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
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