If Wawrinka wins 4th major will people still talk about the "Big 4" of this era

I do not know how realistic/likely it is for Wawrinka to somehow win a 4th major at this point, and I would not rank him ahead of Murray overall even with one (atleast I do not think so now). However would people still talk about this era having a Big 4 at that point, with Stan having more majors than Murray? It already feels funny enough with Stan having the same number of majors as Murray, imagine how strange it would seem with him having more of them.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes.
Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

I do think Murray is firmly greater than Stan and would remain so even if Stan won another one but even as it is now I'm not a big supporter of the Big 4 idea. For me, there's a Big 3.
Murray is far closer to Stan than he is to Djokovic. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fanboy.
 
Well I'm a fan of both Murray and Stan, so objectively I feel that perhaps Stan has a higher peak level and good match up with Djokovic which he greatly benefited from.
But as mentioned, Murray is more consistent, and realistically probably should have at least 5 slams right now, considering all those AO finals he lost to Djokovic.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
and realistically probably should have at least 5 slams right now, considering all those AO finals he lost to Djokovic.
"Realistically" and "probably" have no basis for comparing their respective careers. It's not woulda, coulda, shoulda, it's their actual career stats which prove conclusively Murray had the better career. I can't even imagine anyone (even Stan or his mother) arguing Wawrinka has had the superior career:

Murray: #1 ranked player, 46 career titles, won Wimbledon twice and 1 YEC title, three majors.

Stan:
Highest ranking was #3, 16 career titles, no YEC, three majors.

I deliberately omitted Andy's OGM's since many regard that as meaningless legacy-wise. Looking at the numbers, who exactly is choosing Stan as the better player or having had the better career up to this point?
 

Sport

Legend
"Realistically" and "probably" have no basis for comparing their respective careers. It's not woulda, coulda, shoulda, it's their actual career stats which prove conclusively Murray had the better career. I can't even imagine anyone (even Stan or his mother) arguing Wawrinka has had the superior career:

Murray: #1 ranked player, 46 career titles, won Wimbledon twice and 1 YEC title, three majors.

Stan:
Highest ranking was #3, 16 career titles, no YEC, three majors.

I deliberately omitted Andy's OGM's since many regard that as meaningless legacy-wise. Looking at the numbers, who exactly is choosing Stan as the better player or having had the better career up to this point?
Not "many", only biased Fed fans say the Olympics are irrelevant just like only biased fans claim the ATP finals are irrelevant.
 
Yes.
Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

I do think Murray is firmly greater than Stan and would remain so even if Stan won another one but even as it is now I'm not a big supporter of the Big 4 idea. For me, there's a Big 3.
Murray is far closer to Stan than he is to Djokovic. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fanboy.
It's not even close IMO. Murray has went to like the 8th most SF's in history and made it to far more Finals, also won 2 gold metals etc. Wrawinka won 3 majors but he didn't have the same depth and resume as Murray. He made it count more when he got there I guess but that's not as impressive as nearly always being there like Murray.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Wawrinka would literally be an overachiever at 2 Slams.

Murray is like top 10 of all time in literally evwrything except for Slam wins. We all know why
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
The Big-4 concept (the tour being dominated by 4 players) would remain even if Wawrinka wins a 4th slam.

That said, many posters here think it's only about slam wins. For these posters, one assumes Stan would be considered the greater player if he wins another slam.
 

-snake-

Professional
It's always been a big 3. A Czech version of Murray would've never been this hyped. It's hilarious how the parrots are still trying to push the big 4 narrative. The guy literally has a couple of slam wins over Fedalovic, that's all. And yes, he's "better" than Waws, that's obvious.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes.
Most folks here think Murray is vastly better than Wawrinka. Partly because there's a reasonable argument for it (consistency), and let's be honest folks, partly because it helps pump up the achievements of Mr. Djokovic. (To be clear, in my view his achievements don't need pumping up, it's unnecessary insecurity on the part of his fanbase).

I do think Murray is firmly greater than Stan and would remain so even if Stan won another one but even as it is now I'm not a big supporter of the Big 4 idea. For me, there's a Big 3.
Murray is far closer to Stan than he is to Djokovic. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a fanboy.
Murray is far closer to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Stan than he is to the Big 3 by literally every possible metric. Let's call Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Stan the Little 4, for simplicity of the argument and writing.

1. Slams - Murray is much closer to the Little 4 than he is to the Big 3. There should be no debate here.

2. Weeks at no.1 - Murray has 45 or something like this. Much closer to the Little 4 than the Big 3, who all have over 190 weeks as the world's best player.

3. Masters 1000 - Murray has 14. The one with the fewest in the Little 4 is Stan with 1 and then comes Hewitt with 2. 14 is still closer to 1 and 2 than it is to 28, a number held by Federer, the least accomplished masters player among the Big 3. Safin, the most accomplished here is at 8 titles. Murray, again, is closer to him than to the Big 3.

4. GS finals - Murray has 11. All the Little 4 have 4 or 5 GS finals in total. 11 is still a much closer number to 4 or 5 than to 24+. The least accomplished player in this area is Novak among the Big 3 and he is still far far away from Murray.

5. WTF - Murray has 1 title and among the little 4 only Hewitt won this event and he won it twice. 1 is closer to 2 than to 5 and 6, numbers held by Djokovic and Federer respectively.

6. YE#1 - Murray has 1, Hewitt and Roddick have 2 and 1 respectively. Murray is closer to them in this area than he is to Nadal, the least accomplished player in this area among the Big 3, who has 4.

The only thing Murray has going for him that the Little 4 don't have is consistency. He is more consistent than all 4 of them. But that's it. Overall that makes him better than the Little 4, but only within their tier. He isn't even close to the Big 3. So Murray is the best of the Little 4 tier, but is still in their tier.

So, the Djokovic fans who think it is an insult for Murray to be compared to the Little 4 should revise that statement, as Murray is very much part of their tier.
 

EloQuent

G.O.A.T.
MuryGOAT should really be in the same conversation at 6-7 slam winners. He'll still be better than Stan if Stan pulls ahead. Sometimes you have to look beyond one single number.

But...I think outside of British writers, people are going to be saying Big 3 a lot more than Big 4, especially as the gap widens.
 

Sport

Legend
Murray is far closer to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Stan than he is to the Big 3 by literally every possible metric. Let's call Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Stan the Little 4, for simplicity of the argument and writing.

1. Slams - Murray is much closer to the Little 4 than he is to the Big 3. There should be no debate here.

2. Weeks at no.1 - Murray has 45 or something like this. Much closer to the Little 4 than the Big 3, who all have over 190 weeks as the world's best player.

3. Masters 1000 - Murray has 14. The one with the fewest in the Little 4 is Stan with 1 and then comes Hewitt with 2. 14 is still closer to 1 and 2 than it is to 28, a number held by Federer, the least accomplished masters player among the Big 3. Safin, the most accomplished here is at 8 titles. Murray, again, is closer to him than to the Big 3.

4. GS finals - Murray has 11. All the Little 4 have 4 or 5 GS finals in total. 11 is still a much closer number to 4 or 5 than to 24+. The least accomplished player in this area is Novak among the Big 3 and he is still far far away from Murray.

5. WTF - Murray has 1 title and among the little 4 only Hewitt won this event and he won it twice. 1 is closer to 2 than to 5 and 6, numbers held by Djokovic and Federer respectively.

6. YE#1 - Murray has 1, Hewitt and Roddick have 2 and 1 respectively. Murray is closer to them in this area than he is to Nadal, the least accomplished player in this area among the Big 3, who has 4.

The only thing Murray has going for him that the Little 4 don't have is consistency. He is more consistent than all 4 of them. But that's it. Overall that makes him better than the Little 4, but only within their tier. He isn't even close to the Big 3. So Murray is the best of the Little 4 tier, but is still in their tier.

So, the Djokovic fans who think it is an insult for Murray to be compared to the Little 4 should revise that statement, as Murray is very much part of their tier.
Thanks. Very good message.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
If Wawrinka wins a 4th slam then he would be on 5 big titles.
If Murray won a 4th slam then he would be on 19 big titles. (21 with OG)

As for the "Big 4 vs Big 3" term. People don't understand what it meant anymore. Big 4 was a true statement for the time because it was the same 4 players making SF/F of every event. If one of the 4 didn't win a big title it was a shock. That term is no longer appropriate nor true for the tour and no other term has replaced it. The "Big 3" term is more a general term used by people who rightly put Djokovic/Nadal/Federer as the best players to play the sport.

As for Wawrinka's achievements in general, He is (imo) the most overrated tennis player in history who put together a couple of good runs with (again imo) ballbashing tennis. Casual tennis fans who to put him on the same level of Murray is a joke. If you wanna compare Murray to Hewitt or Roddick or players like that then fine but comparing him to Wawrinka and saying he is closer to him than the "big 3" is a bigger joke and quite frankly an insult to Murray and tennis in general.
 

-snake-

Professional
MuryGOAT should really be in the same conversation at 6-7 slam winners. He'll still be better than Stan if Stan pulls ahead. Sometimes you have to look beyond one single number.

But...I think outside of British writers, people are going to be saying Big 3 a lot more than Big 4, especially as the gap widens.

Nah, losing 45 slem finals : 7 major titles? I don't think so. Even here, no one was using the Big 4 term before 2012, it was just "Marry". Check out some of the old threads.
 
Last edited:

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@Red Rick @Rebel-I.N.S
Not "many", only biased Fed fans say the Olympics are irrelevant
Not so. While many of the top players enjoy playing for their country, it's not really on par with the majors. It only happens once every 4 years. Some player's peaks are barely that long. Can easily miss it. But that is not the main issue.

Let's look at some of the players who have won it. Venus has a better medal count than Serena. Not so bad. How about Kathleen McKane Godfree? Who? She also has more Olympic medals than Serena. Still not so bad. Let's consider others.

Of the Big 3, only Rafa has won gold in singles. Andy Murray has won 2 of them while 2 of the best players ever, Novak & Roger have no singles gold. No gold for Pistol Pete either. Yet players who have won singles gold include: Mercir, Rosset, Kafelnikov (2000), Massu (2004), Dementieva (2008), Puig (2016). While these were all decent elite players, they are/were hardly GOAT contenders. Most were never ranked above #3 or #4 and never won any slam events. Some barely made into the top 10. Puig has never been ranked higher than #27. Of the last 6 players that I mentioned, only Kafelnikov has won a major or was ranked higher that #3. Yet all these players won singles players won gold whereas better, much more accomplished players, never did.

Incongruity?
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Murray is far closer to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Stan than he is to the Big 3 by literally every possible metric. Let's call Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Stan the Little 4, for simplicity of the argument and writing.

1. Slams - Murray is much closer to the Little 4 than he is to the Big 3. There should be no debate here.
Except that Murray made far more Slam finals than any of the "Little 4" and made finals at all 4 of the Slams which only the Big 3 have otherwise managed to do.

2. Weeks at no.1 - Murray has 45 or something like this. Much closer to the Little 4 than the Big 3, who all have over 190 weeks as the world's best player.
He actually has 41 weeks. 2 of the Little 4 have a combination of 22 weeks. One of them has no weeks at all.

3. Masters 1000 - Murray has 14. The one with the fewest in the Little 4 is Stan with 1 and then comes Hewitt with 2. 14 is still closer to 1 and 2 than it is to 28, a number held by Federer, the least accomplished masters player among the Big 3. Safin, the most accomplished here is at 8 titles. Murray, again, is closer to him than to the Big 3.
Murray is the only current player other than the Big 3 to have won double digit Masters titles, even more than undoubted ATG Sampras. Safin has 5 Masters titles, not 8, by the way.

4. GS finals - Murray has 11. All the Little 4 have 4 or 5 GS finals in total. 11 is still a much closer number to 4 or 5 than to 24+. The least accomplished player in this area is Novak among the Big 3 and he is still far far away from Murray.
11 is still more than twice as many as 4 or 5.

5. WTF - Murray has 1 title and among the little 4 only Hewitt won this event and he won it twice. 1 is closer to 2 than to 5 and 6, numbers held by Djokovic and Federer respectively.
So you value 0 as being almost as great as 1? Does that mean Murray is almost as great as Federer and Djokovic at RG given that they only have 1 title each?

6. YE#1 - Murray has 1, Hewitt and Roddick have 2 and 1 respectively. Murray is closer to them in this area than he is to Nadal, the least accomplished player in this area among the Big 3, who has 4.
Fair enough.

The only thing Murray has going for him that the Little 4 don't have is consistency. He is more consistent than all 4 of them. But that's it. Overall that makes him better than the Little 4, but only within their tier. He isn't even close to the Big 3. So Murray is the best of the Little 4 tier, but is still in their tier.
No. Murray is really in a tier of his own. All by himself he won 20 big titles (including the 2 Olympics). The combined total for the Little 4 is 23, just 3 more.

So, the Djokovic fans who think it is an insult for Murray to be compared to the Little 4 should revise that statement, as Murray is very much part of their tier.
It's a matter of perspective and I've just given you an alternative one to the version you prefer.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Except that Murray made far more Slam finals than any of the "Little 4" and made finals at all 4 of the Slams which only the Big 3 have otherwise managed to do.



He actually has 41 weeks. 2 of the Little 4 have a combination of 22 weeks. One has no weeks at all.



3. Masters 1000 - Murray has 14. The one with the fewest in the Little 4 is Stan with 1 and then comes Hewitt with 2. 14 is still closer to 1 and 2 than it is to 28, a number held by Federer, the least accomplished masters player among the Big 3. Safin, the most accomplished here is at 8 titles. Murray, again, is closer to him than to the Big 3.

4. GS finals - Murray has 11. All the Little 4 have 4 or 5 GS finals in total. 11 is still a much closer number to 4 or 5 than to 24+. The least accomplished player in this area is Novak among the Big 3 and he is still far far away from Murray.

5. WTF - Murray has 1 title and among the little 4 only Hewitt won this event and he won it twice. 1 is closer to 2 than to 5 and 6, numbers held by Djokovic and Federer respectively.

6. YE#1 - Murray has 1, Hewitt and Roddick have 2 and 1 respectively. Murray is closer to them in this area than he is to Nadal, the least accomplished player in this area among the Big 3, who has 4.

The only thing Murray has going for him that the Little 4 don't have is consistency. He is more consistent than all 4 of them. But that's it. Overall that makes him better than the Little 4, but only within their tier. He isn't even close to the Big 3. So Murray is the best of the Little 4 tier, but is still in their tier.

So, the Djokovic fans who think it is an insult for Murray to be compared to the Little 4 should revise that statement, as Murray is very much part of their tier.
[/QUOTE]
Don't get me wrong, Mainad, I have nothing against Murray, as I do consider him better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Wawrinka, but he is still more in their tier than the Big 3's. And I did acknowledge that that Murray has been more consistent than all of the little 4 which is why his numbers are better than theirs in some areas.

Yes, he has many more slam finals than the Little 4, but 11 is still closer to 4-5 than to 24+.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
@Red Rick @Rebel-I.N.S

Not so. While many of the top players enjoy playing for their country, it's not really on par with the majors. It only happens once every 4 years. Some player's peaks are barely that long. Can easily miss it. But that is not the main issue.
Or, put another way, to be able to peak for something that occurs only every 4 years is an achievement by itself. To be able to do it twice is even more remarkable.

[
Let's look at some of the players who have won it. Venus has a better medal count than Serena. Not so bad. How about Kathleen McKane Godfree? Who? She also has more Olympic medals than Serena. Still not so bad. Let's consider others.
You mean the Kathleen McKane Godfree who won 2 Wimbledon titles? That one?

[
Of the Big 3, only Rafa has won gold in singles. Andy Murray has won 2 of them while 2 of the best players ever, Novak & Roger have no singles gold. No gold for Pistol Pete either. Yet players who have won singles gold include: Mercir, Rosset, Kafelnikov (2000), Massu (2004), Dementieva (2008), Puig (2016). While these were all decent elite players, they are/were hardly GOAT contenders. Most were never ranked above #3 or #4 and never won any slam events. Some barely made into the top 10. Puig has never been ranked higher than #27. Of the last 6 players that I mentioned, only Kafelnikov has won a major or was ranked higher that #3. Yet all these players won singles players won gold whereas better, much more accomplished players, never did.

Incongruity?
This line of argument always makes me laugh. Shall we consider some of the "ATGs" who won Slams? Titans of the game like Kriek ,Teacher, Korda, Johansson, Gomez, Costa, Gaudio, Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic?

Incidentally, Kafelnikov was a multiple Slam winner and former #1 and the list of female champions includes Graf, Capriati, Davenport, Henin and both Williams sisters.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Don't get me wrong, Mainad, I have nothing against Murray, as I do consider him better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Wawrinka, but he is still more in their tier than the Big 3's. And I did acknowledge that that Murray has been more consistent than all of the little 4 which is why his numbers are better than theirs in some areas.

Yes, he has many more slam finals than the Little 4, but 11 is still closer to 4-5 than to 24+.[/QUOTE]

As I say, it's a matter of perspective. But if you want to argue that 0 v 1 is closer in achievement than 1 v 4, then go ahead. I would argue that actually winning even once is far greater than never winning at all.
 

Sport

Legend
@Red Rick @Rebel-I.N.S


Not so. While many of the top players enjoy playing for their country, it's not really on par with the majors. It only happens once every 4 years. Some player's peaks are barely that long. Can easily miss it. But that is not the main issue.

Let's look at some of the players who have won it. Venus has a better medal count than Serena. Not so bad. How about Kathleen McKane Godfree? Who? She also has more Olympic medals than Serena. Still not so bad. Let's consider others.

Of the Big 3, only Rafa has won gold in singles. Andy Murray has won 2 of them while 2 of the best players ever, Novak & Roger have no singles gold. No gold for Pistol Pete either. Yet players who have won singles gold include: Mercir, Rosset, Kafelnikov (2000), Massu (2004), Dementieva (2008), Puig (2016). While these were all decent elite players, they are/were hardly GOAT contenders. Most were never ranked above #3 or #4 and never won any slam events. Some barely made into the top 10. Puig has never been ranked higher than #27. Of the last 6 players that I mentioned, only Kafelnikov has won a major or was ranked higher that #3. Yet all these players won singles players won gold whereas better, much more accomplished players, never did.

Incongruity?
Yex so.

Álex Corretja won the Masters Cup/ATP finals, yet better, much more accomplished players never did.

Incongruity?
 

Sport

Legend
Murray is far closer to Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Stan than he is to the Big 3 by literally every possible metric. Let's call Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Stan the Little 4, for simplicity of the argument and writing.

1. Slams - Murray is much closer to the Little 4 than he is to the Big 3. There should be no debate here.

2. Weeks at no.1 - Murray has 45 or something like this. Much closer to the Little 4 than the Big 3, who all have over 190 weeks as the world's best player.

3. Masters 1000 - Murray has 14. The one with the fewest in the Little 4 is Stan with 1 and then comes Hewitt with 2. 14 is still closer to 1 and 2 than it is to 28, a number held by Federer, the least accomplished masters player among the Big 3. Safin, the most accomplished here is at 8 titles. Murray, again, is closer to him than to the Big 3.

4. GS finals - Murray has 11. All the Little 4 have 4 or 5 GS finals in total. 11 is still a much closer number to 4 or 5 than to 24+. The least accomplished player in this area is Novak among the Big 3 and he is still far far away from Murray.

5. WTF - Murray has 1 title and among the little 4 only Hewitt won this event and he won it twice. 1 is closer to 2 than to 5 and 6, numbers held by Djokovic and Federer respectively.

6. YE#1 - Murray has 1, Hewitt and Roddick have 2 and 1 respectively. Murray is closer to them in this area than he is to Nadal, the least accomplished player in this area among the Big 3, who has 4.

The only thing Murray has going for him that the Little 4 don't have is consistency. He is more consistent than all 4 of them. But that's it. Overall that makes him better than the Little 4, but only within their tier. He isn't even close to the Big 3. So Murray is the best of the Little 4 tier, but is still in their tier.

So, the Djokovic fans who think it is an insult for Murray to be compared to the Little 4 should revise that statement, as Murray is very much part of their tier.
Stop with the agenda trying to put Roddick in the same sentence than Murray just to make Federer's competence look better.

Roddick is closer to Juan Carlos Ferrero tier than to Murray. In effect, Roddick only won 1 Grand Slam (5 GS finals) and was #1 for 13 weeks, while Ferrero won 1 Grand Slam (3 GS finals) and was #1 for 8 weeks.

Murray won 3 Grand Slams (14 GS finals), #1 for 41 weeks, 2 Olympic Gold in singles, won the ATP finals, 14 Masters 1000, etc.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Yex so.

Álex Corretja won the Masters Cup/ATP finals, yet better, much more accomplished players never did.

Incongruity?
Yes, but on the "wrong side". It is rather the exception that those who dominated the game didn't win the Masters/WTF. It is rather the exception that those who dominated the game won the OSG.

From all the recent winners who truly dominated the game only Agassi and Nadal have won the OSG. From the ATGs that dominated the game only Wilander and Nadal haven't won the Masters/WTF

:cool:
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Stop with the agenda trying to put Roddick in the same sentence than Murray just to make Federer's competence look better.

Roddick is closer to Juan Carlos Ferrero tier than to Murray. In effect, Roddick only won 1 Grand Slam (5 GS finals) and was #1 for 13 weeks, while Ferrero won 1 Grand Slam (3 GS finals) and was #1 for 8 weeks.

Murray won 3 Grand Slams (14 GS finals), #1 for 41 weeks, 2 Olympic Gold in singles, won the ATP finals, 14 Masters 1000, etc.
Roddick lasted longer than Ferrero and was a bigger threat on 2/3 surfaces than Ferrero.

And besides, Ferrero is not on some different tier. He is in the same tier as Hewitt, Roddick and Safin: slam winner or multi slam winner who won multiple masters and was no.1. And won the WTF (in Hewitt's case).
 
Last edited:

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Murray's consistency shows that in any other era, he would have amassed a resume that would put him in ATG territory.

He was 'right there' for years, knocking on the door and breaking through to an extent. He solved Djokovic when no one else could and probably cost himself a few years on the tour because of it.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray's consistency shows that in any other era, he would have amassed a resume that would put him in ATG territory.

He was 'right there' for years, knocking on the door and breaking through to an extent. He solved Djokovic when no one else could and probably cost himself a few years on the tour because of it.
Murray solved Djokovic during that period in a way, but when no one else could? That's pushing it. Federer and Nadal had done that before gim already.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
As I say, it's a matter of perspective. But if you want to argue that 0 v 1 is closer in achievement than 1 v 4, then go ahead. I would argue that actually winning even once is far greater than never winning at all.
Well, if you're talking about YE#1 there, Murray can compare himself to Hewitt and Roddick in that area.

Now that I think about it, Stan seems to be the odd one out as he doesn't have any other notable stats besides slams when conpared to Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Murray.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
Murray solved Djokovic during that period in a way, but when no one else could? That's pushing it. Federer and Nadal had done that before gim already.
I'm not sure about that. When Djokovic reached his 2011/2014/2015/early '16 level, he beat Rafa at RG, Fed at Wimbledon, Aussie and US. No one had an answer for him aside from Murray and that battle they had for #1 in the second half of 2016 was incredible.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not sure about that. When Djokovic reached his 2011/2014/2015/early '16 level, he beat Rafa at RG, Fed at Wimbledon, Aussie and US. No one had an answer for him aside from Murray and that battle they had for #1 in the second half of 2016 was incredible.
Really? Fed beat Novak in a slam in 2011 when no one else could. And beat him again in a slam in 2012.

Murray getting to no.1 in 2016 was a fantastic achievement. But he was helped by Djokovic falling off a cliff after the FO. He didn't even have to deal with Novak after the FO until the WTF final.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray's consistency shows that in any other era, he would have amassed a resume that would put him in ATG territory.

He was 'right there' for years, knocking on the door and breaking through to an extent. He solved Djokovic when no one else could and probably cost himself a few years on the tour because of it.
I disagree with this. It is too speculative. The normally accepted view is that a player needs 6 Majors or more to qualify for that distinction, so "awarding" Murray with 3 additional Majors is a no-go. He was completely helpless against Federer in Majors for the longest time, and his abysmal performances against Nadal on grass put a huge question mark on whether that speculation is actually true.

:cool:
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@Sport
Or, put another way, to be able to peak for something that occurs only every 4 years is an achievement by itself. To be able to do it twice is even more remarkable.

This line of argument always makes me laugh. Shall we consider some of the "ATGs" who won Slams? Titans of the game like Kriek ,Teacher, Korda, Johansson, Gomez, Costa, Gaudio, Cash, Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic?

Incidentally, Kafelnikov was a multiple Slam winner and former #1 and the list of female champions includes Graf, Capriati, Davenport, Henin and both Williams sisters.
You appear easily amused if that argument makes you laugh. I am easily amused as well and I might be inclined to say that your argument makes me LOL. My point, as if you didn't know, is that the very top players (Djokovic, Federer, Sampras) are not winning OGMs even tho lesser players, like Murray and the other 6 players have won Olympic gold in singles. Among Rafa, Novak, Roger and Pete -- 66 single slam wins but only 1 gold in singles. Whereas Andy M with 3 singles slams wins has 2 Au medals. Sure this is quite an accomplishment in itself. But this Bo3 (except for the men's final) tournament is nowhere close to the prestige or importance as the slam events.

Sure, some top players have won singles OGM. Never said it hasn't happened. However, while the ATGs have a desire to play the Bo3 Olympics, I do not believe that they put the same effort into winning an OGM as they do for the slam events.

If by multiple, you mean TWO, then fine, Kafelnikov is a multiple slam winner in singles. And, yes, he was #1 in 1999... for a bit over a month. Not to diminish Kafelnikov as a player, or his accomplishments, he was nowhere close to the stature of Sampras, Federer, or Djokovic.

Again, not saying that OGM is trivial. But I am saying that Kaf's gold, Puig's gold, the Au of Dementieva, and Murray's Au x2, does not put them at the same level or in the same conversation as the ATGs who have won 14+ slams events. Fine to acknowledge the OGM, but let's put it into perspective.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
@Sport

You appear easily amused if that argument makes you laugh. I am easily amused as well and I might be inclined to say that your argument makes me LOL. My point, as if you didn't know, is that the very top players (Djokovic, Federer, Sampras) are not winning OGMs even tho lesser players, like Murray and the other 6 players have won Olympic gold in singles. Among Rafa, Novak, Roger and Pete -- 66 single slam wins but only 1 gold in singles. Whereas Andy M with 3 singles slams wins has 2 Au medals. Sure this is quite an accomplishment in itself. But this Bo3 (except for the men's final) tournament is nowhere close to the prestige or importance as the slam events.

Sure, some top players have won singles OGM. Never said it hasn't happened. However, while the ATGs have a desire to play the Bo3 Olympics, I do not believe that they put the same effort into winning an OGM as they do for the slam events.

If by multiple, you mean TWO, then fine, Kafelnikov is a multiple slam winner in singles. And, yes, he was #1 in 1999... for a bit over a month. Not to diminish Kafelnikov as a player, or his accomplishments, he was nowhere close to the stature of Sampras, Federer, or Djokovic.

Again, not saying that OGM is trivial. But I am saying that Kaf's gold, Puig's gold, the Au of Dementieva, and Murray's Au x2, does not put them at the same level or in the same conversation as the ATGs who have won 14+ slams events. Fine to acknowledge the OGM, but let's put it into perspective.
Who is saying the OGM is the equivalent of winning a Slam? Slams are the pinnacle of tennis achievement, nothing else is equivalent. That doesn't mean however that the OGM is insignificant and citing certain players who have won it as 'proof' that they are eg. Kafelnikov, a multiple Slam champion (yes, last time I looked 2 is a multiple) and a former world #1 (no matter how long) whilst ignoring the undoubtedly great players who also have is as suspect an argument as saying RG is devalued because someone like Gaudio once won it.

I absolutely agree with you. Perspective is everything.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
@Sport
Who is saying the OGM is the equivalent of winning a Slam? Slams are the pinnacle of tennis achievement, nothing else is equivalent. That doesn't mean however that the OGM is insignificant and citing certain players who have won it as 'proof' that they are eg. Kafelnikov, a multiple Slam champion (yes, last time I looked 2 is a multiple) and a former world #1 (no matter how long) whilst ignoring the undoubtedly great players who also have is as suspect an argument as saying RG is devalued because someone like Gaudio once won it.

I absolutely agree with you. Perspective is everything.
I was responding to criticism of @BeatlesFan post. BF makes a strong argument that Andy has had a better career than Stan but qualifies it with the statement, "I deliberately omitted Andy's OGM's since many regard that as meaningless legacy-wise". I tend to agree with BF's statement. And NOT because Roger (or Novak) haven't gotten one for tennis singles.

I don't think that "meaningless" is the word that I would've chosen. But I am of the mind that tennis does not really even need to be in the Olympics. We already have 4 international slam championships every year. Plus the country-based events: Davis Cup, Fed Cup & Hopman Cup. Would rather see something like squash in the Olympics (No, I'm not a squash player. I've only played it twice). Interesting to note that both Federer & Murray were pushing for the inclusion of squash in the 2020 Olympics.
 

timnz

Legend
I added up the ATP points career wise (every 500 series win and over) that Stan won and the same for Andy. Wawrinka has only around 1/3rd of Murray's ATP points. :

For ease I have reduced the weighting points down by a factor of 1000 eg Slams are worth 2 instead of their ATP 2000.

Scale is: (SV x 2) + (SEFNL x 1.5) + (SEFOL x 1.3) + (SEFRUNL x 1) + (SRU x 1.2) + (TOP9 x 1) + (TOP9RU x 0.60) + (SEFRUOL x 0.80) + (OSG x 0) + (SSF x 0.72) + (SEFSFNL x 0.60) + (500S x 0.50)

Murray = (3 x 2) + (1 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (8 x 1.2) + (14 x 1) + (7 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (2 x 0) + (9 x 0.72) + (1 x 0.60) + (10 x 0.50) = 47.38

Wawrinka = (3 x 2) + (0 x 1.5) + (0 x 1.3) + (0 x 1) + (1 x 1.2) + (1 x 1) + (3 x 0.60) + (0 x 0.80) + (0 x 0) + (5 x 0.72) + (0 x 0.60) + (3 x 0.50) = 15.1

•Slam Victories (SV) 2000 ATP points
•Slam Runner-ups (SRU) 1200 ATP points
•Slam Semi-finals (SSF) 720 ATP points
•Season end final victories with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFNL) 1500 ATP points
•Season end final victories with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFOL) 1300 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with no loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUNL) 1000 ATP points
•Season end final runner-ups with one loss before the final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFRUOL) 800 ATP points
•Season end final semi-finals with no loss before the semi-final (WTF, WCT Finals * & Grand Slam Cup *) (SEFSFNL) ATP 600 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent victories (we will call (Top 9)) ATP 1000 points
•Masters 1000 equivalent runner-ups (TOP9RU) ATP 600 points
•Olympic Gold Metal Singles (OSG) ATP 0 points **
•500 Series equivalents (500S) ATP 500 points
 
Last edited:

Enga

Hall of Fame
I still call it Big 4 because that was the original name wasn't it? And Murray was part of it. It doesn't make sense to change what a name means to suit the times. Big 4 has and always will represent Murray, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for me. Even if one of them retires, the other goes to jail, one goes to the afterlife, and one becomes a spaceman, the Big 4 is the Big 4. Why would you change that?
 

Wurm

Rookie
The Big Four is a historical fact whether or not certain twerps like it or not.

People will go on to discuss the Big Three of this era due to the career end distance between their achievements and Murray's but it doesn't change the landscape of tennis between 2008 and 2013 + 2015/16.

The strangest thing about Wawrinka's slam victories is that it was someone out of the same age-group as Rafa, Murray and Novak with a pretty ignominious career thus far who benefited around 2014-2016 as opposed to a young guy breaking through.
 

Sport

Legend
Yes, but on the "wrong side". It is rather the exception that those who dominated the game didn't win the Masters/WTF. It is rather the exception that those who dominated the game won the OSG.

From all the recent winners who truly dominated the game only Agassi and Nadal have won the OSG. From the ATGs that dominated the game only Wilander and Nadal haven't won the Masters/WTF

:cool:
It's not called WTF anymore but ATP finals.
The same applies to the ATP finals (since they achieved relevance in the 1990s, and specially in the XXI century). Nadal, Agassi and Murray were #1 and Grand Slam winners and won the ATP finals. In the XXI century, only one player with 0 Grand Slams and 0 weeks as #1 has won the Olympics (Massut). So it is the exception, rather than the norm, than an unkown player wins the Olympics in the XXI century.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not called WTF anymore but ATP finals.
The same applies to the ATP finals (since they achieved relevance in the 1990s, and specially in the XXI century). Nadal, Agassi and Murray were #1 and Grand Slam winners and won the ATP finals. In the XXI century, only one player with 0 Grand Slams and 0 weeks as #1 has won the Olympics (Massut). So it is the exception, rather than the norm, than an unkown player wins the Olympics in the XXI century.
When did Nadal win "the ATP finals"?

Also, it seems that these days whenever one cannot come to terms with the reality the word equlibristics take over. A kind of says everything you need to know about how you feel about the strength of your position, no?

:cool:
 

mr tonyz

Semi-Pro
Yex so.

Álex Corretja won the Masters Cup/ATP finals, yet better, much more accomplished players never did.

Incongruity?

Hmm , how about we compare all of the best winners from the YEC's vs the top winners from OSG in men's?

It'll be an ugly comparison .
 

rUDin 21

Rookie
5/6 Waw/Murray slams were against Djokovic and Fedal.Andy's OG was against Djokovic and Federer again in straight sets on grass.I think that's valuable enough.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
It's always been a big 3. A Czech version of Murray would've never been this hyped. It's hilarious how the parrots are still trying to push the big 4 narrative. The guy literally has a couple of slam wins over Fedalovic, that's all. And yes, he's "better" than Waws, that's obvious.
You mean if Mr Berdman won 3 slams people wouldn't bat an eyelid?

@Federer and Del Potro disagrees.
 

BGod

Legend
I stopped using the Big 4 label after 2014. It was all marketing.

As others have said it was the Big 3 era with large gaps where it was just 2 and overall you had a Big 5 contenders group. The way I look at it anyway.

Yes Murray's career is way better but he's closer to Wawrinka than Nadal or Novak.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
I stopped using the Big 4 label after 2014. It was all marketing.

As others have said it was the Big 3 era with large gaps where it was just 2 and overall you had a Big 5 contenders group. The way I look at it anyway.

Yes Murray's career is way better but he's closer to Wawrinka than Nadal or Novak.
The Big 4 Era started from 2011 and officially 'broke up' after 2012 Wimbledon when Rafa went on a 6 month hiatus. Since then the only slam where the Big 4 have all made the quarters are 2014 AO.
 
Top