Era of the Big Four is Over

[Moxie]

I'm not saying it is domination like later on. I just added it to the chart for context.

I thought it was a bit weird adding it, at first, the 2004 inclusion. I've asked the question of when there began to be a "Big 4." However, I get your point. If we look at how long the first of the Big 4 (Roger) began to dominate, and go through now, this is what we get. Because Murray and Djokovic aren't featuring right now, but if we still define it as the "Big 4" era, then we can include when Roger started dominating.

 

[El Dude]

The point of that chart is to show how dominant the Big Four have been as a group. Roger held his own for the group in 2004, winning half of all big titles. Not so bad, and worthy of inclusion in such a chart.

 

[Andy22]

It was really just a big three until Murray beat federer at Olympics, then wawrinka made it a big 5.

 

[Andy22]

Well, I just included it because it was the first year that the Big Four—whether collectively or individually—dominated the field, and 2004 was substantially Roger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2004/07 was clearly just a nadal/fed era 2008 was then it really started, djokovic won AO, Murray made USO final and they all in the top 4.

 

[Andy22]

Well, I just included it because it was the first year that the Big Four—whether collectively or individually—dominated the field, and 2004 was substantially Roger.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so that's not then it started dude that's one player, its called the federer/nadal era, the big 4 era was 2008/16 not your best post man

 

[herios]

so that's not then it started dude that's one player, its called the federer/nadal era, the big 4 era was 2008/16 not your best post man

Not your best assesment either. Djokovic joined the party in 2007, winning masters and making the USO final, plus becoming ranked 3.
Murray came along one year later.

 

[Andy22]

Not your best assesment either. Djokovic joined the party in 2007, winning masters and making the USO final, plus becoming ranked 3.
Murray came along one year later.

Yes but that's three out four not all, all of them was 2008 like I said, you can debate all you want, the first time they where all good at the some time was 2008.

 

[Horsa]

I could easily be wrong, but I think it will be a long time before we have another Big 4 again. It seems to me that when RRN and/or A stop hogging the conversation, there's going to be more of a scrum than 4 dominant supernovas.

Maybe so. There doesn't appear to be anyone to take there place at the moment but who knows, someone could surprise us. I had to control myself there. I felt like saying "Who knows what tomorrow brings?" & had the song running through my head.

 

[El Dude]

Yes but that's three out four not all, all of them was 2008 like I said, you can debate all you want, the first time they where all good at the some time was 2008.

This is so silly that this is being debated. I think everyone agrees that the Big Four were all elite in 2008 and not earlier. But there is no official definition of "era of Big Four," but we can think broadly--as in when at least one of them was dominant--or narrowly--when all four were dominant. Either way it is a matter of semantics and not worth discussing, imo.

 

[El Dude]

I could easily be wrong, but I think it will be a long time before we have another Big 4 again. It seems to me that when RRN and/or A stop hogging the conversation, there's going to be more of a scrum than 4 dominant supernovas.

Agreed. What makes the Big Four so unique are, as I see it, two things:

1) The greatness of three of them peaking close to the same time. It would be like three Sampras-level players in the 90s.
2) Their utter dominance of the field (see my chart).

Both are very unlikely in the foreseeable future. Who knows, maybe a handful of Next Genners separate themselves from the pack, but they won't recreate the two factors above, at least not to the same extent.

We still don't know who are going to be the dominant players when the Big Four fade. Right now I would guess Zverev and the two Canadians, but we just don't know. We also don't know how dominant whoever leads the pack will be. I suspect we'll have a diverse cast of characters winning big titles for the foreseeable future and wouldn't be surprised if none of them wins double-digit Slams, maybe not even 6+ Slams. We might see several 3-5ish Slam winners and a bunch of 1-2 Slam winners.

But again, who knows. Maybe Shapo explodes and starts beating everybody. But right now we're in a bit of a "Wild West" scenario, at least as far as the Masters are concerned. It won't be long until this spreads to the Slams.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is so silly that this is being debated. I think everyone agrees that the Big Four were all elite in 2008 and not earlier. But there is no official definition of "era of Big Four," but we can think broadly--as in when at least one of them was dominant--or narrowly--when all four were dominant. Either way it is a matter of semantics and not worth discussing, imo.

Funny, coming from someone who makes a living out of defining terms and their meanings in several posts.

The era of Big Four by basic definition and common sense begins when four of them together were dominant. In fact, the very term Big Four was coined only in 2008. One could say theoretically that Big Four dominated since 2005 as four of them together had more big titles than the rest. But, that does not make sense as as for a while the same thing could be said for big two or big three.

 

[Moxie]

Funny, coming from someone who makes a living out of defining terms and their meanings in several posts.

The era of Big Four by basic definition and common sense begins when four of them together were dominant. In fact, the very term Big Four was coined only in 2008. One could say theoretically that Big Four dominated since 2005 as four of them together had more big titles than the rest. But, that does not make sense as as for a while the same thing could be said for big two or big three.

I've also talked about when the "Big Four" became a thing, but I think that El Dude's chart does tell us something. He's stretching it across when Roger started dominating to today...to encompass all of the years that include dominance by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. The graph is impressive, and not without merit to show us, in all that green, how much they have hogged up all of the big titles, from beginning to...well, whenever the end is. If you start at 2008, I suppose that's one way to look at it, but there was essentially no Murray or Djokovic last year...therefore, was there a Big 4 last year? No. So do you stop? I'm sure there are myriad ways to show it, but I don't mind the starting in 2004. It's worth remembering that they're not actually The Beatles. They are individual players, and their dominance is not a rigid thing, in terms of years.

 

[Moxie]

My vote for the next coming rivalry is Zverev/Kyrgios. I think Nick is going to lose today, but he's just back from injury. They're very different, and interestingly opposed. I hope Nick steps up to the challenge. They would make a compelling story.

 

[El Dude]

Funny, coming from someone who makes a living out of defining terms and their meanings in several posts.

To quote Charlie Brown, "Oh, brother!"

The era of Big Four by basic definition and common sense begins when four of them together were dominant. In fact, the very term Big Four was coined only in 2008. One could say theoretically that Big Four dominated since 2005 as four of them together had more big titles than the rest. But, that does not make sense as as for a while the same thing could be said for big two or big three.

Again, that has nothing to do with the chart or why I posted it. But sure, I'm happy with the "Era of the Big Four" starting in 2008 when all four were elite players. But the chart itself was meant to show their total dominance over time, and for that 2004 makes more sense to start as one of them took half of the big titles.

Someday I'm sure we'll talk about 2003 - 2022 (or whatever) as the Big Four Slam-winning span.

 

[Andy22]

This is so silly that this is being debated. I think everyone agrees that the Big Four were all elite in 2008 and not earlier. But there is no official definition of "era of Big Four," but we can think broadly--as in when at least one of them was dominant--or narrowly--when all four were dominant. Either way it is a matter of semantics and not worth discussing, imo.

Well OK fair enough

I've also talked about when the "Big Four" became a thing, but I think that El Dude's chart does tell us something. He's stretching it across when Roger started dominating to today...to encompass all of the years that include dominance by Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray. The graph is impressive, and not without merit to show us, in all that green, how much they have hogged up all of the big titles, from beginning to...well, whenever the end is. If you start at 2008, I suppose that's one way to look at it, but there was essentially no Murray or Djokovic last year...therefore, was there a Big 4 last year? No. So do you stop? I'm sure there are myriad ways to show it, but I don't mind the starting in 2004. It's worth remembering that they're not actually The Beatles. They are individual players, and their dominance is not a rigid thing, in terms of years.

Its not one way to look at it just how most people see it and its a fact that the big 4 era started in 2008 the stats say that, even el dude agrees, come on you can not say big 4 started in 04 just because one player dominate it. Its called the big four for a reason

 

[Moxie]

Its not one way to look at it just how most people see it and its a fact that the big 4 era started in 2008 the stats say that, even el dude agrees, come on you can not say big 4 started in 04 just because one player dominate it. Its called the big four for a reason

I've said the same. I've also said they're not a rock band, and didn't begin dominating at the same time. There is a valid reason, IMO, for showing the dominance of the first Beatle that started dominating, through all and until now. Mostly because it's just jaw-dropping. If you don't like it, make your own chart.

 

[Andy22]

I've said the same. I've also said they're not a rock band, and didn't begin dominating at the same time. There is a valid reason, IMO, for showing the dominance of the first Beatle that started dominating, through all and until now. Mostly because it's just jaw-dropping. If you don't like it, make your own chart.

Oh I will do that, but chart is fine see as the Maker said he would be happy with 2008, its you that will not agree, on the start date fine that's your opinion even if is weird.

 

[mrzz]

I made mine! I made mine!

 

[atttomole]

My vote for the next coming rivalry is Zverev/Kyrgios. I think Nick is going to lose today, but he's just back from injury. They're very different, and interestingly opposed. I hope Nick steps up to the challenge. They would make a compelling story.

I agree in part, because I think Hyeon Chung may be part of the equation. For some reason Chung has been under the radar, and I hope to see him playing against Kyrgios and Zverev more often.

 

[Moxie]

I agree in part, because I think Hyeon Chung may be part of the equation. For some reason Chung has been under the radar, and I hope to see him playing against Kyrgios and Zverev more often.

I didn't mean to leave Chung out, and I've actually been an early champion of his. I just see that Sasha and Nick have played each other a few times now and they're already sort of stars enough that much seems at stake. I'm not ready to call out the next big 4, or whatever. I just see that particular pairing has having rivalry potential.