To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats

[TimHenmanATG]

Grand Slams: Murray 3 Wawrinka 3

Grand Slam Finals: Murray 11 Wawrinka 4

Grand Slam semi-finals: Murray 21 Wawrinka 9

Masters titles won: Murray 14 Wawrinka 1

Other titles: Murray 28 Wawrinka 12

Olympic Gold Medals: Murray 2 Wawrinka 1

Weeks at no.1: Murray 41 Wawrinka 0

Highest career ranking: Murray 1 Wawrinka 3

 

[Mainad]

Kinda says it all doesn't it but don't forget that, for some on here, ONLY Slams matter!

Also you should qualify that Murray's Olympic golds were both in singles whereas Wawrinka's was in doubles (shared with Federer).

 

[junior74]

For a while, 2014-2016, Stan was the better player in slams and competed better with the top dogs. That's all.

Everyone knows Murray's career is a whole other level.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

YEC titles: Murray 1, Wawrinka 0
Davis Cup record: Murray 39-8, Wawrinka 26-25

 

[Mark jd]

Wawrinka's slam wins were much more impressive than Murray's. And I'm really sorry but being 8-3 down in slam finals is not something to be proud of.

 

[Mainad]

Wawrinka's slam wins were much more impressive than Murray's. And I'm really sorry but being 8-3 down in slam finals is not something to be proud of.

Is failing to make more than 4 even more to be proud of?

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Murray vs Federer head-to-head: 11-14. Wawrinka vs Federer head-to-head: 3-20

Murray vs Nadal head-to-head: 7-27. Wawrinka vs Nadal head-to- head: 3-16.

Murray vs Djokovic head-to-head: 11-25. Wawrinka vs Djokovic head-to-head: 5-19.

 

[Checkmate]

Is failing to make more than 4 even more impressive?

Sampras - Djokovic kind of situation here.

 

[Charlie]

Murray's career is superior to Wawrinka's no doubt but it's tough to put him alongside the Big 3 when he trails them all by 10+ Slams. Admirably consistent player but still quite clearly inferior to all of them.

 

[Checkmate]

Murray's career is superior to Wawrinka's no doubt but it's tough to put him alongside the Big 3 when he trails them all by 10+ Slams. Admirably consistent player but still quite clearly inferior to all of them.

Murray's BH > Djokovic's
Murray's first serve > Djokovic's
Comparable Forehand
Murray's Foot Speed > Djokovic's
Murray's Smash > Djokovic's
Murray's Lob >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's
Comparable ROS
Murray's Slice >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's

 

[Mainad]

Murray's career is superior to Wawrinka's no doubt but it's tough to put him alongside the Big 3 when he trails them all by 10+ Slams. Admirably consistent player but still quite clearly inferior to all of them.

He shares some things with them that other players don't (eg. #1 ranking, double digit Masters titles etc.) which is why some of us think he shares a Big 4 status with them albeit very much the 4th member of the pack. However, maybe he is best thought of as ranking alone, clearly below the Big 3 but still far above anybody else in terms of overall accomplishments.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Wawrinka's slam wins were much more impressive than Murray's. And I'm really sorry but being 8-3 down in slam finals is not something to be proud of.

Do you understand how good a player has to be to reach 1, let alone 11 Grand Slam finals?

Think of all the competition that a player faces from the 4th round onwards.

Murray was consistently challenging and winning major titles at the top level for 10 years+.

 

[Antonio Puente]

Oh, he's better than Stan, certainly. Stan was a choker and chump for 95% of his career. After watching his entire career, I find it a miracle he found a way to win three slams.

That said, thank god Murray has the additional USO final instead of Stan, otherwise you might have the great made up TTW statistic to contend with. Stan is better at 3 of 4 slams! lol

 

[Charlie]

Murray's BH > Djokovic's
Murray's first serve > Djokovic's
Comparable Forehand
Murray's Foot Speed > Djokovic's
Murray's Smash > Djokovic's
Murray's Lob >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's
Comparable ROS
Murray's Slice >>>>>>>>>> Djokovic's

Comparable forehand part of the post definitely takes the cake.

 

[MrFancypants]

Big difference between being clearly number 4 and being “big 4”. Is there a bigger gap between Murray and Stan or Murray and Djoker? I think the answer to that determines if it’s a big 4 or if Murray is top dog of the Second tier.

His career is certainly the 4th best active career but there is a huge gap between him and the other guys who are all time greats imo.

 

[Mark jd]

Do you understand how good a player has to be to reach 1, let alone 11 Grand Slam finals?

Think of all the competition that a player faces from the 4th round onwards.

Murray was consistently challenging and winning major titles at the top level for 10 years+.

Murray is simply a better player than the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Cilic. But he never was a real threat to the big 3. I don't see what arguments there are to put him on the same level with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Shank Volley]

Comparable forehand part of the post definitely takes the cake.

Maybe he meant comparable as in...technically they're both forehands?

 

[TimHenmanATG]

But he never was a real threat to the big 3

Ah yeah, I remember how he wasn't a ''threat''against Novak Djokovic in the 2013 Wimbledon final. I also remember this non-threatening British gentleman absolutely blitzing fans' favourite, Roger Federer, at the 2012 Olympics.

 

[Mainad]

Murray is simply a better player than the likes of Berdych, Tsonga, Nishikori, Cilic. But he never was a real threat to the big 3. I don't see what arguments there are to put him on the same level with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

He beat one of them twice in Slam finals and the other 2 in Slam semi-finals. He has beaten all of them several times in other big finals (Masters, WTF, Olympics) and took the #1 ranking from 1 of them which is something no other non-Big 3 player has ever been within sniffing distance of so doing. He shares many of these accomplishments with the other 3 but of course is far behind them in the Slam count which is why, as I have suggested, he may be best thought of as ranking alone because the all the other players are so far below him.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Placing Wawrinka along with Murray makes much much more sense than placing Murray with either of Big 3. Murray having overall more achievements than Wawrinka doesn't make him good as Federer.

20>17>13>>>>> 3 = 3. That's all. Come back to me when Murray wins 6 Slams at least. Today there is little that separates him from Hewitt, Wawrinka, Roddick and bunch.

 

[TimHenmanATG]

Placing Wawrinka along with Murray makes much much more sense than placing Murray with either of Big 3.

20>17>13>>>>> 3 = 3

Did you only start following tennis two years ago?

 

[Service Ace]

The Real Big 4 are Fed, Ned, Joke and Pete.
Murray is closer to the Big 30 than he is The Real Big 4.

 

[mike danny]

Murray is better than Stan. But that doesn't place him alongside the Big 3.

While Murray's accomplishments clearly trump Stan's, the fact that he has as many slams as Stan makes him closer to Stan than the Big 3.

Slams aren't everything, but are the biggest. Which is why Murray is more in Wawrinka's tier than the Big 3's.

 

[pikku05]

Murray is a lot closer to Novak than Stan in terms of overall achievement.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Did you only start following tennis two years ago?

Since 2007.

 

[Mark jd]

He beat one of them twice in Slam finals and the other 2 in Slam semi-finals. He has beaten all of them several times in other big finals (Masters, WTF, Olympics) and took the #1 ranking from 1 of them which is something no other non-Big 3 player has ever been within sniffing distance of so doing. He shares many of these accomplishments with the other 3 but of course is far behind them in the Slam count which is why, as I have suggested, he may be best thought of as ranking alone because the all the other players are so far below him.

He had a few wins in the earlier years but most of the time he wasn't a threat. Djokovic was beatable in all the slam finals they played but AO 2011. But how many times did Murray beat him?

 

[mike danny]

Murray is a lot closer to Novak than Stan in terms of overall achievement.

Don't make me laugh.

 

[Mark jd]

Don't make me laugh.

The guy probably thinks we are still in 2010.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Murray is a lot closer to Novak than Stan in terms of overall achievement.

Lead of 11 Slams + 180 weeks at #1 >>>> 0 Slams and 42 weeks.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Let's hope Wawrinka wins one more Slam and puts end to this Big four BS once for all.

 

[astronautzor]

Wawrinka's slam wins were much more impressive than Murray's. And I'm really sorry but being 8-3 down in slam finals is not something to be proud of.

you mean better looking? Murray straight setting Novak in the Wimbledon final.. is much more impressive.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[veroniquem]

Murray is far superior to Wawrinka of course.
Still, he is the weak link in the big 4 dynasty for sure:
TIER 1 titles: Fed: 53, Nadal: 49, Djoko: 48 (Murray: 18 oops)
SLAM titles: Fed: 20, Nadal: 17, Djoko: 13 (Murray: 3 oops)
MASTER titles: Nadal: 32, Djoko: 30, Fed: 27 (Murray: 14)

Not in the same league imo (although I still put him in the big 4 to separate them from the rest, most consistent 4 players and most successful of their era by far)

 

[mike danny]

Murray is far superior to Wawrinka of course.
Still, he is the weak link in the big 4 dynasty for sure:
TIER 1 titles: Fed: 53, Nadal: 49, Djoko: 48 (Murray: 18 oops)
SLAM titles: Fed: 20, Nadal: 17, Djoko: 13 (Murray: 3 oops)
MASTER titles: Nadal: 32, Djoko: 30, Fed: 27 (Murray: 14)

Not in the same league imo (although I still put him in the big 4 to separate them from the rest, most consistent 4 players and most successful of their era by far)

It's tough to put Murray in the Big 3 league when a second tier player from his own era has as many slams as him.

 

[veroniquem]

It's tough to put Murray in the Big 3 league when a second tier player from his own era has as many slams as him.

It's not just about slams. Wawrinka has won 4 tier 1 titles. Murray has won 18. Murray has also been #1. Wawrinka has not. End of story.

 

[mike danny]

It's not just about slams. Wawrinka has won 4 tier 1 titles. Murray has won 18. Murray has also been #1. Wawrinka has not. End of story.

It's not all about slams. But slams are the biggest.

 

[veroniquem]

It's not all about slams. But slams are the biggest.

So what? Wawrinka has not won MORE slams than Murray. But he's not won anything else. Murray has won WTF and masters in the double digits.

 

[mike danny]

So what? Wawrinka has not won MORE slams than Murray. But he's not won anything else. Murray has won WTF and masters in the double digits.

That doesn't put Murray in the Big 3 league, sorry.

At best Murray is in his own tier.

 

[veroniquem]

That doesn't put Murray in the Big 3 league, sorry.

At best Murray is in his own tier.

What puts Murray in the big 4 is: 18 tier 1 won. That's huge. That actually puts him at #11 in open era list (after Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Agassi, Connors and Becker).
The next active player would indeed be Wawrinka with 4. That's almost 5 times less. No comparison, sorry.

 

[duaneeo]

Many still don't understand the 'Big-4' concept. It's about dominance of the field by 4 players. It's about 4 players typically making the final-4 of the big tournaments. The below stat over a 10-year period (2008 - 2017) says it all about the Big-4 concept:

Slam semifinal (final-4) appearances: Djokovic 28, Federer 26, Nadal 21, Murray 21.

 

[tennisaddict]

Murray belongs to small 4 with Stan, Delpo and Cilic. Not Big 4

 

[D.Nalby12]

Many still don't understand the 'Big-4' concept. It's about dominance of the field by 4 players. It's about 4 players typically making the final-4 of the big tournaments. The below stat over a 10-year period (2008 - 2017) says it all about the Big-4 concept:

Slam semifinal (final-4) appearances: Djokovic 28, Federer 26, Nadal 21, Murray 21.

When did Murray dominate Tennis? He became #1 for a period when all three were absent/injured/struggling with form. Apart from that he was the one (like many other) who got dominated by Big 3. His 3-8 Slam final record shows it. And making semis doesn't make you dominant but winning entire tournament does..

 

[duaneeo]

When did Murray dominate Tennis?

You're still not following. No one is saying Murray alone dominated. The Big-4 concept is that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray as a group dominated the rest of the field.

 

[D.Nalby12]

You're still not following. No one is saying Murray alone dominated. The Big-4 concept is that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray as a group dominated the rest of the field.

You're giving credit to Murray for something he has never done (or others have done). Remove Murray, Big 3 Still has won 50/61 last Slams. Murray's contribution is insignificant.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Federer + Nadal + Djokovic + me = 50/61 Slams since W03.

Proves Me, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic as a group dominated Tennis for 15 years. Hence I am Big 4.

That's Murray fan logic for you.

 

[Sport]

He shares some things with them that other players don't (eg. #1 ranking, double digit Masters titles etc.) which is why some of us think he shares a Big 4 status with them albeit very much the 4th member of the pack. However, maybe he is best thought of as ranking alone, clearly below the Big 3 but still far above anybody else in terms of overall accomplishments.

Why not Big 3 +1?

 

[duaneeo]

You're giving credit to Murray for something he has never done (or others have done).

The Big-4 were typically ranked top-4, so they couldn't meet each other until the semifinals. How do you think Murray did so 21 times?

 

[King No1e]

Wawrinka shouldn't be named along with the Big 4. He should best the remembered as the man who broke their dominance.

The Big 4 were called so not because of achievements, but because they always showed up against each other in semifinals. From Wimbledon 2010-W12, at least 3 of them showed up in Slam semis. They dominated together. Wawrinka came along later and disrupted the order, around the same time Federer had taken a big drop in rankings, and Murray and Nadal were on the decline.
So Wawrinka was post-big 4. Here's an analogy: it's generally agreed that Borg, Connors, and McEnroe formed a golden era of tennis from about '74-'84. Ivan Lendl may have been just as good as them, but he's not considered part of that era because he dominated a different time period, not anything to do with his achievements.

 

[mike danny]

What puts Murray in the big 4 is: 18 tier 1 won. That's huge. That actually puts him at #11 in open era list (after Fed, Nadal, Djoko, Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe, Borg, Agassi, Connors and Becker).
The next active player would indeed be Wawrinka with 4. That's almost 5 times less. No comparison, sorry.

Nah, tier 1 tournaments is stupid. It just appears to hide the huge gap in slams between the Big 3 and Murray. Limping the masters and WTF together with the slams is nothing but baloney started by the media. Slams are simply on another tier.

I am all for including Murray in the Big 3 league due to similar consistency, but, achievements wise, lumping a 3 slam champon with 3 other 13+ slam champions is really pushing it. Their achievements are galaxies apart.

 

[mike danny]

Many still don't understand the 'Big-4' concept. It's about dominance of the field by 4 players. It's about 4 players typically making the final-4 of the big tournaments. The below stat over a 10-year period (2008 - 2017) says it all about the Big-4 concept:

Slam semifinal (final-4) appearances: Djokovic 28, Federer 26, Nadal 21, Murray 21.

Yes, in terms of consistency, Murray is in the Big 3's league.

But in terms of achievements he is not even close and argumenrs like tier 1 titles is grasping at straws.