Big Four Stuff

[El Dude]

Seeing as the Big Four Era is coming to an end, I thought I'd create a thread to discuss it. To start things off, I created a chart (surprise, surprise).

Basically this chart shows the percentage of big title points won by the Big Four - both individually and collectively. I then created one for the "Classic Big Four" (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl) to compare their relative dominance.

Caveat: the above chart assumes that Novak won't win the World Tour Finals, otherwise I'll have to adjust it.

Unlike some of my charts, this should be fairly easy to interpret. Again, the numbers are percentages of big title points won - counting only wins. For example, in 1978, Connors won 26% of big title points, Borg 32%, McEnroe 24%, and everyone else split the remaining 18%.

The "classic Big Four" was very dominant, winning more than 50% of big title points for 10 of 13 years from 1974-86. But the recent Big Four was just ridiculous, winning more than half 17 years in a row and 18 years total, including two seasons in which they won 100%.

The charts also show how different players dominated at different times and in different combinations. You can see, for instance, as Borg stumbled in 1981 and then retired, Lendl showed up on the "big title scene."

Stay tuned for more about the Big Four Era.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

I think we should make this the Big 5 for both, adding Wawrinka to the top, and Wilander to the bottom.

Wilander deserves to be in that group with Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Plus, his dominant year in 88 would fill in the gap and paint a more accurate picture, a natural fall off from 84-90, rather than a one-year dropoff in 88 that really didn't exist. Putting Wilander as an other, especially in 88, is misleading.

 

[Fiero425]

I think we should make this the Big 5 for both, adding Wawrinka to the top, and Wilander to the bottom.

Wilander deserves to be in that group with Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Plus, his dominant year in '88 would fill in the gap and paint a more accurate picture, a natural fall off from '84-90, rather than a one-year dropoff in 88 that really didn't exist. Putting Wilander as an other, especially in 88, is misleading.

Sounds good on paper, but living it, Wilander didn't show up until Borg was long gone! Not to mention this era of the Big 4 was rather short in comparison to FedalovicRay! I agree Wilander should be included in some way by getting to #1, won 7 majors, & took 3 of the 4 Big titles in 1988! His accomplishments were obliterated by Fedalovic though!

 

[El Dude]

I think we should make this the Big 5 for both, adding Wawrinka to the top, and Wilander to the bottom.

Wilander deserves to be in that group with Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Plus, his dominant year in 88 would fill in the gap and paint a more accurate picture, a natural fall off from 84-90, rather than a one-year dropoff in 88 that really didn't exist. Putting Wilander as an other, especially in 88, is misleading.

Really they overlap - no one's peak lines up just perfect, though some players are close. Wilander didn't really arrive until 1982, after Borg was basically retired, so doesn't overlap with him. His prime is really 82-88, overlapping Mac and Lendl's best years, but also some of Edberg's and Becker's best. Age-wise, of course, he's closer to the younger guys.

Anyhow, I see Wilander more in the Edberg/Becker group in terms of dominance level. 1988 was great, but he was never really consistently "the guy" - just for that one year. He was pretty much otherwise the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best player during his prime.

 

[Moxie]

Forgive me for being crabby, but I'm feeling very crabby these days. Why would you make the graph a "percentage" of big titles, and not merely the "number of big titles," which would make it easier to interpret? Also, why not tell us what you mean by "big titles?" Presumably, they're different for the older chart?

For example: In 2011 and 2013, your graph shows that the Big 4 won all of them, but in 2012, 5% of others won the rest. It would be easier to figure out if you just told us how many titles "the rest" of the field won. And which titles we're talking about. Majors, MS1000s, YECs and Olympics, when it applies?

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

Really they overlap - no one's peak lines up just perfect, though some players are close. Wilander didn't really arrive until 1982, after Borg was basically retired, so doesn't overlap with him. His prime is really 82-88, overlapping Mac and Lendl's best years, but also some of Edberg's and Becker's best. Age-wise, of course, he's closer to the younger guys.

Anyhow, I see Wilander more in the Edberg/Becker group in terms of dominance level. 1988 was great, but he was never really consistently "the guy" - just for that one year. He was pretty much otherwise the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best player during his prime.

Wilander was more of a McEnroe than an Edberg. Wilander and McEnroe reached very high peaks, but suddenly fell off the cliff after that peak year. Edberg didn't reach a high peak like Wilander and McEnroe, but had better longevity.

 

[El Dude]

Forgive me for being crabby, but I'm feeling very crabby these days. Why would you make the graph a "percentage" of big titles, and not merely the "number of big titles," which would make it easier to interpret? Also, why not tell us what you mean by "big titles?" Presumably, they're different for the older chart?

For example: In 2011 and 2013, your graph shows that the Big 4 won all of them, but in 2012, 5% of others won the rest. It would be easier to figure out if you just told us how many titles "the rest" of the field won. And which titles we're talking about. Majors, MS1000s, YECs and Olympics, when it applies?

I've done all kinds of charts - this one is just based on percentages, just for a different angle on things. I also have one that is just the titles themselves, which I've shared before.And it is percentage of ATP points won for the title.

For instance, in non-Olympics years there are four Grand Slams (4 x 2000 = 8000), nine ATP 1000s (9000), and one Tour Finals (up to 1500) or 18,500 possible points. I can't remember, but I think I counted the Olympics as the same as a Masters so in those years, 19,500 points. In 2011 and 13 the Big Four won all 18,500 points; in 2012 they won all but one Masters (David Ferrer), which was roughly 5% of the total points of 19,500 (an Olympic year).

And yes, those are the big titles I'm using - plus defunct "alt finals" like the Dallas WCT and Grand Slam Cup. For pre-1990, I used Ultimate Tennis Statistics definition for Masters-equivalents.

p.s. No worries about being crabby, Moxie. We expect it from you

 

[El Dude]

Wilander was more of a McEnroe than an Edberg. Wilander and McEnroe reached very high peaks, but suddenly fell off the cliff after that peak year. Edberg didn't reach a high peak like Wilander and McEnroe, but had better longevity.

I see what you're saying in terms of career trajectory. I was thinking more in terms of overall level and accomplishments, and McEnroe > Wilander/Edberg, who are in a similar category of greatness, imo.

 

[Kieran]

I see what you're saying in terms of career trajectory. I was thinking more in terms of overall level and accomplishments, and McEnroe > Wilander/Edberg, who are in a similar category of greatness, imo.

Yeah, McEnroe was more alpha. Mats got great wins on grass in Australia, beating McEnroe there which only emphasised that grass wasn’t a homogenous grass that played the same everywhere. That doesn’t really take away from him, because it’s still McEnroe on grass, just like Rafa on blue clay is still Rafa on clay.

But McEnroe is a tennis giant, on seven slams, while Mats is a tennis legend, or great, but lower in the pantheon, while having the same number of slams. Mac took on the greatest at their peaks and stood his ground. He was always a threat, and was number 1 for 4 straight years, where Mats nipped in and out..

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, McEnroe was more alpha. Mats got great wins on grass in Australia, beating McEnroe there which only emphasised that grass wasn’t a homogenous grass that played the same everywhere. That doesn’t really take away from him, because it’s still McEnroe on grass, just like Rafa on blue clay is still Rafa on clay.

But McEnroe is a tennis giant, on seven slams, while Mats is a tennis legend, or great, but lower in the pantheon, while having the same number of slams. Mac took on the greatest at their peaks and stood his ground. He was always a threat, and was number 1 for 4 straight years, where Mats nipped in and out..

I've made the point before that if you look at the absolute peaks of McEnroe, Borg, and Lendl, and compare them to the peaks of Rafa, Roger, and Novak--and then adjust for context--they are all pretty close. The main difference is longevity - the recent guys all had primes about twice the length of those earlier guys (more or less), but they weren't significantly more dominant at their very best (maybe a bit so, but not hugely so).

Mac vs. Wilander is a good example of how Slam count on its own is rather dubious as a catchall stat.

 

[Moxie]

I think we should make this the Big 5 for both, adding Wawrinka to the top, and Wilander to the bottom.

Wilander deserves to be in that group with Connors, Borg, McEnroe, and Lendl. Plus, his dominant year in 88 would fill in the gap and paint a more accurate picture, a natural fall off from 84-90, rather than a one-year dropoff in 88 that really didn't exist. Putting Wilander as an other, especially in 88, is misleading.

I'm not that up on Wilander, but I'm not sure how adding Wawrinka into the graph would show us anything. He's such an anomaly. Yes, he has 3 Majors, but only one other big title. MC, I think. His other 12 titles were 3 500s and 9 250s. He's actually VERY odd. 16 total titles, and 3 were Majors. Compare that with Nalbandian, for example, considered (and rather overrated) as a talented player never to win a slam. He had 11 titles. Or Safin, with 15 total titles, 2 Majors, and 5 MS1000s. At least Safin made #1. Stan's highest rank was #3. (They weren't giving out #1s or #2s in those days.)

 

[Fiero425]

I'm not that up on Wilander, but I'm not sure how adding Wawrinka into the graph would show us anything. He's such an anomaly. Yes, he has 3 Majors, but only one other big title. MC, I think. His other 12 titles were 3 500s and 9 250s. He's actually VERY odd. 16 total titles, and 3 were Majors. Compare that with Nalbandian, for example, considered (and rather overrated) as a talented player never to win a slam. He had 11 titles. Or Safin, with 15 total titles, 2 Majors, and 5 MS1000s. At least Safin made #1. Stan's highest rank was #3. (They weren't giving out #1s or #2s in those days.)

Wawrinka is entirely too talented to have taken so few titles! It's one thing to drop matches against the Big 3, but it wasn't just them he dropped important matches! After taking on Magnus Normal as coach, he was able to finally overcome being such a headcase, but he still woefully underachieved! Roger cast a huge shadow so that had a little to do w/ it IMO! Djokovic the only one of Fedalovic who had true heartburn playing Stan as he won all 3 of his majors going thru Novak!

 

[El Dude]

I'm not that up on Wilander, but I'm not sure how adding Wawrinka into the graph would show us anything. He's such an anomaly. Yes, he has 3 Majors, but only one other big title. MC, I think. His other 12 titles were 3 500s and 9 250s. He's actually VERY odd. 16 total titles, and 3 were Majors. Compare that with Nalbandian, for example, considered (and rather overrated) as a talented player never to win a slam. He had 11 titles. Or Safin, with 15 total titles, 2 Majors, and 5 MS1000s. At least Safin made #1. Stan's highest rank was #3. (They weren't giving out #1s or #2s in those days.)

I kind of see a similarity between Stan and Kyrgios - Stan, obviously, being much more accomplished. But the similarity is that both were able to muster a very high level at choice moments: for Kyrgios it was matches against top players, for Stan it was some incredible runs at a few Slams. But outside those small samples, neither was all that impressive. I guess Nalbandian is the middle ground between the two, so: Wawrinka > Nalbandian > Kyrgios.

Another guy with a similar record to Stan, though is too long ago for most to remember, is Jan Kodes. Kodes won three Slams but no other big titles and just 9 titles overall. He snuck in three Slams in 1970-73 against some very weak fields, after top dog Laver was mostly not playing in Slams and before Connors/Borg took over the tour in 1974. In those three Slam runs, he defeated only one Slam winner, Ilie Nastase. On the other hand, Stan won three of the toughest Slams in Open Era history, having to beat two of the Big Three in two of those Slams, while Novak, Del Potro and Nishikori in the third.

But yeah, Stan has one of the weirdest careers in tennis history. Sascha Zverev is another one with a weird record: he's putting together quite a career resume, including 10 big titles and 23 titles at age 27, but no Slams. It is mind-boggling, really.

 

[Moxie]

But yeah, Stan has one of the weirdest careers in tennis history. Sascha Zverev is another one with a weird record: he's putting together quite a career resume, including 10 big titles and 23 titles at age 27, but no Slams. It is mind-boggling, really.

I can't remember if someone asked this recently, or if you addressed it, but is 10 big titles some kind of a record, without a Major? Ferrer had 27 titles, in the end, which is a lot, but only 1 was a MS1000, and win Major final.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

After the Big 3, there was a huge gap to 4 (Murray), another huge gap to 5 (Wawrinka), and another huge gap to 6.

I guess the best comparison to Wilander maybe Murray. They may not be the very best of their era, but they are clearly the next guy in line, and in their own tier, clearly better than everybody else in their era.

 

[Kieran]

Wawrinka is entirely too talented to have taken so few titles! It's one thing to drop matches against the Big 3, but it wasn't just them he dropped important matches! After taking on Magnus Normal as coach, he was able to finally overcome being such a headcase, but he still woefully underachieved! Roger cast a huge shadow so that had a little to do w/ it IMO! Djokovic the only one of Fedalovic who had true heartburn playing Stan as he won all 3 of his majors going thru Novak!

Let’s be completely frank and call this what it is: he didn’t have the trousers for it, compared to Murray. Stan was blessed in 2014 in the Australian Open final, and he’s also gotten some great victories, but he’s a random player. Randomly on binge diets, too, apparently.

Yeah I fat shamed him. Bite him, not me! He can lose some..

 

[El Dude]

I can't remember if someone asked this recently, or if you addressed it, but is 10 big titles some kind of a record, without a Major? Ferrer had 27 titles, in the end, which is a lot, but only 1 was a MS1000, and win Major final.

I posted the list elsewhere, but it is Sascha and then (IIRC) Rios with 6, and a bunch of guys in the 3-4 range (including Tshithispantsass).

 

[El Dude]

Here's a chart of all players with 5+ big titles in the Open Era. I've included a big arrow to point to Zverev, to put his big title count in context. What is striking is not just how many more he has than the next Slamless player (Rios with 6), but how many multi-Slam players have fewer big titles overall. He's probably on pace to have more than Wilander, but less than Murray.

The chart also illustrates just how great Laver and Borg were. Both have 25 big titles in the Open Era, despite it starting a few months before Laver turned 30 and Borg retiring at 25. Laver's real total is probably up there with the Big Three, Hard to say where Borg might have ended up, depending upon how he aged. I'm guess a bit above the Lendl/Sampras/McEnroe/Connors group, but not in the Big Three range.

 

[Kieran]

Here's a chart of all players with 5+ big titles in the Open Era. I've included a big arrow to point to Zverev, to put his big title count in context. What is striking is not just how many more he has than the next Slamless player (Rios with 6), but how many multi-Slam players have fewer big titles overall. He's probably on pace to have more than Wilander, but less than Murray.

View attachment 9788
The chart also illustrates just how great Laver and Borg were. Both have 25 big titles in the Open Era, despite it starting a few months before Laver turned 30 and Borg retiring at 25. Laver's real total is probably up there with the Big Three, Hard to say where Borg might have ended up, depending upon how he aged. I'm guess a bit above the Lendl/Sampras/McEnroe/Connors group, but not in the Big Three range.

Wait. Sampras isn’t in the same group as McEnroe, Lendl and Connors. What happened there?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Forgive me for being crabby, but I'm feeling very crabby these days. Why would you make the graph a "percentage" of big titles, and not merely the "number of big titles," which would make it easier to interpret? Also, why not tell us what you mean by "big titles?" Presumably, they're different for the older chart?

For example: In 2011 and 2013, your graph shows that the Big 4 won all of them, but in 2012, 5% of others won the rest. It would be easier to figure out if you just told us how many titles "the rest" of the field won. And which titles we're talking about. Majors, MS1000s, YECs and Olympics, when it applies?

Me too if a guy is allowed to feel crabby