The Big Four are Over

[Johnsteinbeck]

since it didn't take long for someone to bring it up, i think we should sit down and seriously discuss giving up an idiom that's been dominating the discussion for quite some time.

Question for all. Do we now have a Big Five? Something to ponder.

I wouldn't say that, but we have a more volatile, unpredictable and healthy tour than we've had for a long time. You get a bloke like Stan - who's an excellent player - playing at such a level to deny Novak, and then look at the US Open, and last year we had four different winners at each slam, this year two different winners so far, it's a much more open and competitive sport now...

so, do we need to talk about Stan in the Big Five? no, because the notion of the Big Anything is, currently, a thing of the past.

a quick recap on what made the Big Four:
- as shown earlier, the idea and the name arose in 2008 - particularly, at the USO 2008. Back then, the tour was still very much under the Fedal Regime; but Djokovic had won the AO 2008, and Murray was beginning to beat the big 2. from then on, the Big Four started not only hogging the top 4 spots in the rankings, but the finals/semis of Slams and the winner lists of the 1000s for a couple of years. there were a few one-offs (DelPo; some winners in Paris Bercy). both in 2009 and 2010, they had the top four ranking spots at the end of the year.

- in 2011, it was the first time that Nole took over the lead, but behind him, there was still the group dominance. they had all the final spots at the slams and shared all the 1000s. of course, they came in 1-2-3-4 at the end of the year ranking.
- 2012 was THE true big four year, with them splitting the Slams, and coming in as a closely contested top 4 in the rankings as well.
- in 2013, objectively, is probably the beginning of the end for the Big Four, as Fed really slumped - but of course as we know, Fed would come back strong. the other three shared the slams, and while there were non-Big Four 1000 finalists, no big winners came from outside the circle. so given that Fed would in the end come back, it doesn't really seem wrong in hindsight to still use the term for that period.

- still, despite Fed's comeback, in 2014, the cracks in the Big Four image became bigger. For the first time in forever, there were two non-Big Four winners of slams and two of 1000 events in one year - Stan, Cilic and Tsonga. With this time around Murray being the letdown (trying to recover from injury), it might be that this already was the first Post-Big Four year.

Now, mid-2015, what do we have?
- Novak, clearly the best and most consistent player on the tour. a deserved #1. the only member of the so-called Big Four who has any current slam titles to his name. but not quite the dominating figur we've seen in the past either (as in Fed's heyday, Nadal's 2013, and of course Nole's 2011) - he could get there again, but that remains to be seen. he's the man to beat - nothing more and nothing less.
- Fed at #2, on the strength of a good 2014 and inspired play even in smaller events. but not at the slams (three years and counting since he last won one). and he's not really putting fear in the heart of the pros anymore - imagine some Top 30 player looking at the draw: seeing Fed in your path isn't that much scarier than seeing Stan. or maybe not even Nishikori or Raonic.
- Murray - a strong #3, the only guy other than Novak who won a 1000 this year (when Nole wasn't there). also, it'll soon be two years since he won his last slam. so is there any real reason to put him above Stan, who's won two since then?

- Rafa? he now has gone a full year without a any big titles, not even making the finals of a single slam. it'd be silly to write him off. but until he starts doing some real damage again., there's really no reason to include him in the Big anything other than for historic musings.

- Stan. the fifth guy two win more than one slam since 2002, a strong #4, an olympic gold medalist (*cough*) and true Davis Cup Champion. right now, he can probably beat anyone (well, maybe not on grass; and on fast hards, i'm not sure). but is he really dominating like the Big Four did back when the term was adequate? he's won 1 (one) Masters 1000 in his career, and played two finals. (Murray, as the weakest link of the Big Four, has 10 - and four more finals). he's never been to the finals of the WTF (okay, last year was close). this year, from mid-february to mid-may, he went through a series of five tourneys, never making the quarters, going 4-5. not quite dominating, i'd say. so on what base would we really make him a Big Four/Five kind of guy?

what else do we have? Cilic, struggling to fight against the one-slam-wonder tag (which he'll probably end up with). Kei playing strong, but with physical limits that realistically speaking probably restrict where he can go. Berdych is strong, Tsonga can be. Raonic as well. guys like Kyrgios have shown they can blow Big Four members off the court.

it used to be: beat one of them and you'll have to face one or two more, and that drove people to near despair. now, the field is wide open. don't get me wrong: Novak is the man to beat - but there's more than one guy who can do that, and once he's out, all titles are up for grabs.

 

[Federberg]

That's fair. I've tended to think Top 4 rather than Big 4. But I still subscribe to Big 3, purely in terms of achievement. Novak, Rafa and Roger are still the premium brand. And we're still likely to see at least one of those guys in finals for some time to come. But the dominance is gone that's for sure. No more all Top 4 semis.. that ship has sailed

 

[brokenshoelace]

In terms of consistency, definitely. Obviously Djokovic and Murray are far from over, and I don't think that individually, Federer and Nadal are quite done yet, but I don't think we'll be seeing all four of them doing well at the same time on a consistent basis, and we haven't for a while anyway.

 

[Kieran]

Good thread, buddy. It's always good to take the pulse after a major ends.

Stan has won 2 of the last 6 majors, and so has Novak, who's going to still be a factor at all the majors, whereas with Stan, he maybe, but not really. I'd kinda say he could win another one or two, but they'd be equally random to this one. So the fixed point at the moment, is Novak.

Rafa is an unknown until we see that his chronic form is habitual. At the moment, we can cut him some slack and say, well, he hasn't been as good since he came back. If that remains the case for the rest of the year, and he actually declines instead of showing promise, we might say his problems are terminal and his career at the top went the way of his appendix.

Roger is long-term now without a slam, and he's getting knocked off easier than he used to. It would be anomalous for a bloke his age to suddenly assert some dominance over the field to the extent that he's expecting to challenge for every slam. He's already something of an exception in that regard, but he's not steady on his feet any more.

Andy is coming back.

Here's how I see it: Rafa will come back to an extent, and so will Andy. Nole is there already, but we know he's not always reliable in bringing his A-game to the big stage. More often than not he will, but there'll be opportunities for others. But it won't be a Big 3 - because whatever Rafa does will be random, notches on the bedpost, unless he screams on fire through a few months of brilliance, like he's done in the past. Andy isn't great enough to be a top-dog.

In the late-70's, early 80's, we had Connors-Borg-Mac. We didn't use terms like Big 3. We just saw them as great, with Connors usually as the third wheel when the Borg-Mac rivalry was in its height. Then Lendl segued painfully into position, Borg exited, and suddenly Connors was top-dog for a while, with a bunch of new blokes we never heard of. Within a single year, the hierarchy of the sport was unrecogniseable. What I'm saying, I suppose, is that the era of the Big 3 is gone, because that 3 was Federer, Nadal and Nole who've won a gazillion majors between them. But now things have changed shape, and this will continue, and I reckon it's time to put to sleep any formulations that add up to 3, or 4, or...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

its been a 'big one' this year.......until today.

 

[Fiero425]

its been a 'big one' this year.......until today.

It's still big! You see his lead in the ranking? Nole can shut it down and still hang in as #1! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Kieran]

its been a 'big one' this year.......until today.

It's still big! You see his lead in the ranking? Nole can shut it down and still hang in as #1! :angel: :dodgy:

He can't. He's still got work to do to end up #1. Things can change very fast in this game...

 

[DarthFed]

its been a 'big one' this year.......until today.

It's still big! You see his lead in the ranking? Nole can shut it down and still hang in as #1! :angel: :dodgy:

Nole's 2015 record is outstanding, all the MS wins are great, but and it's a big azz but, he has won 1 of 2 slams. He can still have an excellent 2015 but that's if he wins 1 or more of the next 2 slams, otherwise this year follows his recent trend of winning just 1 slam despite looking poised for complete domination.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following article analyzes the big four phenomena. It does conclude correctly that the big 4's dominance is declining (see the graph showing the percentage of ranking points held by big 4 over the years). However, they are still dominant as compared to any other group. They still hold more than 60% of the total ranking points out there.

1. In 2013, we had Roger falling down due to fatigue after his heroic effort to get to #1 again in 2012 and surpass Pete on weeks at #1. But he came back up since beginning of 2014.
2. In 2014, Murray was down as he needed longer recovery time to come back to full form from the back operation. Actually, he started doing well from the fall of 2014.
3. In 2015, Rafa is down due to his absence and needing more time to find his form. But, I do think there will be a resurgence for him too next year.

All of this contributed to reduced market share of big four. But, the big four's market share (of points out there) is still substantially higher than any other group of four (see second graph in the article).

So, the bottom-line is this: If you ask me can we say with high confidence only a member of big four will win any big event out there, answer is no. But, if you ask as to as a group which group of
four players are the dominant players, it is still certainly this group even though they are not as dominant as they once where.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

The following article analyzes the big four phenomena. It does conclude correctly that the big 4's dominance is declining (see the graph showing the percentage of ranking points held by big 4 over the years). However, they are still dominant as compared to any other group. They still hold more than 60% of the total ranking points out there.

1. In 2013, we had Roger falling down due to fatigue after his heroic effort to get to #1 again in 2012 and surpass Pete on weeks at #1. But he came back up since beginning of 2014.
2. In 2014, Murray was down as he needed longer recovery time to come back to full form from the back operation. Actually, he started doing well from the fall of 2014.
3. In 2015, Rafa is down due to his absence and needing more time to find his form. But, I do think there will be a resurgence for him too next year.

All of this contributed to reduced market share of big four. But, the big four's market share (of points out there) is still substantially higher than any other group of four (see second graph in the article).

So, the bottom-line is this: If you ask me can we say with high confidence only a member of big four will win any big event out there, answer is no. But, if you ask as to as a group which group of
four players are the dominant players, it is still certainly this group even though they are not as dominant as they once where.

sorry, but the ranking point thing just seems rather random. of course, the "Big Four" would still hold more points than any group of players made up of non-Big Four members. but take Novak, Roger and any two other players, and they'll do the same. maybe with a two year ranking, the old Four would be ahead, but even that would be close with Stan's win.

also, the article is almost a year old. in a way, i think this article came right at what should rightfully be seen as the true end of the Big Four (barring a return by all of them). after Wimby '14, it seemed that the Big Four might still be there. yes, Stan won the AO, and Rafa exited early in SW19. but the final was still between two of the Big ones, Rafa had won the FO, and Murray was (despite the Wimbledon setback) climbing back near the Top 4 position.

Then the USO happened: not just an outsider Slam winner, but no Big Four members in the Final (when's the last time that happended?). it used to be that you'd have to beat two or three of them to win a Slam (the way Stan did, and DelPo before him). now, one such win (against Fed, who got blown right off the court) was enough for Cilic to bag the title.

since the article, we've had yet another Slam won by an 'outsider', plus both Fed and Rafa haven't made the semis(!) of the slams.

which shows how looking at the ranking points, where Fed and Murray still go strong on the base of stable results (an improvement for Andy, and the last straw for Fed), ignores the other central aspect to the old dominance of the Big Four: the dominance at the Big Events - the slams and the 1000s (and the WTF). Novak is still there, and Murray is looking to get back in. but will he, and will Fed AND Rafa be there again as well, and at the same time? that's a big if right now, and i can't see any signs for it.

so for the Big Four, that part is simply gone. so i really think there's no basis other than nostalgia to call them Big Four.

 

[El Dude]

On a very basic level, the last six Slams over 2014-15:

2 Djokovic, Wawrinka
1 Cilic, Nadal

That's half to the Big Four and Wawrinka as much as anyone, more than Murray, Rafa and Federer combined.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The following article analyzes the big four phenomena. It does conclude correctly that the big 4's dominance is declining (see the graph showing the percentage of ranking points held by big 4 over the years). However, they are still dominant as compared to any other group. They still hold more than 60% of the total ranking points out there.

1. In 2013, we had Roger falling down due to fatigue after his heroic effort to get to #1 again in 2012 and surpass Pete on weeks at #1. But he came back up since beginning of 2014.
2. In 2014, Murray was down as he needed longer recovery time to come back to full form from the back operation. Actually, he started doing well from the fall of 2014.
3. In 2015, Rafa is down due to his absence and needing more time to find his form. But, I do think there will be a resurgence for him too next year.

All of this contributed to reduced market share of big four. But, the big four's market share (of points out there) is still substantially higher than any other group of four (see second graph in the article).

So, the bottom-line is this: If you ask me can we say with high confidence only a member of big four will win any big event out there, answer is no. But, if you ask as to as a group which group of
four players are the dominant players, it is still certainly this group even though they are not as dominant as they once where.

sorry, but the ranking point thing just seems rather random. of course, the "Big Four" would still hold more points than any group of players made up of non-Big Four members. but take Novak, Roger and any two other players, and they'll do the same. maybe with a two year ranking, the old Four would be ahead, but even that would be close with Stan's win.

also, the article is almost a year old.

1. The article was written after USO of last year which was won by Marin Cilic.

2. It is true that if you take Novak, Fed and any other two players their ranking points total would be greater than any other group of four players this year. On the other hand if you take year 2013, you can take Rafa, Novak and any other two players, then it would be greater than any other
group of four players. The question is why are we grouping them together? Because, even if one of them has a bad year, as a group they are way above (not just greater) than any other group of four players for multiple years since 2006 (and uptil now. We don't know when it will end).

3. The point is that while they are not as dominant as compared to their past, they are still dominant.

4. To say big four is meaningless, one needs to demonstrate that big four is not statistically any better significantly than any other group of four players. That ain't still the case.

5. The only key drawback of the analysis is that it uses ranking points and therefor also rans
(finalists, semifinalists) get some credit. If you just look at going for marbles alone, then big four are even weaker than in the market share of points.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

replies direct in the quote.

1. The article was written after USO of last year which was won by Marin Cilic. yes, which is why i said: 1) it's old, 2) in hindsight, it wasn't even valid anymore back then and 3) things have gotten worse for the 'Big Four' since.

2. It is true that if you take Novak, Fed and any other two players their ranking points total would be greater than any other group of four players this year. On the other hand if you take year 2013, you can take Rafa, Novak and any other two players, then it would be greater than any other
group of four players. The question is why are we grouping them together? Because, even if one of them has a bad year, as a group they are way above (not just greater) than any other group of four players for multiple years since 2006 (and uptil now. We don't know when it will end).
we group them like that for historic reasons. for a while, they were dominant as a group. now, for over a year, they aren't anymore. it's not just that one of them isn't as dominating as they used to be (which was the case in '13 and '14, with Fed and Murray being let-downs, respectively). in fact, it's the opposite: only one of them (Novak) is posting great results.

3. The point is that while they are not as dominant as compared to their past, they are still dominant. no. one of them is dominant, two of them are strong, but not in the big events, and the last one is struggling to get back into a winning groove. as a group, for a full year by now, they have not been dominant;

4. To say big four is meaningless, one needs to demonstrate that big four is not statistically any better significantly than any other group of four players. That ain't still the case.take Novak, Wawrinka, Cilic and Nishikori. there you go. however, you could argue for others to take the places of Nishikori (Tsonga, who won a 1000) or Cilic (Berdych, who's far more consistent and always ranked ahead of him). which shows that there is no such thing as a Big Four (or another number) right now, just like Kieran said.

5. The only key drawback of the analysis is that it uses ranking points and therefor also rans
(finalists, semifinalists) get some credit. If you just look at going for marbles alone, then big four are even weaker than in the market share of points.exactly. and we all know that in 10 years, noone will care who made the semis of Indian Wells or who was ranked #6 for how long. it'll matter who won the big ones, and who came out #1. and of the Big Four, only Djokovic is doing anything like that atm.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

replies direct in the quote.

4. To say big four is meaningless, one needs to demonstrate that big four is not statistically any better significantly than any other group of four players. That ain't still the case.take Novak, Wawrinka, Cilic and Nishikori. there you go. however, you could argue for others to take the places of Nishikori (Tsonga, who won a 1000) or Cilic (Berdych, who's far more consistent and always ranked ahead of him). which shows that there is no such thing as a Big Four (or another number) right now, just like Kieran said.

There is always a difference between top 4 and big 4. Obviously big 4 are not currently the top 4
(although 3 of them are still in top 4). Just because Tom, Dick, Harry and Harry Jr are the top four in an year, we don't call them big four. So, basically big 4 is name given for sustained excellence of a group of four players. When you talk about sustained excellence, it is necessarily of historic nature.
At the same time, I am not talking about resting on very old laurels here.

So, therefore we have to necessarily go back to, say three years worth of stat going back from the current point of time. If you do that you will see that, Big four are indeed better than Novak, Man, Cilic and Kei and substantially at that.

I am not saying big four will continue for a long time. They are already on decline (compared to their own previous performance) and at a certain point of time that phrase has to be retired.
To me, that point of time is when you see another group of four players having a better performance than this group, going back to a period of at least three years from the current time.

If you just want to look at one year's data, it is always easy to come up with another four.
In 2013, replace Roger by someone else. In 2014, replace Murray by someone else. In 2015, replace Nadal by someone else.

Also, I am willing to reduce the size to big three (or big two) for that matter if a member of that group shows continued poor performance for a period of two years. You got to give individual players of that group a pass for one year of poor performance (for whatever reasons, injury, form, fatigue).

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

There is always a difference between top 4 and big 4. Obviously big 4 are not currently the top 4
(although 3 of them are still in top 4). Just because Tom, Dick, Harry and Harry Jr are the top four in an year, we don't call them big four. So, basically big 4 is name given for sustained excellence of a group of four players. When you talk about sustained excellence, it is necessarily of historic nature.
At the same time, I am not talking about resting on very old laurels here.

So, therefore we have to necessarily go back to, say three years worth of stat going back from the current point of time. If you do that you will see that, Big four are indeed better than Novak, Man, Cilic and Kei and substantially at that.

I am not saying big four will continue for a long time. They are already on decline (compared to their own previous performance) and at a certain point of time that phrase has to be retired.
To me, that point of time is when you see another group of four players having a better performance than this group, going back to a period of at least three years from the current time.

If you just want to look at one year's data, it is always easy to come up with another four.
In 2013, replace Roger by someone else. In 2014, replace Murray by someone else. In 2015, replace Nadal by someone else.

Also, I am willing to reduce the size to big three (or big two) for that matter if a member of that group shows continued poor performance for a period of two years. You got to give individual players of that group a pass for one year of poor performance (for whatever reasons, injury, form, fatigue).

damn, had a long reply and a lost it.

reconstructing in a nutshell: you want a three year period, i think that's too long to discuss the current state of tennis (three years ago, Tipsarevic and Mardy Fish were in the top 10). over the past year, they have not been the Big Four. and even over the past two, they're far from where they once were, as a group. and there is no innate law of tennis to design someone the Big Four in any case. If someone started watching tennis in January of 2014 without commentary, and you'd talk to him about the Big Four, he'd have no clue what you're talking about.

anyway, we're not disagreeing by all that much. what it comes down to is that next year, you'll have to agree that the Big Four are over. on the off chance that they do muster an unlikely comeback (=share the slams and 1000s, hog all the slam finals, great results for all four of them, only Novak would get a pass), then you'll say they've never left, while i'll just call it a comeback (sorry, LL Cool J).

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

On a very basic level, the last six Slams over 2014-15:

2 Djokovic, Wawrinka
1 Cilic, Nadal

That's half to the Big Four and Wawrinka as much as anyone, more than Murray, Rafa and Federer combined.

also, that. which is a year and a half worth of tennis.

 

[Kieran]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is always a difference between top 4 and big 4. Obviously big 4 are not currently the top 4
(although 3 of them are still in top 4). Just because Tom, Dick, Harry and Harry Jr are the top four in an year, we don't call them big four. So, basically big 4 is name given for sustained excellence of a group of four players. When you talk about sustained excellence, it is necessarily of historic nature.
At the same time, I am not talking about resting on very old laurels here.

So, therefore we have to necessarily go back to, say three years worth of stat going back from the current point of time. If you do that you will see that, Big four are indeed better than Novak, Man, Cilic and Kei and substantially at that.

I am not saying big four will continue for a long time. They are already on decline (compared to their own previous performance) and at a certain point of time that phrase has to be retired.
To me, that point of time is when you see another group of four players having a better performance than this group, going back to a period of at least three years from the current time.

If you just want to look at one year's data, it is always easy to come up with another four.
In 2013, replace Roger by someone else. In 2014, replace Murray by someone else. In 2015, replace Nadal by someone else.

Also, I am willing to reduce the size to big three (or big two) for that matter if a member of that group shows continued poor performance for a period of two years. You got to give individual players of that group a pass for one year of poor performance (for whatever reasons, injury, form, fatigue).

damn, had a long reply and a lost it.

reconstructing in a nutshell: you want a three year period, i think that's too long to discuss the current state of tennis (three years ago, Tipsarevic and Mardy Fish were in the top 10). over the past year, they have not been the Big Four. and even over the past two, they're far from where they once were, as a group. and there is no innate law of tennis to design someone the Big Four in any case. If someone started watching tennis in January of 2014 without commentary, and you'd talk to him about the Big Four, he'd have no clue what you're talking about.

anyway, we're not disagreeing by all that much. what it comes down to is that next year, you'll have to agree that the Big Four are over. on the off chance that they do muster an unlikely comeback (=share the slams and 1000s, hog all the slam finals, great results for all four of them, only Novak would get a pass), then you'll say they've never left, while i'll just call it a comeback (sorry, LL Cool J).

No, I am not advocating a three year ranking system for players (or 2 like Nadal). My basic point is that if there are four top players in an year, we don't immediately start calling them big four.
Top 4 is different from Big 4. Big 4 name itself arose only because of sustained excellence over multiple years by the same group of four players. So, we have to necessarily use multiyear stats while
discussing the notion of Big Four. I thought 3 was a reasonable number. Somewould say use 4 and some would say use 2. But, all would agree that we need to use multiyear stats before retiring that phrase.

I would like to use three years worth of state from today going back to 3 years for dealing with them as a group. However, while checking whether a particular player is still part of the big four,
I would just want to check whether some other player is better than the player that we are trying to get rid off based on recent two years performance. If so, I would be willing to reduce the size.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

I agree with Murray not belonging to the group to begin with. I did not want to get into it
partly to not hurt the Andy fans by telling the truth and partly because that is not the main point
of the thread (even though it is relevant). The thread is arguing about the demise of Big 4, even though the Big 4 may not have existed to begin with.

 

[Fiero425]

The word "Big" implies something of a certain size. There's nothing "Big" about Murray, even before his back op. I like the bloke and I'm sure he has major/s still in him, but he's not Big. Big would be Fedal, and Djoker. But to have a "current Big 3", they have to be still current, as well as Big. Fedal haven't won any of the last 4 majors, they haven't reached the final in the last 3, and they haven't made the semis in the last two.

I think there's no life left in the notion of a Big 3, or 4, or 3+1...

I agree with Murray not belonging to the group to begin with. I did not want to get into it
partly to not hurt the Andy fans by telling the truth and partly because that is not the main point
of the thread (even though it is relevant). The thread is arguing about the demise of Big 4, even though the Big 4 may not have existed to begin with.

I'm sure if you look back you will see posts of mines and others that have been saying in different ways that the "Big 4" is a misnomer and even the "Big 3" is no more with Nole clearly on top, then Murray, then the rest of the tour with Federer and Nadal barely holding on to their status of being elite! :angel: :dodgy: