List of Major titles Big 4 haven't won

Federer:
  • Olympic Gold (1x finalist) ~ has doubles gold
  • Rome Masters (4x finalist)
  • Monte Carlo Masters (4x finalist)
Nadal:
  • World tour finals (2x finalist)
  • Miami Open (4x finalist)
  • Paris Open (1x finalist)
Djokovic:
  • Olympic Gold (Bronze medalist)
  • Cincinnati Open (5x finalist)
Murray:
  • Australian Open (5x finalist)
  • French Open (1x finalist)
  • Indian Wells (1x finalist)
  • Monte Carlo Masters (3x SF)
Looks like Nadal can do the set, followed by Djokovic then Murray. Fed is out of contention for clay masters and I don't think he will win Single OG.

List of Major tournaments:
Slams:
Misc:
Masters:
 
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
Djok has best chance still, but obviously he'll have to still be playing and contending at the top in 2020, which isn't a given of course.
 

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
Nole is the closest, but seeing as he has to wait till 2020 to have a chance at Gold he has imo the smallest chance after Rog.

Between Rafa and Andy, wel Rafa is a lot more likely to do it as Andy needs to win two slams he previously never has to pull it off.

All in all, the chance none of them manage it is huge.
 
Neither is likely, but Murray is the likeliest.

Federer is too old to win clay masters, let alone 2020 singles OG.
Nadal is too declined to win indoor masters/yec, since he was always at his weakest indoors.
Djokovic is the closest, but has only one chance in 2020 to win OG, because by 2024 he'll be too old.
Murray needs more than others, but he is currently primed to dominate for a while. If he manages to extend his peak into 2017, he may tick off the requirements quickly.
 

spirit95

Professional
Nadal has 0 chance of making another 1000 final on a hard court and may not even qualify for London, I don't think it's likely. Same for Fed on clay.

I don't think you should count OG as it only occurs so infrequently. Unfair on Novak and Fed to have a go at them for not winning on the 3 occasions each that they played.

If you disregard OG I think Murray and Djokovic both have chances. Djokovic is obviously finished as dominant #1 but he's hardly out of contention anywhere. If Murray can stretch his domination for another few months he could wrap up most of his missing title quite fast. Winning AO and one of the missing 1000's this year is definitely feasible. Then if he can somehow pull off the French this year and possibly sneak a cheeky post-prime IW/MC in 2018... He's done it.
 

DreddyTennis45

Hall of Fame
Yes. :rolleyes: The Big Four have all ranked it equal to slams. The only reason it doesn't have ranking points is because you can't defend the points the following year.
Actually that is not the reason why they stopped ranking points, ITF president David Haggarty said, and I quote, "In the Olympics, you play for honor, for your country and that is the main reason why no points will be distributed at the (Rio) Games."
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray actually seems by far the likeliest to complete the set, only because he's got the rarest one (Olympics) already, and because of recent form.

I still give him less than 5% though.

Nadal by miracle recovery, but low, slow bouncing HC are a nightmare for him.

Djoko may get Cinci, but he's not getting that OG in 2020.

Freddie is out of contention for everything on his list
 

OhYes

Legend
I think it's fine if they miss some trophies. Like someone will rate them much higher than they already do.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
It would be great if Murray made it, the big 3 ****s who think their fave is the paragon of tennis would be furious seeing an inferior player achieve such a coveted distinction.
It's not that big a distinction.
Career Grand Slam, is the main one, Career Golden Slam is a wee bit better, and all the rest is mainly for hardcore fans.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Federer:
  • Olympic Gold (1x finalist) ~ has doubles gold
  • Rome Masters (4x finalist)
  • Monte Carlo Masters (4x finalist)
Nadal:
  • World tour finals (2x finalist)
  • Miami Open (4x finalist)
  • Paris Open (1x finalist)
Djokovic:
  • Olympic Gold (Bronze medalist)
  • Cincinnati Open (5x finalist)
Murray:
  • Australian Open (5x finalist)
  • French Open (1x finalist)
  • Indian Wells (1x finalist)
  • Monte Carlo Masters (3x SF)
Looks like Nadal can do the set, followed by Djokovic then Murray. Fed is out of contention for clay masters and I don't think he will win Single OG.

List of Major tournaments:
Slams:
Misc:
Masters:
The major titles are Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open and Australian Open. Masters, Olympics, etc. are not major titles.
 

Vish13

Semi-Pro
Actually that is not the reason why they stopped ranking points, ITF president David Haggarty said, and I quote, "In the Olympics, you play for honor, for your country and that is the main reason why no points will be distributed at the (Rio) Games."
But they do they award points for Davis Cup.. Maybe because it is an yearly event
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I can't believe Federer has messed up his chances so bad :eek:

2003 Rome is really unforgivable and 2014 MC was also a golden opportunity.

At the Olympics he really messed up against Bendych in 2004. That year was his best opportunity of all. He was at the peak of his powers and his confidence was sky high. Can't explain how he played that stinker against Bendych who did nothing afterwards.

In 2008 he did lose to Blake, but his confidence was already very low at that point. Even if he had beaten, he wouldn't have won the title. At best he would have got silver.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Nadal hasn't really messed up many chances. In 2 of his Miami finals he had absolute peak Fed and absolute peak Nole. In another he had a fully prime Nole again although that was the beginning of Rafa's decline. In 2008 he lost to his usual HC boogie man Davydenko.

He has only reached 1 Paris final in his entire career, so I don't see him ever winning it.

At the WTF he did reach 2 finals, but he couldn't even win it in his peak years. I don't see him winning it in his decline years.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
And no, Murray isn't the likeliest to win the set. I'd be shocked if he manages it.

Next year he will be 30 with 2 more slams and 2 more masters to go. He has always been bad at IW reaching just 1 final. His task is by far the most difficult. He'll be fortunate to even win 1 of AO or RG. I don't see him winning both.
 
I can't believe Federer has messed up his chances so bad :eek:

2003 Rome is really unforgivable and 2014 MC was also a golden opportunity.

At the Olympics he really messed up against Bendych in 2004. That year was his best opportunity of all. He was at the peak of his powers and his confidence was sky high. Can't explain how he played that stinker against Bendych who did nothing afterwards.

In 2008 he did lose to Blake, but his confidence was already very low at that point. Even if he had beaten, he wouldn't have won the title. At best he would have got silver.
Well, Federer is the only modern player who was actually close to winning it all bar singles OG (but a gold medal is a gold medal, looks the same and counts towards the same medal pool whether it's singles or doubles). Squandered MPs vs Nadal in Rome 06, lost the tiebreak vs Wawrinka in MC 14.
(Nadal made just one Paris final and was taken apart, while Djokovic has never won a set in five Cincinnati finals.)

That epic failure vs Teendych in Athens was really the missed chance. All was well until 6-4 *3-4, and then ******** shows up and doesn't go away until he loses.
 
And no, Murray isn't the likeliest to win the set. I'd be shocked if he manages it.

Next year he will be 30 with 2 more slams and 2 more masters to go. He has always been bad at IW reaching just 1 final. His task is by far the most difficult. He'll be fortunate to even win 1 of AO or RG. I don't see him winning both.
How is Murray not the likeliest among the big 4 when he's the youngest? He needs a lot, yet surely has a better chance than Djokovic who'd need to win Olympics at 33, let alone Federer. Nadal maybe disputable, but I see him as less likely, given their recent form.
 

Rafa the King

Hall of Fame
And no, Murray isn't the likeliest to win the set. I'd be shocked if he manages it.

Next year he will be 30 with 2 more slams and 2 more masters to go. He has always been bad at IW reaching just 1 final. His task is by far the most difficult. He'll be fortunate to even win 1 of AO or RG. I don't see him winning both.
Who is the likeliest then?
 
Can someone please explain why Hamburg isn't missing for Djokovic?
It was replaced by Madrid Clay masters. Since he has won the replaced tournament, generally people don't hold it against him. The masters tournaments list keeps changing over time and you can't check for individual ones. So we can just see if the player has won the tournament in some particular slot.
 

Tenisfan3

Professional
It was replaced by Madrid Clay masters. Since he has won the replaced tournament, generally people don't hold it against him. The masters tournaments list keeps changing over time and you can't check for individual ones. So we can just see if the player has won the tournament in some particular slot.
Didn't rome's slot change a few years back?
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
And no, Murray isn't the likeliest to win the set. I'd be shocked if he manages it.

Next year he will be 30 with 2 more slams and 2 more masters to go. He has always been bad at IW reaching just 1 final. His task is by far the most difficult. He'll be fortunate to even win 1 of AO or RG. I don't see him winning both.
Murray is #1 in the world, and the least declined of the 4. Rafa barely won 15 matches off clay this year, if at all, and he's not coming back to win 3 1000 and higher HC tournaments. Federer is gonna be 10 years beyond his peak and is not winning MC and Rome, never mind Tokyo, at 39. Djokovic has one unrealistic shot at Tokyo, and still has to win Cinci, which seems far away now that he's seemingly declining.

Murray is getting the best results on his career right now, and is the only one that is likely to improve on previous best results.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I can't believe Federer has messed up his chances so bad :eek:

2003 Rome is really unforgivable and 2014 MC was also a golden opportunity.

At the Olympics he really messed up against Bendych in 2004. That year was his best opportunity of all. He was at the peak of his powers and his confidence was sky high. Can't explain how he played that stinker against Bendych who did nothing afterwards.

In 2008 he did lose to Blake, but his confidence was already very low at that point. Even if he had beaten, he wouldn't have won the title. At best he would have got silver.
Yeah Fed shoulda won Rome in 03 and if not then, 06. MC should have been in the bag in 2014 and even in 2008 he was up 5-3 in the first and two breaks in the second or something.

I still don't understand to this day how he was so bad in that 04 Athens match. He basically tanked vs hrbaty at cincy to be fresh for the olympics but laid an egg. And immediately after he had one of the best runs of his career too(winning USO, Bangkok, YEC, Doha before losing to Safin) playing jaw dropping tennis as well as in the Toronto final against Roddick.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Yeah Fed shoulda won Rome in 03 and if not then, 06. MC should have been in the bag in 2014 and even in 2008 he was up 5-3 in the first and two breaks in the second or something.

I still don't understand to this day how he was so bad in that 04 Athens match. He basically tanked vs hrbaty at cincy to be fresh for the olympics but laid an egg. And immediately after he had one of the best runs of his career too(winning USO, Bangkok, YEC, Doha before losing to Safin) playing jaw dropping tennis as well as in the Toronto final against Roddick.
He was probably overconfident and started making some crucial errors. Eventually Fed couldn't find his best game anymore and Berdych took advantage.

Either that or it was just another one of those inconsistent performances of 2004. He had 6 of them that year after all.

It's a good thing Fed set the record straight vs Berdych in their next 8 matches, including a rematch at the 2008 Olympics.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
He was probably overconfident and started making some crucial errors. Eventually Fed couldn't find his best game anymore and Berdych took advantage.

Either that or it was just another one of those inconsistent performances of 2004. He had 6 of them that year after all.

It's a good thing Fed set the record straight vs Berdych in their next 8 matches, including a rematch at the 2008 Olympics.
Only "bad" losses in 04 were to Henman in Rotterdam where he choked the 2nd set and to Berdych. Maybe the one to Costa too but he was still finding his clay game. Besides that, he was sick in the Nadal match and conserving energy against Hrbaty.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
The masters tournaments list keeps changing over time and you can't check for individual ones. So we can just see if the player has won the tournament in some particular slot.
As said, Rome changed from slot 4 to slot 5 in 2011. So using your logic (I see Shanghai isn't listed for Nadal), the only slot missing for Roger is slot 3.

Slot 1: Indian Wells 04, 05, 06, 12.
Slot 2: Miami 05, 06
Slot 4: Madrid 2012
Slot 5: Hamburg 02, 04, 05, 07, Madrid 09
Slot 6: Canada 04, 06
Slot 7: Cincinnati 05, 07, 09, 10, 12, 14, 15
Slot 8: Madrid 06, Shanghai 14
Slot 9: Paris 10
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Novak Djokovic clearly has the best chance, but he has only one more real chance to win the Olympic Gold, and he will be 33 when Tokyo comes around, so it's unlikely he'll do it.

Nadal will never win the WTF.

Murray has too many big tourneys still to capture I'm afraid.

Fed is too old to win the Olympic Gold even if he's still around in 2020.
 

nadalfan2013

Professional
Actually that is not the reason why they stopped ranking points, ITF president David Haggarty said, and I quote, "In the Olympics, you play for honor, for your country and that is the main reason why no points will be distributed at the (Rio) Games."
That's a lame excuse and doesn't explain Davis Cup.
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
If players carry their form into 2017 Murray has huge chances to do the impossible. He has won everything after Wimbledon and he is a great player in the first part of seasons too.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
If players carry their form into 2017 Murray has huge chances to do the impossible. He has won everything after Wimbledon and he is a great player in the first part of seasons too.
Not quite, he missed out on Cincinnati and the US Open, but he won everything else he played. ;)
 
Don't see any of them doing it. Federer will not win an Olympic Singles Gold, and Djokovic is unlikely to be favourite at 33 when they come around again in Tokyo. Nadal hasn't looked capable recently in the events he needs, and Murray has too much to do. The younger 3 have more of a chance, but I don't see it. Djokovic could I suppose pull it off. Murray would need a phenomenal 6 months whilst hot to knock a couple off the list.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
I can't believe Federer has messed up his chances so bad :eek:

2003 Rome is really unforgivable and 2014 MC was also a golden opportunity.

At the Olympics he really messed up against Bendych in 2004. That year was his best opportunity of all. He was at the peak of his powers and his confidence was sky high. Can't explain how he played that stinker against Bendych who did nothing afterwards.

In 2008 he did lose to Blake, but his confidence was already very low at that point. Even if he had beaten, he wouldn't have won the title. At best he would have got silver.
I really feel that 2014 MC he handed it to his good pal Stan, who had 0 Masters, where as Federer already had 23. It's my opinion, but if you watched the match, you'd know what I mean.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
None of them will do it but if I had to go with someone I'd go with Djokovic without a shadow of a doubt. He can easily win Cincinnati in the next 2-4 years but judging by the way things are going now he'll probably have a max 10% chance to win the Olympics.

Nadal is done although he can still win something on clay. Murray is missing too many titles. Federer is done, especially on clay. If he's to bag another big title MC, Rome are the last positions on that list. Olympics at 39? Gooby pls.
 
Last edited:

xFullCourtTenniSx

Hall of Fame
Murray. Unless Nadal and Djokovic are injured, Federer isn't winning those clay masters. It's also highly unlikely he wins an Olympic gold. Then again, we thought he was out of the scene in 2008 when he got the gold in doubles, and we thought he was done after 2010 before he came and won Wimbledon and got the silver in 2012. But this time... This time he CAN'T come back right? And there's no way in hell Nadal is winning the WTF unless it's on clay. Djokovic, he might win Cincinnati, but he isn't getting that gold. Something is going to come up and ruin his parade. If we remove the gold medal from the list, Djokovic is the most likely to win everything. Then Murray, then Federer (yeah, don't know why I rank Murray winning 2 more majors over Federer winning 2 titles on clay; then I remember Nadal and Djokovic and say no way Rog).
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I can't believe Federer has messed up his chances so bad :eek:

2003 Rome is really unforgivable
2003 Rome was really strange. The guy he lost to, Mantilla, never did anything else of significance as far as I'm aware but I guess even the unlikeliest dog can sometimes have his day! :cool:

At the Olympics he really messed up against Bendych in 2004. That year was his best opportunity of all. He was at the peak of his powers and his confidence was sky high. Can't explain how he played that stinker against Bendych who did nothing afterwards.
Sometimes I think he can get a little bit over-confident in matches and this has never worked particularly well against Berdych who has often raised his game when facing Fed (and beaten him in several Slams as well).

In 2008 he did lose to Blake, but his confidence was already very low at that point. Even if he had beaten, he wouldn't have won the title. At best he would have got silver.
I think the gold medal that year had Rafa's name on it but he did manage to win the doubles with Stan.

and 2014 MC was also a golden opportunity.
It's possible he may have tanked to help Stan get his 1st Masters title but it seems a bit of strange time and place to do it given that Stan was already on a high for winning the AO and Federer had never won MC before!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I really feel that 2014 MC he handed it to his good pal Stan, who had 0 Masters, where as Federer already had 23. It's my opinion, but if you watched the match, you'd know what I mean.
You might be right but, given that he had never won MC before and Stan already had his first Slam title under his belt it seems a bit of an odd time and place to be so generous!
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
You might be right but, given that he had never won MC before and Stan already had his first Slam title under his belt it seems a bit of an odd time and place to be so generous!
....but that's the thing, he is that generous! He certainly isn't greedy.....he handed Murray the Olympic singles Gold (2012), because he would have felt really bad for him had he won it, you know esp playing in front of his home crowd :p
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
....but that's the thing, he is that generous! He certainly isn't greedy.....he handed Murray the Olympic singles Gold (2012), because he would have felt really bad for him had he won it, you know esp playing in front of his home crowd :p
Hmmm...how come he wasn't in such a generous mood when he denied him the chance to become the first British man to win Wimbledon in 76 years just a few weeks earlier? ;)
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Hmmm...how come he wasn't in such a generous mood when he denied him the chance to become the first British man to win Wimbledon in 76 years just a few weeks earlier? ;)
Nah he wanted to tie Pistol Pete ;)

Wimbledon is on every year, he knew Muzza will have more chances. Besides slams are way more important in tennis.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
As a Mantilla fan I loved that 2003 Rome final. He just wasn't missing that day, and he showed incredible defensive skills to get almost everything back and frustrate the hell out of Federer. It was great to watch. His backhand in particular was completely rock solid. Federer only converted 3 out of his 17 break points.

Mantilla had a tough draw at that event, coming through a series of 3 set matches against Nalbandian, Costa, Ljubicic and Kafelnikov. Thankfully he still had enough left in the tank to beat Federer in straight sets. In all my time following tennis, I would definitely rank him as one of the biggest fighters that I've ever seen. He twice won matches after saving 9 match points, and fought off skin cancer to return to the tour and end his career on his own terms.

Federer's b*tchy post-match press conference was funny, when he moaned about Mantilla's tennis being boring.
 
Top