The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[Moxie]

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

 

[Federberg]

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

This!

 

[brokenshoelace]

You got the better memory. The Big 4 narrative started only after 2011. Before was only Fedal.

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

Actually, you are making this up. It's factually incorrect. We were all there when the conversations were happening.

 

[Billie]

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

Hm...I think that your post reflects the things from today's perspective and what Nole and Andy were able to achieve from 2011 and on. Back then it was like you were the biggest idiot if you thought that either one of them could do some serious damage to Fedal. Nole never beat either one of them in a slam final, or beat them in a slam except once. His claim to glory in 2010 was a 500 title at Dubai beating Youzhny in the final. Even after the miracle at the USO that year and reaching the final, many were saying it was a fluke. Even in 2011 people thought Nole was on some sort of temporary success. It was definitely big 2 + Nole (as he was able to keep his #3 ranking and slightly ahead of Andy) then Andy and the rest.

 

[nehmeth]

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

I fully realize that "wiki" is not the best arbiter of facts (or truth), but I remember the "big 4" talk began around 2008/09.

edit: That was more around the tennis club or on tennis forums. Billie, the term did become mainstream (picked up by the media) around 11-12 (if you believe wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_%28tennis%29

 

[Fiero425]

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

I fully realize that "wiki" is not the best arbiter of facts (or truth), but I remember the "big 4" talk began around 2008/09.

edit: That was more around the tennis club or on tennis forums. Billie, the term did become mainstream (picked up by the media) around 11-12 (if you believe wiki)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Four_%28tennis%29

Just glancing at it, the page seems to be up to date! Someone's working hard because I see a change right after a tournament is over! "Good job; whoever!" :clap :angel::dodgy:

 

[herios]

The worst part about the old forum archive being gone is people making up crap unchallenged. Big 4 narrative started after 2008 US Open. In fact, when Nadal beat Murray to win Indian Wells in 2009, Momochiro made a thread downplaying the notion of big 4 by saying there's only a big 1 (Nadal was dominating back then).

The ridiculousness of your claim is it makes no sense for the big 4 narrative to start in 2011, since that year was only about Novak and his wins over Nadal.

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

I still cannot recall mentioned this notion much in 2009. In 2008 I was not even member of tennis.com, where I signed up only in 2009 mid spring.
As far as 2010, they were not as dominant, 3 masters went to other players: Ljubicic, Roddick and Soderling, the narrative therefore was not as much justified.

 

[Fiero425]

I am not making up anything. The Big 4 narrative started not when they were ranked top 4, rather when they started sweeping all the big events.

I think you remember incorrectly. While 2008 US Open may be too early, though all 4 were in the SFs, this may spark the memory: by 2009 US Open, when Del Potro won, we began talking about a Big 4 plus 1, which wouldn't have happened in the same way after JMDP's first injury, which happened late-2009, early 2010. In any case, I think 2011 is very late to say that's when we started having Big 4 discussions. The phrase was coined long before, and we used it.

I still cannot recall mentioned this notion much in 2009. In 2008 I was not even member of tennis.com, where I signed up only in 2009 mid spring.
As far as 2010, they were not as dominant, 3 masters went to other players: Ljubicic, Roddick and Soderling, the narrative therefore was not as much justified.

Maybe; but "The Big 4" was still in tennis lexicon in addition to "The Big 4+1" because of Del Po win of USO in '09! Their dominance has been unprecedented; esp. in the "OPEN" era! :clap :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

People need to stop arguing and learn how to use Google (specific time filter)

The Telegraph: "Three have become four in New York City. We used to have a Big Three in men's tennis. But now Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic have company. Andy Murray's tennis at the US Open, where he is tonight playing Federer for the title, means that we can now speak of a Big Four."

September the 8th, 2008.


(and there's more where that came from: Deuce at ATP from 01/09; a blog called Savannah's World from 03/09, quoting a Matt Cronin/Fox Article)

 

[Billie]

I don't recall Telegraph as a poster in 2010.:lolz:


I thought the point was the discussion about big 4 among us, fans who have been commenting on various boards together for number of years. What I remember from that period (2010) is that Nole and Andy were not taken as seriously as Fedal, with good reason, as they were not winning as much as they started doing it since 2011. They were not able to make some serious inroads towards beating Fedal regularly, therefore they were not in the same club as Fedal. As much as it hurt this Nole fan, it was a reality and truth.

It is kind of easy from this perspective and with the knowledge of what two of them were able to achieve to say: oh they were a threat even before, but very few people believed in it at the time, only their hard core fans who followed them very closely maybe did.

People have different views and opinions, even about the same things. I just think that herios' original thought was not that outrageous as some would say it. People wouldn't take Nole seriously in the middle of 2011, I am sure every Nole fan from that period remembers.

But everybody is welcome to their own opinion.

 

[Federberg]

^Billie I have a strong suspicion that the idea of the Big 4 probably came from one of us not these forums. You would be surprised how often these journalists study our comments and themes. Thanks to johnsteinbeck and Moxie. I was sure that we'd been using big 4 for a considerable period of time. It's nice to be vindicated, although I would have been far too lazy to bother!

 

[Fiero425]

^Billie I have a strong suspicion that the idea of the Big 4 probably came from one of us not these forums. You would be surprised how often these journalists study our comments and themes. Thanks to johnsteinbeck and Moxie. I was sure that we'd been using big 4 for a considerable period of time. It's nice to be vindicated, although I would have been far too lazy to bother!

Is it REALLY that important? Shhheesshhh! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

I don't recall Telegraph as a poster in 2010.:lolz:


I thought the point was the discussion about big 4 among us, fans who have been commenting on various boards together for number of years. What I remember from that period (2010) is that Nole and Andy were not taken as seriously as Fedal, with good reason, as they were not winning as much as they started doing it since 2011. They were not able to make some serious inroads towards beating Fedal regularly, therefore they were not in the same club as Fedal. As much as it hurt this Nole fan, it was a reality and truth.

It is kind of easy from this perspective and with the knowledge of what two of them were able to achieve to say: oh they were a threat even before, but very few people believed in it at the time, only their hard core fans who followed them very closely maybe did.

People have different views and opinions, even about the same things. I just think that herios' original thought was not that outrageous as some would say it. People wouldn't take Nole seriously in the middle of 2011, I am sure every Nole fan from that period remembers.

But everybody is welcome to their own opinion.

1 - i highly doubt that pundits and bloggers were using the term for months without any one on the forums picking it up (and yes, it might well have been the other way around).

2 - oh god, i remember that time, with horror. basically "don't instantly bow down and proclaim him the true GOAT of all sports and supreme leader of the world" translated to "don't take seriously/respect" in some minds. and kinda still does, it seems

 

[Federberg]

^Billie I have a strong suspicion that the idea of the Big 4 probably came from one of us not these forums. You would be surprised how often these journalists study our comments and themes. Thanks to johnsteinbeck and Moxie. I was sure that we'd been using big 4 for a considerable period of time. It's nice to be vindicated, although I would have been far too lazy to bother!

Is it REALLY that important? Shhheesshhh! :cover :nono :angel: :dodgy:

No :laydownlaughing

 

[mrzz]

To my memory, surely in 2011 "big 4" was already common knowledge. I would think that it was already the case in 2009, though I cannot be sure.

One good place to search is the news archive on the atp tour site. They like to use this term, and would most likely have used it around USO 2009, given the non big 4 winner.

When Soderling overtook Muray for #4, I seem to remember some talk about it too (even someone saying "big 5").

 

[Fiero425]

To my memory, surely in 2011 "big 4" was already common knowledge. I would think that it was already the case in 2009, though I cannot be sure.

One good place to search is the news archive on the atp tour site. They like to use this term, and would most likely have used it around USO 2009, given the non big 4 winner.

When Soderling overtook Muray for #4, I seem to remember some talk about it too (even someone saying "big 5").

From what I remember, it was only Del Po that broke up "The Big 4" making them a +1! Soderling had a couple wins in '09 against Nadal, but he lost to a # of people, including all 3 of his WTF RR matches! :angel: :dodgy: :ras:

 

[DarthFed]

The "Big Four" was top 4 in the rankings for a long time, so maybe by the middle of 2009 when it was clear Murray was a lot better than the rest there were some already calling it a Big Four. Look at it like this; from 2008-2010 you still had someone else winning a GS (DP) others reaching the occasional GS final (Tsonga, Roddick, Sod 2X, Berd), winning some MS events (Davydenko, Ljubicic, Roddick, Tsonga) and a YEC (Davydenko).

Come 2011-2013 which was the period of time where the Big Four ruled all and suddenly the only other player to make a GS final was Ferrer and we all know the circumstances around that one. I think Ferrer was just about the only other player to even win an MS event those 3 years as well.

So I just think the narrative is clearly different from 2008 - 2010 when Nole and Murray were way behind Fedal yet were still clearly the 3rd and 4th best players compared to 2011-2013 when it was practically a 4 man tour. That is when the term Big Four was a consensus whereas 2008-2010 you probably just had some people here and there mentioning it. I do vaguely remember that talk after DP winning the USO that there is a Big Four + 1. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at the time but the thought that there was a Big Four as early as 2009 was stupid as it would be based on Murray winning a few MS titles and getting his ass kicked in the only GS final he had made up to that point.

 

[herios]

The "Big Four" was top 4 in the rankings for a long time, so maybe by the middle of 2009 when it was clear Murray was a lot better than the rest there were some already calling it a Big Four. Look at it like this; from 2008-2010 you still had someone else winning a GS (DP) others reaching the occasional GS final (Tsonga, Roddick, Sod 2X, Berd), winning some MS events (Davydenko, Ljubicic, Roddick, Tsonga) and a YEC (Davydenko).

Come 2011-2013 which was the period of time where the Big Four ruled all and suddenly the only other player to make a GS final was Ferrer and we all know the circumstances around that one. I think Ferrer was just about the only other player to even win an MS event those 3 years as well.

So I just think the narrative is clearly different from 2008 - 2010 when Nole and Murray were way behind Fedal yet were still clearly the 3rd and 4th best players compared to 2011-2013 when it was practically a 4 man tour. That is when the term Big Four was a consensus whereas 2008-2010 you probably just had some people here and there mentioning it. I do vaguely remember that talk after DP winning the USO that there is a Big Four + 1. I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at the time but the thought that there was a Big Four as early as 2009 was stupid as it would be based on Murray winning a few MS titles and getting his ass kicked in the only GS final he had made up to that point.

Thanks for expressing it this well, could have not said it any better. Exactly my thought.

 

[mrzz]

I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at the time but the thought that there was a Big Four as early as 2009 was stupid as it would be based on Murray winning a few MS titles and getting his ass kicked in the only GS final he had made up to that point.

The fact that the term big four wasn't accurate in 2009-2010, as you have shown, does not stops people from using it then (unfortunately). And, not by coincidence, some people, at that time, would dispute the very notion of it. I remember very well thinking that the term big 4 was kind of nonsense, basically for the reasons you exposed...

 

[Fiero425]

I probably wouldn't have mentioned it at the time but the thought that there was a Big Four as early as 2009 was stupid as it would be based on Murray winning a few MS titles and getting his ass kicked in the only GS final he had made up to that point.

The fact that the term big four wasn't accurate in 2009-2010, as you have shown, does not stops people from using it then (unfortunately). And, not by coincidence, some people, at that time, would dispute the very notion of it. I remember very well thinking that the term big 4 was kind of nonsense, basically for the reasons you exposed...

But there was no one else; save Del Po at USO! He was the only other player that challenged the others; including Rafa and Roger at their peak! People forget how he annihilated Rafa in the semi of that semi of '09; IIRC it was 2, 2, & 2! He gave Roger a lead in the final only to come back in blazing style! It so reminded me of Safin "in the day" when he won his USO against Sampras! :clap :angel: