gap in achievement that separates Murray from the Big 3 is smaller than the gap that separates Murray from the rest of the top 10. You look at the number of Slam wins, finals and SFs that he's made and no one outside of the Big 4 comes remotely close.
 

Newballs

Professional
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 also 'creat' your own spelling, my friend...
 
Since it was widely used (2009) until they started to decline (end 2013);

20 Grand Slams and 45 Masters tournaments.

Andy Murray;
15 QF or better out of 19 GS participated in (79%).

24 QF or better out of 41 Masters participated in (59%).

20 titles won from 29 finals made.

Roger Federer;
18 QF or better out of 20 GS participated in (90%).

26 QF or better out of 36 Masters participated in (72%).

20 titles won from 35 finals made.

Rafa Nadal;
14 QF or better out of 17 GS participated in (82%).

34 QF or better out of 38 Masters participated in (89%).

29 titles won from 46 finals made.

Novak Djokovic;
19 QF or better out of 20 GS participated in (95%).

36 QF or better out of 42 Masters participated in (86%)

30 titles won from 45 finals made.

Very much a big 4.
 

Dave1982

Professional
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.

So you mean EVERYONE?
 

Sreeram

Professional
I would put it this way: the gap in achievement that separates Murray from the Big 3 is smaller than the gap that separates Murray from the rest of the top 10. You look at the number of Slam wins, finals and SFs that he's made and no one outside of the Big 4 comes remotely close.

You make sense, Murray is one of the Big 4. Other than the big 4, anyone winning even a masters 1000 or even playing the final is a rarity. That is why he is part of big 4 and big 4 stands, whether someone likes it or not, it is BIG 4, MURRAY is one of them. Live with it, else stop watching tennis till Murray retires.
 

Sreeram

Professional
So you mean EVERYONE?

Everyone except few tennis nut cases who think only GS winning is an achievement in tennis. If so then ATP ranking points should be given only for winning GS, everything else is nothing! Murray was a big 4 even before winning a slam.
 
Top