View Poll Results: Does Murray have the right to be referred to as being part of a "big four"?

pray-for-palestine-and-israel · 01-16-2013, 02:10 AM

5 slam finals

Yes

End da Game · 01-16-2013, 02:22 AM

yeah, but personally I think delpo is the more legit 4th member of this 'big four' club

fluffyyelloballz · 01-16-2013, 02:34 AM

No. Big four is media hype. ATP like it because it means Majors are not big two and then the other big one gets a bye. Murray is certainly a fine player don't get me wrong but he does not belong to be in the same group as the big three where the weakest of them has five Majors.
It reminds me of Clisters in the women. She was called one of the big four but she was a good few majors away from Venus or Henin when all that started.

Caesar1844 · 01-16-2013, 04:04 AM

It's not about Slam titles, it's about competitiveness.

For a long time those four players have been well above the rest of the pack. I mean, there are pretty much 4 'big' tournament types in tennis that (if fit) all the top players will be there and want to win - Slams, Masters, YECs and Olympics. If you visually represent how many of those each player has won in the last 4 years you get this:

15 - Nadal
14 - Djokovic

8 - Murray

6 - Federer

2 - Davydenko
1 - Soderling, Ferrer, Del Potro, Lubijic

i.e. the big 4 have won 43 of the 49 blue ribbon events in tennis in that period. Murray has won 8 of those. Yeah there is only one Slam in there, but it is still more than double what the rest of the tour has been able to take off the top 3. That means he is the only one consistently able to play with the big boys. He is further above the rest of the tour than the other 3 are above him.

So yeah, although he is the runt of the group, Muzz is definitely part of the big four dominating the tour. Has been for a long time. The rest of the tour are playing for scraps.

Kolya · 01-16-2013, 04:46 AM

No he doesn't.

He doesn't have the grand slams, World No. 1 ranking or dominance factor to join that group.

Quite simple.

NJ88 · 01-16-2013, 08:11 AM

Of course he does. He deserves to be in the 'top four' because firstly...he's been in the top three or four for five years or so, second, he's a constant grand slam contender and has now been in five finals, third, he's the only guy (aside from Del Potro) to break the usual three who win the slam and fourth...he's won a grand slam...by beating one of the top three.

If he's consistently talked about as being a contender, of course he's in the top four. Other players talk about him being in 'the top four', he's one of those players that anyone hoping to win a slam NEEDS to beat.

GSMnadal · 01-16-2013, 08:14 AM

Mugray could fluke/vulture another 10 slams and he still has no right to be mentioned in the same sentence as legends as Federer and Nadal, and to a lesser extent Djokovic.

duarte_a · 01-16-2013, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topspindoctor

Highlander's career just beginning. After winning AO, he'll have 4-6 years where he wins 2-3 slams a year. Which puts him roughly above Noserer. He also has that impeccable playstation record where he has no peer.

minimum: 4 x 2 = 8 + 1 = 9
Maximum: 6 x 3 = 18 + 1 = 19

So you say it'll put murray above Federer meaning you believe murray will win 3 slams in 5 of the next 6 years and 2 in 1 of the next 6 years. With Murray being 25 this means you believe he will have a 3 or 2 slam season while being 30 and 31 years old.

Seems legit.

duarte_a · 01-16-2013, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

Mugray could fluke/vulture another 10 slams and he still has no right to be mentioned in the same sentence as legends as Federer and Nadal, and to a lesser extent Djokovic.

Negative. Murray has been in the top 4 for several years now. If he wins some more slams to put him at 5+ and has some period at #1 then I guess he has the right to belong to the big 4.

As of right now, no.