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

[ibbi]

The argument that people make, that Murray is a great player that would have double digit slams in any other era is an argument for the big 3, against the big 4. There were 4 of them, and 3 of them had double digit slams by the time Muzz fell off, and he had 3. If he was worthy of being held up alongside them surely that playing field would have been a little bit more level.

I look at it this way. The big 4 was a thing from 2008 when Sir Andy won his first 1000, made his first major final, and made it to 4 in the world, until 2013 when Federer fell out the top 4. That was like a 5 year stretch where, unless I'm forgetting somebody, they were 1, 2, 3, and 4 the entire time in some order or another. It was its own specific little era.

The big 3 is a thing that has lasted from 2007 when Novak wins his first 1000, makes his first slam final, and finishes as 3 in the world, and while certainly it has had ups and downs, they still monopolized the majors until civilization fell apart last year, and they were still 1, 2 and 3 in the world as late as early 2020.

 

[Sunny014]

The argument that people make, that Murray is a great player that would have double digit slams in any other era is an argument for the big 3, against the big 4. There were 4 of them, and 3 of them had double digit slams by the time Muzz fell off, and he had 3. If he was worthy of being held up alongside them surely that playing field would have been a little bit more level.

I look at it this way. The big 4 was a thing from 2008 when Sir Andy won his first 1000, made his first major final, and made it to 4 in the world, until 2013 when Federer fell out the top 4. That was like a 5 year stretch where, unless I'm forgetting somebody, they were 1, 2, 3, and 4 the entire time in some order or another. It was its own specific little era.

The big 3 is a thing that has lasted from 2007 when Novak wins his first 1000, makes his first slam final, and finishes as 3 in the world, and while certainly it has had ups and downs, they still monopolized the majors until civilization fell apart last year, and they were still 1, 2 and 3 in the world as late as early 2020.

Looks like winning double digit slam anyone can do..... lol

Those fellows who talk of Andy winning a lot of slams don't know how difficult it was to win even 6-7 slams in the career for ATGs like Becker/Wilander

Murray is not worth more than 3 slams in any era

 

[DjokoLand]

Big 4 did exist per se. Murray didn’t just suffer with his Slam F record he also suffered in the SF. It was created as the 4 used to always make SF consistently and before 2011 all the way up to 2015 Djokovic was closer to Murray in numbers than Fedal. Murray and Djokovic where very close in level one just got much better and the other didnt

 

[Mainad]

Because he won 3 slams in 3 different venues. Murray only 2 and on the outdated grass surface twice.

Lol....Wimbledon is still the pinnacle of tennis achievement as even the players acknowledge. Plus Murray won a total of 46 titles (20 of them big) to Wawrinka's 16 (4 of them big) and was ranked #1 whilst Wawrinka was never ranked higher than #3. On no planet anywhere does Wawrinka outrank Murray for 4th best player of the current era.

 

[Robert C]

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.

What are you talking about? The “Big 4” was created by Nadal! It was a statement by him. The same four would always keep getting to the semis of slams - with incredible consistency. Nadal was right, if you want to argue you are arguing with him.

 

[Robert C]

Lol....Wimbledon is still the pinnacle of tennis achievement as even the players acknowledge. Plus Murray won a total of 46 titles (20 of them big) to Wawrinka's 16 (4 of them big) and was ranked #1 whilst Wawrinka was never ranked higher than #3. On no planet anywhere does Wawrinka outrank Murray for 4th best player of the current era.

Absolutely, and Wawrinka would normally be expected to go out early in most major tournaments while Murray would progress a long way. Night and day. Wawrinka spent most of his career being called a pigeon and his career is essentially entirely ignored except for a handful of matches.

 

[Sunny014]

Big 4 did exist per se. Murray didn’t just suffer with his Slam F record he also suffered in the SF. It was created as the 4 used to always make SF consistently and before 2011 all the way up to 2015 Djokovic was closer to Murray in numbers than Fedal. Murray and Djokovic where very close in level one just got much better and the other didnt

Novak won his first slam in 2008 while Murray did in 2012
Nole was already ranked 1 with 5 slams before Murray even won his 1st slam
Nole was on 12 slams when Murray was on 2 slams in 2016

They were never in any same league, stop overyhyping Murray

Murray's only achievements in slams is his 2 wins over Novak and 1 win over a fit Nadal, rest of his wins vs big 3 are all bogus, plus he has never had to beat 2 members of big 3 to win a slam, he always won via weak draws, lets not pretend that he defeated any members of the big 3 back to back to win\

At least Stan has beaten Big 3 back to back to win slams

 

[cortado]

In hindsight, now that he's out of the picture and I'm watching his highlights and classic matches, I think he was underrated.
His game wasn't flashy like Federer so I always thought of him as boring (matches against Djokovic didn't help).
He's actually insanely good. And he gave 100% his whole career.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray is that player who had a very consistent level in slams to reach the second week without losing to guys outside the top 10 but vs ATGs he would always fall short because his peak level was never that high. Thats why in BO3 Murray has an excellent record but not in BO5, Winning slams require a high peak level, that is what seperates someone like Safin from these fellows, he casually partied and won 2 slams without much consistency because of his overall high peak while Murray despite his consistency of always reaching the second week failed vs better quality players.....

 

[DjokoLand]

Novak won his first slam in 2008 while Murray did in 2012
Nole was already ranked 1 with 5 slams before Murray even won his 1st slam
Nole was on 12 slams when Murray was on 2 slams in 2016

They were never in any same league, stop overyhyping Murray

Murray's only achievements in slams is his 2 wins over Novak and 1 win over a fit Nadal, rest of his wins vs big 3 are all bogus, plus he has never had to beat 2 members of big 3 to win a slam, he always won via weak draws, lets not pretend that he defeated any members of the big 3 back to back to win\

At least Stan has beaten Big 3 back to back to win slams

I never said same league I said close. In 2010 Djokovic had 1 slam and Murray had 0. In 2014 Djokovic had 7 Murray had 2. I said Djokovic was closer to Murray than Fedal not in level I mean in numbers. Djokovic might of become as good as Fedal but still in 2014 the numbers weren’t there. He was close in weeks at #1 and masters but slams was the issue.

 

[DjokoLand]

Murray is that player who had a very consistent level in slams to reach the second week without losing to guys outside the top 10 but vs ATGs he would always fall short because his peak level was never that high. Winning slams require a high peak level, that is what seperates someone like Safin from these fellows, he casually partied and won 2 slams without much consistency because of his overall high peak while Murray despite his consistency of always reaching the second week failed vs better quality players.....

You can’t say he’s level wasn’t high he was stopped by the best 3 players of all time.

 

[Sunny014]

I never said same league I said close. In 2010 Djokovic had 1 slam and Murray had 0. In 2014 Djokovic had 7 Murray had 2. I said Djokovic was closer to Murray than Fedal not in level I mean in numbers. Djokovic might of become as good as Fedal but still in 2014 the numbers weren’t there. He was close in weeks at #1 and masters but slams was the issue.

You can’t say he’s level wasn’t high he was stopped by the best 3 players of all time.

Novak was always miles ahead of Murray bro, even back then. You might be seeing the ranking of 3 and 4 thinking Nole was slightly ahead of Murray, but no.

Novak was eliminated by Federer in 3 straight USOs 07, 08 and 09.
Novak was eliminated in 2007 and 2008 FO by Nadal himself.
Wimbledon in 07 he faced fitness issues and he was eliminated by Nadal in Qf, or else he would have reached finals, would have lost very badly but my point is he was so good even then on grass while Murray who was a grass courter specialist, in 08 he was eliminated by Safin who reached semis
AO Nole had already won once while Murray never made it past the 4th round until 2010.

Nole was just losing to Fedal and sometimes to others while Murray was regularly losing in slams to Almagro, Tosnga, Gonzales, Verdasco, Roddick, Cilic, Berdych, Stan etc etc

List is big, trust me Murray was never close to Novak except the 2012-2013 period when both of them same number of slams, it was a slight slump for Novak when was losing to Nadal in slams he did not win and also 2 times to Murray, still Nole was ahead.

Murray was never in their league. His peak level is not that high

 

[DjokoLand]

Novak was always miles ahead of Murray bro, even back then. You might be seeing the ranking of 3 and 4 thinking Nole was slightly ahead of Murray, but no.

Novak was eliminated by Federer in 3 straight USOs 07, 08 and 09.
Novak was eliminated in 2007 and 2008 FO by Nadal himself.
Wimbledon in 07 he faced fitness issues and he was eliminated by Nadal in Qf, or else he would have reached finals, would have lost very badly but my point is he was so good even then on grass while Murray who was a grass courter specialist, in 08 he was eliminated by Safin who reached semis
AO Nole had already won once while Murray never made it past the 4th round until 2010.

Nole was just losing to Fedal and sometimes to others while Murray was regularly losing in slams to Almagro, Tosnga, Gonzales, Verdasco, Roddick, Cilic, Berdych, Stan etc etc

List is big, trust me Murray was never close to Novak except the 2012-2013 period when both of them same number of slams, it was a slight slump for Novak when was losing to Nadal in slams he did not win and also 2 times to Murray, still Nole was ahead.

Murray was never in their league. His peak level is not that high

I’ll agree to disagree. The only thing I want to say is Murray peak level not that high ? What are you comparing it too ? Like for example if Murray and Wawrinka played 15 times, Wawrinka would have the highest level in 1 of the matches than Murray at his best but Murray would probably win 12 of them.

Are you saying Murray while being consistently very good his highest level isn’t much higher ?

 

[Sunny014]

I think at the end of 2010 Nole had a losing H2H to only 4 players

Federer
Nadal
Rodddick
Tsonga

He led Murray slightly even then in 2010

2011 onwards he surged ahead.

 

[Sunny014]

I’ll agree to disagree. The only thing I want to say is Murray peak level not that high ? What are you comparing it too ? Like for example if Murray and Wawrinka played 15 times, Wawrinka would have the highest level in 1 of the matches than Murray at his best but Murray would probably win 12 of them.

Are you saying Murray while being consistently very good his highest level isn’t much higher ?

Murray and Hewitt are same type of players, super consistent with their levels, but peak levels not that high. Today if you look back you might feel Murray is better than Hewitt levelwise because game has become more power and defence oriented, shorter guys below 6 feet havent won slams since 04 but if you compare eras then you will find their levels same.

Murray has a losing H2H to even Stan in BO5, not just the Big 3 ...... Thats 3-5 ....Why do you think this is the case? They are just separated by 2 years age diff and yet murray is behind...... Like I said, Murray was quite good in reaching week 2 of slams but he always fell short in week 2, he lost to players other than big 3 as well.

Both Hewitt and Murray have lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion, in Hewitt's case he was not a part of the homogenous era, so he often faced these champs (like Fed) in the Qfs and Semis instead of the finals/semis like Murray did because like I said, he was more consistent in BO3 and so rankings were stable for him and homogeneous era meant easier for top guys to remaining in top 10 than previous era when rankings fluctuated more

Thats why you find Murray making as many grand slams semis as Sampras but very poor conversion ratio, even in the absence of the Big 3 he would have not won many slams.

 

[Sunny014]

Murray is in the same tier of greatness as Hewitt/Stan/Safin/Roddick in terms of peak level

If Murray was in the 6-9 slams league then he would have challenged the big 3 more and taken some slams from them.

They would have been on 18-18-18 now instead of 20-20-20 and Murray would be on 8-9 slams if he was as good a Agassi.

But he wasn't

 

[DjokoLand]

Murray is in the same tier of greatness as Hewitt/Stan/Safin/Roddick in terms of peak level

If Murray was in the 6-9 slams league then he would have challenged the big 3 more and taken some slams from them.

They would have been on 18-18-18 now instead of 20-20-20 and Murray would be on 8-9 slams if he was as good a Agassi.

But he wasn't

I understand what you are saying but consistentcy is a big part of the game. Look at Kei for example or Ferrer both lost to Djokovic and Fed 17 times in a row but they are better than most players.
Murray might not be flashy or anything but he was better than you make out for me.

 

[Sunny014]

I understand what you are saying but consistentcy is a big part of the game. Look at Kei for example or Ferrer both lost to Djokovic and Fed 17 times in a row but they are better than most players.
Murray might not be flashy or anything but he was better than you make out for me.

Defending champion Murray lost to Grigor Dimitrov at wimbledon in 2014


Anyway, Murray was consistent (at the top level) in slams from 2010 till 2016, Stan was from 2012 till 2017

Just 1 year difference, is it that big a deal ?

Stan looks trashy because of his non existent performance in the 2000s while Murray was ranked high and rising, so he got hype and poor Stan was always under Fed's shadow. Had Stan british then he would have been marketed as THOR with a Thammer, something like that..... Poor guy was always considered a nobody because the only significant guy from switzerland is RF.

 

[DjokoLand]

Defending champion Murray lost to Grigor Dimitrov at wimbledon in 2014


Anyway, Murray was consistent (at the top level) in slams from 2010 till 2016, Stan was from 2012 till 2017

Just 1 year difference, is it that big a deal ?

Stan looks trashy because of his non existent performance in the 2000s while Murray was ranked high and rising, so he got hype and poor Stan was always under Fed's shadow. Had Stan british then he would have been marketed as THOR with a Thammer, something like that..... Poor guy was always considered a nobody because the only significant guy from switzerland is RF.

Still even with the better H2H record in slams you can’t say Stan is better.
I’ll agree with you that Stan at his best is better than Murray at his best but that was a rare occurrence. I like Stan better and while his top level is insane his base level was miles behind Murray.

About the last statement poor Stan he even said in a interview he is the guy tennis player from Switzerland that doesn’t win anything

 

[King No1e]

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.

It very, very much existed. They were the giants of the time, trading wins among themselves at pretty much every big tournament and taking up the semi spots almost every time. Between RG10 and USO12, at least 3 of the 4 were in every single slam semi. The big 4 era ended in probably 2014 or 15, after which at least one of the 4 would be AWOL at any given time. It wasn't about the slam count, it was about the rivalries, consistency, and huge distance between themselves and the field.

Side note, Murray did tentatively announce his retirement at a presser right before AO19, saying he'd be done after Wimbledon. Changed his mind later.

 

[Sunny014]

Still even with the better H2H record in slams you can’t say Stan is better.
I’ll agree with you that Stan at his best is better than Murray at his best but that was a rare occurrence. I like Stan better and while his top level is insane his base level was miles behind Murray.

About the last statement poor Stan he even said in a interview he is the guy tennis player from Switzerland that doesn’t win anything

There is no doubt that Sir Andy Murray has achieved more in tennis in terms of accomplishments in the game as well as money than Stan/Roddick/Hewitt/Safin, however in terms of ability in challenging ATGs to slam wins/peak level play he was no different from that, thats why he could not win 6-7 slams and stand out, but at a base level if I have to bet my life on someone reaching week 2 among these guys I would put the bets on Murray, someone like Safin or Stan would be the last to put my bets on, even Hewitt was reliable but nobody like Murray there. But thats it, once they reach the Qfs, they are all the same, infact Safin and Stan would surged ahead of Murray for me, if it is a HC ... and even on clay I would put bets on Stan .... on Grass Roddick and Murray both high bets... even Hewitt was pretty good

It very, very much existed. They were the giants of the time, trading wins among themselves at pretty much every big tournament and taking up the semi spots almost every time. Between RG10 and USO12, at least 3 of the 4 were in every single slam semi. The big 4 era ended in probably 2014 or 15, after which at least one of the 4 would be AWOL at any given time. It wasn't about the slam count, it was about the rivalries, consistency, and huge distance between themselves and the field.

Side note, Murray did tentatively announce his retirement at a presser right before AO19, saying he'd be done after Wimbledon. Changed his mind later.

It had more to do with Murray also being a very promising youngster in mid-late 00s along with Novak who were considered similar, so the british media hype Murray a lot, Sir Andy did well to remain 4 in the world just behind the big 3, so the media utilized this. At that point Stan did not exist any any level, Murray somehow did win slams (I never believed he could pip Novak to steal 2 under his nose but he actually did it), so 2012-2013 was his great Phase where he probably showed some justice to that term and then went down. Stan emerged and he was the new Big 4 candidate (in that same vein) but nobody hyped him since he is not from Britain.

Had he been, he would have got tremendous hype......British Media would have hyped him as the GIANT KILLER


To Summarize : Terms like Big 4 or Big 3 were always terms to showcase a rivalry, not necessarily that the players are of same potential/ability. Just to show that they are challenging each other and can take some wins.

Novak and Andy were both nothing in 2010 or even in 2011 compared to Fedal's achievements, they were a league below the legends, yet Novak and Andy were included, Novak did justify that hype with his 2011 year, becoming 1 and then controlling tennis dominance for a decade, Andy failed the hype and proved mediocre- Thats all.

 

[Mainad]

It very, very much existed. They were the giants of the time, trading wins among themselves at pretty much every big tournament and taking up the semi spots almost every time. Between RG10 and USO12, at least 3 of the 4 were in every single slam semi. The big 4 era ended in probably 2014 or 15, after which at least one of the 4 would be AWOL at any given time. It wasn't about the slam count, it was about the rivalries, consistency, and huge distance between themselves and the field.

Side note, Murray did tentatively announce his retirement at a presser right before AO19, saying he'd be done after Wimbledon. Changed his mind later.

Correction. He said it might be his last appearance there (given the state of his hip injury) and everybody jumped to conclusions that he had announced his retirement. He hadn't and he hasn't.

 

[King No1e]

There is no doubt that Sir Andy Murray has achieved more in tennis in terms of accomplishments in the game as well as money than Stan/Roddick/Hewitt/Safin, however in terms of ability in challenging ATGs to slam wins/peak level play he was no different from that, thats why he could not win 6-7 slams and stand out, but at a base level if I have to bet my life on someone reaching week 2 among these guys I would put the bets on Murray, someone like Safin or Stan would be the last to put my bets on, even Hewitt was reliable but nobody like Murray there. But thats it, once they reach the Qfs, they are all the same, infact Safin and Stan would surged ahead of Murray for me, if it is a HC ... and even on clay I would put bets on Stan .... on Grass Roddick and Murray both high bets... even Hewitt was pretty good



It had more to do with Murray also being a very promising youngster in mid-late 00s along with Novak who were considered similar, so the british media hype Murray a lot, Sir Andy did well to remain 4 in the world just behind the big 3, so the media utilized this. At that point Stan did not exist any any level, Murray somehow did win slams (I never believed he could pip Novak to steal 2 under his nose but he actually did it), so 2012-2013 was his great Phase where he probably showed some justice to that term and then went down. Stan emerged and he was the new Big 4 candidate (in that same vein) but nobody hyped him since he is not from Britain.

Had he been, he would have got tremendous hype......British Media would have hyped him as the GIANT KILLER


To Summarize : Terms like Big 4 or Big 3 were always terms to showcase a rivalry, not necessarily that the players are of same potential/ability. Just to show that they are challenging each other and can take some wins.

Novak and Andy were both nothing in 2010 or even in 2011 compared to Fedal's achievements, they were a league below the legends, yet Novak and Andy were included, Novak did justify that hype with his 2011 year, becoming 1 and then controlling tennis dominance for a decade, Andy failed the hype and proved mediocre- Thats all.

No. Stan and Murray are NOT comparable, in no universe. Wawrinka won 1 big title outside of the Slams. Murray won 17. Wawrinka had 3 GOATing runs, Murray was making all the semis and finals, remaining more or less on par with Annacone-era Fed during that period.
There was no Big 4 after 2015. They did not coexist. Anyone who thinks Stan comes even close to matching Murray for consistency and competitiveness, enough to be classified anywhere near Murray, is either delusional or didn't start watching tennis until Lew II introduced them in 2015.
It boggles my mind how quickly and completely people have forgotten one of the greatest eras tennis has ever seen, and written it off as a British media invention.

 

[Sunny014]

No. Stan and Murray are NOT comparable, in no universe. Wawrinka won 1 big title outside of the Slams. Murray won 17. Wawrinka had 3 GOATing runs, Murray was making all the semis and finals, remaining more or less on par with Annacone-era Fed during that period.
There was no Big 4 after 2015. They did not coexist. Anyone who thinks Stan comes even close to matching Murray for consistency and competitiveness, enough to be classified anywhere near Murray, is either delusional or didn't start watching tennis until Lew II introduced them in 2015.
It boggles my mind how quickly and completely people have forgotten one of the greatest eras tennis has ever seen, and written it off as a British media invention.

What is this??? Why is Murray behind Stan in BO5 H2H and they having same number of slams ? They are of same generation, there is no excuse of age gap like Federer has with Nadal

Why so ? Murray isn't even on par with Stan Slams

Stanimal is one of the winners of the French Open in the Nadal era, this is a prestigious club to be in even if he wasn't beaten Nadal to get that, he beat the guy who beat Nadal in the very next match.
Stanimal is one of the winner of the Aus Open in the Novak era, this is a prestigious club to be in and he has beaten Novak to get that.
Stanimal has beaten Novak twice at the US Open and has also won the US open

Stan has earned his place among the best with his better performance in Slams, best of 3 dominance by Murray can never compensate for lack of BO5 prowess.

 

[Sunny014]

Nd Annacone era Fed was an old loser in those times, he himself won almost nothing from 10-14 except that wimbledon when he bludgeoned Murray like Murray was like some common toady. Even old Fed used to stoimp Murray, 2014 AO happened just after 2013's 5 sets fluke win of murray and there murray was kicked by Fed, at 2015 wimbledon Federer eviscerated Murray mercilessly in 3 cruel sets......

Murray was nothing special in Slams, just reaching semi finals and then surrendering won't make him great @King No1e Stan has been greater in Slams and it matters.

 

[King No1e]

Nd Annacone era Fed was an old loser in those times, he himself won almost nothing from 10-14 except that wimbledon when he bludgeoned Murray like Murray was like some common toady. Even old Fed used to stoimp Murray, 2014 AO happened just after 2013's 5 sets fluke win of murray and there murray was kicked by Fed, at 2015 wimbledon Federer eviscerated Murray mercilessly in 3 cruel sets......

Murray was nothing special in Slams, just reaching semi finals and then surrendering won't make him great @King No1e Stan has been greater in Slams and it matters.

So Stan reaching 1R and 2R outside of his 3 Slams makes him better than Murray who strung together late round streaks?

 

[Sunny014]

So Stan reaching 1R and 2R outside of his 3 Slams makes him better than Murray who strung together late round streaks?

Stan was pretty consistent for 5 years, outside his 3 wins this was his performance.

Guys who beat him were quite impressive, and of course wins mattter, just by consistently making week 2 and then losing can we rate someone higher???

Sebastian Grosjen has made same number of Qfs as Safin in slams, and Nalby, Henman, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer have all made more Qfs than Safin, so are they better???

Peak level play in Slams is important after all.

29-05-2017	Roland Garros	Clay	F	L	Rafael Nadal (4) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-2 6-3 6-1	Stats
16-01-2017	Australian Open	Hard	SF	L	Roger Federer (17) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	7-5 6-3 1-6 4-6 6-3	Stats
27-06-2016	Wimbledon	Grass	R64	L	Juan Martin Del Potro d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	3-6 6-3 7-6(2) 6-3	Stats
23-05-2016	Roland Garros	Clay	SF	L	Andy Murray (2) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-4 6-2 4-6 6-2	Stats
18-01-2016	Australian Open	Hard	R16	L	Milos Raonic (13) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	6-4 6-3 5-7 4-6 6-3	Stats
31-08-2015	US Open	Hard	SF	L	Roger Federer (2) d. Stan Wawrinka (5)	6-4 6-3 6-1	Stats
29-06-2015	Wimbledon	Grass	QF	L	Richard Gasquet (21) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	6-4 4-6 3-6 6-4 11-9	Stats
19-01-2015	Australian Open	Hard	SF	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	7-6(1) 3-6 6-4 4-6 6-0	Stats
25-08-2014	US Open	Hard	QF	L	Kei Nishikori (10) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	3-6 7-5 7-6(7) 6-7(5) 6-4	Stats
23-06-2014	Wimbledon	Grass	QF	L	Roger Federer (4) d. Stan Wawrinka (5)	3-6 7-6(5) 6-4 6-4	Stats
26-05-2014	Roland Garros	Clay	R128	L	Guillermo Garcia Lopez d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-4 5-7 6-2 6-0	Stats
26-08-2013	US Open	Hard	SF	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (9)	2-6 7-6(4) 3-6 6-3 6-4	Stats
24-06-2013	Wimbledon	Grass	R128	L	Lleyton Hewitt d. Stan Wawrinka (11)	6-4 7-5 6-3	Stats
27-05-2013	Roland Garros	Clay	QF	L	Rafael Nadal (3) d. Stan Wawrinka (9)	6-2 6-3 6-1	Stats
14-01-2013	Australian Open	Hard	R16	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (15)	1-6 7-5 6-4 6-7(5) 12-10

 

[King No1e]

Stan was pretty consistent for 5 years, outside his 3 wins this was his performance.

Guys who beat him were quite impressive, and of course wins mattter, just by consistently making week 2 and then losing can we rate someone higher???

Sebastian Grosjen has made same number of Qfs as Safin in slams, and Nalby, Henman, Nishikori, Tsonga, Ferrer have all made more Qfs than Safin, so are they better???

Peak level play in Slams is important after all.

29-05-2017	Roland Garros	Clay	F	L	Rafael Nadal (4) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-2 6-3 6-1	Stats
16-01-2017	Australian Open	Hard	SF	L	Roger Federer (17) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	7-5 6-3 1-6 4-6 6-3	Stats
27-06-2016	Wimbledon	Grass	R64	L	Juan Martin Del Potro d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	3-6 6-3 7-6(2) 6-3	Stats
23-05-2016	Roland Garros	Clay	SF	L	Andy Murray (2) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-4 6-2 4-6 6-2	Stats
18-01-2016	Australian Open	Hard	R16	L	Milos Raonic (13) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	6-4 6-3 5-7 4-6 6-3	Stats
31-08-2015	US Open	Hard	SF	L	Roger Federer (2) d. Stan Wawrinka (5)	6-4 6-3 6-1	Stats
29-06-2015	Wimbledon	Grass	QF	L	Richard Gasquet (21) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	6-4 4-6 3-6 6-4 11-9	Stats
19-01-2015	Australian Open	Hard	SF	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (4)	7-6(1) 3-6 6-4 4-6 6-0	Stats
25-08-2014	US Open	Hard	QF	L	Kei Nishikori (10) d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	3-6 7-5 7-6(7) 6-7(5) 6-4	Stats
23-06-2014	Wimbledon	Grass	QF	L	Roger Federer (4) d. Stan Wawrinka (5)	3-6 7-6(5) 6-4 6-4	Stats
26-05-2014	Roland Garros	Clay	R128	L	Guillermo Garcia Lopez d. Stan Wawrinka (3)	6-4 5-7 6-2 6-0	Stats
26-08-2013	US Open	Hard	SF	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (9)	2-6 7-6(4) 3-6 6-3 6-4	Stats
24-06-2013	Wimbledon	Grass	R128	L	Lleyton Hewitt d. Stan Wawrinka (11)	6-4 7-5 6-3	Stats
27-05-2013	Roland Garros	Clay	QF	L	Rafael Nadal (3) d. Stan Wawrinka (9)	6-2 6-3 6-1	Stats
14-01-2013	Australian Open	Hard	R16	L	Novak Djokovic (1) d. Stan Wawrinka (15)	1-6 7-5 6-4 6-7(5) 12-10

Which is why Safin wouldn't have ever been considered part of the "big 4" alongside Fedalovic.

The "Big 4" era was never about the 4 being comparable in Slam achievements. Back then, there was a significant gap between all 4: by 2013 Fed had 4 more than Nadal, who had 7 more than Djokovic, who had 4 more than Murray. It was about who kept showing up when it mattered, week in, week out. Who competed at the highest level and retained the superhuman consistency that set them apart.
That consistency and dominance of the big 4 was gone by the time Wawrinka showed up. He was a post-Big 4 player.

 

[Sunny014]

Which is why Safin wouldn't have ever been considered part of the "big 4" alongside Fedalovic.

The "Big 4" era was never about the 4 being comparable in Slam achievements. Back then, there was a significant gap between all 4: by 2013 Fed had 4 more than Nadal, who had 7 more than Djokovic, who had 4 more than Murray. It was about who kept showing up when it mattered, week in, week out. Who competed at the highest level and retained the superhuman consistency that set them apart.
That consistency and dominance of the big 4 was gone by the time Wawrinka showed up. He was a post-Big 4 player.

Yes Murray showed up consistently from late 00s till 2016 and was ranked in the top 4, but that is not enough.

For me the original big 4 of the 21st century is Fed + Novak + Nadal + Safin.

Murray, Stan, Hewitt all a league below.

 

[King No1e]

Yes Murray showed up consistently from late 00s till 2016 and was ranked in the top 4, but that is not enough.

For me the original big 4 of the 21st century is Fed + Novak + Nadal + Safin.

Murray, Stan, Hewitt all a league below.

Safin did not coexist with the other 3. Wawrinka's peak came while Nadal was AWOL. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were THE 4 titans from 08-14.

 

[Sunny014]

Safin did not coexist with the other 3. Wawrinka's peak came while Nadal was AWOL. Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were THE 4 titans from 08-14.

Wawrinka did beat Nadal in the same slam where he beat Novak.

Has Murray ever beaten 2 ATGs in the same slam?

 

[jussumman]

Lol....Wimbledon is still the pinnacle of tennis achievement as even the players acknowledge. Plus Murray won a total of 46 titles (20 of them big) to Wawrinka's 16 (4 of them big) and was ranked #1 whilst Wawrinka was never ranked higher than #3. On no planet anywhere does Wawrinka outrank Murray for 4th best player of the current era.

Why don't they play more grass tournaments to match the pinnacle of tennis surface?

 

[Mainad]

Why don't they play more grass tournaments to match the pinnacle of tennis surface?

Good question.

 

[goldengate14]

Murray has 3 majors 2 OGs 14 m1000s. He consistently challenged the ery best of his era. The Big 4 is accurate. For about 3 years the same 4 made the semis of every major prettty much

 

[jussumman]

3 Big Toes and 1 Pinkie

 

[hoodjem]

Murray who?

Big Four: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Wawrinka.

 

[Tshooter]

#MurrayGOAT

 

[Poisoned Slice]