What is your definition of the Big4 Era?

[Neptune]

We can easily agree that 2004-23 is the most fitting 'Big3 Era' concept, dominated by one, two, or all three of them consistently throughout.

However, at the core of this Big3 Era, Murray reached significant heights—taking the 2016 YE#1 and 2015 YE#2 rankings. His well defined prime (2008-2016) saw him claim all 20 of his big titles, with only one season (2014) missing the top 5 by a hairline (YE#6), and no top 10 YE finishes outside this period.

For more than 15 years from 07/25/2005 to 03/08/2021, the top2 spots have never been touched by anyone outside of Big4, not even one week.

So, isn't it fair to consider 2008-2016 as the true Big4 Era? During this period, Murray won 20 big titles, only behind Nole and Rafa. Federer had 17, and the next closest player managed only 4—a massive gap.

Conclusion: At the core of a broader 'Big3 Era', Murray entered the party last and exited first, claiming 20 big titles in his 9-year prime. We shouldn't deny the more narrowly defined Big4 Era as 2008-2016.

2008 – 16​	Slams​	Slam F+​	Slam SF+​	Big Titles​	Big F+​	Big SF+​	T5 Wins​	T10 Wins​	Points​
1​	12​	20​	27​	45​	66​	90​	80​	170​	11461​
2​	11​	15​	24​	31​	48​	69​	54​	110​	8780​
3​	5​	13​	20​	20​	40​	65​	48​	101​	8065​
4​	3​	11​	18​	17​	35​	56​	43​	89​	7451​
5 (or 4 tie)​	3 wawa​	3 wawa​	7 wawa​	4 wawa​	8 ferrer​	23 berdy​	24 delpo​	42 tsonga​	4021 Ferrer​

Bold numbers for Murray highlight the massive gaps compared to No. 5, shared by five players (except in the slam column).
Across the 129 big tournaments during those full 9 years, outside of the Big4, only Ferrer managed to reach the semifinals 8 times, the most by any player.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Unfortunately for Andy, there’s only a big 3

 

[Lleytonstation]

Big 3 will be how it is remembered, but for those that lived it, there was definitely a big 4 reality.

From 2011-2016 was the big4 era.

 

[GoatNo1]

i use the term and i am OK with that. but if nole was as muzza and vice versa the term would probably never been invented. i remember some media writing that it is no big4 anymore when muzza got over nole in rankings.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Let's call it big 3 + Murray.

Don't club them into 4 as if they are similar.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Let's call it big 3 + Murray.

Don't club them into 4 as if they are similar.

They were for a period of time. 2011-2016:

• Murray won 3 slams and reached 6 additional Finals and 8 SFs, and won 2 gold medals.
• Rafa won 4 slams and reached an additional 4 Finals and zero SFs.
• Fed won 1 slam and reached an additional 4 Finals and 9 SFs.
• Djoker, uhh.. dominated... so maybe big 1?

Murray also won the ATP finals and reached number one during this era.

 

[nolefam_2024]

They were for a period of time. 2011-2016:

• Murray won 3 slams and reached 6 additional Finals and 8 SFs, and won 2 gold medals.
• Rafa won 4 slams and reached an additional 4 Finals and zero SFs.
• Fed won 1 slam and reached an additional 4 Finals and 9 SFs.
• uhh.. dominated... so maybe big 1?

3 slams

Or 10+ slams

Even if Murray won 6 I would not find it enough. Double digits minimum. But he won 3. Just 3. That's low. Sinner will probably match it by ao.

 

[Court-craft]

Honestly no- Maybe, if Andy had picked up one or two of his multiple Aussie open finals, it would be more valid a claim. 5 slams at 3 different events feels far more a member of the club than 3 at 2.

 

[Lleytonstation]

3 slams

Or 10+ slams

Even if Murray won 6 I would not find it enough. Double digits minimum. But he won 3. Just 3. That's low. Sinner will probably match it by ao.

Likely, but we are talking about a period of time, not so much as an era. It was a big 3 era but the big 4 was definitely a thing from 2011-2016.

 

[Neptune]

3 slams

Or 10+ slams

Even if Murray won 6 I would not find it enough. Double digits minimum. But he won 3. Just 3. That's low. Sinner will probably match it by ao.

It is talking about 2008-16.
No need to be so narrow, otherwise, no Big3, Just Fed era 2004-09 and Nole era 2011-23, nothing else.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Likely, but we are talking about a period of time, not so much as an era. It was a big 3 era but the big 4 was definitely a thing from 2011-2016.

There is something called legacy pts. It doesn't matter if Fed won just 1 in 11-16

He was slam leader and always revered.

Nadal won 5 and he was always revered as the king of clay.

Djokovic was number 1 for 223 out of 310 weeks. That's like all the weeks.

Murray best results came in the absence of big 3.

See , difference big 3 are better and then there is huge gap before anyone .

 

[Martin J]

The MI6 propaganda.

 

[Lleytonstation]

There is something called legacy pts. It doesn't matter if Fed won just 1 in 11-16

He was slam leader and always revered.

Nadal won 5 and he was always revered as the king of clay.

Djokovic was number 1 for 223 out of 310 weeks. That's like all the weeks.

Murray best results came in the absence of big 3.

See , difference big 3 are better and then there is huge gap before anyone .

You are viewing it as absolutes, which is not the point. Period of time not era.

Everyone was calling it big 4 during those times. It is not about their total career achievements, but in the moment, it was 4 guys winning everything and competing for the big titles.

 

[zakopinjo]

Sir Andy Murray and 3 random guys.

 

[GoatNo1]

They were for a period of time. 2011-2016:

• Murray won 3 slams and reached 6 additional Finals and 8 SFs, and won 2 gold medals.
• Rafa won 4 slams and reached an additional 4 Finals and zero SFs.
• Fed won 1 slam and reached an additional 4 Finals and 9 SFs.
• Djoker, uhh.. dominated... so maybe big 1?

Murray also won the ATP finals and reached number one during this era.

that era is actually noles 1st era (11-RG16) + muzzas half year (W16-WTF16)

 

[nolefam_2024]

It is talking about 2008-16.
No need to be so narrow, otherwise, no Big3, Just Fed era 2004-09 and Nole era 2011-23, nothing else.

Agreed

 

[Lleytonstation]

that era is actually noles 1st era (11-RG16) + muzzas half year (W16-WTF16)

Big 4 is not an era, it is a period of time, really very simple.

 

[GoatNo1]

Likely, but we are talking about a period of time, not so much as an era. It was a big 3 era but the big 4 was definitely a thing from 2011-2016.

it was invented some times in 2008 i think. maybe 2009. they was top4 from 2008 to 2016 for most of the time and seasons. and was very often in the SF of most big tournaments.

 

[messiahrobins]

We can easily agree that 2004-23 is the most fitting 'Big3 Era' concept, dominated by one, two, or all three of them consistently throughout.

However, at the core of this Big3 Era, Murray reached significant heights—taking the 2016 YE#1 and 2015 YE#2 rankings. His well defined prime (2008-2016) saw him claim all 20 of his big titles, with only one season (2014) missing the top 5 by a hairline (YE#6), and no top 10 YE finishes outside this period.

For more than 15 years from 07/25/2005 to 03/08/2021, the top2 spots have never been touched by anyone outside of Big4, not even one week.

So, isn't it fair to consider 2008-2016 as the true Big4 Era? During this period, Murray won 20 big titles, only behind Nole and Rafa. Federer had 17, and the next closest player managed only 4—a massive gap.

Conclusion: At the core of a broader 'Big3 Era', Murray entered the party last and exited first, claiming 20 big titles in his 9-year prime. We shouldn't deny the more narrowly defined Big4 Era as 2008-2016.

The period the Big 4 were all close to their peaks i would say was 2008-2013. That 5 year period was the Golden Age, you also had peak Del Potro and peak Ferrer in that era as well, wawrinka was about, Cilic etc. Out of interest what was the slam count for the Big 4 in that period ?

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Big 3, Big 4 and Big 5 are all valid terms depending on the circumstance.

Big 4 I'd say 2018-2016, especially 2009-2012.

 

[nolefam_2024]

We are not British

We don't need to fall to British propaganda at all.

 

[GoatNo1]

It is talking about 2008-16.
No need to be so narrow, otherwise, no Big3, Just Fed era 2004-09 and Nole era 2011-23, nothing else.

i would not stretch noles era for so long time. i think it is more correct to divide it to 2 shorter periods. instead of one long 13 years period to two shorter 5,5 years periods (11-RG16 and W18-23) with a 2 years break in between W16-RG18.

so
1st era: 11-RG16
2nd era: W18-23

 

[nolefam_2024]

i would not stretch noles era for so long time. i think it is more correct to divide it to 2 shorter periods. instead of one long 13 years period to two shorter 5,5 years periods (11-RG16 and W18-23) with a 2 years break in between W16-RG18.

so
1st era: 11-RG16
2nd era: W18-23

Agreed and Fed from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 AO. 1 6 year long period.

No era for Rafa and Andy

 

[messiahrobins]

Agreed and Fed from 2003 Wimbledon to 2010 AO. 1 6 year long period.

No era for Rafa and Andy

Rafa ERA 2005-2022. Nobody won more slams. He then stopped playing after RG2022.
Federer ERA 2003-2009. The golden age of tennis in terms of the greatest rivalry was therefore 2005-2009, which is the period the greatest matches of all time happened and why the Fedal rivalry is so famous and transcended the sport.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Murray: 17 top 4 at slams
Rafa: 4 top 4 at slams
Fed: 14 top 4 at slams
Djoker: too many to count

That is why they got the big4 name form 2011-2016.

 

[Mainad]

For the last 8 years, Murray was the only player from this era to win every category of ATP title (Slams, WTF, Olympics, Masters, 500s, 250s) and be ranked world #1. By winning the gold medal at the recent Olympics, Djokovic has only just joined him.
Whilst there's certainly a big gap in titles won compared to the Big 3, his overall career achievements gave him a place at their table during this period and they certainly thought so as the many pics of them taken together and in some of their comments made very clear. Big 3 and Big 4 are not mutually exclusive groupings.

 

[Lleytonstation]

For the last 8 years, Murray was the only player from this era to win every category of ATP title (Slams, WTF, Olympics, Masters, 500s, 250s) and be ranked world #1. By winning the gold medal at the recent Olympics, Djokovic has only just joined him.
Whilst there's certainly a big gap in titles won compared to the Big 3, his overall career achievements gave him a place at their table during this period and they certainly thought so as the many pics of them taken together and in some of their comments made very clear. Big 3 and Big 4 are not mutually exclusive groupings.

Yep, to me, the big4 is a sub group of the golden age.

Big 3
____ Big 4
______ Pigeons

 

[Mainad]

Yep, to me, the big4 is a sub group of the golden age.

Big 3
____ Big 4
______ Pigeons

We might have another subset of Big 5 for Wawrinka, the only other player to win multiple Slams during this era.

 

[RaulRamirez]

I can see the case for it, but am a bit "undecided".
Credit to the OP for this nugget: "For more than 15 years from 07/25/2005 to 03/08/2021, the top2 spots have never been touched by anyone outside of Big4, not even one week."

While we, intuitively, kind of figured this, it still produces a "wow".

 

[nolefam_2024]

Rafa ERA 2005-2022. Nobody won more slams. He then stopped playing after RG2022.
Federer ERA 2003-2009. The golden age of tennis in terms of the greatest rivalry was therefore 2005-2009, which is the period the greatest matches of all time happened and why the Fedal rivalry is so famous and transcended the sport.

Sure sure

Clay court is his

We don't want it.

 

[Neptune]

Rafa ERA 2005-2022. Nobody won more slams. He then stopped playing after RG2022.
Federer ERA 2003-2009. The golden age of tennis in terms of the greatest rivalry was therefore 2005-2009, which is the period the greatest matches of all time happened and why the Fedal rivalry is so famous and transcended the sport.

Rafa played 4 matches in 2023 and 19 in 2024, and not retired yet, what are you talking about.
Tennis is not just slam title count, far more than that.

 

[ibbi]

I think 2016 is a stretch. I'd say 2008 to 2012. Federer wasn't big anything in 2013, nor Nadal in 2015 or 2016. For 5 straight years the 4 of them finished 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the world. I'm not sure anyone even broke into the top 4 at any point during that run once Murray took 4th in late 08?

 

[AM75]

Who is the 4th in Big 4? Wawrinka?

 

[Aabye5]

Sure, Murray is Ringo

 

[Razer]

At first it was the Big 1 in Federer, then the British Media coined the Big 4 term when Djoko and Murray consistently became 3-4 ... later Djokovic started to kill the big 4 term and converted it into a Big 3 by moving past Murray and towards Federer and Nadal.... by 2017 it was evident that Murray did not belong in the big league. and thus the term big 3 started to come into force from 2018.

So technically it was Murray who created BIg 4 and Djokovic ended the Big 4.

 

[Lleytonstation]

At first it was the Big 1 in Federer, then the British Media coined the Big 4 term when Djoko and Murray consistently became 3-4 ... later Djokovic started to kill the big 4 term and converted it into a Big 3 by moving past Murray and towards Federer and Nadal.... by 2017 it was evident that Murray did not belong in the big league. and thus the term big 3 started to come into force from 2018.

So technically it was Murray who created BIg 4 and Djokovic ended the Big 4.

Yeah, it was short lived, but it happened.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think 2016 is a stretch. I'd say 2008 to 2012. Federer wasn't big anything in 2013, nor Nadal in 2015 or 2016. For 5 straight years the 4 of them finished 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the world. I'm not sure anyone even broke into the top 4 at any point during that run once Murray took 4th in late 08?

Of course they did

 

[SonnyT]

Clearly,

1) Novak Djokovic
2a & 2b) Roger Federer & Rafa Nadal

 

[Mainad]

I think 2016 is a stretch. I'd say 2008 to 2012. Federer wasn't big anything in 2013, nor Nadal in 2015 or 2016. For 5 straight years the 4 of them finished 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the world. I'm not sure anyone even broke into the top 4 at any point during that run once Murray took 4th in late 08?

Not so. Players like Ferrer, Wawrinka and Raonic occasionally broke into the Top 4 in that period.

 

[ibbi]

Not so. Players like Ferrer, Wawrinka and Raonic occasionally broke into the Top 4 in that period.

Wawrinka and Raonic definitely didn't break into the top 5 between 2008 and 2012. Ferrer might have.

 

[Wurm]

The Big Four was an era of a collective rivalry between four players who stood apart from the rest of the tour - three players who could actually rival Federer, and each other.

In one sense it only ran from late 2008-2012 and even then delPo had that flurry mid-to-late 2009 that suggested a Big Five was on the cards.

Things get fuzzy between 2013 and mid-2017 with Fed's back and knee problems, change of racket and so on, Rafa having a dodgy spell from mid-2014 to early 2017, Murray having a dodgy 2014 after back surgery and Stan winning slams in 2014-16...

Murray not being as god-like in his powers, nor as physically robust, as the other three meant he got left too far behind in terms of late career achievements resulting in The Big Three superceding The Big Four. Because we got to that point fluidly it meant there were points 2014-2017 where it being a Big Four (and/or Five with Stan's achievements) as opposed to a Big Three was getting strained but just because we ended up where we ended up doesn't mean it was ever thus.

 

[Wurm]

Wawrinka and Raonic definitely didn't break into the top 5 between 2008 and 2012. Ferrer might have.

delPo did so for a brief period in 2010 and Soderling did for a brief period in 2009... iirc, otherwise I believe it was the same four players in the top four rankings from late 2008 to around mid-2013. Ferrer sneaked up to 3rd later in 2013 due to Murray stopping playing due to his back after the USO in 2013 (he finished the year 4th) and Fed's ranking sliding that year.

 

[AntonZweck]

Just to be clear, it was the era of the big 3 alone.

 

[messiahrobins]

Rafa played 4 matches in 2023 and 19 in 2024, and not retired yet, what are you talking about.
Tennis is not just slam title count, far more than that.

Rafa is basically retired, 23 matches in 2 years is part time at best, or more cynically just keeping oneself on tour to maintain income streams.
I agree tennis is more than slams but the media have sold the product as just being about slams and Nadal from an early age, and now Alcaraz, have seen that and tailor there training accordingly as did Sampras.
However thanks to Djokovic and Federer i do think things are changing, for instance Shanghai is getting as much media attention as a slam it seems to me.

 

[messiahrobins]

Sure sure

Clay court is his

We don't want it.

Nadal has more slams off clay than ATGS like McEnroe got his whole career. Let that sink in.

 

[RSJfan]

77-79. Short but sweet. It will never be matched.

Connors-Borg-JMac…………………………Vitas

 

[RSJfan]

…for instance Shanghai is getting as much media attention as a slam it seems to me.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Just to be clear, it was the era of the big 3 alone.

Agreed

Three Gods.

 

[tennis3]

77-79. Short but sweet. It will never be matched.

Connors-Borg-JMac…………………………Vitas

OP is referring to 1989 - 2003. Before the Tour went "EuroTrash"

Sampras-Agassi-Courier.......................Chang

 

[Tennfan123]

Didn’t the four only make the semis of the same slam once? AO 2012?
not much of a big four really.