The Big Four are Over

[Kieran]

GOTE, that works more accurately. Nehmeth coined it, and it's easy on the eye: Greatest of Their Era.

GOAT is too inaccurate and subjective a term, usually loaded with preference for the modern...

 

[brokenshoelace]

GOTE, that works more accurately. Nehmeth coined it, and it's easy on the eye: Greatest of Their Era.

GOAT is too inaccurate and subjective a term, usually loaded with preference for the modern...

But that's why GOAT is a more fascinating debate. Typically, GOTE is pretty much set in stone. We know who the greatest players of their respective eras are.



















...and most of us know who the GOAT is :snicker

 

[Kieran]

I know, poor old Rod Laver, bless 'im. Used to eat a bowl of cornflakes on the change of ends. This was considered the first time "healthy diet" had been thought of for tennis players. Lew Hoad's diet consisted of two beer kegs for breakfast and the rear end of a horse for lunch. Hoad was famous for drinking cocktails and smoking a cheroot between sets, where he'd regale the ladies in the front row seats with tales of his epic battles with Pancho Gonzalez on cruise line ships out at sea. These matches were fought on a court surface known as "dried out swimming pool." Hoad lost the first 72 of these matches, but then won the next 218 in a row, some by as many as six sets to love, establishing him as the real GOTE, until the ship sank and then...

 

[Kirijax]

For me, I usually think of the players in Tiers. Tier 1 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), Tier 2 (Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Agassi), Tier 3 (Becker, Edberg, Wilander) and so on. All have their own claims to greatness and it's almost impossible to say who is the GOAT. There's more to tennis than Grand Slams, and all the different eras and different players are what make tennis great and fun to talk about. Any time some one starts proclaiming their choice and opinion of who is the GOAT, I'll listen, but it's just a lot of hot air and fanboyism because there will never be a player that everyone agrees as the GOAT. Enjoy their accomplishments and watch the young players try to climb up thaï½” ladder that gets longer and more colorful with every era.

There's a lot of debate of who belongs in the Top four or three and when it is over, but I think tennis historians will always refer to this age as The Big Four because everyone will know immediately who they are talking about. Whether we agree on if it is accurate or not.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I know, poor old Rod Laver, bless 'im. Used to eat a bowl of cornflakes on the change of ends. This was considered the first time "healthy diet" had been thought of for tennis players. Lew Hoad's diet consisted of two beer kegs for breakfast and the rear end of a horse for lunch. Hoad was famous for drinking cocktails and smoking a cheroot between sets, where he'd regale the ladies in the front row seats with tales of his epic battles with Pancho Gonzalez on cruise line ships out at sea. These matches were fought on a court surface known as "dried out swimming pool." Hoad lost the first 72 of these matches, but then won the next 218 in a row, some by as many as six sets to love, establishing him as the real GOTE, until the ship sank and then...

I was talking about Soderling.

 

[Kieran]

^^ Again, who's the "Four?" Murray can't be considered Big yet, even though he's doing great things. There's Three who are Big, Great, Huge, Immense, and there's Murray, who's been very good but I wouldn't snugly fit him in company with Fedal and Djoker...

 

[Kieran]

I know, poor old Rod Laver, bless 'im. Used to eat a bowl of cornflakes on the change of ends. This was considered the first time "healthy diet" had been thought of for tennis players. Lew Hoad's diet consisted of two beer kegs for breakfast and the rear end of a horse for lunch. Hoad was famous for drinking cocktails and smoking a cheroot between sets, where he'd regale the ladies in the front row seats with tales of his epic battles with Pancho Gonzalez on cruise line ships out at sea. These matches were fought on a court surface known as "dried out swimming pool." Hoad lost the first 72 of these matches, but then won the next 218 in a row, some by as many as six sets to love, establishing him as the real GOTE, until the ship sank and then...

I was talking about Soderling.

Good, because I thought you'd jumped upon the Stanley Wow! bandwagon...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I know, poor old Rod Laver, bless 'im. Used to eat a bowl of cornflakes on the change of ends. This was considered the first time "healthy diet" had been thought of for tennis players. Lew Hoad's diet consisted of two beer kegs for breakfast and the rear end of a horse for lunch. Hoad was famous for drinking cocktails and smoking a cheroot between sets, where he'd regale the ladies in the front row seats with tales of his epic battles with Pancho Gonzalez on cruise line ships out at sea. These matches were fought on a court surface known as "dried out swimming pool." Hoad lost the first 72 of these matches, but then won the next 218 in a row, some by as many as six sets to love, establishing him as the real GOTE, until the ship sank and then...

I was talking about Soderling.

Good, because I thought you'd jumped upon the Stanley Wow! bandwagon...

Didn't you see my thread? He's always been my favorite player.

 

[Federberg]

For me, I usually think of the players in Tiers. Tier 1 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), Tier 2 (Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Agassi), Tier 3 (Becker, Edberg, Wilander) and so on. All have their own claims to greatness and it's almost impossible to say who is the GOAT. There's more to tennis than Grand Slams, and all the different eras and different players are what make tennis great and fun to talk about. Any time some one starts proclaiming their choice and opinion of who is the GOAT, I'll listen, but it's just a lot of hot air and fanboyism because there will never be a player that everyone agrees as the GOAT. Enjoy their accomplishments and watch the young players try to climb up thaï½” ladder that gets longer and more colorful with every era.

There's a lot of debate of who belongs in the Top four or three and when it is over, but I think tennis historians will always refer to this age as The Big Four because everyone will know immediately who they are talking about. Whether we agree on if it is accurate or not.

I wholly subscribe to your first paragraph. I hesitate with the 2nd. I think it's going to be very difficult if Murray ends up on 2 slams for historians to carry on that pretence. I always go with Big 3 and Top for to make a distinction. That's not to diminish Andy, but as things stand he's not in the league of the others. But going back to your first paragraph, I'm in agreement. For me, even Mac has a claim to pre-eminence. He is the winningest male tennis player after all. When you add singles and doubles no one else in the Open era comes close

 

[El Dude]

I used the analogy of the GOAT because it seems similar to the narrow definition some require for Big Four, and points out that a lot of this is semantics. Even if people say there's never been a Big 4, but it has always been a Big 3+1...well, 3+1 = 4.

 

[Kirijax]

For me, I usually think of the players in Tiers. Tier 1 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), Tier 2 (Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Agassi), Tier 3 (Becker, Edberg, Wilander) and so on. All have their own claims to greatness and it's almost impossible to say who is the GOAT. There's more to tennis than Grand Slams, and all the different eras and different players are what make tennis great and fun to talk about. Any time some one starts proclaiming their choice and opinion of who is the GOAT, I'll listen, but it's just a lot of hot air and fanboyism because there will never be a player that everyone agrees as the GOAT. Enjoy their accomplishments and watch the young players try to climb up thaï½” ladder that gets longer and more colorful with every era.

There's a lot of debate of who belongs in the Top four or three and when it is over, but I think tennis historians will always refer to this age as The Big Four because everyone will know immediately who they are talking about. Whether we agree on if it is accurate or not.

I wholly subscribe to your first paragraph. I hesitate with the 2nd. I think it's going to be very difficult if Murray ends up on 2 slams for historians to carry on that pretence. I always go with Big 3 and Top for to make a distinction. That's not to diminish Andy, but as things stand he's not in the league of the others. But going back to your first paragraph, I'm in agreement. For me, even Mac has a claim to pre-eminence. He is the winningest male tennis player after all. When you add singles and doubles no one else in the Open era comes close

I often wonder what might have been if McEnroe had never come across Tatum O'Neal. :dodgy:

 

[Federberg]

For me, I usually think of the players in Tiers. Tier 1 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), Tier 2 (Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Agassi), Tier 3 (Becker, Edberg, Wilander) and so on. All have their own claims to greatness and it's almost impossible to say who is the GOAT. There's more to tennis than Grand Slams, and all the different eras and different players are what make tennis great and fun to talk about. Any time some one starts proclaiming their choice and opinion of who is the GOAT, I'll listen, but it's just a lot of hot air and fanboyism because there will never be a player that everyone agrees as the GOAT. Enjoy their accomplishments and watch the young players try to climb up thaï½” ladder that gets longer and more colorful with every era.

There's a lot of debate of who belongs in the Top four or three and when it is over, but I think tennis historians will always refer to this age as The Big Four because everyone will know immediately who they are talking about. Whether we agree on if it is accurate or not.

I wholly subscribe to your first paragraph. I hesitate with the 2nd. I think it's going to be very difficult if Murray ends up on 2 slams for historians to carry on that pretence. I always go with Big 3 and Top for to make a distinction. That's not to diminish Andy, but as things stand he's not in the league of the others. But going back to your first paragraph, I'm in agreement. For me, even Mac has a claim to pre-eminence. He is the winningest male tennis player after all. When you add singles and doubles no one else in the Open era comes close

I often wonder what might have been if McEnroe had never come across Tatum O'Neal. :dodgy:

Me too! :devil:basiate

 

[El Dude]

^^ Again, who's the "Four?" Murray can't be considered Big yet, even though he's doing great things. There's Three who are Big, Great, Huge, Immense, and there's Murray, who's been very good but I wouldn't snugly fit him in company with Fedal and Djoker...

But here's the thing. Sure, Andy is way behind Roger, Rafa and Novak in terms of career accomplishments. There's no denying that. But the reason he's considered in the Big Four by some is that he's just as far ahead of the rest of the pack, at least if you consider the entire Big Four era (200. As I said above, other players have vied for inclusion in the elite, but none have consistently been a part of the top four players.

In other words, since 2008 we have:

Roger, Rafa, Novak

Andy

Everyone else

Whether or not you include Andy in the trinity or everyone else is up to you. This has been the question about Andy: Worst of the Best or Best of the Rest? In my opinion the answer is both.

I also think my chart speaks volumes. Again, Andy is way behind - but the gap between him and everyone else is also large. Stan is changing that over the last couple years, though, which is why the Big Four Era is ending.

When does day become night? It is a gradual process, a transition. I'd rather say that we're in the Twilight of the Big Four Era.

 

[Kieran]

Andy is the +1, but I agree, he's been clearly the best of the rest. Injury derailed him somewhat, so let's see if he can add another few slams before he goes Basil Fawlty full time in his nice posh hotel...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I used the analogy of the GOAT because it seems similar to the narrow definition some require for Big Four, and points out that a lot of this is semantics. Even if people say there's never been a Big 4, but it has always been a Big 3+1...well, 3+1 = 4.

This is why I prefer to call them "Three and half Men" named after the US TV show "Two and half Men".

 

[Moxie]

For me, I usually think of the players in Tiers. Tier 1 (Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), Tier 2 (Connors, Lendl, McEnroe, Djokovic, Agassi), Tier 3 (Becker, Edberg, Wilander) and so on. All have their own claims to greatness and it's almost impossible to say who is the GOAT. There's more to tennis than Grand Slams, and all the different eras and different players are what make tennis great and fun to talk about. Any time some one starts proclaiming their choice and opinion of who is the GOAT, I'll listen, but it's just a lot of hot air and fanboyism because there will never be a player that everyone agrees as the GOAT. Enjoy their accomplishments and watch the young players try to climb up thaï½” ladder that gets longer and more colorful with every era.

There's a lot of debate of who belongs in the Top four or three and when it is over, but I think tennis historians will always refer to this age as The Big Four because everyone will know immediately who they are talking about. Whether we agree on if it is accurate or not.

As you say, we can debate how valid it is, but I agree that the term Big Four has entered common parlance as far as tennis is concerned, and there's a good chance it will always be used. Basically, because it's a convenient shorthand to talking about the 4 of them, and, looking at El Dude's chart, and remembering how long they basically held the top 4 slots, we can see why it's useful to talk about all 4. Murray hasn't achieved as much, but he was fairly entrenched above that glass ceiling in the rankings for a long while. And he's still solidly in the mix, now that the back seems to be sorted. Thanks to El Dude for the chart, and I agree this is the "twilight of the Big 4." Which, of course, doesn't mean the twilight of Djokovic or Murray, and hopefully not the end of Fed or Rafa, but some others have stormed the castle successfully, and will continue to do so.

 

[Fiero425]

The "Big 4" per era:

1970's - Borg, Connors, Nastase, Gerulaitis (w/ a touch of Ashe, Vilas, and McEnroe)
1980's - McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander (splash of Cash, Becker, and Edberg)
1990's - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker (mention Chang, Rafter, Philippoussis)
2000's - Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (sprinkling of Murray, Nalbandian, & Davydenko)
2010's - Djokovics, Nadal, Federer, Murray (fillers of Wawrinka, Nishikori, & Raonic)

Just off the top of my head! What are your choices if old enough to remember? No cheating with the record book!

 

[Kirijax]

The "Big 4" per era:

1970's - Borg, Connors, Nastase, Gerulaitis (w/ a touch of Ashe, Vilas, and McEnroe)
1980's - McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander (splash of Cash, Becker, and Edberg)
1990's - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker (mention Chang, Rafter, Philippoussis)
2000's - Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (sprinkling of Murray, Nalbandian, & Davydenko)
2010's - Djokovics, Nadal, Federer, Murray (fillers of Wawrinka, Nishikori, & Raonic)

Just off the top of my head! What are your choices if old enough to remember? No cheating with the record book!

Because you added Wilander in the 80s Big 4, you can be my new best friend.

 

[Fiero425]

The "Big 4" per era:

1970's - Borg, Connors, Nastase, Gerulaitis (w/ a touch of Ashe, Vilas, and McEnroe)
1980's - McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Wilander (splash of Cash, Becker, and Edberg)
1990's - Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Becker (mention Chang, Rafter, Philippoussis)
2000's - Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (sprinkling of Murray, Nalbandian, & Davydenko)
2010's - Djokovics, Nadal, Federer, Murray (fillers of Wawrinka, Nishikori, & Raonic)

Just off the top of my head! What are your choices if old enough to remember? No cheating with the record book!

Because you added Wilander in the 80s Big 4, you can be my new best friend.

McEnroe had the name, but Wilander had the record no one paid attention to! He was the first of the top players to go "down under" on a regular basis, winning it 3 times; twice on grass! Wilander also won 3 FO when Lendl was "The Man" in his prime! He also did something we're waiting to happen with Rafa; make consecutive USO's, winning 1 over Lendl in '88 as he took 3 of the 4 majors that season! He made it to the QF of Wimbledon several times IIRC which is impressive in itself! I always see him as someone who should go out in the 1st round like he did against some hard-hitting, Tiriac phenom named Slobodan Živojinović! He reminds me of Rafa so much; just an annoyance that made you hit several winners to take a single point! He drove Lendl insane on more than a few occasions and depressed his record when he was favored in '85 FO, '88 USO & Masters, '83 AO! :cover :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

In fairness to Murray, if there is a big 4 right now, he's definitely a part of it. In fact, it's Nadal and even Federer that make you question the existence of a big 4 at the moment.

Historically, well, that's obviously a different issue, and I don't object to the Big 3+1 nuance.