The Concept of the "Big Four"

See, I thought the "Big Four" was just Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. Like how you have the "Fedal" rivalry. I thought like the "Fedal" rivalry it exists so long as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are still dominating the sport. Now that they aren't, surely the "Big Four" no longer exists.

Now, you've got Bartoli saying Rafa is no longer part of the Big Four (http://allsports.com.gh/tennis/not-...g-four-material-marion-bartoli-id3969576.html), as if the "Big Four" is some sort of space, occupied by any top four players at anyone time.

The way I see it, once one of them slumps and stops being consistent, as Rafa has done, then the "Big Four" is no more. Call what's left the "Big Three" or the "Big Three featuring Wawrinka" - or whatever. But the "Big Four" as it was conceived is done. You can't just slip Wawrinka - or anyone else - in there and call it the "Big Four".

The Big Four is and always will be "Federer, Nadal, Djokovic & Murray". Once one of them drops off, it ceases to exist.

Discuss.
 
According to Bartoli, there is now (supposedly) a Big Six (don't make me laugh!): "There is Novak [Djokovic], Andy [Murray], Rafa, [Kei] Nishikori, [Tomas] Berdych [and] Stan [Wawrinka]. This group is at the top, top level."

She doesn't mention Federer, but one would assume he is the sixth member (not in that order).
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
The Big four are no longer dominant, as a whole, whatsoever, but the Big Four is the name for these four players collectively.
So they'll still be the Big Four when they're all as old as Laver.

By your definition, the Big four is no more, correct.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
According to Bartoli, there is now (supposedly) a Big Six (don't make me laugh!): "There is Novak [Djokovic], Andy [Murray], Rafa, [Kei] Nishikori, [Tomas] Berdych [and] Stan [Wawrinka]. This group is at the top, top level."

She doesn't mention Federer, but one would assume he is the sixth member (not in that order).
Bartoli is nuts.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
According to Bartoli, there is now (supposedly) a Big Six (don't make me laugh!): "There is Novak [Djokovic], Andy [Murray], Rafa, [Kei] Nishikori, [Tomas] Berdych [and] Stan [Wawrinka]. This group is at the top, top level."

She doesn't mention Federer, but one would assume he is the sixth member (not in that order).

Go home Marion, you're drunk.
 

reaper

Legend
They were ranked 1-4 YE for 5 straight years (2008-12), so the Big 4 was fair enough. It
hasn't existed for 3 years now...it can't just be any 4 top ranked players.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
The term "The Big X" will be a fluid term depending on dominant players of the time and the number of them. Quite sure this is how it will be used and thought as such years ago.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Literally EVERY year, someone has to post this incredibly myopic perspective.
  • 2013: Federer underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
  • 2014: Murray underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
  • 2015: Nadal underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
 
The term "The Big X" will be a fluid term depending on dominant players of the time and the number of them. Quite sure this is how it will be used and thought as such years ago.
Is that right? How do you explain this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)

The Big Four is not a fluid term. It refers to, and only to, the quartet that is Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. It did not exist (officially) prior to their dominance and consistency at the big events. But this is just my view.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
If you say so. I'm pretty sure it's going to be used a lot by pundits and journalists and the ATP/ITF and whoever else over the next many years and the "Big X" will just be occupied by different players. They aren't going to treat it as sacred because of a wiki page or how often it was used to describe those four. They just won't really care. I don't really care either. If they don't care then that's fine with me - if somehow the tennis world collectively decides to enshrine that term and "retire that jersey" then that's also fine.
 
Literally EVERY year, someone has to post this incredibly myopic perspective.
  • 2013: Federer underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
  • 2014: Murray underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
  • 2015: Nadal underperforms --> Big 4 is FINNISH
Are/were they wrong? Can the Big Four exist if one of them is not performing at the level that led to the creation of that moniker, "the Big Four"?
 
If you say so. I'm pretty sure it's going to be used a lot by pundits and journalists and the ATP/ITF and whoever else over the next many years and the "Big X" will just be occupied by different players. They aren't going to treat it as sacred because of a wiki page or how often it was used to describe those four. They just won't really care. I don't really care either. If they don't care then that's fine with me - if somehow the tennis world collectively decides to enshrine that term and "retire that jersey" then that's also fine.
We'll see. P.S. have you ever heard of the First and Second triumvirates? If you have, you'd know you can't just take a moniker and slap it on anything expecting it to have the same effect.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
There hasn't been a big 4 since 2012, in fact 2011-2012 were the only true big 4 years IMO. Only in that stretch were all 4 slam contenders.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
@NatF

Not everybody bows down to the term even if it has some legs in terms of general acceptance. Some do, some don't some who use the term a lot don't know the general origins, some do, same for those who often hold the term in contempt - some know and some don't. The noise and distortion is "clear" (lol) and the reasons are also fair on any side. To me this is a non issue, especially as a person who is often not sold on rules nor appeal to authority and other such things. That said, I have no problem if this idea doesn't get used fluidly like I envision it will and I have absolutely zero issue with those who abide by the Big Four idea. The point for me is that nobody is really actually wrong here in any truly meaningful sense... not terribly interested in technicalities.
 

Inanimate_object

Hall of Fame
Are/were they wrong? Can the Big Four exist if one of them is not performing at the level that led to the creation of that moniker, "the Big Four"?
Yes, because the Big Four isn't some sort of rule that suggests all faceless members must be the dominant players on tour. It is a title given to 4 specific men at a period in time in which they WERE dominant players on tour. In any case, it's a completely meaningless title anyways. And more to the point, whenever you cry: "Big 4 is dead! Big 4 is dead!" after impatiently observing a single season, you are the same people who put your foots in your mouths after Federer/Murray/Nadal rebounds the following year. It's myopic and foolish.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
@NatF

Not everybody bows down to the term even if it has some legs in terms of general acceptance. Some do, some don't some who use the term a lot don't know the general origins, some do, same for those who often hold the term in contempt - some know and some don't. The noise and distortion is "clear" (lol) and the reasons are also fair on any side. To me this is a non issue, especially as a person who is often not sold on rules nor appeal to authority and other such things. That said, I have no problem if this idea doesn't get used fluidly like I envision it will and I have absolutely zero issue with those who abide by the Big Four idea. The point for me is that nobody is really actually wrong here in any truly meaningful sense... not terribly interested in technicalities.

I agree with this. There are no rules for how this term is used except for that it refers to a quartet of players having a strangle hold on the game in some form or another - I would only argue that since 2012 that has not ringed true in terms of my understanding. At the very least I would say the big 4 requires the top 4 ranking spots to be filled. Can Federer be a big 4 player if he was ranked #6? I would say no.

But I guess it could be a case of each member occasionally stepping up and stepping down, blocking the biggest prizes at different times separately but all the time still collectively. A joint effort to dominate overlapping while also passing the baton at times to each other while their careers remain active.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Why would anyone listen to Bartoli, of all people? She admitted at the Champion's Ball she doesn't watch men's tennis except for the slam finals.

Consider the source.
 
Omigosh. This proves that Wiki will list a page on just about anything, even vernacularisms.
You're a little late to the party. However, just because Wiki will list a page on just about anything, doesn't diminish the validity/veracity of everything on Wiki.
 

sarmpas

Hall of Fame
There WAS a big 3 (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). If you wanted to talk about a big 4 when there was a big 3 then Murray was the 4th.

Now though, Federer despite a #2 ranking is surely in the twilight of his career despite how well he is playing relative to the entire ATP tour, Nadal by all current evidence is on a major decline and Murray is still some distance from Novak. Also Stan is appearing in the frame if he's not already there so I'll leave it you folks to talk about what is a is not a top four. If I had to define a big 2/3/4 then it's a group that has exclusive, almost 100 %, dominance of the biggest titles.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
There's no big 4 anymore, just a big 1. :)

I think this is correct, Novak's threats are zoning big hitters (Stan, Anderson types etc.) and Murray who still plays him close in slams. Fedal seem like toothless old tigers against Novak at this point, they have no bite anymore.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
I don't think the big 4 has existed for a long while now. It came to a crescendo in 2012 when they won a slam apiece, and died in 2013. Federer didn't finish in the top 4 in 2013, Murray didn't in 2014, and I'm not sure what Rafa's situation is given he has nothing to defend from here on out, but he surely isn't going to finish top 4 in 2015. 2008 to 2012 was it, with 2011 as the beautiful peak (14 out of 16 slam semi final spots occupied).
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
As things stand, Nadal is the only one who has failed to make a Slam final this year and hasn't even made a semi (so far). He is the only one to win neither a Slam nor a Masters. His decline has undoubtedly driven the stake into the heart of the traditional Big 4 concept. Wawrinka is currently filling the void left by Rafa's decline.

However, the North American swing lies ahead of us and 1 more Slam to go before this season is over.
 
Top