Should we finally start using the term Big2 instead of Big3?

Big 2 time has come?

  • Yes, "Big3" term has no relevance.

  • No, we should stick with "Big3".

Results are only viewable after voting.
Yugram

Yugram

Legend
The Big2 – Nadal and Djokovic, once again demonstrated their insane mental and physical dominance over the field this week, losing a total of 1 set in 10 matches, and allowing just 1 tiebreak.

Meanwhile, Federer is out of the tour and has no relevance for the outcome of next couple of months, but we still mostly use the term Big3 when describing the top of men’s tennis.

I think we should finally abandon the "Big3" label. How do we even discuss the upcoming tournaments using this term? Like: "Tsitsipas can beat anyone in Indian Wells except for Big3", while by Big3 we mean Nadal and Djokovic !?

More so, I’d say It's long overdue. In the last 2 years Federer:

Has won a total of 1 Masters and made 3 additional finals.

Has won 0 Slams and made 1 Slam final.

Meanwhile Medvedev in the last 2 years:

Won 2 Masters and made 1 additional final.

Won 0 Slams and made 1 Slam final.

So we should either call it Big4 and include Medvedev, or even expand it to Big5 with Thiem, or look the truth in the face and accept that the gap between Federer’s results and Djokodal’s results is too big to include them in one division.
 
As long as Federer is alive and kicking and still in the slam race, it is not wise to write off the big three. Sure Nadal and Djokovic are the top two guys, but back in 2015 Nadal was absent from the top, people still called it the big three, Djokovic was absent from 2017, people still called it the big three. This is a three way slam race, you cannot have a three way slam race without three contenders....so no, we shouldn't. Haters can, but reality is, Djokovic and Nadal are still seeing Federer as clear and present danger, so it is big three all the way.
 
True , for current state of tour Big 2 would be appropriate as Fed is not even in the tour

But for historical reasons , there is only ‘Big 1’ or Tier 0, as we call it in TTW and that is Federer.

Djokovic or Nadal have been dogs chasing Fed’s records while Federer has been playing more years setting summit and milestones .

The real $value these 3 command is reflection of their standing .
 
Don’t be so hard on Rafa. How about Big2 plus clay GOAT?

When is the last time Rafa beat either of them off clay?
 
r2473 said:
Don’t be so hard on Rafa. How about Big2 plus clay GOAT?
Click to expand...

Clay GOATs Big titles on hard courts in the last 2 years:

2 Masters, 1 Slam

Federer’s Big titles on hard courts in the last 2 years:

1 Masters

Even if we exclude clay (which is absurd, and we shouldn’t), it’s still Big2. (y)
 
Champions of tournaments played by Djokovic/Nadal since Madrid 19

Madrid: Djokovic
Rome: Nadal
RG: Nadal
W: Djokovic
Toronto: Nadal
Cincinnati: Medvedev
USO: Nadal
Tokyo: Djokovic
Shanghai: Medvedev
Paris: Djokovic
WTF: Tsitsipas
Davis Cup: Nadal
Mubadala: Nadal
ATP Cup: Djokovic
AO: Djokovic
Dubai: Djokovic
Acapulco: Nadal

Djokovic 7 titles
Nadal 7 titles
Djokovic/Nadal 14/17 titles
 
clayqueen said:
No, it's still the Big 3 because they all, almost all of the time, end up in the last 4 in any tournament. Same reason that I always believed Murray deserved to be part of the Big 4. Didn't think Stan qualified to be part of a Big 5.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true savage.

giphy.gif
 
clayqueen said:
No, it's still the Big 3 because they all, almost all of the time, end up in the last 4 in any tournament. Same reason that I always believed Murray deserved to be part of the Big 4. Didn't think Stan qualified to be part of a Big 5.
Click to expand...
Murray is closer in achievements to Stan than he is to the Big 3. So no, it is either Big 3 or Big 5. In fact, both Murray and Wawrinka are closer to the rest of the field than they are to the Big 3. So it is the Big 3, with a great career from Murray and Wawrinka.
 
Sport said:
Murray is closer in achievements to Stan than he is to the Big 3. So no, it is either Big 3 or Big 5.
Click to expand...

@clayqueen is correct. The big four is not about achievements per say, it is about the insane consistency they had. You mention how Murray is closer to Stan, tell me then when back in 2008 when the phrase was first coined, how close were Murray and Djokovic to Federer, or how close was Nadal to Federer considering 2008 ended with a slam tally of 13-5-1-0?

The big four was created to say that these four were always making the semis week in week out, and one of the four kept winning the title, whether it was a slam, a masters, a WTF etc. It was never actually about ranking them with each other slam count wise.
 
Nah.

40-15.

Had he won that, your argument would have literally zero legs to stand on.

It's the Big 3. It can only become the Big 2 if Rafa and Novak win 10 more slams each and RF adds none to his 20. And there's more chance of Bertens becoming Mertens than this happening.
 
Hitman said:
@clayqueen is correct. The big four is not about achievements per say, it is about the insane consistency they had. You mention how Murray is closer to Stan, tell me then when back in 2008 when the phrase was first coined, how close were Murray and Djokovic to Federer, or how close was Nadal to Federer considering 2008 ended with a slam tally of 13-5-1-0?

The big four was created to say that these four were always making the semis week in week out, and one of the four kept winning the title, whether it was a slam, a masters, a WTF etc. It was never actually about ranking them with each other slam count wise.
Click to expand...
Which is why it made more sense back then. I mean, we either had to call Federer the big 1 or mention the most consistent players together. There were a few equal players. However, starting from 2011 Djokovic went too far ahead while Murray remained the same player he was before. Alright, when he won 2 slams in 2012-2013 and was only 4 slams behind Djokovic (after Wimbledon 2013) then one could still talk about the big 4. However, using this term starting from 2014 is an absolute joke. The other 3 are just so far ahead of Murray in everything.

For me Murray missed the chance to become part of the big 4 when he lost Shanghai 2012. It looked like he can really build a matchup advantage over Djokovic, but he just choked this opportunity away. He never had the belief against Djokovic since that match.
 
Hitman said:
@clayqueen is correct. The big four is not about achievements per say, it is about the insane consistency they had. You mention how Murray is closer to Stan, tell me then when back in 2008 when the phrase was first coined, how close were Murray and Djokovic to Federer, or how close was Nadal to Federer considering 2008 ended with a slam tally of 13-5-1-0?

The big four was created to say that these four were always making the semis week in week out, and one of the four kept winning the title, whether it was a slam, a masters, a WTF etc. It was never actually about ranking them with each o ther slam count wise.
Click to expand...
No, she is not, it is clearly a Big 3, with Murray being miles ahead of them. While it is true that Murray is better than the rest of the field, he is nowhere near close to the Big 3. Achievements are a result of your consistency. Consistency is not defined as failing to win Grand Slams, attain weeks as #1 or winning Masters 1000. Murray is closer in achievements to both Wawrinka and the rest of the field than he is to the Big 3. Murray lacked enough consistency in Grand Slams. Murray is closer to Wawrinka in Grand Slam titles than he is to the Big 3. Murray also lacked consistency in weeks as #1. Murray is closer in weeks as #1 to Wawrinka (41 weeks of difference as #1) than he is to the rest of the BIg 3 (167 weeks of difference as #1 with Nadal). Murray also lacked the consistency to win more Mastes 1000. Murray is closer in Masters 1000 titles to Wawrinka (13 Masters 1000 of difference) than he is to Federer (14).
 
Sport said:
No, she is not, it is clearly a Big 3, with Murray being miles ahead of them. While it is true that Murray is better than the rest of the field, he is nowhere near close to the Big 3. Achievements are a result of your consistency. Consistency is not defined as failing to win Grand Slams, attain weeks as #1 or winning Masters 1000. Murray is closer in achievements to both Wawrinka and the rest of the field. Murray lacked enough consistency in Grand Slams. Murray is closer to Wawrinka in Grand Slam titles than he is to the Big 3. Murray also lacked consistency in weeks as #1. Murray is closer in weeks as #1 to Wawrinka (41 weeks of difference as #1) than he is to the rest of the BIg 3 (167 weeks of difference as #1 with Nadal). Murray also lacked the consistency to win more Mastes 1000. Murray is closer in Masters 1000 titles to Wawrinka (13 Masters 1000 of difference) than he is to Federer (14).
Click to expand...

You are failing to understand the concept of the big four. The big four term was being used back in 2008, 2009 and 2010, grouping Murray and Djokovic who had a combined 1 slam between them in that period with Federer and Nadal, who had 16 and 9 slams respectively. It wasn't about slam count, it was about consistency. If it wasn't, explain to me why the term big four existed back then. You looking back on it and trying to change history because of what Wawrinka did, doesn't change what the big four moniker was original designed for.

Big three exists and is different from what the big four meant.
 
StrongRule said:
Which is why it made more sense back then. I mean, we either had to call Federer the big 1 or mention the most consistent players together. There were a few equal players. However, starting from 2011 Djokovic went too far ahead while Murray remained the same player he was before. Alright, when he won 2 slams in 2012-2013 and was only 4 slams behind Djokovic (after Wimbledon 2013) then one could still talk about the big 4. However, using this term starting from 2014 is an absolute joke. The other 3 are just so far ahead of Murray in everything.

For me Murray missed the chance to become part of the big 4 when he lost Shanghai 2012. It looked like he can really build a matchup advantage over Djokovic, but he just choked this opportunity away. He never had the belief against Djokovic since that match.
Click to expand...

There is a big three, which is the big title count of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, and there is a big four also, which was used to describe the period of insane consistency of four players that virtually put a lock down on the tour by preventing anyone from winning any title of any worth.

People seem to confuse the two things way too much. Big 3 and Big 4 are totally different things.
 
It’s been a big 2 since 2011.

seriously, Fed won 1 slam in the big three era. ONE!

he managed to vulture 3 slams when Djokovic was injured but those aren’t a big 3 era slams.
 
Backspin1183 said:
You can dislike Federer as much as you want but even right now he is still ahead of both Nadal and Djokovic. And even if both of them go onnto surpass him in the Slam race, Fed will still be one of the greatest ever. Nothing can take that away from him.
Click to expand...

It is likely that Federer will have destiny of Sampras in terms of greatness perception. The world is unforgiving place.
 
Hitman said:
You are failing to understand the concept of the big four. The big four term was being used back in 2008, 2009 and 2010, grouping Murray and Djokovic who had a combined 1 slam between them in that period with Federer and Nadal, who had 16 and 9 slams respectively. It wasn't about slam count, it was about consistency. If it wasn't, explain to me why the term big four existed back then. You looking back on it and trying to change history because of what Wawrinka did, doesn't change what the big four moniker was original designed for.

Big three exists and is different from what the big four meant.
Click to expand...
The Big 4 was a wrong concept. It was created because people assumed from the beginning (in 2008 or so) that Murray's achievements would be comparable to the Big 3. But he "ended" (in practical terms) his career in the second half of 2017, with his hip injury.

Nowadays, the term has long been refuted. It is simply obsolete. Tennis historians will never talk of the "Big 4 era", but rather the "Big 3 era". The Grand Slam race was between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Murray only won 3 Slams like Wawrinka, and so he is not part of the same group.
 
Hitman said:
You are failing to understand the concept of the big four. The big four term was being used back in 2008, 2009 and 2010, grouping Murray and Djokovic who had a combined 1 slam between them in that period with Federer and Nadal, who had 16 and 9 slams respectively. It wasn't about slam count, it was about consistency. If it wasn't, explain to me why the term big four existed back then. You looking back on it and trying to change history because of what Wawrinka did, doesn't change what the big four moniker was original designed for.

Big three exists and is different from what the big four meant.
Click to expand...

This. The Big 4 was coined when Djokovic only had 1 Slam and Murray 0 so it wasn't about Slam total. It was because they, along with Federer and Nadal, were in the last 4 in most of the big tournaments and the only ones actually winning them besides Federer and Nadal.
 
Sport said:
For me, he lost his chances when he became a semi-retired player after his injury and ended his career with only 3 Grand Slam titles, the same than Wawrinka.

The BIg 4 was a wrong concept. It was created because people assumed from the beginning (in 2008 or so) that Murray's achievements would be comparable to the Big 3. But he "ended" (in practical terms) his career in the second half of 2017, with his hip injury.

Nowadays, the term has long been refuted. It is simply obsolete. Tennis historians will never talk of the "Big 4 era", but rather the "Big 3 era". The Grand Slam race was between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Murray only won 3 Slams, and so he is not part of the same group.
Click to expand...

Again. Let me make this very clear here.

Big Four was not used to describe slam count. It was used to describe consistency. That is not wrong, because for that time, it was correct and valid.
Big Three was something that started later, arguably from 2011 onward, and it is used to describe the big title count of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
These are fundamentally two different things, the existence of one doesn't invalidate what the other was, since they represent two very different things.
 
NoleFam said:
This. The Big 4 was coined when Djokovic only had 1 Slam and Murray 0 so it wasn't about Slam total. It was because they, along with Federer and Nadal, were in the last 4 in most of the big tournaments and the only ones actually winning them besides Federer and Nadal.
Click to expand...

Surprising how some are finding it difficult to see that big three and big four represent two very different things.
 
NoleFam said:
This. The Big 4 was coined when Djokovic only had 1 Slam and Murray 0 so it wasn't about Slam total. It was because they, along with Federer and Nadal, were in the last 4 in most of the big tournaments and the only ones actually winning them besides Federer and Nadal.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason why the term is obsolete. The Big 4 was a wrong concept. It was created because people assumed from the beginning (in 2008 or so) that Murray's achievements would be comparable to the Big 3. But he "ended" (in practical terms) his career in the second half of 2017, with his hip injury.

Nowadays, the term has long been refuted. It is simply obsolete. Tennis historians will never talk of the "Big 4 era", but rather the "Big 3 era". The Grand Slam race was between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Murray only won 3 Slams, and so he is not part of the same group.

The term Big 3 is used to refer to the Grand Slam race between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
 
Hitman said:
Surprising how some are finding it difficult to see that big three and big four represent two very different things.
Click to expand...
I am fine with that, as long as we accept that Big 4 and Big 5 represent two very different things.

If Big 4 exists, I see no reason to deny the Big 5 concept.
 
Sport said:
I am fine with that, as long as we accept that Big 4 and Big 5 represent two very different things.

If Big 4 exists, I see no reason to deny the Big 5 concept.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand that big 4 and big 5 are two different things. Big 5 doesn't reward consistency, Big 4 does.
 
Sport said:
Which is the reason why the term is obsolete. The Big 4 was a wrong concept. It was created because people assumed from the beginning (in 2008 or so) that Murray's achievements would be comparable to the Big 3. But he "ended" (in practical terms) his career in the second half of 2017, with his hip injury.

Nowadays, the term has long been refuted. It is simply obsolete. Tennis historians will never talk of the "Big 4 era", but rather the "Big 3 era". The Grand Slam race was between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Murray only won 3 Slams, and so he is not part of the same group.

The term Big 3 is used to refer to the Grand Slam race between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
Click to expand...

The Big 4 term is still relevant, to the timeframe that it happened, 2008-2013.

Well that's something different since years later, Djokovic took over tennis as a dominant force and placed himself on the level of Federer and Nadal. Just because they left Murray behind after 2014 or 2015, it doesn't deter from the fact that there was a Big 4 once.
 
Last edited:
Its called Big-3 because each member of it deserved to be clasified as such! Just because one of them is way way out of his prime and close to retirement doesn't write off his achievements fro mthe past! Federer will always remain the member of the big-3, because numbers don't lie...it doesn't matter how bad he plays these couple of years...
You win 20 grand slams in your career and someone is breathingt you i nthe neck with 19, and then another guy behind him with 17 - then you still deserve to be grouped along with them even if their tennis trumps yours since long time! Unless both Nadal and Djokovic will win over 30 grand slams (which i doubt), there will still be al lgrouped together as big-3! As simple as that!
 
vex said:
It’s been a big 2 since 2011.

seriously, Fed won 1 slam in the big three era. ONE!

he managed to vulture 3 slams when Djokovic was injured but those aren’t a big 3 era slams.
Click to expand...
lol, get a clue, sir. :D

Federer has owned Nadal for the past 6 years now, is it? Believe Nadal has beaten Federer once since Federer turned 34. (y)

As for your idol, 38-year-old Federer mopped the court with him. Tells us all we need to know, eh?

Savor. :sneaky:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hitman said:
As long as you understand that big 4 and big 5 are two different things. Big 5 doesn't reward consistency, Big 4 does.
Click to expand...
I do see the differences and I concur with you. The Big 4 applies to players with more consistency than the rest of the field, while the Big 5 applies to players with a peak level of a higher order than the rest of the field. Murray being a more consistent player than Wawrinka would be in the Big 4. but Wawrinka on his peak years or tournaments being a similar threat than Murray would be in the Big 5.
 
Sport said:
I do see the differences and I concur with you. The Big 4 applies to players with more consistency than the rest of the field, while the Big 5 applies to players with a peak level of a higher order than the rest of the field. Murray being a more consistent player than Wawrinka would be in the Big 4. but Wawrinka on his peak years or tournaments being a similar threat than Murray would be in the Big 5.
Click to expand...

Then we're good.
 
FedFosterWallace said:
lol, get a clue, sir. :D

Federer has owned Nadal for the past 6 years now, is it? Believe Nadal has beaten Federer once since Federer turned 34. (y)

As for your idol, 38-year-old Federer mopped the court with him. Tells us all we need to know, eh?

Savor. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
When was this mopping? I didn’t realize Fed had won his 21st slam. Send me the link!
 
clayqueen said:
No, it's still the Big 3 because they all, almost all of the time, end up in the last 4 in any tournament. Same reason that I always believed Murray deserved to be part of the Big 4. Didn't think Stan qualified to be part of a Big 5.
Click to expand...
Nice comment. I never thought the day would come when I would see clayqueen sticking up for Rogi.
 
Sport said:
Murray is closer in achievements to Stan than he is to the Big 3. So no, it is either Big 3 or Big 5. In fact, both Murray and Wawrinka are closer to the rest of the field than they are to the Big 3. So it is the Big 3, with a great career from Murray and Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
Murray made at least SFs for about 10 years; Stan hasn't done anything close. For me, it's not about number of slams. There is the Big3 plus Murray who is far better than the rest.
 
vex said:
2 matches ago.... wtf are u smoking? When did Fed mop Djoker at a slam at age 38?
Click to expand...
If Federer had been pasted by a 38-year-old (or been pounded by the same 30+ nine times, for that matter)... he wouldn't be GOAT.

Your world number one, ladies and gents.

Savor. :)
 
FedFosterWallace said:
If Federer had been pasted by a 38-year-old (or been pounded by the same 30+ nine times, for that matter)... he wouldn't be GOAT.

Your world number one, ladies and gents.

Savor. :)
Click to expand...
Honestly at this point. I don’t even know what ur talking about lol. Which slam was this?

also Fed isn’t GOAT. At best he’s a co-goat with Rafa right now. That time has passed
 
Sport said:
No, she is not, it is clearly a Big 3, with Murray being miles ahead of them. While it is true that Murray is better than the rest of the field, he is nowhere near close to the Big 3. Achievements are a result of your consistency. Consistency is not defined as failing to win Grand Slams, attain weeks as #1 or winning Masters 1000. Murray is closer in achievements to both Wawrinka and the rest of the field than he is to the Big 3. Murray lacked enough consistency in Grand Slams. Murray is closer to Wawrinka in Grand Slam titles than he is to the Big 3. Murray also lacked consistency in weeks as #1. Murray is closer in weeks as #1 to Wawrinka (41 weeks of difference as #1) than he is to the rest of the BIg 3 (167 weeks of difference as #1 with Nadal). Murray also lacked the consistency to win more Mastes 1000. Murray is closer in Masters 1000 titles to Wawrinka (13 Masters 1000 of difference) than he is to Federer (14).
Click to expand...

Wawrinka, of course, tallies Murray in Slams but not in any other respect. When the rest of the field attains the #1 ranking (or even the #2 ranking) and win at least half of the titles that Murray has won then, and only then, can you say thay are in any way close to Murray. Otherwise it's just absolute nonsense to try and claim otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rafa4LifeEver
  • Poll Poll
The best ever big3 indian wells match?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Rafa4LifeEver
Rafa4LifeEver
Neptune
  • Poll Poll
What’s your pick for the 'BIG3 ERA' and why?
2
Replies
67
Views
3K
duaneeo
duaneeo
zill
  • Poll Poll
Will this year be the first year since 2002 we will NOT have any member of the BIG3 winning a Grand Slam?
Replies
35
Views
2K
Tano
T
Lleytonstation
  • Poll Poll
The Big3 and the Big3 Matches that changed EVERYTHING
Replies
45
Views
2K
Deleted member 748597
D
The Big Foe fan
  • Poll Poll
what makes the big3 conquering nextgen player (Poll added) ?
Replies
38
Views
2K
Aabye5
Aabye5
Back
Top