Agree, but what bothers me the most is who should be considered member of the big 3 instead?
Right, because the gods of tennis demand the very existence of a "big 3", without whom, the tour would cease to exist as we know it!
It's simple: if 28 v. 5 doesn't hold up, then we're still left with "Fedal" as a big 2.
Of course, that, like this thread in general, ignores the fact that Djokovic and Murray are both only entering the prime stages of their careers. They each have plenty of time to add more accomplishments to their resumes, and yet they're being compared with two guys who have done so for years.
This thread reminds me of those old fanatical "weak competition" arguments, wherein a decade's worth of numbers were being put up against those of an in-progress generation.
The fact is that Murray contributes to the stranglehold that the top four have on men's tennis. He's part of that ironclad barrier keeping other guys from winning events.