[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by 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

In what universe is getting pimpslapped 13-5 a competitive h2h

[janko05]

Originally Posted by arm

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

Agree, but what bothers me the most is who should be considered member of the big 3 instead?

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by janko05

Agree, but what bothers me the most is who should be considered member of the big 3 instead?

This Isner guy is pretty big

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

In what universe is getting pimpslapped 13-5 a competitive h2h

Against Nadal, whose total domination of clay gives him commanding H2H leads against nearly everybody, a 5-13 H2H including 5-6 on hard courts & 2 victories in slams is competitive.

[saviopr]

Of course yes. 1 USO and 4 more GS finals (3 of them last 3 years) are enough.

[Prodigy.]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

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.

I'm starting to think you're a closet Murray fan, all you do is post in threads about him, or mention his name in threads that have nothing to do with him...

[Saberq]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

Against Nadal, whose total domination of clay gives him commanding H2H leads against nearly everybody, a 5-13 H2H including 5-6 on hard courts & 2 victories in slams is competitive.

clay is a surface you know same as grass and hard....just because Nadal kicks ass on it doesnt mean it is less important

[TigerTim]

Murray is 6"3 so is the biggest of the four.

[arm]

Originally Posted by janko05

Agree, but what bothers me the most is who should be considered member of the big 3 instead?

There wouldn't be a big 3 if you were to consider the number of slams only.

Hewitt has 2 slams, maybe he should be considered in this equation, no?

This whole thread is pointless. You consider "the big 4", 3, 5 or whatever, the players whose achievements and consistency creates a gap between them and the rest of the field. And given this definition, and since we should probably talk about the PRESENT, Murray damn well deserves the right to be considered part of "the big 4". Right now, he deserves it more than Nadal even.

[MurrayMagic1]

He has been a part of the big four for quite some time now. It is right for Muzz to be part of the big four He has won a GS he has beaten Fed , Nadal and Nole more times than any other active player on the tour plus he is consistent. He has also won quite a lot of titles. It would be wrong for Andy to be placed in the group below the number 4 ranking. because he is simply too good for them he is a class ahead of them.

[JanKowalski]

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


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.

More like:

15 - Nadal
14 - Djokovic
13 - Federer




8 - Murray

Jesus, those kids today. Can't even do the simplest maths.

[Mark Lenders]

Overall, no.

But right now he's unquestionably the third best player in the world (with Nadal out) - closer to the second than to the fourth - , so if this 'Big 4' refers to the four best players at the moment, then yes.

[BackhandDTL]

Originally Posted by janko05

Agree, but what bothers me the most is who should be considered member of the big 3 instead?

Right, because the gods of tennis demand the very existence of a "big 3", without whom, the tour would cease to exist as we know it!

It's simple: if 28 v. 5 doesn't hold up, then we're still left with "Fedal" as a big 2.


Of course, that, like this thread in general, ignores the fact that Djokovic and Murray are both only entering the prime stages of their careers. They each have plenty of time to add more accomplishments to their resumes, and yet they're being compared with two guys who have done so for years.

This thread reminds me of those old fanatical "weak competition" arguments, wherein a decade's worth of numbers were being put up against those of an in-progress generation.

The fact is that Murray contributes to the stranglehold that the top four have on men's tennis. He's part of that ironclad barrier keeping other guys from winning events.

[Gullyfoyle]

Originally Posted by End da Game

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

You jest, seriously I quite like Potty, but seriously, no masters, not one..!!!!

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

Against Nadal, whose total domination of clay gives him commanding H2H leads against nearly everybody, a 5-13 H2H including 5-6 on hard courts & 2 victories in slams is competitive.

Yeah, those 4 clay matches out of 18 really skewed it in his favour.