Big 4? Nah... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Big 4? Nah...

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 08:09 AM
Murray just proved that he still has a little ways to go before the Big 3 expands to include another member. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are far and away at the top of the game. Murray may get there but he ain't there yet. I hope the media stops with the "Big Four" crap now.

ETA: "Big 3" = main contenders for a Slam title

~*BGT*~
01-26-2009, 08:12 AM
IMO, there was never a Big 4... it was a Big 3 + 1 :p

FedFan_2007
01-26-2009, 08:15 AM
Until Murray wins a slam, he has no business in this discussion!!@!

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 08:15 AM
fed was a late starter with GS wins and you know how that turned out.
all of the youngsters from his generation are long gone. murray has all the time of the world

rocketassist
01-26-2009, 08:15 AM
Faker and Murray are not in the top two's league.

If you're going to make it a big three, then it's a big four with Roddick as he's won a slam too. :haha:

marcRD
01-26-2009, 08:17 AM
For me it was always the big 2+1+1.

MrChopin
01-26-2009, 08:20 AM
Djokovic's current form is not top group material, hasn't been for almost a year as he's repeatedly gotten his ass kicked by them. Fed's form is rocky, but Fed is Fed. Murray's game is generally on par with anyones, but he hasn't got the big leap yet. As much as it pains me to say it, Nadal is clearly the most consistent at the moment (though each match will reveal more). Nadal fans, you can quote me as being serious here. So it's more like 2+2 when looking at the situation most generally.

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 08:21 AM
Faker and Murray are not in the top two's league.

If you're going to make it a big three, then it's a big four with Roddick as he's won a slam too. :haha:

Has Roddick been to the semis of all 4 slams?

But I do see what you mean. Fed and Nadal are really at the top by themselves but Djokovic is closer than anyone, having beaten Fed in route to his maiden slam.

rocketassist
01-26-2009, 08:23 AM
Has Roddick been to the semis of all 4 slams?

Three of them. Big deal about the French, it's the worst clay era ever and that's saying something.

It's either a big two, or a big four with Faker and Roddick. If you include Faker you include Roddick.

kyleskywalker007
01-26-2009, 08:25 AM
When was the last time Roddick was a threat to win a grandslam? USO final 2006 he had some chances but against Fed he would never win it in the first place.

rocketassist
01-26-2009, 08:28 AM
Oh and how can someone who lost in straight sets in the second round of Wimbledon to SAFIN be in the same group as Nadal and Federer? :lol:

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 08:28 AM
It's either a big two, or a big four with Faker and Roddick. If you include Faker you include Roddick.

Do you know what Roddick's current ranking is? He's not apart of a big anything.

Primus
01-26-2009, 08:28 AM
It's big one + 3 :)

Forehander
01-26-2009, 08:34 AM
ahahahahahaha

~*BGT*~
01-26-2009, 08:35 AM
Oh and how can someone who lost in straight sets in the second round of Wimbledon to SAFIN be in the same group as Nadal and Federer? :lol:

Safin is a former world number one and winner of 2 GS and ALSO made it to the semis.... not a bad loss considering. :p

rafa_maniac
01-26-2009, 08:39 AM
For me it was always the big 2+1+1.

That sounds about right.

adee-gee
01-26-2009, 08:40 AM
:zzz:

So when Nadal played RG for the first time, he wasn't considered as one of the favourites despite being the best on clay by a mile because "he hadn't won a slam".

Bullshit.

rafa_maniac
01-26-2009, 08:43 AM
:zzz:

So when Nadal played RG for the first time, he wasn't considered as one of the favourites despite being the best on clay by a mile because "he hadn't won a slam".

Bullshit.

Are you implying Murray is the best on HC "by a mile" :confused: This isn't a question of GS favourites as I see it, it's a question of where the various players are at in their career, and in that sense it's a big 2, with Djokovic part way there.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 08:43 AM
Murray just proved that he still has a little ways to go before the Big 3 expands to include another member. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are far and away at the top of the game. Murray may get there but he ain't there yet. I hope the media stops with the "Big Four" crap now.

Talk about a kneejerk reaction. One loss and Murray is a long way behind all of a sudden. :lol:

Remind yourself of that the next time Murray spanks one of "the big 3" (it's actually the big 2 and always has been).

habibko
01-26-2009, 08:45 AM
It's big one + 3 :)

that was true for 237 weeks :)

adee-gee
01-26-2009, 08:46 AM
Are you implying Murray is the best on HC "by a mile" :confused: This isn't a question of GS favourites as I see it, it's a question of where the various players are at in their career, and in that sense it's a big 2, with Djokovic part way there.
No, I'm suggesting you don't need to have won a slam to be considered one of the major players. Murray had been playing the best tennis of any, and it's pretty obvious he's in the group at the top 4 who are well ahead of the pack.

The fact he lost today doesn't change anything.

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 08:47 AM
Talk about a kneejerk reaction. One loss and Murray is a long way behind all of a sudden. :lol:

Remind yourself of that the next time Murray spanks one of "the big 3" (it's actually the big 2 and always has been).

He can beat Nadal, Fed and Djokovic all he wants. If it's not in a slam, then it won't make a difference.

rafa_maniac
01-26-2009, 08:48 AM
No, I'm suggesting you don't need to have won a slam to be considered one of the major players. Murray had been playing the best tennis of any, and it's pretty obvious he's in the group at the top 4 who are well ahead of the pack.

The fact he lost today doesn't change anything.

Got ya :yeah: I'm looking at it from a different angle to you obviously.

Mechlan
01-26-2009, 08:48 AM
The only thing he hasn't done is won a slam. Maybe in that sense it isn't the big 4. But you already knew that before today. In terms of points, H2H, and overall ability, yes it is a big 4.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 08:48 AM
He can beat Nadal, Fed and Djokovic all he wants. If it's not in a slam, then it won't make a difference.

He didn't beat Nadal in a slam? You're rewriting the history books.

l_mac
01-26-2009, 08:53 AM
There is no big 3 or 4, Mimic.

Nole cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Rafa or Fed :wavey:

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 08:54 AM
He didn't beat Nadal in a slam? You're rewriting the history books.

Tsonga beat Nadal last year. He's not apart of the "Big" discussion, is he?

Simply put, he needs to win a slam. Maybe he should be part of the discussion but he has yet to prove it. Actions speak louder than words.

FedFan_2007
01-26-2009, 08:55 AM
Basically it's Big 2 + 1 + 1. If you want entry to the main club you have to win multiple slams and #1 ranking.

Steelq
01-26-2009, 08:55 AM
He will be 22 in a couple of months and he made semifinal or better in slams just once.He is not even close to Djokovic accomplishments,let alone Nadal or Federer.I cant see the difference between him and Tsonga.

«Ivan»
01-26-2009, 08:55 AM
No, I'm suggesting you don't need to have won a slam to be considered one of the major players. Murray had been playing the best tennis of any, and it's pretty obvious he's in the group at the top 4 who are well ahead of the pack.

The fact he lost today doesn't change anything.

absolutely right.but they said he is 1st fav,clear fav...'n we all know "he was in the group at the top 4 who are well ahead of the pack" as you wrote.

«Ivan»
01-26-2009, 08:58 AM
There is no big 3 or 4, Mimic.

Nole cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Rafa or Fed :wavey:

as nole absolut fan i have to tell you're sooooo right:yeah:
some signs of big 3 were after aus open '08 'n that's it.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 08:59 AM
:zzz:

So when Nadal played RG for the first time, he wasn't considered as one of the favourites despite being the best on clay by a mile because "he hadn't won a slam".

Bullshit.

well nadal run circles around the other players on clay while murray lost to Fed in the USO final and lost to friggin davydenko in the TMC.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:01 AM
He will be 22 in a couple of months and he made semifinal or better in slams just once.He is not even close to Djokovic accomplishments,let alone Nadal or Federer.I cant see the difference between him and Tsonga.

Murray has achieved more than Federer did at his age.

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 09:02 AM
Big 3 = main contenders for a Slam title (for clarification)

«Ivan»
01-26-2009, 09:03 AM
Murray has achieved more than Federer did at his age.

nole,rafa,gulbis,baggy 'n 100 more too.your point is?

l_mac
01-26-2009, 09:05 AM
Murray has achieved more than Federer did at his age.

Nope. Fed won a Slam at 21. Murray can't do that now.

l_mac
01-26-2009, 09:05 AM
Big 3 = main contenders for a Slam title (for clarification)

Still Big 2 +1.

TheBoiledEgg
01-26-2009, 09:08 AM
The only thing he hasn't done is won a slam. Maybe in that sense it isn't the big 4. But you already knew that before today. In terms of points, H2H, and overall ability, yes it is a big 4.

that "only" is not a little thing
its massive

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 09:09 AM
djokovic has 1 GS and the TMC and was in ALL four semis and two finals while murray at basically the same age:

Australian Open 4R
French Open 3R
Wimbledon QF
US Open F

djoko is def. in the big 3 he is currently 10x the player murray is.

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 09:10 AM
Still Big 2 +1.

Maybe at Wimbledon and the French. But not at a hardcourt slam.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:11 AM
Nope. Fed won a Slam at 21. Murray can't do that now.

Yes, because his birthday is in August. It just so happens his birthday comes after Wimbledon. You're talking a matter of months.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:12 AM
djokovic has 1 GS and the TMC and was in ALL four semis and two finals while murray at basically the same age:

Australian Open 4R
French Open 3R
Wimbledon QF
US Open F

djoko is def. in the big 3 he is currently 10x the player murray is.

Djokovic is 10 times better than Murray? Sure thing.

l_mac
01-26-2009, 09:13 AM
Yes, because his birthday is in August. It just so happens his birthday comes after Wimbledon. You're talking a matter of months.

You were wrong. Deal with it.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 09:13 AM
Djokovic is 10 times better than Murray? Sure thing.

thats not what i said at all

l_mac
01-26-2009, 09:13 AM
Maybe at Wimbledon and the French. But not at a hardcourt slam.

How many qualifications are you going to give this Big 3?

Rafa and Fed.






Nole.



Murray.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:14 AM
You were wrong. Deal with it.

Actually, I wasn't. I said Federer hadn't achieved what Murray has at his age. I didn't say by the age of 21. Technically, I was right. No matter how you look at it. :lol:

the biscuit
01-26-2009, 09:16 AM
:lol:

Does this even matter? :silly:

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:16 AM
thats not what i said at all

You said that he is 10 times the player Murray is. I'm not sure how else that can be interpreted.

Besides, Murray is almost a cert to leapfrog Nole in the first half of the year.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 09:20 AM
You said that he is 10 times the player Murray is. I'm not sure how else that can be interpreted.


nole proved that he can win big tournaments he has the mind of a champion. he proofed to be a factor in every GS and still running good at the AO. which makes him so much that murray is not (yet).

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 09:21 AM
How many qualifications are you going to give this Big 3?


Well since Djokovic has better results than Nadal at hard court slams, Nadal could stand to benefit from these qualifications, too. :)

star
01-26-2009, 09:21 AM
:lol:

Does this even matter? :silly:

Bingo!


:lol:

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:23 AM
nole proved that he can win big tournaments he has the mind of a champion. he proofed to be a factor in every GS and still running good at the AO. which makes him so much that murray is not (yet).

What will you say when Murray overtakes Nole in a few months? It's almost inevitable.

Murray lost a match. Shit happens, just like when Djokovic lost to Safin.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 09:26 AM
Murray lost a match. Shit happens, just like when Djokovic lost to Safin.

he could be no1 without a GS win its meaningless.

yeah safin who later advanced to the SF and only got beat by the former grass king federer :smash:

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:30 AM
he could be no1 without a GS win its meaningless.

yeah safin who later advanced to the SF and only got beat by the former grass king federer :smash:

The reason Safin advanced is because he had Nole's seeded draw. He got spanked by Federer in the semis.

So the fact that Djokovic beat Tsonga in a GS final and Murray lost to Federer in a GS final means that Murray will be inferior until he wins a Grand Slam? I guess Murray is inferior to Thomas Johansson and Andy Roddick, then. :lol:

«Ivan»
01-26-2009, 09:35 AM
What will you say when Murray overtakes Nole in a few months? It's almost inevitable.



:haha: you're(scots) worse than serbs.inevitable you said?:haha: for months i thought you're mature guy,not delusional fan.

born_on_clay
01-26-2009, 09:37 AM
Murray is far behind big 3 in GS. He's mentally to weak

Mechlan
01-26-2009, 09:37 AM
Actually, I wasn't. I said Federer hadn't achieved what Murray has at his age. I didn't say by the age of 21. Technically, I was right. No matter how you look at it. :lol:

I think you are technically right because Federer hadn't won a Slam at 21 years and how many ever days old Murray is now. In the next few months, Fed's accomplishments surpass him and it's unlikely Murray will ever get ahead again. It's okay, it's a pointless argument anyway. :p

ORGASMATRON
01-26-2009, 09:38 AM
Murray just proved that he still has a little ways to go before the Big 3 expands to include another member. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are far and away at the top of the game. Murray may get there but he ain't there yet. I hope the media stops with the "Big Four" crap now.

Well me and Fed have been saying this for a while now, hopefully people will get it now.

Clydey
01-26-2009, 09:39 AM
:haha: you're(scots) worse than serbs.inevitable you said?:haha: for months i thought you're mature guy,not delusional fan.

I'm not delusional. Murray has hardly any points to defend in the first half of the year. Nole has a lot. Maybe it's not inevitable, but there's a strong possibility.

CmonAussie
01-26-2009, 09:42 AM
***
<>
with all this talk about the `big 4`~ some suggesting Safin & Roddick instead of Murray<> going down that argument Hewitt is much more worthy [2yrs #1, 2 slams, 2 TMC, 26 titles, 2 DCs]. Murray needs to keep his feet on the Earth b4 pretending he belongs with the big boys who`ve done much more than him [including Safin, Roddick, Hewitt]..

MIMIC
01-26-2009, 09:44 AM
EDIT: wrong thread

HeretiC
01-26-2009, 09:57 AM
Big 2 , big 3, big 4, 2+1, 2+1+1, 2+2 , 3+ 1, whatever....
The point is that all of you(us) were obsessed in which half will Djokovic be in the draw in the past 2 years. Now that is not much of an issue. That says something. :shrug:

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 10:08 AM
So the fact that Djokovic beat Tsonga in a GS final and Murray lost to Federer in a GS final means that Murray will be inferior until he wins a Grand Slam? I guess Murray is inferior to Thomas Johansson and Andy Roddick, then. :lol:

oh god. here i am and thought the arrogance of the murray tards would stop for a while after this loss.

oh boy i was wrong

Crazy Girl
01-26-2009, 10:19 AM
4?
3 + 1?
2 + 2?
2 + 1 + 1?
1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::fiery::fi ery:I hate maths!!:fiery::fiery:

scoobs
01-26-2009, 10:22 AM
4?
3 + 1?
2 + 2?
2 + 1 + 1?
1 + 1 + 1 + 1?
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::fiery::fi ery:I hate maths!!:fiery::fiery:
3/4 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 3/4 + 1/4 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3?

Crazy Girl
01-26-2009, 10:25 AM
3/4 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 3/4 + 1/4 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 2/3?:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:
:hug:No, no Scoobs!! It's not for me!!!:hug:

Alex999
01-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Nole is special. I know it deep in my heart. I do like both Roger and Rafa. I haven't posted here for a long time. Good seeing you all. Peace :-)

p.s. Mimic is awesome, I couldn't rep you but still, you know how much I like you :worship:.

mickymouse
01-26-2009, 10:59 AM
Remember when Roddick was one of the "three in the mix"? Now he isn't even one of the big 4. What a shame.:o

superslam77
01-26-2009, 11:03 AM
13(jesus)>5(rafa)>2(lleyton,marat)>1(joker,duck)>0.5(1 time finalist wonders)>rest

CmonAussie
01-26-2009, 11:36 AM
13(jesus)>5(rafa)>2(lleyton,marat)>1(joker,duck)>0.5(1 time finalist wonders)>rest


:cool:
FED - 13 Slams, #1 2004-07 >> RAFA - 5 Slams, #1 2008 >> HEWITT - 2 Slams, #1 2001-02 >> SAFIN - 2 Slams >> RODDICK >> 1 Slam, #1 2003 >> DJOKO - 1 Slam >>>>>>>>>> Murray - Doha champion:p

superslam77
01-26-2009, 11:38 AM
:clap2:

rocketassist
01-26-2009, 11:40 AM
:cool:
FED - 13 Slams, #1 2004-07 >> RAFA - 5 Slams, #1 2008 >> HEWITT - 2 Slams, #1 2001-02 >> SAFIN - 2 Slams >> RODDICK >> 1 Slam, #1 2003 >> DJOKO - 1 Slam >>>>>>>>>> Murray - Doha champion:p

You forgot Johansson, Moya and Ferrero (1 slam each) :p

federernadalfan
01-26-2009, 11:41 AM
it's a big two only

CmonAussie
01-26-2009, 11:44 AM
You forgot Johansson, Moya and Ferrero (1 slam each) :p
:cool:
sorry that was disrespectful to forget these other Slam winners;)
yes, indeed >> they all deserve more respect [at this point] than Murray!

JolánGagó
01-26-2009, 12:11 PM
Big 2 and then the rest. Period.

Noletards should stop intensive self-delusion.

This thread is utter crap BTW.

freeandlonely
01-26-2009, 12:20 PM
It's either a big two, or a big four with Faker and Roddick. If you include Faker you include Roddick.

:rolleyes:

safinafan
01-26-2009, 12:34 PM
Big 4? :retard:

rocketassist
01-26-2009, 12:36 PM
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: at you as well.

Both have won one slam title. Both are Fed's bitches. I don't see the difference.

Neither will be winning slams again while Roger remains fit.

safinafan
01-26-2009, 12:38 PM
ROGER IS OVER, O-V-E-R.:devil:

Castielo
01-26-2009, 12:53 PM
Big = hard to defeated by the rest for couple of years. Murray is one of the rest.

richie21
01-26-2009, 01:00 PM
I disagree with this thread.
There is a big four.....but an ill Murray(like he was today) is not a top 4 player.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 01:02 PM
I disagree with this thread.
There is a big four.....but an ill Murray(like he was today) is not a top 4 player.

he said he felt fine?

Castielo
01-26-2009, 01:03 PM
Mono roger was still in SF

alfonsojose
01-26-2009, 01:18 PM
Kolya will be the one this year, pansies :rocker2: :yeah: :dance:

Quadruple Tree
01-26-2009, 01:48 PM
I disagree with this thread.
There is a big four.....but an ill Murray(like he was today) is not a top 4 player.

He had a cold, ffs. Sampras was puking on the court against Corretja and he still fought through to get the win. That is what champions do, and that is why Murray still has a ways to go if he wants to be considered alongside Nadal and Federer.

Steelq
01-26-2009, 01:51 PM
YdwPYuC5Y4k

Venle
01-26-2009, 01:56 PM
It's big three, at least to me, has been since Wimbledon 2007.

When Murray wins a Slam, then I might start talking about Big Four.

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:00 PM
murray is the best player in the last half year. this defeat doesn`t mean anything, he is maybe the strongest part of the big 4 in last 6 months. and not only he is the part of big 4, but he will threaten federer already this year. djokovic will be behind him in few months.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 02:03 PM
murray is the best player in the last half year. this defeat doesn`t mean anything, he is maybe the strongest part of the big 4 in last 6 months.

and he hasn't won even on of the 3 big tournaments in the last 6 months. thats why they called BIG three and thats why he isn't part of that.
simple as that.

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:05 PM
and he hasn't won even on of the 3 big tournaments in the last 6 months. thats why they called BIG three and thats why he isn't part of that.
simple as that.

I`am talking about after wimbledon season.

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:19 PM
notice that especially nole and fed fans are very happy. do you now why? because they are scared.
they are scared for reason and they now why. andy is making fun of them in the last meetings.
and do you know why they are scared even more. because they now andy is now much stronger than at any time last season.

Steelq
01-26-2009, 02:19 PM
I`am talking about after wimbledon season.

There were 4 big events after Wimbledon

Murray:Olympics-1st round,USO-F,Masters cup-SF,AO-4th round

Federer:Olympics-QF,USO-winner,Masters cup-RR,AO-?

Djokovic:Olympics-bronze medal,USO-SF,Masters cup-winner,AO-?

Nadal:Olympics-gold medal,USO-SF,Masters cup-injured,AO-?

Tell me now please how is he the best player in last half year.

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:21 PM
There were 4 big events after Wimbledon

Murray:Olympics-1st round,USO-F,Masters cup-SF,AO-4th round

Federer:Olympics-QF,USO-winner,Masters cup-RR,AO-?

Djokovic:Olympics-bronze medal,USO-SF,Masters cup-winner,AO-?

Nadal:Olympics-gold medal,USO-SF,Masters cup-injured,AO-?

Tell me now please how is he the best player in last half year.

and now look who earned most points after wimbledon.

Arkulari
01-26-2009, 02:28 PM
people were comparing Muzza and Roger about their ages:

1. Muzza was 21 when he won his first AMS (Cincy), Roger won Hamburg at 20 and has already lost a final in Miami against Agassi in the same year

2. Roger won Wimbledon at the age of 21 (yes, his birthday was in august, but still he was 21) and won the TMC that same year :o

3. Muzza is yet to shown himself outside of HC, he has had an excellent HC season in the last 6 months or so, but that was always his best surface (USO junior champ in 2003) so he has still to prove that he is the real deal by getting good results in grass and clay :)

I'm not a Muzza hater but he still has a long way ahead of him and has yet to prove many things, he is the in-form HC player and he has won quite a few tournaments since his explosion in Cincy :D

Give the guy time,I think he might win GS, he just needs to adjust his game and win the mental edge he still lacks to do so (one thing is to win AMS and MM and another thing are the GS) ;)

Steelq
01-26-2009, 02:30 PM
and now look who earned most points after wimbledon.
Jankovic earned most points on WTA tour for entire year,but still none consider her to be the best player,she failed to win anything significant,just like Murray did.Last three big events were won by Nadal,Federer and Djokovic,and one of them will probably win this AO.

Diprosalic
01-26-2009, 02:35 PM
I`am talking about after wimbledon season.

so do i

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:43 PM
Jankovic earned most points on WTA tour for entire year,but still none consider her to be the best player,she failed to win anything significant,just like Murray did.Last three big events were won by Nadal,Federer and Djokovic,and one of them will probably win this AO.

don`t know why people are afraid to admit andy is a part of big 4. it is so obvious as the sun in the sky. it is only the matter of time when he will win GS. ok, I can agree that it is the best indicator, but we all know andy is here and we all know he won last few meetings against federer, djoković and even nadal in USO.

shaggy
01-26-2009, 02:44 PM
.....

Forehander
01-26-2009, 02:46 PM
And what's coming next for MUrray? CLAY.... PRAY FOR DEATH

Crazy Girl
01-26-2009, 02:48 PM
Kolya will be the one this year, pansies :rocker2: :yeah: :dance:Kkkkkoooolllllyyyyaaaa!!!!!!!
Where are you? I miss you too much!
:rain::rain::bigcry::bigcry::bigcry::rain::rain:
:baby::baby:Uah, Uah, Uah!!!:baby::baby:

Radalek
01-26-2009, 03:14 PM
Djokovic is 10 times better than Murray? Sure thing.

No one said that.It's just that Djokovic won his first slam being 20 yr old, having semi or better at all slams, having TMC shield at 21, 4-2 hth with Murray and all that being younger than him, even if it's only 7 days separating them.At this stage of their careers Novak is way ahead of Andy achievements wise.You may say Andy played best tennis lately but if it stays only on that in 10 years no one will care about it and achievements is all it will matter.And achievements are slams, #1 spot and to some lesser extent TMC and Olympics.Novak has 2 out of 4, Andy has none.It may change in future but for now this is way it is.

l_mac
01-26-2009, 05:30 PM
Nole is special.
Special like BSE.
It's big three, at least to me, has been since Wimbledon 2007.

When Murray wins a Slam, then I might start talking about Big Four.
Why, did Nole win Wimbledon or USO 07? Why should Murray wait to be part of the top tier when Nole didn't? :retard:
No one said that.It's just that Djokovic won his first slam being 20 yr old, having semi or better at all slams, having TMC shield at 21, 4-2 hth with Murray and all that being younger than him, even if it's only 7 days separating them.At this stage of their careers Novak is way ahead of Andy achievements wise.You may say Andy played best tennis lately but if it stays only on that in 10 years no one will care about it and achievements is all it will matter.And achievements are slams, #1 spot and to some lesser extent TMC and Olympics.Novak has 2 out of 4, Andy has none.It may change in future but for now this is way it is.
:worship:
Following this argument there is eve less reason for Nole to be mentioned with Rafa. Rafa is only 11 months older than Nole. So Nole can only match his achievements if he wins the all the slams this year and every "1000". Only then can he be placed in Rafa's company.

Thanks for clarifying :yeah:

ORGASMATRON
01-26-2009, 05:45 PM
The big 3 is Fedalic, Murray has never been part of them and may never be. Even Nole is much better then Murray. A slam, TMC, 4 MS, a slam final and who knows how many semi's. Murray has 2 MS and a slam final. I rest my case.

Greatness
01-26-2009, 05:50 PM
It's a meaningless title anyway: "big three", "big four". All that matters is winning significant tournaments and slams. Murray can be included in the "big four" and be picked as favorite by the media as many times as they please but it's the results that people will remember, not whether or not you were included in the "big four".

Mateya
01-26-2009, 06:11 PM
He is a part of the big 5, with Tsonga as fifth.
:angel:

Matt01
01-26-2009, 06:14 PM
:rolleyes: at you as well.

Both have won one slam title. Both are Fed's bitches. I don't see the difference.

Neither will be winning slams again while Roger remains fit.


:lol: So delusional...

Lee
01-26-2009, 08:12 PM
:cool:
sorry that was disrespectful to forget these other Slam winners;)
yes, indeed >> they all deserve more respect [at this point] than Murray!

I think Gaston Gaudio is still an active player and he won a Slam. ;)

LleytonMonfils
01-26-2009, 08:13 PM
Why is everyone forgetting Nadal, Federer, & Djokovic have all lost this year? People the 4 Grand Slams are not the only tournaments played all year. The Big 4 is still The Big 4. Actually now that I think about it new slogan:

"The ATP, We're Deep, and We Fucking Know It!"

MrChopin
01-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Big 4, then
Big 8, then
Big 15, then
Big 16, then
Big 23, then
Big 42, then


...

groundstroke
01-26-2009, 08:20 PM
its not even big 3

its big 2+1

groundstroke
01-26-2009, 08:26 PM
Special like BSE.

Why, did Nole win Wimbledon or USO 07? Why should Murray wait to be part of the top tier when Nole didn't? :retard:

:worship:
Following this argument there is eve less reason for Nole to be mentioned with Rafa. Rafa is only 11 months older than Nole. So Nole can only match his achievements if he wins the all the slams this year and every "1000". Only then can he be placed in Rafa's company.

Thanks for clarifying :yeah:

djokovic will never have the yearly win-loss records federer/nadal will ever have (fed once had 82-3 and nadal had 83-11 last year), djokovic will never get this.

also mention how djokovic has won the us open, wimbledon and french.

or how he is nadal and fed's bitch.

Henry Kaspar
01-26-2009, 09:11 PM
Murray just proved that he still has a little ways to go before the Big 3 expands to include another member. Nadal, Federer and Djokovic are far and away at the top of the game. Murray may get there but he ain't there yet. I hope the media stops with the "Big Four" crap now.

My saying all along. As long as a player isn't an active Yokozuna or Ozeki in my Yokozunatennis-Rankings (see signature) he shouldn't be called "big". Murray got close but isn't there -- yet.

JolánGagó
01-26-2009, 09:25 PM
Fed and Nadal are the only two active Yokosuna, Djoker has no place with them in the top category.

Henry Kaspar
01-26-2009, 09:55 PM
Fed and Nadal are the only two active Yokosuna, Djoker has no place with them in the top category.

Very true, but that's a tough standard -- in this case only 15 players have been "big" in the past 40 years.

Matt01
01-26-2009, 10:17 PM
djokovic will never have the yearly win-loss records federer/nadal will ever have (fed once had 82-3 and nadal had 83-11 last year), djokovic will never get this.



You can the see the future, yes? :rolleyes:

~*BGT*~
01-27-2009, 01:12 AM
The reason Safin advanced is because he had Nole's seeded draw. He got spanked by Federer in the semis.

So the fact that Djokovic beat Tsonga in a GS final and Murray lost to Federer in a GS final means that Murray will be inferior until he wins a Grand Slam? I guess Murray is inferior to Thomas Johansson and Andy Roddick, then. :lol:

At this point in their careers, yes he is. :p

I'm not delusional. Murray has hardly any points to defend in the first half of the year. Nole has a lot. Maybe it's not inevitable, but there's a strong possibility.

Just think of all the points he has to defend in the second half of the season. :p

Clydey
01-27-2009, 04:30 AM
At this point in their careers, yes he is. :p



Just think of all the points he has to defend in the second half of the season. :p

Yes, but they don't come off until...wait for it...the second half of the season. That's why there is a strong possibility in the first half. Whether he can maintain his improved ranking is another matter.

TheBoiledEgg
01-27-2009, 04:54 AM
Tsonga >>>>>> Murray

Clydey
01-27-2009, 05:07 AM
Tsonga >>>>>> Murray

World number 4 >>>> World number 6.

9 titles >>>>> 2 titles.

Hope this helps.

leng jai
01-27-2009, 05:15 AM
Mugray should be paying Clydey for this.

Clydey
01-27-2009, 05:18 AM
Mugray should be paying Clydey for this.

Haas is paying you in other ways.

leng jai
01-27-2009, 05:21 AM
Not really. Hes cut at me because I didn't defend his honour here after his loss to Nadull.

Clydey
01-27-2009, 05:25 AM
Not really. Hes cut at me because I didn't defend his honour here after his loss to Nadull.

Can you blame him? Some loyalty wouldn't go amiss.

Matt01
01-27-2009, 09:37 PM
World number 4 >>>> World number 6.

9 titles >>>>> 2 titles.

Hope this helps.


It should. Thank you.

Sapeod
01-27-2009, 09:56 PM
and he hasn't won even on of the 3 big tournaments in the last 6 months. thats why they called BIG three and thats why he isn't part of that.
simple as that.

Djokovic hasn't either. In my mind Djokovic doesn't deserve to be up there. After the first 5 months IMO Djokovic will be 5th or 6th. :shrug: In titles Djokovic is only two ahead of Murray, but this year that will change, definately.

MacTheKnife
01-27-2009, 09:56 PM
It's still the big two, two hopefuls, and a large group of wantabe's...

meihaditalab
01-27-2009, 10:03 PM
LMFAOOO ( Big 2 ) Rafa and Fed

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 10:03 PM
It's still the big two, two hopefuls, and a large group of wantabe's...

Nailed it.

Andi-M
01-27-2009, 10:21 PM
Big 2.

I know Djokovic has the elusive GS title but on no surface besides clay would I put him as a favourite ahead of Murray. Theres nothing to choose between them. The post RG form in big tournaments from both these players:-

Murray Djokovic


Wimbledon QF 2R
Monteal SF QF
Cincinatti W F
USO F SF
Madrid W 3R
Paris QF 3R
TMC SF W
AO 4R QF

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 10:26 PM
Big 2.

I know Djokovic has the elusive GS title but on no surface besides clay would I put him as a favourite ahead of Murray. Theres nothing to choose between them. The post RG form in big tournaments from both these players:-


That's maybe true on current form, but career-wise Djokovic is clearly ahead. 1 GS to Murray's 0, 2 finals to Murray's 1, 6 semifinals to Murray's 1, 8 quarterfinals to Murray's 2.

Sapeod
01-27-2009, 10:26 PM
It's still the big two, two hopefuls, and a large group of wantabe's...

:worship: You've got it. 3 hopefuls. Including Tsonga.

Lullaby
01-27-2009, 10:40 PM
That's maybe true on current form, but career-wise Djokovic is clearly ahead. 1 GS to Murray's 0, 2 finals to Murray's 1, 6 semifinals to Murray's 1, 8 quarterfinals to Murray's 2.

0 big injuries to muzza 1 is the key too

Andi-M
01-27-2009, 10:45 PM
That's maybe true on current form, but career-wise Djokovic is clearly ahead. 1 GS to Murray's 0, 2 finals to Murray's 1, 6 semifinals to Murray's 1, 8 quarterfinals to Murray's 2.

Career-wise yeah for now Djokovic is way ahead, but recent history is more relevant than the past history. I mean A-Rod has a better career than both is he more likely to win a slam?

In 2007 and early 2008 Nole was leaps and bounds ahead Murray, Murray has caught up a little bit and right now is the better player.

So as of now I'd put them in a group together below Fedal.

groundstroke
01-27-2009, 10:45 PM
Djokovic has withdrawn 7 times in a match, 4 times in a Grand Slam

part of the "big 3" ? no.

no "great player" retires 7 times by the age of 22? federer has never retired in his career and he's 27

edit: retired to J.Blake last year

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 11:06 PM
Djokovic has withdrawn 7 times in a match, 4 times in a Grand Slam

part of the "big 3" ? no.

no "great player" retires 7 times by the age of 22? federer has never retired in his career and he's over 28

Actually, Federer is 27 and most definitely not 28.

JolánGagó
01-27-2009, 11:07 PM
:worship: You've got it. 3 hopefuls. Including Tsonga.

he wishes.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 11:07 PM
Actually, Federer is 27 and most definitely not 28.

.... and he has retired once.

Johnny Groove
01-27-2009, 11:13 PM
he wishes.

Wishes? He's got a good shot for the finals.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 11:13 PM
May I direct your attention to this beautiful post.... ;)

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?p=8021143#post8021143

(date 1-17-09)
I know this term is common usage now and I am not critizing the opener of this thread in any way, but frankly I think it's still rather early to talk of "big 4". Let's have win Murray at least one slam before calling him "big".

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

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 11:20 PM
.... and he has retired once.

Wrong.

It was a walkover, not a retirement. He pulled out before the match began.

FedFan_2007
01-27-2009, 11:23 PM
Wrong.

It was a walkover, not a retirement. He pulled out before the match began.

But it was his first walkover.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 11:25 PM
Wrong.

It was a walkover, not a retirement. He pulled out before the match began.

A truly important difference. :cool:

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 11:25 PM
But it was his first walkover.

Very true. A very impressive figure indeed to have no walkovers until the age of 27.

Henry Kaspar
01-27-2009, 11:29 PM
Very true. A very impressive figure indeed to have no walkovers until the age of 27.

Almost as impressive as 13 grand slam titles and 10 consecutive grand slam finals.

MalwareDie
01-27-2009, 11:32 PM
Almost as impressive as 13 grand slam titles and 10 consecutive grand slam finals.

And 19 consecutive Grand Slam semifinals.

Clydey
01-27-2009, 11:33 PM
0 big injuries to muzza 1 is the key too

The wrist set him back around half a year. That was a big injury.

gillian
01-28-2009, 12:40 AM
The media plugged the Big Four story - with help from the ATP - because they needed a new story. I didn't put much stock in it myself. But I do find it amusing that the media wags are now chastising vague "others" (who? the bookmakers?) for including Murray in the discussion of possible AO favorites. Didn't the media contribute to that just a little.

Clydey
01-28-2009, 01:15 AM
The media plugged the Big Four story - with help from the ATP - because they needed a new story. I didn't put much stock in it myself. But I do find it amusing that the media wags are now chastising vague "others" (who? the bookmakers?) for including Murray in the discussion of possible AO favorites. Didn't the media contribute to that just a little.

I don't think anyone doubts that Murray should have been regarded as one of the favourites. He obviously earned that right. The controversy surrounded his tag as the outright favourite for the title, as opposed to being one of several.

Arkulari
01-28-2009, 01:18 AM
one walkover in over 800 pro matches, never retired during a running match
oh yeah, that's Roger :yeah: ;)

NinaNina19
01-28-2009, 03:11 AM
If Murray wasn't sick, he would have won AO.

MagicMilan
01-28-2009, 03:13 AM
If Murray wasn't sick, he would have won AO.
if Novak played a night match, he would have beaten Roddick
of course, all that didn't happen and life goes on :shrug:

Lullaby
01-28-2009, 03:31 AM
If Murray wasn't sick, he would have won AO.

Nah this heat would have took its toll on him - He needs the cold of wimby :)

~*BGT*~
01-28-2009, 04:35 AM
Yes, but they don't come off until...wait for it...the second half of the season. That's why there is a strong possibility in the first half. Whether he can maintain his improved ranking is another matter.

If you think so.

Big 2.

I know Djokovic has the elusive GS title but on no surface besides clay would I put him as a favourite ahead of Murray. Theres nothing to choose between them.


And you're not biased at all of course.

Clydey
01-28-2009, 06:15 AM
Nah this heat would have took its toll on him - He needs the cold of wimby :)

What are you basing that on? He hasn't wilted in the heat before and trained in Miami in the off season. The heat didn't seem to bother him at all. :shrug:

Lullaby
01-28-2009, 07:16 AM
What are you basing that on? He hasn't wilted in the heat before and trained in Miami in the off season. The heat didn't seem to bother him at all. :shrug:

Hearing Cahills comments it was more likely the virus but he looked pretty languid out there (Far more than normal)

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:18 AM
Hearing Cahills comments it was more likely the virus but he looked pretty languid out there (Far more than normal)

That's exactly what I said yesterday. And it seems it was a result of whatever he's suffering from.

Lullaby
01-28-2009, 07:27 AM
That's exactly what I said yesterday. And it seems it was a result of whatever he's suffering from.

That said even though verdasco is winning, if hed have served yesterday like today muzza would have won - that 93% set 1st serves was as good as I have seen in a while.

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:29 AM
That said even though verdasco is winning, if hed have served yesterday like today muzza would have won - that 93% set 1st serves was as good as I have seen in a while.

Yeah. Just shows you what an effort it was. Verdasco isn't showing nearly the same form today, yet he's still 2 sets to 1 up.

That said, really glad to see Fernando's breakthrough. Just makes the tour all the more exciting.

nkhera1
01-28-2009, 07:30 AM
That said even though verdasco is winning, if hed have served yesterday like today muzza would have won - that 93% set 1st serves was as good as I have seen in a while.

He still may have been able to win. Bottom line is he couldn't get it done. This kind of speculation is just as bad as saying Djokovic could have won if the roof was closed.

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:36 AM
He still may have been able to win. Bottom line is he couldn't get it done. This kind of speculation is just as bad as saying Djokovic could have won if the roof was closed.

Not really. Djokovic retired from soreness and some cramp. Murray went 5 sets in the heat with an infection that kept him in bed. While it's certainly specualtive to say he would have won, it's not without merit.

nkhera1
01-28-2009, 07:39 AM
Not really. Djokovic retired from soreness and some cramp. Murray went 5 sets in the heat with an infection that kept him in bed. While it's certainly specualtive to say he would have won, it's not without merit.

It may have gotten worse after the match meaning he could have been in better shape than just bed ridden. And as you said it's still speculative. That's like saying Federer would have beaten Murray all those times he lost, but the Mono held him back.

Lullaby
01-28-2009, 07:43 AM
He still may have been able to win. Bottom line is he couldn't get it done. This kind of speculation is just as bad as saying Djokovic could have won if the roof was closed.

Nah not speculation, verdasco got it done on the day. The way he is playing against Tsonga so far he definately looks like he is the hot player for this tournament. I just hope muzza does not keep running into the hot one early each year

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:43 AM
It may have gotten worse after the match meaning he could have been in better shape than just bed ridden. And as you said it's still speculative. That's like saying Federer would have beaten Murray all those times he lost, but the Mono held him back.

Murray was bed bound and on antibiotics before the Melzer match. It didn't suddenly appear before the Verdasco match.

Federer was over the mono by that time. If you subscribe to the whole mono "lingering in his system for an entire season" theory, he was certainly over it by 2009. And the 2009 matches went the same way as the ones in 2008 (with the obvious exception of the USO final).

nkhera1
01-28-2009, 07:51 AM
Murray was bed bound and on antibiotics before the Melzer match. It didn't suddenly appear before the Verdasco match.

Federer was over the mono by that time. If you subscribe to the whole mono "lingering in his system for an entire season" theory, he was certainly over it by 2009. And the 2009 matches went the same way as the ones in 2008 (with the obvious exception of the USO final).

Dont forget the Dubai match and i could say those matches gave him the confidence to beat him once this year.

edit: When did he start the meds?

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:56 AM
Dont forget the Dubai match and i could say those matches gave him the confidence to beat him once this year.

edit: When did he start the meds?

He was over mono by the Australian Open in 2008. The only way in which it affects his season was that it deprived him of training prior to the AO 08 and consequently he was playing catch up. Federer hammered Murray in the 08 USO final, so Murray clearly didn't need confidence to beat him. If anything that USO match woiuld have destroyed his confidence, yet he went on to beat him in Madrid, TMC, and Doha. Jeez, why are we randomly arguing about Federer? :lol:

Clydey
01-28-2009, 07:57 AM
edit: When did he start the meds?

Not sure. Some time before the Melzer match.

nkhera1
01-28-2009, 08:00 AM
He was over mono by the Australian Open in 2008. The only way in which it affects his season was that it deprived him of training prior to the AO 08 and consequently he was playing catch up. Federer hammered Murray in the 08 USO final, so Murray clearly didn't need confidence to beat him. If anything that USO match woiuld have destroyed his confidence, yet he went on to beat him in Madrid, TMC, and Doha. Jeez, why are we randomly arguing about Federer? :lol:

I guess I was just trying to point out how it becomes a slippery slope when you start making excuses for matches.

Clydey
01-28-2009, 08:02 AM
I guess I was just trying to point out how it becomes a slippery slope when you start making excuses for matches.

He didn't make any. I just think it would be foolish to disregard whatever he was suffering from, particularly when he has been torn to shreds in here.

MIMIC
02-02-2011, 08:08 PM
My first redemption bump :cool:

tennis2tennis
02-02-2011, 08:17 PM
this thread...doesn't warrant a facepalm but in the category of....
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451574c69e20134858a87a2970c-800wi

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 05:51 PM
Thought I'd post it here instead of crowding the Ferrer-Federer match thread

07 AO loss vs. Nadal 6-7(3), 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 6-1
08 W loss vs. Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
08 US win vs. Nadal 6-2, 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4
08 US loss vs. Federer 6-2, 7-5, 6-2
10 AO win vs. Nadal 6-3, 7-6(2), 3-0 RET
10 AO loss vs. Federer 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(11)
10 W loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 7-6(6), 6-4
11 AO loss vs. Djokovic 6-4, 6-2, 6-3
11 FO loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
11 W loss vs. Nadal 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4
11 US loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2

2/11 matches won. 9/37 sets won (and one stopped due to retirement of Rafa). 0 slams. That's not just a mental problem, that's lack of quality. He arguably did better as a youngster than he does right now.

Roamed
11-26-2011, 06:11 PM
Thought I'd post it here instead of crowding the Ferrer-Federer match thread

07 AO loss vs. Nadal 6-7(3), 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 6-1
08 W loss vs. Nadal 6-3, 6-2, 6-4
08 US win vs. Nadal 6-2, 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4
08 US loss vs. Federer 6-2, 7-5, 6-2
10 AO win vs. Nadal 6-3, 7-6(2), 3-0 RET
10 AO loss vs. Federer 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(11)
10 W loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 7-6(6), 6-4
11 AO loss vs. Djokovic 6-4, 6-2, 6-3
11 FO loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 7-5, 6-4
11 W loss vs. Nadal 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4
11 US loss vs. Nadal 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2

2/11 matches won. 9/37 sets won (and one stopped due to retirement of Rafa). 0 slams. That's not just a mental problem, that's lack of quality. He arguably did better as a youngster than he does right now.

I guess those stats support the idea that he easily gets into a grump if he isn't winning. He's won relatively straightfowardly on two occasions, but since then hasn't really played a single tight match. His only 5 setter was his first.

Sapeod
11-26-2011, 06:14 PM
Murray is part of the Big 4. If you add Federer to the Big 3, you have to add Murray. Sure, Federer is most likely to end the year ranked ahead of Andy but that is partly due to Murray being forced to withdraw from WTF with an injury.

rocketassist
11-26-2011, 06:17 PM
It wasn't a big 3 at the time MIMIC started the thread, so if he's claiming some victory, it's a hollow one after his idol's 2011 failed to match Fed's 2006.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 06:17 PM
Murray is part of the Big 4. If you add Federer to the Big 3, you have to add Murray. Sure, Federer is most likely to end the year ranked ahead of Andy but that is partly due to Murray being forced to withdraw from WTF with an injury.

This is not really about the current rankings

It wasn't a big 3 at the time MIMIC started the thread, so if he's claiming some victory, it's a hollow one after his idol's 2011 failed to match Fed's 2006.

Not really. MIMIC claimed that Nole has what it takes, and that was proven this year.

buzz
11-26-2011, 06:28 PM
Murray is part of the Big 4. If you add Federer to the Big 3, you have to add Murray. Sure, Federer is most likely to end the year ranked ahead of Andy but that is partly due to Murray being forced to withdraw from WTF with an injury.

It's not only about injury, murray was never close to win anything big this year, he was just an obvious 4th or 3rd best everywhere except in the tournemants he won where there was less competion due to top3 players skipping the event or not playing their best. Not like Federer who had matchpoints against the USO winner and gave the FO winner a scare in the final. Do you realy think if Djokovic or even Nadal got asked 'who would you prefer to play in a GS final Murray or Federer' they would respond with 'dunno, same thing'?

Nothing against Murray he was a very very good subtoppper this year, beat the best of the rest pretty consistently.

hipolymer
11-26-2011, 06:38 PM
It's a big 2. You will all realize this when Nole and Rafa win all of the slams again next year.

buzz
11-26-2011, 07:15 PM
It's a big 2. You will all realize this when Nole and Rafa win all of the slams again next year.
This year there was a big two of the guys winning all the slams, if they win all the slams next year they will again be the big two. Federer was the only guy really challanging them this year but he didn't get any slam s you can make a big three slash big tow seperation.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:23 PM
As long as Murray isn't winning slams, or consistently beating his fellow top 4 members in slams, there really isn't a Big 4.

Federer has the slams to back it up, and even though he hasn't won a slam for two years, he's still beating or pushing Djokovic to the limit in slams. Murray has none of that.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:39 PM
I guess those stats support the idea that he easily gets into a grump if he isn't winning. He's won relatively straightfowardly on two occasions, but since then hasn't really played a single tight match. His only 5 setter was his first.

I think the stats show that he's just outclassed by these guys :shrug:

If he lost close matches all the time, I could support the theory of it being a mental issue. But the gap is just too big for it not to be a matter of quality.

I think the time has come to stop sugarcoating it for Andy, and start to face the cold hard facts.

Clydey
11-26-2011, 11:10 PM
Federer will likely finish at 3 courtesy of a Murray injury. Therefore, it's absurd to exclude Murray if you are going to include Federer, considering who had the better slam results this year.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 11:27 PM
Federer will likely finish at 3 courtesy of a Murray injury. Therefore, it's absurd to exclude Murray if you are going to include Federer, considering who had the better slam results this year.

Federer had much better slam results - Murray won grand total of 2 sets in his 4 slam losses, and the winner was never in doubt. Not to mention that this was one of the worst Fed's years, and Murray is still behind him.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-26-2011, 11:31 PM
Murray was never and will never be part of a big 3, it will always be Nole, Rafa & Fed:angel:

BodyServe
11-26-2011, 11:31 PM
Surely at the end of this season there is Big...nothing