Did the British media created the Big-4, or did it actually exist?

steenkash

Hall of Fame
After what's been going on in the media with Murray and the Philosopher, I am curious to know what you guys think. For me, ability-wise Murray was on par with Nadal, Federer and Novak. If his back injuries didn't hinder his career, he would have been on double digits on Grand Slams. It's such a shame he faded away later down his career, I loved his competitive spirit and ability to create points out of nowhere. He was a master tactician. I also found it hilarious that the AO had a farewell to Andy 2 years back, as if they decided his retirement for him lmao.
 

steenkash

Hall of Fame
The Big 4 was created because these four guys were all incredibly consistent and blocking everyone else.

However, the British media probably overrated that term. I still can't forget that article about Murray being top 5 all time.
Lmao, what? Top 5 of all time?
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
We can't underestimate how involved the ATP marketing team was in this. It did not happen by accident, and it was always a reach. But it worked, though for a shorter spell than I think the narrative suggests. It kind of ended in 2013 as an actual big four but it looked different because all four had periods of being No.1 for a long time after.
Was it the British? It helps any player to be from a slam hosting country or to speak English as a native language. Murray definitely got a lift there.
But Murray also did the work and has a great slam record.
I don['t agree he had the same potential as the other 3. He had a wonderful game that could compete with them. But if he had the same potential, I think he would have shown it in the first few slam finals and won one. Yes, the competition was intense, but if he was on a par with them then why could he not beat them?
 

Dominic & Andrey

Hall of Fame
Yes, the H2H of the Big 4 against guys like Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, Cilic, Del Po etc,proves it.
I remember on French TV journalists asking Gilles Simon which member of the Big 3 was the toughest opponent, he answered that for him, he thought he struggled even more playing Murray
 

ibbi

Legend
I don't know what you mean by does it actually exist? I mean if people talk about it then it actually exists as much as a concept can exist.

The reason that people give it credibility is that Murray was far more consistent than everyone else on the tour, but to me the big 4 is a much less meaningful an idea than the big 3, because while Murray might be streets ahead of everyone else in terms of consistency, he is still closer to the pack than he is to the big 3.

Granted, stats in above link would read very differently if you stopped counting in the summer of 2017 when Andy fell off, or in 2013 when the big 4 era really ended, but that the other three have kept going/returned from the dead is part of what makes their legacy to special. The legend of the big 3 has left the legend of the big 4 in the dust.
 

tex123

Professional
After what's been going on in the media with Murray and the Philosopher, I am curious to know what you guys think. For me, ability-wise Murray was on par with Nadal, Federer and Novak. If his back injuries didn't hinder his career, he would have been on double digits on Grand Slams. It's such a shame he faded away later down his career, I loved his competitive spirit and ability to create points out of nowhere. He was a master tactician. I also found it hilarious that the AO had a farewell to Andy 2 years back, as if they decided his retirement for him lmao.
Murray was never close to big3 in terms of abilities. His game was passive and his whining was excessive.

Don't assume Murray was loved universally in Britain. He's Scottish and he supported independence. There's plenty of healthy rivalry between England and Scotland. Neutral press and left would embrace him but right wing press like the daily mail and the telegraph would take every opportunity to bash him. Many here despised him esp. his on court behaviour. Nadal and Fed were loved much more. Things started to change after he won Slams. He cried on center court which also helped to improve his standing.

Press is brutal here. Don't know where big 4 came from. It is just that others were so far in terms of abilities, big 4 was coined. Actually, it should be big 5 with Wawrinka included.
 

muddlehead

Semi-Pro
When Murray won his second major, Wimby 2013, Djoker had 6. (Roger 17 Rafa 12). By the time Murray won his 3rd and last major, Wimby 2016 Djoker had 12.
As for Stan W, when he won his second major, RG 2015, Djoker had 8. When Stan won his 3rd and last major, USO 2016, Djoker had 12.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
The British media has a long history of overhyping British athletes whether they deserve it or not.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray was never close to big3 in terms of abilities. His game was passive and his whining was excessive.

Don't assume Murray was loved universally in Britain. He's Scottish and he supported independence. There's plenty of healthy rivalry between England and Scotland. Neutral press and left would embrace him but right wing press like the daily mail and the telegraph would take every opportunity to bash him. Many here despised him esp. his on court behaviour. Nadal and Fed were loved much more. Things started to change after he won Slams. He cried on center court which also helped to improve his standing.

Press is brutal here. Don't know where big 4 came from. It is just that others were so far in terms of abilities, big 4 was coined. Actually, it should be big 5 with Wawrinka included.
The Big 4 term came into being when Murray was part of 4 players who were consistently winning the big titles and making the finals (roughly from 2009 onwards). Wawrinka was late to the party.
 

3loudboys

Legend
The British media has a long history of overhyping British athletes whether they deserve it or not.
Agreed - they’re irresponsible to say the least. Not the athletes fault and probably a hindrance to progression. Tabloid press being being the worst.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
The trick is to ignore the stupid tabloids and focus on the quality papers. :cool:
I mean, I’m a big F1 fan, and most commentators are British. It’s amusing to listen to them overhyping young guys like Russell and Norris, the same way they did to Button and Hill. Also it’s very curious that every accident that involves Hamilton is not his fault :) The national football team has been put under enormous pressure since 1966 as well.
Tabloids are not alone at fault.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I mean, I’m a big F1 fan, and most commentators are British. It’s amusing to listen to them overhyping young guys like Russell and Norris, the same way they did to Button and Hill. Also it’s very curious that every accident that involves Hamilton is not his fault :) The national football team has been put under enormous pressure since 1966 as well.
Tabloids are not alone at fault.
Just increases my respect for guys like Murray and Hamilton and the British Olympian and Paralympian teams that they withstood all that kind of hysterical tabloid pressure and delivered the goods. :)
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Just increases my respect for guys like Murray and Hamilton and the British Olympian and Paralympian teams that they withstood all that kind of hysterical tabloid pressure and brought home the goods. :)
Absolutely, I think there are athletes who are truly outstanding like Murray and Hamilton, but overhyping everyone systematically doesn’t do them justice.
 

Lgoel

New User
Big 4 did really exist. Murray was not in league of big 3, but he was far above the rest

Looking at last 4, Murray has 21 grand slam semi-final. Just to give an idea Pete has 23!!

He is the only one outside of Big 3 to be ranked number 1 since like ever

In 2012 , he got one grand slam and Olympic gold. In 2013 he got one more slam
This is what got him into big 4

He has 46 ATP tour titles..who is the next after him in modern era?
 

spottishwood

Semi-Pro
Big 4 did really exist. Murray was not in league of big 3, but he was far above the rest

Looking at last 4, Murray has 21 grand slam semi-final. Just to give an idea Pete has 23!!

He is the only one outside of Big 3 to be ranked number 1 since like ever

In 2012 , he got one grand slam and Olympic gold. In 2013 he got one more slam
This is what got him into big 4

He has 46 ATP tour titles..who is the next after him in modern era?
Another Andy with 32
 

tex123

Professional
The British media has a long history of overhyping British athletes whether they deserve it or not.
There was a time but we've started delivering now. #2 in Paralympics and #4 in Olympics. We're a tiny island compared to the USA, China and Russia.

Britain has a lot of soft power (tv, music, history, monarchy etc.) which is why you hear about them more often in your local press. Football was all hype but the team has started delivering - loss against Italy in the final. They'll win the next.

No hope for tennis though. Murray was the one and only one who broke through.
 

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
I think it's because they were the top 4 ranked players for almost a decade. They were, constantly, the last4 standing in virtually every draw. The debate always was who was going be drawn with whom in the semi-final. I think they deserve to be called the Big4. When they start stretching it to the Big 5 bringing Stan into the picture I thought they'd lost the plot because had not been consistent in any shape or form in the top 5.
 

BGod

Legend
They were covering all quarters of their draw most of the time. Without the back issues I certainly do think Andy wins 2-3 more Slams and therefore the term carries more weight but as it went Big 5 made way more sense but only lasted for 2015-2016.

So it was always just Big 3 historically.
 

steenkash

Hall of Fame
Just increases my respect for guys like Murray and Hamilton and the British Olympian and Paralympian teams that they withstood all that kind of hysterical tabloid pressure and delivered the goods. :)
British media are the worst, they been hounding at Hamilton and Murray for years, Hamilton especially. Hamilton is a 7-time world champion, the press should be kissing his feet.
 

Sunny014

Legend
8 Tennis Tiers

Tier 1 :
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal & Peter Sampras
Tier 2 : Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Lendl and Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Courier, Murray, Roddick, Stanimal, Hewitt, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc + Marat Safin too (could have been in Tier 3 with a bit of discipline)
Tier 5 : Nalbandian, Gaudio, Thiem etc etc ( Finalists or 1 time fluke winners of slams )
Tier 6 : Random Journeymen like Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga etc etc
Tier 7 : Those ranked outside top 20-30 but inside top 100
Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100

3 Tiers difference between Mooray and the Big 3. :whistle:
 
Last edited:

egrorian

Rookie
8 Tennis Tiers

Tier 1 :
Federer, Djokovic, Nadal & Peter Sampras
Tier 2 : Borg, Connors, Mcenroe, Lendl and Agassi
Tier 3 : Becker, Wilander, Edberg
Tier 4 : Courier, Murray, Roddick, Stanimal, Hewitt, Kuerten, Ivanisevic, Bruguera etc etc + Marat Safin too (could have been in Tier 3 with a bit of discipline)
Tier 5 : Nalbandian, Gaudio, Thiem etc etc ( Finalists or 1 time fluke winners of slams )
Tier 6 : Random Journeymen like Raonic, Nishikori, Tsonga etc
Tier 7 : Those ranked outside top 20-30 but inside top 100
Tier 8 : Those ranked outside the top 100

3 Tiers difference between Mooray and the Big 3.
The man with the best GS winning percentage (Borg) has to be tier 1 IMHO.
 

Sunny014

Legend
The man with the best GS winning percentage (Borg) has to be tier 1 IMHO.
Problem is Lendl, Connors & Mac lead him titles, weeks at 1, and on WTFs too which were passionately played in those days along with Slams. Plus Borg's GS winning % would have dropped if he stayed around to play another 6-8 years because he retiring at 25-26 means 86% of his matches he played in slams in his career were vs guys older to him, he did not face the next gen enough. While his clay slams are legit, his grass slams could have 2 or 3 at max if Johnny Mac was of his same age and debuted with him, so I feel Borg is in the same league as those names in Tier 2.

Sampras I placed in Tier 1 because he is excellent and had some strengths and dominated his era for a full decade, same cannot be said of Borg.
 

egrorian

Rookie
Problem is Lendl, Connors & Mac lead him titles, weeks at 1, and on WTFs too which were passionately played in those days along with Slams. Plus Borg's GS winning % would have dropped if he stayed around to play another 6-8 years because he retiring at 25-26 means 86% of his matches he played in slams in his career were vs guys older to him, he did not face the next gen enough. While his clay slams are legit, his grass slams could have 2 or 3 at max if Johnny Mac was of his same age and debuted with him, so I feel Borg is in the same league as those names in Tier 2.

Sampras I placed in Tier 1 because he is excellent and had some strengths and dominated his era for a full decade, same cannot be said of Borg.
It's subjective I agree but nevertheless what "could have been" can't really be a factor. Otherwise, had Borg not had the thumb blister he may well have beaten Connors in the 1978 US Open final, or if not injured in 1977 he may well have won the title that year, had he played on who knows etc. etc. The weeks as world no.1 is totally skewed as Connors was officially no.1 even in 1978 - unfairly on Borg, who was clearly the best player in the world that year. Vilas had the most match and title wins in 1977 and should have been world number one but it has to be said that Borg was the BEST player in the world four straight years 1977 to 1980 inclusive.
 

ScottleeSV

Professional
If Murray is in it, Wawrinka has to be in it as well. So it's either a big 3 or a big 5; take your pick.

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are obviously miles ahead of the other 2 in terms of slams, but never forget what Murray and Wawrinka contributed to that era. They put in some unbelievable performances in grand slam finals.
 

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
It did exist, they were just so far ahead of everyone else it wasn't funny and there wasn't the big seperation between the other 3 and Murray in terms of achievements until 2011 when Djokovic started dominating for the first time and we didn't know yet that Murray was going to be quite so mentally weak in grand slam finals
 
Top