Dominance of the Big Three

[El Dude]

As an aside, anyone notice how talk has gradually shifted from "Big Four" to "Big Three?" Poor Andy. Anyhow, here's a chart that depicts just how good the Big Three have been, as a group, for decade and a half. These are all the big titles from the first appearance by one of the Big Three (Federer in 1999) to the present, through Roland Garros. It is color-coded by the best result by one of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic, with wins in dark green, finalist in light green, semifinalist in orange, quarterfinalist in yellow, and pre-QF in blue.

It is rather striking just how dominant they've been. Notice that from 2004 to the present, there have only been three Slams (of 62) in which one of the Big Three was not in the finals: 2004 Roland Garros, 2005 Australian Open, and 2014 US Open. That means that since 2005 RG, one of the Big Three has been in 56 of 57 Grand Slam finals.

The other big titles are also quite dominated, but not as much - especially over the last few years.

[GALLERY=media, 70]Big Three Best Results by El Dude posted Jun 15, 2019 at 6:16 PM[/GALLERY]

OK, got it to insert.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I never subscribed to Big Four. I guess many did not. It is not so much of a gradual shift.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I actually do think there was a big four at a certain stage. One may have been clearly behind the other 3 in terms of winning majors, but he was such a prominent part of reaching semis and finals of majors (with the occasional win) as well as winning plenty of Masters 1000 events that he earned the right to be part of the big four. However, if we're looking at it from a historical significance perspective, and legacy perspective, then obviously, it's a big 3, not a big 4, as Murray isn't anywhere close to the other 3 in that sense.

 

[Bonaca]

I actually do think there was a big four at a certain stage. One may have been clearly behind the other 3 in terms of winning majors, but he was such a prominent part of reaching semis and finals of majors (with the occasional win) as well as winning plenty of Masters 1000 events that he earned the right to be part of the big four. However, if we're looking at it from a historical significance perspective, and legacy perspective, then obviously, it's a big 3, not a big 4, as Murray isn't anywhere close to the other 3 in that sense.

I agree , Murray at his best was constantly above the rest of the Field, and over a significant period of time. No one hit wonder.
He deserves to be the fourth wheel

 

[GameSetAndMath]

At least in retrospect, especially in view of the fact that Stan had also won three slams (and against Nadalovic in the finals), it does not look like Murray was any special.

Yes, I know Murray has more titles than Stan and Murray had consistency.

 

[Moxie]

At least in retrospect, especially in view of the fact that Stan had also won three slams (and against Nadalovic in the finals), it does not look like Murray was any special.

Yes, I know Murray has more titles than Stan and Murray had consistency.

So Murray had more titles than Stan, esp. MS 1000s, and consistency. And 2 Olympic Gold medals. And spent more time in the top 4. And challenged the Big 3 more in significant moments for big titles. Oh, and won the YEC, and actually reached #1. But you don't think he was anything special, and you seem to make him equivalent to Stan? How many players have reached #1 since Roger first claimed it? Exactly 4, counting Fed. Stan has 16 titles to Murray's 45. 4 of Stan's are MS, to Andy's 21. Murray was very special, compared to Stan, IMO. I'd be curious as to how many active players have 45 titles, or even close...and a fair number of big ones.

EDIT: I changed this post to reflect accurately the title count of each player. Still a difference of 29.

 

[El Dude]

^I agree with what you're saying, Moxie, but just wanted to point out that you're mixing up finals with titles. Andy has 45 titles in 67 finals, etc.

 

[DarthFed]

So Murray had more titles than Stan, esp. MS 1000s, and consistency. And 2 Olympic Gold medals. And spent more time in the top 4. And challenged the Big 3 more in significant moments for big titles. Oh, and won the YEC, and actually reached #1. But you don't think he was anything special, and you seem to make him equivalent to Stan? How many players have reached #1 since Roger first claimed it? Exactly 4, counting Fed. Stan has 29 titles to Murray's 67. 4 of Stan's are MS, to Andy's 21. Murray was very special, compared to Stan, IMO. I'd be curious as to how many active players have 67 titles, or even close...and a fair number of big ones.

Murray was greater than Stan but GSM's point stands that he wasn't exactly special. Also I'd say Stan made more notable inroads against the top guys at majors than Murray did. Murray was often overrated, usually for the sake of the whole competition agenda pushed forth by Nadal and Djokovic fans.

 

[Moxie]

^I agree with what you're saying, Moxie, but just wanted to point out that you're mixing up finals with titles. Andy has 45 titles in 67 finals, etc.

Ah, thanks. I was reading on Wiki. Still, how many others have 45 titles right now?

 

[El Dude]

Murray was greater than Stan but GSM's point stands that he wasn't exactly special. Also I'd say Stan made more notable inroads against the top guys at majors than Murray did. Murray was often overrated, usually for the sake of the whole competition agenda pushed forth by Nadal and Djokovic fans.

Depends on what you mean by "special." Andy is the fourth best player in Fedalkovic era, and one of the 15-20 best players of the Open Era, a span of 50 years. From 2006-17, a span of 12 years, he finished in the top 20 each year; from 2008-16, a span of 8 years, he finished #6 or higher. All things tolled, that's good enough for me to consider "special."

 

[Moxie]

Murray was greater than Stan but GSM's point stands that he wasn't exactly special. Also I'd say Stan made more notable inroads against the top guys at majors than Murray did. Murray was often overrated, usually for the sake of the whole competition agenda pushed forth by Nadal and Djokovic fans.

Funny, I don't see it as that agenda at all. I'm not even sure where you get that.

Stan's main flash is that he won at some surprising moments. He beat Djokovic twice to win his Majors, and Nadal once. I know you'll hate to be reminded of this, but Nadal did come up lame in that final. Whatever. But that makes sort of an equivalency with Murray, who beat Novak twice, but Raonic was a freebie.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Depends on what you mean by "special." Andy is the fourth best player in Fedalkovic era, and one of the 15-20 best players of the Open Era, a span of 50 years. From 2006-17, a span of 12 years, he finished in the top 20 each year; from 2008-16, a span of 8 years, he finished #6 or higher. All things tolled, that's good enough for me to consider "special."

There is no question that Andy's career record is significantly greater that of Stan and I am not trying to argue about that. However, I don't think that makes him part of "Big Four". It just makes him the fourth best player in terms of results.

Not only that his record is way below that of Big Three, in view of Stan one could also say it is not that much higher than that of Stan.

 

[Moxie]

There is no question that Andy's career record is significantly greater that of Stan and I am not trying to argue about that. However, I don't think that makes him part of "Big Four". It just makes him the fourth best player in terms of results.

Not only that his record is way below that of Big Three, in view of Stan one could also say it is not that much higher than that of Stan.

I thought Broken was clear that AM was part of the Big 4 "at a certain stage." As to AM not being that much higher than Stan's record, perhaps you might want to reread. Or, I don't know, defend that statement?

 

[DarthFed]

Funny, I don't see it as that agenda at all. I'm not even sure where you get that.

Stan's main flash is that he won at some surprising moments. He beat Djokovic twice to win his Majors, and Nadal once. I know you'll hate to be reminded of this, but Nadal did come up lame in that final. Whatever. But that makes sort of an equivalency with Murray, who beat Novak twice, but Raonic was a freebie.

It was actually more of a Djokovic fan agenda. Saying Roger's competition was weak and then including Murray in "tough competition" arguments and thinking we'd let that slide easy

But yet again...Stan beat Novak that same tournament he beat Nadal in the final. That is Djokovic at AO. Going back to 2011 he's won 6 of 9 and 2014 was a way different time for Djoker than the other two years 2017 and 2018. It was a massive win, even if you want to make an excuse for Nadal. Stan had a much tougher path to his majors than Murray did. But yes, Murray is greater than Stan but he isn't anywhere near ATG status.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think anyone is pretending that Murray was ATG compared to the Big 3. But comparing a couple of paths to Major finals is not really the nut of it. They each have 3 for the reasons they have them. But Stan was never #1, nor did he win YEC. Stan, aside from everything else, is an anomaly that is hard to explain. Murray was the guy that everyone believes would have achieved a lot more in a different era. TBH, I'm not sure Stan's career would have been that different. Not that "what if's" matter, but Murray does have the much better career.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I thought Broken was clear that AM was part of the Big 4 "at a certain stage." As to AM not being that much higher than Stan's record, perhaps you might want to reread. Or, I don't know, defend that statement?

Everybody agrees that Andy is way below than the Big Three. But, the general argument was that he may be way below the Big Three but way above all the rest. My contention is that even the second part is not true in view of Stan's record.

Yes, Murray's career record is greater than that of Stan's. But the difference between Murray's and Stan's record is miniscule compared to the difference between any of Big Three's record and Andy's record.

In that sense Andy is not so special.

 

[El Dude]

Andy and Stan both share 3 Slam titles. But Andy has +1 World Tour Finals, +2 Olympic Golds, +13 Masters, +29 titles, and +41 weeks at #1 - not to mention more consistent results at Slams.

Now I might agree that the gap between Andy and Stan is significantly smaller than the gap between the Big 3 and Andy, but "miniscule" is a bit hyperbolic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Murray was greater than Stan but GSM's point stands that he wasn't exactly special. Also I'd say Stan made more notable inroads against the top guys at majors than Murray did. Murray was often overrated, usually for the sake of the whole competition agenda pushed forth by Nadal and Djokovic fans.

Oh please, this fucking revisionist history. Even if Murray was overrated, there is absolutely zero doubt he constituted tough competition by any metric. Look at the guy's resume. WTF more do you want?

 

[brokenshoelace]

I actually go back and forth on Murray being an all time great. His resume is INCREDIBLY rich. I mean look at all the numbers that El Dude posted above. That's one loaded legacy. It's 2019, if we're still simply hung up on blindly looking at slam numbers without context, then yes, 3 slams isn't all that special. But to me, if Wilander is an all time great, then so is Murray. I mean, how many tennis players in history are better than Murray?

I think people mistake "all time great" and "legend." Murray might be the former, but he's nowhere near the latter. Legends are the type of players who you can't discuss the history of the sport without naming. Laver, Borg, Sampras, etc... all time greats include far more players.

 

[don_fabio]

As much as Murray's slam record is somewhat poor to what he actually could achieve, holding a 2 Olympic gold medals is something really remarkable. The guy ended up with 2 most shiny medals when he played for the country, not only for himself. To me that's one of his greatest achievements. When it comes to Djokovic, he has a Bronze only so far.

When it comes to slams, he was supposed to bring more balance to the big3 trophy count and Murray should have ended up with more in his possesion. He should regret that at times he was loosing routinely to the big 3 on slams kind of like he lost belief, while he already proved before earlier in his carrer that he can beat them or push them hard on slams and other tournaments. That is strange to me. I would say he should ended up with at least 5 slams, but instead he is equalled with Stan, but actually achieved much more in his carrer. For me AM was not a pleasure to watch, but I respect him a lot.

Big 3 also have so many slams because Del Potro could not stay healthy enough which I find a real shame. The way that guy was playing in 2009, he was pure fire. If he could sustain that level without being injured often he would have added a few slams, let-s say 3-4 and big 3 would have a few less nowadays. Things went their way too a bit. Yes they are out of this world class players, but if Murray and Del Potro managed to steal a few more slams, we would talk different numbers now and Sampras 14 majors would not be overpassed so easily. Big 3 numbers are just ridicoulus and now we only keep talking of chasing Feds 20 slams, but getting a 20 ATP tournaments is a pretty good career already.