Does Murray belong?

gcollins

New User
Sure, Murray is part of the Big Four. He can't NOT be, right? If you take him out of the picture, the rest of the field gains his 2 Slams, and 10 Masters'.

Plus it's really cool to be able to say the four of those players met a bunch of times in the semifinals of a 128 man tournament.

But in 10 years, will we look back and put Murray in that group retrospectively? He's never reached number one, doesn't dominate any particular surface, has never won multiple slams in a season, or for that matter any more than 2 total. He isn't even close to a career slam, because he's missing the US, AND the French, and hasn't been to the Finals in the French. Unlike Djokovic and Nadal (and pre-decline Roger,) I've never been particularly shocked when Murray takes an early exit.

Now that Wawrinka has 2 slams, will we look back in about a decade and see Murray as a player that was shoe-horned into what was really a big three? Did anyone see it that way BEFORE Stan's second win? What number of titles could definitively place Andy there?
 

Fedex

Legend
Sure, Murray is part of the Big Four. He can't NOT be, right? If you take him out of the picture, the rest of the field gains his 2 Slams, and 10 Masters'.

Plus it's really cool to be able to say the four of those players met a bunch of times in the semifinals of a 128 man tournament.

But in 10 years, will we look back and put Murray in that group retrospectively? He's never reached number one, doesn't dominate any particular surface, has never won multiple slams in a season, or for that matter any more than 2 total. He isn't even close to a career slam, because he's missing the US, AND the French, and hasn't been to the Finals in the French. Unlike Djokovic and Nadal (and pre-decline Roger,) I've never been particularly shocked when Murray takes an early exit.

Now that Wawrinka has 2 slams, will we look back in about a decade and see Murray as a player that was shoe-horned into what was really a big three? Did anyone see it that way BEFORE Stan's second win? What number of titles could definitively place Andy there?
Murray has reached the quarter final stage at the last 17 slams. He's reached 8 finals and won 2 and you don't think someone like that belongs?!

Maybe this also helps explain:

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/...anks-djokovic-nadal-federer-writes-alan-tyers
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
"Andy Murray will be remembered as one of the best players ever to play the game. Had he been born five years later, he'd probably have 10 Slams."

http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/story/...anks-djokovic-nadal-federer-writes-alan-tyers
Well this is the best argument I've ever read here in Murray's favour. I don't hesitate to give credit where it is due.

I think Hitman started thread about this topic. Just check it. Some very good arguments but none was better than above.
 
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
In this Forum Murray doesn't belong, hyperbole.

This is the same place where certain delusional peoples and conspiracy theorists insinuated HAARP influenced the 2012 US Open in favour of Murray.

Think about that new user.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

reaper

Legend

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
It was always big three because the triangulation between Fed, Rafa & Novak was amazing. In that, generally, Nadal beats Fed, Novak beats Rafa and Fed beats Novak.

Now things have changed and changed quickly. We must let the year play out. The Stanimal and Rafa's injuries/aging knees have put the ATP on tilt.
Plus the big three are among the top 10 legends in history by their slam achievements. The muzzard is a 2 slam wonder right now. If he had, say, 7 slams he could be included with 17, 14 & 8 --an exclusive club indeed.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray belongs in a group with Stan, Cilic, and Delpo.
Murray: 33 titles including 2 Slams (6 other finals), 10 Masters and 1 OG.

Stan: 10 titles including 2 Slams (0 other finals), 1 Masters.

Cilic: 13 titles including 1 Slam, (0 other finals), 0 Masters.

Del Potro: 18 titles including 1 Slam, (0 other finals), 0 Masters.


Unless you're going with the argument 'only Slams count', the group seems a little lopsided in favour of 1 player!
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Murray: 33 titles including 2 Slams (6 other finals), 10 Masters and 1 OG.

Stan: 10 titles including 2 Slams (0 other finals), 1 Masters.

Cilic: 13 titles including 1 Slam, (0 other finals), 0 Masters.

Del Potro: 18 titles including 1 Slam, (0 other finals), 0 Masters.


Unless you're going with the argument 'only Slams count', the group seems a little lopsided in favour of 1 player!
He's much closer to them than the big 3 though, which is why this is a more appropriate grouping for him. He still has some time mind you but this is where he belongs. It's not that only Slams count but they are still the most important metric for tennis greatness.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Does Murray have more in common with Stan, Cilic, Delpo or Fed, Rafa and Novak ?

Let us say Roddick is still on tour. Will Roddick be part of big 5 then since he has number of major finals, big titles and wins against the big 4.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He's much closer to them than the big 3 though, which is why this is a more appropriate grouping for him. He still has some time mind you but this is where he belongs. It's not that only Slams count but they are still the most important metric for tennis greatness.
I disagree. If you take everything into account, and not just the Slams, then Murray is clearly in a group of his own if you don't think he should be placed with the Big 3.
 

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
I could have sworn we just had a thread about this, it's based on preference. Is he the worst of the big four or the best of the field? It's the same thing really. Don't forget though, the nickname came about during the period where virtually every important tournament was split between the four. Murray included.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
He is part of the big four because he has been in the top 4 for the past 5-6 years and has racked up considerable slam finals even though his conversion rate is poor. Overall whatever you think of him, his game is still a level above the tier 2 guys when you just consider it in terms of consistency
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I disagree. If you take everything into account, and not just the Slams, then Murray is clearly in a group of his own if you don't think he should be placed with the Big 3.
Fed, Novak, and Rafa each have a single season in their careers that is better than Murray's entire career up to this point. You've never had an issue with Murray being grouped with guys who are much more accomplished than he is but you somehow think this is unfair? Murray is the best of the group of 4 players who managed a slam in the era of the big 3 but he's got work to do if he wants to distance himself from Stan, Cilic, and Delpo.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
He is part of the big four because he has been in the top 4 for the past 5-6 years and has racked up considerable slam finals even though his conversion rate is poor. Overall whatever you think of him, his game is still a level above the tier 2 guys when you just consider it in terms of consistency
His game is at least a level below the tier 1 guys though. His inability to convert slam finals only serves to illustrate how far he is from the big 3. He's freaking cannon fodder.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed, Novak, and Rafa each have a single season in their careers that is better than Murray's entire career up to this point. You've never had an issue with Murray being grouped with guys who are much more accomplished than he is but you somehow think this is unfair? Murray is the best of the group of 4 players who managed a slam in the era of the big 3 but he's got work to do if he wants to distance himself from Stan, Cilic, and Delpo.
Very true. Even if Novak and Rafa win 4 more majors from now and Murray none, it appears a case will be made to include Murray in the big 4.
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
People have already made their mind up on this, but to me it's obvious. Murray's Wimbledon will be remembered, essentially, forever. I mean, it's not like England has a ton of guys gunning for another one. It could be 20 years before Andy Murray gives up the title of last Brit* to win SW19. And even if he does, his victory will live on much longer than him.

And so, remembering him for that, it'll be just as easy to recall his other major victory (at least) and his thumping of Federer at the Olympics (some may even recall he also won silver in mixed, and that it all went down at All England Club). Most importantly, all three victories came while the other B4 members were still out there winning big titles.

So yes, Murray is "Big 4" and "Big 4" is a thing. Doesn't change the fact that the Big 4 era is basically over, or that Novak has achieved a significant amount more than Muzza, or that Roger/Rafa are on a level of their own as well.

Andy Murray is a great player who went toe to toe with some of the game's all time greatest, and came away with a fair number of victories. Anyone who overlooks him 10-20 years from now will look very foolish
 

Alchemy-Z

Hall of Fame
I always thought of it more as....the Semi Finals of a slam typically had 3 if not all 4 of Roger/Rafa/Novak/Murray

it was considered an upset for any of those 4 not to make Semifinals / at least at the AO /Wimb/USO

and even Now Murray is making waves on clay
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Fed, Novak, and Rafa each have a single season in their careers that is better than Murray's entire career up to this point.
Don't be silly. Which of those players won 33 titles including 2 Slams and 10 Masters in a SINGLE SEASON? Exaggerate much?

You've never had an issue with Murray being grouped with guys who are much more accomplished than he is but you somehow think this is unfair? Murray is the best of the group of 4 players who managed a slam in the era of the big 3 but he's got work to do if he wants to distance himself from Stan, Cilic, and Delpo.
As I said, if you're just taking the Slams into account, then I agree Murray is in that group though still ahead with his far greater number of finals reached. But if you are taking ALL titles won into account then Murray's 10 Masters titles somewhat overshadow Wawrinka's 1 and Delpo and Cilic's 0, wouldn't you agree? As things stand, it is THEY who have much work to do if they want to be anywhere near his ballpark!
 

Fedex

Legend
If he'd been born 5 years earlier he might have none. Peak Federer early in his career, Nadal winning the French every year, then dealing with up and coming Djokovic. Tough to deal with for a guy prone to stage fright.
So what you're saying is to go back to 2007 and replace baby Murray with prime 2012/13 Olympic, USO and Wimbledon winning Murray effectively taking Djokovic out of the equation because he wouldn't be a huge factor until 2011 and then let prime Murray loose from there.

Baby Murray was still good enough to regularly beat Federer and Nadal (twice at slams)

We'll never know but you have to think Murray ends up with a good few more than 2 slams. And this isn't exactly taking Murray out of the era is it which is the point of the article.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
So what you're saying is to go back to 2007 and replace baby Murray with prime 2012/13 Olympic, USO and Wimbledon winning Murray effectively taking Djokovic out of the equation because he wouldn't be a huge factor until 2011 and then let prime Murray loose from there.

Baby Murray was still good enough to regularly beat Federer and Nadal (twice at slams)

We'll never know but you have to think Murray ends up with a good few more than 2 slams. And this isn't exactly taking Murray out of the era is it which is the point of the article.
Federer puts Murray down in slams every time. He might grab AO 2008 but that's it. Unless he shows crazy good Wimbledon and USO form this year but he still has to contend with 2010 Nadal...

I assume you're saying ;

07 = 12
08 = 13
09 = 14
10 = 15

Don't see where the slams are coming from, he wins nothing in 2014 or sure with the back recovery.

The guy is a two time slam winners, his caliber isn't much higher. More than Courier is stretching it.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
In many ways, Andy Murray is Arsenal. They can play amazing football, but it has been many years since they have mounted a serious title challenge, Murray trumps Arsenal here. I'd consider Arsenal the weakest of the 'Top 4'

Manchester United (Roger)
Chelsea (Novak)
Manchester City (Nadal)
Arsenal (Murray)

Liverpool might be the best of the rest, but comparing Stan to Liverpool would be an insult... To Stan.

Murray does belong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0WV_Jmjc7U

 
Last edited:

OrangePower

Legend
At least 8 slams (i.e. top 10 open era):
Federer - check
Nadal - check
Djokovic - check
Murray - 6 slams short

At least 100 weeks at #1 (i.e. top 10 open era):
Federer - check
Nadal - check
Djokovic - check
Murray - 100 weeks short

Does he belong with the other 3? You decide...
 

Anti-Fedal

Professional
Murray: 2 Slams , 10 Masters and 1 OG.

Stan: 2 Slams, 1 Masters.

Cilic: 1 Slam, 0 Masters.

Del Potro: 1 Slam, 0 Masters.


Unless you're going with the argument 'only Slams count', the group seems a little lopsided in favour of 1 player!
I've corrected your post to include only the things that matter :)
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
I don't think I have the energy for this argument again. Its more popular than Federer Vs Nadal lately.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Murray is a big 4 for his ridiculous consistence... which is unmatched by anyone not called Federer, Nadal or DJokovic..

Murray reached multiple slam finals in 2012 and 2013...

Call me when another player outside the big "4" reach at least 2 slam finals on the same calendar year...

16 grand slam SF
8 slam finals..

Reached multiple grand slam finals on 3 different slam venues.. (4 AO, 2 USO, 2 WI)

In his weakest slam he has 3 Semi finals....


10 master 1000 titles
14 master 1000 finals
23 master 1000 semi-finals

Olympic gold against federer..
 
Last edited:

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
He's much closer to them than the big 3 though, which is why this is a more appropriate grouping for him. He still has some time mind you but this is where he belongs. It's not that only Slams count but they are still the most important metric for tennis greatness.

I think one of the big downs of murray is not being able to be Number 1 of the world.. not that he needs 100 weeks or something.. but at least being at the top a few weeks to prove that he is able to do that..
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Don't be silly. Which of those players won 33 titles including 2 Slams and 10 Masters in a SINGLE SEASON? Exaggerate much?



As I said, if you're just taking the Slams into account, then I agree Murray is in that group though still ahead with his far greater number of finals reached. But if you are taking ALL titles won into account then Murray's 10 Masters titles somewhat overshadow Wawrinka's 1 and Delpo and Cilic's 0, wouldn't you agree? As things stand, it is THEY who have much work to do if they want to be anywhere near his ballpark!
Id take a 3 slam season, a YE#1, multiple M1000s and in the case of Novak and Fed the WTF, over Andy's entire career. I believe in quality over quantity though.

I think Andy needs to win more slams to truly distance himself from those guys, especially since he likely won't ever even get a YE#1. We agree that he's more accomplished, just not that he is enough so to belong in a separate grouping.
 

aman92

Hall of Fame
I think Andy can add a couple of GS at the very least over the next 2 years. Also has a good chance of competing for the no 1 ranking in 2016 if he keeps his form up
 

Flint

Hall of Fame
To be honest I think Murray is ahead of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

No one can match his warcry, he roars like a lion




So its really only a "big 1".
 

ibbi

Legend
He is obviously a class apart from the Tsonga's, Ferrer's, Berdych's of this world. Had been clear of Wawrinka too, but I think that gap has closed considerably. He's certainly not in the same league as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. He exists on a sort of tier 2, or had, I think the tiers are currently realigning.
 

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
Murray belongs in a group with Stan, Cilic, and Delpo.
Murray's achievements are much greater than these guys, if you look at his career as a whole. However, his peak level of play perhaps is either on par or even a tad lower than say Wawrinka and DelPotro.
 

HipRotation

Hall of Fame
The "big 4" moniker was coined by the media in 2010 to give a name to the most likely players to win all big tournaments or at least be favorites to win.

Note that Roddick, Ferrero, Gaudio and even Moyá were still around then and they weren't included in a "big 8" despite being slam winners. Hewitt and del Potro were also overlooked.

Also note that since 2010 Murray and Federer have been quite even in number and quality of titles so if you're going to drop one you're going to have to drop the other. And if you're going to use Federer's career prior to the "big 4" being called the "big 4" then it's only fair to use Wawrinka's pre-slam success in that argument too which is pretty damning to the idea of him being in the same level as the real foursome.
 
Last edited:

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
Murray's achievements are much greater than these guys, if you look at his career as a whole. However, his peak level of play perhaps is either on par or even a tad lower than say Wawrinka and DelPotro.
I dont think andy at AO 2012 is any lower than delpotro (probably a hair above).. I favor peak wawrinka (outside grass) over peak andy or delpo though
 

NEW_BORN

Hall of Fame
I dont think andy at AO 2012 is any lower than delpotro (probably a hair above).. I favor peak wawrinka (outside grass) over peak andy or delpo though
I think peak DelPotro has that mental toughness edge over peak Murray, but Murray does have more variety in his arsenal.
It's a tough one to call because Murray plays so differently to the power style of both Delpotro and Wawrinka.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Murray's achievements are much greater than these guys, if you look at his career as a whole. However, his peak level of play perhaps is either on par or even a tad lower than say Wawrinka and DelPotro.
Which guys? Did I miss something? When last I checked Wawr had same number of GS titles as that him while Cilic, Delpo were trailing by just one GS title. Wawr already is in same league of Murray while Cilic is just one hot run away from equalling him just like Wawr was before this year's French Open. I often heard argument about how Murray have much superior achievements with respect to lower field but it is half truth. It may true when you compare with Slamless Tsonga, Berdych but he absolutely and totally belongs to tier of players having 1-2 GS titles under their names which includes Hewitt, Wawr, Cilic etc.
 
Last edited:
Top