Should the Big 4 become the Big 5?

[BringBackSV]

In that case, why does Stan deserve to be there more than Andy?

Personal preference, it could go either way.

 

[Mainad]

Personal preference, it could go either way.

But we can't substitute personal preference for objective reality, can we? The fact remains that, at this moment of time anyway, Murray has achieved a lot more than Stan.

However, if Stan wins another Slam and Murray doesn't, then I'm perfectly prepared to review the situation. :wink:

 

[Gary Duane]

I said no, but if Stan continues winning, I'll change that vote in the future. And I'd like to be wrong, because what Stan brings to the game is all good.

 

[Bartelby]

It's a bit like the UN Security Council: it has Britain and France on it to reflect the balance of power at the end of the war. The big four now also reflects an old balance of power.

 

[BringBackSV]

But we can't substitute personal preference for objective reality, can we? The fact remains that, at this moment of time anyway, Murray has achieved a lot more than Stan.

However, if Stan wins another Slam and Murray doesn't, then I'm perfectly prepared to review the situation.

Murray has achieved more but not by much. It's a really tough call but Ill take Stan. I find his aggressive style and the success he's achieved with it to be more noteworthy in this era than Andy's poor attempt at being Novak. I would not argue vehemently against having Andy in the 4th spot though. If Andy gets to 3 slams then he goes back to 4, assuming Stanimal stays at 2..

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray has achieved more but not by much. It's a really tough call but Ill take Stan. I find his aggressive style and the success he's achieved with it to be more noteworthy in this era than Andy's poor attempt at being Novak. I would not argue vehemently against having Andy in the 4th spot though. If Andy gets to 3 slams then he goes back to 4, assuming Stanimal stays at 2..

Murray: 10 Masters titles plus an Olympic Gold medal in singles.
Wawrinka: 1 Masters title.

Not much eh?

 

[MichaelNadal]

The big 4 will always be the big 4. No need to try to change history, we know who those 4 guys are. Stan doesn't need any monikers, what he's doing is great

 

[Mainad]

Murray has achieved more but not by much. It's a really tough call but Ill take Stan. I find his aggressive style and the success he's achieved with it to be more noteworthy in this era than Andy's poor attempt at being Novak. I would not argue vehemently against having Andy in the 4th spot though. If Andy gets to 3 slams then he goes back to 4, assuming Stanimal stays at 2..

Now your bias is showing simply because you like Stan and don't like Murray but that's no excuse for ignoring or disrespecting Murray's vastly superior accomplishments compared to Stan.

Murray has 33 titles including 2 Slams, 6 other finals, 10 Masters titles and an OG.

Wawrinka has 10 titles including 2 Slams, no other finals and 1 Masters title.

So not much scope for argument there!


However, as I said, if Stan's Slam count starts to exceed Murray's, we can talk again!

 

[Deleted member 733170]

How about the Magnificent Seven?

Who gets to be Yul Brynner?

Davydenko! After all Nadal is his pidgeon.

 

[frinton]

Stan answered this with a clear 'no' in the interview here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=9395411
(In French, 1 weeks before RG started)
The big 4 is about the consistent results they have shown for a decade now! How many GS did we have in the last decade where the quarters where Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray?
In terms of achievements (GS titles) Murray is clearly behind and on the same level as Wawrinka now. But he was always right there... Like Ferrer has been very consistently right there too... Just behind the big 4!
So from today's perspective, the big 4 remain and nothing will change that so quickly! They have dominated a decade (together) and I don't think we will see such a thing so soon again! Should Stan maintain his incredible level of the last 2 years, increase consistency, while the big 4 continue to be very significant (let's say for another 3-4 years, then we might have to review the situation and speak of the big 5! And still Wawrinka would be the one who joined the party late.

 

[D.Nalby12]

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.

Who is talking about conversion rate in GS Finals here? Only yourself. I was talking about overall achievements. Fact remains same here Djokovic even with poor conversion rate has comfortably separated himself from the lower field with 4 times GS titles as compared to closest competitor. (Wawr or Murray) Consider 150 W @ #1and 4 WTF titles on top of that. Murray or Wawr can't claim the same. Currently they have shared GS count with just one more title than closest competitor (Cilic), none of them could hold top spot in the ranking just for one week, let alone 150 weeks. They are part of the second tier of field or may be little above but definitely not first tier or "Big" players if you look at their achievements

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

You don't get #1 spot in ranking without dominating Tennis. Guess why Murray was never #1?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Who is talking about conversion rate in GS Finals here? Only yourself. I was talking about overall achievements. Fact remains same here Djokovic even with poor conversion rate has comfortably separated himself with 4 times GS titles as compared to closest competitor. (Wawr or Murray) Consider 150 W @ #1and 4 WTF titles on top of that. Murray or Wawr can't claim the same. Currently they have shared GS count with just one more title than closest competitor (Cilic), none of them could hold top spot in the ranking just for one week, let alone 150 weeks. They are part of the second tier of field or may be little above but definitely not first tier or "Big" players if you look at their achievements



You don't get #1 spot in ranking without dominating Tennis. Guess why Murray was never? #1

Yet, I will once again state that Federer has more than twice as many Grand Slam titles and Nadal has nearly double, so why should Djokovic belong in that group when clearly he belongs with McEnroe and Agassi?

Djokovic is #1, so what? Does that suddenly mean he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer or Nadal? Only in your dreams, pal.

And Cilic the "closest competitior to Murray"

I guess that means Gaudio is equal to Roddick.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I guess Roddick was dominant, he spent time at #1.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Hewitt and Safin were apart of a Big 4 along with Roddick in 2004-2005.. That Big 4 was surpassed by the current one.

Oh really? Never heard about it. Give me few articles from 2004-05 about how old Big 4 were dominating Tennis in that time. I can give you hundreds about supposed domination of current Big 4. In reality even it's widely believed that those players were part of inferior opposition to Federer in his best years. They don't get enough deserved appreciation for their achievements, let alone having luxury of getting free glory and extra undeserved appreciation through inclusion in ATG group like Murray.

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.

1. Provide me the year in which Murray or Wawr won 3 GS and 5 Masters titles.
2. Provide me a single week when Murray or Wawr was top ranked player in the World.
3. Mention just a single year in which Murray or Wawr finished #1 let alone three.
4. Again mention a single year in which he made 3 GS Finals, let alone three.
5. Tell me how many WTF titles Murray and Wawr have in combine?
6. Tell me a single year in which Murray and Wawr defeated 20+ Top 10 players in combine?
7. Even tell me a single year in which Murray and Wawr won more Masters+ level titles in combine than Djokovic?

Should I extend this more?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh really? Never heard about it. Give me few articles from 2004-05 about how old Big 4 were dominating Tennis in that time. I can give you hundreds about supposed domination of current Big 4. In reality even it's widely believed that those players were part of inferior opposition to Federer in his best years. They don't get enough deserved appreciation for their achievements, let alone having luxury of getting free glory and extra undeserved appreciation through inclusion in ATG group like Murray.

Have you thought for a second that perhaps they are referring to the fact that Murray, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer shared the top 4 spots in the rankings for an elongated time?

There was an article posted after the Australian Open in 2005 that eluded to a "Big 4" and it had Roddick at the bottom after having been taken out by Hewitt in the semifinal round.

At this time I am unable to find the exact article.

1. Provide me the year in which Murray or Wawr won 3 GS and 5 Masters titles.
2. Provide me a single week when Murray or Wawr was top ranked player in the World.
3. Mention just a single year in which Murray or Wawr finished #1 let alone three.
4. Again mention a single year in which he made 3 GS Finals, let alone three.
5. Tell me how many WTF titles Murray and Wawr have in combine?
6. Tell me a single year in which Murray and Wawr defeated 20+ Top 10 players in combine?
7. Even tell me a single year in which Murray and Wawr won more Masters+ level titles in combine than Djokovic?

Should I extend this more?

Tell me why a comparison between Djokovic and Federer/Nadal is warranted?

Plus you've just dodged half of my points explaining why Djokovic doesn't belong with the latter two players so this conversation is as good as over.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Yet, I will once again state that Federer has more than twice as many Grand Slam titles and Nadal has nearly double, so why should Djokovic belong in that group when clearly he belongs with McEnroe and Agassi?

Djokovic is #1, so what? Does that suddenly mean he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer or Nadal? Only in your dreams, pal.

You're pretending to be confused again. I will try again and leave. If you are deluded enough to say crap mentioned in my signature then I can guess how much you will fall further down. Big 3 term represents successive domination of group of ATG players in Men's Tennis, who have shared majority of GS titles in 2004-15 timeframe (38 out of 46) and also member of this group has occupied top position for every single weeks since Feb. 2004. I think this is must be longest streak in Men's Tennis, may be I'm wrong, you can check it. You're unnecessarily bringing arguments about their positions in all Time List here. It's not settled yet. Federer is undoubtedly tier one great or greatest ever, Nadal is arguably tier 1 (tier two in my opinion) and Djokovic is definitely tier two at this moment but this shows the obvious difference between their dominance levels. Nadal or Djokovic couldn't dominate Tennis like Federer but who else did? Still their achievements guarantees themselves being well above the field which is sole reason they deserves "Big" tag. Being consistent with my logic, if Murray/Wawr goes on to win 5-6 GS titles and holds top position for 100+ weeks then I will show hesitation including them in same group of Fedalovic.

And Cilic the "closest competitior to Murray"

I guess that means Gaudio is equal to Roddick.

You made no legit argument here. From that stupid smiley, I guess you're just trolling me assuming myself as Big Djokovic Fanboy but you're wrong. You better to find other victim.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Have you thought for a second that perhaps they are referring to the fact that Murray, Djokovic, Nadal and Federer shared the top 4 spots in the rankings for an elongated time?

Yes, I know that but if you stick with that half broken logic of calling everyone in Top 4 as "Big", then one can easily argue Ferrer was "Big" for considerable period of time back in 2012-13. I think he finished as #3 in 2013, yet nobody called him "Big"? This is why you have to account their achievements to decide the players who are truly well above the field. Currently I can just there players with head and shoulders above the field while Murray and Wawr are little above the field. You can put them in separate tier for having multiple GS titles but no way they belongs to group of players with 8+ GS titles and 100+ weeks.

There was an article posted after the Australian Open in 2005 that eluded to a "Big 4" and it had Roddick at the bottom after having been taken out by Hewitt in the semifinal round.

At this time I am unable to find the exact article.

You can find that and call me after. Yet my point still stands, term of Big-X wasn't frequently used back then like it is now. This is may because dominant champion of that generation was too good to allow them form competitive rivalries with him just like Djokovic or Nadal allows to do so. Once his peak started, it was all like Big 1.

Tell me why a comparison between Djokovic and Federer/Nadal is warranted?

Plus you've just dodged half of my points explaining why Djokovic doesn't belong with the latter two players so this conversation is as good as over.

Nadal doesn't belongs to group of Federer as well then why you are grouping him with Federer?

 

[BringBackSV]

Now your bias is showing simply because you like Stan and don't like Murray but that's no excuse for ignoring or disrespecting Murray's vastly superior accomplishments compared to Stan.

Murray has 33 titles including 2 Slams, 6 other finals, 10 Masters titles and an OG.

Wawrinka has 10 titles including 2 Slams, no other finals and 1 Masters title.

So not much scope for argument there!


However, as I said, if Stan's Slam count starts to exceed Murray's, we can talk again!

I do like Murray but that doesn't change the fact that he's been overrated for years. He would either need another Slam, a YE#1 or the WTF for me to rate him ahead of Stan. The 10 M1000s is a noteworthy achievement as he the only non big 3 member to accumulate anywhere near that but those events are still minor in comparison to the big ones. Murray's OG and 10 M1000s put him slightly ahead in terms of achievements, so perhaps he could be 4a/b with Stan.

 

[Mainad]

Yeah, especially when you consider that one of his GS titles was over a Novak who got 7h57mins of sleep instead of the full 8h. Shouldn't they have postponed the final until Novak got the full 8h of sleep?

Yep, that 3 extra minutes might have got him at least a tie-break! :wink:

 

[Mainad]

I do like Murray but that doesn't change the fact that he's been overrated for years. He would either need another Slam, a YE#1 or the WTF for me to rate him ahead of Stan. The 10 M1000s is a noteworthy achievement as he the only non big 3 member to accumulate anywhere near that but those events are still minor in comparison to the big ones. Murray's OG and 10 M1000s put him slightly ahead in terms of achievements, so perhaps he could be 4a/b with Stan.

Nope, you're still letting your judgement be affected by bias. You say you like Murray and yet you persist in trying to talk down his achievements and play up Stan's just because you like Stan more than you like Murray! This persistent disrespect for Murray and his achievements never ceases to amaze me. I find it rather sad!

Murray's 10 Masters titles and OGM already put him way ahead of Stan because Stan has not backed up his 2 Slams with anything remotely comparable and I'm really struggling to understand why you fail to acknowledge this.

Until Stan won the French Open, it would have been laughable to compare the 2. Now that he has done this (against all expectations) you have jumped on his bandwagon and are now doing the exact same thing to him that you have accused people of doing to Murray ie. overhyping him to the skies! But Murray has justified his hype much more nearly than Stan has, at least for now!

As I said, when Stan starts to rack up more Slam titles, or at least Masters titles, we can review the situation, but not until then.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nope, you're still letting your judgement be affected by bias. You say you like Murray and yet you persist in trying to talk down his achievements and play up Stan's just because you like Stan more than you like Murray! This persistent disrespect for Murray and his achievements never ceases to amaze me. I find it rather sad!

Murray's 10 Masters titles and OGM already put him way ahead of Stan because Stan has not backed up his 2 Slams with anything remotely comparable and I'm really struggling to understand why you fail to acknowledge this.

Until Stan won the French Open, it would have been laughable to compare the 2. Now that he has done this (against all expectations) you have jumped on his bandwagon and are now doing the exact same thing to him that you have accused people of doing to Murray ie. overhyping him to the skies! But Murray has justified his hype much more nearly than Stan has, at least for now!

As I said, when Stan starts to rack up more Slam titles, or at least Masters titles, we can review the situation, but not until then.

I really hope Murray wins Wimbledon.

 

[Mainad]

I really hope Murray wins Wimbledon.

That makes 2 of us!

 

[tennisaddict]

Stan is going to win USO 15 or AO 16 and put an end to this meaningless arguments.

 

[BringBackSV]

Nope, you're still letting your judgement be affected by bias. You say you like Murray and yet you persist in trying to talk down his achievements and play up Stan's just because you like Stan more than you like Murray! This persistent disrespect for Murray and his achievements never ceases to amaze me. I find it rather sad!

Murray's 10 Masters titles and OGM already put him way ahead of Stan because Stan has not backed up his 2 Slams with anything remotely comparable and I'm really struggling to understand why you fail to acknowledge this.

Until Stan won the French Open, it would have been laughable to compare the 2. Now that he has done this (against all expectations) you have jumped on his bandwagon and are now doing the exact same thing to him that you have accused people of doing to Murray ie. overhyping him to the skies! But Murray has justified his hype much more nearly than Stan has, at least for now!

As I said, when Stan starts to rack up more Slam titles, or at least Masters titles, we can review the situation, but not until then.

Legacy's are not defined by M1000s, or ATP 250s, or weeks at #4. The OG is a nice accomplishment and the biggest reason why I give him a slight edge. Andy needs to do big things though if he wants to get way ahead. As of right now, it's a toss up. Murray hasn't justified the hype more either. He's been getting way more hype for much longer and yet now is hardly distinguishible from a guy who won his first Slam at 28/29. Stan is therefore exceeding expectations where as Murray has been falling short. Im not jumping on the bandwagon either, his tennis is more attractive to watch. Andy is just rather boring, particularly against Novak. Ive rooted for Andy plenty, he just dissapoints regularly.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yet, I will once again state that Federer has more than twice as many Grand Slam titles and Nadal has nearly double, so why should Djokovic belong in that group when clearly he belongs with McEnroe and Agassi?

Djokovic is #1, so what? Does that suddenly mean he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Federer or Nadal? Only in your dreams, pal.

And Cilic the "closest competitior to Murray"

I guess that means Gaudio is equal to Roddick.

Djokovic is closer to Fedal than Murray is to Djokovic.

 

[jhhachamp]

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.

Agreed, it seems that the majority of posters in this thread seem to have no understanding of what the term "Big 4" actually means and why it was coined...

 

[Mainad]

That's a silly thing to say Mainad when Murray hasn't even been number1 yet. :|

I meant keep Federer and Nadal as the Big 2! :wink:

 

[jhhachamp]

Djokovic is closer to Fedal than Murray is to Djokovic.

I'll agree that Djokovic is closer to Nadal than Murray is to Djokovic...but Murray is closer to Djokovic than Djokovic is to Federer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I'll agree that Djokovic is closer to Nadal than Murray is to Djokovic...but Murray is closer to Djokovic than Djokovic is to Federer.

Yep, pretty much this.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I meant keep Federer and Nadal as the Big 2! :wink:

Why would you take out a player who's spent over 150 weeks at #1?

 

[BringBackSV]

Why would you take out a player who's spent over 150 weeks at #1?

A big 2 is reasonable.

 

[Mainad]

Why would you take out a player who's spent over 150 weeks at #1?

Lol...you need to follow the exchange between cknobman and me. He said why don't we drop Murray and just keep the Big 3 so I replied, tongue-in-cheek, why don't we drop Djokovic and just keep the Big 2 ie. Fed and Rafa.

You had to be there! :wink:

 

[TahoeTennis]

This thread encapsulates about 95% of ALL threads ever made, and that will ever be made on TT.

People arguing about who is better/rivalry/trivalry/big 4/h2h

It's quite funny actually.

Carry on.

But to end this thread once and for all:

FED AND NADAL CREATED the Rivalry and thus Created the Big 4

Look for yourself:
Grand slam Singles Champions 2004-2010 = Rafa/Roger 24 out of 28!!


2004 Switzerland Roger Federer (2/17) Argentina Gastón Gaudio Switzerland Roger Federer (3/17) Switzerland Roger Federer (4/17)
2005 Russia Marat Safin (2/2) Spain Rafael Nadal (1/14) Switzerland Roger Federer (5/17) Switzerland Roger Federer (6/17)
2006 Switzerland Roger Federer (7/17) Spain Rafael Nadal (2/14) Switzerland Roger Federer (8/17) Switzerland Roger Federer (9/17)
2007 Switzerland Roger Federer (10/17) Spain Rafael Nadal (3/14) Switzerland Roger Federer (11/17) Switzerland Roger Federer (12/17)
2008 SRB: Novak Djokovic (1/8) Spain Rafael Nadal (4/14) Spain Rafael Nadal (5/14) Switzerland Roger Federer (13/17)
2009 Spain Rafael Nadal (6/14) Switzerland Roger Federer (14/17) Switzerland Roger Federer (15/17) Argentina Juan Martín del Potro
2010 Switzerland Roger Federer (16/17) Spain Rafael Nadal (7/14) Spain Rafael Nadal (8/14) Spain Rafael Nadal (9/14)

 

[Djokovic2011]

A big 2 is reasonable.

I agree. Both Djokovic and Murray are having great seasons so far.

 

[BringBackSV]

I agree. Both Djokovic and Murray are having great seasons so far.

You are right considering Novak has his customary one slam for the season and Andy has his zero.

 

[Down_the_line]

I think Murray started getting grouped into the "Big 4" because of his consistent appearances in the later rounds of big tournaments. It seems like he was always there with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. It was more about that consistency than his Grand Slam titles.

Then you get to Masters 1000 titles, where he further separates himself from the rest. He at least has a handful of them, more than you can say about everyone else. In fact, since 2009, nobody after Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray even has more than 1!

Djokovic 20
Nadal 15
Federer 9
Murray 8
Davydenko 1
Ferrer 1
Ljubicic 1
Roddick 1
Soderling 1
Tsonga 1
Wawrinka 1

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are right considering Novak has his customary one slam for the season and Andy has his zero.

Just as well you don't need to have multi slam seasons to be part of a big 2.

 

[xFedal]

Just as well you don't need to have multi slam seasons to be part of a big 2.

Don't try to diminish King Feds no.2 ranking.:twisted:

 

[BringBackSV]

Just as well you don't need to have multi slam seasons to be part of a big 2.

Ever seen Novak cry after losing an M1000?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Ever seen Novak cry after losing an M1000?

Not sure what you're trying to say BBSV. :-?

 

[BringBackSV]

Not sure what you're trying to say BBSV. :-?

It's time for Novak to step it up in the majors over the next few years.

 

[BGod]

There hasn't been a Big 4 since 2013.

And that's purely off Federer's aura because he didn't have a good result that season.

Right now it's a Transitional Era where if you're going to give it any moniker it's going to be Novak and co. Djokovic has held such a fantastic lead in points at #1 since last Fall that it's asinine to say he's in bed with anyone but himself. After him it becomes a mess because currently Cilic and Stan hold 2/4 of the Slams. While Murray is still a force to contend, but not ultimately fall short.

Tier 1: Novak Djokovic
Tier 2: Stan Wawrinka, Andy Murray, Thomas Berdych
Tier 3: Roger Federer,
Tier 4: Nadal, Cilic, Nishikori, Raonic

The reason I put Federer alone at 3 is that he has the ingenuity and experience to pull out a run at the Slams and he IS currently ranked #2, but he can very well be upset at the same time. The guys in tier 4 aren't really Slam contenders but will be given attention if they progress far enough.

Tier 2 guys are going to contend and have the ability to maybe win a Slam if Djokovic opens the door, pretty much.

 

[Andyk028]

Call it Big 3 and half, Murray and Wawrinka having two slams a piece is still no big feat. To me, for a player to be Big, they need at least 3 slams on differing surfaces...but I'm an arbitrary piece of ****Muzzard has potential, but hes gotta win another Wimby to be Big.

If Marin Cillic can win a GS...

 

[Andyk028]

Btw I'm a murray fan too and I don't think he deserves to be in the Bigs yet.

 

[zjtennis]

Time to bump this because this is question I have been thinking after Stan getting to another AO SF and finally getting to his 1st HC Masters final.

I know that Stan is miles behind Murray in terms of accomplishments. He only still has 15 titles I think (compare to Del Po who had 19 or Ferrer who has 26 [but only 1 of them higher than a 500]). Still, he does have 8 Slam SFs (compared to Del Po's 3 and Ferrer's 6), which interestingly equals Hewitt and more than Safin (with 7). He also has the best record against the Big Four on Slams (with 7 wins and a 31.8% win rate), and one of the few who has beaten all of them in the Grand Slams.

He also has an elite W/L on Slams since 2014, where the chances of getting to the SF is in the positive.

Stan's Slam Record (Career and 2014 beyond)

He may be inconsistent (or not as willing to fight) in Masters than others, but I think he may argurably be in the Top 3 performers in the Slams since 2014. And as we know, he had this incredible 11 win-streak on finals, which includes beating the Big Three in some of them, showing his fearlessness when it counts. He's in the YE Top 4 since 2014, and is #3 in the Race right now, over Murray and Djokovic currently (although topped by Federer and Nadal right now, and can be overttaken by Dimitrov if he goes deep in Marrakech as of this time of writing). With 3 Slams, 1 Masters and a Davis Cup title, I say he has accomplished much to be considered as a Hall of Famer, which other than the Big Four I think he's the one most likely to be added.

I think it makes sense for Stan to downplay his position now in the game...lowers expectation and pressure, and such. And yet, you see the times he gets shafted at TV schedules or center billing, particularly over Fed and Nadal even if they are lower ranked than him right now (although they probably do anyway frankly over Djokovic and Murray at times). Even before Murray got his Slam, he gets billed as Big Four due to his consistency and being kind of the next elites with Djokovic after Fed and Nadal. All of them reached #1, but what Stan was able to do for his age is just remarkable. Frankly, I think he deserves to be at least for debate of being part of it (like a Big Five era from 2014 beyond -- 3+ years is still a notable stretch), so that he may not be turned to footnote of tennis history, as a guy who showed that you CAN break that barrier even at a moment where you think it is impossible.

 

[Zain786]

Time to bump this because this is question I have been thinking after Stan getting to another AO SF and finally getting to his 1st HC Masters final.

I know that Stan is miles behind Murray in terms of accomplishments. He only still has 15 titles I think (compare to Del Po who had 19 or Ferrer who has 26 [but only 1 of them higher than a 500]). Still, he does have 8 Slam SFs (compared to Del Po's 3 and Ferrer's 6), which interestingly equals Hewitt and more than Safin (with 7). He also has the best record against the Big Four on Slams (with 7 wins and a 31.8% win rate), and one of the few who has beaten all of them in the Grand Slams.

He also has an elite W/L on Slams since 2014, where the chances of getting to the SF is in the positive.

Stan's Slam Record (Career and 2014 beyond)

He may be inconsistent (or not as willing to fight) in Masters than others, but I think he may argurably be in the Top 3 performers in the Slams since 2014. And as we know, he had this incredible 11 win-streak on finals, which includes beating the Big Three in some of them, showing his fearlessness when it counts. He's in the YE Top 4 since 2014, and is #3 in the Race right now, over Murray and Djokovic currently (although topped by Federer and Nadal right now, and can be overttaken by Dimitrov if he goes deep in Marrakech as of this time of writing). With 3 Slams, 1 Masters and a Davis Cup title, I say he has accomplished much to be considered as a Hall of Famer, which other than the Big Four I think he's the one most likely to be added.

I think it makes sense for Stan to downplay his position now in the game...lowers expectation and pressure, and such. And yet, you see the times he gets shafted at TV schedules or center billing, particularly over Fed and Nadal even if they are lower ranked than him right now (although they probably do anyway frankly over Djokovic and Murray at times). Even before Murray got his Slam, he gets billed as Big Four due to his consistency and being kind of the next elites with Djokovic after Fed and Nadal. All of them reached #1, but what Stan was able to do for his age is just remarkable. Frankly, I think he deserves to be at least for debate of being part of it (like a Big Five era from 2014 beyond -- 3+ years is still a notable stretch), so that he may not be turned to footnote of tennis history, as a guy who showed that you CAN break that barrier even at a moment where you think it is impossible.

I hope he wins two more majors. I think he will retire at 35-37. He is making up for lost time and after seeing federer win his 18th grand slam at 35 hopefully stan will use this as fuel to win at least two more majors.