If you combined Murray and Wawrinka's career achievements, would they be worthy of being in Big 4?

[pmh1983]

As the title states......

The career statistics (if I am wrong please correct me) would be as follows:

6 Slams (with it the Career Slam)
9 Slam Runner Ups
15 Slam SFs
18 Slam QFs
2 Olympic Gold Singles Medals
1 Olympic Gold Doubles Medal
1 Olympic Silver Mixed Doubles Medal
1 World Tour Finals
1 Year End World Number 1
2 Davis Cups
15 Masters 1000 (all current Masters bar Indian Wells, best would be a runner up)

Big 3 Stats

Roger Federer
H2H 14-37
GS Finals 0-3
GS Matches 2-12
Olympic Finals 1-0 (On Centre Court)

Rafael Nadal
H2H 10-36
GS Finals 1-1
GS Matches 3-10

Novak Djokovic
H2H 17-44
GS Finals 4-4
GS Matches 6-12
Olympic Matches 1-0 (On Centre Court)

For me its a resounding yes. H2Hs against big 3 are not great, but some of those may come from the fact that a big 3 member defeated them both in the same tournament; this wouldn't be possible if we 'combined' them both. Take out the H2H and base it off the career achievement at the top, all that is needed is an Indian Wells (and Hamburg if being picky) and the 'combined player' would have won everything of note.

Discuss (this should be fun......)

 

[Red Rick]

"This guy is cheating, he wins Slams while also losing in them"

 

[pmh1983]

"This guy is cheating, he wins Slams while also losing in them"

Busted, there goes my next thread on combining Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Sampras/Agassi.......

 

[Yugram]

Pretty much. This hypothetical player would be more successful than Federer in 2010’s.

 

[Cashman]

Murray is already big 4.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

As the title states......

The career statistics (if I am wrong please correct me) would be as follows:

6 Slams (with it the Career Slam)
9 Slam Runner Ups
15 Slam SFs
18 Slam QFs
2 Olympic Gold Singles Medals
1 Olympic Gold Doubles Medal
1 Olympic Silver Mixed Doubles Medal
1 World Tour Finals
1 Year End World Number 1
2 Davis Cups
15 Masters 1000 (all current Masters bar Indian Wells, best would be a runner up)

Big 3 Stats

Roger Federer
H2H 14-37
GS Finals 0-3
GS Matches 2-12
Olympic Finals 1-0 (On Centre Court)

Rafael Nadal
H2H 10-36
GS Finals 1-1
GS Matches 3-10

Novak Djokovic
H2H 17-44
GS Finals 4-4
GS Matches 6-12
Olympic Matches 1-0 (On Centre Court)

For me its a resounding yes. H2Hs against big 3 are not great, but some of those may come from the fact that a big 3 member defeated them both in the same tournament; this wouldn't be possible if we 'combined' them both. Take out the H2H and base it off the career achievement at the top, all that is needed is an Indian Wells (and Hamburg if being picky) and the 'combined player' would have won everything of note.

Discuss (this should be fun......)

Do you plan to use the telepods of Dr Brundle to create this Andislas Wawrinkay?

 

[pmh1983]

Do you plan to use the telepods of Dr Brundle to create this Andislas Wawrinkay?

Sure, why not....

 

[weakera]

Murray is already big 4.

The big 4 is a made up concept. There is only a big 3.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Murray is already an ATG arguably top 10 of all time

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Still no...IMHO Would need double digits slam count (at least 10!) and at least 70 more weeks as world number one...would have an ATG worthy career though for sure, but big-4? like i said still no...

 

[ibbi]

I think the more telling question is, if you combined Stan and Andy's careers, how is it that you still come up with a player less impressive than the big 3?

Seriously, I think Standy Murrinka would be second in career wins behind Roger, and second in slam quarters behind Roger, but otherwise he'd still be in rock solid 4th place in titles, finals, slam titles, 1000 titles, slam finals, slam semi finals, and weeks at number 1.

 

[Biotic]

Still no...IMHO Would need double digits slam count (at least 10!) and at least 70 more weeks as world number one...would have an ATG worthy career though for sure, but big-4? like i said still no...

10 is the number of slams won by non Big3 players since 2004.

 

[mbm0912]

Combined, I would say........possibly.

but probably not.

 

[mike danny]

Standy Murrdinka would be a clear ATG player with 6 slam titles, career slam, 15 masters titles, 1 WTF title, 2 OG medals and 43 weeks at no.1.

His only flaw would be his poor slam final conversion: 6 wins and 9 losses.

 

[octogon]

Historically, no. A combined Stan/Andy career would be 100% an all-time great, but still so far away from the big 3 in achievements to be a GOAT contender.

The difference in slams with the big 3 is still gigantic, even at 6.

 

[Lew II]

The big 4 is a made up concept. There is only a big 3.

Big 4 term was coined way before Big3.

It was coined when Djokovic and Murray were about the same level in 2008-10.

 

[Mainad]

Given that Murray alone has always been a part of the Big 4 (ever since the term was first used), the answer is blindingly obvious. Wawrinka is part of the Big 5.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Sure, why not....

let's just hope that zverev doesn't do his usual 'photobombing stunt'... that could end badly and ruin the whole project!

 

[Phoenix1983]

Murray is already an ATG arguably top 10 of all time

Please...there is no way in hell he is close to, let alone above (chronologically):

Tilden
Gonzales
Rosewall
Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Nadal
Novak Djokovic

That's 9 guys as undisputed icons/ Tier 1/ whatever you want to call it.

Rounding out the top 10 would be someone like Vines, Budge, Kramer, Connors or Lendl.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

Please...there is no way in hell he is close to, let alone above (chronologically):

Tilden
Gonzales
Rosewall
Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Nadal
Novak Djokovic

That's 9 guys as undisputed icons/ Tier 1/ whatever you want to call it.

Rounding out the top 10 would be someone like Vines, Budge, Kramer, Connors or Lendl.

Maybe top 10 for open era. He would be a 10-12 slam winner in 80s or 90s.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[clout]

Please...there is no way in hell he is close to, let alone above (chronologically):

Tilden
Gonzales
Rosewall
Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer
Nadal
Novak Djokovic

That's 9 guys as undisputed icons/ Tier 1/ whatever you want to call it.

Rounding out the top 10 would be someone like Vines, Budge, Kramer, Connors or Lendl.

Murray's a great player but even if we narrowed it down to OE, I'd still have the big 3, PETE, Borg, Connors, Lendl, Mac, Agassi, Becker, Wilander, and Edberg all solidly ahead of him.

Then you got the pre-OE guys who had achievements similar to Murray's from the late 60s-mid 70s like Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe.

Some people also argue Courier over Murray (I don't, but some ppl on here do).

So as a result, the highest he can be ranked among OE greats is #13, and the lowest one can put him is around #17. If we count pre-OE then more players arise. So no, Murray is not all that close to being top 10 all time despite his great achievements

 

[clout]

To answer OP, yes I would have to put this player as part of the big 4 since they'd be an ATG with 6 slams + career slam, 15 Masters, 3 Olympic Golds, 61 overall titles, etc.

 

[Djokodalerer31]

To answer OP, yes I would have to put this player as part of the big 4 since they'd be an ATG with 6 slams + career slam, 15 Masters, 3 Olympic Golds, etc.

Lets see one won 20 grand slams, another 19, third - 17...and the last member...6?? LOL Its still 11 grand slam gap between him and Djokovic, which is nearly twice as many grand slams as Wawrinka and Murray have together...no just no...

 

[Djokodalerer31]

Maybe top 10 for open era. He would be a 10-12 slam winner in 80s or 90s.

He isn't top-10 of an open era! He barely even makes top-15!
Here is top top-10 of open era:
1.Federer
2.Nadal
3.Djokovic
4.Sampras
5.Borg
6.Lendl
7.Connors
8.McEnroe
9.Agassi
10.Becker

Honorable mentions: Laver, Newcombe, Wilander and Edberg...

 

[Terenigma]

Murray is already worthy of being mentioned in the same sentance as the Big 4. Wawrinka has 3 slam and pretty much nothing else and a history of early losses to nobodies, including when he had his so called slam peak period. Murray meanwhile was making QFs and SF at nearly every event even before he won his 1st slam and for many years if ANY event didnt have one of Fed/Nad/Djok or Murray win it then it was a shock. That's why the phrase was created and why it will always have its place in history because for a time, there was only ever 4 players in contention for the big tournaments. People often forget that.

 

[Pheasant]

Stan+Murray are almost the equivalent of Andre Agassi.

Stan+ Murray:
6 slam titles
1 WTF title
15 Masters titles

Agassi:
8 slam titles
1 WTF title
17 Masters titles

Stan and Murray will have more semis and finals. Andre has more titles, along with a 2 slam title edge.

 

[Pheasant]

Wait!

MuryGOAT

/thread

 

[DSH]

Murrinka goat!

 

[Cashman]

The big 4 is a made up concept. There is only a big 3.

So big 3 isn’t a made up concept?

 

[tennis_pro]

Murray is already an ATG arguably top 10 of all time

what's the argument

 

[BringBackWood]

The only thing murray's top at is worst final conversion. And don't give me all that about playing 3 goats. Partly why is facing poor finalists like pigeon murray.

 

[DjokoGOAT]

what's the argument

Some argue he isn’t top 10 but statistically he is definitely up there.

4th best of modern golden era > best of 80s/90s era.

 

[clout]

Murray is already worthy of being mentioned in the same sentance as the Big 4. Wawrinka has 3 slam and pretty much nothing else and a history of early losses to nobodies, including when he had his so called slam peak period. Murray meanwhile was making QFs and SF at nearly every event even before he won his 1st slam and for many years if ANY event didnt have one of Fed/Nad/Djok or Murray win it then it was a shock. That's why the phrase was created and why it will always have its place in history because for a time, there was only ever 4 players in contention for the big tournaments. People often forget that.

From approx. 2008-2013, there was a big four but after that, I can't really call them that anymore. Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have gone onto reach unprecedented waters in years since, while Murray will finish his career with "only" 3 majors.

 

[tennis_pro]

Some argue he isn’t top 10 but statistically he is definitely up there.

4th best of modern golden era > best of 80s/90s era.

how so

 

[GabeT]

As the title states......

The career statistics (if I am wrong please correct me) would be as follows:

6 Slams (with it the Career Slam)
9 Slam Runner Ups
15 Slam SFs
18 Slam QFs
2 Olympic Gold Singles Medals
1 Olympic Gold Doubles Medal
1 Olympic Silver Mixed Doubles Medal
1 World Tour Finals
1 Year End World Number 1
2 Davis Cups
15 Masters 1000 (all current Masters bar Indian Wells, best would be a runner up)

Big 3 Stats

Roger Federer
H2H 14-37
GS Finals 0-3
GS Matches 2-12
Olympic Finals 1-0 (On Centre Court)

Rafael Nadal
H2H 10-36
GS Finals 1-1
GS Matches 3-10

Novak Djokovic
H2H 17-44
GS Finals 4-4
GS Matches 6-12
Olympic Matches 1-0 (On Centre Court)

For me its a resounding yes. H2Hs against big 3 are not great, but some of those may come from the fact that a big 3 member defeated them both in the same tournament; this wouldn't be possible if we 'combined' them both. Take out the H2H and base it off the career achievement at the top, all that is needed is an Indian Wells (and Hamburg if being picky) and the 'combined player' would have won everything of note.

Discuss (this should be fun......)

If we combined my tennis records with those of Federer we’d have 20 slams!

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Murray is already an ATG arguably top 10 of all time

Even @Mainad wouldn't agree

 

[Mainad]

Even @Mainad wouldn't agree

Top 20 certainly.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Top 20 certainly.

Without a shadow of a doubt.
A little more clutch or killer mentality, and he'd certainly have won way more than he ended up winning

 

[Mainad]

Without a shadow of a doubt.
A little more clutch or killer mentality, and he'd certainly have won way more than he ended up winning

And a stronger back and hip.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Do you plan to use the telepods of Dr Brundle to create this Andislas Wawrinkay?

You're going to make me watch this tomorrow

 

[MichaelNadal]

Even if you combine them, they'd still have LESS slams than Rafa does OFF clay what a king.

 

[Crazy Finn]

A little more clutch or killer mentality, and he'd certainly have won way more than he ended up winning

You can say that BS about a ton of players.

If Roddick ...(something)... he'd have won more.
If Agassi had gotten serious earlier...
If Becker played more to his strengths....
If Borg had gotten his way with the tour and not retired...
If Mac had....

It goes on and on and on.

The chips fall were they do and it's up to the players to deal with what they've got in front of them.

Frankly a couple of points here and there and Murray loses at the 2012 USO in 4 to Djokovic, a game or two in the QF of 2013 and he loses to Verdasco, 2 points in 2016 and maybe he loses to Tsonga in the QF.
So, maybe in an slightly alternate universe, Murray has zero slams.
In a different universe, maybe he's a accountant in Glasgow.

But, he didn't, he won those points. That's the Murray we have, in the universe we live in.

 

[Enceladus]

Maybe top 10 for open era. He would be a 10-12 slam winner in 80s or 90s.

Lol, not at all. Lendl, Becker, Wilander and others in the 80s and Sampras, Agassi and others in the 90s would be not allow him to win so many grandslams.

 

[weakera]

So big 3 isn’t a made up concept?

Correct

 

[Hitman]

From approx. 2008-2013, there was a big four but after that, I can't really call them that anymore. Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have gone onto reach unprecedented waters in years since, while Murray will finish his career with "only" 3 majors.

The big four was really from 2008-2012.

2013, Federer wasn't close to the others.

 

[40L0VE]

.......................deleted

 

[Cashman]

Correct

Love to see you explain that one

 

[Phoenix1983]

Top 20 certainly.

of all time?

Presumably you agree that the Open Era top 12 (not going to list them again here, you know who I mean) are above him.

So there are only 7 from the pre-OE you rate above him?

 

[Mainad]

of all time?

Presumably you agree that the Open Era top 12 (not going to list them again here, you know who I mean) are above him.

So there are only 7 from the pre-OE you rate above him?

For that matter, I don't know how many of the pre-OE guys might rate above some of the top 12 but I assume most people rate according to the OE and the players they are either most familiar with or have at least heard of.