Minimum Andy Murray needs/needed to do to be in the same league as big 3

#1
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
 
#3
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
Rule in 2019 .. show jokodal who's boss .. deny zedzilla for 1 more year .. 0 GS for all 3 ..
Fed's already on way out .. so no issues there ..
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#5
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
If he could have just eaten into those 8 other finals a little there would probably be no need for this ongoing debate (at least for the majority of us).

As things stand, he is 1 of only 2 players in the last 30 years to have won at least 1 title in every single category of main tour tennis tournaments.
 

BHud

Hall of Fame
#6
Too many losses and not enough wins in slam finals. He was always clearly inferior to the other three with the exception of his big 18 month period (which apparently has cost him his career).
 
#9
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
If anything Murray gets TOO much respect as he's grouped in with Fed, Nadal and Nole who have a world of achievement more than him in the slams.

He's really in a totally separate category but people always lump him in and call it the "big 4" for some reason. He needs about 10 more slams to be on equal terms obviously.
 
#12
If he could have just eaten into those 8 other finals a little there would probably be no need for this ongoing debate (at least for the majority of us).

As things stand, he is 1 of only 2 players in the last 30 years to have won at least 1 title in every single category of main tour tennis tournaments.
Murray has made all those finals, only to be stopped by three greats, I cannot fathom how it must feel.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#13
If anything Murray gets TOO much respect as he's grouped in with Fed, Nadal and Nole who have a world of achievement more than him in the slams.

He's really in a totally separate category but people always lump him in and call it the "big 4" for some reason. He needs about 10 more slams to be on equal terms obviously.
As it's been explained many times, the Big 4 label started around 2010-11 because Murray was one of the 4 players who consistently made the finals and semi-finals of all 4 Slams (no prizes for guessing the other 3 of course) and consistently beat the lower ranked players for titles. It was never meant to group them according to titles won but, of course, that is what many people on here now think that's what it's supposed to mean and act puzzled the more so as Murray isn't even playing at the moment and is far from being a top player currently. He is certainly top 4 amongst active players (officially anyway) in number of titles won.
 
#14
As far as I'm concerned, Big 3 and Big 4 are separate concepts - it's not either or:

The Big 4 refers to the four players who held the top spots of the rankings for most of 2008-2016, went deep in the majority of slams with the majority of slam wins and runners up being them, and won most of the masters. Murray very much fits this category. He was significantly ahead of the rest of the field in terms of consistency. Not to mention the Olympics wins and WTF win as well

The Big 3 refers to three top tier ATG, probably the 3 greatest players in the open era who all played at the same time, playing each other on many occasions. All double digit slam winners, all multiple YE#1s, all have shed loads of masters and other titles. They won the vast majority of slams from 2004-2018. They've won 50 out of 60 slams in the last 10 seasons. Insane dominance.

Murray is definitely one of the Big 4. For Murray to be one of the Big 3, he would need to be a top tier ATG. Probably 7-8 slams minimum and at least 2 more YE#1s. In other words, it's not going to happen
 
#16
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
Fun stat: Rafa has just 12 more semis than Murray yet 14 more slams.
OT: mury goat, but he's Finnish.
 
#17
20 more wins with 7 being Slams and he can become a junior member of the Big 4. Slams wins and total titles carry the most weight in my opinion. Based on those 2 markers, it's no where close to being a discussion. Wawrinka is closer to Murray than Murray is to Fed, Rafa or Novak. Doesn't diminish the fact that Murray has had a great career to date and is at the top of the group of 'others' from this era.
 
#18
Considering he was the only one who could hang consistently with the big 3 of his time and has achieved all that he has against them I think the only person who could be argued as a big 4 member over him would be Wawrinka (who lacks in achievements but could be argued in terms of big match level of play I suppose) , if we want to use the Big 4 moniker. Is he in their league achievement wise...no. However when push came to shove of the entire rest of the tour he was the 1 guy who most consistently was right there with them and achieved the most outside of them. He is definitely in the Big 4 in terms of top 4 on the tour for a prolonged period of time. Who else is there besides Wawrinka? Delpo managed to win a major quite impressively but he's not in that pack...anyone else....no.
 
#20
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion...
Forget about Murray, you have countless people on TTW trashing Sampras every day, as well as Connors, Lendl, Becker, etc. All of them had far greater careers than Andy and they're labelled as "mugs" with the usual tag line, "Gasquet would beat these losers 6-1, 6-2!" So if true ATG's like Pete and Jimbo get the shaft, don't expect Muzz to get any love. Sad, but true. ;)
 
Last edited:
#21
Murray was part of the "Big Four", but was always 4th in the group, which is no knock on him. The other three are just way beyond him in accomplishments.
Since 2014, I've tended to look at it as more of a Big Five with Stan Wawrinka included or a Big 3 + 2 (Murray and Wawriinka) =5.

For Andy to be a true member of the Big 4 on a more level status, he'd have had to win more of the Slam finals he competed in. It's all about winning the Slams in the final analysis. As we can see: 20>17>14>3.

From now on in, we'll see if he can get back to challenging for the big prizes again.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#22
Considering he was the only one who could hang consistently with the big 3 of his time and has achieved all that he has against them I think the only person who could be argued as a big 4 member over him would be Wawrinka (who lacks in achievements but could be argued in terms of big match level of play I suppose) , if we want to use the Big 4 moniker. Is he in their league achievement wise...no. However when push came to shove of the entire rest of the tour he was the 1 guy who most consistently was right there with them and achieved the most outside of them. He is definitely in the Big 4 in terms of top 4 on the tour for a prolonged period of time. Who else is there besides Wawrinka? Delpo managed to win a major quite impressively but he's not in that pack...anyone else....no.
Murray was there for years. Wawrinka and Del Potro for a cup of coffee each.. and in Del Potro's first major run he still only displaced Murray a couple of weeks here and there.. and that was without a major title.
 
#27
Forget about Murray, you have countless people on TTW trashing Sampras every day, as well as Connors, Lendl, Becker, etc. All of them had far greater careers than Andy and they're labelled as "mugs" with the usual tag line, "Gasquet would beat these losers 6-1, 6-2!" So if true ATG's like Pete and Jimbo get the shaft, don't expect Muzz to get any love. Sad, but true. ;)
Who the hell says that
 

vex

Hall of Fame
#28
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
Needs? ....... that ship sailed half a decade ago.

Needed? 12+ total slams, More slams wins over all 3 guys not just Djoker. So those AO final losses would only have helped a bit. He needed a whole different level to bring his career to big 3 level.
 
#29
  1. All four slams to start with - currently missing AO & RG: the big 3 have all four
  2. At least to be in double digits in terms of slam titles - the big 3 have 20-17-14, being back on 3 is too much of a gap
  3. Two or three more YE # 1: Fed & DJoker have 5, Rafa has 4, Murray has 1 - again that gap is too big
  4. Around double the amount of M1000 titles. Muzz has 14, Fed has 27, Djoker 32, Rafa 33 - the gap is too big
  5. Close the h2h gap: v Federer it is respectable 11 - 14 (he actually let Fed 6 - 3 early on), but against Rafa it is 7 - 17 and against Djoker it is 11 - 25
Tough era for Murray to play in, he would have achieved the above easily in any other era. He is a top quality player that played in the time of the best three ..... ever - that is a tough break.
 
#34
Murray was there for years. Wawrinka and Del Potro for a cup of coffee each.. and in Del Potro's first major run he still only displaced Murray a couple of weeks here and there.. and that was without a major title.
Is this bizarro world? You are defending Murray???
 
#36
Winning Roland Garros and the Australian Open. The career Grand Slam alone puts him in an elite group with the big three and few others in history but with it being the career Golden Slam it further separates him from players with similar resumes.
 
#37
If Andy Murray completes the shocking, unimaginable double defense in Tokyo 2020 for an unprecedented three straight Gold Medals (biggest stage in sport) then he won't have to worry about those three being in his league in any shape or fashion.

Murray knows this, which is why he is making the arduous journey back from career-threatening injury in order to be ready for that moment, when any lesser man would've unhesitatingly taken the easy way out, retreating to some Polynesian island, drinking Buck 'n Bru and snorting lines for the rest of his days.
 

Enceladus

Professional
#38
Winning Roland Garros and the Australian Open. The career Grand Slam alone puts him in an elite group with the big three and few others in history but with it being the career Golden Slam it further separates him from players with similar resumes.
Not only the career Golden Slam. Murray, if he won AO and RG, would becomed the second tennis player in history of men's tennis, who should the career Super Slam (4 GS + OG + WTF). The only one to date the owner of this record is Agassi.
 
#39
Murray has won every event possible in the sport.

Grand Slam title
YECs title
Masters title
Davis Cup title
+
The Olympics (outside the main tour).

Even the big 3 haven't done this.

Murray might very well be in the same league already.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#41
I feel that Andy Murray sometimes doesn't get the respect he deserves; a 3 time GS champion, 8 other finals, 10 SFs, 2 Olympic golds, Davis Cup, WTF champion, year End No1 and 14 Masters. All this achieved in an era with 3 of the very best players of all time (male or female) as his main rivals.

For Murray to be considered a card carrying member of the big 4, what is the minimum he needed to do/he needs to do moving forward? Extra slams? Improved H2H against Fedalovic (in GSs especially)? More YE number1s?

Discuss.
Ten more slams, at least. Two more YE at #1, twenty more tournament wins.
 
Top