Do we have a Big 4 now?

[Kieran]

Or a 3 + 1?

I'd say Muzza has become the best player on the planet at the moment. Holds 2 slams and looks like he's gaining, whereas Fedal are waning and Novak isn't 2011 anymore. He's brittle at times and could be overtaken this year.

But to his credit, he's a great champ too.

So no more of this 3+1 nonsense, right?

 

[kskate2]

yep. Andy has beat the #1 or #2 player for both his slam wins. It's time to coronate him to the big 4.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I still think it is a big 3. Roger has fallen a bit behind these days...

 

[El Dude]

Big 3. I don't think Roger's in the same category anymore. I also disagree that Andy is better than Novak. Novak played a really bad match. If Andy beats Novak (and Rafa) at the US Open, maybe we can crown Andy the best in the game. Remember also that Rafa is the only player who utterly dominates even elite players.

 

[huntingyou]

Kieran coming around?

Murray its a GREAT player and the slams will come

 

[tennisville]

Kieran have you stopped drinking these days uzzled

Whats happenned to you

 

[Ricardo]

well Andy has never been ranked 1, while Fed, Nadal and Djoker all have. They are all proven all time greats, not Andy.... but i'd say he is in the big 4 club. The guy is too talented not to be, just need a bit more in the head he'll get there.

Should it be attributed to the Czech great Ivan Lendl, who seemingly turned around Andy's career?

 

[huntingyou]

one of the best coach or right place right time kind of deal?

 

[Kieran]

It's certain that Murray is gaining. Is he an all-time great? No. I agree with Ricardo. But he plugged Nole today and he looks sure of himself on the big stage. More slams to follow - then true greatness..

 

[huntingyou]

I can see Murray getting to 5-7 Slams by 2016. A lot depends on both Novak and Rafa as well but the guy for sure has 3 more in him.

 

[El Dude]

I also don't see Andy as an all-time great...yet. But I think with this win he's distanced himself a bit from the pack of "near greats" like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Kafelnikov, that he's between them and the "lesser greats" like Vilas and Courier. To me the question is whether he wins another Slam or two and ends up with Courier and Vilas, or he wins 3+ more and enters the conversation with Becker, Edberg, and Wilander.

 

[Ricardo]

I can see Murray getting to 5-7 Slams by 2016. A lot depends on both Novak and Rafa as well but the guy for sure has 3 more in him.

what's stopping Andy, he still has the weakest mind of them all......

 

[Kieran]

He's definitely answered a few questions, and that's necessary before anyone starts claiming he's better than true greats of the past. But he has more to do, and he needs to sustain these levels for a few years before he's there. he may do it.

But also, we've seen Novak settle after his streak of 2011/2012. Since the streak expired naturally at Oz in 2012, he's won a single slam out of the last 6 (Roger 1, Rafa 2 and Andy 2), and all the others have taken him down a peg. Last year at W, he looked like ole Novak of yore. Sometimes that guy isn't gone away. I wasn't overly impressed by him today...

 

[Ricardo]

Big 3. I don't think Roger's in the same category anymore. I also disagree that Andy is better than Novak. Novak played a really bad match. If Andy beats Novak (and Rafa) at the US Open, maybe we can crown Andy the best in the game. Remember also that Rafa is the only player who utterly dominates even elite players.

Fed has a slump and he is out, so simple huh? and who said anything about Andy being better than Novak? Djoker is still the top ranked player by far, has 6 majors in his pocket, what exactly are you trying to say?

So tomorrow Delpo or Berdych wins USO and they become big 4, right? i am sure people have that big 4 idea from a certain length of time, and players earned it from years of good performance; and they don't just drop out just because they have a bad patch. Don't be so quick to be a 'bandwagoner'.

 

[huntingyou]

I can see Murray getting to 5-7 Slams by 2016. A lot depends on both Novak and Rafa as well but the guy for sure has 3 more in him.

what's stopping Andy, he still has the weakest mind of them all......

it all depends. Winning his home Slam should lift whatever monkey he had on his back. In the other hand, Novak has looked mentally vulnerable in his loss to Nadal and now Murray.

---

I also don't see Andy as an all-time great...yet. But I think with this win he's distanced himself a bit from the pack of "near greats" like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Kafelnikov, that he's between them and the "lesser greats" like Vilas and Courier. To me the question is whether he wins another Slam or two and ends up with Courier and Vilas, or he wins 3+ more and enters the conversation with Becker, Edberg, and Wilander.

For me it's not all about slams.

Murray it's twice the plaer Courier, Wilander and even Becker could ever be. It's a matter of place and time and Andy was dealt a very tough place and time.

 

[Mog]

I still think it is a big 3. Roger has fallen a bit behind these days...

Though Roger has fallen a bit, I would still consider Djoko, Nadal, Murray(since Murray has qualified after W win) and Roger as top four ones.
I would like to make a judgement on this until after this year end.

 

[Ricardo]

I also don't see Andy as an all-time great...yet. But I think with this win he's distanced himself a bit from the pack of "near greats" like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin and Kafelnikov, that he's between them and the "lesser greats" like Vilas and Courier. To me the question is whether he wins another Slam or two and ends up with Courier and Vilas, or he wins 3+ more and enters the conversation with Becker, Edberg, and Wilander.

Bollock, how is he 'distanced' himself from Hewitt and Safin who also have two majors and have been number 1 while he hasn't? for a guy who is so into stats, you should be able to make smarter observations or at least be a little thoughtful. Even the numbers you love so much don't support such ridiculously silly claims.

 

[Kieran]

For me it's not all about slams.

Murray it's twice the plaer Courier, Wilander and even Becker could ever be. It's a matter of place and time and Andy was dealt a very tough place and time.

That's just nonsense. You're falling for the hype. Let him prove himself a lot more on the big stage before denigrating all-timers...

 

[calitennis127]

Or a 3 + 1?

I'd say Muzza has become the best player on the planet at the moment. Holds 2 slams and looks like he's gaining, whereas Fedal are waning and Novak isn't 2011 anymore. He's brittle at times and could be overtaken this year.

But to his credit, he's a great champ too.

So no more of this 3+1 nonsense, right?

Murray is firmly entrenched in the Top 4 now, being a 2-time Slam winner. However, I still see him as a level below the other 3 in terms of achievement. In terms of playing level, he is not capable of reaching the same heights as Djokovic or Federer, nor Nadal on clay (though Murray is clearly more talented than Nadal off of clay).

From here on out, I don't see Djokovic losing to Murray very often. The 2012 US Open win and especially today's Wimbledon victory were Murray's hard-won moments. But Djokovic is the more talented player and I really expect him to put some whippings on Murray in subsequent Slam encounters.

 

[El Dude]

Big 3. I don't think Roger's in the same category anymore. I also disagree that Andy is better than Novak. Novak played a really bad match. If Andy beats Novak (and Rafa) at the US Open, maybe we can crown Andy the best in the game. Remember also that Rafa is the only player who utterly dominates even elite players.

Fed has a slump and he is out, so simple huh? and who said anything about Andy being better than Novak? Djoker is still the top ranked player by far, has 6 majors in his pocket, what exactly are you trying to say?

So tomorrow Delpo or Berdych wins USO and they become big 4, right? i am sure people have that big 4 idea from a certain length of time, and players earned it from years of good performance; and they don't just drop out just because they have a bad patch. Don't be so quick to be a 'bandwagoner'.

Now who is over-reacting?

When 31-32 year olds have "bad patches" it often means they're nearing the end. Roger's "bad patch" goes back almost a year; remember that he hasn't won a big tournament since Cincinnati Masters last August - that's almost 11 months. If that's a "bad patch" its the worst in ten years.

Don't forget also that he's dropped out of the top 4 for the first time in ten years. Again, it isn't like we're talking about a 27 or 28 year old, but someone who will be 32 in about a month.

I'm not saying that Roger doesn't have some good tennis left, and I even think he has an outside shot at one more Slam, but that overall he's more in the second tier group now than the first tier. Even if he's still capable of beating anyone, his overall level of play is more akin to Berdych or Tsonga than it is Djokovic or Murray.

By the way, Kieran said Andy is the "best player on the planet at the moment." That's what I was disagreeing with. I'm not convinced that he's still not the third best.