Djokovic: Probably needs to work on the down the line backhand, and net play. Since Becker went, his net play has regressed I feel. And with the young guns able to keep up with him in the rallies, he needs better net play.

Nadal: At this point you can't look past his fitnes. The same can be said for Murray. They have to get healthy. That is their top priority. Don Toni is confident Nadal will be fully fit soon. Not sure about Murray, who has posted some images of his training sessions.

Federer: As has been said, his forehand has looked suspect for months. Is it the hand injury, or has the timing on that shot gone? Whatever it is he needs to address it.

 

If you are going to say BIG 4 incude Wawrinka and call it BIG 5. There is big difference between Djoko, Nadal and Fed and Murray.

 

Why do you and others keep saying this? Do you not understand what the Big 4 actually means? It refers to four specific players for a very specific reason. Wawrinka has got nothing to do with it, and neither does any other player.

 

Fed needs to get back his early 2017 form if not early 2018 form atleast. With his early 2017 form, Fed can beat anyone including DJ.

 

If we talk about the BIG5 then:

Federer - there's not much Roger can do at this stage, he should just try to postpone the inevitable, but no-one can stop the time flow. He should just play only the most important events and hope for the last blast of great form and favourable draw.

Nadal - can't do much, he should completely resign playing on HC and grass and train fully for the clay season - that is his only chance for another slam, his fanboys will disagree but that's how it is and will be for the rest of his overvalued career, his days till retirement are counted.

Djokovic - he should work and improve so many things than I don't know where to start: smash, volleys, stamina, mentality, BHDTL, etc. But he may as well just stop doing anything as now that the gen next has figured him out his slam winning days are over. So he should rest more and enjoy his family life.

Murray - too many question marks to answer this question properly, will he ever come back to the TOP10, that's highly unlikely now with those recurring injuries. Probably fitness will be his first issue to address.

Wawrinka - he showed some glimpses of improvement since summertime but will he ever come close to have a really deep run in a slam? I don't think so, sadly. Too old now, this Stanimal.

 

Djokovic-
Work on DTL BH
Fitness
Embrace Amor Y Paz

Federer-
FH aggressiveness
ROS
Net play
Difficult to improve this one-Movement

Nadal-
Prepare retirement speech

Murray-
Work on shortening points
Serve
Avoid injury

Wawrinka-
Movement
ROS
Fitness

 

Nadal-
Prepare retirement speech

:haha:

 

Murray has achieved some great things but to associate him with the Big 3 is mere trolling I'm afraid.

And realistically it's the Big 2 because of Nadal's clay skew.

And realistically realistically it's the Big 1 because Federer and Djokovic are from different eras.

GOAT.

 

Federer: FH could need some improvement.

Nadal: scheduling, scheduling, scheduling, scheduling, scheduling, scheduling, scheduling.

Djokovic: 2nd serve, dropshots, slice and net play (volleys for sure).

Murray: getting back to a decent rhythm.

Wawrinka: overall fitness.

 

Djokovic :

Play offensive tennis.
Backhand down the line.

Nadal :

Rest, rest and rest. He will get less time to make adjustement with his injury. But he has to work on 2 points: ROS and service (He has a drop in his service this year IMO).

Federer :

ROS.
Forehand.
Footwork.

 

kidding aside Murray certainly was at a level of the big 3 for a couple of years. But we live in time where most people look solely to the slam tally to define a player's career which is a real bonus for Stan because that's where he shines.

 

yup enough with big4, it is big3, and I don't think I have any disrespect to Murray, he is a great player, should be respected by anyone, but isn't it a bit far-fetched? ATP doesn't have to do this anymore.

 

Federer

1) Work on his forehand... I'm sick and tired of seeing him imitate Nadal's lasso forehand. Not only it is an ugly shot, it is not effective at all. He needs to get his usual forehand back. I'm hoping that the 'hand injury' is the reason, as to why he is hitting so many lasso forehands.

2) Work on the net game... Federer's volleys are still very good, but at times when he comes to the net, he seems to be not in the right position. His net game was brilliant under Edberg, but post Edberg, it has declined a bit. I feel like he needs to improve this aspect of his game, now that he is getting older. Maybe get Edberg to train with him for a week or two during the off season.

3) Play more aggressive.... That is the most important thing Federer needs to work on during the off season. In 2018, on many occasions, Federer was...... pushing and hoping for his opponents to make an error and hand him the point. Federer is not Nadal or Djokovic. He is at his best when he is attacking and taking the initiative. Pushing at the age of 37 is just stupid. He needs to change his mindset to become an aggressive player once again, otherwise the form that we saw in the second half of 2018 will continue in 2019.

 

Anyway:
RF: 20 GS's
RN: 17 GS's
NĐ: 14 GS's
--------------
AM: 3 GS's

It's clearly a BIG 3!

 

To be honest I think Murray gifted at least 3 slam finals (2 AO + RG) to the Serb - an inferior player talent-wise.

If not for that he'd have 6 slams by now and be considerer a player on par with the likes of Becker, Edberg, McEnroe or even Agassi. But well, he's got only himself to blame being the choker he is.

 

The reason why Murray is included in Big 4 is purely because he is from England (cough Scotland when he loses cough). Had he been from countries like Serbia, there is NO way he would be in Big 4 even with these same achievements. If people say the differences between Murray and Wawrinka are those M1000s and slam finals and that he is on a different league from Wawrinka, I would agree, but then the Big 3 (all ATGs!) on a much crazier higher league than him with at least 11 more slam wins! :haha:

 

Sure, being from the West helps Murray. That being said, there is a big 3 and a big 4. There was a big two before Djokovic started beating the big two, so things do change. The term big 4 is not used as much due to the other 3 achieving more in recent years. Murray could win more big titles again, resulting in the term big 4 being used much more again. This under-appreciation of Murray is sad in a way.

 

ND : BHDTL, Drop Shots, 2nd Serve

RF : FH, ROS

RN : Stick strictly w/ Moya for tennis tips/fitness & phony Toni only for Draw/Seeding manipulation

AM : Movement & finishing points early for now.

SW : Focus even more on winners & movement

 

Agree with the Kid for a change. Get Wawa out of here! The guy needs to win five of Masters just to be considered close to the Big4.

 

Fred - prepare retirement speech.

 

Fred was recently talking about all the stuff he wants to improve and change for next season. He wants his forehand to have more power again and focus more on attacking and net play which was seriously lacking in the second half of 2018. he’s also considering to enter more events than last 2 seasons because he felt he needed matches to stay in shape.

It’s really incredible. While others at this age are either retired or think about it, he’s still looking for ways to improve his game. This determination in my opinion is unprecedented in tennis or even professional sports overall. I think his retirement speech can wait a little longer

 

Could I join in. I'm the big fifth or five or whatever.

Hi everyone.

 

Big 4 refers to a long period in tennis when these 4 men were in every slam SF/F. That era is over but Murray was a part of it, even if almost never on the winning end.

Despite being similar in format, Big 3 describes something entirely different: the career achievements of the 3 best players to ever play the game.

The actual mistake is to assume that Big 4 is used to glorify Murray. There's a reason why this term exists to associate him to the other 3, but it's certainly not to change the fact that he has only 3 slams. No one is trying, numbers don't lie.

Big 5 was never really a thing as Wawa is inconsistent. He was either soaring like a comet OR not even a contender to reach the F (or SF).

Hope him and Murray find some kind of mojo back in 2019.

 

Exactly.

I find it strange that whenever the term ‘Big 4’ is brought up, the same idiots start posting the same nonsense about it not being a thing, instead of just answering the thread’s damn question.

 

I understand why some people don't like including Murray in the Big 4 since the gap between him and the Big 3 has really widened a lot at this point, but including Wawrinka as part of a "Big 5" is just downright absurd. Murray is light years ahead of Wawrinka in terms of career success and overall greatness.

 

Big 4 is one category and Big 5 is another category. If the post was only about performing at Slams, I would have made it big 5. But since it is about off-season preparation in general, Big 4 made more sense to me, for two reasons:
1. Murray has had more prominent coaching/tactic changes (For instance, return from injury earlier in 2014, improved clay performance 2015 onwards, improved mentality with Lendl etc) whereas Stan had the big one after hiring Norman.
2. Though it seems unlikely now, Murray has been the more consistent player throughout the year, hence, his scheduling and planning seems more relevant than Stan who performs mostly at Slams anyway. He did compete pretty well during the 2008-2016 period with the other Big 3, and has beaten them on key occasions.

As for whether Murray > Stan or not, they are quite unequally matched at everything other than No. of slams won and 'peak' performance on slow surfaces (whatever that is). In every other metric Murray has been better.

 

I think people forget that the "Big Four" term was coined at a time when Novak had one slam and Murray was a slam win (US Open 2009) away from being Number 1 in the world. Novak and Murray were seen as the two best prospects to halt the Federer dynasty. Nadal had his epic Wimbledon over Federer and was already established as the de facto rival of Federer.

The consistency of all four to make semi finals through out 9, 10 and 11 solidified the term. Wawrinka at that time was a perennial jobber who would throw up a decent result on clay now and again. Enter Magnus Norman in 12 and that changed everything.

Although Novak broke through that and will have a claim to be the greatest ever, it doesn't change the fact that back when it was coined himself and Murray were seen as the most likely, to end Federer's stranglehold on any surface not clay.

Now there is a big gap in achievements between the top 3 guys and Murray. And this obscures the term "Big Four", but when it was coined it was perfectly fine to label all four with the "Big Four" brand.