Jamie Murray criticizes ATP for their over-infatuation of the Big 4.

[duaneeo]

Not what the person I quoted said. They said "when someone wins something of substance" and considering Cilic has now won a slam and a Masters... I'd say that's something. Also, Cilic is in the top 10. Doesn't that display some level of consistency?

Well, your comment is highly exaggerated. You "barely heard a thing" since Cilic won the USO? Though it was 3 years ago, he's one of those players often discussed in tennis, and whose progression during a big tournament is watched--and it's because of that USO win. No, his coverage is not that of the Big-4 or Wawrinka, but are you saying it should be?

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Well, your comment is highly exaggerated. You "barely heard a thing" since Cilic won the USO? Though it was 3 years ago, he's one of those players often discussed in tennis, and whose progression during a big tournament is watched--and it's because of that USO win. No, his coverage is not that of the Big-4 or Wawrinka, but are you saying it should be?

Well that's what Jamie is talking about... The hype and promotion around the big 4 is huge whilst the others fall behind. It's great for them right now, but in 3-5 years when they're all gone (or whenever), it won't be good for them at all. They need to promote others more, and not just ****ty next gen losers.

 

[reaper]

Well that's what Jamie is talking about... The hype and promotion around the big 4 is huge whilst the others fall behind. It's great for them right now, but in 3-5 years when they're all gone (or whenever), it won't be good for them at all. They need to promote others more, and not just ****ty next gen losers.

I doubt the ****ty next gen losers will still be losing when the Big 4 retire. Someone has to win every tournament...

 

[Aussie Darcy]

I doubt the ****ty next gen losers will still be losing when the Big 4 retire. Someone has to win every tournament...

I think it's more likely someone will come out of nowhere and suddenly do well as opposed to Fritz or Tiafoe or Coric winning slams. Kind of like the WTA, instead of Bouchard or Keys winning we suddenly have Ostapenko winning a slam.

 

[every7]

If I was Jamie Murray, I’d go down every night on my knees and thank God that the Big 4 were born because they have carried this sport. They really have.

Hugely disrespectful to his brother Andy. Andy should beat him up to teach him a lesson.

A doubles specialist criticizing the ATP's best and brightest is a little tone def imo. Talk about biting the hand that feeds - Doubles in the current day is "bad for business" for the ATP, and is essentially subsidized by the people who bring the money into the men's game - The Big 4.

 

[reaper]

I think it's more likely someone will come out of nowhere and suddenly do well as opposed to Fritz or Tiafoe or Coric winning slams. Kind of like the WTA, instead of Bouchard or Keys winning we suddenly have Ostapenko winning a slam.

Yes that might well be right. A much better outcome than Raonic going on a winning streak and proving things have deteriorated. The ATP will still carry on with the #Next Gen BS about whatever new players come through.

 

[duaneeo]

Well that's what Jamie is talking about... The hype and promotion around the big 4 is huge whilst the others fall behind.

And that's what many here are talking about...there's a sure way for the others to get the hype and promotion around them. Wawrinka has figured it out.

 

[BGod]

Ask the average guy or girl (who doesn't live in a town with an NBA team, or not on their hometown team) to name more than 4 current NBA stars. and the finals just finished.

Same question, more than 2 NHL stars.

MLB?

even the biggest of the big dogs, NFL, more than 4

Its not a wise coverage problem, it is an oversaturation problem.

Okay, I can't compare because of my history as a writer and my group of friends but the average Canadian in any part of the country can probably name off 10+ NHL stars currently. Not at all an apt comparison. The average person doesn't follow tennis at all.

 

[Druss]

39 yo Fedr, 34 yo Nadal, 33 yo Djokovic and Murray. 35 yo Stan as a dark horse if he still wants to play tennis.

Or a 32 yr old 'crippled' DelPotro with a plastered arm.

 

[Bender]

The ATP has @Meles though

 

[Aussie Darcy]

And that's what many here are talking about...there's a sure way for the others to get the hype and promotion around them. Wawrinka has figured it out.

You're missing the point. If they only hype those who win slams, then when those 5 same 30+ year old players who are all winning the slams will retire within a close proximity of eachother. and then interest in male tennis will drop immensely. They need to take a pre-emptive step and promote others (not just ****ty next gen).

Yes, nobody is beating them and winning the slams, but they're all 30+, at some point in the next 5 years, some if not all will retire. Who will care about mens tennis then? I'm already not watching any mens matches that don't feature one of the big 4 or Stan or Tomic (last one is lame, I know). So they need to get us interested in other players, otherwise, viewership will drop. We already saw it at the 2014 USO final when none of the big 4 were involved.

Imagine that, but for every single tournament.

 

[clayqueen]

Except Stan is OLDER than Murray and Djokovic so it's not like he's the 'next big thing' that the ATP needs. He might retire before they do.

Stan is OLDER than Murray and Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[clayqueen]

Viewers sucks.The problem is many of the so called tennis fans are such glory hunters.Tennis players do not exist for them unless they either have won a slam or have been in top ten at some point.Many persons realize that not only big 3 or 4 can play unreal tennis there is much more out there.Heck many persons aren't aware not only of Bryan bros but of whole doubles format for that matter.

"Heck many persons aren't aware not only of Bryan bros but of whole doubles format for that matter."

That's the fault of the TV companies and tournament organisers for not showing doubles matches. In fact, they are more likely to televise a doubles match if the B4 players are involved.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

There may very well be a void and loss of interest in the sport but if players were actually good enough, they would be getting the attention they deserve.

This...

How exactly are the ATP supposed to promote people who simply cannot compete with the Big 4? Oh here's Kyrgios, Zverev or whomever else, the most exciting and talented new players aaaaaaaaaaaand they just got destroyed.

... and this, but not quite, in that it is quite healthy to promote the second tier, which in fact they do regularly in shows like ATP Uncovered.

But Kyrgios beat Nadal at SW19, Djokovic twice in a row, so he has done his bit for some deserved attention, also with tanking and other uselessness, but there, Zverev also made quite a mark last year, leading Nadal to mention him as a potential World No 1, which Nadal only very hesitantly would do.

The Big $ - oops Big 4 - itself though has always been some kind of misnomer imo, at a time whem Murray had only roped himself in slam finals, and there only was a BIG THREE in the tennis world, with Fed, Raf and Djok racking up 40+ slams.

 

[Semidios]

"Heck many persons aren't aware not only of Bryan bros but of whole doubles format for that matter."

That's the fault of the TV companies and tournament organisers for not showing doubles matches. In fact, they are more likely to televise a doubles match if the B4 players are involved.

You got a point there.

 

[MajesticMoose]

Mamie Jurray. The little baby mug.

 

[Tennease]

Lock Big 4, ban Jamie, release Sureshs.

 

[Bobby Jr]

The next big stars in tennis will be the two up and comers Dimitrov and Nishikori. You can take that to the bank.

Oh... wait.

 

[Bartelby]

The ATP seems to be flogging 'the next gen' at the moment as it does indeed realise the 'big four' is crumbling.