Mainad
Bionic Poster
Thought we were talking about 2008-16?
What is your definition of the Big4 Era?
- Thread starter Neptune
- Start date
Thought we were talking about 2008-16?
Wurm
Professional
The easiest thing to do is go through Murray's 21 slam semi-final appearances to check... I make it four times.
USO 2008: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_US_Open_–_Men's_singles
FO 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_French_Open_–_Men's_singles
USO 2011: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_US_Open_–_Men's_singles
AO 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Australian_Open_–_Men's_singles
There's not a single one of Murray's 21 slam semi-finals where there weren't at least 2 of the four of them present.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Andy Murray cannot be compared to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, says Mats Wilander
OP's View - I've always seen Murray as the bridge between the big 3 and the rest of the field since 2008. Is that fair to say? I've never seen a Murray fan who's put Murray in that trio ever, media BS. I agree with Mats but not in a "hater biach" way, it's fact. The Big Four of tennis? Or Big...
tt.tennis-warehouse.com
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
If Murray is a mug, then Djoko lost twice in Slam finals to the same mug
Elevating Murray helps Djoko
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
There is difference between a MUG and a lesser player.
Djokovic lost to lesser player. Far below big 3 and below the atg level but Murray is easily better than anyone Fed faced in his most of his slam titles.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
You seem extra salty and much more negative lately
It's not like you to immediately fire back with "well your favorite sucks too"
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I have always believed things happen for reason. Murray not being atg happened because his flaws.
It's the big 3 APOLOGISTS who have problem with me thinking they are unbeatable. They were beatable just need someone who can play at their level. Every gen had competition not just Murray but the apologists forget about this and moap around.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic lost to the riff raff, doesn't mean we glorify them. He has lost to Nishikori too in a SF, who does that in their peak years ? At least Nadal lost at W to many mugs in the 1st week, no big deal. We cannot elevate Murray's status because he lost to Big 3. A loser is still a loser no matter what stage he lost in, only wins count.
Comparing Murray and Hewitt at Slam Level.
Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Do you see Murray any better than Hewitt because Murray reached finals or semis ? I certainly don't .... they are all same type of players who were just not on the caliber of ATGs.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Mainad... Unless you started reading the post you quoted halfway through, I (thought I) was clearly not talking about 2013, 14, 15, or 16.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
If we don't glorify them, then we have to blame him for the losses, otherwise we live in a world where nothing matters and things just happen for no reason.
Federer beat Murray in at least two Slam Finals, so I'm not sure why you would say that Murray is better than anyone Fed faced because Fed faced him too (and never lost to him in a Slam Final).
I have Murray much higher than Hewitt, Murray's results were severely hampered by the presence of three ATGs, two of whom were his own age. And on his day he could and did beat the best ATG of all.
We say "10 Slams in any other era" as a joke but it's 100% true IMO.
I'm not underrating Hewitt btw, or Safin, or Roddick....they just got passed by when Federer came along and changed the game. And then again when the other two came along.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Murray doesn't win 10 slams in other eras because his HC peak is lower than Safin, his Grass peak is probably comparable to Roddick's and on clay he has nothing, so no in other eras too he wins the same. Fed beating Murray doesn't count much for me because it is a black mark on Novak to lose to Murray, not a feather in Federer's cap because Federer is a vastly superior player and if Fed was of Murray's age then the H2H would be something like 20-2 of Fed-Murray, I am sorry but I really don't rate Murray that high. He would be on 0 Slams if born in 1981, that much I am sure of it and thats all that I need to know.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
By the same token, Safin doesn't beat Nole 2008 and 2013 in Slam Finals
IMO
Murray's record against Sorcerer is actually pretty good, and speaks well for him
mike danny
Bionic Poster
I think Soderling was no.4 in early 2010 since Murray was seeded 5th at AO.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But, IMO, Murray would have also been slamless in 2004-early 2010 just like Hewitt and Roddick. It's just wishful thinking from the Djokovic fans that he'd take slams away from prime Fed.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Safin definitely beats 2008 Nole, heck washed out Safin actually beat Nole in 2008 at wimbledon, I dont think his peak version will have any trouble beating 2008 Novak at AO
Safin has beaten Pete, Agassi, Federer, Novak all in Australia, he is probably the BOAT, at least in TTW
gamelovergold
Semi-Pro
People takes nadal non clay slams lightly. 8 slams are no joke when rest of the field is only on 3 (murray and stan). Nadal did it inthe hardest way possible fighting roger and djokovic. Whatever nadal acheived in clay court was superhuman but his non clay slams are good enough .
zagor
Bionic Poster
I'd go with this as well. That's the big 4 period in my book.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
7 more to be precise.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
WHAT BIG FOUR
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Unfortunately for Andy, there’s only a big 3
Agreed. Some go to great lengths to drape the success of the other three on Murray, as if history cannot tell the difference.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Why wouldn't it be?
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Because Wawrinka is bizarrely considered some alpha male with guts comparable to the B3, I think he is probably rated higher than Murray here, which is absolutely bizarre to me
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
No no
No no
See the graphs. is Wawrinka anyway better than Murray? Stan is just at the right place at right time. There is no one else allowed to be big when we have Fedalovic in discussion.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Very much so. If 3 Slams and 17 other big titles can't count, it's a bit head-scratching to try and figure out why 3 Slams and 1 other big title would do the trick.
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Agreed. Only few do that. They are not serious posters.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
To be fair to Murray we should include 2013-2016 too because he beat Djokovic at a slam, eventually even became rank 1. Novak had separated himself from Murray but we should not forget that Murray became rank 1 while nobody else did until the 2020s. Murray deserves credit until 2016. IMO the era of the BIg 4 (if there ever was such an era outside the media houses and in the minds of the people) was from 2008 till 2016.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I see the big 4 era as beginning at 2008 Wimbledon, with Murray vs. Gasquet in the fourth round, and ending at the 2017 French Open, with Murray vs. Wawrinka in the semi finals. I might stretch it to 2017 Wimbledon, where Murray reached the quarter finals while being subdued and injured.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
I think Murray is much better than Wawa
But most here don't.
Murray took the #1 ranking from Djoko, OGSM from Fed on Centre Court, two Slams from Djoko and one over a clown. He made about as many Slam Finals as PETE THE GOD, right?
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
I don't think its MOST.
Small minority maybe. Ask 10 people if Murray is better than Wawrinka, 8 at least would say yes.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
While Wawrinka won 3 majors, he only won 1 masters title (2014 Monte Carlo) and only peaked at world number 3. Also, Wawrinka only won 3 ATP 500 titles as well.
Murray won 3 majors, but also won 14 masters titles, 1 YEC, 2 Olympic singles gold medals, 9 ATP 500 titles, and was world number 1. Murray was very consistent with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for many years, even if he was a clear 4th in the rivalry.
Murray won 3 majors, but also won 14 masters titles, 1 YEC, 2 Olympic singles gold medals, 9 ATP 500 titles, and was world number 1. Murray was very consistent with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic for many years, even if he was a clear 4th in the rivalry.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
No way sir
Hewitt only had Fed to contend with and he is obviously the weakest member of B3 no?
So Murray's competition was much stronger and more consistent
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Hewitt had Sampras and Agassi around too.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Shhhhh
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't matter how strong Murray's competition was, Murray was a failure against Federer all his life despite having a 6 years age advantage which is a lot. You know how age gaps works, no? age 27 is like the wrong end of the spectrum for any athlete when young fellows slowly started to inflict dents, Fed from 27 till his 35 played Murray in Murray's best years and yet Murray was a fail, this proves that if their best periods clashed directly then Murray would be something like 20-2 or 20-3 type on the H2H. Federer was that good against guys not great, there is no player better than him in history against sub par opposition. Roger punished mediocrity better than anyone ever did, so no Murray stands no chance. He wins 0 if born in 1981.
junior74
Bionic Poster
Unfortunately for Andy, there’s only a big 3
Yes, But there's only one MuryGoat!
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
And we have love for anyone that's beaten Novak in a major final to save tennis
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
What is the h2h?
zagor
Bionic Poster
The main reason Murray is paired with the big 3 to make the big 4 is because of his amazing consistency, Stan is not even close in that regard (like not on the same planet).
Stan is popular for the same reason Safin was popular, he has a big game and when zoning is very hard to stop even for ATGs. It's like in boxing, people generally like knockout artists more than decision merchants.
Power sells, it's entertaining to watch.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Of the B3 Fed is the best one at can crushing, I've seen even posters who hate his guts admit that.
Murray wouldn't have touched Fed in slams in 2004-2007 period IMO. In general he was a punching bag for Fed at slams, his only win came in 2013 AO when Fed had a bad back and one of his career worst seasons. Other than that, he lost to Fed in straights most of the time (2008 USO, 2010 AO, 2015 Wimbledon).
I'm sure Hewitt and Roddick would have loved to face the 2013 Fed.
messiahrobins
Legend
Its why i think when recency bias fades, Nadal will be seen as the Greatest and fairly comfortably as well tbh. Most current players seem to infer that already if you listen carefully to how they phrase things.
Razer
G.O.A.T.
Whose H2H ?
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Federer v Murray
