Dominance of the Big Four, revisited

[drm025]

Dude, can you make a similar chart with finalists (not the winners) of the big tournaments
from 2004 to 2013. I think that chart will also be full of colors.

That way people will come to know the true dominance of big-four.

I love doing these things, so I recreated the original picture as best as I could and put in all the finalists.



So the year with the most white is 2004, obviously, since only Federer was winning titles then. 2011 and 2012 are tied for least white, with only 5 finalists outside the big 4. The tournament with the most white is Paris, which is known for being unpredictable anyway. The tournaments with the least white are Wimbledon and the US Open, with only 4 finalists outside the big 4.

Overall, only 18 of the 140 finals did not have a big 4 player, with 7 of those finals coming in 2004. 6 of those finals took place at the Paris Masters. This means that not including the year 2004 and the Paris Masters, only 6 of 117 finals have not included a big 4 player. That's crazy!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Thanks drm. It is crazy indeed.

 

[drm025]

Thanks drm. It is crazy indeed.

One more tidbit, the most white is contributed by Roddick (10 squares) and Ferrer (8 squares).

 

[Fiero425]

Dude, can you make a similar chart with finalists (not the winners) of the big tournaments
from 2004 to 2013. I think that chart will also be full of colors.

That way people will come to know the true dominance of big-four.

I love doing these things, so I recreated the original picture as best as I could and put in all the finalists.



So the year with the most white is 2004, obviously, since only Federer was winning titles then. 2011 and 2012 are tied for least white, with only 5 finalists outside the big 4. The tournament with the most white is Paris, which is known for being unpredictable anyway. The tournaments with the least white are Wimbledon and the US Open, with only 4 finalists outside the big 4.

Overall, only 18 of the 140 finals did not have a big 4 player, with 7 of those finals coming in 2004. 6 of those finals took place at the Paris Masters. This means that not including the year 2004 and the Paris Masters, only 6 of 117 finals have not included a big 4 player. That's crazy!

I've been saying it's obscene and getting worse, not better! Where's the versatility in play as well as results? Big yawn; esp. after Roger retires! At least he made it look effortless, unlike the automatons bashing the ball from the baseline; with abandon, getting injured, and unable to finish an upset! Nole's probably the best at it with strokes that aren't quite as ugly as some out there! :nono :nono :cry

 

[herios]

I am reading this thread I have not commented in and I have to add a few things:
Despite the doom and gloom about the rest of the field (non Top 4), brings hope in their camp:

1. There is a significant change in as far as their dominance, the RED colour is missing in the last column of the chart, because Roger din not participate in the domination.
If there are only 3 dominating, the chances increase for the others. As op consequence, we have seen more of the white colour in the finals of slams (Ferrer) and more in the master finals.
So in my books the dominace of the Top 4 has peaked 2011-12.

2. I understand the skepticism about JMDP, but he is rising:
2011 - 11 ranked
2012 - 7
2013 - 5.
Although slowly, he is gaining ground. He now is in striking distance from Ferrer-Murray and I think if he gets into the top 4 his results will improve in the big events.

I know the general expectation of Roger improving. He may or he may not.
Others might improve as well, especially the young players. But I doubt that Roger will end next season in the top 4.