Fallacy of the big four

Is it not time to lay this one to rest?

Since Roger won the Aussie Open two years ago the last seven completed slams have been won by Nadal (4x) and Djokovic (3x). Now I'm a big fan of Roger's tennis and would like to see Andy prove me wrong but you can't have a big four when only two of them actually are winning any slams.

Fast forward to both the French and Wimbledon and it is highly likely that both of them will be the finalists again.
In fact here are my predictions for the rest of the year:

AO - Djokovic (provided he has recovered from today's efforts)

FO - Nadal (no brainer)

Wimbledon - choose from one of the above

US Open - Djokovic

Federer might steal the gold medal at the Olympics and, yes, it is possible he or Murray may get lucky and contest one of the slam finals. The big two will reign supreme though.

FO - Nadal is not a given.

US Open - Djokovic - is not a given either. Murray could improve similar to Djokovic in the next 8 months.

I have often thought this, at the end of 2009 I considered it the big 5 with Del Potro. But I think it has become smaller and smaller, big 4 because they all keep making the semis of slams and the only guys who win Masters events, big 3 because Rog Rafa and Novak all have majors, big 2 because Rafa and Novak all hold slams currently and mostly in the finals, but in my opinion if Novak wins tomorrow it will be Novak out on his own. Djokovic and then the rest.

Now,now laverfan . Never said Djokovic at the US Open was a "given"

It would take a braver man (or woman) than me to bet against a wounded Nadal at the French (assuming he loses here).

Murray doing a Djokovic? Possibly. Then, of course it really would be the big three.

FO I have as 75% Djokovic. The lower the out the more inevitable it is that he will run Nadal not the ground. Nadal has more chance at the US Open.

FO is clearly not a no brainer any more but debatable between Nadal and Djokovic.

I like the big 4 logic. For me, the gap from 4 to 5 is bigger than any of the gaps 1 to 4.

I hope Murray or Federer wins a slam though.

Henman Bill wrote:FO is clearly not a no brainer any more but debatable between Nadal and Djokovic.

I like the big 4 logic. For me, the gap from 4 to 5 is bigger than any of the gaps 1 to 4.

I hope Murray or Federer wins a slam though.

Interesting thought there but I still had Djokovic as needing to adapt his game a little bit yet on clay.

Even after the two straight sets schoolings handed out at Rome and Madrid?

He only lost to Federer if you recall.

bogbrush wrote:FO I have as 75% Djokovic.

Pretty much in agreement. If Djoko plays as he did last year on clay (and it's never a given that he will) then I think only the Federer factor will stop him. Therefore if Federer ends up in Nadal's side of the draw at RG I expect Rafa to have a squeaky bum moment.

I still hope by then Nadal will be down to number 3 with Murray rising fast, with semi-final line up being Federer vs Murray and Nadal vs Djokovic. So Federer maybe, just maybe fittingly can stop Djokovic geting the Grand Slam like he, himself was stopped so many times. I can dream!

Thats if Djokovic wins tomorrow of course!

'The big four' is indeed a fallacy.

It's a big 3, with Muzza still firmly outside it...Until he wins his next Disney Pizza Hut Classic in Mississippi or whatever it is, then obviously he's back as favourite for any slam.

consigliare wrote:'The big four' is indeed a fallacy.

It's a big 3, with Muzza still firmly outside it...Until he wins his next Disney Pizza Hut Classic in Mississippi or whatever it is, then obviously he's back as favourite for any slam.

Ah..............the old Murray never wins anything of substance inaccurate b%ll%cks. Never get tired of that one

Henman Bill wrote:FO is clearly not a no brainer any more but debatable between Nadal and Djokovic.

I like the big 4 logic. For me, the gap from 4 to 5 is bigger than any of the gaps 1 to 4.

I hope Murray or Federer wins a slam though.

Have to Echo Henman Bill's logic here of course murray isn't on equal footing with Fed or Nadal and even Djoko now all those guys have at least a handful of slams. But in terms of consistently making it deep in the big events these 4 do it week in and week out. There is a big gap between number 4 and 5, and the margins within the top 4 are smaller.

If anything it is starting to look like Novak is separating himself from the rest of the big 4, if he wins the AO that will 7 straight finals against his nearest rival. But it isn't coincidence that you can predict the semifinalists for each and every big event beforehand and be be 90 percent secure that they all make it.

Djoko was stopped only by a brilliant Fed in FO semi's if not Djoko might have walked with calander slam last year, unless Djoko faces Fed in redhot form its very likely he will lift it too.

The 4 of them totally dominate the game, it's been a while since a slam final didn't involve 2 of them.

carrieg4 wrote:

consigliare wrote:'The big four' is indeed a fallacy.

It's a big 3, with Muzza still firmly outside it...Until he wins his next Disney Pizza Hut Classic in Mississippi or whatever it is, then obviously he's back as favourite for any slam.

Ah..............the old Murray never wins anything of substance inaccurate b%ll%cks. Never get tired of that one

Leave it 'carrieg4'. 'consigilare' still thinks it's 2005, where Fed conquered all. They're like a Liverpool fan, that thinks they have a devine right to win everything - simply because they did in the past

Ask yourself if Murray could have 'dined out' on an O2 win, when his three rivals were an average 70% fit

To be honest I think that it's four tier.

Novak out on his own
Followed by Rafa & Roger
Then Andy
Followed by the rest.

Not a great deal between the first three tiers but after Andy the gap gets a lot wider- IMO

banbrotam wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

consigliare wrote:'The big four' is indeed a fallacy.

It's a big 3, with Muzza still firmly outside it...Until he wins his next Disney Pizza Hut Classic in Mississippi or whatever it is, then obviously he's back as favourite for any slam.

Ah..............the old Murray never wins anything of substance inaccurate b%ll%cks. Never get tired of that one

Leave it 'carrieg4'. 'consigilare' still thinks it's 2005, where Fed conquered all. They're like a Liverpool fan, that thinks they have a devine right to win everything - simply because they did in the past

Ask yourself if Murray could have 'dined out' on an O2 win, when his three rivals were an average 70% fit

Oh yeah, of course if Federer wins the others are impaired.

bogbrush wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

consigliare wrote:'The big four' is indeed a fallacy.

It's a big 3, with Muzza still firmly outside it...Until he wins his next Disney Pizza Hut Classic in Mississippi or whatever it is, then obviously he's back as favourite for any slam.

Ah..............the old Murray never wins anything of substance inaccurate b%ll%cks. Never get tired of that one

Leave it 'carrieg4'. 'consigilare' still thinks it's 2005, where Fed conquered all. They're like a Liverpool fan, that thinks they have a devine right to win everything - simply because they did in the past

Ask yourself if Murray could have 'dined out' on an O2 win, when his three rivals were an average 70% fit

Oh yeah, of course if Federer wins the others are impaired.

BB. We would have given the same kudos if Murray had won it. Remember, I'm not having a go at Fed - just the ridiculous stance that consigilare takes - to imply that Murray is way behind Federer is ludricous and you as a better scholar of the game know it.

None of this doesn't negate the fact that Federer is still the best player to watch and has the best skills - but unfortunately and not surprisingly at the age of 30, that is not enough

I would be disappointed if Murray didn't beat Roger if / when they meet at the next Slam. Indifferent about Nadal. Pleased if he beats Nole. It just reflects that time waits for no-one and the form of the last year shows this, not just this week

Not only do these guys dominate the slams but if you look at the smaller events when two or more of them enter I'd be surprised if they didn't win nearly all those aswell.

Also, these 4 will not cruise to the semis of every slam. Federer and Murray in particular might get a surprise defeat before then sooner or later. Even Nadal and Djokovic might have a shock defeat sooner or later, or an injury.

Who predicted Bastl beating Sampras?
Who predicted Soderling beating Nadal?

You just never know.

You would get long odds on all 4 of the top 4 making the semis of the FO, Wimbledon and the US Open this year. For sure, at least 2-3 of them will make it each time. I think some of you are looking too much at the recent history. A slightly wider perspective and maybe we can adjust our judgements just a little - I am not saying any of you are way wide of the mark or anything.

My eyes nearly fell out of my head when I was checking some results and saw Soderling had beaten Nadal at the FO, you just never know.

For me FO is something 40% Djokovic, 30% Nadal, 10% Federer, 10% Murray, 10% Other. Now - let's see what the bookies have to say on that...

Average/typical odds after checking several bookmakers at odds checker

Nadal 10/11
Djokovic 6/4
Del Potro 10
Federer 12
Murray 16
Ferrer 28

Debatable who should be the Fo favourite.

Arguably Nadal since he has won loads there and is the current champ, while Djokovic hasn't won there ever.

Arguably Djokovic since he won their last 2 meetings on clay in straight sets and has been dominating the matchup on all surfaces.

Overall I would make Djokovic favourite and I think Nadal is poor value with evens being the best odds available.

There was a time when if you'd seen Nadal at evens for the FO you'd have probably wanted to put £50 or £100 on it before the bookies saw sense. But not anymore.

Henman Bill wrote:For me FO is something 40% Djokovic, 30% Nadal, 10% Federer, 10% Murray, 10% Other. Now - let's see what the bookies have to say on that...

Which other can you see winning it? Got to say 40% Nadal and Djokovic, 15% Federer, 3% Murray, 2% Other at best. Though obviously percentages seem a little silly in this type of prediction

Del Potro is the main other, or to get to 10% other you could only have to think that are 100 other players that have a 0.1% chance on average.... apart from Del Potro there is no one other player with say a 4% or 5% chance, but lots of 1% or 0.1% adds up...

Who knows what young players are going to suddenly come through?

2005 FO was Nadal's first appearance at the tournament. No-one would have seen that coming after the 2004 FO, when he didn't even play...