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

#51
Just to make it clear I specifically stated I would not put Wawrinka over Murray even with a 4th slam (apparently some readers, especialy a few in this thread with Murray avatars did not complete 2nd grade and are unable to process simple reading or simple English comprehension). I am not even 100% sure if I would with a 5th slam (a 5th slam for Wawrinka is super unlikely IMO, but just hypothetically speaking) for that matter. I was just pointing at the humor the whole Big 4 concept would now invoke when someone outside the so called Big 4 has more slam titles than someone within it. Not even stating whether that is right or wrong, just the irony of it.

FWIW I agree with some posters that even today Wawrinka is much closer to Murray than Murray is to any of the Big 3, or anyone after Wawrinka other than maybe Del Potro is to Wawrinka. I also concur Big 4 was always an ATP marketing tool, similar to the stupid New Balls Please one in the early 2000s. For me if anything there is a Big 3 and a Big 5 (including both Murray and Wawrinka) and that is it.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
#52
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.
That's also true--but it supports the narrative that he was just a smidge less talented than those top 3 guys, and if they were off their game he could beat them.

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:
Most people are helpless against Fed lol. Aside from Djoker and Rafa...and again, that supports my point, Murray was just a little worse than those guys.

He went to a bunch more Finals and only lost to those dudes. He beat everyone he was supposed to beat, and sometimes beat the guys he wasn't supposed to.
 
#53
I agree with @Rosstour in a sense Murray was unlucky to be in the era of the Big 3, but I am not nearly as convinced as he/she is that means Murray would have been rolling in the slams in any other era. I am not convinced he would have done that well against Sampras/Agassi/Becker/peak Courier on hard courts and grass in the 90s, or against Borg/Lendl/Connors/Wilander in the 80s and so on. It is possible there is an era he might have won 5 or 6 slams, but I think it is a far from a sure thing, and he doesnt automatically win that in another era, let alone 7 or 8 for those thinking that. It is all subjective and unproveable though.

And if you want to look at it another way, had either he or Wawrinka peaked when say Roddick did they might either have only 1 slam or be slamless.
 
#55
The possibility of Stan winning another slam is a smidgen higher than a meteorite striking me on the head.
I would agree with that logic except for the fact that before Stan's first slam win, or atleast before 2013, you would have probably said that about Stan winning any slam period; PS- I would have said that in 2012 as well.
 
#56
@Flash O'Groove
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?
Actually, it wan't. While Andy was in some slam finals earlier, it did not become the Big 4 until late in 2012 -- when Andy finally won the USOpen. Prior to that, it was the Roger, Rafa & Nole who were winning almost all the slams from 2008 to 2012.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#57
Most people are helpless against Fed lol. Aside from Djoker and Rafa...and again, that supports my point, Murray was just a little worse than those guys.

He went to a bunch more Finals and only lost to those dudes. He beat everyone he was supposed to beat, and sometimes beat the guys he wasn't supposed to.
No, when I say helpless, I mean, he barely could take a set. In his early years he took as many sets from Fed in three matches as Baggy did in one. And before someone jumps at me claiming that I am comparing them, I am not. I am just saying that he was basically a no show in Majors until very very late in his career. Additionally, on his supposedly strongest surface, he was humiliated by Nadal and schooled by Federer, which tells us that faced with serious ATGs he suffers even there. He did well to catch Djokovic on grass and and at the USOpen in periods after monumental periods for Novak, but that was his ceiling.

As for "most people" very many players did better than Murray in Majors and Majors finals. Del Po and Roddick did better in Major finals, and many others did just as well or better in matches in the Majors (Safin, Baggy, Sjoderling etc).

He beat everyone, but you have to show that you are ready for the big challenge in the finals and frankly most of the time he looked lost when he tried.

:cool:
 
#59
The concept of big four was invented by the media because those four almost always made up for the semi finals in slams for some time. Back then it maybe made a little sense as Djokovic and Murray were not so different in terms of achievements. However at the latest after 2011 it was the big three and as for today it is completely dumb to talk about big 4, Murray has no business being named in the same sentence as the others.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
#60
The concept of big four was invented by the media because those four almost always made up for the semi finals in slams for some time. Back then it maybe made a little sense as Djokovic and Murray were not so different in terms of achievements. However at the latest after 2011 it was the big three and as for today it is completely dumb to talk about big 4, Murray has no business being named in the same sentence as the others.
But as said, 'big four' was never about achievements/titles, but about 4 players dominating the tour and typically making the final-4 at the big tournaments. Murray made it to at least the semis at 12 slams from 2012 - 2016.
 
#61
But as said, 'big four' was never about achievements/titles, but about 4 players dominating the tour and typically making the final-4 at the big tournaments. Murray made it to at least the semis at 12 slams from 2012 - 2016.
True, plus add the masters. But as time goes on the temporary domination will fade and all that's left is the record. 3 players with overlapping careers who each won 15+. The big 3.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#62
No, when I say helpless, I mean, he barely could take a set. In his early years he took as many sets from Fed in three matches as Baggy did in one. And before someone jumps at me claiming that I am comparing them, I am not. I am just saying that he was basically a no show in Majors until very very late in his career. Additionally, on his supposedly strongest surface, he was humiliated by Nadal and schooled by Federer, which tells us that faced with serious ATGs he suffers even there. He did well to catch Djokovic on grass and and at the USOpen in periods after monumental periods for Novak, but that was his ceiling.
His grasscourt record vs Nadal is a real anomaly. Against Federer, I don't recall him being schooled on their favourite surface in the 2012 Olympic final. His record against Djokovic there speaks for itself.

As for "most people" very many players did better than Murray in Majors and Majors finals. Del Po and Roddick did better in Major finals, and many others did just as well or better in matches in the Majors (Safin, Baggy, Sjoderling etc).
So Del Po, Roddick, Safin, Baggy and Söderling all did better than Murray in Slam finals??? Remind us all again how many of these Slam finals they actually played and actually won? When you've done that come back and try to explain to us all again how they all managed to do so much better than Murray in Slam finals!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

He beat everyone, but you have to show that you are ready for the big challenge in the finals and frankly most of the time he looked lost when he tried.

:cool:
Silly Murray for making so many Slam finals. Now if only he hadn't bothered to make so many like Del Po, Roddick, Safin and Baggy!. :cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#63
His grasscourt record vs Nadal is a real anomaly. Against Federer, I don't recall him being schooled on their favourite surface in the 2012 Olympic final. His record against Djokovic there speaks for itself.



So Del Po, Roddick, Safin, Baggy and Söderling all did better than Murray in Slam finals??? Remind us all again how many of these Slam finals they actually played and actually won? When you've done that come back and try to explain to us all again how they all managed to do so much better than Murray in Slam finals!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Silly Murray for making so many Slam finals. Now if only he hadn't bothered to make so many like Del Po, Roddick, Safin and Baggy!. :cool:
Mainad, I respect you as a Murray fan, but I expect that you read what I write.

I specifically wrote about the Majors, so the Olympics are not part of this conversation.

Read again what I wrote about Murray and the Majors finals, since your contention is wrong in two ways: firstly, I distinguished Murray's early career Majors finals against Federer. Secondly, how many Majors Murray won is irrelevant when comparing his performances vs Fed in the Majors. If it wasn't clear that the comparison was with them vs Fed, maybe look at the players I listed. You don't think that I will just throw in their whole careers for comparison with Murray and lightly make such an obvious faulty statement, as it would have been, if I were to do that, do you?

Your last remark is completely unnecessary.

:cool:
 
#66
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.
This is what never makes any sense to me in these threads. People want to give Murray just enough credit to boost the achievements of Djokovic when Djokovic was playing well, but downplay Murray's achievements when Murray was playing at a higher level because they think Djokovic had dropped his level.

As far as I can tell, Murray is either a great player just below the three ATGs he had to share an era with, or half of Djokovic' slam finals came against also-rans. It can't really be both.
 
#67
His grasscourt record vs Nadal is a real anomaly. Against Federer, I don't recall him being schooled on their favourite surface in the 2012 Olympic final. His record against Djokovic there speaks for itself.
He only played Nadal on grass when Nadal was really at his best. And while when Murray was very good (2010, 2011), probably not at his all time best. Unlike even hard courts, Nadal is either great or horrible on grass so when he is off his best you dont even play him, as he is losing in early rounds. So that explains away the head to head on that surface pretty easily.
 
#68
Yex so.

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

Incongruity?
You could say the same about Slams ie occasionally non-top players winning them. It doesn't invalidate the slam event's status does it? Having said that no winner in the 50 year history of the ATP finals has had a career high ranking of less than 3.
 
Last edited:

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
#69
I agree with @Rosstour in a sense Murray was unlucky to be in the era of the Big 3, but I am not nearly as convinced as he/she is that means Murray would have been rolling in the slams in any other era...

It is possible there is an era he might have won 5 or 6 slams, but I think it is a far from a sure thing, and he doesnt automatically win that in another era, let alone 7 or 8 for those thinking that. It is all subjective and unproveable though.

And if you want to look at it another way, had either he or Wawrinka peaked when say Roddick did they might either have only 1 slam or be slamless.
I don't hypothetically place him in another era, I just think about what he would have done in his own time if Rafa or Fed or Djokovic had chose soccer instead.

The guy went 3-for-11 in Slam Finals, and here were his opponents in his 8 losses:

2008 Fed @ US
2010 Fed @ W
2011 Nole @ AO
2012 Fed @ W
2013 Nole @ AO
2015 Nole @ AO
2016 Nole @ FO
2018 Nole @ AO

So aside from Fed at the US and Djoker at the French, every time he lost a Final it was literally to the greatest player ever at that particular Slam.

Would he have really lost to anyone else? Let's see. How about SFs? He made 10 of those. Here's who he lost to (*--eventual champion), and not one Slamless player among them.

2009 W Roddick
2010 W Rafa*
2011 FO Rafa*
2011 W Djokovic*
2011 US Djokovic*
2012 AO Djokovic*
2014 FO Rafa*
2015 FO Djokovic
2015 W Federer
2017 FO Wawrinka

And his wins:

2012 US Djokovic
2013 W Djokovic
2016 W Raonic

Really, how much more consistent can you get? He made 21 Slam SFs or better, and aside from Wawa and Roddick (both Slam winners themselves), he faced an ATG either at the peak of their powers or on their best surface (or both) in those matches.

The one time he faced a lesser, Slamless player in the SFs or better, he took care of business.

Murray has 9 QFs, 10 SFs, 8 F, 3 W.

Wawa has 6 QFs, 5 SFs, 1 F, 3 W.

Murray doubles Stan's SF appearances and nearly triples his Finals appearances. No contest IMO.
 
#71
I don't hypothetically place him in another era, I just think about what he would have done in his own time if Rafa or Fed or Djokovic had chose soccer instead.

The guy went 3-for-11 in Slam Finals, and here were his opponents in his 8 losses:

2008 Fed @ US
2010 Fed @ W
2011 Nole @ AO
2012 Fed @ W
2013 Nole @ AO
2015 Nole @ AO
2016 Nole @ FO
2018 Nole @ AO

So aside from Fed at the US and Djoker at the French, every time he lost a Final it was literally to the greatest player ever at that particular Slam.

Would he have really lost to anyone else? Let's see. How about SFs? He made 10 of those. Here's who he lost to (*--eventual champion), and not one Slamless player among them.

2009 W Roddick
2010 W Rafa*
2011 FO Rafa*
2011 W Djokovic*
2011 US Djokovic*
2012 AO Djokovic*
2014 FO Rafa*
2015 FO Djokovic
2015 W Federer
2017 FO Wawrinka

And his wins:

2012 US Djokovic
2013 W Djokovic
2016 W Raonic

Really, how much more consistent can you get? He made 21 Slam SFs or better, and aside from Wawa and Roddick (both Slam winners themselves), he faced an ATG either at the peak of their powers or on their best surface (or both) in those matches.

The one time he faced a lesser, Slamless player in the SFs or better, he took care of business.

Murray has 9 QFs, 10 SFs, 8 F, 3 W.

Wawa has 6 QFs, 5 SFs, 1 F, 3 W.

Murray doubles Stan's SF appearances and nearly triples his Finals appearances. No contest IMO.
Hard to say. I guess going through each of those if I had to guess:

2008 U.S Open- Definitely wins without those 3.
2010 Australian- Hard to say. His final performance was dissapointing and mediocre, so could have lost to non Big 3 member. I think Davyenko would have a great shot here, coming off the WTF and losing to Fed in a tough match in the quarters he had chances in but as usual got tight.
2011 Australian- This time his final performance was downright horrible. Hard to say who else wins outside of the Big 3 though, so hard to say. Lets say he wins 1 of 2010 or 2011, but not both.
2012 Wimbledon- For sure.
2013 Australian Open- Wawrinka nearly beat Djokovic in an earlier round and probably would have without a bad line call. Pretty good head to head with Murray too. Since 2015 is also a toss up with Wawrinka I will say he splits again, so wins 1 of 2010 and 2011, and 1 of 2013 or 2015, so 2 of those 4.
2015 Australian Open- read above.
2016 French Open and 2018 Australian Open- My memories of both of these are a bit fuzzy.

Maybe of those 8, like 5 of them which would still be pretty good, and bring him to 8 slams, but in what kind of field now.

Really though this era is pretty much as far as depth, especialy with Del Potro's injuries and Wawrinka not emerging until starting in 2013ish/2014, so in fairness a field without Federer/Nadal/Djokovic would be really weak, and people would be saying Murray and Wawrinka overachieved due to a very weak field now. Not everyone considers it a strong field even with the 3 legends, so just imagine without them.

Edit- Just realized I didnt go through the semis he lost to a Big 3 member yet so the total is probably even a higher guesttimate. Sorry getting late here, am tired. I see your point even more now, but again imagine the field without those 3. Not very strong, even though Murray, Wawrinka, and sometimes Del Potro are quite strong, not much else.
 
#72
Not "many", only biased Fed fans say the Olympics are irrelevant just like only biased fans claim the ATP finals are irrelevant.
Nope. I would not care if Fed had several medals. I don't care about the Olympics for tennis. I think it is an artificially hyped event, and I don't like the fact that winning it has to correspond to having a peak in the right year, every four years.

I'm one of the few who thinks that the WTF should not be held on the same surface each year even though it benefits Fed, who is far and away the person I still most like to watch most.

I would have liked to have seen, just once, someone trying to take the WTF title away from Rafa, on clay. ;) And I would not mind seeing a WTF on grass, in Oz, in November. ;) But I don't think players would like that. I wish the AO were still on grass, but that ship has sailed long ago...
 
#74
There's still the M1000s, WTF, OG, #1 all in favour of Murray, not to mention Murray's incredible consistency across all surfaces (including clay in the last years leading up to his major injury).

Wawrinka tends to burn bright or burn out. Thankfully for him he's managed to peak for a few slams since 2014, but that doesn't mean his career is better than someone who's been great for most of his career.
 

Luka888

Professional
#77
OK, this is for younger members. The media started using 'the Big 3 term' back in 2007 after Djokovic won Montreal, beating Roddick, Nadal and Federer on his way to the title. They were ranked #3,#2 and #1 at that time. Djokovic took over #3 position, played the F of the USO 2007. He lost to Fed but won his first major at the AO in 2018 beating Fed in semis on his way to the title.

Now, I like Murray a lot but he joined the party a little bit late and wasn't as consistent as the other 3. You can use any term you want. It doesn't really matter, big 3 or big 4. Your choice. Whatever makes you happy :). Murray was consistent but he was almost always losing to the big 3. So, take it anyway you want too.

I've expressed my opinion many times about the Olympics and tennis. It is irrelevant. For the record Fed did win a gold medal with Stan in doubles. Gold is Gold, no? Djokovic won a bronze medal, no? Who cares? :notworthy:
 
#81
But as said, 'big four' was never about achievements/titles, but about 4 players dominating the tour and typically making the final-4 at the big tournaments. Murray made it to at least the semis at 12 slams from 2012 - 2016.
Sure but he always lost against the others, his record is abysmal and he is clearly behind so it does not make sense to lump them together. As this thread already implies there are others like wawrinka who are way closer to Murray than Murray is to the big three. Ferrer also reached quarterfinals on a very consistent basis only to loose every single time against the big three. Following this logic we can extent the concept and include Ferrer to some magical big 5.
 
#85
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.
To the casual fan, it feels like Murray was constantly contending at the top for much longer.

It would be weird, if by some miracle, Stan got #4, and ended up with more majors than Murray.
 
#88
To the casual fan, it feels like Murray was constantly contending at the top for much longer.

It would be weird, if by some miracle, Stan got #4, and ended up with more majors than Murray.
Agreed, that was my thinking too and why I made this thread (it seems some Murray fans are looking at it the wrong way and think I am slandering Murray which I am not; I am mostly thinking of the amusing, strange, and confusing aspect of this proposed scenario).
 
#89
Agreed, that was my thinking too and why I made this thread (it seems some Murray fans are looking at it the wrong way and think I am slandering Murray which I am not; I am mostly thinking of the amusing, strange, and confusing aspect of this proposed scenario).
That is the strange thing about history and stats.
IF Stan won another slam, people hundred years from now might view him as Big 4, even though most today would view it differently.
 
#90
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.
Nadal has never won the ATP Finals.
 
#91
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.
NO!
 
#93
That is the strange thing about history and stats.
IF Stan won another slam, people hundred years from now might view him as Big 4, even though most today would view it differently.
I am pretty sure hundred years from now people will only look at a Big 3 of this era. Nobody will even know there was ever such a thing as a Big 4.
 
#95
And what if that 4th slam is Wimbledon :eek: He would complete career slam :giggle:
That is the least likely place of all for his 4th slam to come, but if he by some miracle of god achieved that it would elevate his legacy greatly.

It would also put into perspective how much easier the Career Slam is today though, if even someone like Wawrinka (no offense) did it. It is already bad enough freaking Sharapova, even with massive PED cheating, did it.
 
Top