The Big 4 at the Slams [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Big 4 at the Slams

feuselino
01-17-2009, 10:20 PM
Just some food for thought before the AO, hope it is worth its own thread... I put together some data concerning the performances of the Big 4 at the Slams - during their first 12 Slams (Murray has only played 12 so far) and during their entire carrer, respectively.

No surprise that Nadal leads the way, and you can see that Federer really started very slow in the Slams...

Here's the data, hope the picture works...

GuiroNl
01-17-2009, 10:33 PM
What I find interesting is that Nadal has a better ratio at the AO than Djokovic but Djokovicis the guy with the title.

I think this it is more or less the same at the TMC, where Nadal and Djokovic have the same W-L but Djokovic has a title there.

By the way, you have a small mistake in your stats, with Djokovic having 2 RUs in his first 12.

Anyway, thanks for the effort. I like the stats.

Henry Kaspar
01-17-2009, 10:36 PM
I know this term is common usage now and I am not critizing the opener of this thread in any way, but frankly I think it's still rather early to talk of "big 4". Let's have win Murray at least one slam before calling him "big".

At the moment in my book there are "big 2". Then there is Djokovic who is kind of half-big. And then there is Murray who may or may not have started a run that could make him big. Other than that, there are several "could-be" and "have-beens". "Big 4" we maybe had in the Lendl-Wilander-Becker-Edberg era.

GuiroNl
01-17-2009, 10:45 PM
I know this term is common usage now and I am not critizing the opener of this thread in any way, but frankly I think it's still rather early to talk of "big 4". Let's have win Murray at least one slam before calling him "big".


Interesting that you say this because I agree with most. There are several reasons why Murray isn't part of a "Big 4" in my opinion.

1. Murray has no Grand Slam title.
2. Murray hasn't beaten 2 or more of the other 3 in one tournament while the others have done that.
3. He's ranked (in points) closer to the number 5 than the number 3.

Also, he's only been hitting form since/after Wimbledon and has yet to prove himself consistent over a longer period of time (the same thing holds for Djokovic, but to a lesser extent).

On the other hand, if Murray wins the Australian Open all it is likely that all my three reasons listed above hold no value anymore.

This is all slightly off topic though.

EDIT: Oh and of course, he doesn't have a high sanyaku rank ;)

Henry Kaspar
01-17-2009, 11:12 PM
EDIT: Oh and of course, he doesn't have a high sanyaku rank ;)

He would have if he wins the Aussie Open... :lol:

ORGASMATRON
01-17-2009, 11:24 PM
Yeah the term top 4 have been used quite often these days. What happens if Murray goes up to nr 3 without winning a slam though? Guess then its back to the big two again :lol:

Serenidad
01-18-2009, 03:51 AM
Murray needs to fix those records this year.

NinaNina19
01-18-2009, 03:54 AM
It's more like Murray and then the lesser but still big, big three.