Does any genuine and passionate tennis fan seriously now deny the concept of the ''Big 4''?

#1
Yes, Andy Murray is not quite on the same level as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, but his career achievements over the last decade place him waaaaaaaay above the ''best of the rest''.

2 Wimbledon titles.

1 US Open title.

2 Olympic Gold Medals.

1 Davis Cup.

40 weeks as Numero Uno.

1 WTF.

14 Masters titles, including 7/9 of the slots, which is equal to Roger and Rafa.

11 GS finals, 21 GS semi-finals, and 30 GS quarter-finals.

Whilst I ain't got no quarrel with the likes of Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner et al., this plucky Scotsman is objectively on a different plane to them.

Also, did I forget to mention this?


 
#3
Murray is too away from the Big 3 in terms of Slams.He is 11 away from Djokovic - this is very big gap and this gap will continue to grow. He doesnt even have 50 weeks at Number one while Djokovic have 223 weeks ,Federer -310 and Nadal -192.He is not even close to them in this category as well.So the case for Big 4 is not very strong.
 
#8
Murray is part of the "little 4 " with Delpo, Stan and Cilic
This is completely detached from reality.

Cilic, Wawrinka and Del Potro are nowhere near Murray's calibre.

Seriously, how many GS QFs and SFs has Cilic reached? How many Masters titles across all surfaces has he won?

If you have a problem differentiating between players like Murray and Cilic/Wawrinka, then maybe tennis isn't the sport for you.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#19
Yes, Andy Murray is not quite on the same level as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, but his career achievements over the last decade place him waaaaaaaay above the ''best of the rest''.

2 Wimbledon titles.

1 US Open title.

2 Olympic Gold Medals.

1 Davis Cup.

40 weeks as Numero Uno.

1 WTF.

14 Masters titles, including 7/9 of the slots, which is equal to Roger and Rafa.

11 GS finals, 21 GS semi-finals, and 30 GS quarter-finals.

Whilst I ain't got no quarrel with the likes of Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner et al., this plucky Scotsman is objectively on a different plane to them.

Also, did I forget to mention this?


As you'll soon see most of TTW denies this.:rolleyes: Murray is no ATG like the others, but to me he still deserves inclusion and he's had his days in the sun.

Murray definitely big at slams, has had one of the most dominant runs on tour, and his late 2008 to 2009 on hard courts mightily impressive in the face of two greats.


Grand Slam Semi-Finals
1 Roger Federer Active 43
2 Novak Djokovic Active 33
3 Jimmy Connors 31
4 Rafael Nadal Active 29
5 Ivan Lendl 28
6 Andre Agassi 26
7 Pete Sampras 23
8 Andy Murray Active 21 (If he makes comeback might reach 5th on this this list)
9 John McEnroe 19
9 Stefan Edberg 19
11 Boris Becker 18
12 Bjorn Borg 17
13 Mats Wilander 14
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
#20
No, you can have a Big 5. But Murray has accomplished things that the Big 3 have accomplished which Wawrinka hasn't eg. #1 ranking, WTF, double digit Masters titles so there is a Big 4 as well as a Big 3 and a Big 5.
And the Big 7 this US Open with Delpo and Zedrot.:D
 

beernutz

Hall of Fame
#22
Yes, Andy Murray is not quite on the same level as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, but his career achievements over the last decade place him waaaaaaaay above the ''best of the rest''.

2 Wimbledon titles.

1 US Open title.

2 Olympic Gold Medals.

1 Davis Cup.

40 weeks as Numero Uno.

1 WTF.

14 Masters titles, including 7/9 of the slots, which is equal to Roger and Rafa.

11 GS finals, 21 GS semi-finals, and 30 GS quarter-finals.

Whilst I ain't got no quarrel with the likes of Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner et al., this plucky Scotsman is objectively on a different plane to them.

Also, did I forget to mention this?


If he wasn't from the UK would you have made this post?
 
#23
If we're talking about a big 4 based on results in his era, it's fairly obvious he's the nearest to the big 3 in results and consistency. Just as Hewitt, Roddick, Rafter and thousands of others who we've mostly forgotten were in their eras.

The fixation on the big 3 is not just about results compared to their era(s), but about their position in the history of the game ie across all eras. Murray won't be remembered in the top 10 ATGs. Not even close. Big 3 will be in most ppl's top 5. It's that simple. That is the conversation that matters and Murray simply does not belong there.
 
#25
Scale has been distorted with this crap. Its simple

Huge 1 (Fed), Large 1 (Djoke), Medium 1 (Ned), Small 2 (Stan, Muggy), Microscopic 2 (Cilic, Del Po), Non existant tour
 
#29
Last edited:
#31
A rhetoric question!

When was the Big 3 term coined? Straight after Djokovic won his third slam or?

Imagine if Djokovic was from the UK!

Connect the dots.

I will go one step further. If he was an American Novk would be presented in the US media as the greatest ever or the very least better than Nadl only because Fedr or Nadl are not Yanks. And I am not saying Lendl type but an American.

That's how much it matters where an athlete is from and his/her status to greatness.

The same is applicable to both Fedr and Nadl. Imagine that!!! And also imagine if Murray was from Kazahstan.

Note (from 2014)

We wrote Monday that the Big Four of men’s tennis — Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray — dominate the sport despite the seemingly seismic upsets at the U.S. Open on Saturday. Kei Nishikori and Marin Cilic upset Djokovic and Federer, respectively, in semifinals and will play the final Monday. But Djokovic, Nadal and Federer remain far ahead of those two upstarts and other younger challengers in the rankings.

At the time Murray had only 2 slams and was already pumped by the Brit and Western media as a part of the Big 4!!!

With 2 GS!!!
 
Last edited:
#32
I am disinclined to acquiesce to a big 4 concept when Wawrinka won the same number of slams and in a more dominant fashion imho.

I'll take Wawrinka over Murray any day so no there is no big 4.
Nothing against Stan who is great once he makes it to a slam final, but there is no way I would take him over Murray on a day to day basis over the course of a season.
 
#36
A rhetoric question!

When was the Big 3 term coined? Straight after Djokovic won his third slam or
?

Imagine if Djokovic was from the UK!

Connect the dots.

I will go one step further. If he was an American Novk would be presented in the US media as the greatest ever or the very least better than Nadl only because Fedr or Nadl are not Yanks. And I am not saying Lendl type but an American.

That's how much it matters where an athlete is from and his/her status to greatness.

The same is applicable to both Fedr and Nadl. Imagine that!!! And also imagine if Murray was from Kazahstan.
The first time the media and fans started using 'the big 3' term was back in 2007 after Djokovic def. #3 Roddick in QF, #2 Nadal in SF and #1 Federer in F of Rogers Cup in Montreal. It was Djokovic's second master win after he won Miami by def. Nadal in F and it was somewhat clearly to everyone that he will be a part of 'something' BIG. Djokovic was the runner up at the USO2007, losing to Federer in the final and he finally won his first major by winning the AO 2018 def. Fed in semis. So, the big 3 term was kinda cemented in the media at that time. That was just the beginning,. The rest is history.

The thing is that finally someone showed up who was able to be competitive with Fed and Rafa. So, the big 3 is defined by their ability to produce extremely competitive matches playing at the level a way above the rest of the tour. They left the rest of the tour in dust by a huge margin. They were winning almost all tournaments left and right. 11 years after they still dominate the tour. Maybe be 'dominate' is a strong word nowadays but it is what it is. They are still ranked #1, 2 and 3 11 years after ... So, kudos to them as they did something absolutely amazing, that had never happened before. Their results, number of majors, masters and overall number of tournaments they managed to win or consistently playing in the last rounds of all tournaments they played is almost beyond comprehension.

Again, their ruthless consistency is something that define them as the big 3. Their h2h, level of their matches when they meet one another ... Add to that number of matches they played against one another and it is clear.

As much as I like Murray, if you really look at the big picture he doesn't really belong there. It doesn't matter to me if people prefer to use 'big 3' or 'big 4', but let's be honest ... There was/is still the Big 3 and Murray is not there. Fed, Nole and Rafa are in their own league.

Murray did have some great wins. He is a great player, but still If we are completely rational and neutral there were never a big 4. People who say, 'if he wasn't British' do have a good point. I do hope that Murray will come back, be 100% healthy. He might win another major or more. It's hard to say ... things change quickly in tennis. On the other hand, everyone is getting older, some new young guys will take over eventually and become new champions.

I'm just not so sure that we will every, or for a very long time see 3 players like 'big 3' winning over 50 majors combined, playing in same era or so along each other. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
Last edited:
#37
Yes, Andy Murray is not quite on the same level as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, but his career achievements over the last decade place him waaaaaaaay above the ''best of the rest''.

2 Wimbledon titles.

1 US Open title.

2 Olympic Gold Medals.

1 Davis Cup.

40 weeks as Numero Uno.

1 WTF.

14 Masters titles, including 7/9 of the slots, which is equal to Roger and Rafa.

11 GS finals, 21 GS semi-finals, and 30 GS quarter-finals.

Whilst I ain't got no quarrel with the likes of Del Potro, Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet, Isner et al., this plucky Scotsman is objectively on a different plane to them.

Also, did I forget to mention this?


2019 and 20 it’s the Big 2

Djoker and nadal

Fed is too old and Murray is broken
 
#40
Yeah and now lets take these particular stats and compare them all against the big-3!

Wimbledon Titles - 2 against 2/4/8
Us Open Titles - 1 against 3/3/5
Olympic Gold Medals - 2 against 0/0/1 (Okay he ligitemately got this one, especially considering 4 year gap and switch of surface! Good job!)
Davis Cup - Everyone of them one at least once, nothing special...Nadal won it multiple times for his country and only on one occasion wasn't instrumental in bringing his team to the glory!
Number One - 40 against 191(still going)/223(has greatest potential to extend)/310 (an all-time record! Lol)
WTF - 1 against 0/5/6 (Only Nadal never won it...)
Masters Titles - 14 against 27/31/33 (Even the one of the three with the least titles still won almost twice as much! Lol)
GS Performance Stats - 11 finals/21 semi-final and 30 quarter-finals, yet only three grand slam victories! Lol The most important here to see overall picture is the difference between strike rate between all three of them! And this is where all three trumps him badly!

So no, he has no bragging rights to be grouped with the big-3 anymore for whatever silly reason you choose him to! All three are miles ahead of him and the some! Its Big-3+Murray, sorry!
 
#44
For me, there are Big 4. Murray is in based on his competitiveness and he is the Olympic GOAT.
Maybe if there were some kind of parallel reality, where Olympic Tournaments were valued more than grand slams...in that case i would take this argument seriously...otherwise - moot point!
 
D

Deleted member 757377

Guest
#45
big titles from montecarlo 2008 to madrid 2017:

murray ---> 20

all other non-big3 ---> 14

Murray held his own in the strong era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#46
big titles from cincinnati 2008 to YEC 2016:

murray ---> 20

all other non-big3 ---> 14

Murray held his own in the strong era.
Oh, no doubt about it! But thats not the point! The point is whether he belongs into big-4...he achieved great on his own, but big-3 are miles ahead of him!
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#47
Maybe if there were some kind of parallel reality, where Olympic Tournaments were valued more than grand slams...in that case i would take this argument seriously...otherwise - moot point!
For me, he is one of the best players ever as I take into considerations competition he faced. In any other time he would have double digits slams.
 
#48
For me, he is one of the best players ever as I take into considerations competition he faced. In any other time he would have double digits slams.
Woulda coulda mambo jumbo...thats not the point! The reality is he achieved not nearly as much as other three to be grouped along with them and thats like the entire point of the thread! Lol
 
Top