Justice Underworld
Rookie
He got slaughtered by Murray in his second match back yet he is supposed to shut Djoker down at the US Open? LOLOL! I'll have what you are having.
To people denying the concept of a ''big 4'', and comparing Murray to Wawrinka - here are some stats
- Thread starter TimHenmanATG
- Start date
He got slaughtered by Murray in his second match back yet he is supposed to shut Djoker down at the US Open? LOLOL! I'll have what you are having.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
You forgot to include:
Total Titles Won:
Federer - 98
Nadal - 79
Djokovic - 69
Murray - 45
Wawrinka - 16
Difference between Murray and Wawrinka: 29; difference between Murray and the 3rd placed player: 24.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
So where do you think 2 of his 3 Slam titles, or his WTF title or his first Olympic title or more than half of his Masters titles came from?
Sorry, forgot about those. Still compared to the big 3, he’s still far behind.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
No-one's denying that.
Hence my point about him being included with the big 3 debatable.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
clout
Hall of Fame
Yes that's one of the few stats where Murray is actually closer to the third ranked player among the big three (and by a decent amount) than Stan is to Murray.
Look, Murray is a phenomenal player in his own right and is certainly at least one tier ahead of Stan, but it's also hard to deny that the gap between Stan and Murray is significantly closer than the gap between Murray and Djokovic (the third greatest player among the big three).
I think that's the fairest assessment ^^
Last edited:
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Hold on a minute...Murray did to Djok what Djok did to Nadal, and what Nadal did to Fed...ended their most dominant runs at the top of the game. They battled to the end of 2016, Murray won and ended the year #1, and both of them paid the price physically.
Yes that's one of the few stats where Murray is actually closer to the third ranked player among the big three than Stan is to Murray.
Look, Murray is a phenomenal player in his own right and is certainly at least one tier ahead of Stan, but it's also hard to deny that the gap between Stan and Murray is significantly closer than the gap between Murray and Djokovic (the third best player among the big three).
I think that's a fairest assessment ^^
Pretty fair. I did read an ESPN article in 2015 that used #s to reveal that Murray is basically one of the GOATs, just not as much as the current Big 3...but above Sampras and Agassi. If he weren't competing with all 3 of them, he'd have a lot more Slams, and if none of them existed he'd arguably be the GOAT. That's how great he really is...not just the 4th-best of his era but maybe Top 6-8 all-time.
Here it a TTW thread with the link.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/peak-tennis-elo-ratings-djokovic-at-1.605905/
upchuck
Hall of Fame
A google search shows that the "big four" term became vogue no later than 2008 when Djokovic by year end had just one slam, Murray none, Nadal five and Federer 13. It was a term used to capture a phenomenon where for a period in this tennis era the top four players were especially consistent and dominant. Are these four players still especially consistent and dominant? No. It's useless to talk about a "big four" as if the term lives in perpetuity as a descriptor of how these guys' careers relate to each other. The term served its purpose. It's 2018 now and things have changed.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
In a fantasy scenario(play to their strengths) just let Murray play every single match all year long and just sub Stan in for GS finals.
Service Ace
Hall of Fame
There is no "Big 4." There's the Big 3 and then there's the Little 4. Wawa is a better big match player than Murray anyway so even if there were a "Big 4" it would have to include Big Wawa and not Andy "Jerry West" Murray
Yeah making finals/semis at Slams is more important than winning Slam itself. May be we should lower bar little to include Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer in group as well? They consistenly made Slam quarters along with the four. So it makes Big 8 for you.
Making semis of Slam doesn't make you dominant. Murray may have 100s of those, still he is not dominant. Because at the end of the day he has 3 Slams in total. Zero multiple Slams seasons.
Big four one peak year > Murray's entire career. That's what I call domination. 2004-07, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2017 and such years.
AiRFederer
Hall of Fame
LMAO
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Yes that's one of the few stats where Murray is actually closer to the third ranked player among the big three (and by a decent amount) than Stan is to Murray.
Look, Murray is a phenomenal player in his own right and is certainly at least one tier ahead of Stan, but it's also hard to deny that the gap between Stan and Murray is significantly closer than the gap between Murray and Djokovic (the third greatest player among the big three).
I think that's the fairest assessment ^^
I disagree. I think there is a significant gap on both sides of the divide. Murray is basically on his own but he shares many more things in common with the Big 3 than he does with Stan.
Checkmate
Legend
2016 Wimbledon Murray >>> 2016 Wimbledon Djokovic
2013 Wimbledon Murray >>> 2013 Wimbledon Djokovic
2012 US Open Murray >>> 2012 US Open Djokovic
2016 World Tour Finals Murray >>> 2016 World Tour Finals Djokovic
OLYMPICS MURRAY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OLYMPICS DJOKOVIC
2013 Wimbledon Murray >>> 2013 Wimbledon Djokovic
2012 US Open Murray >>> 2012 US Open Djokovic
2016 World Tour Finals Murray >>> 2016 World Tour Finals Djokovic
OLYMPICS MURRAY >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OLYMPICS DJOKOVIC
Mainad
Bionic Poster
No it doesn't. Tsonga, Berdych and Ferrer only ever made 3 Slam finals between them and 0 Slam titles. Murray made 11 Slam finals, 4 times as many, and won 3. In addition he made it to the #1 ranking and won many more titles across the spectrum than anybody else outside the Big 3. That is why he was grouped with them as part of a Big 4 because they were the ones who made the majority of Slam finals and won things that the other players didn't. What is so hard for you to grasp about this?
3W 8L in slam finals is immensely superior to 3W 1L.
TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
What a lot of people here seem to fail to grasp, is that the concept of the ''big 3'' and ''big 4'' aren't mutually exclusive.
Of course Murray is a level below the ''Big 3'', but he's a level above the rest of the field by such a distance that he can be acknowledged as part of a ''big 4'' in the context of the last 10-15 years of tennis.
It's an injustice to Murray to lump him in with ''the rest'' of this era.
We're talking about a guy who was reaching Grand Slam finals and winning Masters titles last decade!
Of course Murray is a level below the ''Big 3'', but he's a level above the rest of the field by such a distance that he can be acknowledged as part of a ''big 4'' in the context of the last 10-15 years of tennis.
It's an injustice to Murray to lump him in with ''the rest'' of this era.
We're talking about a guy who was reaching Grand Slam finals and winning Masters titles last decade!
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I would say GS semis are still big matches and Murray won 11 of those to Stan's 4.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
....
Novak who just got through a tough 5 setter against Del Potro. LOL.
Murray had an easy-peasy draw up until the final and still dropped a set to a journeyman semifinalist (Janowicz). He also nearly lost to Verdasco ON GRASS (huge LOL here).
Stop overrating this mug, God. It's so grating to see Djokofanboys act like he was any different from Roddick or Hewitt, Federer was just better at crushing subpar competition.
Get over it.
astronautzor
Rookie
Well i like to use things like "facts" when i do my judgement.
Roddick ?
.. the guy did not even have a single final appearance AO or RG..Hewitt?
.. the guy had a total of 4 grand slam finalsInfact if you put all their slam finals together, they would still not catch up to Murray.
Murray has 15 1R-4R exits at GS
Roddick has 27 1R-4R exits at GS (What the hell has that to do with Federer?)
Hewitt has 51 1R-4R exits at GS (What the hell has that to do with Federer?)
Well i guess its all because of Federer, Because its not like Murray is in an era with Federer,Nadal,Djokovic and the crew.
BTW: Nice haircut, Federer pulled it off better in 2003.. but still a decent try.
astronautzor
Rookie
Exactly, anyone reaching a GS semi final is in top shape.. there is no excuse.
vex
Legend
Yeah, its not even close.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).
I miss Murray
I'll never forgot how much fun I had rooting for him during that Davis Cup run, he was such a beast.
Pheasant
Legend
The Big 4 from 2006 to 2011 was Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, and Delpo. Those 4 won all of the slams during those six years.
Wait. Murray blows Fed out of the water. One poster said that Murray would have won 10 slams from 2003-2007. Another poster questioned if Peak Fed from 2006 on his best surface could hang with Kevin Anderson, despite his 8-0 lead in Wimbledon titles. If peak Fed cannot beat Kevin Anderson on his best surface, then Anderson also blows Fed out of the water. The Big Four should be Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Delpo. Although, it is perfectly acceptable to have Stan replace Delpo. Either way, Federer clearly doesn’t belong.
Many posters have said in so many words that many of Fed’s slam titles don’t count due to weak era, Nadal was injured, Peak Fed in his early to mid 30’s couldn’t win slams, etc. I.e, they are saying that Fed didn’t really earn his 20 slam titles. That is a very slippery slope. Once we start discrediting slam titles, then when do we stop? In actuality, NONE of Fed’s slam titles count.
Here’s why:
2003-2007= High school tennis at best. None of his titles, weeks at #1, or wins count from this era.
2008: Nadal had diarrhea and Djokovic ate gluten
2009: Soderling had a hangover and weak-era Roddick is easy to beat on grass.
2010: Nadal had a stuffy nose and Djokovic smoked weed
2012: Nadal was injured and Djokovic accidentally ate some gluten
2017: Nadal was “old” and Fed squeaked by on grass only because of luck.
2018: Nadal and Novak are way past their prime while Fed was very close to his peak. In 5 years, Fed will peak.
Wait. Murray blows Fed out of the water. One poster said that Murray would have won 10 slams from 2003-2007. Another poster questioned if Peak Fed from 2006 on his best surface could hang with Kevin Anderson, despite his 8-0 lead in Wimbledon titles. If peak Fed cannot beat Kevin Anderson on his best surface, then Anderson also blows Fed out of the water. The Big Four should be Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and Delpo. Although, it is perfectly acceptable to have Stan replace Delpo. Either way, Federer clearly doesn’t belong.
Many posters have said in so many words that many of Fed’s slam titles don’t count due to weak era, Nadal was injured, Peak Fed in his early to mid 30’s couldn’t win slams, etc. I.e, they are saying that Fed didn’t really earn his 20 slam titles. That is a very slippery slope. Once we start discrediting slam titles, then when do we stop? In actuality, NONE of Fed’s slam titles count.
Here’s why:
2003-2007= High school tennis at best. None of his titles, weeks at #1, or wins count from this era.
2008: Nadal had diarrhea and Djokovic ate gluten
2009: Soderling had a hangover and weak-era Roddick is easy to beat on grass.
2010: Nadal had a stuffy nose and Djokovic smoked weed
2012: Nadal was injured and Djokovic accidentally ate some gluten
2017: Nadal was “old” and Fed squeaked by on grass only because of luck.
2018: Nadal and Novak are way past their prime while Fed was very close to his peak. In 5 years, Fed will peak.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Slam finals don't equal actual titles. And if Murray was on their level he'd have more than 3 even with his supposed "great competition".Well i like to use things like "facts" when i do my judgement.
Roddick ?
Hewitt?
Infact if you put all their slam finals together, they would still not catch up to Murray.
Murray has 15 1R-4R exits at GS
Roddick has 27 1R-4R exits at GS (What the hell has that to do with Federer?)
Hewitt has 51 1R-4R exits at GS (What the hell has that to do with Federer?)
Well i guess its all because of Federer, Because its not like Murray is in an era with Federer,Nadal,Djokovic and the crew.
BTW: Nice haircut, Federer pulled it off better in 2003.. but still a decent try.
Thanks. It's 2004 you're looking for by the way, particularly the Masters Cup. Yes, I know my Federer.
*Also you're including Roddick and Hewitt's down years. Let Murray continue on and let's count up his early exits.
deaner2211
Semi-Pro
Apparently his game is not better than Djoker. It doesn't matter how much better your stroke is what matters is how many games you win in a match.
astronautzor
Rookie
Roddick retired at 30 lol, hewitt retired at 35.. so even if Murray would lose every single grand slam in 1Round untill 35.. he still would not catch up to Hewitt
Lets face it, Murray has a better resumé in everything than both Roddick and Hewitt
Murray is 9-3 H2H vs Roddick and Hewitt.. lets drop this subject.. and focus on Wawrinka vs Murray thats atleast a close one.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He has greater longevity than Hewitt but peak for peak they are not much different. Counterpunchers who play with little to no power. Murray was more consistent due to the advantages this era gave him (conditioning, technology, medicine, ect) and it's unfair to judge the prior two players by this standard.
Do you really think Murray would have kept playing at the same level he showed from 21-29 if he was playing in their era? No, he wouldn't have. And it's delusional to think he would as a counterpuncher with limited weapons (he has to go 30 shots with a journeyman to win a rally, lol).
No. Murray doesn't have a better resume than Lleyton in everything. Lleyton has 2 YE #1s, back to back years at No.1, 80 weeks at the top spot (75 consecutive).
It's lying to yourself to pretend Murray is superior in every single fashion. He really isn't. And I'm not the only one who thinks he's not as good as you guys make him out to be (he isn't).
And you're citing one meeting between Lletyon and Murray (that went to 3 sets) where neither were anywhere near their best as definite proof he's better.
No. You stop with a subject you are not clued in with and get with the facts, try objectively researching these players before calling Murray "vastly superior" because he happened to lay down for your favorite a few times.
Hewitt is a superior player than Wawrinka, and Roddick is actually rather close. Wawrinka is this era's Patrick Rafter and Murray is this era's Hewitt.
End of.
astronautzor
Rookie
I guess Hewitt hit that peak in the GS final when he got double bageled by Federer, compared to Murray who straight setted Federer to win an Olympic Gold medal on GRASS
Peak for peak my ass, and your subjectivity.. get the hell outa here.
Murray Peak Elo Rating 2490 (21-11-2016)
Hewitt Peak Elo Rating 2286 (18-03-2002)
I dont want to discuss this anymore with you
astronautzor
Rookie
No wonder there are so few Murray fans on this forum.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yes, because Federer played at the same level he did when he defeated Hewitt in straights when Murray beat him at the LOLympics.
You do realize Lleyton has beaten both Federer AND Sampras in grass finals, right?
I don't believe in this ELO-rating system. It's highly inaccurate.
They aren't too different no matter which way you put it or statistic you try to throw out.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Don't try reasoning with Sabratha. You might as well keep keep banging your head against the brickest of brick walls!
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Mainad
Bionic Poster
What irritates me far more than just out and out hate, is the sheer ignorance about his career and forgetfulness (deliberate or otherwise) that so many of them display. If you're going to diss a player's career, at least bother to know about it in the first place and try and get your facts right!!!
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Oh Mainad, I know the facts. I know the facts VERY well.What irritates me far more than just out and out hate, is the sheer ignorance about his career and forgetfulness (deliberate or otherwise) that so many of them display. If you're going to diss a player's career, at least bother to know about it in the first place and try and get your facts right!!!
But keep ignoring, bro. Murray will never be an ATG.
astronautzor
Rookie
Weirdo
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
D
Deleted member 758560
Guest
some ppl think otherwise
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Question to TTW: When did you bestow upon Novak the honor of being in the "Big 4"
2008? 2011? 2016?
2008? 2011? 2016?
D
Deleted member 756486
Guest
Beating Nadal to win Wimbledon and thus becoming #1 in the world for the first time.
Rebel-I.N.S
Hall of Fame
Stan is supremely overrated on here.
He never woke up until his late 20s.
Big match player?!
He has spent the MAJORITY of his career being mediocre.
He never woke up until his late 20s.
Big match player?!
He has spent the MAJORITY of his career being mediocre.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
So when he had 3 majors and 1 week at #1 he was allowed to be compared to Roger Federer with 16 majors and nearly 300 weeks at #1?
I think after his 2011 season nobody had doubts he will be an all time great. When did Murray have anything like that? The best season of his career was 2016, but he wasn't even the best player that year despite ending number 1.
TimHenmanATG
Hall of Fame
Yeah, it's outrageous and embarrassing how forum members fawn over Wawrinka.
I like Stan, but there's no doubt that he was very much ''in the right place at the right time'' in all 3 of his Grand Slam triumphs.
