Tennis: Final verdict: Is Andy Murray part of the big four?

[Maestro84]

I know this has been debated about for years and years and years now in the tennis community. Many think it was the British media who created this term to boost up Andy while others believe Murray absolutely belongs as part of the big 4. IMHO, I can't really consider Murray as part of the big four since the discrepancy in Murray's numbers and the other three's numbers is simply too great, although I think Murray deserves to be in his own little category due to how much better he is than everyone else in his gen (don't let Stan's 3 majors fool ya there and I'm a fan of Stan the man).

Click to read more...

 

[Desdichado93]

Djokovic, Federer and Nadal are in a class of their own.

 

[kihei]

No, but he has a room on the property that he shares with Stan Wawrinka.

 

[Morozov]

No, and he never has been.

The difference in achievements between Murray and the big three is so vast.

He's a great player, and very unfortunate for him that he ended up crossing paths with three historical talents.

 

[CupofOil]

Big 3 (Nobody is remotely close to state the obvious)

Murray alone in the 2nd tier (I'm a big Stan fan but Murray is the far more accomplished, consistent player)

Stan in his own 3rd tier (Late bloomer, only good in the majors and even there, he varied from amazing to WTF at times)

DelPo (damn injuries prevented a much greater career) and Cilic.

Nobody else matters. Guys like Tsonga, Nishikori, Raonic and Berdych knocked on the door occasionally but never really a big threat to the top guys.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

Big 3 (Nobody is remotely close to state the obvious)

Murray alone in the 2nd tier (I'm a big Stan fan but Murray is the far more accomplished, consistent player)

Stan in his own 3rd tier (Late bloomer, only good in the majors and even there, he varied from amazing to WTF at times)

DelPo (damn injuries prevented a much greater career) and Cilic.

Nobody else matters. Guys like Tsonga, Nishikori, Raonic and Berdych knocked on the door occasionally but never really a big threat to the top guys.

/thread

 

[rangerssharks414]

Nope, not close

 

[MeowLeafs]

Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are clearly in their own tier.

Then you have Murray in his own tier below the big 3. I wouldn't put Wawrinka with Murray as Andy has been better and much more consistent than Stan.

 

[Vamos Rafa]

At his peak, yes, he definitely belonged with the 3 as he was the only one other than the other 3 to become number 1. The last non-Nole-Rafa-Fed number 1 that wasn't Murray was...another Andy. Roddick in 2003. Yikes!

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I say yes, just because I think he was closer to the other 3 than anyone behind him was to him.

If he didn't have to keep playing the other 3 he would be unstoppable. He made 11 career grand slam finals. That is insanely good and more than any other two players combined outside of the big 3. Outside of those 11 finals he appeared in 10 other semifinals, losing 6 of them to Nadal, and 1 apiece to Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka, and Roddick.

Murray is probably a better player than someone like Pete Sampras, he just had the misfortune of having the 3 best players in the history of the sport playing at the same time.

 

[kihei]

I say yes, just because I think he was closer to the other 3 than anyone behind him was to him.

If he didn't have to keep playing the other 3 he would be unstoppable. He made 11 career grand slam finals. That is insanely good and more than any other two players combined outside of the big 3. Outside of those 11 finals he appeared in 10 other semifinals, losing 6 of them to Nadal, and 1 apiece to Djokovic, Federer, Wawrinka, and Roddick.

Murray is probably a better player than someone like Pete Sampras, he just had the misfortune of having the 3 best players in the history of the sport playing at the same time.

I agree he might have been on a par with Sampras but in terms of him being closer to the Big Three than someone behind him was to him, I don't agree.

Rafa versus Andy 7-17
Fed versus Andy 11-14
Nole versus Andy 11-25
Andy versus Stan 11-8

I think Andy and Stan, both three time Slam winners, are by now inextricably linked as a two-man buffer zone between the demigods and mere mortals.

 

[CupofOil]

I agree he might have been on a par with Sampras but in terms of him being closer to the Big Three than someone behind him was to him, I don't agree.

Rafa versus Andy 7-17
Fed versus Andy 11-14
Nole versus Andy 11-25
Andy versus Stan 11-8

I think Andy and Stan, both three time Slam winners, are by now inextricably linked as a two-man buffer zone between the demigods and mere mortals.

Murray is undoubtedly a class above Wawrinka. Wawrinka is closer to DelPo and Cilic than he is to Murray.

If you only count Major victories, they are fairly equal but as an overall player and looking at accomplishments as a whole, not in the same stratosphere.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I agree he might have been on a par with Sampras but in terms of him being closer to the Big Three than someone behind him was to him, I don't agree.

Rafa versus Andy 7-17
Fed versus Andy 11-14
Nole versus Andy 11-25
Andy versus Stan 11-8

I think Andy and Stan, both three time Slam winners, are by now inextricably linked as a two-man buffer zone between the demigods and mere mortals.

Other than Murray and Wawrinka both having 3 slams they aren't really close though.

Wawrinka has 3 wins, 1 finals appearance and 5 semifinal appearances. He's also never been ranked higher than 3.

Murray in addition to his 3 wins has 8 additional finals appearances. Additionally, while this may be fairly minor, Murray has been a finalist in all 4 majors, where as Wawrinka hasn't been able to get past the QF at Wimbledon.

Its also worth noting that Wawrinka's emergence directly coincided with Nadal/Djokovic/Federer dropping off somewhat. And while its true that was also the only time Murray was ever able to hit number 1, its also true that Murray was virtually invincible against non-big 3 opponents during the primes of the other 3.

If we ignore grand slams for a minute we will also see that Murray has won 14 Masters titles and appeared in 7 other finals whereas Wawrinka only has 1 win and 4 finals appearances.

Murray vs Wawrinka just isn't close in any way other than grand slams won. Murray is the far superior player.

 

[kihei]

Other than Murray and Wawrinka both having 3 slams they aren't really close though.

Wawrinka has 3 wins, 1 finals appearance and 5 semifinal appearances. He's also never been ranked higher than 3.

Murray in addition to his 3 wins has 8 additional finals appearances. Additionally, while this may be fairly minor, Murray has been a finalist in all 4 majors, where as Wawrinka hasn't been able to get past the QF at Wimbledon.

Its also worth noting that Wawrinka's emergence directly coincided with Nadal/Djokovic/Federer dropping off somewhat. And while its true that was also the only time Murray was ever able to hit number 1, its also true that Murray was virtually invincible against non-big 3 opponents during the primes of the other 3.

If we ignore grand slams for a minute we will also see that Murray has won 14 Masters titles and appeared in 7 other finals whereas Wawrinka only has 1 win and 4 finals appearances.

Murray vs Wawrinka just isn't close in any way other than grand slams won. Murray is the far superior player.

Good points, Fish, as always. But Stan is still a lot closer to Andy than Andy is to Rafa or Nole.

 

[Maestro84]

I agree he might have been on a par with Sampras but in terms of him being closer to the Big Three than someone behind him was to him, I don't agree.

Rafa versus Andy 7-17
Fed versus Andy 11-14
Nole versus Andy 11-25
Andy versus Stan 11-8

I think Andy and Stan, both three time Slam winners, are by now inextricably linked as a two-man buffer zone between the demigods and mere mortals.

I enjoy watching Stan more than Murray but Murray is easily superior to Stan.

Outside grand slam wins, Murray has Stan beat in pretty much every category, and it's not really close in a lot of them.

GS Finals: 11-4 Murray
GS Semis: 21-8 Murray
GS Match Wins: 189-139 Murray
GS Match Win Percentage: 81%-72%
Overall Titles: 45-16 Murray
Majors Conversion Rate: 6.3%-5.4% Murray
Overall Match Wins: 663-501 Murray
Career Match Win Percentage: 78%-63% Murray
Overall Titles Conversion Rate: 19.2%-5.5% Murray
Masters Titles: 14-1 Murray
Olympic Gold: 2-0 Murray
Tour Finals: 1-0 Murray
Year-End Number One: 1-0 Murray (Wawrinka never finished higher than 4th)
Weeks at Number One: 41-0 Murray (Wawrinka hasn't been ranked higher than 3rd)
H2H vs one another: 11-8 Murray
Wins vs top 10 players: 101-55 Murray
Wins vs players who have been in the top 10: 304-173 Murray
Wins vs big three: 29-12 Murray
Seasons winning 4+ titles: 6-2 Murray
Davis Cup Record: 39/47-26/51 Murray (both have 1 DC title, but Stan had Roger as his teammate while Murray's second best player was a distant joint second between Kyle Edmund and Dan Evans...)


Also, in terms of consistency in year end rankings, Murray wins big time as well as he was a top 4 player yearly from 2008 till his hip injury in 2017, which is almost a decade. Wawrinka was only a top 5 player from 2013-17, while he's been a top 15/20 player at best for much of his other years.

Murray: 1-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-6
Wawrinka: 4-4-4-8-9

With all that said, Murray isn't nearly good enough in comparison to Fedalovic for it to be a big four, even though he's significantly better than everyone else