Do the haters say Andy Murray is still not part of the big 4?

[Flint]

World number 1

Triple Grand Slam champion and double Wimbledon champion.
Double Olympic gold medalist
Davis Cup
13 masters
28 wins against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

and 42 titles overall

(and not that it matters much in the grand scheme of "the big 4", but the most queens titles which I find kind of cool)

The Murray haters must be running very low on the ground with things to attack him with.
No AO or FO yet.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

 

[tennisaddict]

The day the gap between Murray and Stan is more than Murray and Novak is when Murray will be part of the Big 4.

 

[OhYes]

If Big 4 was made up for the sake of Murray, he is surely legitimate part of it.
Truth be told, when that phrase first came out Murray was so far away (he still is) from Big 3. And those numbers changed through years - it was Big 1 last two years, now it's Big 2.
And just to make things clear - when you say BIG 4 everyone thinks about form and not about achievements.

 

[Red Rick]

I think this year (and especially if he gets YE#1) cements his place in history. Last year he ended #2, made a final, but still only had the 2 slams and the on OG, but made nice DC win. This year really did it for him. Extra slam, an 2nd OG singles medal, which may not count as a slam but is so unique it actually sets him apart from ALL OTHER tennis players, finals on all slams, the consistency that he's had, AND showing how dominant he can be after Djokovic started faltering are all pretty big things.

He has the YE#1 like the rest of the big 4. They all did it. They've dominated together since 2008 basically, and it wasn't until 2016 that two of them were to declined to do anything. They all have slams, bunch of masters, and now that Murray has the 2 Olympic singles Gold, they all have their own unique record. Murray is still in it with a fighting chance to complete the whole palmares with 3 masters, 2 slams and WTF, all events at which he's got chances. Not saying he'll do it, but it coud happen.


For me, the Big 4 was more about consistency and top level than about distributing prizes evenly. They'd all just reach semi's of 80% of big tournaments they played, and for each and every one of them was the heavy favourite against any guy from the 5-10 in the world. They've been together as top 4 for the longest time and they've all had their epics together (maybe except for Murray-Nadal). In later years, Wawrinka came in as a wildcard basically.

The Big 4 doesn't mean they were equally big. It means they were the biggest 4, and the 5th best player was far, far away during that period, and I love, that in the center of that period, they had a year in which they all won a slam with 3 of out of the 4 winning 'their own' best slam. (with Murray, instead of winning Wimbly, winning USO and Olympic gold @ Wimbledon). That's just beautiful symmetry to me.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

The day the gap between Murray and Stan is more than Murray and Novak is when Murray will be part of the Big 4.

... unless this gap is in stanimal's favour, of course

 

[NatF]

He's still miles behind the other so called Big 4 members, hardly hating to point that out...

 

[Antonio Puente]

Sure, Murray is part of the big 4 - Murray, Stan, Del Potro and Cilic.

 

[metsman]

He's had an excellent career but he's still nowhere close to the other 3. The other 3 have had Murray's entire major haul in 1 year 6 different times. That's just how it is. Murray has been incredibly consistent but his peak level just does not stack up to their's and in peak for peak matchups he would lose the large majority.

It would be like calling Vilas a part of the big 4 with Borg/Mac/Connors...Murray is better than Vilas of course but that's the best historical comparison I could think of.

Right now Murray is in the third tier with Courier.

 

[bjsnider]

Here's what I've seen from the tear-down Murray crowd so far:

* Murray's competition sucks, since it's just the top players in the world, and they currently suck (no proof of that).
* Murray didn't have to play against the Fedalovic trio at their best, because they were absent in 2016 (Did Federer play against such players between 2004-2008? Did Nadal in 2010? Djokovic the past couple of years?).
* The ranking system sucks, since it's not weighted towards Djokovic's achievements (Murray played by the rules he was given. Murray didn't create the ranking system.).

I'm hoping the next one is something less predictable, possibly involving supernatural phenomena.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Here's what I've seen from the tear-down Murray crowd so far:

* Murray's competition sucks, since it's just the top players in the world, and they currently suck (no proof of that).
* Murray didn't have to play against the Fedalovic trio at their best, because they were absent in 2016 (Did Federer play against such players between 2004-2008? Did Nadal in 2010? Djokovic the past couple of years?).
* The ranking system sucks, since it's not weighted towards Djokovic's achievements (Murray played by the rules he was given. Murray didn't create the ranking system.).

I'm hoping the next one is something less predictable, possibly involving supernatural phenomena.

Murray has just been on a mission since Wimbledon. Consistent as hell, making final after final, winning heaps of Masters. Dude has won over 10 million dollars this year alone in prize money. 7 titles. He has paved his own way to No. 1 and he's worthy of it. Not to mention most of these "weak points" came against Novak Djokovic of all people. Andy Murray has just done what he needed to, and he should be praised, not attacked for this.

 

[Gullyfoyle]

The day the gap between Murray and Stan is more than Murray and Novak is when Murray will be part of the Big 4.

That gap is real and irrefutable, whether or not you disagree on the big four thing, certainly in private the big three see Murray as in their camp, because there is nobody else who is always there or thereabouts late in tournaments,
Not even Stan, who, props to him has won three slams and does little else over an entire career.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Murray is maybe the ugliest world #1 of all time. What a face to represent the sport.

 

[90's Clay]

The big 3 have 30 plus slams combined, Slurry has 3

 

[beast of mallorca]

The day the gap between Murray and Stan is more than Murray and Novak is when Murray will be part of the Big 4.

He's still miles behind the other so called Big 4 members, hardly hating to point that out...

 

[Flint]

Here's what I've seen from the tear-down Murray crowd so far:

* Murray's competition sucks, since it's just the top players in the world, and they currently suck (no proof of that).
* Murray didn't have to play against the Fedalovic trio at their best, because they were absent in 2016 (Did Federer play against such players between 2004-2008? Did Nadal in 2010? Djokovic the past couple of years?).
* The ranking system sucks, since it's not weighted towards Djokovic's achievements (Murray played by the rules he was given. Murray didn't create the ranking system.).

I'm hoping the next one is something less predictable, possibly involving supernatural phenomena.

How about the hurricane at the US Open?

 

[Gullyfoyle]

Of course they do, it's the definition of hate to have not a morsel common sense or decency.

 

[tennisaddict]

That gap is real and irrefutable, whether or not you disagree on the big four thing, certainly in private the big three see Murray as in their camp, because there is nobody else who is always there or thereabouts late in tournaments,
Not even Stan, who, props to him has won three slams and does little else over an entire career.

You are talking about pre-2014.

Ask the Big 3 whom they would like to face in a big match between Murray and Stan now and I am pretty sure they would fancy their chances against Murray.

It is simple. Back in 2012 the Big 4 term made sense . Not any more unless Murray goes on a tear here and ends up with 7 majors with Stan remaining at 3. Murray has had the luxury of injured Delpo not being in the mix. Imagine using the term Big 4, if Delpo got 2 more slams instead of Novak. That would have been even more silly

 

[NatF]

lol at the end of the day the Big 4 was invented by the media, neither me nor anyone else is obligated to subscribe to it. If you guys want to say it's definitely a Big 4 then by all means - but don't act like it's unreasonable to consider the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic a class apart from Murray. After all they've demonstrated that fact enough in the biggest matches.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

i still don't understand why some people keep grouping the giant-jawed muzzette of dunblane with this bunch of losers whereas he's clearly...

 

[Djokovic2011]

His consistency alone should firmly place him as a member of the Big 4. As well as Fedalovic there's probably only been two other players in the Open Era more consistent than Murray and one of them is his coach.

 

[BlueB]

Unfortunately, there were never Big 4... When the term was coined, he didn't belong with the Big 3. Now, the 2 fell of the face of the earth and we don't know if the third one would follow that trend...

This still doesn't make Andy's achievement any smaller. He's a great player, just added the No1 to his achievements and stands the chance for YENo1.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I'd wait and see whether he'll win 2-3 more Slams but he certainly made a massive step by becoming world #1 and showing amazing consistency himself.

 

[tennisaddict]

I will take Courier's career any day vs Murray's (as of date). Courier was hands down the greatest player at some point by a good margin while Murray can never boast of that.

All those consistent finals and masters are good but they don't exactly define greatness when comparing with other legends. Sure, it makes for better reading when compared to Stan's career.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I will take Courier's career any day vs Murray's (as of date). Courier was hands down the greatest player at some point by a good margin while Murray can never boast of that.

All those consistent finals and masters are good but they don't exactly define greatness when comparing with other legends. Sure, it makes for better reading when compared to Stan's career.

Henman would kill for Murray's career though.

 

[adil1972]

murray is part of small two ie wawrinka and murray

the big 3 are in another league lets say 12+ slams

 

[Dave1982]

Murray needs more Slams...plain & simple.

The other members of the "Big 4" all have 10+ Slams...then you have Murray & Stan on 3 a piece...that is significant!

Don't get me wrong, Murray is fully deserving of his ascension to number 1 & his CV is without question impressive when compared to the majority of past & present players...reality is, while time at number 1 does bring him closer to Federer, Nadal & Djokovic, there's still a heap of daylight between their achievements & his currently.

 

[Fedeonic]

Hoping with this achievement, Andy Murray finally gets the recognision he deserves, sure he won't be a GOAT, but winning 3 Slams, 2 Olympic golds, several M1000s and now ranking at N°1 in an era of 3 GOATs is itself a superb career.

 

[Flint]

murray is part of small two ie wawrinka and murray

the big 3 are in another league lets say 12+ slams

REALLY??!? You didn't consider Djokovic as part of the big 4 at the start of the year?

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

 

[beast of mallorca]

lol at the end of the day the Big 4 was invented by the media, neither me nor anyone else is obligated to subscribe to it. If you guys want to say it's definitely a Big 4 then by all means - but don't act like it's unreasonable to consider the likes of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic a class apart from Murray. After all they've demonstrated that fact enough in the biggest matches.

You can deny Murray that accolade if you want, Papi. That's on you. But imho, he's called as one of the BIG 4 because for the past 10 years or so, he's the only one (apart from the 3) in the top 10 who has the obvious talent, consistency and tenacity to contend for the Big tournamennts (GS, Olympics & Masters 1000). At his best, you know that he can consistently challenge and defeat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic when those 3 where still flourishing. You can not say the same things for the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Ferrer etc.

 

[killerboi2]

Murray should have done better in slams against big 3 no question. He had the game to do it in my opinion but didn't for a number of reasons (back injury, poor tactics, poor coaching decisions) People should give him credit for what he has done though, won a few slams, won a lot of other titles, beat Djokovic in his prime years twice in slams and now got to no 1. Playing down all his achievements like he's some mug is just silly.

 

[NatF]

You can deny Murray that accolade if you want, Papi. That's on you. But imho, he's called as one of the BIG 4 because for the past 10 years or so, he's the only one (apart from the 3) in the top 10 who has the obvious talent, consistency and tenacity to contend for the Big tournamennts (GS, Olympics & Masters 1000). At his best, you know that he can consistently challenge and defeat Federer, Nadal and Djokovic when those 3 where still flourishing. You can not say the same things for the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Ferrer etc.

Meh, doing the best against them your doesn't mean he should be included with them. But fair enough.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[metsman]

The big 3 have 30 plus slams combined, Slurry has 3

But Fred's don't count remember

 

[crazyups]

I will take Courier's career any day vs Murray's (as of date). Courier was hands down the greatest player at some point by a good margin while Murray can never boast of that.

All those consistent finals and masters are good but they don't exactly define greatness when comparing with other legends. Sure, it makes for better reading when compared to Stan's career.

That's laughable.

Murray:3 slams
9 slam finals
42 career titles
13 masters
2 olympic singles golds
1 doubles olympic silver
And counting

Courier:4 slams
6 slam finals
23 career titled
5 masters

 

[The Fedfather]

The fact is that Andy's achievements, albeit very impressive, pale in comparison to what Federer, Nadal and Djokovic achieved in the game. Do you think facts are hateful?

 

[beast of mallorca]

Meh, doing the best against them your doesn't mean he should be included with them. But fair enough.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

He is included with them because he too is a cut above the rest. Besides nADAL, fEderer and Djoker. who else among the active players can beat the following:

3 slams, 9 slam finals, 42 career titles, 13 masters,2 olympic singles golds , Davis Cup Championships (this. a stellar achievement for his country, after eons of waiting)

 

[The Fedfather]

He is included with them because he too is a cut above the rest. Besides nADAL, fEderer and Djoker. who else among the active players can beat the following:

3 slams, 9 slam finals, 42 career titles, 13 masters,2 olympic singles golds , Davis Cup Championships (this. a stellar achievement for his country, after eons of waiting)

Him being a cut above the rest doesn't change the fact that he's a cut below Fedalovic. He's in the middle.

 

[Murray Is A Pusher]

World number 1

Triple Grand Slam champion and double Wimbledon champion.
Double Olympic gold medalist
Davis Cup
13 masters
28 wins against Federer, Nadal and Djokovic

and 42 titles overall

(and not that it matters much in the grand scheme of "the big 4", but the most queens titles which I find kind of cool)

The Murray haters must be running very low on the ground with things to attack him with.
No AO or FO yet.

And at his peak 0-2 against Djokovic in the majors. WOW impressive.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Him being a cut above the rest doesn't change the fact that he's a cut below Fedalovic. He's in the middle.

No, he's not in the middle. Ferrer, Berdych etc are in the middle.

 

[QuentinFederer]

Murray has cemented his place as a great and as the "Ringo" of the big 4.

 

[90's Clay]

No he isn't.. All 3 have double digit slams. Murray with only 3.

Murray is like the little puppy that lags behind. If he gets to 10 slams then we will talk.

Until then.. Its like comparing '92 Croatia to the '92 Dream Team.


You can't throw some guy with 3 slams in a mix with guys who have DOUBLE DIGIT slams. You just can't

 

[chjtennis]

To me, he's always been a part of big 4. I also believe he would've achieved a lot more had he not had that back injury.

 

[Chadillac]

After the wtf there will only be a big 1. Murray will dominate the field, probably wont even drop a set

 

[Murray Is A Pusher]

No he isn't.. All 3 have double digit slams. Murray with only 3.

Murray is like the little puppy that lags behind. If he gets to 10 slams then we will talk.

Until then.. Its like comparing '92 Croatia to the '92 Dream Team.


You can't throw some guy with 3 slams in a mix with guys who have DOUBLE DIGIT slams. You just can't

Well said. Murray is just there to pick the bones when the big dogs are injured or on vacation. He can rack up as many of those mickey mouse titles as he likes, reality is majors are what we play the sport for. And we've seen countless at the majors the big 3 embarrass him.

 

[Meles]

He's had an excellent career but he's still nowhere close to the other 3. The other 3 have had Murray's entire major haul in 1 year 6 different times. That's just how it is. Murray has been incredibly consistent but his peak level just does not stack up to their's and in peak for peak matchups he would lose the large majority.

It would be like calling Vilas a part of the big 4 with Borg/Mac/Connors...Murray is better than Vilas of course but that's the best historical comparison I could think of.

Right now Murray is in the third tier with Courier.

And on the cusp of being the favorite for the first three slams in 2017. Imazing isn't it?

 

[Meles]

You are talking about pre-2014.

Ask the Big 3 whom they would like to face in a big match between Murray and Stan now and I am pretty sure they would fancy their chances against Murray.

It is simple. Back in 2012 the Big 4 term made sense . Not any more unless Murray goes on a tear here and ends up with 7 majors with Stan remaining at 3. Murray has had the luxury of injured Delpo not being in the mix. Imagine using the term Big 4, if Delpo got 2 more slams instead of Novak. That would have been even more silly

Yeah right.

 

[Meles]

I will take Courier's career any day vs Murray's (as of date). Courier was hands down the greatest player at some point by a good margin while Murray can never boast of that.

All those consistent finals and masters are good but they don't exactly define greatness when comparing with other legends. Sure, it makes for better reading when compared to Stan's career.

That was a was a weak era.

 

[LETitBE]

MUzzard was getting to this level 3 years ago before the back injury halted his progress! AND his injury required an operation! unlike some other injured superheroes we keep hearing about. Muzzard #1,lovely lovely

 

[Bukmeikara]

OP haters would always hate. When they are right, they exaggarate, when they are wrong they go " offline" and never admit anything and after a week they come back with a new " idea". Even if Murray rules tennis for years, wins multiple Slams, becomes Us president, answer the question which is first- an egg-chicken they would still find something to brag about because they are empty. Hating someone famous gives some kind of purpose in their life, always remember that and you would hardly ever get bothered by their writtings.