The big 4 are 100% a thing. Attempting to dismiss the category entirely is plain silly. However it doesn’t mean the big 3 aren’t also a group. Both can exist. Big 3 refers to the goat stats among the 3 greatest. But the big 4 refers to the 4 best players in the golden era who absolutely dominated.
@@giangonz big 4 is comparable you just don’t get it the term was popular from like the late 2000s to early 2010s when Djokovic was less of the obviously great player he is and Murray was getting some big wins on the others it was cause they always made it to semi finals together that’s just a fact the term definitely exists and is definitely fair also Murray and wawrinka are further away than Murray and the big 3
@@giangonz No. Every time I see somebody suggest that Wawrinka should also be included, I know immediately that the person so said it doesn't know much about tennis.
You can disagree about him deserving the title or not, but it’s definitely terminology that was around at the time because he was the only one competing with the big 3. He’s less memorable in history because he lost a ton of the finals, but nobody in that time had more finals outside the big 3 than he did. Whole point of the video haha
The sad thing about Murray is, as brilliant as his career was, he will always feel a little unfulfilled. I do wonder what he might have done had he played in a different era (and not been so unlucky with injuries).
Meh… it’s a crapshoot. Would Murray look better against the competition of the mid to late 90’s… yes, but the speed of the courts would have probably hurt his game… maybe, it’s hard to say. Could he have gotten to Sampras’s backhand a stole a Wimby or 3… maybe. It’s a fun debate.
You called Novak "virtually unbeatable"..? At the biggest matches - in the grand slam events... Novak was 7-11 vs. Rafa. How is that "virtually unbeatable"..? And why did you call it the "infamous" big 4...? Infamous...? Weird choice. So glad you brought up Ivan Lendl's coaching. He turned Andy's career into something special. Five huge titles after getting Lendl to coach him (3 slams and 2 gold medals). Ivan deserves to be recognized for making what might be the biggest change in results - for any men's tennis player's career. Btw... Andy is the only player (male or female) to win two Olympic gold medals in singles.
That grand slam h2h statistic vs. Nadal is skewed because most of their grand slam matches were played at RG. Nadal wasn't good enough to make it deep enough on hard and grass to face Djokovic. Djokovic was good enough to make it deep at RG often enough to face Nadal. Djokovic leads the h2h on hard and grass at slams.
Okay apparently I have to explain the concept of the big 4 the big 4 we’re an idea first started in the sort of late 2000s at this time Novak had one slam Murray had non and Federer and nadal had a load the reason the concept of the big 4 was started is these four players mad it to semis and always had rivalries against each other the term continued for a while well into like 2017 where the idea was Novak was gonna have his time and then Murray was gonna finally deal with the injuries and have his era on the top obviously cause of 2014 and 2017 and his pre-existing conditions that was never able to happen but yes the big 4 was a concept for a really long time in tennis it was only after Murray was ruined by injuries that the big 3 became the dominant narrative in tennis
Andy isn't forgotten because there is no big 4, it's big 3! Of course Andy Murray is a great tennis player who could have dominated the tennis world if he was born in another era but he is in an lower level compared to the other 3
@@aintnofriendofmine you don’t know what the fuck the big 4 is then there was a period where the big 4 were making it to the semis of every single tournament and seen as Novak started winning slams around 2011 (he won one in 2008 but it was seen as kinda an anomaly) at that time the term the big 4 makes perfect sense it’s only cause Novak became so dominant and Murray’s injuries started to really hold him back that people say stuff like this
@@petredavid7996 you don’t know what the big 4 is like most new gen fans (I’m a new gen fan) the term came up when Novak had one slam Murray had none and nadal and Federer has a load but it was always expected that those two would become dominant in later years cause they would make it to semis of everything year after year if it wasn’t for massive injuries we might’ve seen that come to fruition but alas we only got it for novak
@peter42466 i know the history of tennis very well, Djokovic had won 3 slams in 2011 and had one of the best season in history of tennis that way he was included in the big 3, but Andy won his first grand slams in 2012 and had just one that year and he never won more then one in a season so was never a time to be included next to this big 3!
@ yes but as I’m saying you’re missing the context around the term being coined from 2008 to 201q there was 100% a big 4 and if Murray had one excellent season (which he almost certainly could have if didn’t have major injuries) we’d all still say there was a big 4
That just misses all of the history around the term the big 4 and misses the nuance of Murray’s career completely and no laver can’t be the big 4 member for a few reason first cause he’s worse than Sampras Agassi macenroe Borg Becker and honestly probably Murray (along with some other I can’t think of) but also more importantly cause the terms the big 3 and the big 4 only exist cause those players were dominant at the same time
@@peter42466 - Rod Laver is the one player who has a legitimate claim to being thought of as potentially as great (or better) than the big 3. No player dominated the sport as much as Laver did for a ten year period (1960-69). He made it to 10 of the possible 12 slam finals in 1960-62 and won all 4 of them in 1962. Then turned pro - so he couldn't play in them again until the Open Era began at the French Open in 1968. So he missed all the slams in 1963, 64, 65, 66 & 67 plus the Australian Open of 1968. That's 21 slams that he couldn't play in during the prime years of his career. During that 5 year period, he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events (there were 3 pro slam events per year during this era). Once the Open Era began... Laver made the finals in 2 of the 3 slams of 1968 - and then made all 4 finals in 1969, winning them all. So he had made the finals of 16 of the 19 Grand Slam events he was allowed to play in during the 1960s. And he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events during his pro run before the Open Era (1963-67). That means Rod Laver made the finals of 30 of the 34 slam events (88%) in which he participated during that ten year run (1960-69). He won 19 of those 30 finals (63%). @henry-bo3np is absolutely correct. If anyone deserves to be mentioned along with Roger, Rafa & Novak.... it is Rod Laver. The guy won all 4 slams in 1962... and then when he was finally allowed to play them again in 1969... he won all 4 of them again.
Winning three Grand Slam and two olympic championship in the gold era of the tennis cannot be underrated
The big 4 are 100% a thing. Attempting to dismiss the category entirely is plain silly. However it doesn’t mean the big 3 aren’t also a group. Both can exist. Big 3 refers to the goat stats among the 3 greatest. But the big 4 refers to the 4 best players in the golden era who absolutely dominated.
@@giangonz big 4 is comparable you just don’t get it the term was popular from like the late 2000s to early 2010s when Djokovic was less of the obviously great player he is and Murray was getting some big wins on the others it was cause they always made it to semi finals together that’s just a fact the term definitely exists and is definitely fair also Murray and wawrinka are further away than Murray and the big 3
I think the big four are a thing, but it's a different thing than the big three
@@giangonz No. Every time I see somebody suggest that Wawrinka should also be included, I know immediately that the person so said it doesn't know much about tennis.
You can disagree about him deserving the title or not, but it’s definitely terminology that was around at the time because he was the only one competing with the big 3. He’s less memorable in history because he lost a ton of the finals, but nobody in that time had more finals outside the big 3 than he did. Whole point of the video haha
Sharapova and Wawrinka with their full-on essays and Murray: ‘with mah fingers’ 😂
The sad thing about Murray is, as brilliant as his career was, he will always feel a little unfulfilled. I do wonder what he might have done had he played in a different era (and not been so unlucky with injuries).
Won 10 slams at least more Masters 1000 and beingn number 1 for more weeks and years
@@ellenday2155 the era was less of a problem than the genetic problems imo
Meh… it’s a crapshoot. Would Murray look better against the competition of the mid to late 90’s… yes, but the speed of the courts would have probably hurt his game… maybe, it’s hard to say. Could he have gotten to Sampras’s backhand a stole a Wimby or 3… maybe. It’s a fun debate.
the story of Murray is a wonderful story of desire and perseverence. glad he was knighted.
One of the best players of all time, imo. Such a shame for his injuries
if the big 3 didnt exist, he literally is among the all timers
2:57 yeah man…that’s Nalbandian
The big 3.25
You called Novak "virtually unbeatable"..?
At the biggest matches - in the grand slam events... Novak was 7-11 vs. Rafa. How is that "virtually unbeatable"..?
And why did you call it the "infamous" big 4...? Infamous...? Weird choice.
So glad you brought up Ivan Lendl's coaching. He turned Andy's career into something special. Five huge titles after getting Lendl to coach him (3 slams and 2 gold medals). Ivan deserves to be recognized for making what might be the biggest change in results - for any men's tennis player's career.
Btw... Andy is the only player (male or female) to win two Olympic gold medals in singles.
Banned member from somewhere typing here.
That grand slam h2h statistic vs. Nadal is skewed because most of their grand slam matches were played at RG. Nadal wasn't good enough to make it deep enough on hard and grass to face Djokovic. Djokovic was good enough to make it deep at RG often enough to face Nadal. Djokovic leads the h2h on hard and grass at slams.
Okay apparently I have to explain the concept of the big 4 the big 4 we’re an idea first started in the sort of late 2000s at this time Novak had one slam Murray had non and Federer and nadal had a load the reason the concept of the big 4 was started is these four players mad it to semis and always had rivalries against each other the term continued for a while well into like 2017 where the idea was Novak was gonna have his time and then Murray was gonna finally deal with the injuries and have his era on the top obviously cause of 2014 and 2017 and his pre-existing conditions that was never able to happen but yes the big 4 was a concept for a really long time in tennis it was only after Murray was ruined by injuries that the big 3 became the dominant narrative in tennis
I think Murray could have improved his movement a bit more, especially directional changes.
@@Account-ez9px if there was anything Murray didn’t need to change it was movement he honestly just needed to not have a genetic condition
Andy isn't forgotten because there is no big 4, it's big 3!
Of course Andy Murray is a great tennis player who could have dominated the tennis world if he was born in another era but he is in an lower level compared to the other 3
@@aintnofriendofmine you don’t know what the fuck the big 4 is then there was a period where the big 4 were making it to the semis of every single tournament and seen as Novak started winning slams around 2011 (he won one in 2008 but it was seen as kinda an anomaly) at that time the term the big 4 makes perfect sense it’s only cause Novak became so dominant and Murray’s injuries started to really hold him back that people say stuff like this
Good lord. Who forgot him? Such nonsense.
The newer generation of fans sh*ts on him fairly often cause they don’t know how legit good he was
Or just check other comments on this video haha
There was never a big 4 man. Murray was the best of the mortals, but can't compare to the 3 greatest of our sport.
This title is just a really bad attempt at ragebait. Pretty much universally accepted he was the 4th best in that generation hence “The Big 4”.
Theres no big four…he’s not even close to the league of the big three.
him getting knighted is wildd
If Murray had a decent haircut it could have all been different.
His later haircut is honestly pretty decent
Great video,
But its not Edin-BERG
😂
Its Edin-Borough
There’s no big four…AM has no business being discussed in the same conversation with the big three
What big 4? Was never a big 4, a guy with 3 grand slams is very small to be "big" 😂
@@petredavid7996 you don’t know what the big 4 is like most new gen fans (I’m a new gen fan) the term came up when Novak had one slam Murray had none and nadal and Federer has a load but it was always expected that those two would become dominant in later years cause they would make it to semis of everything year after year if it wasn’t for massive injuries we might’ve seen that come to fruition but alas we only got it for novak
@peter42466 i know the history of tennis very well, Djokovic had won 3 slams in 2011 and had one of the best season in history of tennis that way he was included in the big 3, but Andy won his first grand slams in 2012 and had just one that year and he never won more then one in a season so was never a time to be included next to this big 3!
@ yes but as I’m saying you’re missing the context around the term being coined from 2008 to 201q there was 100% a big 4 and if Murray had one excellent season (which he almost certainly could have if didn’t have major injuries) we’d all still say there was a big 4
There is only the Big 3, Roger, Rafa and Novak. Andy Murray is not in their class. If there is a Big 4 then Rod Laver is #4.
I would put Sampras instead of Laver
That just misses all of the history around the term the big 4 and misses the nuance of Murray’s career completely and no laver can’t be the big 4 member for a few reason first cause he’s worse than Sampras Agassi macenroe Borg Becker and honestly probably Murray (along with some other I can’t think of) but also more importantly cause the terms the big 3 and the big 4 only exist cause those players were dominant at the same time
@@peter42466 - Rod Laver is the one player who has a legitimate claim to being thought of as potentially as great (or better) than the big 3. No player dominated the sport as much as Laver did for a ten year period (1960-69). He made it to 10 of the possible 12 slam finals in 1960-62 and won all 4 of them in 1962. Then turned pro - so he couldn't play in them again until the Open Era began at the French Open in 1968. So he missed all the slams in 1963, 64, 65, 66 & 67 plus the Australian Open of 1968. That's 21 slams that he couldn't play in during the prime years of his career. During that 5 year period, he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events (there were 3 pro slam events per year during this era). Once the Open Era began... Laver made the finals in 2 of the 3 slams of 1968 - and then made all 4 finals in 1969, winning them all.
So he had made the finals of 16 of the 19 Grand Slam events he was allowed to play in during the 1960s. And he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events during his pro run before the Open Era (1963-67). That means Rod Laver made the finals of 30 of the 34 slam events (88%) in which he participated during that ten year run (1960-69). He won 19 of those 30 finals (63%).
@henry-bo3np is absolutely correct. If anyone deserves to be mentioned along with Roger, Rafa & Novak.... it is Rod Laver. The guy won all 4 slams in 1962... and then when he was finally allowed to play them again in 1969... he won all 4 of them again.
@ pretty much everyone agrees he was in a weak era
@@peter42466, The first Big 3 was Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Roy Emerson.