Jump to content

Tennis Volume 6


Calibandar

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Calibandar said:

I think this is too harsh on Murray. He's been part of Big 4 for good reason, he's always been a strong challenger for the top guys, he belongs in that conversation, especially the last two years before his current injury. He had a phase a while ago when he was best in the field and this was after people thought there would be no end to Djokovic' endless wins. This was only two years ago remember, he seemed unbeatable. Federer was not yet back to his current level, Nadal was playing but losing to Djoker and dealing with injuries, and at some point Murray took over ( partly because Djoker lost steam?).

Anyway, I think he belongs in there because the term Big Four refers to the fact that these 4 guys dominated the field the last decade. Would I put him at 4, out of those 4? Yes, but that doesn't mean he is out of place there in terms of how good he is in the context of this generation of players.

Murray had a phase a while ago when Djokovic already started struggling with his elbow and Nadal and Federer still didn't get back to full fitness after their injuries. According to Wikipedia, Murray was ranked #1 between November 7, 2016 and August 20, 2017 which matches that period pretty well.

He did seem pretty unbeatable against lesser opposition, but his head to head with top 3 is, as follows:

  1. 11- 25 against Djokovic
  2. 7 - 17 against Nadal
  3. 14 - 11 against Federed

He's close to Federer but far from other two.

And no, Murray didn't dominate the last decade. The other three guys dominated the last decade, Murray has shown glimpses of greatness and is better than the rest of the pack but that doesn't mean he's at these other three guys level.

I still think that "Big 4" is more of a wishful thinking from UK fans and media than a realistic state of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I disagree with that. He deserves to be part of the top 4, he's won multiple Slams and been a constant contender in the top 4.

Players like Wawrinka have acknowledged that there is a definite top 4 and that he is not in it. Murray in normal form is a semi finalist in a Grand Slam and a guy who finishes in the top 4 each year. As such, he is rightfully included in this group, even though I'd agree that he is the number 4 guy in that group. But he is definitely a step above all the others like Cilic, Del Potro, Berdych etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Yeah, I disagree with that. He deserves to be part of the top 4, he's won multiple Slams and been a constant contender in the top 4.

Players like Wawrinka have acknowledged that there is a definite top 4 and that he is not in it. Murray in normal form is a semi finalist in a Grand Slam and a guy who finishes in the top 4 each year. As such, he is rightfully included in this group, even though I'd agree that he is the number 4 guy in that group. But he is definitely a step above all the others like Cilic, Del Potro, Berdych etc.

 

Yeah, I disagree with that right back at you. :P 

Murray has regularly been a GM semi finalist, that's true, but that still doesn't make "The Big 4" a reality. He wasn't at the level of other three and one just needs to compare his results and achievements to theirs to see that's an obvious fact.

He's closer to the level of Cilic, Del Potro, Berdych (funny you forgot to mention Wawrinka, isn't it?) than he is to Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. At best, he can be a "Not so big 1".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that isn't right, that just denies Murray the position he's shown to have, which is why everyone calls it a Big 4.

And as we're guessing at hidden motives like you did with UK people, I would guess that you also have another motive for desperately wanting to deny that this multiple Grand Slam and Masters Tournaments winner and consistent top 4 ranked player is actually part of said Big 4. It makes no sense. You can claim he is the weakest of the 4 but not that he is not part of the Big 4. The world of tennis disagrees with you ( but as you said, Tennis is no big deal to you right and not really something you've followed I would suspect :)).

And finally, your assertion that is more like Cilic and Berdych than the other 3 members of the top 4 is also false. 

If you've followed tennis the last decade and seen the individual matches, that could not be your conclusion. He may be unsympathetic, but he is definitely part of the Big 4.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really. Since 2008 Andy Murray has made 21 Grand Slam semifinals out of 41 possible, 11 finals and grabbed 3 titles. 

Stan Wawrinka has also won 3 Grand Slam titles, but only managed 4 finals and 9 semifinals. Others haven't even come close.

So to me it's pretty justifiable to include him in the Big Four, just with the reservation, that he is by far the weakest of the four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's "weakest of the four" the same way Wawrinka would've been "weakest of the four". As I said - 20 GS (27 masters 1000), 16 GS (30 masters 1000), 12GS (30 masters 1000), 3 GS (14 masters 1000)... pick the odd one out. Also, his H2H with three players you'd put him side by side is 29 - 56, which makes it approximately winning every third match. Not really numbers which would put him up there.

I have grown bored with the amount of tennis Serbian networks are broadcasting, that's true, but that doesn't mean I haven't been watching tennis at all, and especially not that I haven't been watching over the past decade or so.

Implication that I have a hidden motive you seem to be making is ridiculous since I'm not a Djokovic fan, as you would see if you read my posts on the matter. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, lessthanluke said:

I'd say that is a very good win percentage against 3 of the greatest players to have ever played personally.

I'm not saying Murray is a bad tennis player, am I?

It is a pretty good result, probably better than what any other active player can boast of, but it's definitely not good enough to prove that "Big 4" is a real thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with @baxus on this one. Murray seems more like a filler than a real contender in entire "Big 4" talk. That said, he is better than the rest of the field, but most certainly doesn't get anywhere near the numbers Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have. Is he a league of his own? I would definitely put it that way. As I said, the entire "Big 4" was created expecting Murray to do much, much more but ultimately he didn't. Then again, comparing him to the likes of Cilic, Nishikori, even Wawrinka would be unfair to him. His GS titles numbers are maybe closer to them than to FNDJ trifecta, but it is not the only indicator. The number of Masters 1000 titles (14) makes a league of its own, as on one side, the abovementioned trio has, each, around 30 and the rest of the field is around, well, 1 (Wawrinka and Cilic both claimed 1). Heck, Alexander Zverev has more titles than Wawrinka on ATP 1000 tournaments.

So, undoubtedly, Murray is outstanding player. But, he is the league of its own. He didn't get where many pundits believed he would get, but he didn't lagged too much. 

5 hours ago, 3CityApache said:

It's pretty simple really. Since 2008 Andy Murray has made 21 Grand Slam semifinals out of 41 possible, 11 finals and grabbed 3 titles. 

Stan Wawrinka has also won 3 Grand Slam titles, but only managed 4 finals and 9 semifinals. Others haven't even come close.

So to me it's pretty justifiable to include him in the Big Four, just with the reservation, that he is by far the weakest of the four.

Yes, but look at other numbers. Federer has won 20 GS, Nadal 16, Djokovic 12 GS titles. Then we have Masters 1000 tournaments which Djokovic and Nadal has won each 30 and Federer accumulated 27. Murray has 3 GS and 14 ATP 1000 tournaments. If we are going to talk that he is "by far the weakest of the four", while the three have been almost equal in their confrontations with each other, then we can also call him "the best player outside Big 3". And being best in something is much better than being worst :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Murray was further ahead of 5th than he was behind 3rd. He deserves to be in the conversation about a big 4.

Although I'd have no problem if people prefer to talk about a big 3 + 1; but tennis is based on a knock-out formula; there's not prize for being 3rd instead of 4th, and he was in the final 4 more often than not.

For a time he was #1 in the world; which also earns him the right to be in the conversation (even if the conversation is Rafa v Rog v Djoker; and who was the other guy?).

 

I would certainly agree that he was not on the same plane as the big 3; but he was far enough ahead of teh chasing pack to not be one of them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

For a time he was #1 in the world; which also earns him the right to be in the conversation (even if the conversation is Rafa v Rog v Djoker; and who was the other guy?).

If he's "the other guy" then he's not one of the "Big 4", he's "the other guy".

2 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

I would certainly agree that he was not on the same plane as the big 3; but he was far enough ahead of teh chasing pack to not be one of them either.

And why would it be fine to lump him in with "Big 3" when he's not on the same plane with them and wrong to lump him with "the chasing pack" when he's above their level?

I'm not saying he's at the same level as Dimitrov, Berdych etc. but he's not at the level of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic if we're talking about careers, not specific points in time. Murray's been #1 but that coincided with everyone from "Big 3" being injured or coming back from injury.

That's the main reason I don't think he belongs with "Big 3" - while even one of them was at the top of their game, he was nowhere near the top spot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Murray was further ahead of 5th than he was behind 3rd. He deserves to be in the conversation about a big 4.

I disagree. As the person who started this conversation, this is why I believe there shouldn’t be a “Big Four.” Murray is absolutely closer to Stan and the other second tier players than he is to the top three. The construct of the Big Four, IMO, was created by the UK media. If Andy and been from a country that didn’t host a major, I suspect he wouldn’t have been as elevated as he has been, much like Andy Roddick has been here in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, baxus said:

And why would it be fine to lump him in with "Big 3" when he's not on the same plane with them and wrong to lump him with "the chasing pack" when he's above their level?

 

The reason he is said to be in the Big Four is that he, along with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic cannibalized tournament wins for the last decade. He's been far more of a consistent tough opponent for Djokovic and Fed than say Cilic or Berdych or Stan, who can be excellent but doesn't have consistency and himself says that he he doesn't belong in a group with Murray.

https://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/USOpen/theres-no-big-five-says-wawrinka-20160912

 

Quote

New York ,2016- Stan Wawrinka has won as many Grand Slam titles as Andy Murray, but even after capturing the US Open the 31-year-old insists his record does not bear comparison with tennis' 'Big Four'.

That exclusive club of Novak Djokovic, Murray, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal have won 42 of the last 47 Grand Slams.

The only men to break that stranglehold are Juan Martin del Potro and Marin Cilic at the 2009 and 2014 US Open tournaments respectively... and Wawrinka.

The unassuming Swiss has won all three major finals in which he has appeared - the 2014 Australian Open, the 2015 French Open and now the 2016 US Open, secured with a four-set win over Djokovic on Sunday.

Djokovic believes world number three Wawrinka should be treated as a genuine heavyweight of the men's game.

"He deserves to be in the mix, no doubt about it. Stan has won three Grand Slams now and three different ones; Olympic medal," said the Serb.

"Been around for so many years, and he plays best in the big matches. I mean, he definitely deserves to be mentioned in the mix of top players."

But Wawrinka says he's happy with his status in the sport and that talk of a 'Big Five' does not stack up.

"Novak is always so nice with me. I love him. He's a good friend. He always say a lot of nice thing about me," said Wawrinka.

"The Big Four, I'm really far from them. Just look at the tournaments they have won, how many years they've been there.

"If you look, yes, I have three Grand Slams. How many Masters 1000 has Murray? They have been there since ten years.

Murray has been racking up Masters tournaments in a way that none of the others do, and because he is always in the top 4 and such a tough opponent, he is considered part of the Big Four. Going into a tournament like Wimbledon, you're looking at Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as the 4 massive favorites. This is is why he is in the Big Four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I disagree. As the person who started this conversation, this is why I believe there shouldn’t be a “Big Four.” Murray is absolutely closer to Stan and the other second tier players than he is to the top three. The construct of the Big Four, IMO, was created by the UK media. If Andy and been from a country that didn’t host a major, I suspect he wouldn’t have been as elevated as he has been, much like Andy Roddick has been here in the US.

+1

16 hours ago, Calibandar said:

The reason he is said to be in the Big Four is that he, along with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic cannibalized tournament wins for the last decade. He's been far more of a consistent tough opponent for Djokovic and Fed than say Cilic or Berdych or Stan, who can be excellent but doesn't have consistency and himself says that he he doesn't belong in a group with Murray.

https://www.sport24.co.za/Tennis/USOpen/theres-no-big-five-says-wawrinka-20160912

 

Murray has been racking up Masters tournaments in a way that none of the others do, and because he is always in the top 4 and such a tough opponent, he is considered part of the Big Four. Going into a tournament like Wimbledon, you're looking at Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray as the 4 massive favorites. This is is why he is in the Big Four.

So, Wawrinka lacks consistency to be grouped into the "Big 5" but Murray will be grouped into the "Big 4" despite the only consistency he's shown is being better than the rest of the pack and getting beaten on a pretty regular basis, especially in GSs?

And it must be said that Murray has been "racking up Masters tournaments" in a way that brought him just above half the titles as the "Big 3" member with the least Masters tournaments titles.

The fact that he's better than Cilic or Berdych or Wawrinka does not mean he's as good as "Big 3". As a matter of fact, he most certainly isn't, as is proven by number of GSs won, number of Masters won and his head-to-head between them.

I don't know how many times this needs repeating.

15 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think his 2 olympic titles should be mentioned as well to be fair. 

Those are great, especially since he's won them in his own country AND at the moment when "Big 3" were playing at, or at least, near their top level.

Once again, I'm not saying Murray is a bad tennis player, just that he's not at the same level with those other three guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baxus said:

 

The fact that he's better than Cilic or Berdych or Wawrinka does not mean he's as good as "Big 3". 

There is no "Big 3". In tennis, people refer to the Big Four, as you see Stan Wawrinka also do in the interview linked to.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

There is no "Big 3". In tennis, people refer to the Big Four, as you see Stan Wawrinka also do in the interview linked to.

 

Oh, if Wawrinka and you did it then it must be true. Let's ignore the people who talk about "Big 3", even a few of us in this thread. ;)

Let's put aside these players and tennis. Could you find a sport where you have three athletes that are so dominant in their sport and there's a fourth one who's so behind them in results and achievements as Murray is behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and is still considered their equal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan of tennis, to be honest, but I found this debate interesting.

Did the whole idea that there is a 'big four' not arise from the fact that, should all four be competing in the same tournament, they are the four players you'd expect to make the semi-finals?

In other words, people expect that one of those four are going to win the tournament, most likely one from the 'bigger three', but if they don't, it would likely fall to Andy Murray, even though he and Stan Wawrinka have won as many slams as each other. I think, though, Murray has got to more finals, won the Olympic gold twice and won more tournaments in general, which is probably why he is the 'spare man' of the big four, as opposed to Wawrinka.

It also seems like Wawrinka winning three slams is considered a really impressive feat, whereas Murray winning three slams seems a slight underachievement, especially considering the amount of finals he has got to.

It seems that this generation of tennis has three clear players that are regarded as the best - three that are in the conversation when people are talking about who is the greatest to ever play the sport - in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In most peoples' opinions, Murray is clearly the next best. After that, it's, maybe, a bit more up for debate. That's what I took from the term 'big four'.

I'd imagine, though, that both of the terms 'big three' or 'big four' are just as valid as each other; everyone knows who you mean when you say either.

I'd even imagine that, in some cases, the term 'big two' is used to talk about Federer and Nadal. And 'big one' to talk about Federer...LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan,

Yes, that is pretty much what I explained above about why it is called the Big Four, if for instance you head into Wimbledon.

Quote

It also seems like Wawrinka winning three slams is considered a really impressive feat, whereas Murray winning three slams seems a slight underachievement, especially considering the amount of finals he has got to.

True. You also have to consider that Murray only won 3 because often times he was eliminated in the semi final or final by one of the other 3. But he was always there. That of course does not apply to Stan the Man, who remarkably has 3 wins, but they all came as big fat surprises.

 

2 hours ago, baxus said:

Oh, if Wawrinka and you did it then it must be true. Let's ignore the people who talk about "Big 3", even a few of us in this thread. ;)

 

Ok well if someone on a forum says there is a big 3 then that surely supersedes the fact tennis commentators and pundits have called it a Big Four for a decade, I stand corrected...

2 hours ago, baxus said:

Could you find a sport where you have three athletes that are so dominant in their sport and there's a fourth one who's so behind them in results and achievements as Murray is behind Federer, Nadal and Djokovic and is still considered their equal?

Your whole premise that Murray is so much worse and undeserving of being called as part of the Big Four is not based on his actual performance in tennis matches the last decade.

I mean, realistically, look at Murray's results and the next logical candidate to be included in that group, Stan the Man.

Murray:

Career finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR 1
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 3 8 11  
Year-End Championships 1 0 1  
ATP Masters 1000 2 14 7 21  
Olympic Games 2 0 2  

Stan:

areer finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 3 1 4 0.75
Year-End Championships
ATP Masters 1000* 1 3 4 0.25
Olympics Games

So Murray was in 11 Grand Slam finals, Stan the Man in 4.

A huge difference, obviously. Huge enough to show in and of itself that reaching 11 Grand Slam Finals in a period when Nadal Djokovic and Federer were all active show you're part of that group. The next guy from the entire field only reached 4 finals.

We can then consider that Murray has played in 21 ATP Masters Tournament, and has won 14 times.

Stan has played in 4.... What could explain such an enormous difference? Could it be that there is actually a valid reason that this is called a Big Four, even though Murray is the "weakest" of that Big Four?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I'm not a big fan of tennis, to be honest, but I found this debate interesting.

Did the whole idea that there is a 'big four' not arise from the fact that, should all four be competing in the same tournament, they are the four players you'd expect to make the semi-finals?

In other words, people expect that one of those four are going to win the tournament, most likely one from the 'bigger three', but if they don't, it would likely fall to Andy Murray, even though he and Stan Wawrinka have won as many slams as each other. I think, though, Murray has got to more finals, won the Olympic gold twice and won more tournaments in general, which is probably why he is the 'spare man' of the big four, as opposed to Wawrinka.

It also seems like Wawrinka winning three slams is considered a really impressive feat, whereas Murray winning three slams seems a slight underachievement, especially considering the amount of finals he has got to.

It seems that this generation of tennis has three clear players that are regarded as the best - three that are in the conversation when people are talking about who is the greatest to ever play the sport - in Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. In most peoples' opinions, Murray is clearly the next best. After that, it's, maybe, a bit more up for debate. That's what I took from the term 'big four'.

I'd imagine, though, that both of the terms 'big three' or 'big four' are just as valid as each other; everyone knows who you mean when you say either.

I'd even imagine that, in some cases, the term 'big two' is used to talk about Federer and Nadal. And 'big one' to talk about Federer...LOL

Winning three GSs is an impressive feat, no matter who achieves it. Hell, winning one is impressive.

It's just that winning 12 or 16 or 20 is significantly more impressive, wouldn't you agree?

15 minutes ago, Calibandar said:

Your whole premise that Murray is so much worse and undeserving of being called as part of the Big Four is not based on his actual performance in tennis matches the last decade.

I mean, realistically, look at Murray's results and the next logical candidate to be included in that group, Stan the Man.

Murray:

Career finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR 1
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 3 8 11  
Year-End Championships 1 0 1  
ATP Masters 1000 2 14 7 21  
Olympic Games 2 0 2  

Stan:

areer finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 3 1 4 0.75
Year-End Championships
ATP Masters 1000* 1 3 4 0.25
Olympics Games

So Murray was in 11 Grand Slam finals, Stan the Man in 4.

A huge difference, obviously. Huge enough to show in and of itself that reaching 11 Grand Slam Finals in a period when Nadal Djokovic and Federer were all active show you're part of that group. The next guy from the entire field only reached 4 finals.

We can then consider that Murray has played in 21 ATP Masters Tournament, and has won 14 times.

Stan has played in 4.... What could explain such an enormous difference? Could it be that there is actually a valid reason that this is called a Big Four, even though Murray is the "weakest" of that Big Four?

 

You say that my premise that Murray is worse than "Big 3" is not based in actual performance and then compare him to Wawrinka to prove your point? Do you see the fallacy in that one?

Let's show the same statistics for Federer:

Career finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR 1
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 20 10 30 0.67
Year-End Championships 6 4 10 0.67 2
ATP Masters 1000 3 27 19 46 0.59
Olympic Games 0 1 1 0.00
ATP Tour 500 20 6 26 0.77
ATP Tour 250 24 9 33 0.73
Total 97 49 146 0.67

Nadal:

Career finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR 1
Singles Grand Slam Tournaments 16 7 23 0.69
Year-End Championships 0 2 2 0.00
ATP Masters 1000 2 30 16 46 0.65
Olympic Games 1 0 1 1.00
ATP Tour 500 19 6 25 0.76
ATP Tour 250 9 5 14 0.64
Total 75 36 111 0.67

Djokovic:

Career finals
Discipline Type Won Lost Total WR 1
Singles Grand Slam tournaments 12 9 21 0.57
Year-End Championships 5 1 6 0.83
ATP Masters 1000 2 30 14 44 0.68
Olympic Games 0 0 0 0.00
ATP Tour 500 12 2 14 0.86
ATP Tour 250 9 4 13 0.67
Total 68 30 98 0.69

See the difference?

Also, in what universe is Wawrinka "the next logical candidate to join that group"? We're not even in agreement that Murray should join that group. :lol: In 20 years, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will probably be considered among top 5 best tennis players of all time. Can the same be said about Murray or Wawrinka? 

Once again - both Murray and Wawrinka are great tennis players, just not at the level these other three are at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...