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

tennisaddict said:
The day the gap between Murray and Stan is more than Murray and Novak is when Murray will be part of the Big 4.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...maths has never been my strong point but I reckon 42 titles and 10,000 ranking points (Murray) is closer to 66 titles and 10,000 ranking points (Djokovic) than 15 titles and 5,000 ranking points (Stan). :cool:
 
OhYes said:
If Big 4 was made up for the sake of Murray, he is surely legitimate part of it. :D
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. ;)
Click to expand...
To be fair, the Big 4 term started popping up around 2009 when Murray was No2 and Djokovic was only on 1 slam and their Masters count was still fairly similar, so there was not much of a gap between them two. However there is certainly a massive gap between the Big 3 and Murray....he is NOT on the same Tier as them.
 
WhiskeyEE said:
Murray is maybe the ugliest world #1 of all time. What a face to represent the sport.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd prefer this former world #1? ;)

rios-headshot-getty.png
 
I like Murray, but he is nowhere close to the other three in achievements.

Those who say Scotland is a smaller country than Canada, obviously hates Scotland :confused:
 
junior74 said:
I like Murray, but he is nowhere close to the other three in achievements.

Those who say Scotland is a smaller country than Canada, obviously hates Scotland :confused:
Click to expand...

Nobody has ever argued that there are a group of four players who have all achieved the same things. It's about a GROUP. who have COLLECTIVELY dominated tennis. There was a big 2 (Rafa and Roger) for a long time too - but nobody said that didn't exist because Roger had won more than Rafa - as a collective, they dominated. The fact that one guy won more than the other was irrelevant. This isn't that hard to get your head round if your agenda isn't simply to diss Murray.
 
The Fedfather said:
At the moment he's not what?
Click to expand...


A cut below Fedalovic. Right now he's above all 3 of them. Or maybe when the other 3 get to number 1 it's due solely to their outstanding efforts but when Murray does it, it's down to some extraneous factors and it more or less fell out of the sky into his lap? Do tell.
 
batz said:
Nobody has ever argued that there are a group of four players who have all achieved the same things. It's about a GROUP. who have COLLECTIVELY dominated tennis. There was a big 2 (Rafa and Roger) for a long time too - but nobody said that didn't exist because Roger had won more than Rafa - as a collective, they dominated. The fact that one guy won more than the other was irrelevant. This isn't that hard to get your head round if your agenda isn't simply to diss Murray.
Click to expand...

Because Rafa was beating Roger even then and at the slams. Djokovic too had already beaten Fed en route to his AO title. It's not about dominating the others i.e. the likes of Berdych or Tsonga but about regularly beating either of the Big Three and in the biggies. I do think up to 2009 Murray had a good chance of closing the gap with at least Nadal and Djokovic but then something happened and he really didn't have great results all the way until he teamed up with Lendl. And by then, maybe, the train had left the station. Once Djokovic had established his greatness firmly beyond doubt with one of the all time great seasons in 2011, the styling Big Four had lost credibility. Of course, fans of Murray are free to cling on to it if they so wish but don't pretend it is something objective because it's not.
 
Maybe this is because Murray can be arrogant. After winning Wimbledon this year, he swiped his finger under his nose and he excessively pumped his fist during an Olympics match.
 
I don't know why anybody is actually worried about this anyway though. I think there are arguments both ways for this. I'm thrilled that he's finally number 1 for sure, but his major haul is severely lacking compared to the other 3. Murray is a great player, but the others are ATG's. There's a huge difference.

On the other hand, he's been supremely consistent and often finds himself in many SF's and Finals much more often than anybody outside Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, hence the "Big 4" thing. He's way more accomplished than anybody else outside those 3, maybe with the exception of Stan, but he's now achieved something that Stan never will regardless of how many majors Stan ends up with.

But ultimately, as I said in the beginning who really cares? Just be happy with his accomplishments. They'd look a lot better if he wasn't compared to either one of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic at all. "Big 4" is a MADE UP term, mostly just because 4 people make up the SF's at a tournament. Think about it. The reason the term "Big 4" was even coined in the first place wasn't because some "genius" on a tennis message board came up with it. It's because the ATP coined the term and then pushed it on the masses. Plus it sounds better than "Big 3" because, again, 4 people make up the SF's.
 
Dolgopolov85 said:
Because Rafa was beating Roger even then and at the slams. Djokovic too had already beaten Fed en route to his AO title. It's not about dominating the others i.e. the likes of Berdych or Tsonga but about regularly beating either of the Big Three and in the biggies. I do think up to 2009 Murray had a good chance of closing the gap with at least Nadal and Djokovic but then something happened and he really didn't have great results all the way until he teamed up with Lendl. And by then, maybe, the train had left the station. Once Djokovic had established his greatness firmly beyond doubt with one of the all time great seasons in 2011, the styling Big Four had lost credibility. Of course, fans of Murray are free to cling on to it if they so wish but don't pretend it is something objective because it's not.
Click to expand...

Murray was beating Roger in 2006, and Novak and Rafa by 2008 - he's beat them in MS, he's beat them in slams. Your argument is pysh.

Tell you what mate - list the achievements of The Big 3 and compare them to The Big 4. Then tell me that the concept of the Big 4 is absurd.

NB Murray fans did not coin the term Big 4 - first time i ever saw it was on the ATP website back in 2009.
 
batz said:
Murray was beating Roger in 2006, and Novak and Rafa by 2008 - he's beat them in MS, he's beat them in slams. Your argument is pysh.

Tell you what mate - list the achievements of The Big 3 and compare them to The Big 4. Then tell me that the concept of the Big 4 is absurd.

NB Murray fans did not coin the term Big 4 - first time i ever saw it was on the ATP website back in 2009.
Click to expand...

I did say in 2009 Murray was closing the gap on Nadal and Djokovic, before either of them had had a 3 slam winning season. DID YOU NOT READ THAT PART, DO I NEED TO TYPE IT ALL IN CAPS SO YOU WILL PAY ATTENTION? Today, with all of the Big Three having won double digit slams and spent more than a year's worth (at least) at no.1, there's simply no argument for Murray to be considered anywhere on par with them. And I didn't say Murray fans coined the term but they are certainly the most insistent on using it today, as this thread demonstrates.
 
batz said:
A cut below Fedalovic. Right now he's above all 3 of them. Or maybe when the other 3 get to number 1 it's due solely to their outstanding efforts but when Murray does it, it's down to some extraneous factors and it more or less fell out of the sky into his lap? Do tell.
Click to expand...
When I say he's a cut below Fedalovic I'm talking about legacy. I didn't say that Murray didn't deserve to be #1. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I'm not trying to diminish Andy and his achievements.
 
batz said:
Nobody has ever argued that there are a group of four players who have all achieved the same things. It's about a GROUP. who have COLLECTIVELY dominated tennis. There was a big 2 (Rafa and Roger) for a long time too - but nobody said that didn't exist because Roger had won more than Rafa - as a collective, they dominated. The fact that one guy won more than the other was irrelevant. This isn't that hard to get your head round if your agenda isn't simply to diss Murray.
Click to expand...

3 out of 46... I would say that´s a rather poor contribution to the group´s success.

I don´t want to diss Murray at all, I like him :)
 
In fairness of course Murray is part of the "Big 4"...real debate is whether the pundits were a little presumptuous in anointing a "Big 4" in the first place...in hindsight the Big 3 probably would have been more appropriate.
 
Bukmeikara said:
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.
Click to expand...

Listing objective facts translates to hating? How can that be?
 
Murray Is A Pusher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep.

His consistency is excellent, but as you say, 500, Olympics, masters etc are just mickey mouse tournaments where most of the top 20 players don't play at their best.

USO he lost to fricking Nishikori thanks to a GONG and a moth... Federer and Djokovic (forever at AO, since 2014 in general) have swatted him away like a fly at Slams.

He's too vulnerable losing to a big hitter or someone pushing better than him at slams, to go on some kind of Federer esque run of winning 6 slams in 2 years in order to elevate himself into the big four.
 
KINGROGER said:
Yep.

His consistency is excellent, but as you say, 500, Olympics, masters etc are just mickey mouse tournaments where most of the top 20 players don't play at their best.

USO he lost to fricking Nishikori thanks to a GONG and a moth... Federer and Djokovic (forever at AO, since 2014 in general) have swatted him away like a fly at Slams.

He's too vulnerable losing to a big hitter or someone pushing better than him at slams, to go on some kind of Federer esque run of winning 6 slams in 2 years in order to elevate himself into the big four.
Click to expand...

Nishikori > Querry
 
Stan's successes at slams made Andy susceptible of Big4 place, instead of place in Stan's league. Now after getting YE#1, which BTW is his greatest accomplishment, he definitely is part of the Big4!
 
Murray with his WTF, 2 OSG, YE No 1 is clearly big 4 to me now unless Stan gets to 5-6majors and Murray goes on a decline from here.

I wholeheartedly accept he is part of big 4 now
 
He always was, but the bad news for you is that it's almost over. From now on expect a slight but continuous decline.

Yeah, he is already there. DJok and him got their wishes by Fed and Nadal exits. Others such as Roddick werent as lucky.

But it took so long it's already over as soon as it started.

So who cares he is top 4, there is no top 4 anymore.
 
I don't see any Murray haters, he's not that polarizing of a tennis figure (or player). Many might dislike his style, playing video games 10 hours a day back in the day, the grabbing of his leg, the obscenities and most especially the endless histrionics to his box. That got old ten years ago. But I don't see people hating on Andy as a person. He's always seemed like a pretty engaging bloke off court.

Ever since he cried at the 2012 Wimbledon, many former "haters" tossed that away and grew to respect his work ethic and fitness. I never, ever thought he would become #1, but all credit to him for doing it.
 
it's well-known i'm not a fan of the giant-jawed muzzette of dunblane... but i have to admit he's now part of the Big 3* :oops:

*selected club of active multi-slam champions who also won the WTF.
 
Last edited:
Murray Is A Pusher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep Schlokovic really embarrassed him last night ! What a Bum.

Tell me, when are the Big 3 gonna be back ? I can't wait.....Certainly not forever...LOL !

b769e5c99f9441e5bfd96687128eff71a75ba76a37fcd4193a5b3d109c107ec4.jpg

Waiting for big 3 to return.....
 
He's always been part of the big 4, but his resume still lacks behind the other 3. For a while there, you had Federer/Nadal/Djokovic who were one step ahead of the tour and a level above Murray, Murray was ahead of the rest of the tour but simply not good enough to be considered in the same class as the other 3. Even though he's had success in the last 6 months, I still see Murray below the other 3. He's been very consistent and clearly a step above the rest of the tour, but his resume at the slam level/#1 ranking simply can't be compared to the other 3 who have tier 1 resume. Murray's consistency always earned him a spot in the top 4, but his resume will probably never be comparable to his other 3 companions.
 
He's a good player, but I do think that to be considered part of the 'big 4' he'd have to have at least 12 Slams. SO he's still got 9 Slams to go before he joins that illustrious group.
 
Flint said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sad part is the Big 4 had ceased to exist a long time before this post was made.
 
There's 9 slams between him and Djokovic.
11 slams between him and Nadal
14 slams between him and Federer.



If Murray is part of the big 4, Kuerten is too Agassi is too.
 
****igrade said:
There's 9 slams between him and Djokovic.
11 slams between him and Nadal
14 slams between him and Federer.



If Murray is part of the big 4, Kuerten is too Agassi is too.
Click to expand...

Feeling your pain mate. These must be tough times for you.

I had no idea Kuerten and Agassi were competing for and winning slams and MS against Novak, Roger and Rafa - but if you say so then it must be true.... you are held in great esteem around these parts, every one of your accounts is ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TimHenmanATG
To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats
3 4 5
Replies
203
Views
15K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
P
Minimum Andy Murray needs/needed to do to be in the same league as big 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
thrust
T
M
Why Isn't Kafelnikov Being Inducted Into Tennis Hall of Fame?
2
Replies
67
Views
12K
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
R
Cusp of Great Achievement for the Big 4
Replies
2
Views
687
Phoenix1983
Phoenix1983
LazyNinja19
Percentage of the "BIG titles" won by the BIG-4
Replies
21
Views
4K
SpicyCurry1990
SpicyCurry1990
Back
Top