Why has Wimbledon been the stronghold of the Big 4 ?

[clout]

I repeat, no player other than the Big 4 won multiple titles at any Slam except Wimbledon. That makes Wimbledon special, whether you choose to accept that or not.

Look I respect Murray a lot, I’ve always made that apparent but the big 4 term has become a stretch since 2011. Murray’s achievements are closer to the field in most cases than to the big 3

 

[Mainad]

Look I respect Murray a lot, I’ve always made that apparent but the big 4 term has become a stretch since 2011. Murray’s achievements are closer to the field in most cases than to the big 3

But I feel you don't respect his achievements enough. When other active players show that they can win double digit big titles and supplant any of the Big 3 as world #1 (and bear in mind that no-one else has even made #2 yet) then I will concede that he is closer to the field. But until that happens.......and at the moment it remains a very big "until".

 

[onyxrose81]

Yes, sure.

Remember how we use to say it was just impossible for anyone to win big titles with the big four around, because chance are you would have to beat two or even three of them to win a title?

Take a look at Berdych for example in 2010. He beats Federer, he beats Djokovic...now normally if you beat two such players it should mean a big title is in your hands, but he still had to play Nadal....

Next year, Tsonga GOATs against Federer coming back to win in five, but then has to face Djokovic 2011, and if he got past that, he had Nadal waiting in the final....

Del Potro 2013 plays an absolute epic with Djokovic in the semis, had he gotten through that, a fresh in form Murray would have finished him off easily in the final

Dimitrov playing the best season of his career and some of his best on grass at that point in 2014 dethrones Murray, only to run into Djokovic next round with Federer waiting in the final...


See a pattern? The non-big four players have to seriously GOAT like nothing before them, to get through such a gauntlet. It is bad enough trying to upset these guys in a best of three in a master, but try it in a best of five and you will see just how hard it is. And as grass is not a surface they play on as much, it makes the challenge that much more harder than on other surfaces.

Seeing it all laid out like this, I feel for the rest of the tour this past decade plus. A nightmare doesn't even begin to describe a title run.

 

[BHud]

Correction...Big 3...Big 4 is a myth...

 

[Mainad]

Correction...Big 3...Big 4 is a myth...

Not at Wimbledon it isn't.

 

[AceSalvo]

2009 Roddick was an great contender and fell a few points short

It’s been a weak tennis era since 2014 and that helped Fedrrayovic to keep winning.

Weak era on grass since 2003 is just propaganda.

 

[PMChambers]

I repeat, no player other than the Big 4 won multiple titles at any Slam except Wimbledon. That makes Wimbledon special, whether you choose to accept that or not.

I accept the premise just that it's not really special as outside the big 3, AO & FO have less other winners. So they're a bigger fortress. It's just picking the stats to justify a pointless belief.
Personally I'm have no issue with term Big 3, 4 or 5. But there is a very obvious gap between 3 & 4. And big 4 term hard to use given Mr 5 is equal on Majors though lower elsewhere. No doubt Murray is reasonable better on all stats and compeditive play against Big 3.
In recent times Wim has not been and different than AO or FO with US generally lagging due to injuries opening the field up.

 

[clout]

2009 Roddick was an great contender and fell a few points short

It’s been a weak tennis era since 2014 and that helped Fedrrayovic to keep winning.

Weak era on grass since 2003 is just propaganda.

The big 4 and Roddick have been the only good grass courters in the last 15 years....that's a loooong time in tennis. Well technically, Roddick is more in the Berdych, Tsonga, Cilic and Raonic group as he never ended up winning one of those trophies.

 

[AceSalvo]

The big 4 and Roddick have been the only good grass courters in the last 15 years....that's a loooong time in tennis

2003 - 2013 had Fedalovic in the peak/prime. So no need to stretch it as far back as 15 years.

Lets focus on the talent void since 2014 that allowed Fedrrayovic to add more titles.

 

[clout]

2003 - 2013 had Fedalovic in the peak/prime. So no need to stretch it as far back as 15 years.

Lets focus on the talent void since 2014 that allowed Fedrrayovic to add more titles.

Yeah it's probably around then that the GC talent began to be void. Nadal became bleh on grass, Stan was never great on it and I swear every next gen player is absolute garbage on grass. They've made progress on hard and clay but the moment it comes to playing on grass they stink lol

 

[Mainad]

I accept the premise just that it's not really special as outside the big 3, AO & FO have less other winners. So they're a bigger fortress. It's just picking the stats to justify a pointless belief.

Outside the Big 3, AO and FO have the same number of other winners as W (since the Big 3 era began) except that all 4 winners at W hold multiple titles which is why W stands out as special.

Personally I'm have no issue with term Big 3, 4 or 5. But there is a very obvious gap between 3 & 4. And big 4 term hard to use given Mr 5 is equal on Majors though lower elsewhere. No doubt Murray is reasonable better on all stats and compeditive play against Big 3.

But it's not all about the Majors and I've explained why Murray's overall career achievements put him in a closer category with the Big 3 than with anybody else (see post #52).