Marion Bartoli: Rafa Nadal no longer in ‘Big Four’

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRAJ1988
  • Start date Start date
J

JRAJ1988

Guest
Rafa Nadal can no longer count himself amongst men’s tennis’ ‘Big Four’, according to former Wimbledon champion Marion Bartoli.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news...afa-nadal-longer-big-four-141244359--ten.html

Didn't I talk about this in a thread yesterday? There is no "Big 4", it died when Murray had his back operation then decided he wanted to play Sub/Dom with Djokovic/Federer.

With Bartoli's logic this means Murray isn't in this "Elite 4" because he hasn't beaten his main rivals. I'm a staunch Murray fan but facts should get in the way of fanboyism.
 
Now there is only big one. None of Federer, Nadal or Murray are in big 4. If Nadal is not there, certainly Murray and Federer are not there too. Nadal has not won a slam in one year, the other two haven't won a slam in 2 and 3 years respectively.
 
Depends how people interpret "Big 4" really - is it a static or a dynamic concept?

In my view, "Big 4" (in modern times) refers to the quartet of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray, who established themselves as the consistently dominant force in men's tennis from around 2008-2012, although in reality 2012 was the only year in which they truly split the spoils. They also happened to occupy the top 4 ranking spots for a long time, until certain members began dropping off and then surging back.
Another view of Big 4 might refer to any 4 dominant tennis players - and this changes over time. I don't really agree with this view if we're considering consistency and career accomplishments.

At the moment, what we really have is a clear, dominant Number 1 (Djokovic), a clear Number 2 (Federer), a clear Number 3 (Murray) and a pack of other guys in the top 10, then the rest.
 
At this point I don't know if there is a big 4... if there is it would arguably have to be:

Novak clearly number 1

Fed is still there largely based on consistency, ability to win titles outside the majors, still a contender and being number 2 in the world

Wawrinka needs to be included. If you still want Fed there you cannot leave out a guy who won a major both this year and last year and has beaten the clear number 1 both times to do it. He's not a master of consistency but you can't deny him his place

The 4th spot....well...if there is a current big 4 I would have to give spot 4 to Murray because his level is a lot higher than everyone else currently.

But realistically the BIG 4 idea is dead. Those 4 guys were so dominant it was always them in the SF of the majors what...80% of the time for how long? That's not true anymore
 
Now there is only big one. None of Federer, Nadal or Murray are in big 4. If Nadal is not there, certainly Murray and Federer are not there too. Nadal has not won a slam in one year, the other two haven't won a slam in 2 and 3 years respectively.

Though Novak is at a different level,Fed and Murray are closer to Novak than Rafa is to Fed and Murray.

Fed and Murray are reaching major finals, have won masters in the last 12 months , Fed is even with Novak 4-4 since 2014 and are taking Novak to 4/5 sets in major finals
 
The Big Four is like Ancient Rome in its final days, with barbarians at the gates. A once mighty empire that has been steadily showing signs of decline, which can be staved off only temporarily.

The only hope now is for it to be survived by Djokovic and possibly Murray. Like the Eastern Roman Empire, it will still be a mighty force to be reckoned with, but only a fraction of its former glorious self. Until it too is conquered and relegated to the history books.
 
Though Novak is at a different level,Fed and Murray are closer to Novak than Rafa is to Fed and Murray.

Fed and Murray are reaching major finals, have won masters in the last 12 months , Fed is even with Novak 4-4 since 2014 and are taking Novak to 4/5 sets in major finals

Taking sets off Novak in majors is no achievement, even Anderson did that. In fact Stan has a better claim of being closer to Novak than Murray and Federer. Murray and Federer can't beat Novak in majors, Stan can and has. You can form a new group and call it "Bridesmaid Two" for Murray and Federer. Unless you are winning majors you are not a part of any Big group, my opinion anyway! There is one Big 1 and that's about it at the moment. Stan is the closest thing to it.
 
Taking sets off Novak in majors is no achievement, even Anderson did that. In fact Stan has a better claim of being closer to Novak than Murray and Federer. Murray and Federer can't beat Novak in majors, Stan can and has. You can form new group and call it "Bridesmaid Two" for Murray and Federer. Unless you are winning majors you are not a part of any Big group, my opinion anyway! There is one Big 1 and that's about it at the moment. Stan is the closest thing to it.

If majors are the only thing, then there was never a big 4 to begin with .

The only players to consistently trouble Novak are Fed and Stan.

So, one could say Stan has replaced Rafa in Big 4.
 
Mauresmo was never part of any big 4 of her era.

1998-2000 big 4- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena
2001-2002 big 4- Capriati, Venus, Serena, Davenport
2003-2005 big 4- Venus, Serena, Clijsters, Henin
2006-2009 big 4- Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova
 
Has anybody yet informed Rafa of this news? How did he take it?
0walzwf.jpg
 
Mauresmo was never part of any big 4 of her era.

1998-2000 big 4- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, Serena
2001-2002 big 4- Capriati, Venus, Serena, Davenport
2003-2005 big 4- Venus, Serena, Clijsters, Henin
2006-2009 big 4- Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova

I think that's too much of a micro-analysis. I would say that there was at one point a big 4 consisting of Hingis, Davenport, and the Williams sisters, and that over time Hingis and Davenport were replaced by Clijsters and Henin. The periods in between were ones in which there was no big 4 but a more complex situation at the top of the women's game. There isn't always a big 4. In fact, any "big 4" era is a simplification of reality, as the article I linked to in the other thread on this topic today argues.
 
I think that's too much of a micro-analysis. I would say that there was at one point a big 4 consisting of Hingis, Davenport, and the Williams sisters, and that over time Hingis and Davenport were replaced by Clijsters and Henin. The periods in between were ones in which there was no big 4 but a more complex situation at the top of the women's game. There isn't always a big 4. In fact, any "big 4" era is a simplification of reality, as the article I linked to in the other thread on this topic today argues.

I would mostly agree with this. From say...98ish-2001 the big 4 for the women were Davenport, Hingis, Venus and probably Capriati (well in 2001 anyway). Then it was the Williams and the Belgians for a short time.

From 2004-end of 2007 there was no big 4 as a ton of things happened in the women's game:
2004- Russian revolution at the majors minus Australia, lots of movement. Maybe this was Marias year by way of Wimbledon and the YEC. if I had to name a big 4 in 2004 it would be Sharapova, Davenport, Dementieva and Maybe Serena....maybe

2005- 4 different major winners plus a 5th different winner at the YEC. Davenport made 2 major finals as did Pierce...Pierce also made the YEC final. No real big 4 but I guess a big what...7? Haha

2006- the year of Henin and Mauresmo with a guest appearance by Maria at the US Open. Really though mostly a 2 woman show.

2007- Henin and the Williams...that's kinda it no one stands out as a number 4.

2008 to 2012- big 3 of Serena, Kim and Maria with lots of people having moments of shining in between all that (Venus, Wozniacki, Safina, Jankovic, Dementieva....)

2012 to now it's predominantly Serena. Maria has been right up there still, then Kvitova? I dunno the women's game has been way more in Flux then men in the last decade
 
At this moment in time, there is a just a big one, Djokovic. Then you have guys like Stan, Andy and Roger. I suppose you could call them the current big four, but the big four was used to describe the four guys who were consistently at the business end of slams and masters tournaments. People often complained that Murray wasn't successful enough to be part of the big four, but he was always there at the end of tournaments fighting it out with the other three, even if he didn't win nearly as much.

2012 was the only year in which you could call them the big four in terms of slam wins, considering they all had one each. It depends what people mean when they say big four.
 
Of course he is NOT. In fact he is barley hanging on the edge of top 10. :)
With a ton of ground to gain, considering we still have 1 Slam, 4 M1000s, and WTF where Nadal has virtually no points to defend.

That's basically 7500 points up for grabs, plus other a couple of 500s Nadal could play in.
 
With a ton of ground to gain, considering we still have 1 Slam, 4 M1000s, and WTF where Nadal has virtually no points to defend.

That's basically 7500 points up for grabs, plus other a couple of 500s Nadal could play in.

Of course I agree he will be safely be back in top 8 soon.

I also think he will recover his form eventually and challenge Novak again, hopefully by next year.
The main theme of last 5 year since 2010, is still this tug of war going on between Novak and Rafa, despite Federer's being #2....
 
"OH NO! Somebody noticed!!!"
Good news for Murray though. Now the only thing he needs to finally be #1 is for Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka, and Nadal to fall sick simultaneously. Then he will suddenly be declared GOAT by McEnroe in an impromptu interview in the BBC, and Margaret Thatcher herself will rise from the grave to declare him a true son of the British Empire.
 
Good news for Murray though. Now the only thing he needs to finally be #1 is for Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka, and Nadal to fall sick simultaneously. Then he will suddenly be declared GOAT by McEnroe in an impromptu interview in the BBC, and Margaret Thatcher herself will rise from the grave to declare him a true son of the British Empire.

It's a doddle (but please leave Mrs T where she is, thank you)! ;)
 
With a ton of ground to gain, considering we still have 1 Slam, 4 M1000s, and WTF where Nadal has virtually no points to defend.

That's basically 7500 points up for grabs, plus other a couple of 500s Nadal could play in.
Don't forget the 250s. He has a good record in the 250s.
 
Her opinion is hardly irrelevant. She has more tennis experience/knowledge than you do. There is nothing wrong with what she said. In fact she is absolutely right. Nadal is currently not a Big Four member based on his results for the past year or more. It doesn't mean that will be the script six months from now but that is the reality as of this moment.

What she says about Nadal's power or lack of it is also correct. Where is his beastly forehand?
One of the more surprising slam wins for sure though people forget that she did reach a final previously (by beating Justine Henin in SF in 2007, huge upset).

Regardless, don't see anything controversial in her opinion. She said that with Nadal's current level of play he's not a part of the big 4 which is pretty straightforward.

The Big Four is finished, it doesn't continue on to the next generation/era. Bartoli is wrong in assuming that it does. Obviously Nadal's current form is not congruent to his previous, but let's not forget the roughly 7 years in which he absolutely dominated on clay. If Nadal bounces back, it will be him and Djoker...call it the Big Two
 
I think "The Big 4" was more a phrase given to describe the dominance which Murray, Fed, Rafa and Nole had shown over the rest of the field for a certain period...I don't think it should be considered something which always has to exist.

As it stands in Men's tennis, no Rafa isn't one of the 4 most dominant players on tour....I think you could say that Nole, Fed and Murray are still in that bracket but I don't think anyone else has stepped up and shown the consistent dominance which that 4 showed by always having at leasat least some combination of the three out of four and quite often all 4 filling the SF places at Slams.
 
there is no big 4 anymore. big 4 it last was maybe in 2012 or so.

outside of Wimbledon fed is not a slam contender anymore and clearly at least this year nadal is not one either. and murray was never the same after the back surgery (plus he was a fringy big 4 in the first place).

now it is basically a big 1, there is only one Player who can beat Novak on a good day and that is wawrinka.
 
She has an interesting point about the lack of pace on the groundstrokes. This is what many other pros have been saying all year: his Forehand is not doing the damage it had done for over a decade. It's not pushing guys back in the court now, so they're much more able to step into the shot Nadal hits off the FH and clobber it. She's saying what others - Gilbert, Cahill, Pat McEnroe - have been saying in different ways. In watching the RG QF, one of the most striking things was watching Djokovic be able to hit outright winners against Nadal on clay - the sheer number of them was staggering. He'd hit shots and Nadal wouldn't even bother to chase them. Djokovic hit 45 Winners in a 3 set match against Nadal on clay - which tell you quite a bit: Nadal's movement is down measurably from what it was. But he's the one who keeps telling everybody how healthy he is. Bartoli has some good observations, and what's happening on the court in his matches bears her out. Nadal is not getting enough sting on the FH, and his Serve is getting mauled by more and more guys. If he really is healthy as he says, and still playing below his Top 4 form like he is now, then I'm one of those who thinks its time for a new voice for him. Nadal won't fire his own uncle - but he should. I'm not convinced Toni has much to offer him now beyond what he's already given him. Rafael says he has confidence issues. The last person you need to help you with your confidence issues is a guy like Toni who will openly tell the press how badly you're playing. Next.
 
This shtick has worked for him his whole career. Why change now?
I'm gonna chime in. The issue IMO is that Nadal and his clan, or at least considering what Toni generally says in his interviews, seem to believe Nadal plays tennis as it's meant to be played. Careful, this isn't the same as "playing tennis the way it makes you win". But that's the best way I can put that in words. Big serves and short points aren't tennis, S&Vs players won't stay near the baseline on grass, people want to see the players fighting, Wawrinka doesn't give you time, etc. One can be critical of these statements or not, I don't think it's the point there. The implied point is that Nadal plays tennis they way it's supposed to be played. It means that since he's playing tennis how he should be playing tennis, the difference between win and loss is either injuries, not working hard enough, and sometimes the other opponent being in the zone.

To me that's the core issue: thinking this way is fine as long as you can win this way. But since the beginning of the year (and almost since last USO), Nadal keeps repeating that he needs to work harder and harder. He's been saying that in interviews countless times. But considering he's 29 and has already a lot of mileage on him, he can only work so hard during one day to keep the same level of play. Any harder and he'd have to add another hour to the clock. And yet, all that hard work only has him crashing through the rankings in an absurdly abrupt manner. But he's entertained with the thought that he way he plays is what he should be doing on court. There were no injury excuses or so few during this year, so it isn't the problem. The way he thinks and they way his clan thinks (or at least, Toni), Nadal cannot change his mental frame. Question his game, his current abilities, what he actually can do in this day and age. He'll keep working his hardest for sure, but that's obviously currently not going anywhere. I believe he'll rise through the rankings at some point this year, but right now it isn't looking like it.

That's why I think he needs a second opinion besides Toni's. Nada needs to look in the mirror seriously and reassess what he can do and what he should do on a tennis court now that he's 29. Because you can only work so hard. What has been working for the past 10+ years isn't what's working right now, and there's no evidence so far that it's what's gonna work in the future either.
 
^ Do you seriously think anyone could stop 2013 Rafa (10 titles including the first man to sweep US Summer since 2003) from sweeping through 2015?
Djokovic and Federer are only ranked where they are because Rafa allows them to be (because his comeback is taking longer than it did in 2013), but Rafa knows he only has to duplicate his 2013 form and all the pretenders are once again demoted and doomed.
And what did Djokovic do in Rafa's absence last year? Lost to Nishikoir (and Federer lost to Cilic lol) at the US Open :D

You know this Bartoli woman is dumb when she needs to hold a press conference to announce her IQ.....
 
I'm gonna chime in. The issue IMO is that Nadal and his clan, or at least considering what Toni generally says in his interviews, seem to believe Nadal plays tennis as it's meant to be played. Careful, this isn't the same as "playing tennis the way it makes you win". But that's the best way I can put that in words. Big serves and short points aren't tennis, S&Vs players won't stay near the baseline on grass, people want to see the players fighting, Wawrinka doesn't give you time, etc. One can be critical of these statements or not, I don't think it's the point there. The implied point is that Nadal plays tennis they way it's supposed to be played. It means that since he's playing tennis how he should be playing tennis, the difference between win and loss is either injuries, not working hard enough, and sometimes the other opponent being in the zone.

To me that's the core issue: thinking this way is fine as long as you can win this way. But since the beginning of the year (and almost since last USO), Nadal keeps repeating that he needs to work harder and harder. He's been saying that in interviews countless times. But considering he's 29 and has already a lot of mileage on him, he can only work so hard during one day to keep the same level of play. Any harder and he'd have to add another hour to the clock. And yet, all that hard work only has him crashing through the rankings in an absurdly abrupt manner. But he's entertained with the thought that he way he plays is what he should be doing on court. There were no injury excuses or so few during this year, so it isn't the problem. The way he thinks and they way his clan thinks (or at least, Toni), Nadal cannot change his mental frame. Question his game, his current abilities, what he actually can do in this day and age. He'll keep working his hardest for sure, but that's obviously currently not going anywhere. I believe he'll rise through the rankings at some point this year, but right now it isn't looking like it.

That's why I think he needs a second opinion besides Toni's. Nada needs to look in the mirror seriously and reassess what he can do and what he should do on a tennis court now that he's 29. Because you can only work so hard. What has been working for the past 10+ years isn't what's working right now, and there's no evidence so far that it's what's gonna work in the future either.

Outstanding poast. I agree with every part of it.
 
^ Do you seriously think anyone could stop 2013 Rafa (10 titles including the first man to sweep US Summer since 2003) from sweeping through 2015?
Djokovic and Federer are only ranked where they are because Rafa allows them to be (because his comeback is taking longer than it did in 2013), but Rafa knows he only has to duplicate his 2013 form and all the pretenders are once again demoted and doomed.
And what did Djokovic do in Rafa's absence last year? Lost to Nishikoir (and Federer lost to Cilic lol) at the US Open :D

You know this Bartoli woman is dumb when she needs to hold a press conference to announce her IQ.....
I wonder if you're being serious but whatever. Nobody cares who can stop Nadal. I really mean it. Besides Djokovic this year at RG, none of the latest slams contenders (sorry Tomáš) had do anything to stop Nadal. That's the point. And unlike 2013, Nadal has already played much more matches and has a significantly lower ranking. Who plays more matches to have a lower ranking seriously? Oh yeah, and he's two years older.
 
^ Why would you expect a player to reach his top level again in just 6 months of a comeback?
2013 was the exception, not the common pace of a comeback.
That's where I think you've lost it (and where many fans have lost it).
Not all comebacks go at the same pace, and when Rafa regains confidence I shudder to think what people will say to cover their outlandish doomsday comments which I'll be quoting.
Uncle Toni will pretty much own the world after this (not that he's into the whole "I told you so" thing).
 
Firstservingman: Marion Bartoli 'a very poor commentator'.

More at 7:00
 
^ Why would you expect a player to reach his top level again in just 6 months of a comeback?
2013 was the exception, not the common pace of a comeback.
That's where I think you've lost it (and where many fans have lost it).
Not all comebacks go at the same pace, and when Rafa regains confidence I shudder to think what people will say to cover their outlandish doomsday comments which I'll be quoting.
Uncle Toni will pretty much own the world after this (not that he's into the whole "I told you so" thing).
So you admit 2013 was the exception, yet you say that Nadal "just" has to replicate his 2013 form? I never expected Nadal to reach his top form in 6 months, re-read my posts: I even say that it's clearly not looking like it so far.
 
Well Federer and Nadal are pretty much done at the moment but Era of Big 3 is still going on with third All Time Great player still denying everyone for #1 spot in Tennis for more than 11 straight years. This era will be finished when someone dethrones Djokovic and I hope he gets worthy successor like Federer, Nadal. Surrendering top spot to someone like Murray, Dimitrov, Raonic etc would directly interrupt this domination. If someone from new generation with huge talent ascends to the top then we can hope for similar era in future.
 
I mean .. right now Djokovic is the Favorite to win any Tournament on any Surface against any Opponent.

Last thing he did was to beat the current Number 2, Roger Federer, on his favorite Surface .. while Grass is considered to be Djokovics weakest Surface.

The guy lost in a shocking Final at the FO and was expected to somewhat decline mentally due to that loss ... instead he came back even stronger, without playing any Tournament in preparation .. to win Wimbledon.

I mean ... what "Big 4" are we talking about here?
 
Back
Top