Who is the true goat in Tennis ?

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Looking at sheer winning percentage throughout their playing history, Novak has won 88% of matches throughout the Open era. That’s ridiculous.
Djokovic also has the most consecutive wins in the Open era of all time, at 55 wins. All during the Big 4 era. That’s just dominance- beating Nadal, Federer and Murray multiple times during that stretch.
People can continue to dislike him for coming in and spoiling the romantic Nadal-Federer rivalry, but this guy is going to literally say a big Stuff you and go top of them both.
The term Big 4 should be retired. Might as well make it Big 5 and include Wawrinka if 3 majors is the criteria.
 

Flameboy

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 1, 2010
6,308
4,330
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Chelsea
Looking at sheer winning percentage throughout their playing history, Novak has won 88% of matches throughout the Open era. That’s ridiculous.
Djokovic also has the most consecutive wins in the Open era of all time, at 55 wins. All during the Big 4 era. That’s just dominance- beating Nadal, Federer and Murray multiple times during that stretch.
People can continue to dislike him for coming in and spoiling the romantic Nadal-Federer rivalry, but this guy is going to literally say a big Stuff you and go top of them both.
He’s at about 83% (Nadal 83.2, Federer 82.1).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mcgarnacle

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 2, 2003
8,690
2,797
Inner West
AFL Club
Sydney
To be fair pretty sure Fed sits out quite a few Masters 1000 now compared to the others.
what's this got to do with anything? this is the total as it stands over their entire careers to date. fed started his career before the other 2, played more major tournaments than each of the other 2.
 

FreoRicci

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 22, 2011
13,004
11,409
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Washington Wizards
Federer announces he’s out for 4-6 months, might not play Wimbledon..
Next minute, COVID-19 comes along and might not have both French and Wimbledon...
Nadal and Djokovic could have a year off, and race against time to get it.
Roger, you sneaky ;)
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
23,855
8,791
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Major titles are the only metric that matters.
Nobody cared about counting majors until Sampras came along.

The term Big 4 should be retired. Might as well make it Big 5 and include Wawrinka if 3 majors is the criteria.
That displays a misunderstanding of what the term ‘Big 4’ was coined to mean.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
23,855
8,791
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Rubbish. Either way, it's clearly redundant.
The term ‘Big Four’ was coined long before either Djokovic or Murray were multi-Slam winners, and referred specifically to the quartet’s dominance of major tournaments and consequent stranglehold on the top 4 ranking positions - a record that remains unbroken.

Their subsequent achievements don’t really do anything to retrospectively change or invalidate the moniker.
 

PonsfordMagpie

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2013
5,851
10,326
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Chelsea
The Big 4 peak was in 2012 when all four won a slam each in the calendar year, but it ranges from 2008 to 2016.

Since 2017, it's been a big 3 dominance due to Murray's injury struggles.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The term ‘Big Four’ was coined long before either Djokovic or Murray were multi-Slam winners, and referred specifically to the quartet’s dominance of major tournaments and consequent stranglehold on the top 4 ranking positions - a record that remains unbroken.
If two of them hadn't won multiple majors then that merely underlines its silliness. How was it a "Big Four" if you had two guys, Federer and Nadal, standing alone as multiple major winners with 16 and 9 respectively?

More accurately, the Big Two became the Big Three from 2011 when Djokovic won three of the four majors. Those three - Nadal, Djokovic and Federer - are the all-time greats, but in the middle of that in 2012-16, Wawrinka and Murray chipped in for three majors each.

So if the premise was that they "dominated major tournaments" then that should include Wawrinka just as much as it includes Murray. They both won three majors and Wawrinka rose to No.3 in the world, and finished top 4 at the end of the year in 2014, 2015 and 2016. So it's either a Big Five or a Big Three. What's the case for including Murray and excluding Wawrinka?

Their subsequent achievements don’t really do anything to retrospectively change or invalidate the moniker.
Well, if you look at the big picture, you've got three guys well clear of the field, with Murray and Wawrinka on the tier below.

To continue referring to the "Big Four" doesn't really match the record, does it?
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The Big 4 peak was in 2012 when all four won a slam each in the calendar year, but it ranges from 2008 to 2016.
If you include Murray, why not include Wawrinka? They both won three majors. Wawrinka finished top 4 at the end of 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Big picture, it's Big Three with Murray and Wawrinka on the tier below.

Over the journey, neither Murray nor Wawrinka deserve to be bracketed with Djokovic, Nadal and Federer.
 

PonsfordMagpie

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2013
5,851
10,326
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Chelsea
If you include Murray, why not include Wawrinka? They both won three majors. Wawrinka finished top 4 at the end of 2014, 2015 and 2016.

Big picture, it's Big Three with Murray and Wawrinka on the tier below.
I love Stan but Murray's achieved far more than him if we measure all their achievements, not just slams.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
I love Stan but Murray's achieved far more than him if we measure all their achievements, not just slams.
But slams are the key metric and they both won three.

There's much less distance between Murray and Wawrinka than there is between them and the Big Three.

How do you look at this list below and make the case for "Big Four"?

Federer 20
Nadal 19
Djokovic 17
Murray 3
Wawrinka 3

Big Four is an obvious misnomer. You've got a Big Three who are all-time greats, while Murray and Wawrinka did well to win three majors each. That's clearly a more accurate characterisation of what happened.
 
Last edited:

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
23,855
8,791
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
If two of them hadn't won multiple majors then that merely underlines its silliness. How was it a "Big Four" if you had two guys, Federer and Nadal, standing alone as multiple major winners with 16 and 9 respectively?

More accurately, the Big Two became the Big Three from 2011 when Djokovic won three of the four majors. Those three - Nadal, Djokovic and Federer - are the all-time greats, but in the middle of that in 2012-16, Wawrinka and Murray chipped in for three majors each.

So if the premise was that they "dominated major tournaments" then that should include Wawrinka just as much as it includes Murray. They both won three majors and Wawrinka rose to No.3 in the world, and finished top 4 at the end of the year in 2014, 2015 and 2016. So it's either a Big Five or a Big Three. What's the case for including Murray and excluding Wawrinka?

Well, if you look at the big picture, you've got three guys well clear of the field, with Murray and Wawrinka on the tier below.

To continue referring to the "Big Four" doesn't really match the record, does it?
Again, you miss the point spectacularly.

For five years straight Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal held the top 4 places in the rankings and swapped #1 between them. They did it by collectively dominating the latter stages of virtually every major tournament - Slam and M1000 - in that period.

It is by far the longest tenure that 4 players have shared a stranglehold on major tournaments and the top of the rankings, and is why the collective title was gained currency and has proved so enduring.

Wawrinka won 3 slams, but he did nothing at M1000s and as such never achieved the heights or consistency that earned the 4 their moniker.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Again, you miss the point spectacularly.
I doubt it. More likely, you're bending over backwards to impose an artificial, unjustified frame around the events.

For five years straight Federer, Murray, Djokovic and Nadal held the top 4 places in the rankings and swapped #1 between them. They did it by collectively dominating the latter stages of virtually every major tournament - Slam and M1000 - in that period.
And how many majors did Murray win during that period?

It is by far the longest tenure that 4 players have had a stranglehold on major tournaments and the top of the rankings, and is why the collective title was gained currency and has proved so enduring.
It doesn't bear scrutiny. People using a dumb phrase doesn't mean it's not dumb. Or in this case, at odds with the facts.

Wawrinka won 3 slams, but he did nothing at M1000s and as such never obtained the consistency that earned the 4 their moniker.
So Wawrinka won as many majors as Murray. That's why the Big Four is a misnomer.

It's a Big Three, which includes the all-time greats who won 20, 19 and 17 majors respectively. And Murray and Wawrinka did well to win three majors each in the middle of that. Calling it a Big Four elevates Murray far above his actual record.
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
23,855
8,791
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I doubt it. More likely, you're bending over backwards to impose an artificial, unjustified frame around the events.

And how many majors did Murray win during that period?

It doesn't bear scrutiny. People using a dumb phrase doesn't mean it's not dumb. Or in this case, at odds with the facts.

So Wawrinka won as many majors as Murray. That's why the Big Four is a misnomer.

It's a Big Three, which includes the all-time greats who won 20, 19 and 17 majors respectively. And Murray and Wawrinka did well to win three majors I in the middle of that. Calling it a Big Four elevates Murray far above his actual record.
The Big Four is a colloquialism that was coined in the media around 2009 to describe the state of professional men’s tennis at that time. I have explained to you the historical context of why the term exists, how it was used, and why it had so much currency.

If you would like to pretend all that never happened and that the term means something else, I guess that is your prerogative. Seems a bit of an odd way to spend your time, that’s all.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
The Big Four is a colloquialism that was coined in the media around 2009 to describe the state of professional men’s tennis at that time.
If it was coined in 2009, as you claim, then that was patently ridiculous, wasn't it?

Andy Murray didn't win his first major until 2012. But sure, "Big Four". You merely reinforce my point that this term, even if it was used, was a misnomer that unduly elevated Murray above his actual record.

I have explained to you the historical context of why the term exists, how it was used, and why it had so much currency.
Yeah wow, the "historical context"! Thanks for the deep dive in the "history"!

I've explained to you why it was dumb at the time and makes even less sense in hindsight, in light of the big picture.

You've got three guys who have won 20, 19 and 17 major titles respectively. And then Murray and Wawrinka with 3 each. There's no "Big Four".

If you would like to pretend all that never happened, I guess that is your prerogative.
I don't dispute that some people used the term "Big Four". People say stupid shit. The mere fact some people said it doesn't automatically give it credibility or make it an accurate characterisation of the pecking order. The question is whether the term Big Four is operative. It isn't.

Seems a bit of an odd way to spend your time, that’s all.
So now your argument is about how I spend my time? That's a weird pivot.

You responded to my post with an air of unwarranted confidence. I'm correcting you.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Don’t take this the wrong way, but are you autistic?
That's poor form.

Trying to retrospectively redefine a term that was coined and popularised over a decade ago is really weird behaviour.
I'm not redefining anything. I'm telling you why it's a dumb term and a misnomer.

And your response is what? "Nah but people said it."
 

Caesar

Ex-Huckleberry
Mar 3, 2005
23,855
8,791
Tombstone, AZ
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
It’s a perfectly fine term for describing what it was coined to describe.

You’re upset that people don’t use it to mean what you think it should mean, which is silly.
 

Sweet Jesus

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 20, 2014
14,836
11,517
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
It’s a perfectly fine term for describing what it was coined to describe.
It "describes" a state of play that didn't exist.

It's a misnomer because there was no Big Four. That's even more obvious in hindsight.

You’re upset that people don’t use it to mean what you think it should mean, which is silly.
See above.

There's no Big Four.

There's a Big Three, with Wawrinka and Murray a long way behind.
 
Last edited:

Top Bottom