So now we have the "Fab Five"?

[Kirijax]

ESPN just put out an article full of stats about the "Fab Five". This is the first time I have heard about this Fab Five.

How the Fab Five has dominated men's tennis

I think we should just to call it a day and stick with the "Big Three".

This is also the first time I have ever seen Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Agassi grouped together in this way. Looks like an ESPN article. Still thought Frontierers might enjoy picking this one apart.

 

[Frode789]

Having waw in there is just odd. He hasn't really "dominated" by any means the last years. Good yes, dominated, no.

 

[Kirijax]

Having waw in there is just odd. He hasn't really "dominated" by any means the last years. Good yes, dominated, no.

I agree. Stan has won only 10 titles in his career and has one Masters. Being included in this is really reaching for it.

Does anyone feel that Wawrinka's Slam success actually pulled Murray back into the lower level and helped separate the Big Three from the Big Four? That's the vibe I get sometimes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is way too forced. It won't catch on, and I'm not sure Nadal should be associated with fabulous anything right now anyway.

 

[Kieran]

This is way too forced. It won't catch on, and I'm not sure Nadal should be associated with fabulous anything right now anyway.

Yeah, not even Fabulous Frickin' Fognini!

 

[Kirijax]

This is way too forced. It won't catch on, and I'm not sure Nadal should be associated with fabulous anything right now anyway.

Trying to turn this into yet another Nadal thread...

 

[Kieran]

It was bound to happen, when you include a 20 to 1 outsider as a member of a Fab 5. i think the media gets carried away with language, and the need to compile lists, and neatly box off things in this way. There's a Fab One at the moment, and the others are angling around him to make the sport competitive. But Novak is the gatekeeper, that much is obvious. 2 slams, and a shock when he lost the final of the other. How many MS titles this year, and shocks when he lost the finals of the others?

 

[dante1976]

Most interesting to me was this pic:

[attachment=172]

Talks more than words all about "weak eras"

38 majors in 28 year span
44 majors in 25 year span
47 majors in 11!!!??? year span

So, we are witnessing the best era in tennis history

 

[nehmeth]

406 titles for Borg, Vilas, Connors, Mac and Lendl.

Wonder what their major total would have been if they flew to Oz with the frequency they do nowadays.

 

[El Dude]

Your math is a bit off, dante - 47 majors in 11 years? It is 44 from 2003 to 2005, which is a 13-year span. And the numbers you cited for the other groups of five are for their active years, not their major spans.

 

[dante1976]

Oh yeah I made a mistake but even if you count from 1998 (Fed turned pro) it is still waaaaay ahead of "other 2" eras.

And we all know it will only get better

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ya, After Cilic wins another slam, it will be Sensational Six. After Kei wins a slam, it will be Superb Seven. After Berdych wins one, it will be Excellent Eight. After Milos wins one,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

I will die :cry

 

[Kieran]

There'll get to be so many of them soon, they'll be the Forgettable Fourteen, or the Unnameable Eleven...

 

[Kirijax]

Stan's Two-Step Plan to Domination

Win a Slam.

Win another Slam.

Domination!

 

[brokenshoelace]

This is way too forced. It won't catch on, and I'm not sure Nadal should be associated with fabulous anything right now anyway.

Trying to turn this into yet another Nadal thread...

The term "fab five" includes Nadal, does it not? So yeah, IMO, given that Nadal can't get past the QF at Masters events right now, he does not belong and therefore, there is no "Fab Five" as defined by ESPN. I'm pretty much turning this thread into what it was intended to be: a discussion of whether there is a "Fab Five."

 

[Frode789]

With Nadal dropping down considerably as of late, and Waw not quite at the level for being considered "Great", it simply is a TRIO now at the top.
1. Djoker
2. Fed
3. Murray

 

[Kieran]

With Nadal dropping down considerably as of late, and Waw not quite at the level for being considered "Great", it simply is a TRIO now at the top.
1. Djoker
2. Fed
3. Murray

The Terrible Trio! :snicker

 

[isabelle]

With Nadal dropping down considerably as of late, and Waw not quite at the level for being considered "Great", it simply is a TRIO now at the top.
1. Djoker
2. Fed
3. Murray

The Terrible Trio! :snicker

Djoker is above Murray and Federer, he won 2 GS this year but maybe USO's winner 'll suprise us like in 2014 ? Djoker is the favourite but it's not enough to lift the trophy (see RG)

 

[Riotbeard]

With Nadal dropping down considerably as of late, and Waw not quite at the level for being considered "Great", it simply is a TRIO now at the top.
1. Djoker
2. Fed
3. Murray

The Terrible Trio! :snicker

The one problem with this is by taking out stan, you take out the guy with the second most majors in the last two years in favor of two guys who haven't won one. For better or worse, at slams, stan is number 2 right now. Fed and Murray are more of a lock for consistency and even going deep in slams, but Stan I think right now has a much better chance of meeting Novak in a slam final and winning. So I think in terms of the Fab five, of course not, but second most likely player to win a major, maybe? I certainly think he has a better chance of getting to 3 than Fed to 18. So in terms of overall era, Stan should not be included, because the rest of resume outside of slams is deficient, but in terms of right now, Stan should be one of the major points of conversation.

 

[DarthFed]

With Nadal dropping down considerably as of late, and Waw not quite at the level for being considered "Great", it simply is a TRIO now at the top.
1. Djoker
2. Fed
3. Murray

The Terrible Trio! :snicker

The one problem with this is by taking out stan, you take out the guy with the second most majors in the last two years in favor of two guys who haven't won one. For better or worse, at slams, stan is number 2 right now. Fed and Murray are more of a lock for consistency and even going deep in slams, but Stan I think right now has a much better chance of meeting Novak in a slam final and winning. So I think in terms of the Fab five, of course not, but second most likely player to win a major, maybe? I certainly think he has a better chance of getting to 3 than Fed to 18. So in terms of overall era, Stan should not be included, because the rest of resume outside of slams is deficient, but in terms of right now, Stan should be one of the major points of conversation.

I'll take that bet. Stan has had the 2nd best year so far, same as 2014, no argument there...but I'd still take that bet.