It’s 100% official

[Nadalfan2013]

There’s no Big Four.

With Novak again winning slams just like Federer & Nadal in the last couple of years, he distances himself even further from Murray.

20
17
14
3

We can once and for all retire that phrase.

 

[El Dude]

Over the last decade:

The Best: Federer, Nadal, Djokovic

Andy

The Rest: Everyone Else

Murray's stature over the last ten years is what it has always been: worst of the best, and best of the rest. Whether one wants to call that a "Big Four" or not is entirely up to the individual. It isn't entirely innacurate because he has been overall better than every else other than the Bigger Three. But you're right in that he's not in the same league as the Holy Trinity.

So no, it is not "100% official." Nor is what you are saying incorrect. Both are true, depending upon how you look at it.

 

[El Dude]

I think you could also argue that from 2010 to the present, it has been a "Big 2 + 2" with Rafa/Novak and Roger/Andy more closely paired.

2010-18 Slams:

13 Novak
11 Rafa
5 Roger
3 Andy (and Stan)
1 Cilic

I don't put Stan in the same category as Andy, though, because other than those three Slam titles, Andy's resume is far superior - and closer to Roger's, during that time span.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

I see that someone is still in denial.

 

[El Dude]

Denial about what? What do I care how you categorize Andy?

 

[mrzz]

I don't put Stan in the same category as Andy, though, because other than those three Slam titles, Andy's resume is far superior - and closer to Roger's, during that time span.

It doesn't matter, because peak Wawrinka > peak Murray

 

[El Dude]

It doesn't matter, because peak Wawrinka > peak Murray

Haha, that’s kind of true - at least in three matches. But then we could say peak Stan > peak Novak; or that wonder of wonders: peak Nalbandian > peak Roger.

 

[mrzz]

But then we could say peak Stan > peak Novak;

Don't tempt me.

 

[monfed]

Ofcourse. Murphy is below and I mean leagues below the big 3 in terms of mental strength. He has never beaten any of them when they were playing at full strength.

The only reason Murphy gets special treatment is because he's british. But the guy is a joke if you ask me. Atleast Stan beat the big 3 when they were at their best or near best level.

 

[Ricardo]

Denial about what? What do I care how you categorize Andy?

You did just deny a fact. Who cares what you care? You are in denial.

 

[Ricardo]

Ofcourse. Murphy is below and I mean leagues below the big 3 in terms of mental strength. He has never beaten any of them when they were playing at full strength.

The only reason Murphy gets special treatment is because he's british. But the guy is a joke if you ask me. Atleast Stan beat the big 3 when they were at their best or near best level.

Exactly, Stan definitely beat Novak at his best as we all saw. Murray is lucky to have won 3, as Stan is simply better again better opponent.....except he normally just rests unless it’s big occasion.

 

[Ricardo]

Haha, that’s kind of true - at least in three matches. But then we could say peak Stan > peak Novak; or that wonder of wonders: peak Nalbandian > peak Roger.

Peak Stan > peak Novak facts have shown as he flat out hit through Novak at his best, but for you to say Nalby over Fed? Typical stupidity.

 

[El Dude]

You did just deny a fact. Who cares what you care? You are in denial.

Again, what "fact" did I deny? That Andy Murray is not as good as Novak, Rafa, and Roger? I did no such thing. But clearly the nuance of what I actually did say is lost on you. if something else, pray tell.

Peak Stan > peak Novak facts have shown as he flat out hit through Novak at his best, but for you to say Nalby over Fed? Typical stupidity.

Yes, it is stupidity - I was being ironic...it is an ongoing joke about dear Calitennis, Nalbandian's #1 fan in the world. Cali has said at various times that Nalbandian was better than Roger at their respective bests. I was using that as an example of a ridiculous extreme viewpoint.

 

[Ricardo]

Peak Stan > peak Novak facts have shown, but for you to say Nalby over Fed? Typical stupidity.

I think you could also argue that from 2010 to the present, it has been a "Big 2 + 2" with Rafa/Novak and Roger/Andy more closely paired.

2010-18 Slams:

13 Novak
11 Rafa
5 Roger
3 Andy (and Stan)
1 Cilic

I don't put Stan in the same category as Andy, though, because other than those three Slam titles, Andy's resume is far superior - and closer to Roger's, during that time span.

Bollock, you dragging Fed down to Murray league shows why you are full of it. I don’t see you saying prior to 2010 it was big two, so shut up.

 

[Ricardo]

Stan beat the best properly, Murray on the other hand is worthless and whatever manhood was gifted from Lendl. As soon as Ivan ditched him, look at where he went. He is a puss, period.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, you're really something, Ricardo.