[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by duarte_a

17 combined slams vs 17 - does Roger Federer have the right ti be in the Big 4?

[Prodigy.]

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.

You're such a mug at times.

Sent from my GT-S5830i using VerticalSports.Com App

[viruzzz]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

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

Sorry, what?
Since 2009 Fed won 4 slams, 7 masters and 2 YEC, I don't know where you got that "6" number. I count 13.
Nadal won 6 slams and 9 masters. 15, right.
Djokovic won 4 slams, 9 masters and 1 YEC, 14, right.
And Murray, in the other hand has, 1 slam, 1 Olympic gold and 6 masters, again, right 8.

Yes, Murray dominated with the other 3 players, nobody can't deny that, but we should concur Murray was way below these 3 players.

Since Federer (the one who won less of the 3) has 13 "big" titles, not 6, and Andy has 8, we find a difference of 5 titles.

It's a big difference, considering between Fed and Nadal there are 2 titles and they are the players who won the most.


But if we go to "bigger" titles, the number is really different 6 - 4 - 4 - 1.

I think ATM, yes, based on actual level, yes, Murray is one of the big 4, one of the players the oponnents fear the most, but still, he has a really long way if he wants to be remembered the same way as the other big 4. I think we can still talk about "big 3" players nowadays.

But of course, Murray can also be starting his best part of his career and win a lot of slams and "big titles".

[FleetSeb]

He does because even when he hasn't won the slams he has generally been the 4th person in the SFs. So relative to the rest of the field he was in the big 4 because he beat the lower ranked players just as much or almost as much as the others. The big 4 doesn't imply equality within that 4, it just implies that those 4 are all well above the standard of everyone else and so in practical terms are similarly difficult to beat for the #5 and below players.

[vma]

I don't really get the idea of this kind of threads. What's the use??
Instead of classifying players why don't you guys just watch tennis?
I can only assume some of your faves got ass-kicked by Andy...?

[BedsheetRubber92]

It's about competitiveness. Andy Murray head to head record with top players is what shows he belongs.
Murray vs Federer: 10-9
Murray vs Djokovic: 7-10
Murray vs Nadal: 5-13 (5-6 on hardcourts)

This isn't about legacy it's about form.

Murray has an almost 50% chance of beating the other three on any surface other than clay. This Shows that he is a contender with Federer Djokovic and Nadal. Murray can also be depended on to beat any other player outside of the top 4 and has made it to the semis 7 out of the last 8 times in slams.

Based on his current form, he is clearly in contact with Nadal Djokovic and Federer, and miles above the rest of the field.

If Sampras was still playing and losing the the top guys every single time would you really ever even think about referring to him as part of any top group?

[shiaben]

If this is about legacy, yep, these 3 are on a different level. But if it is about current performance, I guess it would be a top 4 given Murray grabbed a slam, defeated Federer in a 5 setter (outside of a slam), gets more wins against the top 3 than the other players.

But when entering tournaments, he still won't be a favorite as long as the serves are inconsistent and if his forehand sleeps during big matches.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by BedsheetRubber92

It's about competitiveness. Andy Murray head to head record with top players is what shows he belongs.
Murray vs Federer: 10-9
Murray vs Djokovic: 7-10
Murray vs Nadal: 5-13 (5-6 on hardcourts)

This isn't about legacy it's about form.

Murray has an almost 50% chance of beating the other three on any surface other than clay. This Shows that he is a contender with Federer Djokovic and Nadal. Murray can also be depended on to beat any other player outside of the top 4 and has made it to the semis 7 out of the last 8 times in slams.

Based on his current form, he is clearly in contact with Nadal Djokovic and Federer, and miles above the rest of the field.

If Sampras was still playing and losing the the top guys every single time would you really ever even think about referring to him as part of any top group?

0% chance against Nadal on clay.
0% chance against Nadal on grass.
not even 50% chance on his beloved hardcourts against Rafa.

True legend of the game this Murray. He has had one fantastic tournament that actually matterd, London 2012. Otherwise he's been mediocre.

[Saberq]

I voted no because I am a hater but yes......not legacy wise of course but he's always there

[arm]

If you're going to go that way, then 28 slams combined vs 5... does Nole deserve to be in the big 3?

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by viruzzz

Sorry, what?
Since 2009 Fed won 4 slams, 7 masters and 2 YEC, I don't know where you got that "6" number. I count 13.

I was wondering about that too.

[EliSter]

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

29 combined slams vs 5 - does Djokovic have the right to be in the Big 4?

Yes.

[Lestat]

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.

my god

[Nathaliia]

he's pretty much spanking everyone else in the important matches and has a very competitive h2h against fed/rafa/nole as it was mentioned

these 4 guys are so often in slam semis while other put all their powers to fluke one semi in 2 years or so.

i dont know what more you need, it is clear at this moment there's nobody else able to reach them and snatch these wigs

he is visibly better than the ones below him, the big four is not about naming 4 players with biggest accomplishments of tennis history

[Sophocles]

If the Big 4 means those 4 players who are currently way above all other players, you just have to ask whether the gap between 4 & 5 is much bigger than the gap between 3 & 4. In my opinion, it is. There are 4 players genuinely competing regularly for slam titles. Nobody else is. There were grounds for hesitation about Murray before he won the U.S. Open since it seemed he might be a hopeless choker in slam finals and therefore not a real competitor for a title despite consistently making the last 4, but his U.S. Open title has put paid to that.