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.
Did the British media created the Big-4, or did it actually exist?
- Thread starter steenkash
- Start date
El_Yotamo
Hall of Fame
Mainad
Bionic Poster
The divide is in degree but not in kind. I stand by what I said.
topher
Hall of Fame
:focal(1291x532:1293x530)/origin-imgresizer.eurosport.com/2016/11/03/1962922-41253925-2560-1440.jpg)
Andy Murray is among the five greatest tennis players of all time
From nearly man to the man, Andy Murray is close to scaling the summit of his sport, an achievement as special as winning Wimbledon, writes Desmond Kane.www.eurosport.co.uk
Well, if you say Federer was better in 2015 than ever before, as Roger himself said. Then Murray in 2016 was able to do what Fed at his best was not able to do, unseat peak Novak.
Ergo Murray >> Peak Fed, i.e. MuryGOAT
Zardoz7/12
Hall of Fame
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.
MiamiWeekendWarrior
Hall of Fame
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
It also had a lot to do with him playing some of his best tennis.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Jesus, he's barely in the top 5 of his era.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
It still amuses me to recall that, by the end of the 2010 season, Murray had more Masters titles (6) than Djokovic (5).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Really? Care to elaborate on which players were hot on his heels for a place in the top 5 of his era??
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka.
Mainad
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??
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Wawrinka's wins are more valuable than Murray's - hence - Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka + Murray.
Mainad
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.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
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
+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
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
Genie Of the Bank
Hall of Fame
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:
TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
There is a difference between the term Big Four of this era and the Big Three of tennis history. The sound very similiar in media but tennis fans know the true meaning.
Genie Of the Bank
Hall of Fame
R. Schweikart
Professional
I always thought that when the "Big Four" were referenced it meant the GOAT, Nadal, Djokovic and Wawrinka!
NatF
Bionic Poster
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
| 1 | CH | Novak Djoković | 34.2 | SRB1 | 11113 | - | - | US Open R16 (R32 ) | - | 11293 | 12933 | |
| 2 | CH | Daniil Medvedev | 25.5 | RUS1 | 9140 | - | -840 | US Open QF (R16 ) | - | 9500 | 10780 |
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....
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
Legend
Andy was like 90% of a Big 3. That’s still an Amazing player that wrecks the rest of the tour.
vex
Legend
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.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
More failed trolling. Cheerio!
steenkash
Hall of Fame
Warwinka had like 2 good years, Murray was competing against Novak, Nadal and Roger at their peak.
vex
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?90?? lol
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
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.
Rebel-I.N.S
Hall of Fame
90?? lol
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.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Why would Wawrinka be the 4th big thing?
Terenigma
G.O.A.T.
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.
-snake-
Hall of Fame
BS excuse to justify his failures vs top opposition lol. Plenty of tier 2 players beat the top 3 (at the slems) from 2007 to 2012.
Last edited:
Sunny014
Legend
Sunny014
Legend
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
Legend
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
Professional
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.
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.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Andy Murray is among the five greatest tennis players of all time
From nearly man to the man, Andy Murray is close to scaling the summit of his sport, an achievement as special as winning Wimbledon, writes Desmond Kane.
The nerve on these guys, top 5 all time. Hahaha.
Sunny014
Legend
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.
jussumman
Hall of Fame
Because he won 3 slams in 3 different venues. Murray only 2 and on the outdated grass surface twice.
TennisLurker
Professional
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
Similar threads
