The Big Four are Over

[Federberg]

From Wertheim's mailbag. Is one of us responsible for this? :laydownlaughing

Does Wawrinka's second major somewhat dismantle the idea of the Big Four and reinforce the idea that it really was a Big Three all along, with Murray being the buffer between them and the rest of the field?
—Kimberly, Kansas City

• It’s like Saturday Night Live. Don Pardo take it away: “Live from New York (and Melbourne, Paris and outer London)! It’s men’s tennis! Starring: Roger Federer…Rafael Nadal…and Novak Djokovic. With featured players: Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka.”

 

[El Dude]

The "Big 4" per era:

1970's - Borg, Connors, Nastase, Gerulaitis (w/ a touch of Ashe, Vilas, and McEnroe)
1980's - McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander (splash of Cash, Becker, and Edberg)
1990's - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker (mention Chang, Rafter, Philippoussis)
2000's - Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (sprinkling of Murray, Nalbandian, & Davydenko)
2010's - Djokovics, Nadal, Federer, Murray (fillers of Wawrinka, Nishikori, & Raonic)

Just off the top of my head! What are your choices if old enough to remember? No cheating with the record book!

Just a few nitpicks. Guillermo Vilas was a far more dominant player during the 70s than Gerulaitis.

Also, I don't see how you can mention Philippoussis for the 90s but not a half a dozen better players: Kafelnikov, Muster, Rios, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, etc.

I do like your attempt but don't think it really works so neatly for decades. Edberg, for instance, was a dominant player in the late 80s and early 90s.

 

[Federberg]

The "Big 4" per era:

1970's - Borg, Connors, Nastase, Gerulaitis (w/ a touch of Ashe, Vilas, and McEnroe)
1980's - McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander (splash of Cash, Becker, and Edberg)
1990's - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker (mention Chang, Rafter, Philippoussis)
2000's - Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (sprinkling of Murray, Nalbandian, & Davydenko)
2010's - Djokovics, Nadal, Federer, Murray (fillers of Wawrinka, Nishikori, & Raonic)

Just off the top of my head! What are your choices if old enough to remember? No cheating with the record book!

Just a few nitpicks. Guillermo Vilas was a far more dominant player during the 70s than Gerulaitis.

Also, I don't see how you can mention Philippoussis for the 90s but not a half a dozen better players: Kafelnikov, Muster, Rios, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, etc.

I do like your attempt but don't think it really works so neatly for decades. Edberg, for instance, was a dominant player in the late 80s and early 90s.

For the 90s, it's bizzarre to miss out Kuerten, that is glaring. Philipousis has no business in that list, even Krajcek would be more appropriate but still not deserving imho

And as for the noughties... Roddick has to be in there before Nalbandian...sorry!

 

[Fiero425]

^^Of course Vilas was a superior player, but he wasn't counted as being part of that current "Big 4!" He had also been suspended for a time for accepting appearance money and was never the same after that! With the 90's, there were just certain names I heard again and again; esp. in major finals! Of course Kafelnikov, Muster, Rios, Bruguera, & Ivanisevic were superior, but only their fans knew them even after they won something! The "Big 4" is about how onlookers see tennis and their leaders, not necessarily what's real! Roddick was an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, shrouded in illusion! He was the biggest waste of space produced by our media to satisfy the need for someone in the top 10 from the US after Sampras and Agassi were gone! lol! Unlike Roddick, Nalbandian actual won something over Federer as well; '05 Masters! It's just how I saw the Big 4 in each era! You have no imagination I guess! No problem! I'll live on! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! If it's about imagination or who's specifically memorable to you then I take it back. I mean.. if you look at the WTA, I would place Kournikova in my big 4 along with Venus, Serena and Sharapova if it's just based on memories :basiate

I thought it was about achievement though.. :blush:

 

[Fiero425]

^Lol! If it's about imagination or who's specifically memorable to you then I take it back. I mean.. if you look at the WTA, I would place Kournikova in my big 4 along with Venus, Serena and Sharapova if it's just based on memories :basiate

I thought it was about achievement though.. :blush:

Well that is some imagination! :cover :lolz: What's funnier is that the "Big 4" has Nadal barely in the TOP 10! So obviously we're all drunk! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! If it's about imagination or who's specifically memorable to you then I take it back. I mean.. if you look at the WTA, I would place Kournikova in my big 4 along with Venus, Serena and Sharapova if it's just based on memories :basiate

I thought it was about achievement though.. :blush:

Well that is some imagination! :cover :lolz: What's funnier is that the "Big 4" has Nadal barely in the TOP 10! So obviously we're all drunk! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

Drunk on history!

For my money, I don't subscribe to Big 4. Big 3, yes, and it's in terms of having 3 all time greats playing. Top 4 is certainly not relevant if the guys in question aren't all in the top 4, so I do agree, right now anything with '4' is redundant!

 

[El Dude]

Ah, I see Fiero - you're talking about the big four in your own mind. Makes more sense now your lack of logic and objectivity.

By the way, I think that Andy Roddick is a bit of an underrated player. He had the misfortune to play along Roger Federer, but was a pretty good player in his own right. I'm working on a series of blog articles that looks at the top tennis nations, which also includes rankings of national players. By my reckoning, Andy Roddick is the seventh greatest American of the Open Era - not too shabby.

Federberg, Kuerten is a bridge player. He actually won two of his three Slams in the 00s.

 

[Fiero425]

Ah, I see Fiero - you're talking about the big four in your own mind. Makes more sense now your lack of logic and objectivity.

By the way, I think that Andy Roddick is a bit of an underrated player. He had the misfortune to play along Roger Federer, but was a pretty good player in his own right. I'm working on a series of blog articles that looks at the top tennis nations, which also includes rankings of national players. By my reckoning, Andy Roddick is the seventh greatest American of the Open Era - not too shabby.

Federberg, Kuerten is a bridge player. He actually won two of his three Slams in the 00s.

Whatevah CHICA! :ras: :spacecadet: :deadhorse

 

[Federberg]

^That's a fair point Dude. Just strikes me as odd that we can miss out a 3 timer, and include some one slam wonders. Nobody's even mentioned Safin!

 

[El Dude]

^That's a fair point Dude. Just strikes me as odd that we can miss out a 3 timer, and include some one slam wonders. Nobody's even mentioned Safin!

Right, which is partially why I don't think the decades work well as eras. For instance, I think you could look at 1998 to 2003 as an era until itself, the transition from Sampras to Federer with Agassi probably being the overall best player, but a host of players percolating up to the top - Kuerten, Safin, Rios, Kafelnikov, Rafter, Moya, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, etc. But my point is, the mini era works best if you include a few years on either side of the millenial shift, so we could call this the "Millenial Era."

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I was looking forward to this coming back up when Stan won another major....

An astonishing achievement for a man who was so unnoticeable for so long in his career, no doubt about it and you can't take anything away from him. A man of peaks and troughs but these days it seems when he peaks, it's almost impossible to live with him.

But roll on to Wimbledon - Djokovic, Murray and Federer will all be in the quarter finals at least. Nadal - who knows? Nobody will be that surprised if Stan the Man, however, loses in the first few rounds.

Big Four, Top Four, Big Five, Big Three, we can debate the wording all we like. The fact is that we go into every big tournament for the rest of this year with Djokovic as a significant favourite and Andy Murray the next best bet, with the possibility of Federer being your #2 guy if we're talking about reasonably fast courts and three set matches. Even Nadal still has better odds of winning Wimbledon than Wawrinka and that will remain the case until Stan is able to appear in several consecutive semi finals and finals at Masters 1000 and Grand Slam level.

We love to debate this terminology in the short term but what matters in the present is what likelihood each man has of lifting the major trophies, which I have discussed above, and all history will remember is the number of trophies you've stuck your name on. But these are two very different kettles of fish and people tie themselves in knots trying to come up with definitive answers, usually whether Murray is truly a member of the "Big Four" or "Top Four", when the truth is clear if you're willing to separate the "who's going to win next week?" context from the "who will we still be talking about the most in 15 years" context.

 

[El Dude]

Actually, I think we will be talking about Andy Murray in 15 years, or at least as much as we talk about Jim Courier or Guillermo Vilas. That's how I see Murray relative to the elite of today - he's the next guy down. So you have:

Connors/Borg/McEnroe - Vilas
Sampras/Agassi - Courier
Federer/Nadal/Djokovic - Murray

I don't really see a comparable player to McEnroe/Lendl or Wilander/Edberg/Becker.

Now here's an interesting comp: Lendl and Djokovic. Ivan was only a year younger than McEnroe although didn't win a Slam until Mac's last great year, 1984. Lendl then dominated as McEnroe waned.

So you have:

Borg: McEnroe : Lendl :: Federer : Nadal : Djokovic

They aren't exact, but there's a similarity of relationship and rise and fall. Just as Mac took the mantle of greatest player from Bjorn, so too did Rafa - and both had a seminal match at Wimbledon that saw the tidal shift: 1981 and 2008.

Again, not exact - but it is interesting how the cycles of history repeat and play out in different ways.

 

[Fiero425]

^That's a fair point Dude. Just strikes me as odd that we can miss out a 3 timer, and include some one slam wonders. Nobody's even mentioned Safin!

:cover :nono Why is this so difficult to understand? I'm talking about referring to 4 players of each era regardless of their record! BTW, no one loves and respects Safin more than me! I've already giving him props saying he was probably the most talented player with every stroke in the book, massive power, and delicate touch! His only deficiency obviously was between the ears! Of course people with less than impressive records will be acknowledged as being the public's choice as members of the "Big 4!" Gerulaitus had no weapons, but he was still elevated to elite status even though he almost never won a match from Connors, McEnroe, or Borg! :angel:

 

[El Dude]

So you're talking about perception, not reality - as in the four most visible, popular players rather than the best players. I get that. I also think it is valid to discuss how that perception didn't always equate with reality. I was just a kid during Gerulaitis's career, so don't remember how he was perceived. But clearly Vilas was the better player.

 

[Fiero425]

Actually, I think we will be talking about Andy Murray in 15 years, or at least as much as we talk about Jim Courier or Guillermo Vilas. That's how I see Murray relative to the elite of today - he's the next guy down. So you have:

Connors/Borg/McEnroe - Vilas
Sampras/Agassi - Courier
Federer/Nadal/Djokovic - Murray

I don't really see a comparable player to McEnroe/Lendl or Wilander/Edberg/Becker.

Now here's an interesting comp: Lendl and Djokovic. Ivan was only a year younger than McEnroe although didn't win a Slam until Mac's last great year, 1984. Lendl then dominated as McEnroe waned.

So you have:

Borg: McEnroe : Lendl :: Federer : Nadal : Djokovic

They aren't exact, but there's a similarity of relationship and rise and fall. Just as Mac took the mantle of greatest player from Bjorn, so too did Rafa - and both had a seminal match at Wimbledon that saw the tidal shift: 1981 and 2008.

Again, not exact - but it is interesting how the cycles of history repeat and play out in different ways.

I've always thought the careers and populous feelings of Nole and Lendl were pretty much the same! There's a true lack of respect for their accomplishments even though the H2H is soon to turn around for all concerned! Federer and Nadal are thought of as GAWDS while Nole picks up the scraps even though he's the clear #1 player in the world! The press still flocked around McEnroe and Connors even though both were in decline! The exact same thing is happening with Nole while Federer still represented the tour at the top even when he dropped to #6 or #7 briefly! :nono :angel: :dodgy: :cover

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Who says Big Four are done?

Just a small change. They are Fed, Novak, Andy and Richard now. :snicker

 

[herios]

Who says Big Four are done?

Just a small change. They are Fed, Novak, Andy and Richard now. :snicker

Nadal took one year break of the Big 4, he thought it was too much

 

[Fiero425]

Who says Big Four are done?

Just a small change. They are Fed, Novak, Andy and Richard now. :snicker

Nadal took one year break of the Big 4, he thought it was too much

This is the biggest break with the Nadal; barely hanging in the top 10! :angel: :dodgy: uzzled

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, are the big four over?

As per the ranking chart that will be released after RG16,

BIG Four = TOP Four

.......... and this thread was created an year ago :cover