Era of the Big Four is Over

[El Dude]

"That Fedal won all the slams last year is deceiving..."

I think this is again a bad post by you and again very prematurely trying to close out their careers a bit early. Numbers dont lie, Rafa and Fed were and still are the BEST at the sport..

As @Moxie pointed out, you are completely missing the point being made, by @herios, myself, and others. No one is saying that they aren't the 'best at the sport.' What is being said is that the era of utter dominance by the Big Four is ending/over. 1) The gap between them and the field has narrowed, and 2) they are all struggling with various degrees of injuries and other problems, which is directly related to aging and isn't likely to just simply be solved, as it might have been five years ago.

To follow-up with you, @herios, it is interesting to note that not only did the Big Four not win five big titles last year, but that they didn't win five of the last seven. So their dominance waned later in the year.

Of the four, I think Andy is the least likely to win another Slam because with his style of play, a serious hip injury is going to be really challenging to fully recover from, especially at 31. I think at most he sneaks in another Masters or two, and maybe a handful of lesser titles, but never wins another Slam.

 

[Federberg]

I would characterise it as more of a retreat from overall dominance. But let's at least wait until they're no longer consistently dominating slams. Not saying I disagree, but it's a bit premature. Yes there have been episodes like Cilic winning the USO, but the last 5 slams have been won by Fedal. Let me repeat that, the last 5 slams have been won by Federer and Nadal. Considering slams are what really matter to these guys, check back with me when someone makes a dent in that..And by dent, I mean more than half of the slams over a period (of at least a year) go to someone outside the Big 5. And by big 5 I would consider Delpo and Stan as interchangeable at this point

 

[herios]

I would characterise it as more of a retreat from overall dominance. But let's at least wait until they're no longer consistently dominating slams. Not saying I disagree, but it's a bit premature. Yes there have been episodes like Cilic winning the USO, but the last 5 slams have been won by Fedal. Let me repeat that, the last 5 slams have been won by Federer and Nadal. Considering slams are what really matter to these guys, check back with me when someone makes a dent in that..And by dent, I mean more than half of the slams over a period (of at least a year) go to someone outside the Big 5. And by big 5 I would consider Delpo and Stan as interchangeable at this point

We have two different point of view obviously. El Dude and me were talking about dominance across all big events not just slams, including masters and the WTF.
Big 4 was a term which has been used widely for their utter dominance of tennis over several years.
Their grip has been clearly loosened by Novak, Andy getting injured and stopping to win big events since 2016. That is what we were referring to. If you think that Big 4 was invented or used only for slams, that is up to you.

 

[Federberg]

We have two different point of view obviously. El Dude and me were talking about dominance across all big events not just slams, including masters and the WTF.
Big 4 was a term which has been used widely for their utter dominance of tennis over several years.
Their grip has been clearly loosened by Novak, Andy getting injured and stopping to win big events since 2016. That is what we were referring to. If you think that Big 4 was invented or used only for slams, that is up to you.

Nope. That's not what I'm saying. To suggest that their dominance is over (which seems very definitive to me) you need the facts to support it. Which is why I would qualify the statement for now. While they are clearly no longer dominating at the Masters series level, they are still dominating the slams. You could just as easily say that in their current state they are more preoccupied with winning slams than Masters series which is why they still dominate at the slam level. So the statement that they're no longer dominating doesn't really hold up for now

 

[brokenshoelace]

And as expected, it's due to old age and injuries, rather than anyone being remotely good enough to challenge them. Anyway, the era of all 4 dominating has been over for a while, but I suspect they'll still be winning slams.

 

[El Dude]

Here's a nifty visual to add to the conversation. These are the best results by one of the Big Four, from 2004 to the present.

 

[El Dude]

First of all, their level of dominance is just ridiculous. That is just four players, utterly dominating the big titles for 14ish years.

Secondly, I think the disagreement between @herios and @Federberg is one of semantics. Perhaps "utter dominance" would be more accurate? Because while herios and I are on the same page here, I also agree with Federberg that the Big Four are still--obviously--dominating Slams. But utter doiminance is what we see above, from 2004 through 2017...and we started seeing cracks in the latter half of 2017.

 

[the AntiPusher]

As @Moxie pointed out, you are completely missing the point being made, by @herios, myself, and others. No one is saying that they aren't the 'best at the sport.' What is being said is that the era of utter dominance by the Big Four is ending/over. 1) The gap between them and the field has narrowed, and 2) they are all struggling with various degrees of injuries and other problems, which is directly related to aging and isn't likely to just simply be solved, as it might have been five years ago.

To follow-up with you, @herios, it is interesting to note that not only did the Big Four not win five big titles last year, but that they didn't win five of the last seven. So their dominance waned later in the year.

Of the four, I think Andy is the least likely to win another Slam because with his style of play, a serious hip injury is going to be really challenging to fully recover from, especially at 31. I think at most he sneaks in another Masters or two, and maybe a handful of lesser titles, but never wins another Slam.

El Dude..Murray's injury combined with Novak's lack of being physically and mentally ready to play have squee those numbers about the big four. I didnt miss the point..i just dont agree.

 

[Federberg]

First of all, their level of dominance is just ridiculous. That is just four players, utterly dominating the big titles for 14ish years.

Secondly, I think the disagreement between @herios and @Federberg is one of semantics. Perhaps "utter dominance" would be more accurate? Because while herios and I are on the same page here, I also agree with Federberg that the Big Four are still--obviously--dominating Slams. But utter doiminance is what we see above, from 2004 through 2017...and we started seeing cracks in the latter half of 2017.

Agreed. Which is why I said it makes more sense to characterise what we're seeing as a retreat from total dominance. Until we see a deterioration of their slam performance it's too early to say their dominance is over. I actually didn't think that was controversial at all. Silly me!

 

[El Dude]

Agreed. Which is why I said it makes more sense to characterise what we're seeing as a retreat from total dominance. Until we see a deterioration of their slam performance it's too early to say their dominance is over. I actually didn't think that was controversial at all. Silly me!

Federberg, on this forum (and the internet in general) everything is controversial. We nitpick the fuck out of each other...yet keep coming back for more.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, on this forum (and the internet in general) everything is controversial. We nitpick the fuck out of each other...yet keep coming back for more.

ain't that the truth..

 

[El Dude]

El Dude..Murray's injury combined with Novak's lack of being physically and mentally ready to play have squee those numbers about the big four. I didnt miss the point..i just dont agree.

But that is part of the picture: their injuries aren't just random. They are directly related to wear and tear, that is: aging.

If they were ageless or, say, it was five years ago, then I'd agree that it was an anomaly. But the fact is the older a player gets, the harder it is to stay healthy. You can't divorce these injury concerns from age...it is all part of the same overall picture of aging, decline, and "retreat from total dominance," to quote Federberg.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here's a nifty visual to add to the conversation. These are the best results by one of the Big Four, from 2004 to the present.

2004 sounds like dubious inclusion when looking at all big titles. The big four won only seven of the 14.

 

[El Dude]

2004 sounds like dubious inclusion when looking at all big titles. The big four won only seven of the 14.

Well, I just included it because it was the first year that the Big Four—whether collectively or individually—dominated the field, and 2004 was substantially Roger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Horsa]

Until we see a deterioration of their slam performance it's too early to say their dominance is over.

I'd add to that. What if another 4 players take over & dominate before these 4 stop? Could you still say the era of the big 4 was over then because another big 4 would be in but they'd be the new big 4? Just wondering.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Well, I just included it because it was the first year that the Big Four—whether collectively or individually—dominated the field, and 2004 was substantially Roger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The score is 7-7 in big titles for Big4 vs. Field in 2004. That is not even a winning score, not to mention that is not domination.

 

[Federberg]

I'd add to that. What if another 4 players take over & dominate before these 4 stop? Could you still say the era of the big 4 was over then because another big 4 would be in but they'd be the new big 4? Just wondering.

I think the constituents of the Big 4 is fairly settled at this point, so the era would be over

 

[Horsa]

I think the constituents of the Big 4 is fairly settled at this point, so the era would be over

O.K. I thought that maybe the era as we knew it would be over but if there were 4 more to replace them we'd still have a big 4 but a different big 4 than we have now.

 

[Moxie]

Agreed. Which is why I said it makes more sense to characterise what we're seeing as a retreat from total dominance. Until we see a deterioration of their slam performance it's too early to say their dominance is over. I actually didn't think that was controversial at all. Silly me!

I can live with that. Especially relative to Slams. Murray and Djokovic failed to be the two to beat, but who stepped up? Roger and Rafa. It really is a helluva long run for 4 players in combination.

O.K. I thought that maybe the era as we knew it would be over but if there were 4 more to replace them we'd still have a big 4 but a different big 4 than we have now.

I could easily be wrong, but I think it will be a long time before we have another Big 4 again. It seems to me that when RRN and/or A stop hogging the conversation, there's going to be more of a scrum than 4 dominant supernovas.

 

[El Dude]

The score is 7-7 in big titles for Big4 vs. Field in 2004. That is not even a winning score, not to mention that is not domination.

I'm not saying it is domination like later on. I just added it to the chart for context.