no such thing as "the big four"

Achilles82

Achilles82

Professional
Andy Murray's mom Judy Murray posted a pic of Roger, Rafa, Andy and Novak when they were kids, saying "When the Big Four were the Wee Four".


https://twitter.com/judmoo/status/601428383512326145

And the pic is very cute and all that, but im tired of poeple constantly saying "The big Four"

Maybe the big four are Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic and Delpo with 1-2 grand slams, otherwise no such thing.

There is only the big three. Murray can't compare with success of Rafa, Roger or Novak.
 
Yeah but then you could also say "there's no such thing as the 'big three'", it's the 'big two' with Federer and Nadal"

It just depends on how big you want the group to be. Murray is clearly way ahead of everybody else.
 
jm1980 said:
Yeah but then you could also say "there's no such thing as the 'big three'", it's the 'big two' with Federer and Nadal"

It just depends on how big you want the group to be. Murray is clearly way ahead of everybody else.
Click to expand...

In a couple weeks, the big 2 will consist of the only 2 guys who have managed to win all big 5 titles.
 
Murray isn't in the same league as Fedalovic but if any other active player has multiple slams, 6 other finals, 10 Masters 1000s, Olympic singles gold, over 30 titles in total and nearly 80 wins over top 10 opponents, please let me know.
 
jm1980 said:
Yeah but then you could also say "there's no such thing as the 'big three'", it's the 'big two' with Federer and Nadal"
Click to expand...


The big two are ranked 2nd and 7th... so... yeah....

jm1980 said:
Murray is clearly way ahead of everybody else.
Click to expand...


And clearly bellow the big three. Sry but two grand slams and two masters in last three and a half seasons really isn't that much impressive.


You could say that there is the big three, andy murray, and the rest of the players.
 
Big four, three, two or one. They could all be true, depending on where you draw the line. It was simply coined at a time where they were taking up the four semi-final spots more often than not
 
I don't get why people are so adamant about it being the big 3 instead of the big 4. If you're going to play like that then it should be the big 2, Fed and Nadal are a tier above Novak.

The fact is that Murray is a head above the rest of the field whether you like it or not. It's subjective really, the weakest of the Big 4 or the strongest of the field? Both are pretty much the same thing.
 
AnotherTennisProdigy said:
I don't get why people are so adamant about it being the big 3 instead of the big 4. If you're going to play like that then it should be the big 2, Fed and Nadal are a tier above Novak.
Click to expand...

Its not that much big of a gap between Novak and Fedal, like there is between Fedalovic and Andy.


And the reason why Novak is one of the big three, is because he is current No1, and just dominating everyone.
 
Achilles82 said:
Its not that much big of a gap between Novak and Fedal, like there is between Fedalovic and Andy.


And the reason why Novak is one of the big three, is because he is current No1, and just dominating everyone.
Click to expand...

The gap between Novak and Fed is just as big if not bigger, so if you think it's fine to name them as belonging to the same group, then you have absolutely no logical reason against Murray and Djokovic being in the same group.

And if it's about current performance, then Murray is indeed in the big three, but Nadal not. But the truth is that this moniker was coined a good while back and isn't related to how they are doing right now, and I'm guessing you know that.
 
Achilles82 said:
Its not that much big of a gap between Novak and Fedal, like there is between Fedalovic and Andy.


And the reason why Novak is one of the big three, is because he is current No1, and just dominating everyone.
Click to expand...

What's your definition of Big Four then? Is it based on current rankings? Because right now it's a Big Three and a half.

Sorry, it irritates me a bit when people try to exclude Murray from this make believe club of champions. The Big Four nickname came about when those four players monopolized the four semifinal spots of nearly every important title of the year. It seems strange to exclude Murray when he's part of the reason the name exists.

If you'd like to exclude Murray then perhaps you should make a new title. Like the All-Time Greats of this Decade, but Only This Decade group.
 
There's always been a "Big 4".

In 2005, they called Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Federer "The Big Four".
 
Also Andy looked JUST like his Mum when he was a kid.
 
AnotherTennisProdigy said:
What's your definition of Big Four then? Is it based on current rankings? Because right now it's a Big Three and a half.

Sorry, it irritates me a bit when people try to exclude Murray from this make believe club of champions. The Big Four nickname came about when those four players monopolized the four semifinal spots of nearly every important title of the year. It seems strange to exclude Murray when he's part of the reason the name exists.

If you'd like to exclude Murray then perhaps you should make a new title. Like the All-Time Greats of this Decade, but Only This Decade group.
Click to expand...

Andy murray had like 3 good years at best, you can hardly call that a "monopoly of semi final spot" Since 2012 he passed QF 6 times out of 27 masters tournaments he played. Yeah, Andy is really dominating.


Andy is a good player and I like the guy. But just because he won 2 grand slams doenst make him part of the big three.

Novak maybe doesnt have as many titles as nadal or federer, but at least he is current No1 and dominating everyone this year, and lets face it, in next couple of years novak will probably have around 12-13 grand slams, and like a zilion masters tournaments.
 
Achilles82 said:
Andy murray had like 3 good years at best, you can hardly call that a "monopoly of semi final spot" Since 2012 he passed QF 6 times out of 27 masters tournaments he played. Yeah, Andy is really dominating.


Andy is a good player and I like the guy. But just because he won 2 grand slams doenst make him part of the big three.

Novak maybe doesnt have as many titles as nadal or federer, but at least he is current No1 and dominating everyone this year, and lets face it, in next couple of years novak will probably have around 12-13 grand slams, and like a zilion masters tournaments.
Click to expand...
2 Grand Slams, 10 Masters tournaments, 33 titles overall.

That isn't better than Del Potro and Wawrinka by some margin?
 
AnotherTennisProdigy said:
I don't get why people are so adamant about it being the big 3 instead of the big 4. If you're going to play like that then it should be the big 2, Fed and Nadal are a tier above Novak.

The fact is that Murray is a head above the rest of the field whether you like it or not. It's subjective really, the weakest of the Big 4 or the strongest of the field? Both are pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...

Fed is clearly a tier above Nole. Nadal? Not so much. Yes, he remains ahead but at the current pace that will change soon.

I don't expect Nole to beat, or even tie, Nadal in Slams. But that's only part of the story. This whole "Slams are everything" is really silly IMHO.

Nole already beats Nadal in weeks at number 1 and will likely beat him at YE1 by December. That's pretty big. It indicates that Djokovik dominated his peers to a greater extent than Nadal.

On Slams Nadal is ahead in two, Nole in one, and they are tied in the fourth. But that could easily change.

Nadal has a career slam and Nole doesn't, and that's a big negative for Djoker. But that also may change soon.

They are very close in M1000s, and Nole will likely be ahead this time next year. And of course Nole has won four WTFs, and Nadal none. That's a bit of a blemish for Nadal. Of course Nole has his lack of RG.

The one thing Nadal has in the whole "who is best" debate is his RG record. That is incredible, among the greater feats in modern sports. But it is only one tournament. Tennis is much, much more than that.
 
Sysyphus said:
The gap between Novak and Fed is just as big if not bigger, so if you think it's fine to name them as belonging to the same group, then you have absolutely no logical reason against Murray and Djokovic being in the same group.

And if it's about current performance, then Murray is indeed in the big three, but Nadal not. But the truth is that this moniker was coined a good while back and isn't related to how they are doing right now, and I'm guessing you know that.
Click to expand...

The gap between Fed and Novak is as big as that of Novak and Murray if the only thing you look at are number of Slams won. Which is a modern phenomenon that lacks any analytical support. Tennis is much more than just Slams.

Nole beats Fed in M1000s and already has three YE1 vs Fed's five. Chances are he will have four by December. Murray has none and may never have one. I think this is a huge diifference.
 
GabeT said:
Fed is clearly a tier above Nole. Nadal? Not so much. Yes, he remains ahead but at the current pace that will change soon.

I don't expect Nole to beat, or even tie, Nadal in Slams. But that's only part of the story. This whole "Slams are everything" is really silly IMHO.

Nole already beats Nadal in weeks at number 1 and will likely beat him at YE1 by December. That's pretty big. It indicates that Djokovik dominated his peers to a greater extent than Nadal.

On Slams Nadal is ahead in two, Nole in one, and they are tied in the fourth. But that could easily change.

Nadal has a career slam and Nole doesn't, and that's a big negative for Djoker. But that also may change soon.

They are very close in M1000s, and Nole will likely be ahead this time next year. And of course Nole has won four WTFs, and Nadal none. That's a bit of a blemish for Nadal. Of course Nole has his lack of RG.

The one thing Nadal has in the whole "who is best" debate is his RG record. That is incredible, among the greater feats in modern sports. But it is only one tournament. Tennis is much, much more than that.
Click to expand...

We need a lot more posters like you on this forum GabeT! :smile:
 
In term of the big four,
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray
are kinda like
McCartney, Lennon, Harrison, and Starr :)
 
GabeT said:
Fed is clearly a tier above Nole. Nadal? Not so much. Yes, he remains ahead but at the current pace that will change soon.

I don't expect Nole to beat, or even tie, Nadal in Slams. But that's only part of the story. This whole "Slams are everything" is really silly IMHO.

Nole already beats Nadal in weeks at number 1 and will likely beat him at YE1 by December. That's pretty big. It indicates that Djokovik dominated his peers to a greater extent than Nadal.

On Slams Nadal is ahead in two, Nole in one, and they are tied in the fourth. But that could easily change.

Nadal has a career slam and Nole doesn't, and that's a big negative for Djoker. But that also may change soon.

They are very close in M1000s, and Nole will likely be ahead this time next year. And of course Nole has won four WTFs, and Nadal none. That's a bit of a blemish for Nadal. Of course Nole has his lack of RG.

The one thing Nadal has in the whole "who is best" debate is his RG record. That is incredible, among the greater feats in modern sports. But it is only one tournament. Tennis is much, much more than that.
Click to expand...

Everybody expects that but until it happens it is all talk. Djokovic has to do the talking with his racket now and start by winning the FO. Every year it has pretty much been the same with the exception of 2011--Djokovic wins the AO and then nothing doing at the rest of the slams. This year, he has no excuse whatsoever not to have a multiple slam winning season with Nadal in a slump and Federer aging by the minute. A gap of six slams is too much of a gap to talk about Djokovic and Nadal in the same tier regardless of Djokovic's other stats. If and when Djokovic gets closer to Nadal in the slam count (which I am pretty sure he will), then we can start to talk. Not until then. A six slam gap is the entire career of Boris Becker!
 
Lol...how many threads are we going to get about this every time someone refers to a 'Big 4'? They're starting to get as frequent and predictable as the 'Who is the GOAT?' threads!

Here's a simple solution:

For those of us who think Murray has more common with the Big 3 than anyone else, referring to a Big 4 is natural and harmless.

For those of us, like the OP, who thinks Murray has more in common with the rest of the field than the Big 3, just use the term 'The Big 3 and Murray' if you need to discuss them collectively!


Is everybody happy now? Can we finally move on from this??
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Murray isn't in the same league as Fedalovic but if any other active player has multiple slams, 6 other finals, 10 Masters 1000s, Olympic singles gold, over 30 titles in total and nearly 80 wins over top 10 opponents, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Stan, Cilic and Delpo could say that it should be 'Big 7' , as no one else has majors. Where do we draw the line ?

Murray is closer to Stan/Cilic/Delpo OR Federer/Nadal/Djokovic ?
 
cc0509 said:
Everybody expects that but until it happens it is all talk. Djokovic has to do the talking with his racket now and start by winning the FO. Every year it has pretty much been the same with the exception of 2011--Djokovic wins the AO and then nothing doing at the rest of the slams. This year, he has no excuse whatsoever not to have a multiple slam winning season with Nadal in a slump and Federer aging by the minute. A gap of six slams is too much of a gap to talk about Djokovic and Nadal in the same tier regardless of Djokovic's other stats. If and when Djokovic gets closer to Nadal in the slam count (which I am pretty sure he will), then we can start to talk. Not until then. A six slam gap is the entire career of Boris Becker!
Click to expand...

I understand your point but I just don't agree with the premise that Slam counts are the starting point. To me that's simply a dumbing down of tennis results for the general public.

For me the first thing I look in tennis, like in any other sport, is who was the best in a given year. Real Madrid may beat Barcelona each time but if Barcelona ends up with more points at the end of the season they will be the champ.

There are many ways to show how good you are in tennis, and many ways to win points. Yes, Slams are the single most prestigious tournaments but they are not the only tournament. Nole won two clay masters this year. Are they worth nothing if he fails to win RG? I don't buy that at all. To win those masters Nole had to beat players like Nadal, Federer, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych. That's worth nothing?
 
GabeT said:
Fed is clearly a tier above Nole. Nadal? Not so much. Yes, he remains ahead but at the current pace that will change soon.

I don't expect Nole to beat, or even tie, Nadal in Slams. But that's only part of the story. This whole "Slams are everything" is really silly IMHO.

Nole already beats Nadal in weeks at number 1 and will likely beat him at YE1 by December. That's pretty big. It indicates that Djokovik dominated his peers to a greater extent than Nadal.

On Slams Nadal is ahead in two, Nole in one, and they are tied in the fourth. But that could easily change.

Nadal has a career slam and Nole doesn't, and that's a big negative for Djoker. But that also may change soon.

They are very close in M1000s, and Nole will likely be ahead this time next year. And of course Nole has won four WTFs, and Nadal none. That's a bit of a blemish for Nadal. Of course Nole has his lack of RG.

The one thing Nadal has in the whole "who is best" debate is his RG record. That is incredible, among the greater feats in modern sports. But it is only one tournament. Tennis is much, much more than that.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I've never been big on the "Slams Are Everything" bandwagon. However, at the moment I still think the gap in slams is still too big to warrant Djoko being on the same tier as Nadal. That will probably change in the future, but for now I still rank Nadal higher.

I don't really want another off topic GOAT discussion so I'll just say this. The Big Four is a NAME, it isn't some kind of prestige. If you want it to be the Big 3 plus Murray that's fine, go with that. I'll continue to refer to them as the Big Four.
 
If Murray wins RG somehow and then next year, finally ends his AO curse (capturing the CGS before Djokovic and within his first 4 slams like Sharapova), I wonder what the haters will say.

It won't happen but impossible is nothing ;)
 
Achilles82 said:
Andy Murray's mom Judy Murray posted a pic of Roger, Rafa, Andy and Novak when they were kids, saying "When the Big Four were the Wee Four".


https://twitter.com/judmoo/status/601428383512326145

And the pic is very cute and all that, but im tired of poeple constantly saying "The big Four"

Maybe the big four are Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic and Delpo with 1-2 grand slams, otherwise no such thing.

There is only the big three. Murray can't compare with success of Rafa, Roger or Novak.
Click to expand...

I agree. I personally wouldn't group player with 2 GS and 0 W @ #1 spot along with ATGs and call him "Big" by any stretch of imagination. Hewitt, Safin and Roddick were almost with the same level of achievement that of Murray. Guess why they gets unfair criticism of being part of weak opposition to Federer and Murray gets Big- X tag? It's matter of opinion though. Judy and Murray camp seems to be obsessed with this term because they want free glory and false appreciation through his inclusion in group ATG.
 
GabeT said:
I understand your point but I just don't agree with the premise that Slam counts are the starting point. To me that's simply a dumbing down of tennis results for the general public.

For me the first thing I look in tennis, like in any other sport, is who was the best in a given year. Real Madrid may beat Barcelona each time but if Barcelona ends up with more points at the end of the season they will be the champ.

There are many ways to show how good you are in tennis, and many ways to win points. Yes, Slams are the single most prestigious tournaments but they are not the only tournament. Nole won two clay masters this year. Are they worth nothing if he fails to win RG? I don't buy that at all. To win those masters Nole had to beat players like Nadal, Federer, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych. That's worth nothing?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. It is not that they are worth nothing but they add little in the way of legacy value unless we are comparing two players with the same slam count. It is only when two players have the same or very close slam count that we start looking at their Masters title haul, etc. Not until then. So what I am saying is, let Djokovic get closer to Nadal in the slam count before we can start to look at them on a more even keel. You simply can't do it when their slam count is so lopsided. There is no tennis analyst in history who would do it.
 
FedererDropShot said:
If Murray wins RG somehow and then next year, finally ends his AO curse (capturing the CGS before Djokovic and within his first 4 slams like Sharapova), I wonder what the haters will say.

It won't happen but impossible is nothing ;)
Click to expand...

I'm far from a Murray hater and I'd give credit where it's due if he achieved it but I'm not gonna lie - I'd be gutted if he did, at least before Novak anyway. :(
 
Mainad said:
Lol...how many threads are we going to get about this every time someone refers to a 'Big 4'? They're starting to get as frequent and predictable as the 'Who is the GOAT?' threads!

Here's a simple solution:

For those of us who think Murray has more common with the Big 3 than anyone else, referring to a Big 4 is natural and harmless.

For those of us, like the OP, who thinks Murray has more in common with the rest of the field than the Big 3, just use the term 'The Big 3 and Murray' if you need to discuss them collectively!


Is everybody happy now? Can we finally move on from this??
Click to expand...
Murray was also a top 4 (or even 5 player) for 5 years straight..

Wawrinka in comparison was only a top 5 player for one season.

Lol.
 
cc0509 said:
Essentially, yes. It is not that they are worth nothing but they add little in the way of legacy value unless we are comparing two players with the same slam count. It is only when two players have the same or very close slam count that we start looking at their Masters title haul, etc. Not until then. So what I am saying is, let Djokovic get closer to Nadal in the slam count before we can start to look at them on a more even keel. You simply can't do it when their slam count is so lopsided. There is no tennis analyst in history who would do it.
Click to expand...


OK, then we agree to disagree. To me Slams are not the starting point. At all. Not only are there other, better measures, like YE1, but as many have shown here the importance of Slams has varied widely over the years. Hardly a reliable yardstick.

In the end I am personally happy to enjoy all these incredible players, and leave it at that. But I think that if we are going to try to quantify the unquantifiable we can't just look at a subset of all results, no matter how prestigious they may be.

On the other hand the importance given to this year's RG results will make for a much more interesting tournament!
 
Sysyphus said:
Big four, three, two or one. They could all be true, depending on where you draw the line. It was simply coined at a time where they were taking up the four semi-final spots more often than not
Click to expand...

I can't agree. Rafa, Novak, and Fed are all timers. Trying to draw a distinction of a big 1 or 2 would be nonsensical. Murray on the other hand doesn't belong with the others. He's not an all timer and he's never even been number 1.
 
BringBackSV said:
I can't agree. Rafa, Novak, and Fed are all timers. Trying to draw a distinction of a big 1 or 2 would be nonsensical. Murray on the other hand doesn't belong with the others. He's not an all timer and he's never even been number 1.
Click to expand...
But look at how many titles he has.

Look at his record in Grand Slams.

Then tell me he belongs with Ferrer, Wawrinka, Del Potro, ect.
 
Mainad said:
Lol...how many threads are we going to get about this every time someone refers to a 'Big 4'? They're starting to get as frequent and predictable as the 'Who is the GOAT?' threads!

Here's a simple solution:

For those of us who think Murray has more common with the Big 3 than anyone else, referring to a Big 4 is natural and harmless.

For those of us, like the OP, who thinks Murray has more in common with the rest of the field than the Big 3, just use the term 'The Big 3 and Murray' if you need to discuss them collectively!


Is everybody happy now? Can we finally move on from this??
Click to expand...

Murray has more in common with everybody else than he does with the big three.
 
GabeT said:
OK, then we agree to disagree. To me Slams are not the starting point. At all. Not only are there other, better measures, like YE1, but as many have shown here the importance of Slams has varied widely over the years. Hardly a reliable yardstick.

In the end I am personally happy to enjoy all these incredible players, and leave it at that. But I think that if we are going to try to quantify the unquantifiable we can't just look at a subset of all results, no matter how prestigious they may be.

On the other hand the importance given to this year's RG results will make for a much more interesting tournament!
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion but no tennis analyst or great tennis player past or present would agree with you.

You must be very young and not long on tennis history. What are you, 17?
 
cc0509 said:
You are entitled to your opinion but no tennis analyst or great tennis player past or present would agree with you.

You must be very young and not long on tennis history. What are you, 17?
Click to expand...

See, when we start with silly ad hominems it makes me wonder about your emotional maturity.
 
Grand Slams aren't everything, but Djokovic's dominance is more on par with McEnroe than Federer.

Look at his 1984 season for example.

Federer won just about everything for 3 years straight. Djokovic has only managed to do that for 1 year at a time.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Doesn't matter. Fact remains that he hasn't won all the "big 5 titles" and probably never will.
Click to expand...
Djokovic will win Roland Garros eventually.

His real hole(s) are at Cincinnati and the US Open even though he's won the latter.
 
GabeT said:
See, when we start with silly ad hominems it makes me wonder about your emotional maturity.
Click to expand...

Yep, cc0 was very immature the way she responded to you then when you were doing nothing but put across your views in a rational, respectful manner. Very disappointing to see from her. :rolleyes:
 
GabeT said:
See, when we start with silly ad hominems it makes me wonder about your emotional maturity.
Click to expand...

It is not about that at all. Any person who is knowledgeable about tennis and tennis history would not agree with your opinion. It means that you must be very young and perhaps don't know a lot about tennis history. It is not an insult but a fact.
 
vive le beau jeu ! said:
it's not complicated... you just need to check the rankings:
1. djokovic
2. federer
3. murray
4. berdych
Click to expand...
You're so funny :)

The big 4 are just the 4 guys who have won most of the tier 1 in recent years, as simple as that. People are looking for unnecessary complications with their categories above or under.
It started with the big 2 (Fedal) in 2005 and 2006: the only 2 players to win multiple tier one in those years. Then in 2007, Novak joined the group and in 2008 Murray did. But the peak years of the big 4 were 2011 and 2012 (in 2011, they were the only players to win tier 1: Djoko 8 and 2 to each of the other 3, in 2012, each of the big 4 won 1 slam) and I would say that's when the "legend" of the big 4 took full flight.
In 2013, Fed sort of dropped out of the picture, in 2014, Murray did. In 2015? (Maybe Nadal)
 
Sabratha said:
Djokovic will win Roland Garros eventually.

His real hole(s) are at Cincinnati and the US Open even though he's won the latter.
Click to expand...

You see that's where cc0 will completely disagree with you because she doesn't care about anything other than the slams :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Big Four or No Big Four - That is the question
2 3
Replies
138
Views
4K
mattosgrant
M
mbm0912
"Big Four" No More?
2
Replies
51
Views
3K
Jheaphy
J
Levi_Ackerman
The Concept of the "Big Four"
Replies
37
Views
1K
Mainad
Mainad
Mick
Stan: I'm not as good as the Big Four
2
Replies
69
Views
5K
Chanwan
Chanwan
D
The Big Four
Replies
25
Views
2K
rockandroll
R
Back
Top