no such thing as "the big four"

Djokovic2011 said:
Depends who you mean by "nobody". If you mean the general public who don't really pay attention to tennis(and who cares what they think anyway) then you're probably right. But if you're talking about actual tennis commentators/analyists, of course Nole's 7 clay Masters add something to his legacy. To say otherwise seems very silly to me.
Click to expand...

That is exactly whom I am talking about, i.e. tennis commentators and tennis analysts. I repeat, those Masters won't mean much for Djokovic's overall clay legacy if he can't win the FO. I would say the same for Federer if he wasn't able to win the FO. Masters 1000 titles are secondary. They are looked at only AFTER the slams. Enough nonsense already. :mad:
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Wait till you read his next post! :wink:
Click to expand...

hehehe no offense but I don't see anyone stopping Djokovic at RG for couple of years. I really want either Roger or Rafa to win RG this year as they have only very few chances at winning a major.

As far as Roger is concerned, I just hope the draw magically opens up for him and he makes a decent run.
 
veroniquem said:
Yeah ask them, especially since McEnroe has won FEWER slams total than still active Djoko and Borg (like McEnroe) won only 2 of the 4 slams (never USO for Borg, never RG for McEnroe) while Djoko has already won 3 of them...
On top of which, neither McEnroe nor Borg even bothered playing all 4 slams. I bet Philadelphia meant more to them than AO.
Click to expand...

Yes, McEnroe has won fewer slams than Djokovic and you can argue they are in the same tier but Djokovic is not in Borg's tier yet.

It doesn't matter if McEnroe and Borg played all four slams. The slams they did play mattered most at the time.
 
GabeT said:
Luckily, I can't read that poster anymore!

I wonder is he/she is actually 17? How can you be so unaware of how much the importance of Slams has changed over the years?
Click to expand...

Personally I think you should take cc0 off ignore. Not because I think she's treated you well tonight(she really hasn't) but because you have some good points to make and it would be better to make them to her directly and highlight certain things that you don't agree with. She can be trying at times but you just gotta bite the bullet, be tolerant and get it all off your chest! :)
 
GabeT said:
I started watching in the late 70s/early 80s. Back then Slams were important but they were not the be all and end all they are made to be today. I stopped watching for a long time after that so I wasn't sure when the whole Slam fetish began. it makes sense the US press hyped it after Sampras.
Click to expand...
Slams have always been a good metric when it comes to determining 'who is the better player' when their achievements are relatively close.

Since Djokovic has won so much outside Grand Slams and is racking them up anyway; a comparison between Nadal and Djokovic isn't hogwash anymore.
 
If Murray trolls everyone and wins FO, then he should be considered having completed the set with so many attempts at AO.

Add to that his Olympics.

Man, he will definitely lay a claim to the 'Big 4 ' then.
 
cc0509 said:
That is exactly whom I am talking about, i.e. tennis commentators and tennis analysts. I repeat, those Masters won't mean much for Djokovic's overall clay legacy if he can't win the FO. I would say the same for Federer if he wasn't able to win the FO. Masters 1000 titles are secondary. They are looked at only AFTER the slams. Enough nonsense already. :mad:
Click to expand...

What I meant is that no-one's gonna regard him as a lousy clay courter even if he doesn't go on to win RG, not when he's won all those Masters 1000s with full fields. Surely you at least agree with that cc0? :?
 
In any case, no matter what the popular press says, we can reach our own conclusions. Today's top tennis players have a highly structured set of tournaments where they meet each other regularly, what vero calls Tier 1. They are great because in all of them you can expect to face the best players in the world, and that explains why they are all dominated by the big 4. In contrast the 250 and 500 tourneys are much more up for grabs and will rarely if ever include all the top players.

So these tier 1 events, or whatever you want to call them, are a great way to measure, across surfaces and throughout the year, who the best players are.

Focusing only on four of these 14 events is silly and completely at odds with what the pros actually do. No pro ever has thought that winning Rome is useless, much less that winning it four times is irrelevant, this is the kind of nonsense that only someone who is not part of the tour can believe.
 
tennisaddict said:
If Murray trolls everyone and wins FO, then he should be considered having completed the set with so many attempts at AO.

Add to that his Olympics.

Man, he will definitely lay a claim to the 'Big 4 ' then.
Click to expand...
And then Murray goes on to win the CYGS next year and every Masters shield plus the WTF.

Suddenly, this era will have gotten even stronger.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Personally I think you should take cc0 off ignore. Not because I think she's treated you well tonight(she really hasn't) but because you have some good points to make and it would be better to make them to her directly and highlight certain things that you don't agree with. She can be trying at times but you just gotta bite the bullet, be tolerant and get it all off your chest! :)
Click to expand...

I second that.

I have never put anyone on ignore list. I am a die hard supporter of freedom of expression, and I find it very childish to put a person in "ignore" list just because that person's views are not in conformity with that of yours!

On top of that, I know cc0509 for close to three and half years, I never saw her flame or bait other posters, troll or hate on players. She has an opinion, and she has every right to express it :)
 
Sabratha said:
I've been watching tennis since 1995, and since 2011 I've taken a deeper look into the history of the game. If that makes me a child, (or an ignoramus) so be it. But my point still stands.

In 1995, most people were talking about Sampras' weeks at #1 and dominance over the field, come 1998 it was all about the Grand Slams. If that doesn't show even a slight shift over the course of time then I don't know what does.
Click to expand...

Maybe there was a 'slight' shift and slams became even greater than they once were but slams were always the most important metric long before Sampras.
 
Feather said:
I second that.

I have never put anyone on ignore list. I am a die hard supporter of freedom of expression, and I find it very childish to put a person in "ignore" list just because that person's views are not in conformity with that of yours!

On top of that, I know cc0509 for close to three and half years, I never saw her flame or bait other posters, troll or hate on players. She has an opinion, and she has every right to express it :)
Click to expand...

She has a right to express her opinion but I don't need to deal with her trolling, which is what she did when she repeatedly called me a 17 year ignorant kid. I find that passive aggressive behavior very boorish.
 
Last edited:
Feather said:
I second that.

I have never put anyone on ignore list. I am a die hard supporter of freedom of expression, and I find it very childish to put a person in "ignore" list just because that person's views are not in conformity with that of yours!

On top of that, I know cc0509 for close to three and half years, I never saw her flame or bait other posters, troll or hate on players. She has an opinion, and she has every right to express it :)
Click to expand...

I haven't either. It seems like a childish thing. Just skip over the posters you don't want to read. If I haven't put tennis_commentator or Nostradamus on ignore, I can stomach anybody. :)
 
cc0509 said:
Maybe there was a 'slight' shift and slams became even greater than they once were but slams were always the most important metric long before Sampras.
Click to expand...
They've always been the most important metric.

But, Masters had a lot more value in the 1980s compared to the 1990s due to the fact Sampras was closing in on Emerson's record.
 
GabeT said:
She has a right to express her opinion b t I don't need to deal with her trolling, which is what she did when she repeatedly called me a 17 year ignorant kid. I find that passive aggressive behavior very boorish.
Click to expand...

She obviously didn't pay much attention to your sig beforehand. :wink:
 
cc0509 said:
Maybe there was a 'slight' shift and slams became even greater than they once were but slams were always the most important metric long before Sampras.
Click to expand...

These folks should watch youtube videos of 80's.

I remember 1988 AO Steffi Graf vs Chris Evert, commentators were talking about how huge it would be for Chrissie to win more majors after she had already earned 18 upto that point !!
 
tennisaddict said:
These folks should watch youtube videos of 80's.

I remember 1988 AO Steffi Graf vs Chris Evert, commentators were talking about how huge it would be for Chrissie to win more majors after she had already earned 18 upto that point !!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Slams were always THE metric.
 
tennisaddict said:
These folks should watch youtube videos of 80's.

I remember 1988 AO Steffi Graf vs Chris Evert, commentators were talking about how huge it would be for Chrissie to win more majors after she had already earned 18 upto that point !!
Click to expand...

There's a difference between saying Slams are the single most important indicator and saying they are the ONLY indicator.
 
GabeT said:
There's a difference between saying Slams are the single most important indicator and saying they are the ONLY indicator.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is the main gripe I've always had with cc0. Slams are great but you gotta look at other things too. Broaden your horizons a little! :)
 
The term big 4 has been used since around 2008, as far as I can remember. They were the four guys who could beat each other and dominate the field. The term was not based on the current state of their achievements, but rather on the fact that these 4 players were the players who had genuine chance of winning tournaments. Dismissing big 4 and only calling big 3 is somewhat retrospective.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Yep, which is the main gripe I've always had with cc0. Slams are great but you gotta look at other things too. Broaden your horizons a little! :)
Click to expand...

But I have never said they are the ONLY indicator. I said they are the most important indicator. Two different things. If two players have the same or close to the same slam count that is when you start to look more closely at the other important stats. You can't do that when there is a gap of six slams and you know that.
 
GabeT said:
There's a difference between saying Slams are the single most important indicator and saying they are the ONLY indicator.
Click to expand...

Versatility, Weeks at Number 1 and YEC are also very important. ( Masters are diluted , WTF not as high as YEC due to BO3).

If Murray gets the career slam, you would think he would be pretty close to Becker/Edberg even though he may be 2 majors short.
 
cc0509 said:
But I have never said they are the ONLY indicator. I said they are the most important indicator. Two different things. If two players have the same or close to the same slam count that is when you start to look more closely at the other important stats. You can't do that when there is a gap of six slams and you know that.
Click to expand...

Nope, not when there's a gap of 6 slams but let's just say things could get pretty interesting in the next 18 months or so.....
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Nope, not when there's a gap of 6 slams but let's just say things could get pretty interesting in the next 18 months or so.....
Click to expand...

They just might. One step at a time. You never know what is around the corner. Just when you think you do know.....BOOM.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Lol, I never disagreed with you or cc0 on that part in the first place. :wink:
Click to expand...

Don't keep high expectations based on what's happening right now. If you do that, the disappointment will be very huge.

After AO 2010, I never thought, Roger Federer, the guy who won three of the last four majors, the guy who made eight consecutive finals wouldn't even reach a final of a major that year. As a defending champion he didn't even make it to SF at SW 19.

Now Djokovic is at the same age Roger was then. Things can change. 28 is not that young in Tennis no matter how well you dominate.

If you keep this in mind, you will save yourself from disappontment.
 
cc0509 said:
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.
Click to expand...


It's weird, I could have sworn it was Wimbledon Djoko won last year.
Also very interesting to learn that making 3 slam finals a year (2011, 2012 and 2013) = doing nothing. (I'll have to remember that next time Fed fans make a fuss about his 10 consecutive slam finals or his 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals)
Isn't your argument that Djoko cannot be compared to Nadal? Well, for 6 of the 9 years Nadal won RG, he's done nothing else either!

You see, they have more in common than you thought ;)
 
veroniquem said:
It's weird, I could have sworn it was Wimbledon Djoko won last year.
Also very interesting to learn that making 3 slam finals a year (2011, 2012 and 2013) = doing nothing. (I'll have to remember that next time Fed fans make a fuss about his 10 consecutive slam finals or his 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals)
Isn't your argument that Djoko cannot be compared to Nadal? Well, for 6 of the 9 years Nadal won RG, he's done nothing else either!

You see, they have more in common than you thought ;)
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't get the memo vero. Winning is all that matters to cc0, consistency can go take a hike!
 
veroniquem said:
It's weird, I could have sworn it was Wimbledon Djoko won last year.
Also very interesting to learn that making 3 slam finals a year (2011, 2012 and 2013) = doing nothing. (I'll have to remember that next time Fed fans make a fuss about his 10 consecutive slam finals or his 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals)
Isn't your argument that Djoko cannot be compared to Nadal? Well, for 6 of the 9 years Nadal won RG, he's done nothing else either!

You see, they have more in common than you thought ;)
Click to expand...

That is why Federer is the best for me. He dominated at more than one slam during his best years unlike both Nadal and Djokovic. ;)
 
veroniquem said:
It's weird, I could have sworn it was Wimbledon Djoko won last year.
Also very interesting to learn that making 3 slam finals a year (2011, 2012 and 2013) = doing nothing. (I'll have to remember that next time Fed fans make a fuss about his 10 consecutive slam finals or his 3 seasons of making 4 slam finals)
Isn't your argument that Djoko cannot be compared to Nadal? Well, for 6 of the 9 years Nadal won RG, he's done nothing else either!

You see, they have more in common than you thought ;)
Click to expand...


Nadal has three multi slam winning years. Djokovic has only one, and they are only one year apart.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
You obviously didn't get the memo vero. Winning is all that matters to cc0, consistency can go take a hike!
Click to expand...

If Nole wins Wimbledon this year he will beat Nadal in two of the four Slams. Not too bad, huh?

If he wins Wimbledon and USO he will beat Nadal in two of the slams and tie him on a third. That would leave RG as Nadal's sole claim to being better. Just one tournament!
 
GabeT said:
If Nole wins Wimbledon this year he will beat Nadal in two of the four Slams. Not too bad, huh?

If he wins Wimbledon and USO he will beat Nadal in two of the slams and tie him on a third. That would leave RG as Nadal's sole claim to being better. Just one tournament!
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be wonderful? I'm keeping my fingers(and everything else) crossed believe me! :)
 
cc0509 said:
That is why Federer is the best for me. He dominated at more than one slam during his best years unlike both Nadal and Djokovic. ;)
Click to expand...
Fed being the best of the 3 doesn't mean they should all be in a separate category. It seems to me that's what this argument is about. Within the category "best players of open era", Fed is #1... for now ;)
 
veroniquem said:
Fed being the best of the 3 doesn't mean they should all be in a separate category. It seems to me that's what this argument is about. Within the category "best players of open era", Fed is #1... for now ;)
Click to expand...

I can't put Nadal in the same category as Federer just yet and I can't put Djokovic in Nadal's category just yet. They both have some work to do.
 
Feather said:
Nadal has three multi slam winning years. Djokovic has only one, and they are only one year apart.
Click to expand...
True that. Then again Djoko has 4 WTF, Nadal has 0. Djoko has 147 weeks at #1 (and counting, I'm sure you're aware that nobody else is close to taking #1 at this point), Nadal has 141.
To each their own strengths and weaknesses.
 
veroniquem said:
True that. Then again Djoko has 4 WTF, Nadal has 0. Djoko has 147 weeks at #1 (and counting, I'm sure you're aware that nobody else is close to taking #1 at this point), Nadal has 141.
To each their own strengths and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Djokovic's weeks at number one is amazing. I think it's a lock for atleast an year, considering the points lead he has, that's like dding 52 more to it
 
tennisaddict said:
Federer is in a tier of his own at the top of the pyramid watching what is going on underneath.
Click to expand...
And yet, there are 2 active players who have more master titles than him and 2 active players who have a better winning % than him. Not that impressive for someone who has his own little ivory tower- slash- personal category...
 
veroniquem said:
Oh who's in Fed's category then if Nadal is not?
Click to expand...

Nadal is close but not quite there. That three slam gap still puts Federer in a category by himself. Nadal has the Masters 1000 record and h2h over Federer, but Federer has much better number one stats, the WTFs, a better slam distribution, etc. If Nadal can win a couple of more slams and not just FOs to get to 16, that would be a another story. It seems Nadal has stalled for now.
 
Feather said:
Djokovic's weeks at number one is amazing. I think it's a lock for atleast an year, considering the points lead he has, that's like dding 52 more to it
Click to expand...
Yeah, if he finished this year at #1, he would pass McEnroe's 170, which would put him top 5 in open era.
 
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...

Nailed it. Great post. Way to show Andy appropriate respect.
 
veroniquem said:
And yet, there are 2 active players who have more master titles than him and 2 active players who have a better winning % than him. Not that impressive for someone who has his own little ivory tower- slash- personal category...
Click to expand...

If Rafa gets to 18 majors, then his h2h, masters and win % will come into play and will compensate for his lack of versatility, weeks at number 1 , lack of WTF and clay hogging (46 of 65 titles).

But till then the masters titles and win % are just trivia.
 
tennisaddict said:
If Rafa gets to 18 majors, then his h2h, masters and win % will come into play and will compensate for his lack of versatility, weeks at number 1 , lack of WTF and clay hogging (46 of 65 titles).

But till then the masters titles and win % are just trivia.
Click to expand...

H2H never comes into play. Ever. Total garbage stat for the uninformed. Literally tells you nothing about the quality of a particular tennis player.
 
tennisaddict said:
If Rafa gets to 18 majors, then his h2h, masters and win % will come into play and will compensate for his lack of versatility, weeks at number 1 , lack of WTF and clay hogging (46 of 65 titles).

.
Click to expand...


What clay hogging? Fed has won 60 of his 85 titles on hard court/carpet. That's about the same %: 70 something.
What lack of versatility? Nadal has won titles on every surface. He's also the only player who did the clay sweep (3 masters + RG), the grass sweep (Queen's + Wimbledon) AND the summer hard court sweep (2 masters + slam)
He's also 1 of only 4 players in open era who have won the 4 slams.
And he's the only player to have won slams on clay, grass and hard in the same season.
 
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