Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Folks who have examined this question have compared two eras, the era of Federer/Djokovic/Nadal/Murray and the era of Connors/Borg/McEnroe and Lendl.

They are both somewhat similar in their domination, but lets dig into the numbers a little bit deeper.

Total slams won:

New Big 4 era: 58 slams
Old Big 4 era: 34 slams

Old Big 4 are hurt by not playing the AO, but even after adjusting for it only brings them up to 45 slams. Slight advantage to new big 4 era.

Total weeks at number 1:

New Big 4 era: 833.
Old Big 4 era: 817

Old Big 4 are slightly weaker than the new Big 4.

Old Big 4 + Wilander dominated tennis for 837 weeks. New Big 4 are still 4 weeks away from equalling the consecutive weeks for five players, one of the most ridiculous tennis records.

New Big 4 already own the consecutive weeks for 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (plus Roddick). Six (including Edberg), is at 861. Current Big 4 + Roddick + JCF, gives us. 854, so the new Big 4 are still about 7 weeks behind the old Big 4 era for the best six players to be at number 1.

Total Matches won:

Old Big 4: 1274, 1068, 881, 644, (3,867)
New Big 4: 1237, 981, 899, 673 (3,790)

New Big 4 are just 70 behind old big 4. However, there's a caveat. If we include Vilas, the totals shift.
Vilas, 949 wins.

New Big 4 era has a few secondary options:

Ferrer (+734). That would put the New big 4 275 behind the old big 4. Another good season from all of them would bring them close to this but for now the old Big 4 have more depth than this era.

Titles:

109 + 94 + 77 + 64 = 344
103 + 84 + 77 + 46 = 310

New Big era is 34 titles behind the older era. Again, we have different numbers if Vilas is included, with another 62 titles. Ferrer only had 24.

In short, while the new "Big 4' era is approaching the older one in dominance, (winning one measure, slightly behind (7 weeks), in another, behind in the other two, we have to factor that the old big 4 era had Vilas. Ferrer, while an excellent player, did not win slams. They had greater depth of excellence back then than they do now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,659 Posts
Old Big4 had just 34 slams, not 40. Besides, Borg and Lendl careers barely overlapped.
You may as well call it Big3 era with whooping 55 slams and say that thay had some great rivals like Murray and Wawrinka.
This is the biggest dominance by a small group of players in the Open Era (no matter if you include 3 or 4 but 3 is more appropriate). One has to go back to the old times of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales to see something like this (completely different times though).
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Federest

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Gah. Fixed. Thanks, Supercell. I think they'll get there, but for now they aren't quite there. Ask me in March.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
11,031 Posts
Arguably the best matches of all time have been produced in the 21st century. There has been some great tennis but nothing in comparison to Djokovic Federer or Nadal Djokovic , or Fedal.

We have reached new heights and there is no looking back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,525 Posts
There is no contest, especially from 2011 when Novak became the legit Big 3 member.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
48,531 Posts
Real comparison is 1954-1970 Gonzales/Rosewall/Laver vs. 2004-2020 Federer/Nadal/Djokovic

Now we are in an era where we see some overlap as the old guard fade and the new guard rises. By 2024 I expect to see the next dominant player, like 1974 with Connors or 2004 with Federer or 1994 with Sampras. 2020-2024 may be like 2000-2004 as well with transition era. History don't repeat itself. It rhymes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
What is this "Old Big 4" and "New Big 4" nonsense?

There's no "Old Big 4". Lendl and Borg played each other only 8 times. That's less than Agassi and Federer played each other, for example. It's only Connors' incredible longevity that made it look like an "era".

There's no "New Big 4" either. Murray, while an outstanding player, is nowhere near the level of the Big 3. He's in Kuerten/Safin/Wawrinka/Hewitt/Vilas/Courier/Rafter category, not the Lendl/Connors/Borg/McEnroe category.

There's only the Big 3. Find another group of 3 players anywhere in the history of tennis and compare. It's not even close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
There's no "Old Big 4". Lendl and Borg played each other only 8 times. That's less than Agassi and Federer played each other, for example. It's only Connors' incredible longevity that made it look like an "era".
Ages. Connors was born in 1952, Borg in 1955, McEnroe in 1959, and Lendl in 1960. The only reason Borg and Lendl didn't play more is because Borg retired before Lendl really got going. There are 7 and a half years between Lendl and Connors, and 6 and a half between Djokovic and Federer.

From 1974 to 1990, they dominated world number 1, having 4 players hold it down for 817 weeks.

But you're right. It was really a 'big five' back then, with Vilas in the mix too.

There's no "New Big 4" either. Murray, while an outstanding player, is nowhere near the level of the Big 3. He's in Kuerten/Safin/Wawrinka/Hewitt/Vilas/Courier/Rafter category, not the Lendl/Connors/Borg/McEnroe category.
Kuerten is probably the weakest slam winner of all, only 350 match wins, and very few titles. He is at the same level as Rafter, and Safin.

Courier and Stan are similar. 500 match wins and 3,4 slams.

Hewitt is a cut above them, with 600 match wins, the slams and world number 1 for over a year.

That leaves Vilas. His 900 wins and 4 slams make him one of the 'big five'. So to speak. Depending on how you consider it, you can make either Wawrinka (3 slams), Ferrer (735 wins), or Hewitt (30 titles), as the 5th


Murray has 45 titles. That's less than Vilas, but more than Courier (23), Kuerten (20), Stanimal, (16), Rafter, (11) Safin, 15. The only one true comparable is Hewitt, but Murray is much better than Hewitt was.

There's only the Big 3. Find another group of 3 players anywhere in the history of tennis and compare. It's not even close.
For 3? Lendl/Connors and McEnroe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
the stats are misleading. Now they play way more tournaments.
the older great generation only played french Wimbledon us did not bother with australian
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
Borg probably was the greatest in terms of winning grand slams . Winning %, 5 french and wimbledon in succession . with a wooden racket when clay and grass were truly the extreme serfaces. He set a new record at the time of winning slams surpassing his rivals mcenroe and connors by far. connore played for 20 years, against mcenroe borg has an even record matching macenroe on grass and hard court. they never played on clay no contest borg wins everytime. he started at 17 and stoped at 23 or 25 . He just won won won and an absoute phenomenon all over the world, and with the women . Mcenroe this is what i would like to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
older eras really don't count open era only. Why because half of all player if not more were not allowed to play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
also the competition was paper thin with only more or less the country club elite in U
s, england and australia played. Why was australia so successful they were less elitist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
the present era gives an advantage to the best players which the older group did not have. bys, best playing times indoor courts while the plebs play outside. advertising and money all favors Federe, nadal and djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,229 Posts
No it's the worst. No variety in styles, same players winning everywhere with the same play without youngsters challenging them. Had it not been for Fed's beautiful tennis, tennis wouldve been dead long ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,617 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
the older great generation only played french Wimbledon us did not bother with Australian
Even assuming they won in Oz at the same rate they would have won the others still doesn't get them there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,207 Posts
No it's the worst. No variety in styles, same players winning everywhere with the same play without youngsters challenging them. Had it not been for Fed's beautiful tennis, tennis wouldve been dead long ago.
Couldn’t agree more, today’s players just rally from the baseline with no variety. They have no damn clue how to slice, volley, mix things up and throw people off their games. Just bland basic forehands and backhands.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top