Is it Time we call it a Big 5?

Ferrer's consistency over the last few years have been amazing, indeed from 2006 - 2013 so far for the last 8 years barring a blip for 1 year in the mid Ferrer has been ranked in top 5 for most part of the year.

Ferrer's ability to dispatch underdogs and youngsters is amazing, guys like Dimitrov and Kei might find it easy to knock Djoko and Fed these day compared to knocking Ferrer out, the relentless machine might even have a better win record against underdogs and is consistent across all surfaces on big tournaments.

He hasn't done bad against the other top 4 barring the GOAT, capable of Beating Murray in clay GS, Nadal in HC Grandslams and Djoko in Grass grandslam.

With due credit to Rafa its high time we call it a Big/Top 5 [as Ferrer is already ranked 4 ]

Im actually very loathe to call it big four as it is. "The big four have won 31 of the last 32 slams" havent quite been putting equal shifts, though have they? To now put a guy with ONE MS1000 in that equatoon would convince me that tennis is the most hyperbole-driven sport in the world (and i watch boxing)

Nope, Ferrer hasn't won enough big things. He's one won MS 1000, never reached a slam final, has never been higher than 4th in the rankings, and most of the time has been a fairly distant 5th.

Murray, who is very much or has been, 4th of the 4th, has won a slam final, reached 5 others, must been at least a dozen or so semis, 9 Masters Series and bar a few weeks here and there, has been in the top 4, with a high of 2nd.

Yes, he's better than everyone else, but he's still very much a pretender.

kingraf wrote:Im actually very loathe to call it big four as it is. "The big four have won 31 of the last 32 slams" havent quite been putting equal shifts, though have they? To now put a guy with ONE MS1000 in that equatoon would convince me that tennis is the most hyperbole-driven sport in the world (and i watch boxing)

Well Murray was added to big 4 even before he won a slam, and the criteria for the big4/5 should be how difficult they make other players to win a title, even if the big 4 are absent for an event Ferrer won't let underdogs win a title that consistent he has been over the years. His wins not just include some top 100 players but his consistency can be reflected even against players like Del Potro, Tsonga,Berdych,Almagro etc,...

ryan86 wrote:must been at least a dozen or so semis, 9 Masters Series and bar a few weeks here and there, has been in the top 4, with a high of 2nd.

Yes, he's better than everyone else, but he's still very much a pretender.

Ferrer has truck loads of semi's to his credit in GS

At the moment it's the Big 1 and 2 halves and 1 quarter

More like The-Big-Clay-God-Serbian-Number-one-Past-it-Suisse-Britain-number-one... Of course this takes a lot of effort, thus the Big four is easier.

kingraf wrote:More like The-Big-Clay-God-Serbian-Number-one-Past-it-Suisse-Britain-number-one... Of course this takes a lot of effort, thus the Big four is easier.

well would like to slowly extend it to big 32 given the lack of youngsters barring Dimitrov

invisiblecoolers wrote:

ryan86 wrote:must been at least a dozen or so semis, 9 Masters Series and bar a few weeks here and there, has been in the top 4, with a high of 2nd.

Yes, he's better than everyone else, but he's still very much a pretender.

Ferrer has truck loads of semi's to his credit in GS

The problem is the other 4 have either freight train or container ships worth of GS semis.

kingraf wrote:More like The-Big-Clay-God-Serbian-Number-one-Past-it-Suisse-Britain-number-one... Of course this takes a lot of effort, thus the Big four is easier.

Lol I'm with kingraf on this one.I hate the big four tag.

I might be wrong but I think it is British media creation to somehow elevate Murray's standing in the game. It somehow came about because of the Premier League. With the top four (and the champion league places) being dominated by the so called big 4 clubs in England. Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea.

It then got transferred across to tennis. To tag Murray in the same breath as Federer and Nadal way before he was long worthy. Anyway to summarise...its a rubbish tag line and serves absolutely no purpose what so ever other than the media.

Murray was acknowledged as part of the big 4 before won a slam by most, but not all. Some quite fairly thought that reaching multiple slam finals and winning loads of masters was not enough to be in that bracket. Some people were only really happy to include him after his wonderful summer last year.

Being as Ferrer has never reached a slam final and won 1 masters in a career that has been going over 10 years, I think it is still a big 4 and not a big 5.

That's not to play down his achievements by the way. Being the 5th best man on earth right now in the sport of tennis is pretty sensational.

I agree Danny, Murray is in the big 4 there is no big 5 and ferrer certainly isn't the most likely contender despite his ability to get into QFs and SFs of events and win smaller events.

Murray has been week in and week out a threat to win any tournament and that is what separates the other 4 from the rest of the tour. Ferrer hasn't even made a single grandslam final where Murray has made what 7 finals. And then when you throw in Murray's excellence at the masters level there is a big gap between 4 and 5 in accomplishment. Sure one could argue that there is a big gap between Novak and Federer and Nadal as well. But since Novak is running world #1 for two years and has been winning most of his big 4 matchups the last 3 years that argument is less persuasive than it was in the past. Same thing with murray as he now is a slam winner and can beat the other top 4 guys with regularity.

It's a big 4. Well done to Ferrer for amassing so many ranking points and being just about the leading player in the 5-8 category but he's never reached a slam final and has been crushed in semis.

Although look here and scroll down to near the bottom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferrer
and marvel at his 2012 (and 2013 AO) slam results - much better than previously achieved in his career.

By the way, he didn't reach even a quarter in 2006 when at a tennis player's peak age. Must have been a really strong era.

This article also gives me an excuse to dig out older articles of my own

https://www.606v2.com/t36813-ferrer-s-best-year
About how Ferrer's 2012 was his best year.

https://www.606v2.com/t41946-the-1000-challenge
Article which shows that Ferrer is more comparable to the other 5-8 players Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro than the big 4 and that really, Del Potro is the player I see at the no 5 (in waiting).

The thing I find odd about the "Big 4" tag is that I don't recall it being used before Novak made his break through.

It was always a top two - Fed and Rafa.

Then Novak hit his stride and we got, not a Big 3, but a Big 4.

Why did Novak have to win multiple slams to join the club but Andy get ushered in for winning Masters? (the 'Big 4' label pre-dates Andy making his move last year).

Have I remembered that wrong? Has the Big 4 tag been around for longer without me picking up on it?

Possibly because 4 fills the semis, which they did?

Henman Bill wrote:This article also gives me an excuse to dig out older articles of my own

https://www.606v2.com/t36813-ferrer-s-best-year
About how Ferrer's 2012 was his best year.

https://www.606v2.com/t41946-the-1000-challenge
Article which shows that Ferrer is more comparable to the other 5-8 players Berdych, Tsonga, Del Potro than the big 4 and that really, Del Potro is the player I see at the no 5 (in waiting).

I also see it as Del Potro being the biggest guy that could threaten back to back wins against big 4 opposition and lift one of the big trophies again. I just don't see ferrer doing anything but scoring an odd upset here or there against the players above him. Del Po as a slam winner I think would be the fifth guy if there was any one in particular.

HM Murdoch wrote:The thing I find odd about the "Big 4" tag is that I don't recall it being used before Novak made his break through.

It was always a top two - Fed and Rafa.

Then Novak hit his stride and we got, not a Big 3, but a Big 4.

Why did Novak have to win multiple slams to join the club but Andy get ushered in for winning Masters? (the 'Big 4' label pre-dates Andy making his move last year).

Have I remembered that wrong? Has the Big 4 tag been around for longer without me picking up on it?

Well if you go on rankings the top 4 for all but brief periods have been the 1,2,3, and 4 ranked players in the world really since 2008. I mean there is no question a gap exists between Murray and the 3 guys above him in terms of long term accomplishments however not in terms of his recent form. And Murray consistently finishing just behind these players for 5 years now signals that a gap exists between him and the rest of the tour.

Socal, but do you remember them being called the Big 4 in 2009 or 2010?

I don't really recall when I first started hearing the term.

Nah I remember them saying there was now a big 3, McEnroe was saying it constantly throughout Wimbledon 07. I don't think it became a big 4 until 2009 and at that time Murray has surpassed Novak briefly in terms of results and threat to the Fed/Nad. Murray in my mind from Mid 08-late 2010 was better than Novak, but 2011 reminded everyone who turned up first, he was almost the forgotten man with DelPo surfacing as well

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, but do you remember them being called the Big 4 in 2009 or 2010?

I don't really recall when I first started hearing the term.

I do Murdoch. It has been a top 4 since the time you are talking about, 2009 - 2010. Did it get called a big 3 after Novak won his first? I honestly can't recall.

But the big 4 term has been around for a few years for sure.

Yeah, Murdoch it has been around since I think 09 when Murray made a run beat Novak three times in a row beat Roger in back to back master's events and got to world #2.

Thanks Danny, Socal and CAS.

I don't recall a Big 3... but of course we did get a "Trivalry" in 2011!

Will we get another natty label if a 5th player steps up? A Five-alry?

Five Stars?

Since when were past greats judged on how many Masters/Grand Prix events won? How many did Connors, Lendl, Borg, etc win? Exactly. When it comes to great labels, or therein implied greatness, it's slam counts that people remember and look to. Murray has 1 slam....the lowest of the Big 3 has 5 more than him, it's a massive gap. Murray hasnt won more slams because he's been thwarted time after time by the Big 3. The term "Big 4" implies equality amongst its inhabitants...that's complete toss in my opinion.

Whose labelling Murray great? The simple fact is that it is a big 4 because they clean up all events they enter and it's a surprise if at least three of them don't make the semis of each slam. Since becoming a top 4 player, Murray is 19-23 in matches against the other three - it isn't like any of them have consistently dominated him (5-8 against Rafa being the worst record). The big 4 is a term for the here and now, not a measure of historical significance.

In that same timeframe Ferrer is 3-24 against those three players. Kind of emphasises the difference.

Born Slippy wrote:Whose labelling Murray great? The simple fact is that it is a big 4 because they clean up all events they enter and it's a surprise if at least three of them don't make the semis of each slam. Since becoming a top 4 player, Murray is 19-23 in matches against the other three - it isn't like any of them have consistently dominated him (5-8 against Rafa being the worst record). The big 4 is a term for the here and now, not a measure of historical significance.

Good points BS but I see the label Big 4 as indicative of a group of players on a par with each other. This I don't agree with. Plus lets not get into H2Hs otherwise we're anointing Nadal as GOAT. Its respective achievements that count and Murray is far behind the others...hasnt even made a clay final whereas the others have won at least 2 clay Masters each. For me it's Big 3 plus 1 guy who, yes, is above the others. Obviously with Federer waning and Nadal probably around for only a couple more years the dynamic will inevitably change and a new label is needed as Murray and Djokovic likely go on to win much more. It all depends on how you interpret that label.

Aren't labels subjective though and change with time. I mean we could argue that in the here and now on recent form Federer should be expelled from the equation as should Nadal as he returns from injury.

I see the big 4 as the contenders for titles now, not historically.
If it was historical they shouldn't be grouped together at all as there is a gap between each one of them.

In the sense of contenders for big titles now - which I believe is what the term implies, the best players NOW - Murray is obviously part of that group. He's won a masters this season and has either won or been runner up in the last 3 slams.

Even as a Murray fan, I acknowledge that history will not judge him on the same level as the other 3... But I've never read that as the intention behind the term top 4.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Aren't labels subjective though and change with time. I mean we could argue that in the here and now on recent form Federer should be expelled from the equation as should Nadal as he returns from injury.

Both Federer and Nadal are busy working on a different and higher level equation. In their spare time (as long as it doesn't distract them from their major task) they are quite happy to do some basic arithmetic with Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer or anyone else that wants to get involved...

Nadal should try working more on his tennis at the moment.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Aren't labels subjective though and change with time. I mean we could argue that in the here and now on recent form Federer should be expelled from the equation as should Nadal as he returns from injury.

Federer looks really shaky, right now the way things are shaping up this could be fed's last. In terms of current form and depending on which surface right now on hardcourt the best players are Djoko and mUrray, on clay the best players are Nadal and Djoko. Fed probably works his way into the top at wimby even on current form.

At 29-2, Nadal cant really do much More with his tennis CC.

HM Murdoch wrote:The thing I find odd about the "Big 4" tag is that I don't recall it being used before Novak made his break through.

It was always a top two - Fed and Rafa.

Then Novak hit his stride and we got, not a Big 3, but a Big 4.

Why did Novak have to win multiple slams to join the club but Andy get ushered in for winning Masters? (the 'Big 4' label pre-dates Andy making his move last year).

Have I remembered that wrong? Has the Big 4 tag been around for longer without me picking up on it?

Exactly, considering there was huge gap between Fed/Nadal and Murray and still Murray bracket alongside the greats as Big 4, why not bracket Ferrer in big 5 forgetting the difference between his level and Murray?

Either we have to agree big 4 is a myth or we have to agree Ferrer has done enough to be bracketed along big 5, if you ask the underdogs who they fear the most to face they might even throw up Ferrer's name, that shows Ferrer's dominance of the underdogs.

Ferrer cannot win a GS coz the other 4 are better than him, Murray could muster only 1 slam coz most of the time the other 3 are better than him and the story goes on for Djokovic then Nadal and then finally Federer.

socal1976 wrote:. I mean there is no question a gap exists between Murray and the 3 guys above him in terms of long term accomplishments however not in terms of his recent form. And Murray consistently finishing just behind these players for 5 years now signals that a gap exists between him and the rest of the tour.

Well the same logic can be applied to Ferrer, so you conclude Big 5 is mandatory or big 4 is a myth , thanks for supporting the argument.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Aren't labels subjective though and change with time. I mean we could argue that in the here and now on recent form Federer should be expelled from the equation as should Nadal as he returns from injury.

You backed my argument as well

Labels/Tags for want of a better word ie 'Big Four' are paraphrases used to clump players together. People will either agree with them or not depending on the view point. I am just surprised that useage of such terms gets people foaming at the mouth with rage so much. In short - is it really worth getting into a state about?

Yes Craig, we must continually bombarded with how fed is more special and better than everyone and can't be associated with lesser mortals. Frankly it makes sense in light of the fact that the 4 players in question have held the top 4 spots in the rankings barring Rafa's recent injury woes for the last 5 years.

Federer may just be the greatest player of all time.
Nadal is certainly in the top five
Djokovic top 10-20
Murray can compete with them, so I suppose I can see why people rate him a member. But Ferrer is 0-14 vs Federer, 4-18 vs Nadal, 5-7 vs Murray and vs 5-10 vs Djokovic. Thats 14-49 vs the "big four". For comparison (against the top five):
Nadal- 69-34 (outstanding really)
Federer 49-43
Djokovic 46-47
Murray 33-38

So if this is a big Five, Nadal is Michael Jackson, and Ferrer is Tito Jackson.

With the way Lord Federer's form is going, it won't be too long until they become the big 3!

kingraf wrote:Federer may just be the greatest player of all time.
Nadal is certainly in the top five
Djokovic top 10-20
Murray can compete with them, so I suppose I can see why people rate him a member. But Ferrer is 0-14 vs Federer, 4-18 vs Nadal, 5-7 vs Murray and vs 5-10 vs Djokovic. Thats 14-49 vs the "big four". For comparison (against the top five):
Nadal- 69-34 (outstanding really)
Federer 49-43
Djokovic 46-47
Murray 33-38

So if this is a big Five, Nadal is Michael Jackson, and Ferrer is Tito Jackson.

Very funny tito Jackson, try more like latoya Jackson, at least Tito was legitimately famous for a period in the mid 70s. Djokovic if he continues will finish top ten of all time for sure. What is interesting is that each of the top 4 hold's at least one h2h edge with another top 4 player. Djoko holds career H2h edge over murray, murray holds over Federer, Federer holds the edge over Nole in the H2H, and Rafa is sitting cheekily with an edge in H2H over all his contemporaries. However it looks like the edge over Nole may flip long term. Meanwhile Ferrer just can't beat any of them consistently in big matches across the various surfaces. I think a big 4 in light of what the rankings have been the last 4 years is fair. It doesn't mean that Murray or Novak are in anyway as accomplished as Federer. It is just based on what the current rankings and results have been the last few years.

gboycottnut makes a good point that of the big 4 the most vulnerable appears to be fed and that we may have to call it a big 3 sans Federer if he doesn't turn it around soon.

I have never really brought into the big 4. It was thrown out there and not had much in the way of resistance from pundits or the press. I think it was more generalised based on popularity globally and that outside the Slams they were winning titles quite frequently. I think back to golf and the 'Big 3' and that really was a trinity of talent. It is not taking anything away from Murray, but it is the 'Big 3' in tennis because their achievements reflect that.

I don't take issue with it. However it is a sponsors dream.

kingraf wrote:Federer may just be the greatest player of all time.
Nadal is certainly in the top five
Djokovic top 10-20
Murray can compete with them, so I suppose I can see why people rate him a member. But Ferrer is 0-14 vs Federer, 4-18 vs Nadal, 5-7 vs Murray and vs 5-10 vs Djokovic. Thats 14-49 vs the "big four". For comparison (against the top five):
Nadal- 69-34 (outstanding really)
Federer 49-43
Djokovic 46-47
Murray 33-38

So if this is a big Five, Nadal is Michael Jackson, and Ferrer is Tito Jackson.

Alteast Ferrer is a Jackson

gboycottnut wrote:With the way Lord Federer's form is going, it won't be too long until they become the big 3!

You mean Nadal , Djokovic and Ferrer ?

invisiblecoolers wrote:

socal1976 wrote:. I mean there is no question a gap exists between Murray and the 3 guys above him in terms of long term accomplishments however not in terms of his recent form. And Murray consistently finishing just behind these players for 5 years now signals that a gap exists between him and the rest of the tour.

Well the same logic can be applied to Ferrer, so you conclude Big 5 is mandatory or big 4 is a myth , thanks for supporting the argument.

SO you agree with Big 5? or Big 4 is a myth? which one you Support Socal?

I certainly don't buy into the argument that Ferrer should form part of a 'Big 5' - he's far closer in record to those below him than those above, but is just a bit more consistent so accumulates more points.

As for whether there truly is a 'Big 4', I think the answer is yes and no - around 2008/2009 I think it was reasonable to argue a Big 2 (Fedal) and a next 2 (Murrovic) clearly ahead of the rest. Djokovic has then bridged the gap to the previous top 2 and it is now looking like Federer may have faded back to equal/below Murray in terms of form and likelihood to win any given tournament. Clearly Andy is well ahead of the 5-8 ranked players in terms of consistency and success, and in my opinion is closer to the other 3 than he is the rest of the field so is a bit more than 'best of the rest'.

So 'Big 4'? Sort of.
Big 5? Too big a stretch.

yeah, a big 2+2 would sum up 2009-2010 - not very catchy though. 2011 you could argue it was Djoko out on his own, then Nadal and then the other 2. 2012 to present i think it would be hard to say it isnt a big 4. They've all achieved relatively similar results in the big events in that time and I wouldn't want to try and call either Wimbledon or the US Open at this time. The biggest Q is over Fed but realistically id say they each have about an even chance at wimbledon particularly.

Born Slippy wrote:yeah, a big 2+2 would sum up 2009-2010 - not very catchy though. 2011 you could argue it was Djoko out on his own, then Nadal and then the other 2. 2012 to present i think it would be hard to say it isnt a big 4. They've all achieved relatively similar results in the big events in that time and I wouldn't want to try and call either Wimbledon or the US Open at this time. The biggest Q is over Fed but realistically id say they each have about an even chance at wimbledon particularly.

I agree I mean we may have more parity in the big 4 now with Roger coming down to earth and Andy raising his level than we have in the past. To me a big 4 makes sense because these are the players that have finished in the top 4 now for the last 5 years, with some time away for Nadal due to injuries. In short, the big 4 won't be around much longer with Roger leaving. But right now I think it is fair to separate them from the rest of the tour with this terminology.