Why has the Australian Open been the stronghold of the Big 5 minus Murray?
- Thread starter Sport
- Start date
Hitman
Bionic Poster
I am thinking why didn't you add RG to the title also, it is still the same guys.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you are right. Only the Big 5 minus Murray has won RG since 2005.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
I tihnk we should call in Matlock for this one. Deep fry it.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Ginger ninja
Semi-Pro
I’m confused about Big 5 minus Murray. You mean the big 3 plus Stan?
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is Rafa first and Fed last? I dont like this picture.
Lleytonstation
Talk Tennis Guru
No, top 10 over the past decade but only including Rafa, Fed, Djoker, and Stan.
Ginger ninja
Semi-Pro
That clears it up for me thanks. But what about the FO domination by the top 5 - I mean, between them they’ve won there every year since 2005. #top5domination
TheIntrovert
Hall of Fame
Because novak is selfish *cries in Scottish*
Sport
G.O.A.T.
No, I mean the Big 5 minus Murray. If the Big 5 is composed of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Wawinka, exclude Murray from the group.
Yugram
Legend
Pheasant
Legend
AO: Big 5 minus Murray since 2004
FO: Big 5 minus Murray since 2005
WI: Big 5 minus Stan since 2003
USO: Big 5 since 2004 with the exception of a zoning Cilic.
YE#1: Big 5 minus Stan since 2004
1+ weeks ranked #1: Big 5 minus Stan since 2/2/2004
But at the end of the day, it's MuryGOAT.
FO: Big 5 minus Murray since 2005
WI: Big 5 minus Stan since 2003
USO: Big 5 since 2004 with the exception of a zoning Cilic.
YE#1: Big 5 minus Stan since 2004
1+ weeks ranked #1: Big 5 minus Stan since 2/2/2004
But at the end of the day, it's MuryGOAT.
Terenigma
G.O.A.T.
To be fair, Nadal wasn't injured. He just had losingitus which is a temporary illness and is easily cured with a healthy dose of fooling your opponent into letting the foot off the gas. Nadal is a chronic sufferer of the condition.
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Delpo
Sport
G.O.A.T.
It is exactly the same. No one has won RG the since 2005 outside the Big 5 minus Murray and no one has won the AO since 2006 outside the Big 5 minus Murray.
By the way, it is either Big 3 or Big 5. Murray is closer to Wawrinka than he is to the Big 3, so nothing justifies creating a group including Murray but excluding Wawrinka.
Pheasant
Legend
Delpo
Nice pickup. That loss hurt us Federer fans badly.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
On the contrary, only if you think it is all about the Slams. I (and others) think other aspects need to be taken into account. Unlike Wawrinka, Murray has been ranked world #1 (the only active player to be so other than the Big 3) and has won many more titles (46 > 16) including big ones (20 > 4) than has Wawrinka. In these respects he is much closer to the Big 3 than he is to Wawrinka and that amply justifies regarding him as a member of an exclusive group with the Big 3. Wawrinka can certainly be included as a member of a Big 5 but none of these groups are mutually exclusive.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
You sure? Murray is closer to Wawrinka than the Big 3 in 5 categories (Slams, overall titles, weeks as #1, Year End #1, Masters 1000), while he is only closer to the Big 3 in 2 categories (Olympics, ATP finals).
Slams: Murray is closer to Wawrinka than he is to the Big 3 in Slams, as there are 13 Slams of difference between Murray and Djokovic, while there are 0 Slams of diffrence between Murray and Wawrinka.
Titles: Murray is closer to Wawrinka than he is to the Big 3 in titles, as there are 31 titles of difference between Murray and Djokovic, while there are 30 titles of difference between Murray and Wawrinka.
Weeks as #1:
Murray 41
Rest of the Big 3: 208+
Wawrinka 0
Calculus of the difference:
208-41 = 167
41-0 = 41
Murray is closer to Wawrinka in weeks as #1 than he is to the Big 3, as there are 167 weeks as #1 of difference between Murray and the big 3, while there are 41 weeks as #1 of difference between Murray and Wawrinka.
Year End #1:
Murray 1
Rest of the Big 3: 5
Wawirnka: 0
Calculus of the difference:
5-1 = 4
1-0 = 1
Murray is closer to Wawrinka in number of Year End #1 than he is to the Big 3, as there are 4 Year End #1 of difference between Murray and the Big 3, while there is only 1 Year End #1 of difference between Murray and Wawrinka.
Masters 1000:
Murray 14
Rest of the Big 3: 28+
Wawrinka 1
Calculus of the difference:
28-14 = 14
14 -1 = 13
Murray is closer to Wawrinka in number of Masters 1000 than he is to the Big 3, as there are 14 Masters 1000 of difference between Murray and the Big 3, while there are 13 Masters 1000 of difference between Murray and Wawrinka.
Olympics:
Murray 2
Rest of the Big 3: 0-1
Wawrinka
Murray is closer to the Big 3 than he is to Wawrinka in this stat.
ATP finals:
Murray 1
Rest of the Big 3: 0-6
Wawrinka: 0
Murray is closer to the Big 3 than he is to Wawrinka in this stat.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Yeah, I'm pretty sure when taking other career achievements into account other than just the Slams. Here is how I group them:
1. Big 3: set of all active players with double digit Slams (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic).
2. Big 4: set of all active players with multiple Slams, multiple other big titles and the #1 ranking (Big 3 plus Murray).
3. Big 5: set of all active players with multiple Slams (Big 4 plus Wawrinka).
4. Big 7: set of all active players with Slam titles (Big 5 plus Del Potro and Cilic).
None of these are mutually exclusive. You can make even bigger groupings with even wider criteria but the returns become ever more diminishing.
