The Big Four

I won't make any excuses and will say it as it is (at least in my head):

Forget about the "golden era" of Borg, Jimbo, Lendl and Mac!

Although I was not old enough to fully appreciate tennis in the late 70s/early 80s, I find the current era absolutely fascinating to follow; there are several reasons for it:
1) Google (you can find just almost anything you like from both current ATP tour as well as the past at your fingertips) ,
2) Match viewing availability (matches are covered all year round and if you are a fan you can see almost all the matches of your favourite player) ,
3) Youtube (you can relive memorable times and points on tap, you can see matches from the past),
4) Then there are Facebook, Twitter and many other sources of information (more is not always more , sometimes I wish for the mistique and glamour of yester year even in tennis )

Welcome the New Gold Dream of golden era of tennis: The Big Four!

You can love you can hate them, you can pick them to bits and split the invisible hairs: is he proud or is he arrogant, who is the GOAT and who will never be, who's is humble, who is falsely humble, who is a cheat, who ....

The closer we get to the end of a tournament, the more heated the "discussions" become, the facades disappear like snow on Christmas day well, at least until last year



)

So why the Big Four, or why Big?

1) Roger Federer, tennis prodigy that is quite a sight to behold on a tennis court: there is nothing he can't do with a ball, and when he's on, it really is special: the other player is there just to provide legitimate background: millions have said it, I'll just throw the well repeated cliches as they come to me: elegant, sublime, superb, graceful, deadly, unique, genius.

2) Rafael Nadal: the controversial figure, Federer's antiworld: gritty, fighter, warrior, explosive, super-fast, wise, in 2008: amazing!

3) Novak Djokovic: exciting, electric, ballsy, elegant, super-fast, passionate, intelligent, unquenchable.

4) Andy Murray: eccentric, bratty, interesting, stubborn, unortodox, wild, passionate.

What do the 4 have in common: fantastic talent and work ethic, all-court game.

Why do I love them all: because they produce some fantastic matches and match-ups.

Rivalries:
The top one for me has to be Federer Djokovic, there's a real, palpable dislike on the court between the two and they really go for each other, showing off their best, which can be breathtaking and out of this world sometimes.

Almost as good: Murray Nadal and Djokovic Nadal.

With Novak and Murray arriving at their prime, Federer still hungry (who will ever forget that wagging finger

) ) , Nadal just "there" , we have at least two years of super tennis to look forward to...the grandest stage of Wimbledon is ready.....and so am I....COME ON NOLEEEEEE

What are your thoughts on the Big 4?

It's a big 3 and big 4 if Delpo gets back to where he belongs.

Murray isn't really a member of the 'big 4'.

The rankings suggest otherwise

legendkillar wrote:The rankings suggest otherwise

Murray's best of the rest at winning the smaller events, no shame in that.

Delpo have a major injury, 6 months time we'll see him back in the top 4

Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

Because there are hardily any Tennis events in December, so to be part of the big four qualifying for end of seasons masters would be a sign of progress

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

Because there are hardily any Tennis events in December, so to be part of the big four qualifying for end of seasons masters would be a sign of progress

I think the signs of progress are already there.

Delpo has won 2 titles in 2011 and made the semi finals of Indian Wells

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

Because there are hardily any Tennis events in December, so to be part of the big four qualifying for end of seasons masters would be a sign of progress

I think the signs of progress are already there.

Delpo has won 2 titles in 2011 and made the semi finals of Indian Wells

It is going to take more than that to get into the top 10 let alone the top 8 come end of year

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

Because there are hardily any Tennis events in December, so to be part of the big four qualifying for end of seasons masters would be a sign of progress

I think the signs of progress are already there.

Delpo has won 2 titles in 2011 and made the semi finals of Indian Wells

It is going to take more than that to get into the top 10 let alone the top 8 come end of year

As I said he recovering from a major injury.

If he gets anywhere near his 2009 level, he could win the 2011 USO

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

sonic_boom10 wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Let's see if he makes the end of season masters first eh?

why?

Because there are hardily any Tennis events in December, so to be part of the big four qualifying for end of seasons masters would be a sign of progress

I think the signs of progress are already there.

Delpo has won 2 titles in 2011 and made the semi finals of Indian Wells

It is going to take more than that to get into the top 10 let alone the top 8 come end of year

As I said he recovering from a major injury.

If he gets anywhere near his 2009 level, he could win the 2011 USO

All if's and but's.

You said Delpo back in big 4 by December. Injury recovery is not an excuse for such a bold prediction.

I agree its a great time to follow tennis. Until very recently for me it was because of the big two. To a certain extent it still is. What can be more exiting than seeing Federer and Nadal in a slam final. Between them they hold 26 slams and they both have a career slam. No first time nerves here. Love watching their contrast in styles and with the exception of the 2008 FO final they have produced IMO some of the most high quality exciting matches ever.

After last years US Open for me it is now a big three. Djokovic beating Federer in the semi's then stretching Nadal in the finals was so impressive. Not that I wasn't impressed before but Nadal and Federer always produce thier best at slams and until then Djokovic hadn't. Murray is (yet?) to be as impressive.

Like the descriptions of the top 4 players but I would switch Novak and Rafa.

Rafa - exciting, electric, ballsy, elegant, super-fast, passionate, intelligent, unquenchable.

Novak - gritty, fighter, warrior, explosive, super-fast, wise, in 2011 (well the first half): amazing! I don't see either Rafa or Novak as "the controversial figure" or "Federer's antiworld" IMO that doesn't sound very complementary.

Nitb, I agree that we are entering a new golden age of tennis as you look at it Murray, Nadal, Novak are all the same age and Del po is just 22 and Roger has so much to offer. I to love the Novak/Roger rivalry because you can tell that these two guys don't really like each other. Rafa/Rog is also great but a little too much kissy face between these two rivals to suit my taste as I grew up watching tennis in the era of Lendl, Mac, and Connors when you could tell these guys were not big fans of each other. Murray needs to really usher in this golden age by joining the grandslam club and I think that he will. In fact, he could do it in about 3 weeks. You make some very valid points. I think however that i would still give a nod to the 80s rivalries. And mainly because of how controversial and diva like the players were back then, you either loved them or hated them. The guys today are just too nice, if that could possibly be a drawback. But certainly this is a very special time in the tennis world in my opinion.

Del Potro has already managed (despite injury) to do what Murray hasn't i.e. win a slam.

The signs are there that Murray may be getting close - Aussie final, French Open semi and a good performance to beat Tsonga at Queens.

Frankly though I'm amazed at posters attitude to del Potro. He's no one slam wonder and could be a real threat at Wimbledon. Personally I'd love it if Murray and del Potro clash at either Wimbledon or the US Open. If Andy really has what it takes then he'll see him off but don't bet on it.

Newballs, I think Del po is a bigger threat on hardcourt and clay than he is on grass. Being a tall man people can really torture him with the low slice on a grass court bringing him up to the net where he isn't that comfortable. I'd say Del Po is definetly in the mix, I especially like his game on good quick hardcourt, he has had a very strong record on the American hardcourts not just that one US open.

newballs wrote:Del Potro has already managed (despite injury) to do what Murray hasn't i.e. win a slam.

The signs are there that Murray may be getting close - Aussie final, French Open semi and a good performance to beat Tsonga at Queens.

Frankly though I'm amazed at posters attitude to del Potro. He's no one slam wonder and could be a real threat at Wimbledon. Personally I'd love it if Murray and del Potro clash at either Wimbledon or the US Open. If Andy really has what it takes then he'll see him off but don't bet on it.

As it stands he is a one slam wonder and he hasn't achieved anything higher than a 500 to date.

As for Murray v Del Potro he has a 5 - 1 h2h record against him including a win in a previous USO, and as far as grass is concerned Del Potro hasn't managed to get past the second round at Wimbledon!

A match up in the latter stages of this years USO may be a better measure but it would be dependant on both players being 100% fit.

You guys don't seem to appreciate that it may well be only injuries that have been holding del Potro back.

It's all about opportunities and he took his when Federer failed to finish him off at the US open. He also took out Nadal in the semis so no lucky break whilst at Murray went out tamely to Cilic in the 4th round.

At Wimbledon he may not have the track record but has the game to correct that.

Newballs,

It's strange how Delpo beats Federer and Nadal and struggles against Novak and Murray.
In my opinion, Nole and Andy play the "new" tennis of top qulity base line game with the on/off switch from offence to defence, Nole is better here because he has a better forehand (i.e. it's a weapon), but basically quite similar game, both have excellent backhand which enables them to be offensive from defensive positions, I think Delpo struggles with that aspect of their game as they seem to be able to move him around the court better than Federer or Nadal.
Nole and Murray are rhythm players and if they (esp. Novak) impose their game early on, Delpo is finished.

Murray's forehand is definitely the weakest in the top 10.

Problem with it is he doesn't put his full body weight into the shot, he's almost trying to stand still when hitting it, no wonder he's always on the defense.

newballs

For me, Del Potro still has to prove that he is more than a 'one slam wonder'. Look at his record before the USO 2009 and he'd won a fair number of minor hard court events but hadn't reached even the final of a Masters 1000, and his h2h record against the top 4 is not that stellar (3 -5 against Nadal is not bad, but 2-6 against Fed, 1-5 against Andy and 0-4 against Djokovic).

At the moment the jury is still out for me whether he's another Tsonga who had one great slam and has occasional spells when his form comes good and he's a match for anyone or whether he will kick on and develop the consistency of the very top players. The timing of his injury was obviously very unfortunate in terms of career progression, but such things happen in sport. How he performs in the hard court swing up to the USO will go some way to telling us whether he should be in the really elite echelon (i.e. the current top 3) or whether his rightful place is in the group just a bit lower, or even whether he should be considered similar to Murray as better than the rest but not quite the equal of the top 3.

I don't yet see it as a "Big 4", it's more of a "Big 3 and another very good one". Murray is still the d'Artagnan to Roger, Rafa and Novak's 3 Musketeers - the talented but hot-headed one with the raw ability who has yet to fully hone his skills. As with d'Artagnan though, there is no reason why he can't go on to join his more illustrious peers. He's already a level ahead of the likes of Soderling, Berdich et al.

I see the Big 3 in this way:
Roger - the natural shot maker, the one who wields the scalpel as proficiently as the big club.
Rafa - the athlete, the biggest lungs combined with the biggest biceps and the toughest mind. Simply can't be shaken.
Novak (of 2011) - perhaps the most balanced game of the three. Has the same strengths as both Roger and Rafa (although perhaps not to the same extreme levels) but, importantly, none of their weaknesses. Very difficult to see what aspect of his game an opponent would target.

When these three players meet, it is VERY hard to predict a winner.

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't yet see it as a "Big 4", it's more of a "Big 3 and another very good one". Murray is still the d'Artagnan to Roger, Rafa and Novak's 3 Musketeers - the talented but hot-headed one with the raw ability who has yet to fully hone his skills. As with d'Artagnan though, there is no reason why he can't go on to join his more illustrious peers. He's already a level ahead of the likes of Soderling, Berdich et al.

I see the Big 3 in this way:
Roger - the natural shot maker, the one who wields the scalpel as proficiently as the big club.
Rafa - the athlete, the biggest lungs combined with the biggest biceps and the toughest mind. Simply can't be shaken.
Novak (of 2011) - perhaps the most balanced game of the three. Has the same strengths as both Roger and Rafa (although perhaps not to the same extreme levels) but, importantly, none of their weaknesses. Very difficult to see what aspect of his game an opponent would target.

When these three players meet, it is VERY hard to predict a winner.

I like it and you do have a point regarding "d'Artagnan" however as far as Roger is concerned he cannot go on forever (don't tell Roger though) and there will be changes at the top.

What will they be? - A crystal ball job required!

Very good post murdoch, I like the literay allusions. I agree that there is a bit of a gap between the top 3 guys and Murray, but Murray at this point has seperated himself from the rest of the tour. He has three grandslam finals appearances and none of the players outside of the big 3 have that type of grandslam conistency. He has six masters compared to one for Berdych, and one for Soderling. It might be something like a big 3 plus 1, as while maybe shouldn't be included with guys that have won multiple slams, he definetly has seperated himself from the rest of the pack. He has a better H2h record over JMDP, more finals appearances, and six master's to zero.

Socal, that is exactly how I see it regarding Murray too. He is in a group of one but the gap to those above him is smaller than the gap to those below him.
Based purely on range of tennis skills and talent, he could arguably be grouped with the three above him. The big difference though is that where the Big 3 are multiple slam winners, Murray is 9 sets against and 0 for in slam finals. So, although he is tantalisingly close, he is yet to fully establish his place at the very highest level.

Murdoch, I think Andy just needs that one break to get a slam under his belt because it is very rare for a player to be as accomplished at the Masters level and yet not to have a grandslam. I think Andy still has time and I wouldn't be surprised frankly if he won one of the next three slams. Earlier in the year I actually picked Murray and Djoko to split the hardcourt slams.

H2H mean very little for Del Potro at the moment.

He's 2 years young than Murray and Djokovic, and 3 years younger than Nadal.

Del Potro has more than enough talent to turn these losing H2H around.

That is a good point Sonic, federer enjoyed a similar large head to head advantage over Murray and Djoko and they have narrowed the gap quite a bit in the last few years. To me Juan has to work on a bit of variety, a little bit more comfort coming into the net, not that he needs to play S and V but just have it in his arsenal as a variation. A good slice backhand, some drop shots and touch shots to mix up with his overwhelming one two punch of serve and forehand.

HM Murdoch wrote:Socal, that is exactly how I see it regarding Murray too. He is in a group of one but the gap to those above him is smaller than the gap to those below him.
Based purely on range of tennis skills and talent, he could arguably be grouped with the three above him. The big difference though is that where the Big 3 are multiple slam winners, Murray is 9 sets against and 0 for in slam finals. So, although he is tantalisingly close, he is yet to fully establish his place at the very highest level.

Completely agree - I have been thinking about this for sometime but didn't know how to put it into words. He can win slams and more than one. It is about getting the break he needs to win one so that other wins can follow up. The question is how long will it take for him to win that first one? He always seems to meet someone really inspired and sometimes I question his level of motivation. Some might argue that he came back from 2 set down to win a match like in wimby against Gasquet, but something tells me that he doesn't put the head when it is needed the most. In my opinion, he is alo not the best match players. So, lets wait for his first one and I really hope that he does because he plays amazing tennis. Lets hope it is not too far now.

dummy_half wrote:newballs

For me, Del Potro still has to prove that he is more than a 'one slam wonder'. Look at his record before the USO 2009 and he'd won a fair number of minor hard court events but hadn't reached even the final of a Masters 1000, and his h2h record against the top 4 is not that stellar (3 -5 against Nadal is not bad, but 2-6 against Fed, 1-5 against Andy and 0-4 against Djokovic).

At the moment the jury is still out for me whether he's another Tsonga who had one great slam and has occasional spells when his form comes good and he's a match for anyone or whether he will kick on and develop the consistency of the very top players. The timing of his injury was obviously very unfortunate in terms of career progression, but such things happen in sport. How he performs in the hard court swing up to the USO will go some way to telling us whether he should be in the really elite echelon (i.e. the current top 3) or whether his rightful place is in the group just a bit lower, or even whether he should be considered similar to Murray as better than the rest but not quite the equal of the top 3.

As unfortunate as the wrist injury is you have to wonder if it was just waiting to happen and if it will re-occur.

He really crunches himself through the ball, like in the pictures below. I think this is partly because he is so tall/lanky that instead of getting completely out of the way he has to modify he swing to hit the ball and bring the racket closer through past his body:-
http://tennis.topbuzz.com/tennis-pics/v/forehand/juan+martin+del+potro+forehand+at+contact.jpg.html

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.straitstimes.com/assets/2009/1/27/POTRO2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.straitstimes.com/aussie-open-2009&usg=__V1wDltv2D6y_uNAkEGbC55qlaXc=&h=556&w=330&sz=199&hl=en&start=63&zoom=1&tbnid=lRSOQF3cIj1ltM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=87&ei=hKb3TaG3JY7HswbmxaSACQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddel%2Bpotro%2Bforehand%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1C1CHIK_en-GBGB417GB417%26biw%3D1600%26bih%3D805%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=125&vpy=341&dur=1206&hovh=292&hovw=173&tx=76&ty=306&page=3&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:63&biw=1600&bih=805

compare those with Djokovic, theres far less stress on his wrist at point of contact

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://nimg.sulekha.com/sports/original700/novak-djokovic-2011-1-17-6-30-13.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.anthonyweinerblog.info/2010/03/novak-djokovic-forehand.html&usg=__csUlRp6WBqSGOqvOg31corXVp28=&h=535&w=800&sz=36&hl=en&start=89&zoom=1&tbnid=CR0gEMs8DTPuAM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=195&ei=Qaf3Td_xC5H1sgbJkqyACQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddjokovic%2Bforehand%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1CHIK_en-GBGB417GB417%26biw%3D1600%26bih%3D805%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=128&vpy=514&dur=4691&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=106&ty=62&page=4&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:89&biw=1600&bih=805

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://nimg.sulekha.com/sports/original700/novak-djokovic-2010-1-16-0-52-4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://newshopper.sulekha.com/novak-djokovic_photo_1123796.htm&usg=__loCeKIn5vjZYMq9DrxOskYlFKTo=&h=600&w=529&sz=37&hl=en&start=89&zoom=1&tbnid=6CPhnDyZ3N_o-M:&tbnh=147&tbnw=130&ei=Qaf3Td_xC5H1sgbJkqyACQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddjokovic%2Bforehand%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1C1CHIK_en-GBGB417GB417%26biw%3D1600%26bih%3D805%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=867&vpy=386&dur=4930&hovh=239&hovw=211&tx=58&ty=258&page=4&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:89&biw=1600&bih=805

The difference maybe minimal per shot, but per 10,000 shots i think it may become more and more significant

superchog, I think when murray does finally get that grandslam break that he will then go on tear. It isn't easy having the entire British pulbic and media constantly hoping and pushing for you to be one that ends a 70 years streak. And I really do believe that it is more question of when, than if murray will ever win one. If he keeps playing well and advancing deep into Grandslams then he will eventually break out and that would do a world of good for his confidence.

socal1976 wrote:superchog, I think when murray does finally get that grandslam break that he will then go on tear. It isn't easy having the entire British pulbic and media constantly hoping and pushing for you to be one that ends a 70 years streak. And I really do believe that it is more question of when, than if murray will ever win one. If he keeps playing well and advancing deep into Grandslams then he will eventually break out and that would do a world of good for his confidence.

there is a very good reason why Murray hasn't won a slam, not even a set in the finals: his serve is not reliable, and his forehand is not his weapon. Bearing in mind these two gaping holes in his arsenal, he's overachieved.

I don't know Nitb, Murray can flatten out the forehand and hit winners, he just doesn't have as good a forehand as Novak, Rafa, or Roger. But he has other weapons that are as good as those other guys. As for serves, I actually think Andy has pretty good first serve, its his second serve that is week. In fact, out of the top 4 I would say his first serve is stronger than Novak and Nadal's. But Novak has a better second serve than Andy's.

"Murray can flatten out the forehand and hit winners"

Come, on Socal......

"As for serves, I actually think Andy has pretty good first serve, its his second serve that is week. "

His serve is UNRELIABLE (think how much pressure he has on his 1st serve knowing how average his second serve is). If you can't rely on your serve, you simply won't have the confidence to attack. That explains his game in full.

"Murray can flatten out the forehand and hit winners"

Come, on Socal......

"As for serves, I actually think Andy has pretty good first serve, its his second serve that is week. "

His serve is UNRELIABLE (think how much pressure he has on his 1st serve knowing how average his second serve is). If you can't rely on your serve, you simply won't have the confidence to attack. That explains his game in full.

I don't think Murray knows whether his forehand is a weapon, he's always playing within himself and only fully commits on the forehand when he's got no other choice. I get the impression he's too self conscious about the shot not being good enough. . . which hampers the shot. It's always a surprise when he has a passage of power-play with the forehand and it only happens when his back's against the wall vs someone such as Nadal. I think he ought to play sets in early rounds of tournaments where he just goes for broke on all shots and gets more feedback on how well he can hit like that, rather than all this cagey stuff.

noleisthebest wrote:

socal1976 wrote:superchog, I think when murray does finally get that grandslam break that he will then go on tear. It isn't easy having the entire British pulbic and media constantly hoping and pushing for you to be one that ends a 70 years streak. And I really do believe that it is more question of when, than if murray will ever win one. If he keeps playing well and advancing deep into Grandslams then he will eventually break out and that would do a world of good for his confidence.

there is a very good reason why Murray hasn't won a slam, not even a set in the finals: his serve is not reliable, and his forehand is not his weapon. Bearing in mind these two gaping holes in his arsenal, he's overachieved.

Thats isn't the reason. If there was anything wrong with his game he wouldn't have won 5 of 6? Master finals against the full spread of opposition you get at any slam. Its simply he has not been able to handle the biggest stage and the pressure that goes with it. When he plays well his is capable of producing fireworks against any opponent.

True his 2nd serve isn't the best, true his goes defensive too often. BUT part of the defensive nature of his game is linked to how he feels mentally about a match imo. He does that classic British mistake of 'trying not to lose' rather than trying to go out and win. There's a stark difference in his mentality when you watch him in a masters final compared to a slam - for me it has nothing to do his ability, but is all to do with his mind.