The Big Four in Compulsory Tournaments in 2011 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The Big Four in Compulsory Tournaments in 2011

Pipsy
05-31-2011, 10:47 PM
I just noticed that in every one of this year's compulsory tournaments, three of the big four made it through to the semi-finals:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)

I wonder if this trend will continue here. Obviously Djokovic and Federer are already through so it looks likely that at least three will get through. I wonder, will be the first tournament this year where all four semi-final places are filled by the big four?

Pipsy
05-31-2011, 10:50 PM
Of course if you go back to the last one before 2011 started, it was the same four who made the semi-finals of the WTF...

Sunset of Age
05-31-2011, 10:55 PM
^^ Your post is a perfect illustration as to why there is still such a huge gap in achievements & ranking points between the current top-4 and the rest of the bunch - with perhaps the exception of Söderling and Ferrer who did (do?) have had quite a say in the matter as well.

Some folks will denounce this as being proof of it being a 'weak era'. I'd rather call it proof of a very strong top bunch of players who haven't allowed anyone yet to come near in some five years of time... and counting.

As for your question - yep, Djoko and Fed are already there. We've yet to see whether Rafa and Muzza will be able to join them. Both might be questionable as Rafa hasn't been showing his best level as of yet (whereas Söderling seems to be doing fine), and Murray - uhm, how bad is that ankle injury he got and how well has Chela been playing, needing a 5-setter to a qualifier to come through? Big, big questions...

abraxas21
05-31-2011, 10:59 PM
and then people find it weird when i say this is a mug era.

the lack of competition is astonishing. like glenn said it once, the top 4 virtually get a bye to the semis in every freaking tournament.

emotion
05-31-2011, 11:04 PM
It is a sign of weak era. Ferrer and Soderling aren't bad, then HUGE drop-off. I think it'll be 2/4 tbh. Chela won't choke like Troicki if Murray's still injured and Soderling looks better than Nadal

Certinfy
05-31-2011, 11:22 PM
Soderling will beat Nadal.

tennisfan856
05-31-2011, 11:24 PM
Seems like the other 96 athletes are playing with a pay check in mind, not a heart.

dombrfc
05-31-2011, 11:26 PM
Soderling will beat Nadal.

Pumped it for this, cmon Robin!

Sunset of Age
05-31-2011, 11:27 PM
Soderling will beat Nadal.

Maybe he will, maybe he won't.
At least Sod is the #5 in the ranking, which only proves my point even more.

An ultra-strong bunch of top players around right now, who barely leave a scrap for the rest of the players to feed on.

But of course, some will find more evidence for a 'weak era' in these facts. I guess those are the same folks who'd like to see a new #1 every three weeks or so, and probably without even winning ONE slam title. WTA, anyone?
Or do the Weak Era Tards genuinely believe that the WTA is in fact very strong right now, just because of that? :rolleyes:

Some strange kind of reasoning going on there...

romismak
05-31-2011, 11:40 PM
This is nothing new, since 2008 most of big tournaments have at least 2,3 guys from this big 4. But it won´t happen to long, because Delpo will be back in top 5 and there will be no big 4 anymore but top 5 will be the group of guys one level above the rest of the field - next 2 years - then Federer will be too old to compete i think.

stewietennis
05-31-2011, 11:51 PM
Three are playing for legacies. It's the job of the rest to improve their game.

Vida
06-01-2011, 12:11 AM
and then people find it weird when i say this is a mug era.

the lack of competition is astonishing. like glenn said it once, the top 4 virtually get a bye to the semis in every freaking tournament.

this never made sense and still doesnt. top 4 are better players than the rest right?

if the rest were better than they are, there would be even more top players who reach semis so often - and that never happened in any of the strong eras. in fact, never have the top players been so good/consistent, so it is impossible, or at least extremely difficult to have more 'that good' players.

basically, asking for more competition now, when we have as much excellent players, means asking them to let others have some share for the sake of numbers.

Ljubo_rulz
06-01-2011, 12:50 AM
Interesting statistics, can anyone bother to do the same for 2008-2010?

Anyway, it's impossible to tell if this is a sign of mug era, or simply that the top 4 players are much above the rest of the field.

abraxas21
06-01-2011, 01:20 AM
this never made sense and still doesnt. top 4 are better players than the rest right?

if the rest were better than they are, there would be even more top players who reach semis so often - and that never happened in any of the strong eras. in fact, never have the top players been so good/consistent, so it is impossible, or at least extremely difficult to have more 'that good' players.

basically, asking for more competition now, when we have as much excellent players, means asking them to let others have some share for the sake of numbers.

you start from the premise that the top 4 are great and awesome compared to the top players of previous eras and i highly disagree with that. they aren't. they look good because they havent had to face a quality competition and if they did, trust me, they'd certainly lose more often.

PiggyGotRoasted
06-01-2011, 01:27 AM
The thing is you can look at it two ways if the rankings are top heavy, strong players at the top or everyone else is weak and the top players are nothing special.

Vida
06-01-2011, 01:36 AM
you start from the premise that the top 4 are great and awesome compared to the top players of previous eras and i highly disagree with that. they aren't. they look good because they havent had to face a quality competition and if they did, trust me, they'd certainly lose more often.

I start from the premise that top 4 are great and awesome compared to the rest of the tour - which they are, both in numbers and in games. they look good because they are better players. they already face quality opposition - in themselves. if they were to face more quality opposition - it would mean there would be even more 'great and awesome' players compared to the rest of the tour - and thats an impossibility. so, basically, asking for whats impossible can only mean asking for more upsets, and that would mean less quality.

you probably equate quality of play with some artistic ideal from the past, when the setup enabled diverse match ups, and thus an illusion of quality. that might actually be so, but with different setup, drastic rise in quality is impossible. what, you expect another goat-federer, nadal, djokovic a guy who doesnt miss? not happening.

Snowwy
06-01-2011, 01:44 AM
and then people find it weird when i say this is a mug era.

the lack of competition is astonishing. like glenn said it once, the top 4 virtually get a bye to the semis in every freaking tournament.

I have never heard a convincing argument as to why this makes it a weak era. Why can't the top 4 be that much better?

Also, say, the others were that much better, ie Hewitt's 'era'. Wouldn't you then call it a transitional era? So either way you complain. Am I right?

BK123
06-01-2011, 01:51 AM
Weak era is bullshit, always has been, always will be.

The top 4 guys are better than the rest. You compare the rest of the field with the rest of the field before, and there's not that much change, if any.

In fact you may argue that the rest of the field are better these days as well, but that would make it a strong era. So, no. Just because people hate any one of Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray, or all four of them, or anyone who becomes #1 or enters the top 4, doesn't mean it is a weak era. That's the problem here, so much trolling and hatred that they block out their common sense.

abraxas21
06-01-2011, 01:51 AM
vida and snowwy, look at the players who are or have been top 10 lately. monfils, verdasco, melzer, fish, etc. no doubt decent players but by not means amazing and thus i doubt they'd have managed to get near the top 10 in strong tennis eras.

the top 4 right now are miles away from the rest of the tour but that's because the tour in general is muggy and the top 4 take advantage of this.

Chase Visa
06-01-2011, 06:29 AM
Was worse around 2006 when you had Ljubicic and Davydenko in the top 4.

Still, it's pretty boring when everything seems to be too obvious.

abraxas21
06-01-2011, 06:40 AM
both ljubicic and davydenko won the most important titles of their careers not too long ago, when they were both past their primes, so i can't see how the idea that they were more unworthy of being top 10 than today's players in the top 10 can hold any water.

MaxPower
06-01-2011, 10:55 AM
Saying that there is a big "gap" between the big4 and the rest is a little ignorant to the past year. Andy Murray wasn't even nr4 until 11th April 2011. Soderling stole that rank late last year. He was also the one seeded 4th in AO so technically only 2 of the top4 seeds made it in the first slam.

Right now Soderling has dropped his RG F 1200P from 2010 so of course right now it looks to be a gap. Still has 5k points in the ranking after securing his QF spot. We will see how successful Murray is at defending his Wimbledon results and upcoming master's 1000 wins. Soderling could very well take the nr4 ranking back again.

Rather run a big 3 argument or something. Because Soderling is right up there with Murray since 2009-> Before then Murray was clearly superior. no question about it. But Del Potro has been one challenger until injury. Soderling is a current one that doesn't bend over

romismak
06-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Saying that there is a big "gap" between the big4 and the rest is a little ignorant to the past year. Andy Murray wasn't even nr4 until 11th April 2011. Soderling stole that rank late last year. He was also the one seeded 4th in AO so technically only 2 of the top4 seeds made it in the first slam.

Right now Soderling has dropped his RG F 1200P from 2010 so of course right now it looks to be a gap. Still has 5k points in the ranking after securing his QF spot. We will see how successful Murray is at defending his Wimbledon results and upcoming master's 1000 wins. Soderling could very well take the nr4 ranking back again.

Rather run a big 3 argument or something. Because Soderling is right up there with Murray since 2009-> Before then Murray was clearly superior. no question about it. But Del Potro has been one challenger until injury. Soderling is a current one that doesn't bend over

Actually i can see there still gap between Murray and Soderling, it is not big but still in my eyes is Murray overall better player and i think he will be higher than Soderling to End year ranking. But there is no huge gap between top 4 and others, players like Soda or Ferrer, or last year Berdych are not so far from those big 4, but when it matters they are able to win their matches, and others loose. And about Big 3 - for me is BIG 2 this season and when Delpo will be back for me will be Big 5 for next 2 seasons probably. Soderling can remain 5th now, than 6th but i still think he is not there to be a slam contender, even if he make again F at RG i will believe that Djoker or FED will win final against him, for me he is very good player but not someone who can now win slam.

Pipsy
06-28-2011, 06:20 PM
Update:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)
Roland Garros = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray
Wimbledon?

Looks like the trend of at least 3 of the big 4 getting through to the semi-finals of every compulsory tournament so far this season will continue...

ZaZoo)
06-28-2011, 06:26 PM
I like how Nole is always there. :)

DwyaneWade
06-28-2011, 06:39 PM
Update:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)
Roland Garros = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray
Wimbledon?

Looks like the trend of at least 3 of the big 4 getting through to the semi-finals of every compulsory tournament so far this season will continue...

Go back in the Slams as well:

RG 2007 (first one with 3/4): Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus Davydenko)
Wimbledon 2007: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (plus Gasquet)
AO 2008: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (plus Tsonga)
RG 2008: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Monfils)
US Open 2008 (first one with 4/4): Nadal, Murray, Federer, Djokovic
US Open 2009: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Del Potro)
Wimbledon 2010: Nadal, Murray, Djokovic (plus Berdych)
US Open 2010: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Youzhny)
WTF 2010 (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer)

Argenbrit
06-28-2011, 08:28 PM
There is no Big Four. Only a Big Three.

DwyaneWade
06-28-2011, 08:57 PM
Go back in the Slams as well:

RG 2007 (first one with 3/4): Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus Davydenko)
Wimbledon 2007: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (plus Gasquet)
AO 2008: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (plus Tsonga)
RG 2008: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Monfils)
US Open 2008 (first one with 4/4): Nadal, Murray, Federer, Djokovic
US Open 2009: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Del Potro)
Wimbledon 2010: Nadal, Murray, Djokovic (plus Berdych)
US Open 2010: Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Youzhny)
WTF 2010 (Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Federer)

What I did not realize when I posted this list was that Djokovic is in every single final four listed! Nadal missed AO 2011 and Federer missed Wimbledon 2010. Of course this does not take into account those times Djokovic missed and Federer and Nadal were there (Wimbledon 2008, AO 2009).

Stunning really how consistent those three have been. Murray seems to be joining them. Maybe he can win one now? :confused:

TheRafaelNadal
06-28-2011, 09:07 PM
There's the big 3(Grand slam winners) and a group of players who "can challenge but aren't quite there". These include Murray, Soderling and Potro. But to be fair to Potro he would be the 4th if he wasn't injured. Murray just happens to be the most consistent player outside the top 3. Until he wins a slam he can't be considered big.

abraxas21
06-28-2011, 09:09 PM
people underrate murray way too much when in point of fact, he's going to roast piggy in the wimby SF and send the nadaltards back to their holes for at least a month

Gladiator
06-28-2011, 10:29 PM
people underrate murray way too much when in point of fact, he's going to roast piggy in the wimby SF and send the nadaltards back to their holes for at least a month

Dear, That ain't ganna happen

But I agree, the big 4 are the big 4. And I hope Murray wins a slam someday

homogenius
06-29-2011, 01:55 AM
Update:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)
Roland Garros = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray
Wimbledon?

Looks like the trend of at least 3 of the big 4 getting through to the semi-finals of every compulsory tournament so far this season will continue...

I agree with those saying there is not really a big4 this year.Djoko made the SF each time, Nadal and Fed 5 out of 6, Murray "only" 3 times so he is a bit behind.It's also interesting to see that out of these 5 SF, Roger reached only 1 final (lost), Nadal is 5/5 (but only 1 title) and Djoko reached 5 finals (all won)for one loss.
So it looks more like a Big2, Fed quite behind, then Murray...then the rest.Things could evolve a bit in the next few days though.

hipolymer
06-29-2011, 02:05 AM
I agree with the "Big 2" statement. Until someone other than Nadull or Djokovic starts winning titles this year there will only be a big 2.

homogenius
06-29-2011, 05:05 PM
another proof that there is no Big4 this year

DwyaneWade
06-29-2011, 08:05 PM
Adding to the updated list now we have Wimbledon 2011: Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Tsonga)

Two interesting points:

1) Tsonga is the only "plus" to appear TWICE on the list
2) Federer has only missed TWICE (BOTH AT WIMBLEDON!)

Pipsy
06-29-2011, 09:13 PM
As far as this year goes:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)
Roland Garros = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray
Wimbledon = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Tsonga)

Interestingly no Soderling or Berdych semi-finals yet this year...

DwyaneWade
06-29-2011, 09:19 PM
As far as this year goes:

Australian Open = Federer, Djokovic, Murray (plus Ferrer)
Indian Wells = Nadal, Federer, Djokovic (plus del Potro)
Miami = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Fish)
Madrid = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer (plus Bellucci)
Rome = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Gasquet)
Roland Garros = Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, Murray
Wimbledon = Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (plus Tsonga)

Interestingly no Soderling or Berdych semi-finals yet this year...

Funny thing is that there have been NO repeats this year outside of the big 4! Shows how weak and in disarray rest of tour is.

Pipsy
06-29-2011, 09:27 PM
Funny thing is that there have been NO repeats this year outside of the big 4! Shows how weak and in disarray rest of tour is.

I think this shows that in order to beat one of these players you need to

a) be playing at the top of your game
b) be in the sector of the top 4 guy who your game matches up against the best

It's difficult to have a game that CAN beat any of those guys on a good day, let alone 2 of them!

DwyaneWade
06-29-2011, 09:48 PM
I think this shows that in order to beat one of these players you need to

a) be playing at the top of your game
b) be in the sector of the top 4 guy who your game matches up against the best

It's difficult to have a game that CAN beat any of those guys on a good day, let alone 2 of them!

Yes, this is true. Ferrer got Nadal (the best matchup for him of the 4 on hardcourts, plus Nadal pulled his hamstring), Belluci got Murray on clay, and Del Potro/Fish did not have to worry about Murray given his slump.

But Gasquet and Tsonga probably both would have preferred a different sector than Federer's going into the tournament! (Gasquet-->Murray's quarter on clay, Tsonga-->Djokovic's quarter on grass)