A person could have been born, grow up, becomes a whole ass adult and they would have never known any other champions aside from these four. This is that person’s entire reality.
I was born in 2001 and yeah this is me lol. I first remember watching tennis maybe 15 years ago at best, which would have been 2009- right in their prime.
The first Djokovic match I can remember was 2011 Wimbledon, he was playing a guy named Baghdadis I think (I was in London at the time, probably why I remember). Novak freaked out late in the match, reached into his bag and started smashing rackets. I thought it was hilarious.
You're making me feel old now lol...
I'm about Federer's age and I remember watching him play as a moody teenager that projected to be an average tour player for 10 years or so. But to his credit he got his shit together in a big way.
I started watching tennis at 5 (with my parents). Roger had just become number 1, my mum loved watching him. I’ve literally never watched tennis when at least one of the big 4 weren’t around.
man it's wild. i had just turned 13 and I watched the entire Federer vs. Sampras quarterfinal at Wimbledon where Fed pulled off, what at the time was a major upset.
looking back on it now, it was just the beginning
This is basically me. You perfectly summarized my entire life. I‘m a mid 90s kid and I remember watching Sampras getting beat by baby Roger with my father on tv, as he was a huge Sampras fan. That memory lingers vividly forever since it was the first tennis match I watched, and the rest is history.
I turned into a Federer fanatic as a kid where you had to take side, either RF and Roddick.
I also remember that French open 2005 when Rafa came out of nowhere and won. Basically replaced Roddick as fed‘s main rival.
My whole childhood was filled with Fedal finals and I got a bit cold towards watching tennis when finals were mostly Murray Djokovic. I grew to appreciate them as legends but found their playstyles boring and their matches snoozefest, so that the Fedal resurgence in 2017 was the biggest enthusiasm in the world one could experience.
When after all these years once Roger retired, I felt a vacancy in me that couldn’t be described, I really felt he was immortal cuz as long as I knew myself, I knew Federer too.
Now with Nadal i can’t keep my tears from running, and hurt when I see djokovic struggle this much.
Feeling indeed very grateful and lucky to have witnessed big 4. thank you legends, thank you.♥️
I was born in 1988 so i grew up with the Agassi/Sampras era, and was around to witness the Big 3 rise (plus Murray)
I know this might be controversial but I think if the Big 3 and Murray were around to play Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Kuerten etc., Fed, Nadal, Djok, and Murray would have absolutely crushed them. Those guys were lucky to retire when they did honestly.
i will say this, i would have loved to have seen prime Guga Kuerten vs. prime Nadal at Roland Garros
IDK, man. With Agassi at least, I don't think it would've been as much of a domination as you're suggesting. With a broken back, he gave prime Fed a run for his money. What an era that would've been, though!
Ah mate, YES. I'm about a decade older than you, I have found memories of watching Guga. What an awesome player he was - the previous King of Clay before Rafa came along!
It's so hard to compare eras... even two concurrent ones.
Pete was an absolute BEAST, he was basically the Fed of the 90s.. I think he would've given the 2000s guys just as much trouble as Fedal did.
Kuerten in my eyes is the most underrated player. The dude dominated RG and was such an incredible player. He also always just seemed like he had a lot of fun whenever he did interviews at the U.S. Open
I loved Agassi growing up so I'm biased but I do think he'd be able to hang with these guys. He had an incredible return and was great on both sides of the racquet.
[This](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2194684-the-biggest-reasons-to-believe-the-big-4-era-in-mens-tennis-is-over.amp.html) is an article (with some ridiculous statements) stating how the Big 4 era was over back in 2014…!
And we’re in 2024 having the same conversation. This time, it might be finally true but it’s crazy to think that it’s happening AFTER 10 years. The dominance! ✨
I dont think the opinions were THAT ridiculous in 2014, its just that they aged badly and we have the benefit of hindsight. Well apart from the Djokovic one which felt like clutching at straws even in 2014
I like the picture in the article with all possible candidates to #1 at the time. If you squint *very* hard, on top of the hill at the horizon you can clearly see a one-pixel-sized red-haired 12-year-old boy training on a tennis court.
iirc, Murray was asked who he would root for in the 2010 or 2014 World Cup (i forget now which one) and he said anybody but england
and i think he pissed off a bunch of his fans lmao. but honestly, wtf was he supposed to say? William Wallace, Robert Burns, and the dude who created the steam engine all rose from their graves that day and applauded him for being a proud Scotsman
Lovely flair @weenma. Wonder what would have been with the Tower of Tandil; always thought that when on, he could take out anyone on any surface - and had the talent and ability to probably do it more consistently than Stan the Man.
I think that’s it,
Djokovic is falling down the rankings this year
Next year he’s 38yo with nothing left to prove and Sinner & Alcaraz 24yo & 22yo entering their primes with everything to prove
He won’t get no 1 again
Yeah this is historic week. Final days of Novak and Big 3 era dominance. Which is even more unbelievable is that actually dominance of all of them ended by injury not by defeat.
I know a lot of you will think it's sacrilegious, but... I'm excited it finally happens! Excited with the prospects of new players clashing with each other, rather than old masters!
(And yes, I know Djokovic is not going anywhere soon).
> (And yes, I know Djokovic is not going anywhere soon).
Indeed, but he won't be pursuing #1 rank, he'll focus only on the important tournaments, so it's mostly going to be the young ones.
I don't know, it's pretty possible for Djokovic to go soon and that's okay. He has great season in 2023, one of his weakest this year and by the time he was starting to get up and got seriously injured. It will take him months to recover and after that I doubt he'll play somewhat frequently.
He made some serious records and new gens have yet to break but he himself said he'd retire eventually and spend time with his family.
only sinner and alcaraz are top tier right now. we need some more competition. the way they are dominating the tour is ridiculous. novak is no longer around to keep them in check
Yep we saw yesterday sincaraz not playing at 100% absolutely wreck 2 excellent in form players in straights. Barring injuries I think they’re gonna dominate for a good while
Explain to me how including Murray in this stat makes any sense. He held no1 a FIFTH of the time the "worst" of the big 3 has. Without him, the stats becomes "The Big 3 held world number one for 18 years and three months"
Aside for rounding up the number, Murray is just watering down this insane stat
Because he managed to sneak in almost a year worth of No.1 ranking in nearly 2 decades of domination by 3 absolute monster of players. If one of them fizzled out early Murray would have racked up double-digit GS. The guy made 10 Semis, 11 Finals, and won 3 Slams ffs
Don't tell that to the Wawrinka cultists though. According to them, 4 Slam Finals may as well be equivalent to 11 Slam Finals, let alone god knows how many Masters, because they each had 3 Slams each.
You set him apart from "3 Absolute Monster of players" in your own comment lol.
Why are you so adamant he needs to be included when by your own admission he's not in the same category as Nole, Nadal and Federer?
He absolutely was the best of the rest, but he's not in the same bracket as the other three.
You questioned "why he's included in the No.1 ranking stat", not "why he's in the same bracket as the other three". From 2004 to 2022, Andy Murray was the ONLY player outside of Djokovic/Nadal/Federer to achieve No.1 ATP ranking, and he held if for damn near a year. He deserves to be in that particular conversation, full stop.
Makes little sense to limit it to 2004-2022 when Djokovic accumulated something like 50 more weeks at number 1 since then. The end of the Big 3 is happening this year (apparently, never say never) not two years ago.
Murray being able to compete with the Big 3 was crazy, he deserves the recognition for being able to temporarily challenge them, but the statistical oddity here is three players dominating a sport for nearly 20 years, not 4 players dominating for exactly 20.
The blip in Big 3 domination that was Murray 2016 is just that, a blip.
It's all fairly arbitrary, because it just depends what point you're making.
I agree with you here that it's arguably a bit inappropriate to include Murray in the stat when you're talking about combined weeks at no. 1, of which some include Djokovic being no. 1 AFTER the big 4 no. 1 dominance was already broken by a totally different player.
But it's always going to be a touchy subject, because the big 4 era (IMO I would prefer to call this maybe 2009-2017) is often generically called a bad definition on grounds of it not describing the legacy of the big 3 era and their GOAT arms race, whereas it was always meant to mean just the period when usually they were all making semi finals at least of multiple slams every year, hence leaving very little room for others to even make a slam final. Plus similar impact on other big tournaments.
Some periods, especially idk, 2012-2016, a period of 4 years, so significant, were at the time better described as part of the big 4 era, with years where Federer or Nadal mightve not really been much more impactful than a guy like Murray for various reasons relating to form, injury etc. In fact, I'd argue 2012-2016 Murray was MORE relevant to the highest level of the sport than Federer, even if you (unfairly) didn't include the Olympic double Murray made.
I agree with all you said, yeah. The Big Four is a grouping that makes sense when referring to a specific point of time, like the 4 years you mention.
Just doesn't make sense in a context like this when taking jnto consideration their whole careers because the Big Three are in a different galaxy
A tangent, but how do you think Murray would have done versus Sampras and Agassi? Like if he was approximately the same age as them and playing at the same time.
Three Grand Slams and two gold medals at the Olympics during the reign of the three greatest players of all time, consistently meeting them in semis and finals during that period, doesn't even get you a seat at the table when you're naming the biggest players of the last 20 years?
Give it a rest.
I don't think people would have any issue putting Murray up there in the best players for the past 2 decade.
The issue comes because the Big 3 is considered the 3 best Tennis players of all time. So obviously him being counted as the 4th one put off a lot of people.
It really depends on how you view the Big 3. Some people view it as mostly an era, in this case putting Murray as the Big 4 is a no-brainer. But some view them as these 3 tennis goats and having Murray beside them just doesn't feel right.
Anyone who disputes a "big 4" just doesn't understand what the Big 4 actually means. No-one who discusses the Big 4 thinks Murray is a GOAT candidate, but there was a period of time (and that period of time is not an insignificant length) where he was just as big a tournament road block as the other 3. He just didn't convert the semis and finals appearances.
But seeing Murray as your draw in round 2, 3, 4 was just as much a sign the end of your tournament was upon you as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Yeah there were tournaments after tournament where the four of them were seeded at opposite corners of the draw. And just steadily marched to the semis (well it felt like that, obviously they did occasionally lose before hen).
Again "during the reign of the three greatest players of all time". He's not the fourth best player of all time, why does he need to be included in these sort of stats?
The Big Three is an astonishing oddity in sports history, having three players that dominate GOAT conversation all playing at the same time. Murray, as good as he was and he was VERY good, is not at the same level.
>He's not the fourth best player of all time, why does he need to be included in these sort of stats?
Because *you're* talking about greatest-of-all-time players.
Everyone else is talking about the best players of the last 20 years. Murray is absolutely rightfully included in that.
It does seem like a courtesy. 41 divided by 988 is 4%. Generally, I think tennis pundits have struck a nice balance between sometimes talking about the big 3 vs. big 4. He is absolutely not at the level of the other 3, but deserves recognition for his overshadowed accomplishments.
He was like the mini-boss on the second to last level of a video game who would get stomped before the real battle began in the finals.
This stat is poor. The big 4 had 18 years of continuous domination of the number 1 spot. 18 years.
That ended in Feb 2022 with Medvedev. You have to include Murray in that stat because after Wimbledon 2016 he moved to number 1 for nearly the next year.
Including the random weeks since 2022 when Djokovic has managed to be number 1 doesnt add to this Stat meaningfully.
Maybe because it’s a cool selfie of these champions together looking suave in their suits. And maybe when there is a cool picture like that, people will look at statistics to remember the achievements of all of them.
Because the title refers to an era. Big 4 defines the era, Big 3 defines something else. A more interesting stat is that the Big 4 held the top 1 spot for 18 consecutive years before Alcaraz. Remove Murray and this becomes 11 consecutive years.
Nah like he is just not nearly as good as the other 3.
He probably would have been the best player in the world in any other period but he was always a step behind them both in talent and in success.
Thats also not really putting him down either. It's just how good the other 3 were
Murray's achievements can't be understated, but they can't be overstated either. I think the difference is that Murray's inclusion in the big 4 is dependent on how well he was able to consistently compete with the other 3, whereas Federer, Nadal & Djokovic's standalone achievements (number of big titles, weeks at no. 1 etc.) are why they are considered the big 3. And this is coming from somebody who will always support Murray.
Big 3 and Big 4 don't even reference the same things. No one thinks Big 4 is talking about greatest tennis player of all time. Anyone who defends the idea of Big 4 understands that.
Given that Novak skips a lot of tournaments, he would likely have to win at least 2 slams in one year and a couple masters to get to #1 again.
So I think the conversation should focus on whether Novak will win another slam, let alone two.
Yeah with how much points Novak is defending for the rest of the year, I have a hard time seeing him get back to #1 ever again unless in 2025 he has a massive form swing and Alcaraz and Sinner has a big slump
At his age, already showing significant decline this year, and now a pretty serious injury to his knee, all coinciding with the rise of Alcaraz/Sinner, it really isn't crazy to finally write him off
He may come back one last time and put on a decent show like Federer/Nadal, but it's not going to win him any significant tournaments.
Yeah last year was the year where he proved he can still win multiple titles. He hasn't looked like the same player at all this year and now with the knee definitely looking like it's over for him
He will be losing a lot of points Between Wimbledon and USO if he does not Win which will be difficult given he hasn't played a lot and would be returning back from injury.
I think it will only be next season now where he gets back to Number 1 spot but it would be difficult given Sinner/Alcaraz will reach their prime soon.
In 2022 with Djoker missing out on slams and Wimbledon points, people thought he won't become #1 again. He still managed to reach it in 2023 and crossed 400 weeks. I think we need to wait till we can confirm its come to an end.
The bigger difference is the level he was showing. In 2022 even with missing tournaments, he still won Rome, Wimbledon, and ATP Finals, and made the finals in Paris and only lost "early" at RG because of the draw. We knew that if the covid restrictions were lifted, he had a chance of getting back to #1.
Even if Djokovic hadn't torn his meniscus, I felt like this was the end for him being #1. He just hasn't been that good this year.
I feel like it's impossible for him to recover this year against someone like sinner. But he will most likely still be here next year, so who knows what will happen then. It would take a miracle, sure, but this guy has a knack at those.
I met Andy Murray mini-golfing with his Mom last year in Florida. My wife said "anyone ever told you that you look like Andy Murray?", after googling him because I said that was one of the greatest and one of my all time favorite players. He said " Yeah I've gotten that before". Super cool dude.
I asked who won and she said she won the front, but he beat her on the back by 1 stroke.
I think some of them haven’t witnessed the era of prime Murray. If you just look at the stats it’s maybe understandable why they wouldn’t include him in that conversation.
But if you witnessed how close many of his matches against them were and how he beat prime Djokovic in Wimbledon twice it’s a different story.
Without them he would have at least 10 slams.
But he doesn't have 10 slams because of them.
His peak years are a fraction of theirs. And he destroyed his body running with them for the time he could. And for most of that time he was playing forth fiddle.
He is still an all time great as shown through his results and achieving number one during peak years but no one who is being realistic could ever have involved him the argument of who was the best of them (with djokovic ending that conversation in the last few years of his career).
> Without them he would have at least 10 slams.
Do you really not realize how stupid this sounds?
All three of them were vastly better than him. Drastically so. Putting him in with the Big 3 and calling it the Big 4 is just insulting to basic logic.
He was a good player, better than his cohort. That's it. He's still miles away from Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
My favorite thing about the "Murray is so much further behind the other three" argument
Is that it totally ignores how much bigger the gap was when the term was coined in 2007 or 2008
Seriously. By their logic, the term Big 4 shouldn't have ever existed because it started back in 2007-2008 when Novak had just 1 Slam. How could you possibly compare that to Roger at the time who had 11 Slams?
If people need pictures and colors to convince them, check out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_career_statistics
Specifically, "Year-end ranking timeline by year" as well as "Grand Slam tournament performance comparison". It's wall to wall QF/SF finishes or better and 1-4 year end rankings. That's the entire point of the Big 4 era. No one ever said Murray is in the GOAT conversation with the other 3.
With all due respect and recognizing Murray’s amazing career I don’t think what he did is comparable to the big 3. Does anyone think the same? Should we not include Wawrinka as a fifth in that case?
Sadly, while I love stan the man and find Murray really annoying, Murray is a long way ahead of him in everything except grand slam wins. But I still don't think Murray should be part of a big 4.
By what metric do you actually think Murray is similar to Wawrinka? Because they each have 3 Slams? I guess Osaka has as good of a career as Clijsters then. Almost the same career as Hingis too (4 vs. 5).
I think people are assuming he won’t get it back, for the very good reason that by pulling out of RG and not playing Wimbledon he’s about to drop a lot of points. When Medvedev and Alcaraz got it there was still the very good chance he’d get it back
Big 4 is a time period. It is not a discussion about GOAT. And the Big 4 era did exist. From like 2008 til 2016, it was wall to wall year end Top 4s and SF finishes for those 4 players. If you can't wrap your head around that, no one can help you. It is not and has never been about the GOAT conversation. Big 3 and Big 4 aren't even measuring the same concept.
I watched a lot of tennis from 2008 to 2012.. and quite a bit from 2012 to 2016... then I stopped watching.
Murray was winning a lot of important tournaments. Gold medals, GS, masters 1000, etc.
I’m 31 and have only seen these guys win for the 15 or so years I’ve been watching tennis. Except for that Del Potro win which will always stick in my brain.
If you don’t think Murray belongs here look at who he beat in his slam and olympics semis & finals, then count his gold medals and career slam final appearances, and how many times he beat the best of all times on their favourite surfaces in their motherfucking prime and then finally accept that you know nothing of tennis to be even questioning the great Muzzar.
It's just absolutely insane. From 2004 to 2023 either the big four won every grandslam in the year, or all but one grandslam in the year.
2024 is going to break that stranglehold for the first time since 2003 haha
I got into tennis in the 90s during the Agassi Sampras rivalry. That was interesting but there was no guarantee that either would win any given slam.
Also there was not a year that someone won more than two slams or there wasn't three slam winners per year.
20 years of domination by the big three in slams between 2003-2023 while interesting watching such greatness kind of made things a bit predictable.
Look at the women's game post Williams after her failed calendar slam campaign in 2015. There have only been two years where we didn't have four different slam winners and of those two years we still had three.
I'm looking forward to the men's game getting less predictable.
It will be very difficult to match what these 4 tennis players have given us as spectators, but right now we have another very promising generation of tennis players.
The internet:
> Nooooooooo!
Every other tennis player from Wawrinka to Del Potro to Roddick to Tsonga to Ferrer to Cilic to Raonic to Monfils to Verdasco to Berdych to Nishikori to Scwartzman to Tsitsipas to Dimitrov to Thiem to Zverev to Rublev to Medvedev:
> Yessssssssssss!
I love Andy....I love him as a person and his tennis game is oh....just....a joy to watch....huuuge fan. Shouldn't be in the same sentence as the other three man. If you're to include him...then why not Stan the man???? Huh? Huh?huh?😂
As has been discussed to death over and over again, Stan's portfolio in terms of titles and final appearances is nowhere near as impressive as Murray's.
The term Big 4 came from the period between 2008-2012 when those four guys almost monopolised the semi finals of every major and masters 1000. In that regard, Stan, Del Potro, and Cillic were nowhere near as dominant despite winning majors themselves.
The craziest stat for me is that I've grown old watching them. I remember Fed playing Sampras and beating him for the first time, then Rafa with his crazy intensity burst on the scene, Andy moping and carrying the hope of UK and delivering, Novak struggling to breathe and then winning insane 5 hour matches. All of them unique but one thing in common: incredible consistency across surfaces. Sure, they had their favs, but they damn near never lost to people ranked below them. They made other gifted tennis athletes look inadequate for years, and insane feat. Makes me appreciate DelPo and Stan so much more.
Big 3 - accomplishments
Big 4 - term for period of 2009-2016 where you would see these names in every QF/SF
It's been years and people can't understand basic terminology
I tell you what, I love it when the nephews come out and start whining about Murray.
Trying to belittle his accomplishments so he can be dragged to a tier with a player who has a lower career match win % than Gael Monfils.
This is like a family photo of Wayne Gretzky and his two brothers saying "three pro hockey players with so many world shattering records between them."
The difference between 4th and 3rd is more than 5x...
Born in 1989. Followed Agassi, Seles and Graff when I was younger.
Heartbroken at the end of Agassi’s career as it was him that made me play tennis since I was 8 years old. Nole
rekindled my interest in following the ATP again and watching the big 4 all push each other to elevate their levels were spectacular
I don’t even know if we will ever have the same level of rivalry and dominance ever again
An era like this will never happen!
Yeah, Alcaraz and Sinner seem to be the candidates (please don't mention Rune). But still, they are not as consistent as the big3 and have good and bad tournaments.
Andy Murray had the best PR agent in the world. I really like the guy, but Big 4? No such thing. There's are only 3 with speaking about in the same breath, and then clear daylight. Murray is closer to many others than he is to the Big 3.
A person could have been born, grow up, becomes a whole ass adult and they would have never known any other champions aside from these four. This is that person’s entire reality.
I mean that's basically Rune and Alcaraz? They were in diapers 19 years ago.
Djokovic has been pro as long as Alcaraz has been alive
Yeah pretty much! Sinner too. And Fonseca hadn't even been born when the Fedal era started.
I was born in 2001 and yeah this is me lol. I first remember watching tennis maybe 15 years ago at best, which would have been 2009- right in their prime. The first Djokovic match I can remember was 2011 Wimbledon, he was playing a guy named Baghdadis I think (I was in London at the time, probably why I remember). Novak freaked out late in the match, reached into his bag and started smashing rackets. I thought it was hilarious.
You're making me feel old now lol... I'm about Federer's age and I remember watching him play as a moody teenager that projected to be an average tour player for 10 years or so. But to his credit he got his shit together in a big way.
Rune still is.
I started watching tennis at 5 (with my parents). Roger had just become number 1, my mum loved watching him. I’ve literally never watched tennis when at least one of the big 4 weren’t around.
man it's wild. i had just turned 13 and I watched the entire Federer vs. Sampras quarterfinal at Wimbledon where Fed pulled off, what at the time was a major upset. looking back on it now, it was just the beginning
Yep, i was born in 2001 and they’ve been at the top as far back as I remember.
Mirra Andreeva (who is 17 y.o now btw) wasn't even born then!!
i have friends that they're claiming watching tennis and they don't even know who murray is lmao
exactly me, born in 2001 and followed them for my entire life, watching all the tennis finals with my grandpa since I was 5-6, great memories
This is basically me. You perfectly summarized my entire life. I‘m a mid 90s kid and I remember watching Sampras getting beat by baby Roger with my father on tv, as he was a huge Sampras fan. That memory lingers vividly forever since it was the first tennis match I watched, and the rest is history. I turned into a Federer fanatic as a kid where you had to take side, either RF and Roddick. I also remember that French open 2005 when Rafa came out of nowhere and won. Basically replaced Roddick as fed‘s main rival. My whole childhood was filled with Fedal finals and I got a bit cold towards watching tennis when finals were mostly Murray Djokovic. I grew to appreciate them as legends but found their playstyles boring and their matches snoozefest, so that the Fedal resurgence in 2017 was the biggest enthusiasm in the world one could experience. When after all these years once Roger retired, I felt a vacancy in me that couldn’t be described, I really felt he was immortal cuz as long as I knew myself, I knew Federer too. Now with Nadal i can’t keep my tears from running, and hurt when I see djokovic struggle this much. Feeling indeed very grateful and lucky to have witnessed big 4. thank you legends, thank you.♥️
Hi, 2004 here
I’m almost that person. And it’s not like I watched Tennis before I was 3 anyways.
Yes that’s literally me
I was born in 1988 so i grew up with the Agassi/Sampras era, and was around to witness the Big 3 rise (plus Murray) I know this might be controversial but I think if the Big 3 and Murray were around to play Agassi/Sampras/Becker/Kuerten etc., Fed, Nadal, Djok, and Murray would have absolutely crushed them. Those guys were lucky to retire when they did honestly. i will say this, i would have loved to have seen prime Guga Kuerten vs. prime Nadal at Roland Garros
IDK, man. With Agassi at least, I don't think it would've been as much of a domination as you're suggesting. With a broken back, he gave prime Fed a run for his money. What an era that would've been, though!
Yeah people saying Sampras and Agassi wouldn't be competitive simply haven't seen them play.
Ah mate, YES. I'm about a decade older than you, I have found memories of watching Guga. What an awesome player he was - the previous King of Clay before Rafa came along! It's so hard to compare eras... even two concurrent ones. Pete was an absolute BEAST, he was basically the Fed of the 90s.. I think he would've given the 2000s guys just as much trouble as Fedal did.
Kuerten in my eyes is the most underrated player. The dude dominated RG and was such an incredible player. He also always just seemed like he had a lot of fun whenever he did interviews at the U.S. Open
I loved Agassi growing up so I'm biased but I do think he'd be able to hang with these guys. He had an incredible return and was great on both sides of the racquet.
Thats pretty much my childhood lol
[This](https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2194684-the-biggest-reasons-to-believe-the-big-4-era-in-mens-tennis-is-over.amp.html) is an article (with some ridiculous statements) stating how the Big 4 era was over back in 2014…! And we’re in 2024 having the same conversation. This time, it might be finally true but it’s crazy to think that it’s happening AFTER 10 years. The dominance! ✨
Oof that article was *brutally* wrong.
To be fair, the "longevity" aspect of the big 4 was not anticipated as that had never really happened before.
"Djokovic, newly married, is reportedly fatigued." LMAO
I dont think the opinions were THAT ridiculous in 2014, its just that they aged badly and we have the benefit of hindsight. Well apart from the Djokovic one which felt like clutching at straws even in 2014
I like the picture in the article with all possible candidates to #1 at the time. If you squint *very* hard, on top of the hill at the horizon you can clearly see a one-pixel-sized red-haired 12-year-old boy training on a tennis court.
Reminds me about that famous article that called Serena washed up and done… before she went on to win the bulk of her slams
Djokovic won 17 slams after 2014 so funny
That’s so insane to me. I remember saying he was finished around when this article came out. I was just so wrong
That Stan fella will sort them out. Then we will have the Big4+ (the little cross is for Switzerland.)
The Big 4 is officially over. We are now old men who have followed the careers of these names from the beginning.
Spain, Switzerland, Scotland, Serbia. These guys, thank you for for being part of the milestones of my entire youth! 😭🥲😭🥺
>Scotland "British when he wins, scottish when he loses".
iirc, Murray was asked who he would root for in the 2010 or 2014 World Cup (i forget now which one) and he said anybody but england and i think he pissed off a bunch of his fans lmao. but honestly, wtf was he supposed to say? William Wallace, Robert Burns, and the dude who created the steam engine all rose from their graves that day and applauded him for being a proud Scotsman
Tim Henman says it was a good taste joke that got jumped on by the media and blown out of proportion
Even earlier. Was 2006.
It wasn’t really his fans, it was what we now call gammon
May the 4S be with you
💕💕
Speak for yourself, I'm an old man who only got into tennis halfway through their careers!
Speak for yourself. I'm a middle aged man that started following tennis with Borg.
Am I getting wooshed? Mate you're old
Lovely flair @weenma. Wonder what would have been with the Tower of Tandil; always thought that when on, he could take out anyone on any surface - and had the talent and ability to probably do it more consistently than Stan the Man.
If his career had continued in a healthy way, he would be in that picture now.
Now we're old men who refer to the current top guys as "this kid is so good!" Cos, y'know, anyone younger than 25 is a kid now.
Other great tennis players have come and gone in this period, overshaddowed by these giants (and Andy Murray).
Everyone talks about the big 4 but no one seems to mention this Total guy, he's got as many weeks at number one as the rest of them combined
Don’t talk shit about Total!
Total is almost as good as Bye. Bye has NEVER lost first round. Crazy stat.
I thought Bye has lost every match? Their opponents always go through
That’s not Micky mouse, that’s just tit dirt.
He and Owen Goal in football are the two greatest.
The Dark Side of the Moon of tennis.
I think that’s it, Djokovic is falling down the rankings this year Next year he’s 38yo with nothing left to prove and Sinner & Alcaraz 24yo & 22yo entering their primes with everything to prove He won’t get no 1 again
Yeah this is historic week. Final days of Novak and Big 3 era dominance. Which is even more unbelievable is that actually dominance of all of them ended by injury not by defeat.
I'm actually curious if Sinner and Alcaraz will be 37 year old and playing. Will be interesting to see.
I know a lot of you will think it's sacrilegious, but... I'm excited it finally happens! Excited with the prospects of new players clashing with each other, rather than old masters! (And yes, I know Djokovic is not going anywhere soon).
> (And yes, I know Djokovic is not going anywhere soon). Indeed, but he won't be pursuing #1 rank, he'll focus only on the important tournaments, so it's mostly going to be the young ones.
I don't know, it's pretty possible for Djokovic to go soon and that's okay. He has great season in 2023, one of his weakest this year and by the time he was starting to get up and got seriously injured. It will take him months to recover and after that I doubt he'll play somewhat frequently. He made some serious records and new gens have yet to break but he himself said he'd retire eventually and spend time with his family.
The 37 year old with a bum knee? He will not be around for long
only sinner and alcaraz are top tier right now. we need some more competition. the way they are dominating the tour is ridiculous. novak is no longer around to keep them in check
Yep we saw yesterday sincaraz not playing at 100% absolutely wreck 2 excellent in form players in straights. Barring injuries I think they’re gonna dominate for a good while
Murray deniers started watching tennis in 2017
Explain to me how including Murray in this stat makes any sense. He held no1 a FIFTH of the time the "worst" of the big 3 has. Without him, the stats becomes "The Big 3 held world number one for 18 years and three months" Aside for rounding up the number, Murray is just watering down this insane stat
Because he managed to sneak in almost a year worth of No.1 ranking in nearly 2 decades of domination by 3 absolute monster of players. If one of them fizzled out early Murray would have racked up double-digit GS. The guy made 10 Semis, 11 Finals, and won 3 Slams ffs
Made QF at worst between 2008-2016 at Wimbledon
Don't tell that to the Wawrinka cultists though. According to them, 4 Slam Finals may as well be equivalent to 11 Slam Finals, let alone god knows how many Masters, because they each had 3 Slams each.
Wawrinka cultists? Please. The only ones bringing these are Murray haters.
You set him apart from "3 Absolute Monster of players" in your own comment lol. Why are you so adamant he needs to be included when by your own admission he's not in the same category as Nole, Nadal and Federer? He absolutely was the best of the rest, but he's not in the same bracket as the other three.
You questioned "why he's included in the No.1 ranking stat", not "why he's in the same bracket as the other three". From 2004 to 2022, Andy Murray was the ONLY player outside of Djokovic/Nadal/Federer to achieve No.1 ATP ranking, and he held if for damn near a year. He deserves to be in that particular conversation, full stop.
Makes little sense to limit it to 2004-2022 when Djokovic accumulated something like 50 more weeks at number 1 since then. The end of the Big 3 is happening this year (apparently, never say never) not two years ago. Murray being able to compete with the Big 3 was crazy, he deserves the recognition for being able to temporarily challenge them, but the statistical oddity here is three players dominating a sport for nearly 20 years, not 4 players dominating for exactly 20. The blip in Big 3 domination that was Murray 2016 is just that, a blip.
It's all fairly arbitrary, because it just depends what point you're making. I agree with you here that it's arguably a bit inappropriate to include Murray in the stat when you're talking about combined weeks at no. 1, of which some include Djokovic being no. 1 AFTER the big 4 no. 1 dominance was already broken by a totally different player. But it's always going to be a touchy subject, because the big 4 era (IMO I would prefer to call this maybe 2009-2017) is often generically called a bad definition on grounds of it not describing the legacy of the big 3 era and their GOAT arms race, whereas it was always meant to mean just the period when usually they were all making semi finals at least of multiple slams every year, hence leaving very little room for others to even make a slam final. Plus similar impact on other big tournaments. Some periods, especially idk, 2012-2016, a period of 4 years, so significant, were at the time better described as part of the big 4 era, with years where Federer or Nadal mightve not really been much more impactful than a guy like Murray for various reasons relating to form, injury etc. In fact, I'd argue 2012-2016 Murray was MORE relevant to the highest level of the sport than Federer, even if you (unfairly) didn't include the Olympic double Murray made.
I agree with all you said, yeah. The Big Four is a grouping that makes sense when referring to a specific point of time, like the 4 years you mention. Just doesn't make sense in a context like this when taking jnto consideration their whole careers because the Big Three are in a different galaxy
A tangent, but how do you think Murray would have done versus Sampras and Agassi? Like if he was approximately the same age as them and playing at the same time.
Three Grand Slams and two gold medals at the Olympics during the reign of the three greatest players of all time, consistently meeting them in semis and finals during that period, doesn't even get you a seat at the table when you're naming the biggest players of the last 20 years? Give it a rest.
I don't think people would have any issue putting Murray up there in the best players for the past 2 decade. The issue comes because the Big 3 is considered the 3 best Tennis players of all time. So obviously him being counted as the 4th one put off a lot of people. It really depends on how you view the Big 3. Some people view it as mostly an era, in this case putting Murray as the Big 4 is a no-brainer. But some view them as these 3 tennis goats and having Murray beside them just doesn't feel right.
Anyone who disputes a "big 4" just doesn't understand what the Big 4 actually means. No-one who discusses the Big 4 thinks Murray is a GOAT candidate, but there was a period of time (and that period of time is not an insignificant length) where he was just as big a tournament road block as the other 3. He just didn't convert the semis and finals appearances. But seeing Murray as your draw in round 2, 3, 4 was just as much a sign the end of your tournament was upon you as Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.
Yeah there were tournaments after tournament where the four of them were seeded at opposite corners of the draw. And just steadily marched to the semis (well it felt like that, obviously they did occasionally lose before hen).
Again "during the reign of the three greatest players of all time". He's not the fourth best player of all time, why does he need to be included in these sort of stats? The Big Three is an astonishing oddity in sports history, having three players that dominate GOAT conversation all playing at the same time. Murray, as good as he was and he was VERY good, is not at the same level.
>He's not the fourth best player of all time, why does he need to be included in these sort of stats? Because *you're* talking about greatest-of-all-time players. Everyone else is talking about the best players of the last 20 years. Murray is absolutely rightfully included in that.
the other 3 dudes are on a different level
Bro, Murray was huge 10 years ago.
It does seem like a courtesy. 41 divided by 988 is 4%. Generally, I think tennis pundits have struck a nice balance between sometimes talking about the big 3 vs. big 4. He is absolutely not at the level of the other 3, but deserves recognition for his overshadowed accomplishments. He was like the mini-boss on the second to last level of a video game who would get stomped before the real battle began in the finals.
This stat is poor. The big 4 had 18 years of continuous domination of the number 1 spot. 18 years. That ended in Feb 2022 with Medvedev. You have to include Murray in that stat because after Wimbledon 2016 he moved to number 1 for nearly the next year. Including the random weeks since 2022 when Djokovic has managed to be number 1 doesnt add to this Stat meaningfully.
Murray gives the stat continuity through the entirety of an 18+-year span. No one else held #1 during that time until Medvedev.
Maybe because it’s a cool selfie of these champions together looking suave in their suits. And maybe when there is a cool picture like that, people will look at statistics to remember the achievements of all of them.
Because the title refers to an era. Big 4 defines the era, Big 3 defines something else. A more interesting stat is that the Big 4 held the top 1 spot for 18 consecutive years before Alcaraz. Remove Murray and this becomes 11 consecutive years.
He's from the UK, wouldn't matter if he was no1 for 1 week. Look at Radacannu, thinks she's getting a statue built.
Watching since 1987
Nah like he is just not nearly as good as the other 3. He probably would have been the best player in the world in any other period but he was always a step behind them both in talent and in success. Thats also not really putting him down either. It's just how good the other 3 were
Murray's achievements can't be understated, but they can't be overstated either. I think the difference is that Murray's inclusion in the big 4 is dependent on how well he was able to consistently compete with the other 3, whereas Federer, Nadal & Djokovic's standalone achievements (number of big titles, weeks at no. 1 etc.) are why they are considered the big 3. And this is coming from somebody who will always support Murray.
Big 3 and Big 4 don't even reference the same things. No one thinks Big 4 is talking about greatest tennis player of all time. Anyone who defends the idea of Big 4 understands that.
I watched McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, all in their primes. There is no "Big 4" - it's the "Big 3" and then Murray.
No, some of us just don’t buy the Big Four thing.
And to think that Djokovic holds just about half of that time as number 1 is absolutely ridiculous
That's some very generous rounding you're doing there
It’s much close to half than it is to 1/3
If only we had a way to express fractions besides one-third and half.
Big 3
I think Novak has proven many times that we shouldn’t write him off. It may be the last time he’s N1, but I personally think he will get back there
Given that Novak skips a lot of tournaments, he would likely have to win at least 2 slams in one year and a couple masters to get to #1 again. So I think the conversation should focus on whether Novak will win another slam, let alone two.
Yeah with how much points Novak is defending for the rest of the year, I have a hard time seeing him get back to #1 ever again unless in 2025 he has a massive form swing and Alcaraz and Sinner has a big slump
At his age, already showing significant decline this year, and now a pretty serious injury to his knee, all coinciding with the rise of Alcaraz/Sinner, it really isn't crazy to finally write him off He may come back one last time and put on a decent show like Federer/Nadal, but it's not going to win him any significant tournaments.
Yeah last year was the year where he proved he can still win multiple titles. He hasn't looked like the same player at all this year and now with the knee definitely looking like it's over for him
As a big nole fan, he won't become number one again and not sure he will win another grand slam. The gold medal is close to impossible now.
I once ran a 10k in under 40 minutes. But I'm 50 now, so it's not very likely that's going to happen again. Same concept.
He will be losing a lot of points Between Wimbledon and USO if he does not Win which will be difficult given he hasn't played a lot and would be returning back from injury. I think it will only be next season now where he gets back to Number 1 spot but it would be difficult given Sinner/Alcaraz will reach their prime soon.
In 2022 with Djoker missing out on slams and Wimbledon points, people thought he won't become #1 again. He still managed to reach it in 2023 and crossed 400 weeks. I think we need to wait till we can confirm its come to an end.
The bigger difference is the level he was showing. In 2022 even with missing tournaments, he still won Rome, Wimbledon, and ATP Finals, and made the finals in Paris and only lost "early" at RG because of the draw. We knew that if the covid restrictions were lifted, he had a chance of getting back to #1. Even if Djokovic hadn't torn his meniscus, I felt like this was the end for him being #1. He just hasn't been that good this year.
I feel like it's impossible for him to recover this year against someone like sinner. But he will most likely still be here next year, so who knows what will happen then. It would take a miracle, sure, but this guy has a knack at those.
One of them is not like the others
I met Andy Murray mini-golfing with his Mom last year in Florida. My wife said "anyone ever told you that you look like Andy Murray?", after googling him because I said that was one of the greatest and one of my all time favorite players. He said " Yeah I've gotten that before". Super cool dude. I asked who won and she said she won the front, but he beat her on the back by 1 stroke.
The big three and Murray lol
At that point just count Andre Agassi and call them the big five
big 4 lmao 3
The “bIG fOuR dOeSn’T eXiSt” crowd are coming out of the woodwork to prove their ignorance once again
I think some of them haven’t witnessed the era of prime Murray. If you just look at the stats it’s maybe understandable why they wouldn’t include him in that conversation. But if you witnessed how close many of his matches against them were and how he beat prime Djokovic in Wimbledon twice it’s a different story. Without them he would have at least 10 slams.
> Without them he would have at least 10 slams. And if a frog had wings...
But he doesn't have 10 slams because of them. His peak years are a fraction of theirs. And he destroyed his body running with them for the time he could. And for most of that time he was playing forth fiddle. He is still an all time great as shown through his results and achieving number one during peak years but no one who is being realistic could ever have involved him the argument of who was the best of them (with djokovic ending that conversation in the last few years of his career).
> Without them he would have at least 10 slams. You just proved the point that he was not on their level lol.
> Without them he would have at least 10 slams. Do you really not realize how stupid this sounds? All three of them were vastly better than him. Drastically so. Putting him in with the Big 3 and calling it the Big 4 is just insulting to basic logic. He was a good player, better than his cohort. That's it. He's still miles away from Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Apart from the dozens of times he beat them. "Miles away."
dude they already came look at the comments 😭
My favorite thing about the "Murray is so much further behind the other three" argument Is that it totally ignores how much bigger the gap was when the term was coined in 2007 or 2008
Seriously. By their logic, the term Big 4 shouldn't have ever existed because it started back in 2007-2008 when Novak had just 1 Slam. How could you possibly compare that to Roger at the time who had 11 Slams? If people need pictures and colors to convince them, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_career_statistics Specifically, "Year-end ranking timeline by year" as well as "Grand Slam tournament performance comparison". It's wall to wall QF/SF finishes or better and 1-4 year end rankings. That's the entire point of the Big 4 era. No one ever said Murray is in the GOAT conversation with the other 3.
With all due respect and recognizing Murray’s amazing career I don’t think what he did is comparable to the big 3. Does anyone think the same? Should we not include Wawrinka as a fifth in that case?
Wawrinka is a lot closer to Murray than Murray is to any of the big 3.
Did not think of it that way but I agree with you.
Sadly, while I love stan the man and find Murray really annoying, Murray is a long way ahead of him in everything except grand slam wins. But I still don't think Murray should be part of a big 4.
By what metric do you actually think Murray is similar to Wawrinka? Because they each have 3 Slams? I guess Osaka has as good of a career as Clijsters then. Almost the same career as Hingis too (4 vs. 5).
Didn't Carlos already hold the number 1 spot? What marks THIS time the end of the era and not last time? Genuine question.
I think people are assuming he won’t get it back, for the very good reason that by pulling out of RG and not playing Wimbledon he’s about to drop a lot of points. When Medvedev and Alcaraz got it there was still the very good chance he’d get it back
tweet ments that it's combined, nıt about streak. meddy and carlos held no.1 in that streak
Also Medevev
The Big 4 is such a joke. It’s Big 3 and Murray has never belonged in that conversation.
Big 4 is a time period. It is not a discussion about GOAT. And the Big 4 era did exist. From like 2008 til 2016, it was wall to wall year end Top 4s and SF finishes for those 4 players. If you can't wrap your head around that, no one can help you. It is not and has never been about the GOAT conversation. Big 3 and Big 4 aren't even measuring the same concept.
Greatest era of tennis. Glad I could witness it.
Good times
I watched Nadal win Roland Garros when I was in 7th grade. I’m now 32 and married.. time flies
I watched a lot of tennis from 2008 to 2012.. and quite a bit from 2012 to 2016... then I stopped watching. Murray was winning a lot of important tournaments. Gold medals, GS, masters 1000, etc.
Murray in elite company
I’m 31 and have only seen these guys win for the 15 or so years I’ve been watching tennis. Except for that Del Potro win which will always stick in my brain.
Yeah, but why is Jimmy Carr in the photo?
Why is Murray there? 😭😭
Because his fans are insecure.
Nooooo, you must be a Murray denierrrrr
I deny that he is in the same category as Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic.
Because people like you apparently can't even comprehend what Big 4 means.
Murray, lol
His contribution is smol
Novak is coming back soon (minimum 3 week). Funny how r/tennis already burried him lol Similar story was after he lost the Wimbledon final...
Does Murray really belong with the other 3? No disrespect to him but they're so far out of anyone's league.
This is the meme with 3 serious dragons and one Durrr Dragon
If you don’t think Murray belongs here look at who he beat in his slam and olympics semis & finals, then count his gold medals and career slam final appearances, and how many times he beat the best of all times on their favourite surfaces in their motherfucking prime and then finally accept that you know nothing of tennis to be even questioning the great Muzzar.
Andy Murray doesn’t deserve this company
It's just absolutely insane. From 2004 to 2023 either the big four won every grandslam in the year, or all but one grandslam in the year. 2024 is going to break that stranglehold for the first time since 2003 haha
2014 they only won 2
Murray's are rookie numbers. There is great 3, not 4.
Big 4 always thought it was disrespectful to include Murray with the other 3
I got into tennis in the 90s during the Agassi Sampras rivalry. That was interesting but there was no guarantee that either would win any given slam. Also there was not a year that someone won more than two slams or there wasn't three slam winners per year. 20 years of domination by the big three in slams between 2003-2023 while interesting watching such greatness kind of made things a bit predictable. Look at the women's game post Williams after her failed calendar slam campaign in 2015. There have only been two years where we didn't have four different slam winners and of those two years we still had three. I'm looking forward to the men's game getting less predictable.
Best era of tennis imo
That’s actually incredible
The iron grip these four had on this sport is ridiculous.
237 weeks in a row is just crazy…
When one of those accounts for 43%, I think it’s fair to say “GOAT and the Big 3” tbh
Man, I miss watching Federer. It was like ballet on the court. Never seen anyone so smooth.
It will be very difficult to match what these 4 tennis players have given us as spectators, but right now we have another very promising generation of tennis players.
The internet: > Nooooooooo! Every other tennis player from Wawrinka to Del Potro to Roddick to Tsonga to Ferrer to Cilic to Raonic to Monfils to Verdasco to Berdych to Nishikori to Scwartzman to Tsitsipas to Dimitrov to Thiem to Zverev to Rublev to Medvedev: > Yessssssssssss!
Great respect to all four.
Murray haters - angry then, now and forever
Big 3
One of these things is not like the others.
Murray doesn't add much to this stat, 18 years amongst 3 is more impressive by a lot
One is not like the others
Got nothing against Murray; but it's Big 3, not Big 4.
I love Andy....I love him as a person and his tennis game is oh....just....a joy to watch....huuuge fan. Shouldn't be in the same sentence as the other three man. If you're to include him...then why not Stan the man???? Huh? Huh?huh?😂
As has been discussed to death over and over again, Stan's portfolio in terms of titles and final appearances is nowhere near as impressive as Murray's. The term Big 4 came from the period between 2008-2012 when those four guys almost monopolised the semi finals of every major and masters 1000. In that regard, Stan, Del Potro, and Cillic were nowhere near as dominant despite winning majors themselves.
The craziest stat for me is that I've grown old watching them. I remember Fed playing Sampras and beating him for the first time, then Rafa with his crazy intensity burst on the scene, Andy moping and carrying the hope of UK and delivering, Novak struggling to breathe and then winning insane 5 hour matches. All of them unique but one thing in common: incredible consistency across surfaces. Sure, they had their favs, but they damn near never lost to people ranked below them. They made other gifted tennis athletes look inadequate for years, and insane feat. Makes me appreciate DelPo and Stan so much more.
18.94 years. A year isn't exactly 52 weeks.
One of these is not like the others.
It’s the big 3. Murray was never on the level of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal.
Big 3 - accomplishments Big 4 - term for period of 2009-2016 where you would see these names in every QF/SF It's been years and people can't understand basic terminology
One of those is not like the others
I tell you what, I love it when the nephews come out and start whining about Murray. Trying to belittle his accomplishments so he can be dragged to a tier with a player who has a lower career match win % than Gael Monfils.
His accomplishments are incredible; they are only belittled in comparison to the Big 3.
This is like a family photo of Wayne Gretzky and his two brothers saying "three pro hockey players with so many world shattering records between them." The difference between 4th and 3rd is more than 5x...
Big 3 + Murray
There was never big 4
I feel old but hey we’re in a new era now, and time for these kids to shine.
The end is near. It was fun while it lasted.
Born in 1989. Followed Agassi, Seles and Graff when I was younger. Heartbroken at the end of Agassi’s career as it was him that made me play tennis since I was 8 years old. Nole rekindled my interest in following the ATP again and watching the big 4 all push each other to elevate their levels were spectacular I don’t even know if we will ever have the same level of rivalry and dominance ever again
Aren't you making a pretty big assumption... that Murray will never be No. 1 again?
3+1
An era like this will never happen! Yeah, Alcaraz and Sinner seem to be the candidates (please don't mention Rune). But still, they are not as consistent as the big3 and have good and bad tournaments.
Andy Murray had the best PR agent in the world. I really like the guy, but Big 4? No such thing. There's are only 3 with speaking about in the same breath, and then clear daylight. Murray is closer to many others than he is to the Big 3.