The big 2

[sid]

What does 2017 hold for Novak Djokovic & Andy Murray ???

 

[delPoFearhand]

Realistically, I think 2 slams each. I think Andy finally gets his AO to start off the year, Novak takes another RG, Andy wins with home field advantage, and Novak finishes out strong at the USO.

Although, I think we are also entering a ripe year for an outsider to snag one of those- Raonic at Wimbledon perhaps, del Potro or Cilic at USO, Wawrinka anywhere if he finds his peak form at some point next year. But I think that for sure 3 of the 4 will be split between the big two.

 

[vjmtz]

I think Wawrinka and Del Potro have their chances to win a slam. Maybe even Federer or Raonic.

 

[Fiero425]

Realistically, I think 2 slams each. I think Andy finally gets his AO to start off the year, Novak takes another RG, Andy wins with home field advantage, and Novak finishes out strong at the USO.

Although, I think we are also entering a ripe year for an outsider to snag one of those- Raonic at Wimbledon perhaps, del Potro or Cilic at USO, Wawrinka anywhere if he finds his peak form at some point next year. But I think that for sure 3 of the 4 will be split between the big two.

I've been hoping for years! As the Big 4 drops to 2, I still have to see it to believe it! A lock has been on the majors and Masters for over a decade with interspersed and isolated wins by an outside like Cilic! We can only hope something magical happens for an outsider while Murray and Nole still rule the roost! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[El Dude]

I don't think they win more than 3 between the two of them, hopefully only 2. But I also see their hold on the Masters diminishing...maybe winning 4-5 total.

 

[sid]

I don't think they win more than 3 between the two of them, hopefully only 2. But I also see their hold on the Masters diminishing...maybe winning 4-5 total.

Hi El Dude with the big 2 Masters diminishing,who else is going to win them?

 

[El Dude]

It seems like only a matter of time before Milos wins a Masters - probably something like Cincinnati or Paris. After him I think del Potro, Wawrinka, Cilic, and Kei are all candidates, possibly Kyrgios too. Thiem should be a serious candidate on clay.

Maybe it is just wishful thinking, though, as a year of Big Two dominance sounds boring. Can you imagine final after final of attrition wars?

But I don't think it will be that way. I think Novak should struggle a bit, if still remain top 5 and probably top 2-3. And I don't see Andy holding the #1 ranking with the same dominance that Novak, Rafa, or Roger have. I think players like those mentioned above will be pressing them, and of course if Rafa and/or Roger have one more Indian Summer in them...

The funny thing about 2017 is that it could be either very boring, or it could be very interesting.

 

[mrzz]

I will not use the term "big 2" for Murray and Djokovic, because of Murray. Top 2 is accurate. Of course it is subjective, but the "big 4" term (which I in fact always thought of as " big 3") carried that aura of invincibility that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic had (previously only Fedal). Anyway, Murray was always reaching semis and wining masters so, being there, the same 4 guys in the semis, ok, people used "big 4".

But now, sorry, it is not the same thing. People (and it includes this board) are speculating which other players might win slams. The point with the "big 3/4" was precisely that. We wouldn´t even speculate, it was science fiction. Nobody will get really surprised if 2017 ends with one slam by Djokovic and zero by Murray. They might win more, yes, but it surely does not look the only possible outcome.

And, by the way, I am not saying that Murray is not a true #1. He is, he got the points, and beat the former #1 to get there. He is the deserving, real, undisputed #1 until he doesn´t. All I am saying is that "big 3" was something else...

 

[sid]

What's wrong with the term "big 2" ????? thy have earned it,so should have the recognition.

Ranking points don't lie.
Novak Djokovic 11,780
Milos Raonic 5,450

Andy Murray tops the list atm @ 12,685 the gap to Raonic in 3rd place is huge.Andy & Novak have earned the right to be called the big2.

 

[El Dude]

mrzz, I hear what you are saying but think the reason it was a Big Four is that the gap between Andy and the rest of the field was at least as large as the Bigger Three and Andy.

Let's look at some actual numbers. The Big Four were the top four ranked players from 2008 to 2012. Here's the top five in each year, with ranking points. After the top five, there are two numbers - the gap between 3 and 4 and 4 and 5.

2008
1. Nadal 6675
2. Federer 5305
3. Djokovic 5295
4. Murray 3720
5. Davydenko 2715

1575/1005

2009
1. Federer 10550
2. Nadal 9205
3. Djokovic 8310
4. Murray 7030
5. Del Potro 6785

680/245

2010
1. Nadal 12450
2. Federer 9145
3. Djokovic 6240
4. Murray 5760
5. Soderling 5580

480/180

2011
1. Djokovic 13630
2. Nadal 9595
3. Federer 8170
4. Murray 7380
5. Ferrer 4925

790/2455

2012
1. Djokovic 12920
2. Federer 10265
3. Murray 8000
4. Nadal 6690
5. Ferrer 6505

1310/185

Andy was ranked 4, 6, 2, and 1 from 2013 - 2016, so aside from 2014 he has ranked in the top 4 in eight out of the last nine years.

Now if you look at the points, the gap between Andy and the rest of the field isn't that large from 2008-10, and is actually smaller than the gap between him and the Big 3. But one thing that also becomes clear is that Andy was consistently #4, while #5 was a rotating cast...this makes that gap a bit larger.

From 2010-12, the gap between Andy and the rest of the field is much larger than Andy and the Big 3, and in 2012 he's actually ranked #3, partially due to him winning a Slam, but also because Rafa was injured. But even so, the gap between Andy and #5 is substantial.

Maybe we can say that from 2008-10, Andy was "Best of the Rest" - and he was, quite consistently so. Again, the fact that he was consistently #4 while #5 rotated speaks a lot to his ability.

From 2011-12, he was "Worst of the Best," which sounds like a downgrade but is actually better. Roger struggled in 2013 but righted himself and despite being ranked below Andy in 2015, was the better player. Rafa surged in 2013, so Andy was clearly behind him and Novak, and then behind Novak and Roger in 2014 and 2015 (despite the ranking), so he remained "Worst of the Best" form 2013-15. And of course we have to factor Stan into the mix, especially starting in 2014. Let us not forget that Stan has won more Slams from 2014-16 (3) than anyone other than Novak (6).

Novak stumbled in 2016 and Andy took advantage. I don't think we can say he was the leader of the pack, so Big 2 works for me. Clearly Rafa is diminished, and Roger was injured for most of the year and there is no telling how he'll play when he returns.

The point being, going into 2017, Big 2 works just fine. It was true in 2016, and looks to be true to start 2017. Perhaps Roger and Rafa resurge and all of a sudden we have a Big 4 again, at least for awhile. Or perhaps Novak finds his 2015 form again and/or Andy reverts to his erratic form. Or perhaps some other player rises up and challenges. But right now, it is a Big 2, and clearly for the last nine years, it has been a Big Four - with Andy belonging more in the elite than outside of it.

 

[mrzz]

We´re talking of slightly different things. And I know I am surely sounding bitter, anyway...

Your analysis show quite well you cannot put Murray together with the "rest". And also shows, ranking points wise (as sid said above), that the gap is huge (is a gulf, not a gap).

I get all that. If Murray manages to keep this lot of points for long, than, ok, I can live with the big 2 thing. But for now you all know that he never (as Dude´s number shows) had this many points before. If he quickly reverts back to 6000/8000 range or less, being from #2 to #3, it kind of illustrates my point.

Other way to saying it would be: back in 2012, the "big three" had, I do not know exactly, but I guess, 40 slams together? Now we have two guys and one of them have 3? You call this the same league? I don´t.

Anyway, my claim was completely subjective... it had to be, course people can use "big 2", "super 2", " great 2", or anything they fancy. I will use top 2 (for now at least).

 

[Front242]

How about number 1 and number 2?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

How about terrible two? :snicker

 

[Front242]

The gruesome twosome.

 

[El Dude]

mrzz, you can use whatever phrase you want, of course, but I think maybe you are over-thinking this - or at least being a bit stringent on criteria. As I see it, "big two" simply implies that there are two players who are currently heads and shoulders above the rest of the field - which is irrefutable if you look at the current ranking points. It is a "big two right now," not "big two of an era."

 

[Fiero425]

mrzz, you can use whatever phrase you want, of course, but I think maybe you are over-thinking this - or at least being a bit stringent on criteria. As I see it, "big two" simply implies that there are two players who are currently heads and shoulders above the rest of the field - which is irrefutable if you look at the current ranking points. It is a "big two right now," not "big two of an era."

Nole could have salvaged his season if he had taken YEC and retained his #1 ranking! Those failures in the last half of the year, even with a Masters win in Toronto had to be crushing! I know it crushed me to see Murray ascend to the throne; no matter how short his tenure! Hopefully Nole will defend his AO title and take it back ASAP! :nono :cover

 

[sid]

mrzz, you can use whatever phrase you want, of course, but I think maybe you are over-thinking this - or at least being a bit stringent on criteria. As I see it, "big two" simply implies that there are two players who are currently heads and shoulders above the rest of the field - which is irrefutable if you look at the current ranking points. It is a "big two right now," not "big two of an era."

Nole could have salvaged his season if he had taken YEC and retained his #1 ranking! Those failures in the last half of the year, even with a Masters win in Toronto had to be crushing! I know it crushed me to see Murray ascend to the throne; no matter how short his tenure! Hopefully Nole will defend his AO title and take it back ASAP! :nono :cover

- - http://fiero4251.blogspot.com/2016/08/fan-page-novak-nole-djokovic.html - -

(Nole could have salvaged his season)

Could have should or would have are things many tennis players might say(& you & Front).He never did-did he?:lolz: if my Antey had balls she be my uncal.:laydownlaughing

 

[mrzz]

mrzz, you can use whatever phrase you want, of course, but I think maybe you are over-thinking this - or at least being a bit stringent on criteria. As I see it, "big two" simply implies that there are two players who are currently heads and shoulders above the rest of the field - which is irrefutable if you look at the current ranking points. It is a "big two right now," not "big two of an era."

I can agree with that. Big two with an asterisk. Big 2*.

I am mean, I know.

 

[sid]

We know your mean but we will forgive you.
Not long before the Big 2 will be playing tennis.
Twooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Front242]

I'd absolutely p1$$ myself if Federer and 38 year old Haas or Stepanek knocked them both the f**k out in the early rounds.