![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
At the first Grand Slam of the year the Big Four won the title and reached 3 of the 4 semifinals slots.
Isn't that dominance?. Yes, Nadal lost in first round, but in others years some of them lost in early rounds at a slam too (Djokovic 2nd round at 2008 Wimbledon, Federer 2nd round at 2013 Wimbledon) and those years are still part of the "dominance span 2008-2013".
2015? definitive, DOMINANCE!-- Mijcofr ( talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Tennis.com after Murray beat Raonic at the semis in Australia: ..."Murray took back a match that didn't appear to belong to him, and in the process kept the next generation at bay one more time. The final on Sunday will be Murray's fourth against Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open, and the third straight major final between members of the Big 4" -- Mijcofr ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
C'mon, the reason of the post is as part of the dominance era discussion, as I have said before here, for me (and for others too) they are still in dominance, 2014 and 2015 should be part of that era.-- Mijcofr ( talk) 01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
So let's make an overview now we're halfway through the season:
Thats's the Big Four so far this season. T v x1 12:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks to be complete hogwash to arbitrarily lumps certain players together in eras. Lendl was intrinsically linked to Edberg and Becker, not Borg Connors and Mac. Lendl has 1 overlapped Major with McEnroe (1984) and zero with Borg or Connors. They were diffe'rent eras. You don't build a chart and try and fit the players in. The 70s to early 80s were Connors/Borg/McEnroe.... period. The Mid 80s to maybe early 90s was Lendl/Edberg/Becker. Early 90s to early 00s was Agassi/Sampras and about 10 other minor blips like Courier/Muster/Kafelnikov/Keurten/Becker/Brugera/Rafter/etc.. You can't just throw something into a chart that's not true and try and make it true through sheer force of will. I was going to try and fix it but I'm not sure it can be saved. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a Big Five "theory" section popped up in this article. What worries me most in this section is the second paragraph. It is an unsourced synthesis by whomever added it which attempts to make it look like Wawrinka is now considered part of Big Five because he won two Grand Slam tournaments. T v x1 17:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I just archived a bunch of this talk page from 2013 to the end of 2015. This article doesn't get a lot of traffic on the talk page but it was getting too old and cluttered after 4 years. I don't think we need auto-archiving... maybe a once a year cleanup for threads that are really really stagnant. Plus sometimes it's a little while before people actually find the talk page thread. If it should have any kind of auto archiving it would need to be a little longer lasting like 4–6 months, but 14 days is much too short. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I've read tens of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, but this one, when it comes to stats (compilation, accuracy, updating) takes the cake. Kudos to all of you who have worked on it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.29.251 ( talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://onestowatchmedia.com/2012/12/09/andy-murray-finally-cemented-in-tennis-big-four/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Zain786909: I think this table is unnecessary (and very close to redundant) since it basically just combines information already displayed in other tables nearby. It also rather arbitrarily starts in 2003. But, if you want to include it in the article, then at the very least you need to (1) put it in a more appropriate place (i.e., don't divide the table for "Top Tier singles tournament standings since 1990" from the paragraph that explains that table) and (2) make it match the formatting of all the other tables in the article (i.e., follow the color scheme for tournaments and for results and indicate by superscript which member(s) of the Big Four achieved which results). You should probably also add a row for the Olympics and pick a non-arbitrary starting point (like the beginning of Federer's career). In the form you have already twice tried to add this table to this article, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The article is in very good condition, and many editors have worked very hard to make it so, and there is no desperate need for this table, so there is no reason to add it until it looks like it belongs. Perhaps you should work on it in your sandbox. LacrimosaDiesIlla ( talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Under the title of 'Tournament Titles 2009-2013' should this not reflect just their period s a big four? As in 2013 Roger Federer dropped out of the top 4 rankings so shouldn't this be changed to just show 2009-2012 as during those years the top 4 tennis rankings were just the Big 4 at each year end? Not sure how to change things here, but this bugged me a little given it's meant to focus on their period as a Big 4.
Thanks.
82.31.220.33 ( talk) 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
How about a table showing longest tennis matches between the big 4? As a number of these matches are also grand slam open era records.
Also, how about a table showing the longest winning streaks from each of the big 4, and on each surface?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.213.28 ( talk) 08:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This table is different to the rankings table as the rankings table only shows year end rankings, whereas the seedings table shows the top seed of each grand slam tournament since 2004 and thus shows the season to season dominance of the big four, as opposed to simply the year end position.
Therefore the tournament seedings table is a useful statistic for the purposes of this article
- Kvwiki1234 ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn`t it be a Big 5 already? With everything Stan did in the last 3 years, so many Grand Slam semifinals, 3 Grand Slam titles + Grand Slam final and so many wins over the Big 4... Yes, I know he said to not be included with one list with these players but with these accomplishments he just has to be included. If you say yes, I will get on it and edit the page. GeorgiPeev03 ( talk) 20:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Although many of tennis articles have the same over-color issue, I write this message to reach English Wikipedia editors as many as possible because Big four (tennis) is currently selected as a good article ( WP:GA). I inserted {{ overcoloured}} in response to requests from Japanese Wikipedia users. Please be noticed that there are many color-blind users who cannot read this article, especially blue link text with certain background colors. Plus, the over-coloring caused edit wars in Japan because some editors imported (translated) from this article to Japanese and then added more colors. As a result, we in Japan have 100+ pages with the over-coloring issue, which is now escalated to the entire Japanese Wikipedia project discussion. I do not instruct you which cells/colors should be revised, but would like to ask English tennis editors to read WP:COLOR and color-blind first.
If you have smart phones and tablets, read this article (Big four (tennis)) with the official Wikipedia app rather than with desktop/mobile browsers. The app does not show colors at all. And a non-colored page is less stressful for even non-color-blind users to understand the context. Thank you in advance for your consideration. -- Mis0s0up ( talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Example
Rank | Player | Titles | Finals |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
20 | 30 |
2 |
![]() |
17 | 24 |
3 |
![]() |
14 | 18 |
4 |
![]() |
12 | 21 |
5 |
![]() |
11 | 16 |
6 |
![]() ![]() |
8 | 19 |
![]() |
8 | 15 | |
![]() |
8 | 15 | |
9 |
![]() |
7 | 11 |
![]() |
7 | 11 | |
11 |
![]() |
6 | 11 |
![]() |
6 | 10 | |
13 |
![]() |
5 | 6 |
14 |
![]() |
4 | 8 |
![]() |
4 | 7 | |
16 |
![]() |
3 | 11 |
![]() |
3 | 4 | |
![]() |
3 | 3 |
Big Four Head-to-Head Grand Slam finals: 30
No. | Year | Championship | Surface | Winner | Runner-up | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | 2006 | French Open | Clay | Rafael Nadal | Roger Federer | 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4) |
2. | 2006 | Wimbledon | Grass | Roger Federer | Rafael Nadal | 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3 |
3. | 2007 | French Open | Clay | Rafael Nadal | Roger Federer | 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
4. | 2007 | Wimbledon | Grass | Roger Federer | Rafael Nadal | 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2 |
5. | 2007 | US Open | Hard | Roger Federer | Novak Djokovic | 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4 |
There is no big oven because andy is not a legend of the tennis world but just the legend of the British tennis ... In spite of the kindness of andy, he is far with 3 big slam, of the level of Federer 20, Nadal ( especially on earth) 17 and Djokovic 14 grand slam.-- Le serbe ( talk) 19:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
With Djokovic's 13 Grand Slam, it's time to revisit the issue of the "Big Three" minus Murray.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia policy includes NPOV and reflecting plural major viewpoints.
We can find many sources that support the concept of a "Big Three".
While we don't have to completely redo the article, we could address this issue by:
A. Inserting alternative names in the title (as many articles on many subjects do).
B. Including a section on the "Big Three" argument.
One could claim that it's not just about Grand Slam titles but Murray trails in almost every area, often significantly. Being 3-8 in Grand Slam finals doesn't support the notion that he's in the same category. It's not just that his only 3 GS titles is the same as Stan Wawrinka: it's that it's far less than many others who are considered great but not all-time great, such as Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, etc.
Also, weeks at #1 show that Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are far ahead of Murray, as does many other metrics.
Here are some sources for "Big Three":
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/07/novak-djokovic-wimbledon-federer-nadal-us-open-best-ever
https://www.bradenton.com/sports/article214950005.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-tennis-domination-2017-9
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/andy-murray-tennis-big-four/
Consensus in the past year is building towards a Big Three. With Murray now down to 839 in the world and little sign of him challenging to return to form anytime soon and over 31, I suspect that, in the long run, tennis historians are going to recognize that there's a GOAT-THREE and then Murray, who was the 4th-best in his era but his numbers are so far behind the other three that they don't belong in the same category. They don't.
And considering that quite a few reliable sources agree with that, this article needs to be modified to take into account a major alternate viewpoint. Ryoung122 03:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, I think the idea of the Big Three is more firmly established now: even non-tennis has noticed:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/sorry-andy-murray-but-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-big-four
Big 3 back to Nos. 1-2-3; Osaka at No. 7 after US Open title - The ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../djokovic...3.../4929cfc6-b507-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c9... Sep 10, 2018
I suggest two options: 1. Make a new Big Three article with stats comparing the Big Three and crosslink these 2. Rename this article Big Three and make an Andy Murray sub-section
With Djokovic having moved back to #3 in the world, having now won his 14th Grand Slam, and Murray outside the top 100, over 31, and now appearing to be anywhere close to coming back, it's becoming more clear that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are a class above. Murray is a distant fourth for this generation and better grouped with Wawrinka and DelPotro. Ryoung122 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This is an article about the big four of tennis. They have been the big four for 10+ years per billions of sources. We don't make information here, we retrieve it from sourcing. Is it really a big three now, of course. Will it be a big two in a year or so when Federer retires, of course. But that doesn't change the history of this article with all of its sourcing for the term Big Four. Sure you can re-title this article and remove all the Murray stuff but that won't remove the fact that the Big Four existed and that someone may one day create another Big Four article with all the sourcing available. It is why I suggested simply creating a Big Three article as long as you use sources that apply to Big three info and not sources that use Big Four info. You could end this article with factual sourcing that says the Big Four is over and all we have now is a Big Three. Certainly you could write about a specific time period, but as a title you would have to justify that era with sources that specifically use that era-term instead of Big Four... that is unless you make multiple articles about tennis time periods to cover other exciting confrontations. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Fyunck here. The Big Four exists because the media describes them that way. Murray's accomplishments, or whether he is as good as the other three, have nothing to do him being a part of the Big Four. We already give alternative ideas their WP:DUE weight by noting not all sources agree with Murray being a part of the Big Four, and by noting that other sources argue for Wawrinka being a fifth member of the group. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect to Murray, who's had a very fine career, it's a serious reach to argue that he, a three-time Slam winner, is in the company of men who have won 20, 17 and 15 Grand Slams. And he's apparently retiring soon, so that gap is not going to be shrinking. There was a brief period where it looked like he was in their company, but he did not sustain it. 2602:306:CFEA:170:49FD:E5D9:4E2B:78F9 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
2.1.1 Combined Grand Slam tournament singles performance timeline (best result)
The last column for the Australian open 2019 (SR) should read 14/21.
SquashEngineer (
talk)
20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Since Andy Murray is on a verge of retirement and we see his contribution as winner only from 2010 to 2016, we should rewrite this article as Big Three as all other three players are going well today also... Kautuk1 ( talk) 08:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "big four" was used for a few years till 2017; it no longer has currency of relevance. Murray is not effectively active, and his accomplishments are not in the same league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:580:7610:4C1A:7082:F634:E408 ( talk) 21:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
At the first Grand Slam of the year the Big Four won the title and reached 3 of the 4 semifinals slots.
Isn't that dominance?. Yes, Nadal lost in first round, but in others years some of them lost in early rounds at a slam too (Djokovic 2nd round at 2008 Wimbledon, Federer 2nd round at 2013 Wimbledon) and those years are still part of the "dominance span 2008-2013".
2015? definitive, DOMINANCE!-- Mijcofr ( talk) 16:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Tennis.com after Murray beat Raonic at the semis in Australia: ..."Murray took back a match that didn't appear to belong to him, and in the process kept the next generation at bay one more time. The final on Sunday will be Murray's fourth against Novak Djokovic at the Australian Open, and the third straight major final between members of the Big 4" -- Mijcofr ( talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
C'mon, the reason of the post is as part of the dominance era discussion, as I have said before here, for me (and for others too) they are still in dominance, 2014 and 2015 should be part of that era.-- Mijcofr ( talk) 01:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
So let's make an overview now we're halfway through the season:
Thats's the Big Four so far this season. T v x1 12:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks to be complete hogwash to arbitrarily lumps certain players together in eras. Lendl was intrinsically linked to Edberg and Becker, not Borg Connors and Mac. Lendl has 1 overlapped Major with McEnroe (1984) and zero with Borg or Connors. They were diffe'rent eras. You don't build a chart and try and fit the players in. The 70s to early 80s were Connors/Borg/McEnroe.... period. The Mid 80s to maybe early 90s was Lendl/Edberg/Becker. Early 90s to early 00s was Agassi/Sampras and about 10 other minor blips like Courier/Muster/Kafelnikov/Keurten/Becker/Brugera/Rafter/etc.. You can't just throw something into a chart that's not true and try and make it true through sheer force of will. I was going to try and fix it but I'm not sure it can be saved. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a Big Five "theory" section popped up in this article. What worries me most in this section is the second paragraph. It is an unsourced synthesis by whomever added it which attempts to make it look like Wawrinka is now considered part of Big Five because he won two Grand Slam tournaments. T v x1 17:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I just archived a bunch of this talk page from 2013 to the end of 2015. This article doesn't get a lot of traffic on the talk page but it was getting too old and cluttered after 4 years. I don't think we need auto-archiving... maybe a once a year cleanup for threads that are really really stagnant. Plus sometimes it's a little while before people actually find the talk page thread. If it should have any kind of auto archiving it would need to be a little longer lasting like 4–6 months, but 14 days is much too short. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 21:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I've read tens of thousands of pages on Wikipedia, but this one, when it comes to stats (compilation, accuracy, updating) takes the cake. Kudos to all of you who have worked on it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.29.251 ( talk) 17:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Big Four (tennis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://onestowatchmedia.com/2012/12/09/andy-murray-finally-cemented-in-tennis-big-four/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Zain786909: I think this table is unnecessary (and very close to redundant) since it basically just combines information already displayed in other tables nearby. It also rather arbitrarily starts in 2003. But, if you want to include it in the article, then at the very least you need to (1) put it in a more appropriate place (i.e., don't divide the table for "Top Tier singles tournament standings since 1990" from the paragraph that explains that table) and (2) make it match the formatting of all the other tables in the article (i.e., follow the color scheme for tournaments and for results and indicate by superscript which member(s) of the Big Four achieved which results). You should probably also add a row for the Olympics and pick a non-arbitrary starting point (like the beginning of Federer's career). In the form you have already twice tried to add this table to this article, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The article is in very good condition, and many editors have worked very hard to make it so, and there is no desperate need for this table, so there is no reason to add it until it looks like it belongs. Perhaps you should work on it in your sandbox. LacrimosaDiesIlla ( talk) 13:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Under the title of 'Tournament Titles 2009-2013' should this not reflect just their period s a big four? As in 2013 Roger Federer dropped out of the top 4 rankings so shouldn't this be changed to just show 2009-2012 as during those years the top 4 tennis rankings were just the Big 4 at each year end? Not sure how to change things here, but this bugged me a little given it's meant to focus on their period as a Big 4.
Thanks.
82.31.220.33 ( talk) 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
How about a table showing longest tennis matches between the big 4? As a number of these matches are also grand slam open era records.
Also, how about a table showing the longest winning streaks from each of the big 4, and on each surface?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.152.213.28 ( talk) 08:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
This table is different to the rankings table as the rankings table only shows year end rankings, whereas the seedings table shows the top seed of each grand slam tournament since 2004 and thus shows the season to season dominance of the big four, as opposed to simply the year end position.
Therefore the tournament seedings table is a useful statistic for the purposes of this article
- Kvwiki1234 ( talk) 20:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn`t it be a Big 5 already? With everything Stan did in the last 3 years, so many Grand Slam semifinals, 3 Grand Slam titles + Grand Slam final and so many wins over the Big 4... Yes, I know he said to not be included with one list with these players but with these accomplishments he just has to be included. If you say yes, I will get on it and edit the page. GeorgiPeev03 ( talk) 20:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Although many of tennis articles have the same over-color issue, I write this message to reach English Wikipedia editors as many as possible because Big four (tennis) is currently selected as a good article ( WP:GA). I inserted {{ overcoloured}} in response to requests from Japanese Wikipedia users. Please be noticed that there are many color-blind users who cannot read this article, especially blue link text with certain background colors. Plus, the over-coloring caused edit wars in Japan because some editors imported (translated) from this article to Japanese and then added more colors. As a result, we in Japan have 100+ pages with the over-coloring issue, which is now escalated to the entire Japanese Wikipedia project discussion. I do not instruct you which cells/colors should be revised, but would like to ask English tennis editors to read WP:COLOR and color-blind first.
If you have smart phones and tablets, read this article (Big four (tennis)) with the official Wikipedia app rather than with desktop/mobile browsers. The app does not show colors at all. And a non-colored page is less stressful for even non-color-blind users to understand the context. Thank you in advance for your consideration. -- Mis0s0up ( talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Example
Rank | Player | Titles | Finals |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() |
20 | 30 |
2 |
![]() |
17 | 24 |
3 |
![]() |
14 | 18 |
4 |
![]() |
12 | 21 |
5 |
![]() |
11 | 16 |
6 |
![]() ![]() |
8 | 19 |
![]() |
8 | 15 | |
![]() |
8 | 15 | |
9 |
![]() |
7 | 11 |
![]() |
7 | 11 | |
11 |
![]() |
6 | 11 |
![]() |
6 | 10 | |
13 |
![]() |
5 | 6 |
14 |
![]() |
4 | 8 |
![]() |
4 | 7 | |
16 |
![]() |
3 | 11 |
![]() |
3 | 4 | |
![]() |
3 | 3 |
Big Four Head-to-Head Grand Slam finals: 30
No. | Year | Championship | Surface | Winner | Runner-up | Score |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | 2006 | French Open | Clay | Rafael Nadal | Roger Federer | 1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4) |
2. | 2006 | Wimbledon | Grass | Roger Federer | Rafael Nadal | 6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3 |
3. | 2007 | French Open | Clay | Rafael Nadal | Roger Federer | 6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4 |
4. | 2007 | Wimbledon | Grass | Roger Federer | Rafael Nadal | 7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2 |
5. | 2007 | US Open | Hard | Roger Federer | Novak Djokovic | 7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4 |
There is no big oven because andy is not a legend of the tennis world but just the legend of the British tennis ... In spite of the kindness of andy, he is far with 3 big slam, of the level of Federer 20, Nadal ( especially on earth) 17 and Djokovic 14 grand slam.-- Le serbe ( talk) 19:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
With Djokovic's 13 Grand Slam, it's time to revisit the issue of the "Big Three" minus Murray.
Let's not forget that Wikipedia policy includes NPOV and reflecting plural major viewpoints.
We can find many sources that support the concept of a "Big Three".
While we don't have to completely redo the article, we could address this issue by:
A. Inserting alternative names in the title (as many articles on many subjects do).
B. Including a section on the "Big Three" argument.
One could claim that it's not just about Grand Slam titles but Murray trails in almost every area, often significantly. Being 3-8 in Grand Slam finals doesn't support the notion that he's in the same category. It's not just that his only 3 GS titles is the same as Stan Wawrinka: it's that it's far less than many others who are considered great but not all-time great, such as Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, etc.
Also, weeks at #1 show that Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are far ahead of Murray, as does many other metrics.
Here are some sources for "Big Three":
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/07/novak-djokovic-wimbledon-federer-nadal-us-open-best-ever
https://www.bradenton.com/sports/article214950005.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-tennis-domination-2017-9
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/andy-murray-tennis-big-four/
Consensus in the past year is building towards a Big Three. With Murray now down to 839 in the world and little sign of him challenging to return to form anytime soon and over 31, I suspect that, in the long run, tennis historians are going to recognize that there's a GOAT-THREE and then Murray, who was the 4th-best in his era but his numbers are so far behind the other three that they don't belong in the same category. They don't.
And considering that quite a few reliable sources agree with that, this article needs to be modified to take into account a major alternate viewpoint. Ryoung122 03:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Greetings, I think the idea of the Big Three is more firmly established now: even non-tennis has noticed:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/sorry-andy-murray-but-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-big-four
Big 3 back to Nos. 1-2-3; Osaka at No. 7 after US Open title - The ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../djokovic...3.../4929cfc6-b507-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c9... Sep 10, 2018
I suggest two options: 1. Make a new Big Three article with stats comparing the Big Three and crosslink these 2. Rename this article Big Three and make an Andy Murray sub-section
With Djokovic having moved back to #3 in the world, having now won his 14th Grand Slam, and Murray outside the top 100, over 31, and now appearing to be anywhere close to coming back, it's becoming more clear that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are a class above. Murray is a distant fourth for this generation and better grouped with Wawrinka and DelPotro. Ryoung122 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
This is an article about the big four of tennis. They have been the big four for 10+ years per billions of sources. We don't make information here, we retrieve it from sourcing. Is it really a big three now, of course. Will it be a big two in a year or so when Federer retires, of course. But that doesn't change the history of this article with all of its sourcing for the term Big Four. Sure you can re-title this article and remove all the Murray stuff but that won't remove the fact that the Big Four existed and that someone may one day create another Big Four article with all the sourcing available. It is why I suggested simply creating a Big Three article as long as you use sources that apply to Big three info and not sources that use Big Four info. You could end this article with factual sourcing that says the Big Four is over and all we have now is a Big Three. Certainly you could write about a specific time period, but as a title you would have to justify that era with sources that specifically use that era-term instead of Big Four... that is unless you make multiple articles about tennis time periods to cover other exciting confrontations. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 07:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Fyunck here. The Big Four exists because the media describes them that way. Murray's accomplishments, or whether he is as good as the other three, have nothing to do him being a part of the Big Four. We already give alternative ideas their WP:DUE weight by noting not all sources agree with Murray being a part of the Big Four, and by noting that other sources argue for Wawrinka being a fifth member of the group. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 19:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect to Murray, who's had a very fine career, it's a serious reach to argue that he, a three-time Slam winner, is in the company of men who have won 20, 17 and 15 Grand Slams. And he's apparently retiring soon, so that gap is not going to be shrinking. There was a brief period where it looked like he was in their company, but he did not sustain it. 2602:306:CFEA:170:49FD:E5D9:4E2B:78F9 ( talk) 18:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
2.1.1 Combined Grand Slam tournament singles performance timeline (best result)
The last column for the Australian open 2019 (SR) should read 14/21.
SquashEngineer (
talk)
20:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Since Andy Murray is on a verge of retirement and we see his contribution as winner only from 2010 to 2016, we should rewrite this article as Big Three as all other three players are going well today also... Kautuk1 ( talk) 08:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "big four" was used for a few years till 2017; it no longer has currency of relevance. Murray is not effectively active, and his accomplishments are not in the same league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:641:580:7610:4C1A:7082:F634:E408 ( talk) 21:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)