Tennis 2021

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,111
Zverev, thiem, tsisipas. All very underwhelming. Even Berretini, he was making two handed net shots. Not one standout player.
When you're comparing them to Nadal, Federer and Djokovic of course they are underwhelming. I think expectations have been raised to unrealistic levels at times. They all have their issues but they all have pretty decent CVs (I'd add Medvedev to that list). All of them (apart from Berrettini) have reached at least one major final, won masters 1000 titles and or ATP tour finals and made multiple SFs at majors.
M
 

ThatsGreat

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
1,649
Supports
Arsenal
Wait wah? 2010-2015 the two other goat candidates were still competing hard. He ‘feasted’ by beating the best.

Your initial post seemed to insinuate that Djoko is living it large right now because there is no competition. I merely highlighted the fact that federer got a fair share of slams in weaker eras too. 2010-2015 certainly isn’t one of these, djokovic was successful by being better than the other two big guns and Murray who was holding his own back then against the big three.
Okay, thought you meant different. Federer was best between
2004-10. Dropped one level down after, and due to the emergence of Djokovic he didn't win as much
 

Nani Nana

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
5,646
Supports
Whoever won the game
Okay, thought you meant different. Federer was best between
2004-10. Dropped one level down after, and due to the emergence of Djokovic he didn't win as much
He was 29 in 2010, took him a few more years to actually drop down.

Reading earlier threads (early 2010s) on how his playing style is more sustainable in the long run than Djoker and Nadal. Now his fans argue they only won thanks to his dropping level.

All a bit quaint really.
 

Rawls

You'll never find, that microfilm of mine
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
700
Wait wah? 2010-2015 the two other goat candidates were still competing hard. He ‘feasted’ by beating the best.

Your initial post seemed to insinuate that Djoko is living it large right now because there is no competition. I merely highlighted the fact that federer got a fair share of slams in weaker eras too. 2010-2015 certainly isn’t one of these, djokovic was successful by being better than the other two big guns and Murray who was holding his own back then against the big three.
Hard to describe Andy Murray as holding his own against the big three when he is 11-14 against Federer (1-5 at Grand Slams), 11-25 against Djokovic (2-8 at Grand Slams), and 7-17 against Nadal (2-7 against Grand Slams).

And I'm not soo sure Djokovic's wins from 2018-2021 balance out against Federer's weak wins from 2003-2007. Even if you argue both eras are as weak as each other, for the overall effect to be neutral, both players would have had to have been at the same level in their respective eras i.e. the argument doesn't work if 2003-2007 was peak Federer and 2018-2021 was off-peak but still very good Djokovic.
 

Daysleeper

New Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
4,790
Supports
Barcelona
Federer is out of the Olympics citing a setback with his knee, hoping to return to the tour in the summer. I do wonder if he even plays the USO this year.
He needs to retire gracefully
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
16,778
When you're comparing them to Nadal, Federer and Djokovic of course they are underwhelming. I think expectations have been raised to unrealistic levels at times. They all have their issues but they all have pretty decent CVs (I'd add Medvedev to that list). All of them (apart from Berrettini) have reached at least one major final, won masters 1000 titles and or ATP tour finals and made multiple SFs at majors.
M
Pretty funny to call them crap when the three grand slams this year have all had next Gen players in the final. Medvedev, Tsisipas and Berretini. If losing to djokovic in a GS final is what makes them underwhelming then like you said the expectations are unrealistic.
 

Bole Top

Full Member
Joined
May 2, 2014
Messages
3,508
Hard to describe Andy Murray as holding his own against the big three when he is 11-14 against Federer (1-5 at Grand Slams), 11-25 against Djokovic (2-8 at Grand Slams), and 7-17 against Nadal (2-7 against Grand Slams).
well, it's definitely "holding his own" when you compare it to Fed's main competition when he was younger. for example, Roddick was on 3-21, Hewitt was on 2-16 since Fed peaked (2004).
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
42,010
Hard to describe Andy Murray as holding his own against the big three when he is 11-14 against Federer (1-5 at Grand Slams), 11-25 against Djokovic (2-8 at Grand Slams), and 7-17 against Nadal (2-7 against Grand Slams).

And I'm not soo sure Djokovic's wins from 2018-2021 balance out against Federer's weak wins from 2003-2007. Even if you argue both eras are as weak as each other, for the overall effect to be neutral, both players would have had to have been at the same level in their respective eras i.e. the argument doesn't work if 2003-2007 was peak Federer and 2018-2021 was off-peak but still very good Djokovic.
Nabbing 2 grand slams from Djokovic is no easy feat
 

Rawls

You'll never find, that microfilm of mine
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
700
well, it's definitely "holding his own" when you compare it to Fed's main competition when he was younger. for example, Roddick was on 3-21, Hewitt was on 2-16 since Fed peaked (2004).
Roddick and Hewitt were worse players than Murray and Murray was a lot more competitive against Federer than they ever were but that still doesn't mean that Murray held his own against the Big Three in Grand Slams. Defining "holding his own" in terms of comparing Roddick/Hewitt to Murray makes little sense to me.

Also, I just don't see the need to include Murray when it comes to saying that 2010-2015 was a lot more competitive than 2003-2007. It's fairly obvious that an era with Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic is going to be more competitive than an era with just Federer (Discounting Nadal here as he had yet to win a non-Clay GS); adding in Murray doesn't change that fact, notwithstanding the fact that he was never really that competitive with them at Grand Slams.

Nabbing 2 grand slams from Djokovic is no easy feat
Fair enough but I'm not too sure he beat peak Djokovic in either of those Grand Slams. Djokovic was worse in 2012 than he was in 2011, and his 2013 Wimbledon Final performance was another level down from that as well.
 

Nani Nana

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
5,646
Supports
Whoever won the game
Fair enough but I'm not too sure he beat peak Djokovic in either of those Grand Slams. Djokovic was worse in 2012 than he was in 2011, and his 2013 Wimbledon Final performance was another level down from that as well.
Murray was definitely a difficult opponent for Djoker. Two points from victory in Rome 2011, as Djoker was on that record-equalling haul of starting a season with 40+ Wins. Also beat him in straight sets in London 2012 (Olympics).

Djoker was ok in 2012, winning his arguably greatest game ever against Nadal in Australian Open final. Murray took him to five sets there in the semi final.

Murray's head to head record against Federer was also fine (11-14). I feel like his groundstrokes were less devastating but his serve and court coverage just as good.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,440
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Don't really understand how Murray is still sometimes a (small) part of this discussion. There's never been a big 4.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,111
Don't really understand how Murray is still sometimes a (small) part of this discussion. There's never been a big 4.
Murray is top 10 in male major SF appearances. He was so far ahead of the others. I also think the fact he was ever present in the top 4 seed makes a valid case even if he has never been on a par. It's like how we refer to the big 4 or big 6 now in football despite there being a clear separation between some of those clubs. Top 5 in Masters 1000 titles and two times Olympic single gold medals.
 
Last edited:

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
Don't really understand how Murray is still sometimes a (small) part of this discussion. There's never been a big 4.
Neh don’t agree with that. There was a decent period where those 4 were always the last in slams and only knocked each other out.

3 slams and 2 gold medals. He obviously didn’t achieve the same as the other 3 but he was up there.

He was miles ahead of whoever was 5th.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,440
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
Murray is top 10 in male major SF appearances. He was so far ahead of the others. I also think the fact he was ever present in the top 4 seed makes a valid case even if he has never been on a par. It's like how we refer to the big 4 or big 6 now in football despite there being a clear separation between some of those clubs. Top 5 in Masters 1000 titles and two times Olympic single gold medals.
Murray was definitely the number 4 of that era, but the gap between 3 and 4 is infinitimes bigger than the gap between 1 and 3. Not saying Murray isnt a fantastic player. He is, however, mortal unlike Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
 

LDUred

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,786
Murray made eleven slam finals. Agassi was only in eight, for the sake of comparison. Eleven slam finals with a losing record is unfortunate, but it's still an immense achievement in tennis terms. I also rarely recall Murray going out in early rounds between 2010-2016. He was an ever present in the second week and seemed to always make at least the semis.

Even though Murray didn't have a winning record against Fed, Djoko, and Nadal, he was definitely the next in line and by a clear distance.
 
Last edited:

Raoul

Admin
Staff
Joined
Aug 14, 1999
Messages
129,965
Location
Hollywood CA
Murray competed in eleven slam finals. Agassi was only in eight, for the sake of comparison.

Even though Murray didn't have a winning record against Fed, Djoko, and Nadal, he was definitely the next in line and by a clear distance.
Agassi won twice as many slams as Murray, including a career grand slam. He was also #1 for over twice as long as Murray.
 

LDUred

Full Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
1,786
I think this in a way proves my point on how Murray deserves to be considered in a big four. Murray appeared in more slams than Agassi, who is an undisputed tennis great. Yes, Andre converted more of those, but being in a Slam final is an achievement in itself.

I am not saying Murray was better than Andre. What I am saying is that making 11 GS finals is an outstanding achievement that you rarely see in tennis.
 

KirkDuyt

Full Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
24,440
Location
Dutchland
Supports
Feyenoord
I think this in a way proves my point on how Murray deserves to be considered in a big four. Murray appeared in more slams than Agassi, who is an undisputed tennis great. Yes, Andre converted more of those, but being in a Slam final is an achievement in itself.

I am not saying Murray was better than Andre. What I am saying is that making 11 GS finals is an outstanding achievement that you rarely see in tennis.
Agassi is also nowhere near the same league as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. And neither is Murray.
 

tentan

Poor man's poster.
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Messages
4,503
I think this in a way proves my point on how Murray deserves to be considered in a big four. Murray appeared in more slams than Agassi, who is an undisputed tennis great. Yes, Andre converted more of those, but being in a Slam final is an achievement in itself.

I am not saying Murray was better than Andre. What I am saying is that making 11 GS finals is an outstanding achievement that you rarely see in tennis.
Agassi appeared in 15 slam finals.
 

Rajma

Full Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Messages
8,571
Location
Lithuania
Djoko confirmed for olympics despite the restrictions. Don’t think he should given the measures they’ll need to comply with in a bubble but he’s giving it a real go this year.
 

iKnowNothing

Full Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
2,836
Location
hangin in there
Djoko confirmed for olympics despite the restrictions. Don’t think he should given the measures they’ll need to comply with in a bubble but he’s giving it a real go this year.
imagine if he wins the gold and then goes on to win at USO. That would be a record that might go unbeaten for decades to come.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,336
Location
india
Neh don’t agree with that. There was a decent period where those 4 were always the last in slams and only knocked each other out.

3 slams and 2 gold medals. He obviously didn’t achieve the same as the other 3 but he was up there.

He was miles ahead of whoever was 5th.
He has as many slams as Wawrinka.
 

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
But has played an additional 8 finals (to Wawrinka's 1) and another 14 masters titles (Wawrinka's 1).

Miles ahead of him.
And Olympic medals.

Wawrinka was probably the only player outside the big 4 who got close to them.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,336
Location
india
But has played an additional 8 finals (to Wawrinka's 1) and another 14 masters titles (Wawrinka's 1).

Miles ahead of him.
Yeah but he can't be "miles" ahead with the same number of slams. In terms of general level, sure but we all know that in tennis every other competition is miniscule in terms of importance compared to the slams. The "big 4" was always a joke. It's a big 3, Murray is not part of that company. He's part of "the rest" - more consistent and achieving a higher level than the others in the rest but still in that bucket.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,336
Location
india
And Olympic medals.

Wawrinka was probably the only player outside the big 4 who got close to them.
Wawrinka and Murray did not get close to them. Roddick kept meeting Federer in finals, but it didn't mean he got close him. And nobody considered there to be a top 2 in Federer's peak era.
 

TheLiverBird

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
1,708
Wawrinka and Murray did not get close to them. Roddick kept meeting Federer in finals, but it didn't mean he got close him. And nobody considered there to be a top 2 in Federer's peak era.
Murray did get close though
Stan and Murray are the only 2 who properly challenged the big 3

But Murray is the only player, in my opinion of course, to scratch their level of quality for a “period”

there was an 18 month period where Murray was practically dominating reaching final after final and winning Wimbledon taking the world No.1 spot playing unbelievable tennis, better than any quality we’ve seen from Stan before

we’ve never seen anyone match the big 3 for sustained Quality, Murray did until his body started to fail

I’m not going off amounts of GS Finals Murray has been in, or Titles he’s won, I’m just purely going off the quality of tennis I witnessed from him, but it also just so happens he’s been too more GS Finals and won more tour Titles and reached World No.1 which Stan hadn’t nor has anyone else I don’t think during the Fed, Novak, Nadal era??
 
Last edited:

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,681
Murray did get close though
Stan and Murray are the only 2 who properly challenged the big 3

But Murray is the only player, in my opinion of course, to scratch their level of quality for a “period”

there was an 18 month period where Murray was practically dominating reaching final after final and winning Wimbledon taking the world No.1 spot playing unbelievable tennis, better than any quality we’ve seen from Stan before

we’ve never seen anyone match the big 3 for sustained Quality, Murray did until his body started to fail

I’m not going off amounts of GS Finals Murray has been in, or Titles he’s won, I’m just purely going off the quality of tennis I witnessed from him, but it also just so happens he’s been too more GS Finals and won more tour Titles and reached World No.1 which Stan hadn’t nor has anyone else I don’t think during the Fed, Novak, Nadal era??
I'm not sure where the 18 month period comes from. Murray had a good one year stretch (Wimbledon 2012 until Wimbledon 2013) in which he won 2 slams.
Prior to that - and after that - he hardly set the world ablaze. Neither did Wawrinka, to be fair, but I'm just pointing out Murray didn't really separate himself from the likes of Stan, and neither guy really challenged the top 3.

The last 2 paragraphs are obviously subjective, as you admitted in your own post. You stated that Murray produced better quality than anything Stan has ever done, when loads of people would argue the opposite.
 

TheLiverBird

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
1,708
How can you not seperate Andy from Stan??

Andy is literary in a different stratosphere to Stan

Outside of just visual quality of which Andy had clearly the upper hand of Stan in that department

but bringing stats into it

Murray has 46 Titles to Stans 16
Murray has 40 weeks at World Number 1 to Stans 0 weeks
Murray has been to 3 times as many GS finals than Stan
Murray has 2 Olympic Gold Medals in Men’s Singles, Stan has none

like there’s literally no competition other than both having 3 Slams, Andy has been much more challenging than Stan by a country a mile

I’m a huge Stan fan by the way, the man was a class act and class player, but Murray trumps him outstandingly in pretty much every department other than GS hauls of which they are even
 
Last edited:

Berbasbullet

Too Boring For A Funny Tagline
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
20,031
How can you not seperate Andy from Stan??

Andy is literary in a different stratosphere to Stan

Outside of just visual quality of which Andy had clearly the upper hand of Stan in that department

but bringing stats into it

Murray has 46 Titles to Stans 16
Murray has 40 weeks at World Number 1 to Stans 0 weeks
Murray has been to 3 times as many GS finals than Stan
Murray has 2 Olympic Men’s Single Gold medals 2 Stans zero

like there’s literally no competition other than both having 3 Slams, Andy has been much more challenging than Stan by a country a mile

I’m a huge Stan fan by the way, the man was a class act and class player, but Murray’s trumps him outstandingly
Agree with this.

I think people call(ed) it a big 4 was because those 4 consistently were the semi finals for a good while and they more often than not we’re the ones to knock each other out.

Obviously Murray is the worst of the 4 but he was a very very good player.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,111
How can you not seperate Andy from Stan??

Andy is literary in a different stratosphere to Stan

Outside of just visual quality of which Andy had clearly the upper hand of Stan in that department

but bringing stats into it

Murray has 46 Titles to Stans 16
Murray has 40 weeks at World Number 1 to Stans 0 weeks
Murray has been to 3 times as many GS finals than Stan
Murray has 2 Olympic Men’s Single Gold medals 2 Stans zero

like there’s literally no competition other than both having 3 Slams, Andy has been much more challenging than Stan by a country a mile

I’m a huge Stan fan by the way, the man was a class act and class player, but Murray’s trumps him outstandingly
He was also top 4 in the rankings for the whole of 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2016 and good chunks of 2008, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2017.

Compared to Stan his comparative years would be 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 while never reaching world no.2 in his career.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,336
Location
india
How can you not seperate Andy from Stan??

Andy is literary in a different stratosphere to Stan

Outside of just visual quality of which Andy had clearly the upper hand of Stan in that department

but bringing stats into it

Murray has 46 Titles to Stans 16
Murray has 40 weeks at World Number 1 to Stans 0 weeks
Murray has been to 3 times as many GS finals than Stan
Murray has 2 Olympic Gold Medals in Men’s Singles, Stan has none

like there’s literally no competition other than both having 3 Slams
, Andy has been much more challenging than Stan by a country a mile

I’m a huge Stan fan by the way, the man was a class act and class player, but Murray trumps him outstandingly in pretty much every department other than GS hauls of which they are even
You talk as if the last one isn't by far the most important of those statistics.

Murray belongs in the "rest" rather than being clubbed with the big 3. He was better than Wawrinka but you can't be 17 slams behind the best, and level with the next best after you, and somehow form part of any big 4.
 

TheLiverBird

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2014
Messages
1,708
Agree with this.

I think people call(ed) it a big 4 was because those 4 consistently were the semi finals for a good while and they more often than not we’re the ones to knock each other out.

Obviously Murray is the worst of the 4 but he was a very very good player.
Absolutely

it’s really not hard to comprehend why so many referred to it as the big 4

Those 4 were on an entirely different level to the rest

Murray without question deserves that statement, without the 3 Greats, Murray would have dominated this Sport, possibly putting him at achieving over 10 Grand Slams which would have put him in the discussion as one of the greatest of all time!!……he’s just unlucky that he was competing in the same era as the 3 greatest of all time :lol: The unlucky bugger!

minimising his GS haul to 3

Although saying that, those 3 brought the best out of Murray, in fact they did

Murray has 40 weeks at world Number 1 during the era of the greats, think about that for a moment…..and people are saying he was never at their level??….he’s the only player that did that during the Federer Nadal Djokovic era..that’s insane and a hell of a level to reach

reaching their level and matching their career achievements are 2 entirely different things, Murray is way out on the achievement front, but his level compared to “the rest” was that of the other 3 where he was untouchable, hence the big 4…..no one is by any means saying he was a great as them…..the 3 greats record speaks for themselves

He just couldn’t sustain it like those 3 because well….they are the greats over all
 
Last edited:

Rawls

You'll never find, that microfilm of mine
Joined
Aug 25, 2016
Messages
700
Murray without question deserves that statement, without the 3 Greats, Murray would have dominated this Sport, possibly putting him at achieving over 10 Grand Slams which would have put him in the discussion as one of the greatest of all time!!……he’s just unlucky that he was competing in the same era as the 3 greatest of all time :lol: The unlucky bugger!
Murray wasn't so good that you could say he would have been one of the GOATs in the absence of Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal. Fantastic defensive player, yes, but I'm not too sure you could look at his skillset and say that he had that many other historically great attributes. For instance, I'd argue Del Potro had more great attributes to his game than Murray, except that his career was blighted by injuries.

And I 'm not too sure the hypothetical argument works here. Take all three out and Murray dominates but if you take out either one or two, he still likely gets dominated by Federer/Nadal/Djokovic given that his GS H2H against all three is 5-20. And taking all three out makes no sense; it's like trying to discuss who the best player in the world was from 2005-2020 other than Ronaldo and Messi.

Murray has 40 weeks at world Number 1 during the era of the greats, think about that for a moment…..and people are saying he was never at their level??….he’s the only player that did that during the Federer Nadal Djokovic era..that’s insane and a hell of a level to reach
Murray spent 41 weeks at the top from November 2016 until August 2017, which basically reflects his dominance in 2016. But when you look deeper, Nadal was knocked out in the 1st Round in the AO by Verdsaco, withdrew after the 2nd Round in the FO, didn't play at Wimbledon, and was knocked out in the 4th Round of the US Open by Pouille. Federer lost in the AO SF to Djokovic, didn't play in the FO due to injury, lost to Raonic in the Wimbeldon SF, and then missed the rest of the season due to injury. Even if you look at Djokovic, he wins the AO and the FO in 2016 but loses to Querrey in the Wimbledon 3rd Round and Wawrinka in the USO Final, so I don't think anyone would suggest that 2016 was Djokovic's best year (Especially the back half of the season). Yes, Murray was the best player back then but it wasn't a case of him defeating Prime Federer, Prime Nadal, or Prime Djokovic; it was more to do with him competing against a relatively weak field.
 

Desert Eagle

Punjabi Dude
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Messages
16,778
Nobody says big 4 seriously anymore. For a year or two maybe you could make a case but that ship has long sailed. Having said that Murray was a great player and definitely the best of the rest , also very entertaining to watch.
 

Brophs

The One and Only
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
50,275
I’m actually quite disappointed that Djokovic couldn’t do the Golden Slam (Calendar slam + Olympic gold). It would have been such an incredible achievement and about the best way imaginable for a player to break the slam record. Not that he’ll mind that much if he gets to 21 at the US.
 

saivet

Full Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
25,111
Big loss for Novak today, which I think could impact his momentum going into the US Open. He's still in for the gold in the mixed doubles which I think would be a big deal for him if he did get that one.
 
Last edited: