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

tudwell

Legend
At the end of 2010, the Big 4 had been the top four players in the world for three straight years (some wiggle room there with Delpo winning a slam, but he never finished a year in the top four in the rankings). And at that point there wasn’t a huge gap between Djokovic and Murray – many actually thought Murray had the greater prospects. So there was definitely a Big 4, and Murray for a while was not a distant fourth, as he’d become.
 

topher

Hall of Fame

Zardoz7/12

Professional
Murray was the bridge between the big 3 and the rest, he was the gatekeeper. In 2015/2016 his rise to the top had a lot to do with Djokovic going off the boil, Nadal rediscovering his form and Federer having a knee issue throughout 2016.
 
As many others have said, the Big 4 really did exist for a brief period until Andy pretty much fell off due to injuries. Of course, his accomplishments pale to those of the Big 3, but for a time, they were the only 4 with pretty much no consistent competition other than each other. And it will continue to be a process of attrition. The Big 4 turned into the Big 3. The Big 3 has now turned into the Big 2, and with Nadal on the cusp of falling apart, it will soon be the Big 1 until Novak falls apart. Then the vultures will take over and fight over the scraps.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray was the bridge between the big 3 and the rest, he was the gatekeeper. In 2015/2016 his rise to the top had a lot to do with Djokovic going off the boil, Nadal rediscovering his form and Federer having a knee issue throughout 2016.
It also had a lot to do with him playing some of his best tennis.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
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.
Jesus, he's barely in the top 5 of his era.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
At the end of 2010, the Big 4 had been the top four players in the world for three straight years (some wiggle room there with Delpo winning a slam, but he never finished a year in the top four in the rankings). And at that point there wasn’t a huge gap between Djokovic and Murray – many actually thought Murray had the greater prospects. So there was definitely a Big 4, and Murray for a while was not a distant fourth, as he’d become.
It still amuses me to recall that, by the end of the 2010 season, Murray had more Masters titles (6) than Djokovic (5).
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Well, they presumably make up the other 4 of the top 5 don't they? So why is Murray only barely in that number when he so far out performs everybody else but the first 3 in the list??
Wawrinka's wins are more valuable than Murray's - hence - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka + Murray.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Wawrinka's wins are more valuable than Murray's - hence - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka + Murray.
Murray so far outstrips Wawrinka in total career achievements it's not even funny so I'll just put this down to troll-baiting and move on. Thanks for that short and amusing exchange.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Murray so far outstrips Wawrinka in total career achievements it's not even funny so I'll just put this down to troll-baiting and move on. Thanks for that short and amusing exchange.
Wawrinka had absolutely brutal draws to win his Slams. Murray as usual collected the crumbs.

Plus Wawrinka's peak level is so much higher than Murray's it's not even funny.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Wawrinka had absolutely brutal draws to win his Slams. Murray as usual collected the crumbs.

Plus Wawrinka's peak level is so much higher than Murray's it's not even funny.
+1

Murray was inferior to 4 players in best of 5 formats, only nutcases would write articles calling him 5th best player of all time when he is 5th best in his own era

 

Nole_King

Professional
I think Big 4 is still justified because Murray remains part of the set of all current players who have won multiple Slams and been ranked #1 ie. himself and the Big 3.
I know you slipped the #1 rank stat to exclude Wawrinka but it was not before end of 2016 that Murray got to #1. And Big-4 is a term pushed down our throats long before
 
There is a difference between the term Big Four of this era and the Big Three of tennis history. They sound very similiar in media but tennis fans know the true meaning.

 
Last edited:

R. Schweikart

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.

I always thought that when the "Big Four" were referenced it meant the GOAT, Nadal, Djokovic and Wawrinka!
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
i am sorry if this is already posted but what does djok needs to do grab YE#1 ranking for 2021 season

or it is forgone concluded that djok will end the season as YE#1
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
i am sorry if this is already posted but what does djok needs to do grab YE#1 ranking for 2021 season

or it is forgone concluded that djok will end the season as YE#1
With three slams from Djokovic anyone else at the end of the year will feel like a paper number one...
 

adil1972

Hall of Fame
With three slams from Djokovic anyone else at the end of the year will feel like a paper number one...
LOL

EDIT

i ask this Q because gap between djok & medvedev is very small only 1973 points as of today Monday 6 Sept, 2021

so anything can happen after US Open till WTF tournament in november 2021


1CHNovak Djoković34.2SRB111113--US Open R16
(R32 )
-1129312933
2CHDaniil Medvedev25.5RUS19140--840US Open QF
(R16 )
-950010780

 
Last edited:

Strale

Semi-Pro
I would just say it is a British unrealistic bias...

For anyone who follows football you do remember that Dele Ali and Raheem Sterling were once valued at 150m ...Literally average players with zero talent...

Murray is a different story but still not worth of being in the company of the big 3...

In this generation it should be:

Tier 1 - Djoko,Nadal,Fed
Tier 2 - /
Tier 3 - Stan,Murray...
Tier 4 - Everyone else....

This is not trolling...

Could had Murray achieved more? Absolutely but reality right now is different...


Hatem ben arfa can dribble past 5 players and score a goal but he is not Messi or Ronaldinho tier player....
 

vex

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.
Andy was like 90% of a Big 3. That’s still an Amazing player that wrecks the rest of the tour.
 

vex

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.
Andy was like 90% of a Big 3. That’s still an Amazing player that wrecks the rest of the tour. But ability-wise, no he was not a big 3 level player. Closer than anyone else in this era tho.
 

steenkash

Hall of Fame
Wawrinka had absolutely brutal draws to win his Slams. Murray as usual collected the crumbs.

Plus Wawrinka's peak level is so much higher than Murray's it's not even funny.
Warwinka had like 2 good years, Murray was competing against Novak, Nadal and Roger at their peak.
 

Blahovic

Rookie
Since Federer became #1 in 2004, only 4 men have been ranked #1. One of those 4 is Andy Murray. The Big 4 was a real thing.
 

MeatTornado

G.O.A.T.
Big 4 came about when Novak was still sitting on 1 slam and couldn't hold a candle to Federer & Nadal. It was never about 4 players of equal skill or accomplishments. It was about them being the only 4 contenders for every title. Andy didn't win as much as the other 3 but was right there with them at basically every single major & Masters event for many, many years.

And it's beyond idiotic to blame the British media for it. They have zero impact on how I view things as an American, yet we still all called it the Big 4 over here.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
It actually existed. It's not up for debate. It's been superceded by The Big Three and that's not up for debate either.
This. Regardless of how you feel about Murray in comparison to the other 3, there was a significant period of tennis that was dominated by all of them. Murray included. If a big event wasn't won by one of the 4 then it was a shock and if a semi final didn't involve all 4 of them, it was also a shock.
 

Ventoux

New User
I thought the British media (mainly BBC) stuck Murray into the big 3 to make it a foursome, just so they could bring him into every conversation. Cue Sue Barker "So, what about Andy Murray", during a conversation about something else.
 

Sunny014

Legend
Yeah I’m sticking with 90. Alto those numbers don’t tell the full story. He has more wins over the B3. But 5 wins knocking the B3 out of slams. Has anyone else gotten 5 over them?
Out of his 5 wins his 2010win over injured Nadal and 2013ao win over back issues struggling old Federer can be ignored, only remaining 3 wins are legit....

In any case, he is not that great, just hyped by media, his peak levels were not good enough to take over atgs to win slams
 

Sunny014

Legend
Maybe worth pointing out Stan beat baby Murray on clay in the 2005 DC (Stan was 50 places above Murray).

I don’t really need to say anything about Hiprray in the 2020 FO.
Stan himself was a baby in 2005, he was not a veteran

Accept it ...Murray is 5th in the last 15 years, those british articles of he being 5th in all time were laughable
 

Fabresque

Hall of Fame
The British media has a long history of overhyping British athletes whether they deserve it or not.
Prevalent this summer when England’s players were all praised and cheered for being runners-up at the Euro’s. Rewarding failure, typical British trait.
 

Wurm

Semi-Pro
As expected people who obviously didn't live through tennis from 2004 to 2016, let alone followed tennis before some/any of the Big Three were even born, haven't the faintest clue. It's simply not up for debate, The Big Four era is established history.

Trying to include Wawrinka in the discussion when the term came into existence more than 5 years before he won his first, what seemed like a blip at the time, slam is just asinine. He simply wasn't in the conversation 2008-2013 when the era was in full flight and still wasn't really in any Big Whatever discussion until he repeated the trick in 2015.
 

SonnyT

Hall of Fame
When Murray won his 2nd slam in '13, Djokovic had 6, and Federer already 17. So the Federer-Djokovic gap was huge, compared to the Djokovic-Murray gap.

Isn't Murray the only #1 ranked player besides B3 since Federer first was ranked #1?
 

Sunny014

Legend
As expected people who obviously didn't live through tennis from 2004 to 2016, let alone followed tennis before some/any of the Big Three were even born, haven't the faintest clue. It's simply not up for debate, The Big Four era is established history.

Trying to include Wawrinka in the discussion when the term came into existence more than 5 years before he won his first, what seemed like a blip at the time, slam is just asinine. He simply wasn't in the conversation 2008-2013 when the era was in full flight and still wasn't really in any Big Whatever discussion until he repeated the trick in 2015.
Everybody knows the term big 4 did exist, but then many such stupid terms exist in the media, that doesn't mean they have any relevance.

Such silly terms were popularized by the british media who even hyped fellows like Tim Henman, no surprise really.

Today in the mainstream there is only big 3, Murray for all practical purposes is only as good as Stan, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin, nothing more.
 
I think Murray was a Lendl Agassi level player, that was demoted to only getting 3 slams because of the bad luck of being contemporary of the big 3
 
Top