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?
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?