What is your definition of the Big4 Era?

[Razer]

Federer v Murray

Slams H2H .... (I don't count BO3s in any real conversation for men ... thats for ladies)

Federer was the hardest opponent for Murray .... there is no doubt....

Opponent	Best Rank	Matches	Won	Lost	Win %	Last Match	Stats	H2H
Novak Djokovic	1	10	2	8	20.0%	L [ 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 ] at 2016 Roland Garros Clay F	Stats	H2H
Rafael Nadal	1	9	2	7	22.2%	L [ 6-3 6-2 6-1 ] at 2014 Roland Garros Clay SF	Stats	H2H
Stan Wawrinka	3	8	3	5	37.5%	L [ 6-1 6-3 6-2 ] at 2020 Roland Garros Clay R128	Stats	H2H
Roger Federer	1	6	1	5	16.7%	L [ 7-5 7-5 6-4 ] at 2015 Wimbledon Grass SF	Stats	H2H

 

[Rosstour]

Slams H2H .... (I don't count BO3s in any real conversation for men ... thats for ladies)

Federer was the hardest opponent for Murray .... there is no doubt....

Opponent	Best Rank	Matches	Won	Lost	Win %	Last Match	Stats	H2H
Novak Djokovic	1	10	2	8	20.0%	L [ 3-6 6-1 6-2 6-4 ] at 2016 Roland Garros Clay F	Stats	H2H
Rafael Nadal	1	9	2	7	22.2%	L [ 6-3 6-2 6-1 ] at 2014 Roland Garros Clay SF	Stats	H2H
Stan Wawrinka	3	8	3	5	37.5%	L [ 6-1 6-3 6-2 ] at 2020 Roland Garros Clay R128	Stats	H2H
Roger Federer	1	6	1	5	16.7%	L [ 7-5 7-5 6-4 ] at 2015 Wimbledon Grass SF	Stats	H2H

I'm with you mostly, but not counting non-Slams is silly. You can't reach #1 without performing well over the non Slam events.

 

[Razer]

I'm with you mostly, but not counting non-Slams is silly. You can't reach #1 without performing well over the non Slam events.

And whats the point in reaching 1 if you a loser at Slams ?

You think anyone would care for Novak's spam weeks at 1 if he was on 20 slams with Federer on 22 and Nadal on 24 ???

 

[Rosstour]

And whats the point in reaching 1 if you a loser at Slams ?

You think anyone would care for Novak's spam weeks at 1 if he was on 20 slams with Federer on 22 and Nadal on 24 ???

Yeah, they would. Especially his fans.

If he had less Slams but more weeks at #1, he'd be argued as the GOAT for pure consistency. That would be his case

Only someone who has never played tennis would say that reaching a Slam final is unimportant. But you have said nuttier things

 

[Razer]

Only someone who has never played tennis would say that reaching a Slam final is unimportant. But you have said nuttier things

Reaching a Slam final is important for the people who never won a slam or those who are not ATGs, but when someone is in the GOAT conversation then reaching too many slam finals and losing them is a black mark. The real nutty thing is to not believe that Federer never reaching the final of French Open 2008 would not benefit him.... if you think Fed reaching wimbledon final of 2008 benefitted him then that too is nutty....

Yeah, they would. Especially his fans.

If he had less Slams but more weeks at #1, he'd be argued as the GOAT for pure consistency. That would be his case

Doesn't matter what his fans thing, the standard rules are that to be GOAT you need the most Slams, not even tie, you need a lead. If you have a lead then it doesn't matter even if you have a losing slams h2h to your rival (like Djokovic has vs Nadal), more slams means you are ahead. The weeks at 1 are not that much in the conversation.

I am no pro player but I think the wish for a player at first is to win 1 slam and to be rank 1, so once you achieve this the next goal is to win more slams and remain at 1 to end the year as 1, if you achieve this then you don't need track of how many weeks you were 1, such things only nerds do opening UTS or ATP websites, in real life people don't have time for all that. In the end Slams are the count that everyone keeps, that is the only which public speaks. I dont care what Nolefams think, I have my own views which I am sure are right. Post Sampras it was all about Slams and if we are comparing players of 70s, 80s vs today's then we need to see full body resume, but if we compare players of same era i.e modern times then it is all about Slams, plus when you compare lesser players who won 2 slams vs 3 slams then these stats like reached rank 1 become more significant than when comparing Big 3. When Nadal is compared Djokovic then everyone knows that Nadal having 50% weeks as Novak does not mean Novak has been 2X times consistent/dominant, such rubbish does not matter, what matters between them is Slams. When Federer is compared with them then Slams are what led to Federer's downfall too. He gets some sympathy for age difference because his peak did not clash with Novak's directly but Nadal gets no such benefit of doubt because he peaked earlier and declined early which is his mistake, Fed being born earlier was not his mistake... anyway, the point is clear..... Slams are everything in today's GOAT comparisons while comparisons across eras are more about Body of Work entirely for me,

 

[Rosstour]

Reaching a Slam final is important for the people who never won a slam or those who are not ATGs, but when someone is in the GOAT conversation then reaching too many slam finals and losing them is a black mark.

But we are talking about Murray and not Federer

Murray reached 11 GS F, which is tied with:

McEnroe
Wilander
Edberg

And did it against the strongest competition ever.

The only players who reached more Fs were B3, Lendl, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Agassi, Rosewall, Tilden, Connors. And Jack Crawford. That's it.

I'm not trying to say that Murray is better than the B3, but he's an ATG and the Big 4 name is well deserved.

 

[Razer]

But we are talking about Murray and not Federer

Murray reached 11 GS F, which is tied with:

McEnroe
Wilander
Edberg

And did it against the strongest competition ever.

The only players who reached more Fs were B3, Lendl, Sampras, Laver, Borg, Agassi, Rosewall, Tilden, Connors. And Jack Crawford. That's it.

I'm not trying to say that Murray is better than the B3, but he's an ATG and the Big 4 name is well deserved.

Even for Murray the finals don't give him anything because he everytime layed an egg in the big matches, the thing with great players is that if they reach the finals more times then they will put up big performances here and there, it won't be like Murray. Becker, Edberg, Wilander and Mcenroe reached 10+ Finals like Murray but unlike Murray they played in an era where lower ranked players could shock you in earlier rounds, today these players are seeded 32 nd so they are guaranteed to face losers until the QF which allows them to play themselves into form, plus courts are not diverse too nowadays in behavior and playing styles also are same for everyone, so do you think Murray's 11 finals should be compared to the older guys having 10-11 ??? Think again buddy..... Murray was always a average player, you should not have any doubt on this matter. It is an open and shut case.

 

[Rosstour]

Even for Murray the finals don't give him anything because he everytime layed an egg in the big matches,

Ok now just stop talking. He beat Djoko twice in GS Finals dude, that's not "everytime"

You sound like my buddy's girlfriend trying to talk sports now.

 

[Razer]

Ok now just stop talking. He beat Djoko twice in GS Finals dude, that's not "everytime"

You sound like my buddy's girlfriend trying to talk sports now.

haha ok most of the times he laid an egg...

Anyway Murray is nothing compared to Becker & Edberg, even you know it. Those 2 guys and Wilander were sandwiched between ATGs of the 80s and Pete/Agassi of 90s, it was incredibly tough for them. Murray at least grew up with Djokodal and had an age advantage of 6 over Federer, it is not as difficult as it looks.

 

[Rosstour]

haha ok most of the times he laid an egg...

Anyway Murray is nothing compared to Becker & Edberg, even you know it. Those 2 guys and Wilander were sandwiched between ATGs of the 80s and Pete/Agassi of 90s, it was incredibly tough for them. Murray at least grew up with Djokodal and had an age advantage of 6 over Federer, it is not as difficult as it looks.

I didn't mention Becker

He did not even reach 11.

Forget Federer

 

[Razer]

I didn't mention Becker

He did not even reach 11.

Forget Federer

Becker is above Wilander and probably above Edberg too for various reasons..

Whats so special about Murray's 11 ??? .... Lendl has 8 USO final appearances out of which he won 3, so you think he is anywhere comparable to Sampras who also has 8 final appearances there out of which he converted 5 ? Titles are what we see, not lost appearances.

 

[Mustard]

Becker is above Wilander and probably above Edberg too for various reasons..

You can make a good case for any of Becker, Wilander and Edberg to be better than the other two.

 

[Rosstour]

Becker is above Wilander and probably above Edberg too for various reasons..

Whats so special about Murray's 11 ??? .... Lendl has 8 USO final appearances out of which he won 3, so you think he is anywhere comparable to Sampras who also has 8 final appearances there out of which he converted 5 ? Titles are what we see, not lost appearances.

Special? I'm not arguing that 11 is special. I'm letting you know where 11 ranks in history. It speaks for itself.

You want to make the case that Murray is worse than any other player who appeared in 11 Slam Finals, you're gonna have to come with more than you have so far.

And if you want to know why it's special, it's because he played against the three best players in history (or two of them, anyway), and actually came out on top a few times and spent time at #1. He put up more of a fight against Djoko than basically anyone else besides Rafa, no?

 

[Razer]

Special? I'm not arguing that 11 is special. I'm letting you know where 11 ranks in history. It speaks for itself.

You want to make the case that Murray is worse than any other player who appeared in 11 Slam Finals, you're gonna have to come with more than you have so far.

And if you want to know why it's special, it's because he played against the three best players in history (or two of them, anyway), and actually came out on top a few times and spent time at #1. He put up more of a fight against Djoko than basically anyone else besides Rafa, no?

No 11 does not rank anywhere in history because we don't keep stats for who climbed Mt everest 80-90% most times or how many times, we only care for those who climbed summit. Pro tennis players aim to win the TROPHY.... not the PLATE.... the plate should not even exist but it exists as a consolation trophy just for the sake of it because you cannot let the other guy go home empty handed, it would be rude..... in reality the plate is no different from a 1st round loss or a SF loss... from an ATG perspective this is how it is.
Murray is not the only person to play against big 3, there are 100s of players who played them, stop glorifying Murray. Murray's top 10% or top 5% are all trash compared to Becker. You are insulting a legend by comparing him with Murray who is a good tier below him.

Murray never became 1 in the presence of a fit Big 3, he became 1 when all 3 of them collapsed together physically.

You can make a good case for any of Becker, Wilander and Edberg to be better than the other two.

Wilander is overrated man... the french is an inferior slam to W and Murray's Aus opens were all not even proper slams I think... he is the closest to Murray out of the 3 I guess.... Becker and Edberg are above and Becker is above Edberg too.... look at that 25-10 H2H.... it is 11-4 vs Edberg in best of 5 sets... not to mention becker's top 10 and top 5 win% also shine bright..... I think it is hard to look past becker even if becker lost wimbledons to edberg.... Becker is clearly the best of the 3.

 

[Mustard]

Wilander is overrated man... the french is an inferior slam to W and Murray's Aus opens were all not even proper slams I think... he is the closest to Murray out of the 3 I guess.... Becker and Edberg are above and Becker is above Edberg too.... look at that 25-10 H2H.... it is 11-4 vs Edberg in best of 5 sets... not to mention becker's top 10 and top 5 win% also shine bright..... I think it is hard to look past becker even if becker lost wimbledons to edberg.... Becker is clearly the best of the 3.

Wilander has one of the best tennis brains in history, and won 7 majors by age 24. He underachieved.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Lendl Wilander Edberg Becker is better big 4.

 

[Neptune]

Ok now just stop talking. He beat Djoko twice in GS Finals dude, that's not "everytime"

You sound like my buddy's girlfriend trying to talk sports now.

LOL

 

[RS]

2008-2012

But I am giving Murray the benefit the doubt. Lol.