What happened to the big 4? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What happened to the big 4?

Everko
06-11-2010, 01:02 PM
Djokovic and Murray are playing like 15-20 players. They can lose to anyone. Malisse and Fish??

Nadal and Federer never seem to play their best at the same time.

When will they all 4 play the best again? When was the last time?

Murray and Djokovic, what happened to those two?

Voo de Mar
06-11-2010, 01:04 PM
Good for the game that is harder to predict something :)

Bargearse
06-11-2010, 01:09 PM
It's always nice to see other players winning besides the usual suspects but I'm definitely feeling a flatness and lack of motivation from the top guys - especially Murray and Djokovic. I really would like to see them find some form for Wimbledon.

Sapeod
06-11-2010, 01:11 PM
All players go into a slump at some time, and I guess all these guys are doing it at the same time :lol: Except for Nadal of course, but he's not playing very well either.

tyruk14
06-11-2010, 01:12 PM
There is no big four.

It was an illusion.

coonster14
06-11-2010, 01:14 PM
federer just has not been the same player ever since he won the Aus Open this year, however having said that, I believe he will rebound strongly at Wimbledon, I expect to see him in the SF or F, anything less than a SF would be a shock to me.

nadal is on a confidence high right now, I think only Federer could stop him at Wimbledon, or maybe Roddick, but only if he has one of those awesome serving days.

murray and djokovic, i am disappointed in how these two have been playing these last few months, i thought they were going to step things up and challenge federer and nadal, instead they end up losing to lower ranked players consistently.

djokovic losing to melzer at FO was a HUGE shock, and all his allergies, breathing problems, crappy serve, total loss of confidence, there are just too many issues with that guy, i think he just needs a match against federer or nadal to get his confidence back (even if he loses), but the problem is he always loses the round before he gets the chance to meet either (e.g. Fed at AO SF, and Rafa at FO SF)...he always plays his best against nadal.

murray, i think is still mentally shattered by the AO final loss, and he can just lose to any guy who gets hot on the day (soderling at IW, berdych at FO, fish at Miami/Queens).

i do not think it is Big 4 by the way, only Big 2 (federer/nadal).

Commander Data
06-11-2010, 01:28 PM
I think Nadal and Federer have shown that there are just the big 2.

Persimmon
06-11-2010, 02:16 PM
Fed is brilliant on grass.

The rest of the ATP tour are just average on grass.:wavey:

Noleta
06-11-2010, 02:34 PM
Murray and Djokovic are in a major slump:shrug:

ApproachShot
06-11-2010, 02:50 PM
I agree that it only really makes sense to talk about the 'big 2' as opposed to the 'big 4'. They may have a few shocking losses in early rounds in various tournaments, and perhaps some of these losses may be in relatively quick succession, but so long as they continue to dominate the rankings their position will still be assured.

Jills
06-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Makes Wimbledon more interesting. I hope my faves draw into Murray's quarter :D

Jills
06-11-2010, 03:14 PM
I predict that if Muzz and Nole keep playing bad, the top 4 next year will be Rafa, Fed, Soderling and Del Potro.

henke007
06-11-2010, 03:17 PM
Makes Wimbledon more interesting. I hope my faves draw into Murray's quarter :D

Lets hope Sod gets Nole at his 1/4 and not Fed or Rafa anyway:) Only 30 points behind Kolya and 400 points behind Murray :worship:

Leo
06-11-2010, 03:24 PM
It's interesting because by the end of last season, we were talking about having a Top 6 or perhaps even Top 7, also comprised of Del Potro (on the heels of his USO victory with wins over Nadal and Federer), Davydenko (on the heels of his TMC victory with wins over Nadal, Federer, and Del Potro), and Soderling (on the heels of his RG F and continued success over top players like Nadal).

After the Australian Open this January, Federer, Murray, and Djokovic have all been in major slumps. For Djokovic in particular, it's a slump that's been ongoing for a couple of years now. Nadal has been the player to single-handedly carry the tour since the Aussie, with his improved play and consistent results at the hardcourt TMSes and his dominant play on clay. Both Del Potro and Davydenko could have stepped in and helped to fill the void left by Federer, Murray, and Djokovic, if not for their sidelining injuries. It's a shame. So now what we're left with is Nadal and a bunch of top players in shit form or injured. The WTA has been similar for the last couple of years with the top players performing like crap at all the events outside the Slams, and often at the Slams as well. Both the WTA and ATP are a bit of a shit-show.

I hope JMDP and ND can make swift comebacks, as unlikely as that is, to reassert their authority. Both men are so much more aggressive and offensive-minded than meek pushers Murray and Djokovic and thus we need them back at the top and in the conversation!

DJ Soup
06-11-2010, 03:45 PM
JMDP is the real top 3

emotion
06-11-2010, 04:29 PM
tbh, the whole top 8 have sucked lately. so many early exits...

brent-o
06-11-2010, 04:44 PM
Simply put, the lower 6 got better.

rafa_maniac
06-11-2010, 05:00 PM
I don't know if there ever was one. Djokovic may have briefly lent credence to the idea of a "big 3" in 07/08 when he won a Slam and had consistent deep runs at the others as well as wins over the top two and impressive consistency, but since then he's fallen way off and I don't know how you can only include Murray into a big four when Del Potro has a Slam with wins over Fed/Nadal and he doesn't. It became big five with DelPo, big six with Davydenko, now big seven with Soderling?? Time to give it a rest, there's a big two and a big gap to the rest.

Nole fan
06-11-2010, 05:04 PM
I'm laughing at all the people that think Del Potro has better chances than Murray or Nole. The guy has been out of competition like forever, so he still needs to prove a lot of things, until then he's just top 6 material.
ALL the top 8 have been disappointing this season making this year the most boring I can remember.
I really hope that Murray and Djoko step it up because the ATP circuit right now is insufferable.

martinatreue
06-11-2010, 05:17 PM
Losing to Fish on grass is not a shock for me. Malisse, on the other hand, is underrated overall, but Djoker should have won that. I think Djokovic and Murray are not really consistently close to Nadal or Federer.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
06-11-2010, 06:27 PM
There never was a big 4. Murray and Djokovic have always been unable to beat Fedal at the slams, with the exception of Nadal on hard courts where he loses to lots of people.

Except against Nadal on hard courts, and Djokovic at AO 08 when Fed had mono, I don't think either Murray or Djokovic has scored a single grand slam win against Fedal.

Aaric
06-11-2010, 06:37 PM
There was never big-four, you know

born_on_clay
06-11-2010, 07:09 PM
All players go into a slump at some time, and I guess all these guys are doing it at the same time :lol: Except for Nadal of course, but he's not playing very well either.

3 consecutive Masters Series + French Open + 24 match winning streak if I play bad, no :worship:

BigJohn
06-11-2010, 07:52 PM
I think Nadal and Federer have shown that there are just the big 2.

There was never big-four, you know

This and this.

No way either Faker or Murray are on par with the top 2.

Puschkin
06-11-2010, 08:10 PM
There was never big-four, you know
:yeah:

Vida
06-11-2010, 08:16 PM
Good for the game that is harder to predict something :)

when top ranked players are not consistent the overall level of tennis (at the top) is lower, and thus it is bad for the game.

besides, who desires less predictability, can watch WTA. only, he'd have to bear all the bagels and breadsticks in semis and finals.

Vida
06-11-2010, 08:19 PM
This and this.

No way either Faker or Murray are on par with the top 2.

I agree with this. it was more like big 2 + 1 + 1. cause, nor was djokovic on the level of nadal and federer (who in my view do go together in this sense), nor was murray in the same league with djokovic.

big 4 was more of a press thing. they wanted to squese murray there a bit, I feel.

rocketassist
06-11-2010, 08:48 PM
I agree with this. it was more like big 2 + 1 + 1. cause, nor was djokovic on the level of nadal and federer (who in my view do go together in this sense), nor was murray in the same league with djokovic.

big 4 was more of a press thing. they wanted to squese murray there a bit, I feel.

:haha:

Vida
06-11-2010, 08:55 PM
:haha:

it isnt that funny really. when you think about it just a bit, you'll notice murray hasnt won a slam, and that matters.

for what we know by now, maybe both of them will never reach GS semis in the future, maybe the book is closed. and if that were the case, there were still be difference in 1>0 slams and that is a big deal my friend.

surely, your argument cant be 'yes, but muray will win a slam'. that would just be too stupid.

alter ego
06-11-2010, 09:02 PM
I agree with this. it was more like big 2 + 1 + 1. cause, nor was djokovic on the level of nadal and federer (who in my view do go together in this sense)
it isnt that funny really. when you think about it just a bit, you'll notice murray hasnt won a slam, and that matters.

for what we know by now, maybe both of them will never reach GS semis in the future, maybe the book is closed. and if that were the case, there were still be difference in 1>0 slams and that is a big deal my friend.

surely, your argument cant be 'yes, but muray will win a slam'. that would just be too stupid.

Great logic. So Djokovic is better than Murray because he has one more slam but Roger and Nadal "go together" even though Roger has 9 more slams than Nadall even though Roger has 5 US opens while Nadal hasn't reach a final there, even though Roger has 4 YEC while Nadal hasn't reach the final, even though Roger has 285 weeks as number one while Nadal has 47 ?

Henry Kaspar
06-11-2010, 09:14 PM
First, there never were big 4. There were big 2, maybe 2 1/2 in late 07/early 08 (when Djokovic made SF FO, SF WB, F UO, W AO).

Djokovic still reaches the quarters regularly though, and Murray tends to take off a slam, come back the next. So nothing too much has changed. However, Roddick, del Potro (when not njured) and Sodwerling are now also in the mix, of course.

Vida
06-11-2010, 09:24 PM
[/B]


Great logic. So Djokovic is better than Murray because he has one more slam but Roger and Nadal "go together" even though Roger has 9 more slams than Nadall even though Roger has 5 US opens while Nadal hasn't reach a final there, even though Roger has 4 YEC while Nadal hasn't reach the final, even though Roger has 285 weeks as number one while Nadal has 47 ?

well nadal is much younger than roger so there goes much of your argument relating to weeks. yes federer is a better player overall and has more 'versatile' titles, but 'big one' doesnt make sense does it. they are rivals big time so as I said, in my view, they go together.

HKz
06-11-2010, 11:26 PM
Obviously trying prove that this era has the most depth

chewbacca74
06-11-2010, 11:30 PM
I would say "What happened to the top 20 ?"

Indeed 11 "Top 20" players were involved in Halle/Queen's.

Only 2 reached QF (Nadal & Fed') and now only Fed' is qualified in SF...

Are they a bit tired after the French Open ?

Filo V.
06-11-2010, 11:31 PM
It never really was the big 4. It was the big 3 for a while with Nole included with Rafa and Roger, and what has happened is the pressure has gotten to him and the lost chances at #1 have ate at him, and he has never recovered. That, and his litany of fitness issues. Murray, for me, doesn't deserve to be apart of this discussion, he has not yet shown he is on that elite of the elite level.

Filo V.
06-11-2010, 11:32 PM
I would say "What happened to the top 20 ?"

Indeed 11 "Top 20" players were involved in Halle/Queen's.

Only 2 reached QF (Nadal & Fed') and now only Fed' is qualified in SF...

Are they a bit tired after the French Open ?

1. Nadal and Federer are way ahead of the other players.

2. This is a warm-up week for Wimbledon, and different players have different agendas.

rocketassist
06-12-2010, 02:12 AM
it isnt that funny really. when you think about it just a bit, you'll notice murray hasnt won a slam, and that matters.

for what we know by now, maybe both of them will never reach GS semis in the future, maybe the book is closed. and if that were the case, there were still be difference in 1>0 slams and that is a big deal my friend.

surely, your argument cant be 'yes, but muray will win a slam'. that would just be too stupid.

No but since 2008 their results have mirrored and Murray's made two slam finals, so to keep saying Djokovic was ahead on form and results is wrong. Career wise he has the slam title yes, but since Cincy 08 he hasn't been leagues ahead like you make out he is.

I_Dasco
06-12-2010, 04:38 AM
Ohh... We are talking about tennis players not English Premier Leauge teams so there is no big 4 here... Even Nadal lost, you can keep saying there is big 2 ? only FED real legend here...

osmonde
06-12-2010, 07:04 AM
Halle with a draw of 32 where Davidenko(5) is the only top 10 and coming back from injury, and the 2 others top 20: Youzhny (14) and Ferrero (17).
So Fed is cruising without problem, no?


Top 2 for me: Federer, years at no:1 and Nadal, years as no:2 or 1 then 2 and 1 again. and sharing 23 wins in slams out of the last 25.

Djokovic hanging around those last 2 years...

Murray's head, beside his AO lost, is still on his 2 weeks at no:2;
it happened last August when Nadal lost his 800pts from the Olympics after losing 2000 withdrawing from Wimby...It was a fluke...

Even loosing his points from 3 slams, Nadal is back on top with consistency.

In 9 years, Soderling has 5 titles:
1 X 500 in Feb09 over Youzhny who retired in their final.
4 X 250, 3 on indoor carpet and 1 on clay.
Saving his 1200pts from FO, he could hang around but must wins some Masters to keep it up or many lower tournaments.

DelPo will mark his way but not yet it seems.
Davidenko will keep it up for sometimes.

Young guys like Gulbis, Cilic and others could hit a high spot if they get their act together for a longer period.
It gives nevertheless some depth in matches many times.

But there are still only 2 superstars at the moment and we may wait long for someone to replace them with the same prestige.

Henry Kaspar
06-12-2010, 08:23 AM
Halle with a draw of 32 where Davidenko(5) is the only top 10 and coming back from injury, and the 2 others top 20: Youzhny (14) and Ferrero (17).
So Fed is cruising without problem, no?


Top 2 for me: Federer, years at no:1 and Nadal, years as no:2 or 1 then 2 and 1 again. and sharing 23 wins in slams out of the last 25.

Djokovic hanging around those last 2 years...

Murray's head, beside his AO lost, is still on his 2 weeks at no:2;
it happened last August when Nadal lost his 800pts from the Olympics after losing 2000 withdrawing from Wimby...It was a fluke...

Even loosing his points from 3 slams, Nadal is back on top with consistency.

In 9 years, Soderling has 5 titles:
1 X 500 in Feb09 over Youzhny who retired in their final.
4 X 250, 3 on indoor carpet and 1 on clay.
Saving his 1200pts from FO, he could hang around but must wins some Masters to keep it up or many lower tournaments.

DelPo will mark his way but not yet it seems.
Davidenko will keep it up for sometimes.

Young guys like Gulbis, Cilic and others could hit a high spot if they get their act together for a longer period.
It gives nevertheless some depth in matches many times.

But there are still only 2 superstars at the moment and we may wait long for someone to replace them with the same prestige.

If I made add, according to my Yokozuna tennis rankings these two are also the only two Yokozuna (=Grand Champions) at this stage, out of 15 players who made it to this level during the open era (from Laver to Agassi).

Djokovic has been an Ozeki (=Champion) for nearly 3 years. Of the other of the challengers del Potro made it to Ozeki briefly after the USO (he's already lost the rank again). Roddick used to be an Ozeki some time ago (also players like Hewitt, Ferrero, who are no longer top contenders).

The others--Murray, Soderling, Cilic, Davydenko--have never been higher than Sekiwake (=Junior Champion I).

brianwilsongiant
06-12-2010, 09:28 AM
Novak is a one slam wonder.
Murray will never win a slam.
FACT
AND FACT

Vida
06-12-2010, 09:54 AM
No but since 2008 their results have mirrored and Murray's made two slam finals, so to keep saying Djokovic was ahead on form and results is wrong. Career wise he has the slam title yes, but since Cincy 08 he hasn't been leagues ahead like you make out he is.

well in truth Im not saying djokovic was ahead in form and results. facts are facts.

all Im saying is that djokovic is in different league than murray tennis-wise, which, in my mind at least, has something to do with labeling a player a member of 'big something'.

stebs
06-12-2010, 10:06 AM
From a tennis fans point of view, the unpredictability at the top of the game is interesting but it's a shame that it seems to be coming about because of an overall decrease of level from the very top players rather than an increase from the lower guys. Sure, Soderling has been very impressive and we have seen great performances from a few other players at times this year as well but it is hard to deny that Murray and Djokovic are lost at the moment. Neither of them will be able to retain their rankins without a dramatic turn in fortunes soon. I think we will learn a lot about the nature of the top 10 before this year is out but as of now it is unclear which way the pendulum will swing for some of these top guys.

henke007
06-12-2010, 10:27 AM
Cilic and Davydenko have never reached a GS final like Murray and Soderling have done twice.

Clydey
06-12-2010, 01:07 PM
it isnt that funny really. when you think about it just a bit, you'll notice murray hasnt won a slam, and that matters.

for what we know by now, maybe both of them will never reach GS semis in the future, maybe the book is closed. and if that were the case, there were still be difference in 1>0 slams and that is a big deal my friend.

surely, your argument cant be 'yes, but muray will win a slam'. that would just be too stupid.

Thomas Johansson won a slam. I guess Murray isn't in his league either. :lol:

Djokovic gets straight-setted every time he plays Murray these days.

Henry Kaspar
06-12-2010, 03:59 PM
Thomas Johansson won a slam. I guess Murray isn't in his league either. :lol:

Djokovic gets straight-setted every time he plays Murray these days.

No doubt that career-wise Djokovic is above Murray thus far. This can change, but it hasn't yet. To date Murray is (still) mostly promise.

Btw, I expect both to do well at Wimbledon.

Henry Kaspar
06-12-2010, 04:06 PM
Just a thought--what would have happened to Murray, Soderling, Djokovic, Del Potro 10 years earlier?

I suppose most would have won a couple of slams by this stage of their careers. The Fedal duopoly makes it awfully hard for the second row of players, fine champions as they are.

Clydey
06-12-2010, 07:31 PM
No doubt that career-wise Djokovic is above Murray thus far. This can change, but it hasn't yet. To date Murray is (still) mostly promise.

Btw, I expect both to do well at Wimbledon.

We're not talking about their legacy. We are talking about their level of tennis. It's plainly absurd to say that Murray is not in Nole's league.

Johnny Groove
06-12-2010, 07:33 PM
Yes Clydey, Murray and Djokovic's level of play recently have been similar.

Similarly terrible.

Aaric
06-12-2010, 07:36 PM
Besides, the big four would be fedalole + delpo...

Clydey
06-12-2010, 07:43 PM
Yes Clydey, Murray and Djokovic's level of play recently have been similar.

Similarly terrible.

I was referring to them in general, not necessarily their form over the last few months.

Mechlan
06-12-2010, 07:49 PM
There is no big 4 of late. There was last year when Murray and Djokovic were consistently winning MS titles. Now the only relatively consistent performers are Nadal and Federer.

Start da Game
06-13-2010, 09:57 AM
grass court tennis has been dead since 2004.......

Henry Kaspar
06-13-2010, 01:00 PM
I was referring to them in general, not necessarily their form over the last few months.

Ah, we are not talking about their career performances, but also not about their performance in recent months, because neither looks particularly good for Murray.

We're talking then about something.... in between? Say, their peak performances in the few selected months when Murray topped Djokovic in the ATP ranking? I see, we're comparing them only whenever Murray was better, and then conclude he is better! ;-)

Cool it buddy. I'm not saying Djokovic has more potential than Murray (they're probably about even in this department). I'm saying Djokovic has achieved more to date, in terms of both peak performances (Murray never put anything close to a GS series SF-SF-F-W together) and consistency at the top (Djokovic makes the QFs at pretty much every slam). And this is just stating the obvious.

Clydey
06-13-2010, 01:26 PM
Ah, we are not talking about their career performances, but also not about their performance in recent months, because neither looks particularly good for Murray.

We're talking then about something.... in between? Say, their peak performances in the few selected months when Murray topped Djokovic in the ATP ranking? I see, we're comparing them only whenever Murray was better, and then conclude he is better! ;-)

I didn't say anything remotely like that. My point is that you cannot make a convincing argument that Djokovic has been in a different league to Murray over the past 2 years. I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth, as it's becoming tedious.

Cool it buddy. I'm not saying Djokovic has more potential than Murray (they're probably about even in this department). I'm saying Djokovic has achieved more to date, in terms of both peak performances (Murray never put anything close to a GS series SF-SF-F-W together) and consistency at the top (Djokovic makes the QFs at pretty much every slam). And this is just stating the obvious.

I'm perfectly "cool".

Once again, people are putting far too much emphasis on slam performances, which only account for 8 weeks of the calendar. Even at that, Djokovic has done little of note in the slams since he won in Australia. Murray has performed better over the past 2 years. Moreover, Murray has won big titles more consistently during that time.

This argument isn't about who is better or who has achieved more. No one disputes that Djokovic has achieved more. It's about the, quite frankly, idiotic statement that Djokovic is in a different league to Murray.

Vida
06-13-2010, 01:56 PM
results are one thing, and it really isnt worth debating there cause those are facts for all to see. they come not only from 'tennis' ability, but from mentality, laziness, incidental injuries, work rate, pressure from media, family or fans,.. lots of things.

many things must click to get results. and in that sense who knows what will happen. I personally would not be surprised if murray ends up 'greater' player than nole with more titles won, cause, for one, he has far better mentality than djokovic, he has no problems with breathing/choking as does djokovic, isnt stupid to hire todd martin, and his surrounding is by far better (better team, no crazy family etc).

what you fail to grasp clydey (and rocket), terribly, is that simply put, djokovic can inherently do more with the freaking ball than can murray. it really is that simple. murray is one excellent player, moves fantasticly, has that 'touch' and is crafty, intelligent player. but he has gapping holes in his game - he is a defensive player, a counter-puncher with weak forehand and weak 2nd serve, and its no accident, thats how it is.

djokovic, when he was in form, had both the mentality and game to be an all round player who could finish matches on his will, cause he had the tools. and thats something that murray cant do cause he hasnt got it, and thats why he is a league lower than djokovic. it really isnt more complicated than that.

to illustrate, try and make a list of reasons behind each players recent poor form. you will see that the list is much MUCH longer in djokovic's case than in murrays. in fact, I cant think a single reason for murray, except that maybe he 'over-trained'. or in another words - try and imagine what would happen to murray if he had a insane father and mother, if had to run home to host a 'murray-open' every year, if he had asthma as a kid, if he cant breath on dust cause of allergies, if he hired todd martin to alter his serve, if he started insanely imitating other players and had federer down his neck, and the rest form the list on djokovic.

and with this I give my final word on the subject for all eternity. I guess.

Clydey
06-13-2010, 02:04 PM
results are one thing, and it really isnt worth debating there cause those are facts for all to see. they come not only from 'tennis' ability, but from mentality, laziness, incidental injuries, work rate, pressure from media, family or fans,.. lots of things.

many things must click to get results. and in that sense who knows what will happen. I personally would not be surprised if murray ends up 'greater' player than nole with more titles won, cause, for one, he has far better mentality than djokovic, he has no problems with breathing/choking as does djokovic, isnt stupid to hire todd martin, and his surrounding is by far better (better team, no crazy family etc).

what you fail to grasp clydey (and rocket), terribly, is that simply put, djokovic can inherently do more with the freaking ball than can murray. it really is that simple. murray is one excellent player, moves fantasticly, has that 'touch' and is crafty, intelligent player. but he has gapping holes in his game - he is a defensive player, a counter-puncher with weak forehand and weak 2nd serve, and its no accident, thats how it is.

djokovic, when he was in form, had both the mentality and game to be an all round player who could finish matches on his will, cause he had the tools. and thats something that murray cant do cause he hasnt got it, and thats why he is a league lower than djokovic. it really isnt more complicated than that.

to illustrate, try and make a list of reasons behind each players recent poor form. you will see that the list is much MUCH longer in djokovic's case than in murrays. in fact, I cant think a single reason for murray, except that maybe he 'over-trained'. or in another words - try and imagine what would happen to murray if he had a insane father and mother, if had to run home to host a 'murray-open' every year, if he had asthma as a kid, if he cant breath on dust cause of allergies, if he hired todd martin to alter his serve, if he started insanely imitating other players and had federer down his neck, and the rest form the list on djokovic.

and with this I give my final word on the subject for all eternity. I guess.

Djokovic can do more with a tennis ball than Murray? Now I've heard it all. People often talk about Murray's variety. Who do you ever hear talking about Djokovic's variety? Get a grip, Vida.

Henry Kaspar
06-13-2010, 03:15 PM
I didn't say anything remotely like that. My point is that you cannot make a convincing argument that Djokovic has been in a different league to Murray over the past 2 years. I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth, as it's becoming tedious.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say Djokovic is in a different league than Murray. Just that career-wise he is ahead.

I'm perfectly "cool".

Once again, people are putting far too much emphasis on slam performances, which only account for 8 weeks of the calendar.

But in the end this is what players' careers are measured against. If a player consistenly fails at the slams, the best he can hope to for is to become a second Marcelo Rios.

Vida
06-13-2010, 04:12 PM
Djokovic can do more with a tennis ball than Murray? Now I've heard it all. People often talk about Murray's variety. Who do you ever hear talking about Djokovic's variety? Get a grip, Vida.

clydey, looking like that, there age guys at my club who have more variety than both of them put together, but thats not what I meant. until murray develpos a put away forehand and starts playing offensive instead of counter punching he wont be playing on the level djokovic played when he was in form. he'll be playing good but guys will expose him and he'll be in trouble.

Clydey
06-13-2010, 05:08 PM
You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say Djokovic is in a different league than Murray. Just that career-wise he is ahead.

I didn't say that you said that. It was Vida who said it and that's the point I'm arguing against.

But in the end this is what players' careers are measured against. If a player consistenly fails at the slams, the best he can hope to for is to become a second Marcelo Rios.

That has to do with achievements. It has nothing to do with whether Murray is in the same league as Djokovic "tennis wise". That is the point Vida made, which is plainly absurd.

Clydey
06-13-2010, 05:14 PM
clydey, looking like that, there age guys at my club who have more variety than both of them put together, but thats not what I meant. until murray develpos a put away forehand and starts playing offensive instead of counter punching he wont be playing on the level djokovic played when he was in form. he'll be playing good but guys will expose him and he'll be in trouble.

There are guys at your club who have more variety than two of the top 4 players in the world? Sometimes I don't know what planet you're on, mate.

And Murray has a put away forehand. It's his rally forehand that lets him down. I could just as easily say the same thing about Djokovic's woeful slice, his lacklustre volleys, or his inability to mix up the play. All players have weaknesses. Djokovic was no different in 2007 and early 2008. You've got it into your head that Nole was unbeatable during that period. He was nothing of the sort. He would have one slam less than Murray if Andy had been fortunate enough to meet Monofed in his two finals.

rocketassist
06-13-2010, 05:17 PM
Vida thinks Nole is better on clay than Fed. Best just to debate with her at football.

Noleta
06-13-2010, 05:19 PM
Murraytards:oYou can't reson with them:lol::tape::o

rocketassist
06-13-2010, 05:21 PM
'wah wah Murraytards, I can't debate properly so i'll just moan about them' :o :lol:

Henry Kaspar
06-13-2010, 05:30 PM
I didn't say that you said that. It was Vida who said it and that's the point I'm arguing against.

That has to do with achievements. It has nothing to do with whether Murray is in the same league as Djokovic "tennis wise". That is the point Vida made, which is plainly absurd.

OK, Clydey. I think we're cool.

Cheers, HK

Noleta
06-13-2010, 06:01 PM
'wah wah Murraytards,'I don't want to waste my time' :o :lol:

;)

tangerine_dream
10-18-2010, 09:01 PM
The Big Four are back in business, all having qualified for WTF 2010. :p

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/804/bigfour.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/bigfour.jpg/)

Orka_n
10-18-2010, 09:20 PM
Yes, Murray and Nole have improved lately, there's no denying it. Still, I hold Djokovic in higher regard than Murray as in I think Novak will accomplish more.
Soderling could and should have cracked the top 4 before the USO but he screwed up in Toronto and Cincy. Now reaching #4 is quite a big task again given the points Murray collected the other week. Oh well. Robin's inconsistency is the difference between him and Murray, and before he overcomes it, I'm fully content with our current top 4. :)

Seingeist
10-18-2010, 09:23 PM
The Big Four are back in business, all having qualified for WTF 2011. :p

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/804/bigfour.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/bigfour.jpg/)

"When these four play anyone can win."

Yeah, I like this actually, it's pretty exciting. At this point, in any given match-up between these 4 players, the outcome is not a foregone conclusion, and it's hard to know who has the edge. Obviously, it often comes down to who is playing more in-form, but that is so difficult to predict.

Filo V.
10-19-2010, 04:20 AM
There never has been a big four. Fedal are still the class of the field, have been all this time. Only people desperate for something different and fresh have been trying to include Murray and Djokovic where they do not belong. Until Murray actually does what Nole did to Roger this year in New York or at the AO, then he's clearly not in some make-believe big 4. Let's stop pretending MS events make a player a great. Yeah, MS events are important and all well and good, but it's about the slams, and combined Murray and Nole have 1 slam. Murray has ZERO slams and has consistently fallen short in majors outside of the couple of victories (one by retirement) over Nadal.

Fedal are the kings of the sport and I don't see that changing for a while yet. If anything it will just be Nadal and occasional victories by other players.

Pirata.
10-19-2010, 05:05 AM
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/804/bigfour.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/bigfour.jpg/)

What is it with these websites and trying to make all the players look as ugly as possible? Andy and Novak look like ogres and Rafa looks like he's sniffing his armpits. At least they made Roger look normal, but jesus, they could've used some much better shots of the other three.

scoobs
10-19-2010, 05:08 AM
At the slams, Federer and Nadal are still, for the most part, a level above, although it's encouraging that both Murray and Djokovic made a slam final again this year.

On the regular tour, though, that caption is true - depending on surface and form, any one of those 4 can beat the other three, though I think we need to see that Roger can still beat Rafa - it's been a while since he did that.

Clydey
10-19-2010, 05:43 AM
There never has been a big four. Fedal are still the class of the field, have been all this time. Only people desperate for something different and fresh have been trying to include Murray and Djokovic where they do not belong. Until Murray actually does what Nole did to Roger this year in New York or at the AO, then he's clearly not in some make-believe big 4. Let's stop pretending MS events make a player a great. Yeah, MS events are important and all well and good, but it's about the slams, and combined Murray and Nole have 1 slam. Murray has ZERO slams and has consistently fallen short in majors outside of the couple of victories (one by retirement) over Nadal.

Fedal are the kings of the sport and I don't see that changing for a while yet. If anything it will just be Nadal and occasional victories by other players.

So Murray has to beat Federer in a slam to be part of the big 4, but it's fine if Djokovic can't do what Murray does to Nadal at the majors? Djokovic has won a single major. How about we stop pretending that makes a player great? Multiple majors make a player great. Since Nole's AO win, there has been little to choose between them at the slams.

And why are we talking about achievements? They have nothing to do with why they are referred to as the big 4. The phrase came about because they are the 4 best players in the world and are generally evenly matched. Stop bringing achievements into the discussion. They are not relevant. If they were indicative of a gulf in class, Murray wouldn't beat Federer 3 and 2, nor would Djokovic beat Federer in the semi-final of a major. Did Rafa's multiple slams help him at the Australian Open this year? Achievements are about history. You cannot use them to measure a player's current ability.

This obsession with slams is becoming tedious. It seems like you can't discuss anything without them being dragged into the discussion. No one is lumping Murray in with Fed and Rafa based on his major achievements. He is mentioned in the same breath because, as with Djokovic, he has proved that he can beat them and he routinely wins MS events and reaches the latter stages of majors.

Those 4 players, until Del Potro came along, had separated themselves from the rest of the pack. It's that simple. Can't you shut up about Grand Slams for two minutes? Fucking hell, it's as if the rest of the season is irrelevant. I wonder why some of you people even watch the other events.

Seingeist
10-19-2010, 05:51 AM
And why are we talking about achievements? They have nothing to do with why they are referred to as the big 4. The phrase came about because they are the 4 best players in the world and are generally evenly matched. Stop bringing achievements into the discussion. They are not relevant. If they were indicative of a gulf in class, Murray wouldn't beat Federer 3 and 2, nor would Djokovic beat Federer in the semi-final of a major. Did Rafa's multiple slams help him at the Australian Open this year? Achievements are about history. You cannot use them to measure a player's current ability.

This obsession with slams is becoming tedious. It seems like you can't discuss anything without them being dragged into the discussion. No one is lumping Murray in with Fed and Rafa based on his major achievements. He is mentioned in the same breath because, as with Djokovic, he has proved that he can beat them and he routinely wins MS events and reaches the latter stages of majors.

Those 4 players, until Del Potro came along, had separated themselves from the rest of the pack. It's that simple. Can't you shut up about Grand Slams for two minutes? Fucking hell, it's as if the rest of the season is irrelevant. I wonder why some of you people even watch the other events.

I'd say +1, but it's more like +10. :yeah:

Clydey
10-19-2010, 05:56 AM
I'd say +1, but it's more like +10. :yeah:

Glad someone agrees.

It's impossible to get a discussion going when people incessantly focus on 8 weeks of what is a very long season.

paseo
10-19-2010, 06:41 AM
Until Murray actually does what Nole did to Roger this year in New York or at the AO, then he's clearly not in some make-believe big 4. Let's stop pretending MS events make a player a great. Yeah, MS events are important and all well and good, but it's about the slams, and combined Murray and Nole have 1 slam. Murray has ZERO slams and has consistently fallen short in majors outside of the couple of victories (one by retirement) over Nadal.

Damn, flyboy. You're starting to sound like the first times you came here.

Murray beat Nadal comprehensively in USO08 and AO10. In AO, Nadal only got injured at the end of the 2nd set. Before that, Nadal was playing great, but Murray was still beating him. And Murray did it again in Toronto. On the other hand, Djokovic folded against Nadal in the 3rd set at the USO final. And about his win against Fed in the SF, I'm not taking anything away from Djokovic, but Fed was clearly having a bad day. The tv commentators was saying it too. I'm not defending Fed, here. I'm just saying that you overrate Djokovic's SF win at the USO10.

IMO, Murray played great in Shanghai final. I think it was at least on par with his AO10 form. Like I said after Murray beat Nadal in AO10 QF, only an in-form Fed can beat him. He was that good. Unfortunately for him, that's exactly who showed up in the final. If it was anyone else, including average Fed, Murray would have an AO title. The match would have gone just like the Shanghai final. Well, maybe Fed would have at least won a set. It's a GS after all.

leng jai
10-19-2010, 06:42 AM
Glad someone agrees.

It's impossible to get a discussion going when people incessantly focus on 8 weeks of what is a very long season.

Seingeist was being sarcastic.

.-Federers_Mate-.
10-19-2010, 09:07 AM
Murray is a much better player than Novak, and will achieve more later in life.

In terms of the matchup, Muzza does everything that Novak does except he does it much better. Murray has a bigger serve therefore Novaks ‘great’ return doesn’t have its full affect. Murray imo is quicker around the court and can retrieve much better than Novak. Novak is a glorified pusher, Novak will attempt to play the ball deep and conviction, but Murray can get there and play the ball just a deep. Murray can do more with the ball, he can slice better making Novak hit a shorter ball, he can change the pace of the ball better, and he has a better and more reliable drop shot and can never be counted out on the rally. When they play there is always a lot of rallies and long points, this is crucial for Murray who can hang in the rally for longer, as Novak is more prone to the error. Novak isn’t good at the net vs a competent player, and Murray has great passing ability and can lob with ease, that neutralises Novaks time at the net. Novak aint Federer, and cant close out points quick enough. Murray is the type of player who wears Novak down, making him play a lot of different balls, and taking him out of his comfort zone (something that Novak hates). Murray will eat Djokovic’s weak serve for breakfast, hitting it deep and making Novak scramble, Murray is underrated at ending the points, and would put most short balls away if he’s playing well. Murray can get to all Djokovic’s drop shots and won’t give Novak a look in to do anything just like in Miami. Djokovic is exactly the player whom Murray just loves to hit with, the points are long and drawn out. Murray has a lot of time on the ball compared to some other heavy hitter, so he ease into the point and complete his swing with more efficiency. Murray will make Novak sweat, Murray would love to chase down some of Novak’s way too casual drop shots and engage in points with Variety. Murray hits with more angle and would take Djokovic out wide...something Novak hates and he likes to play from the centre of the court. Djokovic doesn’t have Feds ability to close out the point quickly..just like that.

Murray imo has a better forehand than Djokovic. He can do more with it, short with angle, hard and down the centre; you name it...Novak cant. Novak’s forehand can get very loopy and become a liability...see some of his losses this year. It has a lot of hang time in the air as a rally shot just as much as Murray. Murray has a better swing and motion, his stance is better (very balanced great arm rotation..Which allows him do more with the ball). Murray generally hits with more angle than Djokovic and doesn’t make as many errors with it...it’s a more reliable shot. People underrate the Murray forehand, when on its a fantastic shot that not only is great to watch but delivers results. Murray can take pace off it easier due to superior movement...he gets in position easier. Murrays forehand is better on the run, he can hit a cross court forehand much easier and with much more consistent results (same for dtl)...this is because his swing is more flexible and his anticipation is better (see his better ROS). Murray can change angles better aswel, in Murray matches the whole court is used more and you will rarely see him play the same shot twice, in a long cross court rally..Murray is much likeier to surprise the opponent and hit one down the line. As for Power...Murray can generate power, Djokovic does do more on a regular basis, but nothing noticeable, Murray can hit big shots from all over the court when he wants to often deep and penetrating (he has no preference) whilst I’ve noticed Djokovic much prefers attack the forehand. SO yeah Muzzas FH is better. Its equal as an offensive shot, but as a defensive shot Muzza’s is better, and Murray has more variety in it...Murray also has a better swing and technique.

Without a doubt Murrays Backhand is better than Noles. His timing is much better on that side, and he has more confidence in its abilities. Murray’s is bigger for starters..it may not go for winners all the time, but it pushes the opponent deep and takes him out of court and out of side. All too often Djokovic leaves a shot ball or dumps it in the net, due to piss poor timing and footwork. Murrays rallying bh is better, its deeper and has more angle, it always give him the time and the option to tee off. Murray doesn’t rush his backhand and his swing is perfect and balance is perfect in achieving the desired result. Djokovic’s dtl forehand is good but it’s not better than Muzza’s, Murray will pound that bh in the middle more often than Novak and with greater accuracy. It’s more of a weapon, Murray gets more angle and opens up the court at a higher rate, because he steps into his BH more and has great control due to his quick hands and confidence in the shot. It rarely misses, and always puts the opponents under pressure, unlike Djoko’s which can be a liability. It has more depth and is more feared by opponents.

Murrays serve? Also better than Djoko’s. Murray spends less time bouncing the ball and gets straight to the crunch, I don’t like Novaks ball bouncing shit...it gives the opponent to much time to regroup and makes him look nervous to his opponent. Muzza’s serve has more angle out wide and greater depth, because his ball toss is better, his stance is better (more stabile and stand straighter, giving him more pace to work with). Murray notches bigger speed and more aces on a regular basis. Muzza’s doesn’t DF as much and he has more confidence on the serve than Nole. Both 2nd serves are average and need much improvement with Depth and penetration (both seem nervous on that so I won’t comment).

Murray is qucker around the court and anticipates better. Murray chases down more balls with greater resulst and effect (watch their matches if you don’t agree)...More often than not Murray always gets dp’s ..compared to Nole’s success rate, he moves forward easier as he isn’t as heavy on the feet, Murray moves lighter on the court (he’s always bouncy – ready)...He gets more back chases more, and all his matches have longer rallies and more of the court is used compared to Novak. Its much harder to hit a winner vs. Muzza than Novak because Murray moves easier...hes always on his toes and doesn’t mind the challenge of moving out wide, also because his Anticipation is better. Murray knows where his opponent will play the ball (he’s clever like that – can see through stance and swing etc)..Therefore he’s always there and making the opposition play another ball. Murray features more often than Nole on the Highlight reels with his passing shots and incredible gets. One of the main reasons why Muzza hits such a clean Ball is because his movement is so good, and he always gives himself as much time on the ball as possible. It’s very hard to hit a DP vs Murray cos he’s always there, he has a longer stride and takes off quicker. Murray is one of the best retrievers in the business; he never shanks and always has the time to complete his swing. His footwork is so good that he is never caught off balance..and is always able to play that extra shot...you can’t take Muzza out of the court. Nole is good in this section, but really has shit on Muzza. Also mentality of both players is the same (both as bad as each other)...Nole looks exhausted on court and looks defeated (muzza’s fitness is better), whilst Muzza always looks fucked off. Both drop breaks more often than not, and put in the odd dire performance..when hot both normally don’t lose it..Both smash rackets as much as the other...so really mentally wise its equal.

Murray has better all court craft than Novak. He is better at the net..has better technique (due to greater timing..and more effortless contact)...Murray finishes points at the net with greater ease and can hit a more handy drop volley...more often than Not you see Djokovic involved in these stupid exchanges at the net..you don’t get that with Andy. Andy hits a better lob and DP..Success rate is greater. He hits with more flair (its more effortless – he has a better tennis brain), the dp is often closer to the net, and his lobs are astoundingly accurate...high and with a bit it of swerve (often move around in the air a lot. Novak’s DP is flashier and more often than not gets it away with mini al ease. Murray plays them at better times, such as when the opponent is out of position, whilst Novak plays them out of desperation most of time. Novak’s slice is a pebble compared to Muzza’s which a stone is. Murray has a more biting slice, it has less hand time than Novaks, and has more velocity often making the opponent comfortable and playing a hashed short ball. Murray can use the slice for attacking purposes (with success)..its deeper and has more spin. Novak only uses it defensively with success, and in that regard it’s still not as good as Muarrays, who can hit a deep slice from an awkward position on the run. Murrays technique is better, that’s why the delivery is more successful. Murray can use it as an effective rallying shot that keeps the opponents from advancing, whilst when Nole utilizes it in that way, its put away or gives the advantage to the opponent[/font]

As for achievements. Nole played monoFed and an inexperienced Tsonga (who was better in the 1st set and a half before the occasion got to him), that was his slam...otherwise Murray matches him up well in slams. Murray had he faced Monofed would be sitting on 2 slams ahead of Nole. Otherwise in other tourneys won (MS,500s, mm) Murray is slightly better (I think). Murray has been in more classic moments and matches aswel.

Hope this helps

Topspindoctor
10-19-2010, 09:11 AM
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/animals/tl%3Bdr.jpg

.-Federers_Mate-.
10-19-2010, 09:12 AM
whats that supposed to mean?.

Topspindoctor
10-19-2010, 09:18 AM
whats that supposed to mean?.

It means that I stopped reading where you said Mugray's FH is better than Novak's. Talk about clueless. Utterly ridiculous post. Not even funny anymore. Just stop being such a huge clown. Novak has had a better career, better titles (WTF+AO), has better all around game etc. You can spin it anyway you want Novak > Mugray.

.-Federers_Mate-.
10-19-2010, 09:29 AM
It means that I stopped reading where you said Mugray's FH is better than Novak's. Talk about clueless. Utterly ridiculous post. Not even funny anymore. Just stop being such a huge clown. Novak has had a better career, better titles (WTF+AO), has better all around game etc. You can spin it anyway you want Novak > Mugray.

haha..no what i posted is whats what. Murray has a better forehand for the reasons i stated. Deal with it.

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 10:11 AM
What is it with these websites and trying to make all the players look as ugly as possible? Andy and Novak look like ogres and Rafa looks like he's sniffing his armpits. At least they made Roger look normal, but jesus, they could've used some much better shots of the other three.

LOl, yeah, it's true, I thought the same. :lol:

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 10:17 AM
So Murray has to beat Federer in a slam to be part of the big 4, but it's fine if Djokovic can't do what Murray does to Nadal at the majors? Djokovic has won a single major. How about we stop pretending that makes a player great? Multiple majors make a player great. Since Nole's AO win, there has been little to choose between them at the slams.

And why are we talking about achievements? They have nothing to do with why they are referred to as the big 4. The phrase came about because they are the 4 best players in the world and are generally evenly matched. Stop bringing achievements into the discussion. They are not relevant. If they were indicative of a gulf in class, Murray wouldn't beat Federer 3 and 2, nor would Djokovic beat Federer in the semi-final of a major. Did Rafa's multiple slams help him at the Australian Open this year? Achievements are about history. You cannot use them to measure a player's current ability.

This obsession with slams is becoming tedious. It seems like you can't discuss anything without them being dragged into the discussion. No one is lumping Murray in with Fed and Rafa based on his major achievements. He is mentioned in the same breath because, as with Djokovic, he has proved that he can beat them and he routinely wins MS events and reaches the latter stages of majors.

Those 4 players, until Del Potro came along, had separated themselves from the rest of the pack. It's that simple. Can't you shut up about Grand Slams for two minutes? Fucking hell, it's as if the rest of the season is irrelevant. I wonder why some of you people even watch the other events.

I agree with that Clydey.
I think we can talk of the Big 4 because clearly they have proven to be time and time again the best 4 players in the world and, in my opinion, even though Roger and Rafa are in a category of their own (achievements wise), the matches amongst these 4 are pretty even and the rest of the tour is still miles behind. I think Djokovic and Murray are more or less equally talented and the only ones that can present a real battle to Federer and Nadal.

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 10:21 AM
@Federers_mate: you're laughable and I doubt anyone takes you seriously.

leng jai
10-19-2010, 10:38 AM
What is it with these websites and trying to make all the players look as ugly as possible? Andy and Novak look like ogres and Rafa looks like he's sniffing his armpits. At least they made Roger look normal, but jesus, they could've used some much better shots of the other three.

Nadull smells his armpit during every forehand. How else do you think he gets so much velocity.

christallh24
10-19-2010, 11:43 AM
:rolls:

Clydey
10-19-2010, 12:53 PM
Seingeist was being sarcastic.

Actually, he wasn't.

Filo V.
10-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Nole and Murray are not evenly matched with Fedal. Sorry, but they have one major combined. It's that simple. When the chips are really down, they do NOT come through, and Fedal dominates. That's what greatness is and isn't. Murray and Nole are good, but they ain't that good.

Clydey
10-19-2010, 01:12 PM
Nole and Murray are not evenly matched with Fedal. Sorry, but they have one major combined. It's that simple. When the chips are really down, they do NOT come through, and Fedal dominates. That's what greatness is and isn't. Murray and Nole are good, but they ain't that good.

No one is talking about greatness. Federer's 16 majors don't make him 16 times better than Djokovic. That's just an absurd way to measure a player's ability.

In terms of ability, at this moment in time, those 4 players are closely matched. Did Federer's 16 majors help him in the semi-finls of the US Open? Did Nadal's 6 majors help him at the Australian Open?

Majors are about a player's legacy. You cannot use someone's entire Grand Slam record judge their current ability. If you could, Sampras would be able to stroll back onto the tour and start winning majors again.

Filo V.
10-19-2010, 01:13 PM
So Murray has to beat Federer in a slam to be part of the big 4, but it's fine if Djokovic can't do what Murray does to Nadal at the majors? Djokovic has won a single major. How about we stop pretending that makes a player great? Multiple majors make a player great. Since Nole's AO win, there has been little to choose between them at the slams.

And why are we talking about achievements? They have nothing to do with why they are referred to as the big 4. The phrase came about because they are the 4 best players in the world and are generally evenly matched. Stop bringing achievements into the discussion. They are not relevant. If they were indicative of a gulf in class, Murray wouldn't beat Federer 3 and 2, nor would Djokovic beat Federer in the semi-final of a major. Did Rafa's multiple slams help him at the Australian Open this year? Achievements are about history. You cannot use them to measure a player's current ability.

This obsession with slams is becoming tedious. It seems like you can't discuss anything without them being dragged into the discussion. No one is lumping Murray in with Fed and Rafa based on his major achievements. He is mentioned in the same breath because, as with Djokovic, he has proved that he can beat them and he routinely wins MS events and reaches the latter stages of majors.

Those 4 players, until Del Potro came along, had separated themselves from the rest of the pack. It's that simple. Can't you shut up about Grand Slams for two minutes? Fucking hell, it's as if the rest of the season is irrelevant. I wonder why some of you people even watch the other events.

Well I said, Djokovic isn't a great either. But is he above Murray? Yes, he won a slam, Murray has not. Slightly ahead, but still ahead. But neither are even CLOSE to Fedal in any way whatsoever, in fact it is an insult for them to be lumped with two of the best players ever to play the game.

And actually, achievements are very important to bring up. Because achievements are the standard that shows that a certain player consistently makes it happen at the big stage. Murray and Djokovic have failed on that stage. You can say it isn't about majors, and it isn't TOTALLY about majors, but if you want to be considered a great of the game, you are judged by your majors and how you do in them. Like how Rios, the first thing people bring up with him is "he didn't win a major." Safin "He didn't win enough majors." Good or bad, that's what a player is judged by, how many championships do you win, can you do it consistently. The answer is a resounding NO so far for Murray and Djokovic.

They may be great in MS events, and be better than the rest of the field, but they aren't on the level of Fedal, until they start winning majors. A lot of players you can say make it deep in the draws of GS events on a relatively consistent basis, that doesn't make a player great. MS events have less points as they have less value. If you almost make it to the top but fall off the mountain before you reach the pinnacle, then guess what? You failed.

Filo V.
10-19-2010, 01:18 PM
No one is talking about greatness. Federer's 16 majors don't make him 16 times better than Djokovic. That's just an absurd way to measure a player's ability.

In terms of ability, at this moment in time, those 4 players are closely matched. Did Federer's 16 majors help him in the semi-finls of the US Open? Did Nadal's 6 majors help him at the Australian Open?

Majors are about a player's legacy. You cannot use someone's entire Grand Slam record judge their current ability. If you could, Sampras would be able to stroll back onto the tour and start winning majors again.

Are they closely matched? Maybe they are outside of slams. But that's not where great players are judged. They are judged in slams. Now, Nole winning over Roger at the Open, Murray beating Nadal in AO, that shows they are getting there. Although, a QF nor a SF isn't a F, so that's something that needs to be taken into account. But then you have to seal the deal. Getting a win here and there over your rivals is all well and good, but you have to finish off and do what you came to do, and Murray and Djokovic have not done that.

Murray and Djokovic's current ability tells me they are great players who can compete and beat the best in the world, but they cannot win when it really matters the most.

Clydey
10-19-2010, 01:24 PM
Well I said, Djokovic isn't a great either. But is he above Murray? Yes, he won a slam, Murray has not. Slightly ahead, but still ahead. But neither are even CLOSE to Fedal in any way whatsoever, in fact it is an insult for them to be lumped with two of the best players ever to play the game.

And actually, achievements are very important to bring up. Because achievements are the standard that shows that a certain player consistently makes it happen at the big stage. Murray and Djokovic have failed on that stage. You can say it isn't about majors, and it isn't TOTALLY about majors, but if you want to be considered a great of the game, you are judged by your majors and how you do in them. Like how Rios, the first thing people bring up with him is "he didn't win a major." Safin "He didn't win enough majors." Good or bad, that's what a player is judged by, how many championships do you win, can you do it consistently. The answer is a resounding NO so far for Murray and Djokovic.

They may be great in MS events, and be better than the rest of the field, but they aren't on the level of Fedal, until they start winning majors. A lot of players you can say make it deep in the draws of GS events on a relatively consistent basis, that doesn't make a player great. MS events have less points as they have less value. If you almost make it to the top but fall off the mountain before you reach the pinnacle, then guess what? You failed.

But what do Fed's majors from 2004-2007 have to do with his current ability? Like I said, using someone's entire Grand Slam record to judge their current ability is silly. Do you think Agassi's 8 majors are relevant to how good he is now? Of course not.

A player's career is judged by how many majors they win. That isn't how you judge their ability. There is no formula that we can use to calculate how good a player is. You are trying to oversimplify something that is, in reality, far more complicated than you realise. I could point to a few relatively average players who have won a major, none of whom are in the league of Murray, Nalbandian, Rios, Davydenko, etc.

You seem to think the answer to every question in tennis is: "He has X number of majors."

philosophicalarf
10-19-2010, 01:25 PM
Djoko is maybe ahead of Murray, but more imo cos he has a clay game. He has a slam for the sole reason Federer was sick in 2008, whereas the Fed that Murray faced in his two finals was at full throttle.

Filo V.
10-19-2010, 01:26 PM
Damn, flyboy. You're starting to sound like the first times you came here.

Murray beat Nadal comprehensively in USO08 and AO10. In AO, Nadal only got injured at the end of the 2nd set. Before that, Nadal was playing great, but Murray was still beating him. And Murray did it again in Toronto. On the other hand, Djokovic folded against Nadal in the 3rd set at the USO final. And about his win against Fed in the SF, I'm not taking anything away from Djokovic, but Fed was clearly having a bad day. The tv commentators was saying it too. I'm not defending Fed, here. I'm just saying that you overrate Djokovic's SF win at the USO10.

IMO, Murray played great in Shanghai final. I think it was at least on par with his AO10 form. Like I said after Murray beat Nadal in AO10 QF, only an in-form Fed can beat him. He was that good. Unfortunately for him, that's exactly who showed up in the final. If it was anyone else, including average Fed, Murray would have an AO title. The match would have gone just like the Shanghai final. Well, maybe Fed would have at least won a set. It's a GS after all.

Djokovic beat Federer in the slam where he lost to him 3 straight years. Roger obviously has declined, but Nole still won. Same as Murray, he did a great job at the AO, and US Open 2008, taking advantage of particular situations and playing great tennis to defeat Nadal. But yeah, they can make it happen in SFs, or QFs. Can they make it happen in major finals? Federer and Nadal have shown that when it really counts, they win, and what really counts are the finals. That's when the pressure is on, when it's only 3 sets separating you from the title. Murray and Djokovic have failed to finish off the tournaments, and that is because they are not greats. Shanghai is not Australia, that's essentially what last week showed. Roger knows it's not Australia, Murray knows it's not Australia. In Australia, in the major final, where Murray was playing his best ever tennis, the man with 16 titles comprehensibly beat him. That's true greatness. MS events are very good, but greatness is winning the championships.

Clydey
10-19-2010, 01:27 PM
Are they closely matched? Maybe they are outside of slams. But that's not where great players are judged. They are judged in slams. Now, Nole winning over Roger at the Open, Murray beating Nadal in AO, that shows they are getting there. Although, a QF nor a SF isn't a F, so that's something that needs to be taken into account. But then you have to seal the deal. Getting a win here and there over your rivals is all well and good, but you have to finish off and do what you came to do, and Murray and Djokovic have not done that.

Murray and Djokovic's current ability tells me they are great players who can compete and beat the best in the world, but they cannot win when it really matters the most.

Who cares if it isn't a final? You can't reach the final if you lose in the quarter-finals or semi-finals. Have things really got to the stage where we are putting an asterisk next to every Fedal loss that occurs outside of a Grand Slam final?

Give me strength.

zeleni
10-19-2010, 01:31 PM
There is no big 4.
Federer>Nadal>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Djokovic>Murray
Difference between first two and other two is too big.

rafa_maniac
10-19-2010, 02:37 PM
They may be the four best players on tour overall, but there's still no "big 4". We're not talking about legacy here, but simply about getting it done where it counts, in Slams. Fedal still do this routinely, even if its only one at a time these days. The other two are excellent players, but not in the same category even when judging the current state of the tour because if you want to talk purely "current form" then that changes dramatically week in week out (Murray wouldn't have been a part of it from January to July for instance).

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 04:45 PM
That's true but it doesn't take anything from them. Nole and Murray are inmensely talented and gifted guys and if some people don't wanna see that it's their problem. Of course they're not in the same league of Roger-Rafa in terms of achievement, but they can beat those players regularly when at their best. The problem in my eyes is their consistency in doing that, specially when it matters. They usually beat Rafa and Roger in MS but not in GS, but I think this situation will be reversed soon. Nadal and Federer can't win indefinitely and Murray and Djokovic will just get better, that's my opinion.

rocketassist
10-19-2010, 05:33 PM
Djokovic beat Federer in the slam where he lost to him 3 straight years. Roger obviously has declined, but Nole still won. Same as Murray, he did a great job at the AO, and US Open 2008, taking advantage of particular situations and playing great tennis to defeat Nadal. But yeah, they can make it happen in SFs, or QFs. Can they make it happen in major finals? Federer and Nadal have shown that when it really counts, they win, and what really counts are the finals. That's when the pressure is on, when it's only 3 sets separating you from the title. Murray and Djokovic have failed to finish off the tournaments, and that is because they are not greats. Shanghai is not Australia, that's essentially what last week showed. Roger knows it's not Australia, Murray knows it's not Australia. In Australia, in the major final, where Murray was playing his best ever tennis, the man with 16 titles comprehensibly beat him. That's true greatness. MS events are very good, but greatness is winning the championships.

Murray defeated a fully fit Nadal at the USO over 2 days. Don't start with the :bs: lad.

Sillyrabbit
10-19-2010, 05:48 PM
Who cares if it isn't a final? You can't reach the final if you lose in the quarter-finals or semi-finals. Have things really got to the stage where we are putting an asterisk next to every Fedal loss that occurs outside of a Grand Slam final?

Give me strength.

But it does matter, everyone knows it takes a higher level of play/mental fortitude to beat the best players in a slam final than it takes to do so in a semi or below or even outside the slams, I assume that's what flyboy is trying to say? Of course victories that aren't in finals shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but it's a relevant point.

Kiedis
10-19-2010, 06:47 PM
It's impossible to be in top form all season.

Clydey
10-19-2010, 07:11 PM
But it does matter, everyone knows it takes a higher level of play/mental fortitude to beat the best players in a slam final than it takes to do so in a semi or below or even outside the slams, I assume that's what flyboy is trying to say? Of course victories that aren't in finals shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but it's a relevant point.

I don't see how it's relevant since they happen so infrequently. And it's not as if the top players always produce their best in major finals. Often it's a case of the opponent not playing at their highest level. I mean, you can't tell me that Federer was at his peak in the USO 09 and FO 08 finals. Rafa's level is consistent throughout. I don't think he moves up a gear in major finals. The guy gives everything in every match.

I just don't buy it and I don't like where it leads, since eventually that way of thinking is going to undermine every single victory Murray and Djokovic have over Federer and Nadal. Like I said, you cannot reach the final of a major if you lose in the quarter-final or semi-final. It makes no sense to think that Federer and Nadal are not going to move through the gears unless they are playing in a final.

leng jai
10-19-2010, 09:38 PM
Actually, he wasn't.

Well during this exchange atleast one of us was being sarcastic.

Johnny Groove
10-19-2010, 09:40 PM
There is Federer and Nadal.

Then, there is Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray.

Then you have Berdych, Soderling, and the rest.

DrJules
10-19-2010, 09:53 PM
There never was a "big 4".

It was only really 2 (Federer/Nadal) plus 2 (Djokovic/Murray).

Djokovic and Murray have rarely broken the duality at the top of the rankings.

luie
10-19-2010, 09:56 PM
There never was a "big 4".

It was only really 2 (Federer/Nadal) plus 2 (Djokovic/Murray).

Djokovic and Murray have rarely broken the duality at the top of the rankings.
Pretty much, thats why its funny when certain posters claim the competition got better.:o
Its been the same for 6 years now.

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 09:56 PM
There never was a "big 4".

It was only really 2 (Federer/Nadal) plus 2 (Djokovic/Murray).


That makes 4. :lol:

Manequin75
10-19-2010, 10:02 PM
Presently I dont think there is a big difference in ability between Fedal and Novak/Murray. In terms of pure talent maybe Novak/Murray might even be better than fedal today. The difference is in mental abilities and vastly greater experience in winning GS where Fedal just crush them. But the past is the past. You dont benefit from your prior legacy when you step onto the court next time. Navok/Murray know that this is their chance - Federer's confidence must be relatively low in grand slams and they have a chance against him and Rafa, no matter what you say, is not a natural on hard courts.

These 4 will start AO 2011 as contenders with not much seperating them besides mental intangibles and experience. On purely tennis tangible skills on hardcourts I would put them above Fedal even. (as of today). But mental edge and experience is very important in racking up GS's. So when people say there is a wide gap between Fedal and Novak/Murray its only on those two accounts. Else they are pretty close. And so are a couple other guys who on their day can thrash any of these four. Mens tennis is very competitive on hard courts today.

Nole fan
10-19-2010, 10:10 PM
Presently I dont think there is a big difference in ability between Fedal and Novak/Murray. In terms of pure talent maybe Novak/Murray might even be better than fedal today. The difference is in mental abilities and vastly greater experience in winning GS where Fedal just crush them. But the past is the past. You dont benefit from your prior legacy when you step onto the court next time. Navok/Murray know that this is their chance - Federer's confidence must be relatively low in grand slams and they have a chance against him and Rafa, no matter what you say, is not a natural on hard courts.

These 4 will start AO 2011 as contenders with not much seperating them besides mental intangibles and experience. On purely tennis tangible skills on hardcourts I would put them above Fedal even. (as of today). But mental edge and experience is very important in racking up GS's. So when people say there is a wide gap between Fedal and Novak/Murray its only on those two accounts. Else they are pretty close. And so are a couple other guys who on their day can thrash any of these four. Mens tennis is very competitive on hard courts today.

+1

paseo
10-20-2010, 12:34 AM
In terms of pure talent maybe Novak/Murray might even be better than fedal today.

Really?

paseo
10-20-2010, 12:39 AM
Djokovic beat Federer in the slam where he lost to him 3 straight years. Roger obviously has declined, but Nole still won. Same as Murray, he did a great job at the AO, and US Open 2008, taking advantage of particular situations and playing great tennis to defeat Nadal. But yeah, they can make it happen in SFs, or QFs. Can they make it happen in major finals? Federer and Nadal have shown that when it really counts, they win, and what really counts are the finals. That's when the pressure is on, when it's only 3 sets separating you from the title. Murray and Djokovic have failed to finish off the tournaments, and that is because they are not greats. Shanghai is not Australia, that's essentially what last week showed. Roger knows it's not Australia, Murray knows it's not Australia. In Australia, in the major final, where Murray was playing his best ever tennis, the man with 16 titles comprehensibly beat him. That's true greatness. MS events are very good, but greatness is winning the championships.

All I'm saying is that, IMO, Djokovic is not better than Murray. Judging from this post, seems like you also think that.

Topspindoctor
10-20-2010, 01:34 AM
Presently I dont think there is a big difference in ability between Fedal and Novak/Murray. In terms of pure talent maybe Novak/Murray might even be better than fedal today.

Nole? Yes. Mugray? Not a chance.

emotion
10-20-2010, 01:47 AM
@Fed's Mate
LOL Murray will have a longer career? Are you kidding? His game is 2/3 running, Murray is gonna burn out young

Topspindoctor
10-20-2010, 02:18 AM
@Fed's Mate
LOL Murray will have a longer career? Are you kidding? His game is 2/3 running, Murray is gonna burn out young

One of the very few times I will agree with DjokovicGonzalez :yeah:

rafa_maniac
10-20-2010, 08:33 AM
In terms of pure talent maybe Novak/Murray might even be better than fedal today.

Lolwut? That "pure talent" didn't help either win a Slam this year which Federer has managed even in his worst year in a long time. Djokovic hasn't even won a Masters title this year, and let's not even begin comparing them to Nadal currently....

Pirao666
10-20-2010, 09:22 AM
These 4 will start AO 2011 as contenders with not much seperating them besides mental intangibles and experience. On purely tennis tangible skills on hardcourts I would put them above Fedal even. (as of today).

:eek: I hope you're kidding.

Manequin75
10-20-2010, 12:22 PM
Really?

Yes Really.

Manequin75
10-20-2010, 12:28 PM
:eek: I hope you're kidding.

taking out mental skills and GS experience why is it difficult to think novak/murray could possibly be more talented than fedal on hardcourts today? Even Nalbandian recently said the talent in the top 10 is pretty close - they can all hit the ball well and its the mental that seperates fedal from the rest.

Fed has lost some of his touch it seems only relatively from his peak years and Rafa is not exactly a natural on hardcourts. I dont think its an outrageous statement if you have seen both Novak and Murray play recently. :shrug:

Everko
10-20-2010, 02:26 PM
There never was a "big 4".

It was only really 2 (Federer/Nadal) plus 2 (Djokovic/Murray).

Djokovic and Murray have rarely broken the duality at the top of the rankings.

Not true. Djokovic was in the top level. Did your forget his wins over Federer?

Sapeod
10-20-2010, 02:35 PM
Not true. Djokovic was in the top level. Did your forget his wins over Federer?
You forgot Murray.....what surprise.

He broke up Fedal....reached no.2....and reached 2 slam finals.....beating Nadal in both slams.....

Sapeod
10-20-2010, 02:36 PM
The Big 4 is still the Big 4......Murray, Nadal, Federer, Djokovic >>>>>>>>>>>> The Rest.

Everko
10-20-2010, 02:36 PM
You forgot Murray.....what surprise.

He broke up Fedal....reached no.2....and reached 2 slam finals.....beating Nadal in both slams.....

He was never as intrusive as Murray. Djokovic was a legit threat for longer and he was more dangerous.

Topspindoctor
10-20-2010, 02:46 PM
It was only Federer/Nadal/Nole

Putting Mugray on the same level as them is an insult. Come back to me when the clown wins a slam or at least WTF. Then we can have debates about "big four". Winning masters events makes him a male version of Safina, not a #1 potential :bigwave:

Everko
10-20-2010, 02:47 PM
It was only Federer/Nadal/Nole

Putting Mugray on the same level as them is an insult. Come back to me when the clown wins a slam or at least WTF. Then we can have debates about "big four". Winning masters events makes him a male version of Safina, not a #1 potential :bigwave:

this is very true. Murray has not achieved the status yet to be considered a big 4. Even though I added him when I made this thread

emotion
10-20-2010, 02:48 PM
Their levels have all slipped but Nadal... but it is still them, and I would add Soderling into the mix too and say Big 5

Everko
10-20-2010, 02:53 PM
Their levels have all slipped but Nadal... but it is still them, and I would add Soderling into the mix too and say Big 5

:smash:. That would mean the end of your tennis fan membership. Satting that would make you not a tennis fan

Sapeod
10-20-2010, 03:04 PM
He was never as intrusive as Murray. Djokovic was a legit threat for longer and he was more dangerous.
Still.....you have to add Murray due to the fact that he is one of the only players that can beat Nadal anywhere......Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>>>>> Soderling (when he's in form) >>>>> the rest.

Topspindoctor
10-20-2010, 03:10 PM
Still.....you have to add Murray due to the fact that he is one of the only players that can beat Nadal anywhere......Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray >>>>>>> Soderling (when he's in form) >>>>> the rest.

Murray can beat Nadal on grass or clay? LOL. Keep confirming your status as a clown. Mugray has never taken a set off Nadal on grass and he sure as hell not winning against him on clay. Another dumb post from you. NID.

Certinfy
10-20-2010, 03:30 PM
Murray could beat Nadal on grass if he were to play a great match, clay is something else though.

Sapeod
10-20-2010, 04:03 PM
Murray can beat Nadal on grass or clay? LOL. Keep confirming your status as a clown. Mugray has never taken a set off Nadal on grass and he sure as hell not winning against him on clay. Another dumb post from you. NID.
What I meant by anywhere was at any tournament. Obviously not clay......but he can beat him on grass and hard anywhere............maybe you should start thinking properly and you'll see that Nadal isn't unstoppable on grass, in fact he isn't anywhere near as unstoppable as Federer was....

rocketassist
10-20-2010, 04:12 PM
It was only Federer/Nadal/Nole

Putting Mugray on the same level as them is an insult. Come back to me when the clown wins a slam or at least WTF. Then we can have debates about "big four". Winning masters events makes him a male version of Safina, not a #1 potential :bigwave:

How is it? Nole's suffered some surprise slam exits of his own. Kohli, Safin (50-50), Haas (underdog there maybe), Tsonga, Melzer, ring any bells? Just like Murray's lost to Cilic (wrist problem), Wawrinka, Verdasco, Berdych (underdog) and Gonzalez (underdog there too, both better clay courters).

Would Fedal lose to this many guys?

Plus Nole has yet to beat 'RafaGOAT' in a slam, Murray's done it twice, albeit the second he was gifted the final set by injury.

Both are similar, except Nole has the AO so he's ahead. But they're not in different leagues. Anyone who disagrees is just a biased hater or Serbtard.

It's Fedal, then Nole, Andy and JMDP, with Nole the best of the three on achievements.

Now shush.

CCBH
10-20-2010, 04:41 PM
What I meant by anywhere was at any tournament. Obviously not clay......but he can beat him on grass and hard anywhere............maybe you should start thinking properly and you'll see that Nadal isn't unstoppable on grass, in fact he isn't anywhere near as unstoppable as Federer was....

I think at this point (after 4 consecutive finals and 2 wins at Wimbledon, plus a Queen's win) it is safe to say that Nadal is a far better player on grass than everybody but Federer. I don't say that he has the biggest shots or the best serve or slice, but he makes the correct adjustments for his game to flourish on grass. The other players just play on it like a regular surface and pay the price.

I am sorry but saying that player A can beat player B on a surface without having taken a single set off him on the biggest stages, is just a pathetic attempt at a joke. As far as everyone is concerned, Nadal IS unstoppable on grass. He has beaten the best grasscourt player in the world in a major final, has beaten everyone else of note (Murray, Djokovic, Soderling, Berdych), and finds a way to win even when an opponent is blowing red-hot (Haase, Kendrick a couple of years ago, Petzschner, Soderling).

Its quite simple really. You cannot be a favorite until you prove that you deserve to be (win a match H2H or even win a title without beating Nadal; but first things first, win a set at least).

Topspindoctor
10-20-2010, 04:48 PM
I think at this point (after 4 consecutive finals and 2 wins at Wimbledon, plus a Queen's win) it is safe to say that Nadal is a far better player on grass than everybody but Federer. I don't say that he has the biggest shots or the best serve or slice, but he makes the correct adjustments for his game to flourish on grass. The other players just play on it like a regular surface and pay the price.

I am sorry but saying that player A can beat player B on a surface without having taken a single set off him on the biggest stages, is just a pathetic attempt at a joke. As far as everyone is concerned, Nadal IS unstoppable on grass. He has beaten the best grasscourt player in the world in a major final, has beaten everyone else of note (Murray, Djokovic, Soderling, Berdych), and finds a way to win even when an opponent is blowing red-hot (Haase, Kendrick a couple of years ago, Petzschner, Soderling).

Its quite simple really. You cannot be a favorite until you prove that you deserve to be (win a match H2H or even win a title without beating Nadal; but first things first, win a set at least).

Agreed. Wimbledon is the second slam where I don't particularly care about the draw. Nadal can win it even with difficult draw. It's only interesting on hard courts where he needs to play absolute best.

dombrfc
10-20-2010, 05:25 PM
The tards should check this out:

Proper inspirational story
http://svtplay.se/v/2201653/tennis/taylor_dent_om_den_svara_skadan?cb,a1364159,1,f,-1/pb,a1364158,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2199893/sb,b1387548,1,f,-1

Seingeist
10-20-2010, 06:26 PM
The tards should check this out:

Proper inspirational story
http://svtplay.se/v/2201653/tennis/taylor_dent_om_den_svara_skadan?cb,a1364159,1,f,-1/pb,a1364158,1,f,-1/pl,v,,2199893/sb,b1387548,1,f,-1

I've been making fun of Taylor Dent a little bit around these forums but he comes off as a very likable and decent guy in this interview, so I feel forced to raise my opinion of him somewhat. :)

Nole fan
10-20-2010, 08:03 PM
How is it? Nole's suffered some surprise slam exits of his own. Kohli, Safin (50-50), Haas (underdog there maybe), Tsonga, Melzer, ring any bells? Just like Murray's lost to Cilic (wrist problem), Wawrinka, Verdasco, Berdych (underdog) and Gonzalez (underdog there too, both better clay courters).

Would Fedal lose to this many guys?

Plus Nole has yet to beat 'RafaGOAT' in a slam, Murray's done it twice, albeit the second he was gifted the final set by injury.

Both are similar, except Nole has the AO so he's ahead. But they're not in different leagues. Anyone who disagrees is just a biased hater or Serbtard.

It's Fedal, then Nole, Andy and JMDP, with Nole the best of the three on achievements.

Now shush.

For once we agree on something.

scoobs
10-20-2010, 08:28 PM
It's funny how so far Nole has been able to beat Federer at slams but not Nadal, while Murray's been able to beat Nadal at slams but not Federer :)

abraxas21
10-20-2010, 08:31 PM
murray will beat fed at slams eventually (even next year if they happen to meet). of that i'm 100% sure.

nadal will get the best of djokovic most of the times, though

emotion
10-20-2010, 08:33 PM
:smash:. That would mean the end of your tennis fan membership. Satting that would make you not a tennis fan

Soderling was only like 200 pts behind Murray before Shanghai and the # of Slam finals in the last 2 years is
Federer 5 Nadal 4 Soderling 2 Djokovic 1 Murray 1 Berdych 1...

Everko
01-14-2011, 03:25 PM
Now they are by far the favorites of the Australian Open. (I am not including Soderling, he will fall down very soon)

finishingmove
01-14-2011, 03:33 PM
what happened to the big 4 ?

murray has some catching up to do

Jomp1
01-14-2011, 03:36 PM
what happened to the big 4 ?

murray has some catching up to do

Djokovic wasn't all that great last season, either, and is not exactly in a breathing space ranking wise.

finishingmove
01-14-2011, 03:39 PM
Djokovic wasn't all that great last season, either, and is not exactly in a breathing space ranking wise.

:secret: the truth is there was only the big two.

and now it's only nadal

emotion
01-14-2011, 05:24 PM
Now they are by far the favorites of the Australian Open. (I am not including Soderling, he will fall down very soon)

Soderling is defending a 1st round loss, Murray a final. You said Murray will never win a slam. How is this supposed to come to pass?
The most likely scenario is that Djokovic, Federer, and Soderling (probably in that order) end the event in pretty much a 3-way tie for 2nd, with Murray falling further back

Sapeod
01-14-2011, 05:26 PM
There is no Big 4 anymore, it's the Big 5. Soderling has come on to the scene and is a big slam contender.

Federer, Djokovic, Nadal, Soderling, Murray >>>> Davydenko >>>> Ferrer >>>>>>>>> the rest of the tour.

Puschkin
01-14-2011, 07:00 PM
There is no Big 4 anymore, it's the Big 5. Soderling has come on to the scene and is a big slam contender.

There never were big four, ant there are no big four now.

Nole fan
01-14-2011, 09:50 PM
There never were big four, ant there are no big four now.

You keep saying that to yourself. Enjoy fedal while you can. :lol:

BK 201
01-14-2011, 09:56 PM
Big 7 actually. If 0 slam wonder Murray's in the 'big echelon' then Roddick and JMDP most certainly are.

Nole fan
01-14-2011, 10:00 PM
Big 7 actually. If 0 slam wonder Murray's in the 'big echelon' then Roddick and JMDP most certainly are.

That's true, but we are talking rankings here that are consistent for a very long time. Novak and Murray have been 3 and 4 for as long as Federer and Nadal have been interchanging 1 and 2. Soderling, delpo, etc just came in long after that. :shrug:

Kiedis
01-14-2011, 10:06 PM
It's funny how so far Nole has been able to beat Federer at slams but not Nadal, while Murray's been able to beat Nadal at slams but not Federer :)

How many opportunities had each one to do that?

Leo
01-15-2011, 01:07 AM
Overall last year sucked, especially for Murray, Djokovic, and Federer. Djokovic's bravery to beat Federer for a change in NY was a shining ray of hope.

Nole fan
01-15-2011, 01:09 AM
Overall last year sucked, especially for Murray, Djokovic, and Federer. Djokovic's bravery to beat Federer for a change in NY was a shining ray of hope.

+1

This is weird because you remind me so much of Burrows, a Djokovic hater. :o
Same flag and safin pic. :haha:

fast_clay
01-15-2011, 01:19 AM
it was never the big 4...

only the big 1...

and his name was Alex Bogdanovic...

Leo
01-15-2011, 01:23 AM
It's interesting because by the end of last season, we were talking about having a Top 6 or perhaps even Top 7, also comprised of Del Potro (on the heels of his USO victory with wins over Nadal and Federer), Davydenko (on the heels of his TMC victory with wins over Nadal, Federer, and Del Potro), and Soderling (on the heels of his RG F and continued success over top players like Nadal).

After the Australian Open this January, Federer, Murray, and Djokovic have all been in major slumps. For Djokovic in particular, it's a slump that's been ongoing for a couple of years now. Nadal has been the player to single-handedly carry the tour since the Aussie, with his improved play and consistent results at the hardcourt TMSes and his dominant play on clay. Both Del Potro and Davydenko could have stepped in and helped to fill the void left by Federer, Murray, and Djokovic, if not for their sidelining injuries. It's a shame. So now what we're left with is Nadal and a bunch of top players in shit form or injured. The WTA has been similar for the last couple of years with the top players performing like crap at all the events outside the Slams, and often at the Slams as well. Both the WTA and ATP are a bit of a shit-show.

I hope JMDP and ND can make swift comebacks, as unlikely as that is, to reassert their authority. Both men are so much more aggressive and offensive-minded than meek pushers Murray and Djokovic and thus we need them back at the top and in the conversation!

Post of the thread. IMHO.

Everko
01-24-2011, 07:07 PM
O yeah Soderling is a big 4 member:rolleyes:, one of the biggest fluke top 5 players in tennis history.

Britain's no.2
01-24-2011, 07:17 PM
it was never the big 4...

only the big 1...

and his name was Alex Bogdanovic...

THIS i like :D

out_here_grindin
06-02-2011, 08:59 PM
All 4 make the semis. They seem to be back at the top. 5-15 are getting less threatening

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 09:02 PM
What's the big 4? I don't think that ever existed :scratch:

Now, if that is a typo and it's meant to say big 3, well, the big 3 hasn't gone anywhere. They are still much better than anyone else.

Certinfy
06-02-2011, 09:02 PM
Ah, the memories of this time last year, Djokovic playing like a player ranked 30 in the world and purely winning matches due to his mentality. Oh and then there's the serve, what a mess it was, rolling the first in to avoid possibly hitting a double fault with the second. No one even seemed to care about Djokovic this time last year either, I mean I remember when he lost to Melzer and pulled out of Madrid the reactions on MTF were as if he was a player outside the top 10.

Sham Kay
06-02-2011, 09:13 PM
MTF would make a great political party. The swiftness and extent of opinion changes borders on genius.

Sham Kay
06-02-2011, 09:31 PM
What's the big 4? I don't think that ever existed :scratch:

Now, if that is a typo and it's meant to say big 3, well, the big 3 hasn't gone anywhere. They are still much better than anyone else.
Aww. Did Murray destroying Crapone Crapelli sting that deeply? Wasn't Andy's fault Bolelli chokes for a living :stupid:

Murray is a part of the big 4 and Bolelli is just a big flop. :wavey:

Go make some bad predictions on the challenger tour. :baby:

Hm. So this is how it feels to be a moronic ass. Now I see how Topspindoctor feels everyday.. must explore this some more.

MaxPower
06-02-2011, 09:33 PM
Better keep this thread warm. Gonna need it in about a month

steveo2810
06-02-2011, 09:35 PM
Aww. Did Murray destroying Crapone Crapelli sting that deeply? Wasn't Andy's fault Bolelli chokes for a living :stupid:

Murray is a part of the big 4 and Bolelli is just a big flop. :wavey:

Go make some bad predictions on the challenger tour. :baby:

Hm. So this is how it feels to be a moronic ass. Now I see how Topspindoctor feels everyday.. must explore this some more.

Haha :lol:

He really seems to have it in for poor Andy though. :p

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 09:50 PM
I hadn't even thought of that match in days. Murray isn't in the group with the big 3. That's just what it is. He's better than the "best of the rest" group, but he's not yet put himself in the big 3 and made it a big 4.

Sham Kay
06-02-2011, 10:06 PM
^ In.. a.. league of his own. Booyah.

Sapeod
06-02-2011, 10:15 PM
I hadn't even thought of that match in days. Murray isn't in the group with the big 3. That's just what it is. He's better than the "best of the rest" group, but he's not yet put himself in the big 3 and made it a big 4.
So what you're saying is Nadal, Djokovic, Federer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Muzza >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone else??
Perhaps? Nah, wrong, it's the Big 4. All 4 pretty much the only players who can win the grand slams and win most of the maters tournaments. You can't discount Muzza because he's frequently winning masters titles, reaching slam semi-finals/finals and beating the top 3. You can't not add him because he has no slams.

You'd still say Big 3, even if he was no.1/2, so I'm not going to bother arguing with your foolish post anymore :rolleyes:


Everyone was saying Big 4 as soon as Muzza became no.3/2, but when he dropped down to no.4, it was back to being the Big 4. I wonder why??? As long as the top 4 are ahead of Muzza, then it's the Big 3. If he overtakes one of them, then it's the Big 4. I mean, you can't not add those 3 :rolleyes: Tools :rolleyes:

shiaben
06-02-2011, 10:17 PM
1. Murray is developing.
2. Federer is past his prime.
3. Nadal might be going down a bit.
4. Djokovic is the only guy stable.

So I mean, you can't put a gun on Federer's head and force him to play tennis like 2005, 2006, etc. He's getting back spasms, he's becoming more lazy, the guy is just getting older and older. Not much he can do.

Djokovic reached his optimum of the 4. Murray will have to get there eventually. And Nadal might fluctuate or drop depending on his condition.

Sapeod
06-02-2011, 10:25 PM
Also, with Federer at hardly an amazing level, how is he in the Big 4, but not Muzza? I like Federer, but what has he done recently that Muzza hasn't. Muzza has a slam final and a slam semi-final this year. Federer has two semi-finals. Muzza has had a better claycourt season. So why is Andy always left out of the Big 4?? Why not Federer also? Biased hate towards Andy, that's why.

It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 10:29 PM
Murray for the most part has failed when it really matters. He's won occassionally. But he generally fails. That's the difference. He also loses to lesser players more often than the other 3.

Nole fan
06-02-2011, 10:30 PM
It's always been the Big 4. Murray's never too far.

peribsen
06-02-2011, 10:31 PM
Also, with Federer at hardly an amazing level, how is he in the Big 4, but not Muzza? I like Federer, but what has he done recently that Muzza hasn't. Muzza has a slam final and a slam semi-final this year. Federer has two semi-finals. Muzza has had a better claycourt season. So why is Andy always left out of the Big 4?? Why not Federer also? Biased hate towards Andy, that's why.

It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.

Because big guys make big SF and F, but HUGE guys prove themselves in huge finals. Andy has never done it. Some day he may, but you'll have to wait until he does to simply add him up to the others. Until then, he is just the (very likeable, for me at least) best of the rest.

Sham Kay
06-02-2011, 10:35 PM
Also, with Federer at hardly an amazing level, how is he in the Big 4, but not Muzza? I like Federer, but what has he done recently that Muzza hasn't. Muzza has a slam final and a slam semi-final this year. Federer has two semi-finals. Muzza has had a better claycourt season. So why is Andy always left out of the Big 4?? Why not Federer also? Biased hate towards Andy, that's why.

It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.
Your Queen has spoken with the final word. Arguments regarding this decision shall be made irrelevant. Any further formal appeals will now be faced with the penalty of ridicule.

Sophocles
06-02-2011, 10:35 PM
So Lendl wasn't in the big 4 until R.G. 1984? Isn't that absurd?

peribsen
06-02-2011, 10:41 PM
So Lendl wasn't in the big 4 until R.G. 1984? Isn't that absurd?

You do realize that WL is arguing that Andy has a better claim to be in the big 4 than Federer, do you?

And Lendl was a huge candidate before his first slam, but only proved himself worthy of joining the 1st tier of his generation when he did so.

rocketassist
06-02-2011, 10:48 PM
It was a big 4 while Djoker's results and Murray's were similar, and up to this year's AO they were. Since then, Djoker is now above the other two as well in current mode.

DrJules
06-02-2011, 10:50 PM
Based on last 4 GS including W2010 to semi- RG 2011 if you look at semi-final or better results:

Nadal: 2 win + 1 semi to date.
Djokovic: 1 win + 1 final +2 semi.
Federer: 3 semi.
Murray: 1 final + 2 semi.


Best of rest is:

Berdych: 1 final.
Ferrer/Youzhny: 1 semi. each

Top 4 certainly are more consistent with each reaching the semi-final 3 times or more in the last 4 GS events. No other player has reached the semi-final more than once in last 4 GS.

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 10:51 PM
Currently, it's really all about Djokovic. Then Nadal. And Federer and Murray are basically in the same area code, well below the top 2 in the world.

Filo V.
06-02-2011, 10:53 PM
Based on last 4 GS including W2010 to semi- RG 2011 if you look at semi-final or better results:

Nadal: 2 win + 1 semi to date.
Djokovic: 1 win + 1 final +2 semi.
Federer: 3 semi.
Murray: 1 final + 2 semi.


Best of rest is:

Berdych: 1 final.
Ferrer/Youzhny: 1 semi. each

Top 4 certainly are more consistent with each reaching the semi-final 3 times or more in the last 4 GS events. No other player has reached the semi-final more than once in last 4 GS.
OMG, Roger has the worst stats :hysteric:

Diprosalic
06-02-2011, 11:03 PM
It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.


big guys can win big tournaments aka slams. Muzza can't.

oranges
06-02-2011, 11:08 PM
It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.

:haha: Well, that was convincing. So much so that I'm off to ATP to check whether he won a slam when I wasn't paying attention.

rocketassist
06-02-2011, 11:17 PM
Murray's inclusion in a big 4 has always ran a parallel with Liverpool's inclusion in a Premier League big 4

Sophocles
06-03-2011, 12:40 AM
You do realize that WL is arguing that Andy has a better claim to be in the big 4 than Federer, do you?

And Lendl was a huge candidate before his first slam, but only proved himself worthy of joining the 1st tier of his generation when he did so.

WL has correctly pointed out that Murray's recent record in slams is better than Federer's. I agree about Lendl, but there's a distinction between the 1st tier of a generation (judged by career) & the more temporary concept of a current big 4.

Ibracadabra
06-03-2011, 12:54 AM
The big four is still about.

Nole
Rafa
Roger
Delpo

Topspindoctor
06-03-2011, 01:13 AM
Including a clown like Mugray into big 4 is an insult. Come back to me when he wins a set in a GS final.

Roadmap
06-03-2011, 01:34 AM
Including a clown like Mugray into big 4 is an insult. Come back to me when he wins a set in a GS final.

Having a poster like you on MTF is an insult. Come back to me when your favourite player is a TENNIS player not a cheating MOONBALLER clown.

Topspindoctor
06-03-2011, 01:36 AM
Having a poster like you on MTF is an insult. Come back to me when your favourite player is a TENNIS player not a cheating MOONBALLER clown.

:baby:

That's all you got? Fact is Mugray will always bask in mediocrity and will be forgotten in 3 days after he retires. Nadal is already a legend who will be remembered for decades just like all other greats.

Roadmap
06-03-2011, 01:43 AM
:baby:

That's all you got? Fact is Mugray will always bask in mediocrity and will be forgotten in 3 days after he retires. Nadal is already a legend who will be remembered for decades just like all other greats.

ATP decisions created MUGDAl. It seems it is illegal now to have fast hardcourt because that might put NADULL at a disadvantage. Nothing MOONBALLER does compares to Federer. The only 2 times they meet on genuinely fast hardcourt (Shanghai 2006 and 2007) Federer teaches MUGDAL how to play TENNIS. ATP directors are obviously NADULL tards.

BigJohn
06-03-2011, 03:54 AM
Ladies and gentlemen: a tantrum.



It's the Big 4, THAT IS THAT! END OF DISCUSSION.

http://myrantsandrambles.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/annoyed2.jpg

Somebody needs a nap...

Diprosalic
06-03-2011, 12:51 PM
Big 4 Murray at work.

Ukyo
06-03-2011, 12:56 PM
Andrew doin bizz son