I appreciate some of you may have seen this already, but there's a pretty phenomenal Wikipedia article about the Big Four (need I explain who, exactly?), with various statistics and tables about how much domination the men's game has been under over the last, well, 10 years, one could say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_(tennis)
Even the most glaringly obvious stat - that 39 of the last 43 Grand Slams have been won by one of Fed, Nadal, Djoker or Murray - it's pretty astounding. But there's far more to it than that.
Just thought it was a good read for those of you who are interested.
Actually the one area really that Andy hasn't separated himself from 'the rest' is Grand Slam titles.
His Olympic Gold, his general Slam record ( finals, SFs, QFs including successive to that stage ) and Masters record including titles, and leading GB to Davis Cup triumph takes him into a totally different league and deservedly into the "Big Four".
Re Slam titles, Stan's won 2 Slam titles as well. The Slam stat that really stands out is that 37 of the last 43 Grand Slams have been won by just 3 men.
A slight pity for Andy is that in time Slam titles will no doubt go down in history much more than Slam consistency and Masters records, so in the wider world will history down the line think more of a "Big 4" or a "Big 3" from this era ? Though such has been GB's record for 70 odd years, within this country at least he will be a tennis legend for a long long time to come.
Andy's overall record remains tremendous though, deserving his place in the 'Big 4'. Just not to be greedy, but it would be great if he could just add 2 or 3 more Slam title before he's done to further cement his place in tennis history.
-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 16th of December 2015 02:11:06 AM
Andy has been most unfortunate in being a precise contemporary of Djokovic as otherwise pretty sure his GS title tally would be more by now; here's hoping he can pick up an AO title next :)
For me, the issues is less whether Mr Murray belongs in "The Big Four" than whether it should perhaps be considered, over the last two years, as the "Big Five" Wawrinka pre-2014 was clearly one of the crowd. Wawrinka in 2014/15 clearly belongs with the major players.
I think the key thing is not just what they've accomplished but the gap between what they've accomplished and what everyone else has. Berdych is the next one down, and apart from the DC, he has one Masters title and one GS final (and some Masters finals). Ferrer has one Masters title, one GS final, one year-end win, and 6 Masters finals (if anyone should feel aggrieved, it's he and Tsonga) Nishikori? One GS final, one Masters final. Gasquet? 3 Masters finals. Tsonga? Probably the best "other" record - 2 Masters, 1 GS final, 1 WTF final, and two Masters finals.
Murray's 2 GS titles, 6 GS finals, 11 Masters Titles and 5 more Masters finals + the Olympic gold is clearly in a different league ... even if he's not got quite as many Slams/ Masters as the other three (but only he and Nadal have the gold ....)
Wawrinka's record is far less impressive than all of those mentioned if not for those bloody slams. He's nowhere near consistent enough to make it a 'big five'. Right place, right time. That Australian Open final was an utter farce.
The AO final was odd - but the SF wasn't. And this year's Roland Garros wasn't either. It's true that outside the Slams he's less consistent than the others. But I do think that it's hard to argue that he doesn't belong with the major players at present. In 2014 and 2015, he's managed two Slams, a Masters, two 500s, and the Davis Cup, and been ranked 3 or 4 in the world for most of the time.
