Non-"Big 4" GS semifinals

[mightyjeditribble]

At this AO, Murray and Djokovic lost early, and it looked as though we could have new / unexpected GS finalists/winners. Of course, in the end it was Federer-Nadal again ... :laydownlaughing

Still, the era of the "big 4" must come to an end in the near future.

With the single exception of Nishikori-Cilic, at least one of the "Big 4" has been in every GS final since the 2005 AO. One has been in every semifinal since the 2004 FO (semifinalists were Nalbandian, Henman, Coria and of course Gaudio). So I ask:

When will there next be a GS semifinal line-up without any of the big 4 present?

With Djokovic and Murray out early, and Fed and Nadal both having 5-setters in the earlier rounds, it *could* have happened at this AO. When will it actually happen?[/b]

 

[El Dude]

I voted 2019. I highly doubt it will b 2017. Barring serious decline from all or most of them, I doubt 2018. If I'm going to really nerd it up, I'd guess:

2017: <10%
2018: 30%
2019: 40%
2020+: 20%

 

[Kieran]

It's been a long time, hasn't it? I side with the Dude on this - I think it's impossible to imagine that in either this year or next year the Big 4 will have faded to the extent that none of them reach a semi in one of the slams. It's not impossible but I don't think it's likely...

 

[mrzz]

AUSOPEN 2235. If the question was Big 4 + Wawrinka, 2557, not sure which tournament.

 

[Frode789]

All 4? Probably 2020.

 

[Kieran]

What was fresh and exciting about the USO in 2014 was a final without any of the Big 4. These other players really need to stop waiting around politely in a queue and start banging on doors. It's a bit of an embarrassment at this stage, that the field have shown so little since 2004. But really, it would be great to have a semi that was 4-free, and see how the players who are left in it cope with the pressure...

 

[herios]

I voted 2018.

 

[El Dude]

What was fresh and exciting about the USO in 2014 was a final without any of the Big 4. These other players really need to stop waiting around politely in a queue and start banging on doors. It's a bit of an embarrassment at this stage, that the field have shown so little since 2004. But really, it would be great to have a semi that was 4-free, and see how the players who are left in it cope with the pressure...

Ahhh, the 2014 US Open. It seemed like the Big Four Hegemony was starting to crumble, but then it re-asserted itself in 2015--largely through Novak's ridiculous performance, but also Roger and Andy. This continued into 2016, although with Roger struggling with injury, and then as Novak slacked off in the second half, Andy surged.

And now we're in 2017, with a presumably resurgent Fedal and no reason to think Andy and Novak won't be right there as well.

I tend to look at things in terms of historical cycles. While Roger and Rafa broke through earlier, the first true year of the Big Four was 2007 - when Roger, Andy, and Novak held the top 3 spots and Andy was at #11. Maybe we can say 2008, when they were all in the top 4, but I'm going for 2007, for reasons you will soon see. So 2007 establishes the Big Four, and they dominate from that point on, peaking as a group in 2012--the Year of the Big Four (and the only year they all won a Slam).

From 2013 on, at least one of them has struggled within a given year. In 2013 it was Roger; in 2014, it was Andy and then Rafa. In 2015 it was Rafa, in 2016 Rafa and Roger, and then Novak in the second half. In 2017...we're going to see an Indian Summer, a five-year harmonic with 2012 and 2007. And then maybe in 2022, another five-year mark, we might see the last gasp of the Big Four - perhaps the last title and/or final retirement.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I voted 2018.

Me too. It wasn't so far off at the AO, and it's going to become more likely as time goes on. Last US Open, there was only one of them in the SF. I reckon that, by the end of 2018, there's a fair chance they'll all lose before the semis at some point or other.

When I say "a fair chance", I mean it seems more likely than not, although there is still also a very significant probability that it won't happen until 2019.

 

[Puppet Master]

Voted 2019.
Seems almost impossible for this year. And I know how quickly things can change in tennis and go down the drain or ascend to the heavens, but I don't see it, with all of them in this kind of form.
Next year, it's debatable, the big 4 will be weakened, but I think at least Murray can be a lock for all slam semis basically, bar the USO. He just plainly sucks there. Hasn't gone beyond the quarters since he won it.

So 2019 it is.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RG 2018

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How about the reverse question? Murray and Novak are supposed to be in their prime these days. Fedal have now come back. Do we have the chance of ALL four making it to SF together again and again like in 2008-09 etc?

 

[herios]

I tend to look at things in terms of historical cycles. While Roger and Rafa broke through earlier, the first true year of the Big Four was 2007 - when Roger, Andy, and Novak held the top 3 spots and Andy was at #11. Maybe we can say 2008, when they were all in the top 4, but I'm going for 2007, for reasons you will soon see. So 2007 establishes the Big Four, and they dominate from that point on, peaking as a group in 2012--the Year of the Big Four (and the only year they all won a Slam).

I would really like to see your reasoning behind the "beginning of the Big 4 dominance" in 2007. I am not understanding it.
In 2007, Murray won only two small events, San Jose and St. Petersburg, his best showing in a slam was R4 and SF in masters.
He reached at one point #8 ranking, but then he fell and dropped out of the top 10.
That is in a summary and No matter how I am twisting it, that is no dominant player resume. Sorry.

 

[Fiero425]

I tend to look at things in terms of historical cycles. While Roger and Rafa broke through earlier, the first true year of the Big Four was 2007 - when Roger, Andy, and Novak held the top 3 spots and Andy was at #11. Maybe we can say 2008, when they were all in the top 4, but I'm going for 2007, for reasons you will soon see. So 2007 establishes the Big Four, and they dominate from that point on, peaking as a group in 2012--the Year of the Big Four (and the only year they all won a Slam).

I would really like to see your reasoning behind the "beginning of the Big 4 dominance" in 2007. I am not understanding it.
In 2007, Murray won only two small events, San Jose and St. Petersburg, his best showing in a slam was R4 and SF in masters.
He reached at one point #8 ranking, but then he fell and dropped out of the top 10.
That is in a summary and No matter how I am twisting it, that is no dominant player resume. Sorry.

Maybe it should be counted towards Murray's "DESTINY!" uzzled :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I tend to look at things in terms of historical cycles. While Roger and Rafa broke through earlier, the first true year of the Big Four was 2007 - when Roger, Andy, and Novak held the top 3 spots and Andy was at #11. Maybe we can say 2008, when they were all in the top 4, but I'm going for 2007, for reasons you will soon see. So 2007 establishes the Big Four, and they dominate from that point on, peaking as a group in 2012--the Year of the Big Four (and the only year they all won a Slam).

I would really like to see your reasoning behind the "beginning of the Big 4 dominance" in 2007. I am not understanding it.
In 2007, Murray won only two small events, San Jose and St. Petersburg, his best showing in a slam was R4 and SF in masters.
He reached at one point #8 ranking, but then he fell and dropped out of the top 10.
That is in a summary and No matter how I am twisting it, that is no dominant player resume. Sorry.

I believe the phrase big four itself got coined only in late 2008.