Should the Big 4 become the Big 5?

Should Stan the Man be included?

  • Yes; of course, he's won the same amount of Slams as Murray.

    Votes: 13 26.5%
  • No; Wawrinka is too inconsistent.

    Votes: 36 73.5%

  • Total voters
    49

ThomasGB

Semi-Pro
Now that Wawrinka's won two Slams, and a Masters 1000 title, and proved himself capable of beating Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray in Slams, should he be included in the elite group?
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
Well Stan has two slams, olympic gold, davis cup and masters title. Yeah, you can say there is a legitimate argument for it being a big five or four plus one now.
 

kiki

Banned
No
1/Nadal is no big 4 anymore
2/While Wavrinka and Murray have won the same amount of slams, Murray has done far better in the regular tour.Wavrinka still comes short ( and Del Potro is a lost cause for what it seems)
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Let's face reality here. This era has been truly dominated by three players and fourth one was Murray who never dominated but he has consistent results throughout his career. Media and part of Murray fan base were overly obsessed about including him in group ATGs for some obvious reasons. I think it's biggest Tennis joke of this century that 2 time GS champion was called as "Big" and got respected like ATG. No player in the history of Tennis had luxury of this before. It took just 18 months for Wawr to equal GS count of this supposed "Big" player after making first GS Final. Murray's superiority over the field is based on his additional Masters count and countless 250 level which is not big deal either. He is already 28 now. Realistically it's not possible for him to separate himself from the field winning 4-5 more GS titles and holding #1 spot for 100+ weeks like members of Big 3 group. So let's rest this media BS and call this era as "Era of Big 3 and Rest", if someone feels something special is going on now. But if someone want to call him Big and don't include Wawr in that group despite of having same success at GS level as that him, then it is not fair. Just call it Big 3 or 5. Noway Murray only deserves this special treatment.
 
Last edited:

Terry Tibbs

Hall of Fame
Not sure how Nadal can be big 4 when he his now ranked 10. For me Wawrinka is amongst the 2nd tier players with Murray and Federer. Djokovic is still tier 1 on his own.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Not sure how Nadal can be big 4 when he his now ranked 10. For me Wawrinka is amongst the 2nd tier players with Murray and Federer. Djokovic is still tier 1 on his own.
Rafa, Rog, and Novak are ATG players, their current ranking means little. Novak's tier is 2nd.
 
Not sure how Nadal can be big 4 when he his now ranked 10. For me Wawrinka is amongst the 2nd tier players with Murray and Federer. Djokovic is still tier 1 on his own.
Not sure how Nadal can be big 4? How about 14 goddamn grand slams in an era featuring arguably the greatest tennis player of all time.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Clearly, no one here understands what "the big four" was meant as. You are trying to expropriate a coined term and give another meaning altogether. To give a hint, Murray was slamless when the phrase was coined, so that was never the intent.
 
Let's face reality here. This era has been truly dominated by three players and fourth one was Murray who never dominated but he has consistent results throughout his career. Media and part of Murray fan base were overly obsessed about including him in group ATGs for some obvious reasons. I think it's biggest Tennis joke of this century that 2 time GS champion was called as "Big" and got respected like ATG. No player in the history of Tennis had luxury of this before. It took just 18 months for Wawr to equal GS count of this supposed "Big" player after making first GS Final. Murray's superiority over the field is based on his additional Masters count and countless 250 level which is not big deal either. He is already 28 now. Realistically it's not possible for him to separate himself from the field winning 4-5 more GS titles and holding #1 spot for 100+ weeks like members of Big 3 group. So let's rest this media BS and call this era as "Era of Big 3 and Rest", if someone feels something special is going on now. But if someone want to call him Big and don't include Wawr in that group despite of having same success at GS level as that him, then it is not fair. Just call it Big 3 or 5. Noway Murray only deserves this special treatment.
Are you going to ignore Murray's 6 RU finishes in Grand Slams?
 

dmt

Hall of Fame
Let's face reality here. This era has been truly dominated by three players and fourth one was Murray who never dominated but he has consistent results throughout his career. Media and part of Murray fan base were overly obsessed about including him in group ATGs for some obvious reasons. I think it's biggest Tennis joke of this century that 2 time GS champion was called as "Big" and got respected like ATG. No player in the history of Tennis had luxury of this before. It took just 18 months for Wawr to equal GS count of this supposed "Big" player after making first GS Final. Murray's superiority over the field is based on his additional Masters count and countless 250 level which is not big deal either. He is already 28 now. Realistically it's not possible for him to separate himself from the field winning 4-5 more GS titles and holding #1 spot for 100+ weeks like members of Big 3 group. So let's rest this media BS and call this era as "Era of Big 3 and Rest", if someone feels something special is going on now. But if someone want to call him Big and don't include Wawr in that group despite of having same success at GS level as that him, then it is not fair. Just call it Big 3 or 5. Noway Murray only deserves this special treatment.
I could not agree more. There isn't a big four. If Murray had five majors by now, then you could make such an argument. At this time, there is a possibility that Wawrinka could end up winning more majors than Murray.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
People need to stop with this stuff. There was a Big 4 and yes, Murray was a part of it but that section of tennis history is over now and has been for a couple of years.

2013 - Federer only won 1 title the entire year. Was not a "Big 4" member
2014 - Murray had an equally average season. Was not a "Big 4" member
2015 - Nadal having a terrible season so far. Currently not a "Big 4" Member.
2016 - Djokovic's turn?
 

sdont

Legend
Clearly, no one here understands what "the big four" was meant as. You are trying to expropriate a coined term and give another meaning altogether. To give a hint, Murray was slamless when the phrase was coined, so that was never the intent.
It's just an excuse to start yet another thread on this topic.
 

Rebel-I.N.S

Professional
People need to stop with this stuff. There was a Big 4 and yes, Murray was a part of it but that section of tennis history is over now and has been for a couple of years.

2013 - Federer only won 1 title the entire year. Was not a "Big 4" member
2014 - Murray had an equally average season. Was not a "Big 4" member
2015 - Nadal having a terrible season so far. Currently not a "Big 4" Member.
2016 - Djokovic's turn?
This.

So many people eager to denigrate Murray.

What has Federer done Slam wise since 2012 to merit a Big 4 place?

If your argument is ranking, then there are contradicttions all over the place.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Are you going to ignore Murray's 6 RU finishes in Grand Slams?
Of course he is. Like all Class 1 Murray haters, he'd like to ignore Murray altogether if he could! Posters like him persistently try to confuse the argument for a Big 4, ie. the current 4 most accomplished players on the tour, with who is an ATG which, of course, is a completely different discussion!

These type of posters will have no problem at all including Wawrinka as part of a best players group (which he currently is). It is only Murray that they don't want to include for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons. It is easy to tell from the supercilious and contemptuous tone they always adopt when Murray is mentioned. They never behave like this towards any other player!

You can spot their agenda a mile away!
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Let's face reality here. This era has been truly dominated by three players and fourth one was Murray who never dominated but he has consistent results throughout his career. Media and part of Murray fan base were overly obsessed about including him in group ATGs for some obvious reasons. I think it's biggest Tennis joke of this century that 2 time GS champion was called as "Big" and got respected like ATG. No player in the history of Tennis had luxury of this before. It took just 18 months for Wawr to equal GS count of this supposed "Big" player after making first GS Final. Murray's superiority over the field is based on his additional Masters count and countless 250 level which is not big deal either. He is already 28 now. Realistically it's not possible for him to separate himself from the field winning 4-5 more GS titles and holding #1 spot for 100+ weeks like members of Big 3 group. So let's rest this media BS and call this era as "Era of Big 3 and Rest", if someone feels something special is going on now. But if someone want to call him Big and don't include Wawr in that group despite of having same success at GS level as that him, then it is not fair. Just call it Big 3 or 5. Noway Murray only deserves this special treatment.
Djokovic sure is "dominating" by losing half of his Grand Slam finals..
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Of course he is. Like all Class 1 Murray haters, he'd like to ignore Murray altogether if he could! Posters like him persistently try to confuse the argument for a Big 4, ie. the current 4 most accomplished players on the tour, with who is an ATG which, of course, is a completely different discussion!

These type of posters will have no problem at all including Wawrinka as part of a best players group (which he currently is). It is only Murray that they don't want to include for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons. It is easy to tell from the supercilious and contemptuous tone they always adopt when Murray is mentioned. They never behave like this towards any other player!

You can spot their agenda a mile away!
OK. Top class drivel. You even didn't need post that as we all know anyone who questions Murray's place in ATG group, refuses to rate him that high automatically qualifies as "Class 1 hater" in book of mental patients from his fan base. He/She posses agenda of putting great Murray down and it has nothing to do with the fact that he properly belongs to group of players having 1-2 GS titles rather than ATGs.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
OK. Top class drivel. You even didn't need post that as we all know anyone who questions Murray's place in ATG group, refuses to rate him that high automatically qualifies as "Class 1 hater" in book of mental patients from his fan base. He/She posses agenda of putting great Murray down and it has nothing to do with the fact that he properly belongs to group of players having 1-2 GS titles rather than ATGs.
If Murray doesn't belong in the Big 4, neither does Djokovic.

8-8 in Grand Slam finals is appalling for a player of Djokovic's caliber.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I mean, we can easily say that players with 8 Grand Slam titles is where Djokovic belongs, a far cry from Federer and Nadal who own 17 and 14 respectively.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Are you going to ignore Murray's 6 RU finishes in Grand Slams?
Even with considering 2-6 losing record in GS Finals, does his resume good enough to be called "Big" player? It certainly looks very good achievements to have 8 GS Finals under belt but your legacy will be defined by Winner's trophies but not by RU plates. Nobody rates Lendl or Djokovic as tier 1 great for losing tons of GS Finals. Currently they gets rated based on number of GS titles they have. Same for Murray, he's definitely better than Wawr at this moment due his consistency records but guess it will remain same or not if Wawr wins third GS titles? Personally I will take 1 trophy over 10 RU plates.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic sure is "dominating" by losing half of his Grand Slam finals..
Are you remotely trying to say Djokovic never dominated Tennis? If an All Time player with 8 GS titles, 150 weeks @ #1 positions, 4 WTF titles, second most number of wins over Top 10 opposition of the era, 24 Masters and 50+ titles "never" dominated Tennis, then who did? I'm sure there must be 3-4 truly dominant open era players in Sabratha's book. Djokovic achieved more significant things in his just one dominant stretch than Murray did throughout his career. Same can be said for Federer or Nadal too.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It looks like for Murray fans the tag of "Big 4" is as big as winning a major or two.

"Big 4" today is as relevant or irrelevant as "Boom-Boom" for Becker today. If you are going to ask Becker to serve today , it is going to be like Andy's second serve.
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
I mean, we can easily say that players with 8 Grand Slam titles is where Djokovic belongs, a far cry from Federer and Nadal who own 17 and 14 respectively.
Yes, Djokovic arguably doesn't belong to league of Federer but so as Nadal. Federer has best resume in Open era, closely followed by Sampras. Nadal and Djokovic both have their shortcomings. Nadal's resume is heavily skewed towards clay, he lacks surface versatility and consistency of Federer while Djokovic has everything but poor record in GS Finals. Still at the the end of the day all three are All Time Great players. There might be arguments possible for their positions in All Time list but nobody can deny that every one comfortably well above the field by winning majority of GS titles in last decade. Couple it with the fact that member of this group has occupied top position in Men's Tennis for last 11years and steak still continues. When was the last time we saw domination like this? It's true that the period all three dominated Tennis never existed but Big 3 term holds for 2004-15 era to represent successive domination of 3 All Time Great Players. Now tell me how we can fit 2 time GS champion like Murray or Wawr in framework involving three Giants of Sport? I don't think Big 4/5 term makes much sense or reflects reality. You may have other opinion about this but I respectfully disagree. Only point I was trying to make that if you want to include Murray in group, we have others like Wawr, Hewitt, Safin who equally deserves similar kind of tag. In reality, none of them truly dominated Tennis, their consistency level may vary but they all belongs to same group or tier. No single player deserves special treatment, simple as that..
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Are you remotely trying to say Djokovic never dominated Tennis? If an All Time player with 8 GS titles, 150 weeks @ #1 positions, 4 WTF titles, second most number of wins over Top 10 opposition of the era, 24 Masters and 50+ titles "never" dominated Tennis, then who did? I'm sure there must be 3-4 truly dominant open era players in Sabratha's book. Djokovic achieved more significant things in his just one dominant stretch than Murray did throughout his career. Same can be said for Federer or Nadal too.
What I'm saying is it's stupid to say "Murray doesn't belong in this group because of his record and the fact he's only won 2 Grand Slams" when Djokovic really ain't that much better in terms of converting the final to a title.

And I wouldn't call someone who wins a single Grand Slam a year a "dominating force" in tennis.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
OK. Top class drivel. You even didn't need post that as we all know anyone who questions Murray's place in ATG group, refuses to rate him that high automatically qualifies as "Class 1 hater" in book of mental patients from his fan base. He/She posses agenda of putting great Murray down and it has nothing to do with the fact that he properly belongs to group of players having 1-2 GS titles rather than ATGs.
As usual, you completely ignore the point at hand which is that, as things currently stand (and has stood for most of the past 7 years), Murray has been one of the 4 best players playing today, hence the justified term 'Big 4'. This has got nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion who is or who isn't an ATG but of course it suits you to ignore that point and deliberately try to confuse the 2 arguments just so you can take potshots at Murray and his record and enjoy putting him down as often as you can.

The fact is that both Murray and Wawrinka are amongst the big 4 players today (being ranked #3 and #4 respectively) whether you like it or not. End of!
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Yes, Djokovic arguably doesn't belong to league of Federer but so as Nadal. Federer has best resume in Open era, closely followed by Sampras. Nadal and Djokovic both have their shortcomings. Nadal's resume is heavily skewed towards clay, he lacks surface versatility and consistency of Federer while Djokovic has everything but poor record in GS Finals. Still at the the end of the day all three are All Time Great players. There might be arguments possible for their positions in All Time list but nobody can deny that every one comfortably well above the field by winning majority of GS titles in last decade. Couple it with the fact that member of this group has occupied top position in Men's Tennis for last 11years and steak still continues. When was the last time we saw domination like this? It's true that the period all three dominated Tennis never existed but Big 3 term holds for 2004-15 era to represent successive domination of 3 All Time Great Players. Now tell me how we can fit 2 time GS champion like Murray or Wawr in framework involving three Giants of Sport? I don't think Big 4/5 term makes much sense or reflects reality. You may have other opinion about this but I respectfully disagree. Only point I was trying to make that if you want to include Murray in group, we have others like Wawr, Hewitt, Safin who equally deserves similar kind of tag. In reality, none of them truly dominated Tennis, their consistency level may vary but they all belongs to same group or tier. No single player deserves special treatment, simple as that..
Hewitt and Safin were apart of a Big 4 along with Roddick in 2004-2005.. That Big 4 was surpassed by the current one.

I also don't believe that winning a single GS title a year warrants a "domination" title. Consistent, reliable, yes. But dominating? Lol no.

Aside from 2011, please provide a year where Djokovic has truly dominated. Already in 2015 he's lost his second Grand Slam final.
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Right now there is the Big 1, Nole. All others pale in comparison.

He won't win all the Slams, at all, but if you want to win a Slam today chances are you will need to beat him, and most of the time that means beating him at the finals. Of course that means reaching a Slam final which is relatively easy for Nole but very, very hard for everyone else. No other player today comes even close to Nole on consistency.

Neither Federer nor Nadal are part of the "Big Group" anymore, they've lost that consistency, Nadal more than Federer.

Who else can join Nole at the top of the heap today? No one has shown the necessary consistency. But it could be Stan or Murray if they start winning more.
 
Last edited:

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
I think so.

My initial answer was "no." Stan has the 2 Slams, the wins over the "Big 4 members," but he generally does not have the "deep run" consistency of the Big 4 over a number of years.

But, so what. At this point in time we cannot discuss how a Slam or any other tournament will unfold without talking about Stan - how is he playing, where is he in the draw, etc. He is undoubtedly a real, concrete factor as of right now. Simply, if he plays like he is capable of playing, he can beat all the other players and win the tournament. He has the presence of a champion, even if an erratic one.

So, yes, I vote for "Big 5".
 

AnotherTennisProdigy

Professional
The "Big Four" era is over with Federer and Nadal on the decline, no need to make things weird. If anything it'll be a Neo Big Three with Novak, Murray, and Wawrinka, although Wawrinka will have to be more consistent to have me convinced.
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
Yes... for the moment. But to consolidate the FO win, Stan needs at least a semifinal appearance in either of two remaining slams. Or, goes back to Big 4.
 

newpball

Legend
Now that Wawrinka's won two Slams, and a Masters 1000 title, and proved himself capable of beating Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray in Slams, should he be included in the elite group?
Nope, for two reasons:

1. He is too flaky.
2. He is old age in pro tennis years.

:grin:
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
I view the big 3/4 moniker as a reference to their historical standing and not something tied to their current ranking.
And Wawrinka's "historical standing" is a top 20 player at best. Only very recently has he become a very top player.

Murray deserves more respect than this. He's been a top 12 player for 7 years now. And for 6 of those 7 years, he was a top 5 player. Can't say the same for Wawrinka.
 
Top