[BackhandDTL]

I think people are confusing "big" anything as an actual necessity.

The term is nothing more than a phrase coined by the media to refer to the guys who are clearly better than the rest of the field. There is no sort of formal criteria to establish its members; it's not an actual title. Whether one believes in a big one, two, three, or four is entirely up to them.

If you subscribe to the idea, then it's worth considering its intended meaning (as I understand it). In which case, Murray is a "big 4" member because a clear gap exists between him and the guys below him. He is constantly making it to the end of tournaments where others are unable to do so. He is frequently competing with his rivals at the top in a way that others cannot / have not done consistently.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by Caesar1844

Left off his Masters. Oops. Typing on phone.

Doesn't change anything.

Well, there's a big difference between 6 and 13.

It changes because he still has more big titles than Murray.

[Kowchi]

Murray is becoming apart of the "Big Four" very quickly. Im pretty sure most lower ranked players, will have an on-set of fear when they see they have to play Murray in the first round. In his current form, he is a weapon and a deadly one.
Four years ago he was more of a Ferrer. Getting to semi's or quarters, only to get demolished by Fed and Nadal, and a lesser extent Djokovic. Now he is a force to be reckoned with and has definately shown he can beat Fed, Djoko, and Nadal. Aka Mr. Gluten Free, Tennis Machine, Djokovic at US and also the thrashing he gave to Fed at the Olympics.

Honestly if he gets to the Final or even wins the whole tournament; I think it is safe to say he is apart of the Big 4. And he can keep up with maybe the soon to be Big 3 XD

I think the most interesting part will be, to see how Nadal's form is and whether all the Fishing and Clubbing will pay off in Brazil

[Kip]

Of course he is! This isn't about titles, it's about play! Like it or not, he is there! He is simply now producing. And at this point I'd take Andy over all but Novak.

[Vesta]

No, he doesn't have the right to be in a "big four". And with Nadal out. Then we have the big two not the big three. You can't be the big just because you are there with the one windy slam.

[rocketassist]

Originally Posted by Vesta

No, he doesn't have the right to be in a "big four". And with Nadal out. Then we have the big two not the big three. You can't be the big just because you are there with the one windy slam.

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by Saberq

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

Did I say it was?

[Sophocles]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

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

To some extent, yes. If those matches had been on hard courts the H2H would probably be 7-11. No active player is competitive with Nadal on clay.

[Saberq]

clay still counts that's all

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

To some extent, yes. If those matches had been on hard courts the H2H would probably be 7-11. No active player is competitive with Nadal on clay.

And why would that show Murray is competitive with Nadal? To play all of the matches on his best turf and Nadal's worst and still end up as a pigeon? To completely eliminate one of the three surfaces where Nadal just happens to excel?

Fact is, it's 13-5, most of the matches were played on Murray's best surface and Rafa's worst, Nadal is ahead on clay, grass, hardcourt and in big games. Murray is his bitch and is in no way competitive.

[arm]

Originally Posted by Sophocles

To some extent, yes. If those matches had been on hard courts the H2H would probably be 7-11. No active player is competitive with Nadal on clay.

That is not a valid argument, to be honest, given that they played a lot more outside clay than on clay. And yeah, clay counts too.

[Corey Feldman]

morinic idiotic posts in this thread

the Scotsman has won the last 2 major events, he's the best player in the world right now

Originally Posted by Vesta

No, he doesn't have the right to be in a "big four". And with Nadal out. Then we have the big two not the big three. You can't be the big just because you are there with the one windy slam.

you are lucky you have a cute avatar

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by Corey Feldman

morinic idiotic posts in this thread

the Scotsman has won the last 2 major events, he's the best player in the world right now

The premise of the thread is simply ridiculous, comparing 31 slams from NoleFedal against Murray's one, and saying that the fourth player only in terms of career results is not part of the big four.

[GSMnadal]

Originally Posted by Slasher1985

The premise of the thread is simply ridiculous, comparing 31 slams from NoleFedal against Murray's one, and saying that the fourth player only in terms of career results is not part of the big four.

It questions whether it's legitimate to use the term 'big 4', not that Murray is the #4 player.

[Slasher1985]

Originally Posted by GSMnadal

It questions whether it's legitimate to use the term 'big 4', not that Murray is the #4 player.

I don't see that in the thread title: 33 combined slams vs 1 - does Murray have the right to be in a "big four"?

Choosing such a name is a fail if you ask me. It could have sounded better like "Is it correct to speak of a big four: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray?"