Wimbledon 2015

Memnoch

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Well, when it was named the big 4 those 4 guys were the ones dominating. Murray has a decent Masters record and at Slams he was nearly always in the SF or Final.

From Wimbledon 2004 until Murray won the US Open in 2012 there were only 2 of those 32 slams not won by Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. Depending on how you measure your Big 4 I would argue whether Murray should be included or not. I'm pretty sure the name came about because they were the Top 4 players for so long and nobody else got anywhere near them, ranking wise.

The big four is a fabrication of a sycophantic British press and their desperate need to overhype British sports stars. Murray is a good player but he's always been vastly overrated. Was hilarious to hear Roddick tell it like it is. Could practically hear the lump in his co-commentators throats during the Federer match.

Murray is not in the same category as these all time greats and it's an insult to them and their tremendous achievements to pretend that he is.

the_monkey

Memnoch wrote: »

The big four is a fabrication of a sycophantic British press and their desperate need to overhype British sports stars. Murray is a good player but he's always been vastly overrated. Was hilarious to hear Roddick tell it like it is. Could practically hear the lump in his co-commentators throats during the Federer match.

Murray is not in the same category as these all time greats and it's an insult to them and their tremendous achievements to pretend that he is.

haha nice one ... or they could include Wavrinka and call it the big 5

BBC always do a great montage at the end of each Wimbledon ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/33501046

loyatemu

Memnoch wrote: »

Murray is not in the same category as these all time greats and it's an insult to them and their tremendous achievements to pretend that he is.

Neither is Stan in the same category as Murray who has 3 times as many ATP titles and 4 times as many Slam semi and final appearances.

Big 3.5 is probably a bit more accurate. Even the most ardent Murray admirer wouldn't claim he's in the same all-time league as the other 3.

walshb

loyatemu wrote: »

Neither is Stan in the same category as Murray who has 3 times as many ATP titles and 4 times as many Slam semi and final appearances.

Big 3.5 is probably a bit more accurate. Even the most ardent Murray admirer wouldn't claim he's in the same all-time league as the other 3.

I'd argue that Stan is a lot closer to Murray than Murray is to Nole and Fed and Nadal.

loyatemu

walshb wrote: »

I'd argue that Stan is a lot closer to Murray than Murray is to Nole and Fed and Nadal.

not based on results over the last 7 years he isn't, which is where the whole "Big 4" thing has come from. Murray has consistently been in the top 4 over that period (apart from when he was having surgery) - Stan has only reached that level in the last 18 months, and not consistently. If we're talking about current form then Stan is up there, but Nadal is not.

walshb

loyatemu wrote: »

not based on results over the last 7 years he isn't, which is where the whole "Big 4" thing has come from. Murray has consistently been in the top 4 over that period (apart from when he was having surgery) - Stan has only reached that level in the last 18 months, and not consistently. If we're talking about current form then Stan is up there, but Nadal is not.

I am speaking more about recently. Stan and Murray are closer to each other than Murray is to Fed and Nole. Nadal has slumped.

loyatemu

walshb wrote: »

I am speaking more about recently. Stan and Murray are closer to each other than Murray is to Fed and Nole. Nadal has slumped.

Per the rankings, Murray is closer to Fed than Stan is to Murray:

Nole 13845
Rog 9665
Andy 7810
Stan 5790

walshb

loyatemu wrote: »

Per the rankings, Murray is closer to Fed than Stan is to Murray:

Nole 13845
Rog 9665
Andy 7810
Stan 5790

I understand the rankings, but for me it's more than that. There are other variables. He is closer to Stan in terms of GS wins and talent. It was usually the top 3, and Murray trailing them. He was never on an equal footing to them. Chasing them, but always a step or two behind.

loyatemu

walshb wrote: »

I understand the rankings, but for me it's more than that. There are other variables. He is closer to Stan in terms of GS wins and talent. It was usually the top 3, and Murray trailing them. He was never on an equal footing to them. Chasing them, but always a step or two behind.

Fair enough - I think Stan has excelled himself over the last couple of years, whereas Murray has generally under-achieved (8 Slam finals and only 2 wins).

walshb

loyatemu wrote: »

Fair enough - I think Stan has excelled himself over the last couple of years, whereas Murray has generally under-achieved (8 Slam finals and only 2 wins).

Sort of my point I guess. Stan is a success in terms of a non big 3/4 player. Murray is a letdown when compared to the top 3. A letdown when he's been lauded with them as a big 4. Murray is closer to the big 3 than Stan, but him and Stan are very close IMO.

Floppybits

loyatemu wrote: »

Fair enough - I think Stan has excelled himself over the last couple of years, whereas Murray has generally under-achieved (8 Slam finals and only 2 wins).

Well if you look at that record 8 slam finals you would have to say that he has earned the right to be classed in the big 4. How many finals has Stan competed in?

The problem with Stan is his inconsistency.