Talk:Big Four (tennis)/Archive 1

charts need to be updated back to 2005

All the big four have been playing Majors since 2005 and the charts need to reflect that. Federer's skills have diminished since 2008 (and really so in the last two years) while the others have reached their peaks so it is really biased to have it only from that limited time. Both Murray and Djokovic started playing the Majors in 2005 and that's when the charts should start. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We also need to be careful not to repeat what is already in other articles if a link will do. Plus also remember the 60k wikipedia article size recommendation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree here - the page needs to be an article, not an endless (re)presentation of statistics and tables! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The only update needed is to remove Murray. This entire article stinks of bias. Not sure who Murray's PR firm is, but they are fantastic. Bottom line: The Big Three have won at least 7 grand slams, have been ranked no. 1, have finished the year number 1, and have won at least three different grand slams. Murray has none of that. If Murray is included in this article, so should Wawrinka. Both have 2 grand slams and have beaten the big 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:C002:9A9A:C0B7:2B8:E05C:30B0 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I agree with you on Murray being included in the Big 4? To a point. But it doesn't matter what I or you think. The press have dubbed them the "Big 4" so that's why we have an article on them. We can easily source it as a fact. Maybe Murray's PR firm IS doing a great job, but whatever they're selling, the world press is buying, so all we can do is tell it as we see it in print. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You can go either way with Murray I think, partly depending on how you define the Big Four anyway. for a period from, say, 2011 to summer 2013, he was clearly up in the Big Four. Four straight Slam finals, two titles, world number 2, Olympic Gold etc. Then he had 15-18 months up slump. Now back up again but still struggling to beat at least two of the other three in the Big Four lately. And yes, he's not as good as Federer is, but then very few people are or ever have been (and in Federer's period of dominance Murray was leading the H2H, wasn't he?). Ought to wait to find out how his career ends up. His record at slams may be matched by Wawrinka but overall he's been far more consistent, both in the rankings and in title wins, and at slams too for that matter. Even in his slump he made every quarter-final at a slam.

But regardless of opinion what matters is that he's talked of as being a member of the Big Four. Maybe he's being flattered by the press but as long as enough people refer to him in that manner then he has to be included in the article -- with the "Murray's position" section putting the discussion as to whether or not he really belongs on record.JamesG360 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Add to that that Wawrinka has only reached two Grand Slam finals (both of which he has won) and has only reached two other Grand Slam semifinals, while Murray has reached seven Grand Slam finals (two of which he won) and another nine Grand Slam semifinals outside of the aforementioned seven, and you will see that Wawrinka is not on the same level as Murray. Oddly enough though, Murray himself, as stated in the article, does not consider himself part of a Big Four. Tvx1 23:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Career evolution

Hello - I'm not a fan of this table. I think it's an over-kill on the amount of statistics being presented in table format on this page. It stretches too much into an exploration of each of the player's respective careers, rather than focusing on the article topic ie the period of 'Big Four' domination. Basically, I think this is beginning to extend into WP:NOTSTATSBOOK - ie the overuse of tables/stats, where prose should be used.

My removal of it was reverted but I still don't think it should be there- any comments? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally I like tables like this one, but I can also imagine that some may think there are too many tables. If tables are not regularly updated they could be removed. Gap9551 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Should be removed, too much data, not possible to clearly see what is what.--Jdjerich (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, way too much stuff there and very hard to read. I also got rid of it as SNC did. Since this is a new addition we need to talk about it's value before adding it back. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparison Table

Hi everyone. Currently in an edit/undo war with GAtechnical in respects to this table. Whilst I recognise that there are possibly too many tables in the article, until there is a section (or at least further information) related to the other top players it should remain. It's not an ugly table and (I think) offers some interesting, easy-to-read, relevant information. Opinions? Mwhittaker92 (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the table being there. I wonder why, arbitrarily, 6 others are included instead of 4 (an equal number to the big 4) or 5 (a standard limiting number in charts), and why it doesn't go back to 2005 when all 4 played the Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a conscious effort to limit the players to six, I'm more than happy for this to be changed to 4 or 5 like you suggested. However, I think dating back the table to 2005 is unnecessary as the notion of the Big Four only started in 2008 when Djokovic won his first Slam and Murray made his first final. The table's purpose is to reiterate the dominance of the Big Four, and as this didn't start in 2005, there is no need for it to date back to then. Whilst I agree with your previous point (on the talk article) that limiting a lot of the statistics to 2008 undermines Roger Federer's achievements, its not a problem, as the article is evidence of the Big Four's dominance, not Federer's. The Federer-Nadal dominance has been recognised in the 'Origins' section of the article, I think that is sufficient information dating back before 2008. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Now given you spent a lot of time on it and want recognition. But that table I remove is overkill. I'm sorry but comparisons to other players tables have no place on Wikipedia. They don't put into context what is going on at a tournament or players. For example Roddick dominated 02-05/6 whilst del Potro had basically 1 year out and a year restablishing his game. Additonally it seems a little bit random. Also in the section about Murray's position del Potro and Soderling were considered to be part of the "big 5" but that is woefully under commented on/expalined and instead care is given to trainspotting tables. Now I'm rather skeptical of the WTA big three article but that looks alot better than this article. Sorry! P.S. Any one going to do a Mac/Lendl/Connors thing GAtechnical (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about recognition, I don't edit on Wikipedia for recognition. If you feel the article can be approved, please do so. I don't remember consideration for a Big 5 in tennis, apart from briefly after del Potro won the US Open in '09, but if you can find the sources by all means put it in there. I think what the WTA article has which this one hasn't is a 'History' section, outlining how the rivalry/dominance changed over time, all the important matches etc. We could potentially implement that into this one, I think it would be useful, although we must avoid telling a story of the ATP Tour for the past five years. I'd happily help with a Mac/Lendl/Connors article if someone was to start one. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you say it started in 2008, then if Nadal or Federer fail to stay in the top 4 this year then you may have to retroactively remove the 2013 column. And really, though he was ranked number 4, Murray wasn't in the same league as the Big Two until 2011. He made 4 semi's or better in 12 Majors before that and was a blip on the radar. It's been a big four for two years and Roger is about done and has been slowing since 2008. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it makes more sense for the article to be based from 2011 onwards, rather than 2005 onwards. Although the term Big Four was coined way before 2011. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering when it was coined if as you say it was "way before 2011." For the most part in google searching it really doesn't gain traction until late in 2011 and is in full bloom throughout 2012. I see some talk around blogs late in 2008 of whether or not Murry will ever be part of a Big 4 but that he needs to win a Major to do so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

<indent> I'm not overly keen on content on this page giving too much detail before 2008. The 'Big Four' era emerges from the Nadal-Federer period of domination, so that period of time needs mentioning, particularly in the history section. The term definitely had some currency in (2009 and 2008, particularly in the UK where the press were looking to add Murray to the world top 3. I can't find much evidence for it before 2008. FWIW, I agree with MWhittaker92. We need to focus on increasing the prose content of the page. If this table has criteria for choosing the other players in it then I wouldn't mind keeping it, but why don't we park for it now until the page is rebalanced a little? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The UK press must have been really pushing it back in 2008 because in reality it didn't happen till 2011. Can't blame them for wanting one of their own but it was more wishful thinking back then. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, although I'd say that from mid 2008-mid 2011 there was a clear 3+1+others situation (Murray was top 4 for all but 3 months in that time, and was the only other player to hit top 2.) But valid or not, the concept was in circulation from some point in 2008. Anyway, the point is that I agree that we should remove this table, with a view to potentially bringing it back in once the prose of the article has been extended.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with the 3+1+the rest comment, whereas there is a small paragraph on 'Murray's position' perhaps this needs to be made more apparent. I'm hoping the completion of the History section will go some way to doing this. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

My personal thoughts are that 2008-mid2011 being 3+1+others is a wee bit of revisionist history and not accurate at all. Yes Murry had the ranking but he was like the ladies Wozniaki... all show and no go. 2008 Majors plus 1000 events, 15 events with the only victories outside of Fed, Nadal and Djokovic being Murray with two 1000's, Tsonga with one 1000, and Davydenko with one 1000. In 2009 14 events, Del Potro with the US Open, Davydenko won the YE Championships and another 1000 event, and Murray won two 1000s. There was more talk about Del Potro being the 4th musketeer until he got badly injured. In 2010 (14 events) Murray had two 1000's, Ljubicic & Soderling each had one victory. Even 2011 Murray only had two 1000 event victories but they came at the end of the year and you could tell his game was finally rounding into form. So he had the ranking but was not particularly worrisome to the the guys on top. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Legitimate? That's up for debate, and depends whether you prefer Grand Slam victories over consistency and rankings. Revisionist? Certainly no. It doesn't take long to find multiple sources suggesting 'the Big Four' of Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Federer from 2009/2010 onwards: [1], [2] [3][4]. This article explicitly speaks of a Big Four + Del Potro. Those are sources from the time. For Del Potro, Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych or any other, I can't find the same claims of them being in a 'Big Four'. Whether Murray was part of the Big Four or not, I'm not sure, but he was certainly described and suggested very frequently as being a member, and when the term was used it was usually to refer to him plus Djokovic, Federer and Nadal.

I think we can characterize this page in three sections: Pre-2008 (where there are separate stories for the Nadal-Federer and Djokovic-Murray pairs); 2008-2010 'Emergence' (in which Nadal-Federer continue to dominate; Djokovic is clear number 3; Murray is the most consistent chaser, as the rankings show; and the term begins to coined, though is not in wide cirulation); '2011-? 'Dominance' Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What we must understand is Murray actually being part of the Big Four statistically, definitively, actually, and Murray being part of the Big Four according to the press are two completely different things. I believe between 2008-2010 Murray was closer to the chasing back than the top three guys, but there are certainly sources suggesting the Big Four as a group had already been accepted during that period. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

<indent> Just a thought, as well as the Grand Slam tournament comparison table which looks at their yearly performances in each of the slams since 2005, maybe a table comparing their performances at the slams at the same ages? So that it possible to compare their careers when they are over at who peaked earliest, had the longest peak and who tailed off earliest etc?? I'd be interested if this were possible, I'd imagine these tables can already be found on their individual rivalry wiki pages so its just a case of bringing them all together. Interested in thoughts.

WTA Big Three

I have created a page called the WTA Big Three, whilst trying my best to closely model it to the Big Four (tennis) page. If anyone would like to edit it or make changes that you think are necessary, please feel free to do so.

(MasterMind5991 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC))

I like the article. My only problem would be its a little soon, they've only dominated, collectively, for just under a year. The 'History' section is just what the Big Four article is missing. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it at all. I think it's way too early for that as the term has been mentioned in December and may be just as fleeting. Remember, item on wiki must be enduring and just as viable in 10 years time as it is now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note too that this page shouldn't replicate that one too much - we don't need that much history! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What we have seen over the last 12 months between these three players was astonishing and it has set the standard for women's tennis today. Azarenka, Sharapova and Williams have reigned as three of the top four players since Wimbledon last year, and all shared the Majors in 2012. And I can't see the end of their dominance in the long term. However, injuries did ground both Williams and Sharapova, and Azarenka hasn't dropped out of the Top 20 since 2008. Some people were even saying that Serena Williams would decline after she lost in the first round at Roland Garros last year. It didn't happen, and she would only lose one more match for the year.(MasterMind5991 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC))

So you're saying these three players have been in the top four for 6 months? That's a blip in tennis history. People said McEnroe would be great for quite awhile after his last great season... and he never won another Major. We can't be a crystal ball and these rivalry pages are getting a bit out of hand as they did in the past with The Trivalry, Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry. WP:Nsports and tennis guidelines tell us that "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Regardless this discussion should now move to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTA Big Three where the general wikipedia populous can determine its place as keep, store, or delete. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The entire page at this point seems like an artifice to include Andy Murray, who himself rejects the 'Big Four' thesis. He is a great player, but only in the context of being at the top of the also-rans. His inclusion would only be by the cost—too great—of an equally artificial shorter time-frame. Set it the longer context, his inclusion is downright silly. With Nadal's imminent permanent demise, Federer's decline, the big three era itself is drawing to an historical conclusion, but should replace this current page as a legitimate phenomenon. JohndanR (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Notable Matches

Surely Fed-Djok 2011 French Open needs to be included as does the 2009 Australian Open Final. Any other match you can think of? GAtechnical (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think when the 'Notable Matches' section was added, only matches that have their only individual article were added, although I don't think this needs to be the case. I agree with you, 2011 French Open and 2012 French Open both (effectively) prevented Djokovic from achieving the Grand Slam. Djokovic saving match points at the US Open ('10,'11), 2012 Australian Open is said to have given Murray belief that he can compete with the best etc. More than happy for more matches to be added to this section. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Only matches that were of big significance (such as Nadal's first Wimbledon, the longest Major final in history and Murray's first Major) were considered. Yes, there are others, but there are presently no separate articles for it (2009 Australian Open final, 2010 US Open final).

I don't see why there has to be a separate article for it to be considered "notable"? Statistically the 2012 Australian Open final is important because like you say, it was longest Major final in history. But historically, surely the 2012 French Open with Djokovic aiming to win the Grand Slam and Nadal looking for his record seventh title is notable. In my opinion that deserves its own article more than the 2012 Australian Open final. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2008 Wimbledon final was definitely a notable match but at the time there was talk that maybe this win for Nadal meant he'd overthrown Federer, however I disagree. I thought the 2009 Australian Open Final was nearly of the same quality and almost as long, and in terms of history defining it was Nadal's first hard court Grand slam final and win in the same match and against Federer, it also (for most people) meant that Nadal was now firmly the number 1 player. This match needs its own main individual article at the least though, like these other notable matches as it also lasted for 5 great sets. The others mentioned above I think the 2012 French Final has the best case as it was probably Nadals greatest test (so far) in a French Open final but also it was the fourth final in a row between these two same players (RECORD). I realise that would mean 3 out 4 Grand slam finals from 2012 are 'notable' but in all honesty they really were. I don't think the 2010 and 2011 US Open semi's, 2011 French Open semi, 2011 Australian Open Final or 2007 Wimbledon Final quite reach this height, but they were all extraordinary matches. This is looking at those that stand out in history and that's why I think the 2009 Australian Open Final should be included, when you look at it it stopped Federer winning a non-calender year slam as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is making it sound like every Major final is a notable match that deserves its own article. I would be vehemently opposed to that as overkill. I have seen many many matches in my life that are equally as important, thrilling etc. If a match sets an amazing record then of course we have to look at that, but we need to get away from the CEIB philosophy that younger editors like to assume. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just summing up what finals had been said before and really tried to say I think the 2009 Australian Open Final would be the best pick, I agree with you that a lot people think that almost every match they play is the best they've ever seen when clearly it isn't. I may be younger but I know notable records when I see them and the 2009 AO final seemed to set and stop a few, I don't assume anything. At least would that final possibly get its own article page?

I guess what I look at is there are 40 Major finals in a decade. If there are articles on 10 of them then those 10 were not amazing... they were closer to typical. Major finals are usually pretty exciting things. Now I could see 2 of those matches from 2000–2009 being pretty special, but then we would also need about 2 matches from the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s, etc... so as not to fixate exclusively on the current era. To have 10 from the last 5 years and none from prior times in history is giving undue weight to modern times as opposed to all of tennis history. All I'm saying is this last 5 years or so is a blip on the 130+ year history of tennis so we have to be careful on what we consider truly special matches. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the last, what, 15 years? match data has been recorded much better and so we are able to keep these matches as records, also with technology (such as this wonderful website) improvements we can save these great matches as well, it's hard to create match articles for great matches from probably before 1980 ish? The last 5 years have been blips, but these notable matches are only for this specific group of players, the big four, so I would have thought that any great Grand Slam finals, like that of 2009 AO, would make this list. Sorry for any bother, just thought I'd offer an outside opinion on this, but would a page for the 2009 AO final itself be realistic?

There's probably more info than you think on great matches of the past. But I have no problem with a match making the list on this page, for these players. I would expect there would be a number of great matches listed and talked about here if the match is between these big 4... but here only. No separate article would be needed at all since it would be nothing special outside of the this big 4 article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't know whether there is or not, I'm just assuming that. So for this Big Four article anyone could conceivably write about any match they believe has been great, I completely agree with the three already there. Oh Ok, I saw that these three great matches had separate articles so thought the 2009 AO final would need one as well, although it was a special match. Does that mean even I could write up about the match on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had a go at creating a 2009 Australian Open Final summary under 'notable matches' but i'm having probelms with how to set out the references and as a result it is affecting the 2012 Australian Open final summary. Could someone take a look and sort it out. Maybe post on here what I did wrong so I know not to the same mistake again (I had a look at it but don't know whats wrong?)

I agree with Fyunck on this, many more matches could and should be added to the notable matches section, but few, if any (possible exception being the 2012 French Open final), do not need their own separate articles on top of that. If you want to add the 2009 Australian Open final, I see no reason why you shouldn't. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, there were many other matches mentioned in the comments above but the two that seem to stand out are 2009 AO and 2012 FO finals. I don't think all should be put up, I may get round to putting something together for the 2009 AO final, it is great matches for these four players only yet they've had so many great ones. But to me the term notable means historic/memorable/record-breaking, so fewer matches can be selected for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we add the 2015 French Open quarterfinal? It was a notable match because it was Nadal's only second ever loss at the French Open and the first time he was beaten there by a member of the big four. Tvx1 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I think there's way too many already. This match was pretty routine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the course of the match was pretty routine, but Nadal losing at the French Open isn't routine at all. Not even to Djokovic. And certainly not in straight sets. Tvx1 10:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but it would be stronger had Nadal been playing great this season and suddenly lost in straight sets at the French to Djokovic. As opposed to playing poorly all year (even on clay), had his ranking drop so far that they met in the quarters, and then lost easily in straight sets. It sort of lost it's shine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rivalries

Under the rivalries heading there are main articles provided for 5 of the 6 big four rivalries, the missing one is Murray VS Nadal and yet this has most likely been Murray's biggest rivalry to date in his career, what with Nadal stopping Murray in 3 Wimbledon latter stage matches. Can anyone add it there, or if it hasn't been created maybe would know how to go about creating the page? I found this on the ATP web for specific matches if it helps (http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N409&oId=MC10) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There isn't an article currently, but I wouldn't have a problem with one being created. Like you said, they meet regularly in the latter stages of the Major (7 times at quarterfinal and semifinal level), however, it seems a little one-sided to be a rivarly, and they have never met in Major final, and only once in an ATP Masters final. Saying that, Murray has beaten him twice in the Slams and they've had some pretty exciting matches over the years, the 2010 ATP World Tour Finals semi they played comes to mind. I'm sure if Nadal recovers from injury, gets back to his best and they play a couple of important matches this year, one will be created. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

They're nearly always drawn in the same half of Grand Slam draws and at Wimbledon Nadal has beaten Murray more times than anyone, and tehy're usually been pretty good matches. It is a bit one sided but nadal-djokovic was one sided until a year and a half ago, so maybe this one will even out as well. I admit I'm a brit but I actually support Federer over Murray but I'd like to see this get a page, if you like it'll complete the set for the rivalries. How do they go about being created? I'm not like a member for wiki, but recently I've enjoyed looking at tennis pages and offering views but I've never created anything as I don't think I can , I just update stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to get started on an article, just click the link, Murray–Nadal rivalry. The community is strict when it comes to rivalry pages however, so I'm not sure if it will stick. Saying that, Federer and Roddick have a page dedicated to their "rivarly", so this has just as much credibility in my opinion, the Roddick-Federer rivarly is about as one-sided as it comes. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats true about roddick but they did meet in 5 slam finals? It was so one-sided though. Thanks! Its kinda time in the UK that I actually slept though so might start it tommorrow if its still up as you seem to think this community (??) is strict. The link just sends me to a page that doesn't exist so how do you go about starting it to make it exist.

Remember this... for the most part, rivalries are NOT notable per wiki sports guidelines. The sheer number of times played does not make a rivalry. It takes time and many sports articles for the weight of a rivalry to make an encyclopedic entry. Azarenka-Williams was just deleted as was Becker-Sampras, Agassi-Rafter and Federer–Hewitt. Players of near ranks play many times against each other just by the nature of the sport... it's nothing special at all. Sometimes you get something that the news just can't stop talking about.... Laver-Rosewall, Evert-Navratilova, Sampras-Agassi, Federer-Nadal... and those surely deserve merit to be an entry here. Federer-Murray...no. Murray-Nadal no. Djokovic-Murray...no. Those articles could likely be deleted in the near future just because they are against guidelines and nothing special in tennis history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

hmm, true, I had no idea about some articles being deleted, then again I'm not sure what this community stuff is about and I'm guessing they're like the bosses (you people) who rule and organise all this info (good job by the way). Seriously though, deleting all of murray's main rivalry's just as he's about to enter his prime? good thoughts still.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with you, a lot of the rivalry pages popping up are not necessary, but I think the Murray-Djokovic rivalry is turning into something special, the Murray-Federer rivarly perhaps not so much, perhaps the rivalry sections on the player articles themselves could just be a little better, but could still argue a case for its existence over some of the others that are knocking around. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Emergence of Big Four

I had a go at starting its description seeing as this time period has already happened and so can be talked about, unlike the 2011-present 'Dominance' part which we need to wait a little longer before making certain judgements. Never written a summary like this before on wiki so anyone feel free to update/change things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a good start, and appreciated! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I might also have a go at doing the 2010 part but I thought someone registered here might do it, currently applying for a wiki account but will anyone finish this in meantime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.236.10 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This graph suggests that the term big four originates from 2008 https://www.google.com/trends/explore#cat=0-20-1000-262&q=%22big%20four%22&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancergraham (talk • contribs) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Full tournament titles matrix

Anyone else think these tables are getting a bit overkill? This one in particular isn't adding anything of significance to the article, there is already a similar table indicating exactly the same information except the ATP 500/250 Series victories. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

On top of that its also slightly confusing, under the Olympic Games column it reads 2/4, now to me, this is suggesting the Big Four have collectively won two out of four possible Olympics gold medals they have contested, whereas it actually means two members of the Big Four have won the gold medal and as the article is aiming to outline to dominance of the Big Four, I don't see how this is relevant. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that the 'Important Tournament' table works quite well - we could add a column at the end to represent other ATP title wins. I'd also keep it 2008- onwards, as this article is about the 'Big Four' and not about the individual players' careers. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not surprising since I created the table, but I disagree. This table is all about showing how dominant they are by showing the wins per tournaments played for everything (ALL of their title wins). Limiting it to 2008 onwards is fine but it only shows a narrow and selective view of their overall dominance. By including another table that shows stats on every tournament you truly see their impressive overall dominance in the sport. The significance is to show how dominant they have been even when including ALL of the tournaments including the smaller ones (250/500). Looking at it you can see that collectively they have won almost half of all tournaments (47% at this point) that at least one of them has played in. How is that not significant? Showing how just 4 players have won nearly half of these tournaments is not only relevant but imperitive to truly show their overall dominance over the rest of the field. Each individual win/tournament value displayed is also very relevant and useful. I created the table because I wanted to know exactly how dominant they were in terms of wins vs tournaments played overall and for every tournament, which is why I compiled this data and created the table.

As for the Olympic Games column, the 2/4 total does not mean 2 members out of the "Big 4" have won the gold. The Olympics Games is no different than any other tournament (except that it only takes place every 4 years). The 2 count = 2 (tournament) wins (gold medal) out of 4 Olympic Games that have had at least one the Big Four competing (Federer has played in the last 4 Olympics). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that after the 2016 Olympics the total will be 3/5 meaning 3 gold medals for the "Big Four" out of 5 Olympic Games played. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanbara (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chanbara - I agree that it's important to show their dominance broadly in the sport. I think we need a cut off date for the tables because this article is about 'The Big Four': citations show that, at the earliest, this existed from 2008, but didn't really take off as a thing until 2011. Your point about tournaments competed in is fair - perhaps we could include the number of tournaments competed in at 250/500 level as well. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Super Nintendo Chalmers. Here’s what I don’t understand. If there’s supposed to be a cut-off date of 2008, then why do some of the tables and other data being presented go from 2003 onwards and 2005 onwards? And why bother to keep any data before 2008 including Head-to-Head records (which are from day one)? It seems arbitrational and frankly stupid to limit everything to 2008 or any other date, particularly when it’s already inconsistent. I’m not saying that having data focusing on the period of time since they were “christened” the “Big Four” isn’t good, but it’s equally good to have something to compare it with such as the Full tournament titles matrix. What having this extra table shows is that even if you include everything and ommit nothing, the “Big Four” collectively still dominate the sport with amazing stats, including winning nearly half of all tournaments (regardless of level) over the rest of the field. I frankly can’t think of anything more impressive, essential to show, or telling than that when talking about the "Big Four". That’s the true meaning of “Overall Dominance”. Partial and limited tables (whether by date or tournaments) only give a narrow view of things. The "Full tournament titles matrix", which I see you've deleted again, shows the full picture. Chanbara (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I merged the "Full tournament titles matrix" in with the existing table: that's how a wiki works. You're always free to undo any edit that I do if you have a problem with it.

I just don't think the earlier tournaments are relevant here - I don't see how Federer competing in the 2002 Olympics is of any importance in an article on the Big Four. The topic is not the career of these four players: it's their combined rivalry and period of dominance. Of course context is required, but that's already there in the prose. I'd be happy to see the ranking and Grand Slam tables cut down to 2008- onwards; the pre-2008 meetings between the players seem to have a more direct relevance. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And I maintain that their period of dominance is not simply limited to when the press started to call them the "Big Four". But regardless of that, I fail to see the harm in including a small extra table with full career title stats and more importantly a full collective tally that shows that no matter how you slice it they've collectively dominated the rest of the field likely like no other group of 4 players ever has. It also shows a progression since you can visually compare it to the similiar 2008-onwards titles table. There's plenty of pre-2008 and post-2008 comparisons. I don't understand why a full career titles vs titles since 2008 comparison, is deemed a bad thing? Anyway, if this article is truly supposed to be since 2008, then things should be consistent across the board. Chanbara (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Federer and Nadal's dominance clearly preceded this era - but that stuff should be covered at Federer–Nadal rivalry, not here. Yeah, I don't disagree with that last part in general: though the prose context is obviously required. Anyway if you reinsert it, I won't remove it again without discussion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an article on the "Big Four", but we have to be careful about throwing around the word dominance. Murray and dominance don't fit to most of the world since they gauge tennis with the four Majors. In that context Del Potro is just as dominant as Murray, and for a longer period of time. But the press has decided to give a name to the "Big Four" and their exploits so this article should focus on that time period that they were all entered in Majors. Remember also that this article has a shelf life. With Roger really starting to show his age, and playing less tournaments, he could easily drop out of the top 4 or 5 by years end. At that time the "Big Four" would cease to exist in the press (except in memories of the past) and this article would be pretty much done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tables are NOT the enemy

In an attempt to enhance and improve this article, I created a table labeled "Head-to-Head records vs their closest peers" and a smaller companion/comparison table labeled "Head-to-Head records vs the new young guns".

The reception this got was as follows:

"Deleted for several reasons, most notably these tables are getting too much, we want this to be an article, not an endless list of tables and statistics, also,"young guns", "closest peers" is a little too subjective."

For starters, there are all of 6 tables on this mostly sentenced/paragraph based article, and 4 of these tables are the same table presented twice in order to do an "overall" vs "specific/limited criteria" comparison. So really there are only 4 different tables spread out amongst the much denser text. Hardly an endless list of tables.

Anyway, the table was created in direct response to the following text:

"Only 12 players have recorded at least one victory over each member of the Big Four.[hth] Of these players, seven have recorded ten or more victories in total, one has a positive record against two members (both are 2-1 win-loss records), and none have a positive record against all four combined."

This is cool information to know, but it leaves the reader with more questions than it answers. Who are the 12 players? Are they Top players? Current players? Who are the seven? Who's the one? How close are any of them from having a positive or even record against all four combined? What about head-to-head? etc… etc...

Figuring if I created a table to answer these questions it would be deleted, I first set out to try and do it all in text and bullet points, but it quickly got long-winded, repetitive, and confusing. That's the beauty of a table. It's easy to read, take in, and loaded with info. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well a table, when done correctly and for the right purpose (as was the case here), is worth even more. After creating the table I added some information above it explaining what it contained and a reference link to the above-mentioned paragraph ([hhh]) to tie it all together, but it was still deleted without a second thought.

As far as the table names go, I decided on "… vs their closest peers" because it seemed more appropriate than "…vs their closest (or main) competition", since as the data showed they haven't really been much competition at all to the Big Four. I also thought about using "…vs other top players", but not all of them fall into that category. They are all their "peers" however, so saying that these are their "closest peers" (which can be validly interpreted in terms of rankings, time-on-tour, age, etc…), seemed to fit the bill. But I was not married to the title, so that could've have simply been changed, instead of deleting the table altogether. And as for the "young guns" term, that's one that's been used by a number of commentators when talking about Raonic, Nishikori, Tomic, etc... and more importantly by the ATP Uncovered video series on the official ATP site and YouTube page no less:

Part 1: http://m.bnpparibasopen.com/Tennis/Media/Videos/2012/Uncovered/Episode-7/ATP-Uncovered-S4-E7-Young-Guns.aspx

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbI3bdwdxRY

I'm not sure who this "we" is who decided that tables and statistics are the enemy, or that we've already reached the limit on these at 6, but it's stupid. Nothing should be off-limits if it serves a valid purpose and helps improve the article. I'm not interested in an article with "an endless list of tables and statistics" either, but I'm also not interested in an article that presents vague or long-winded sentence-based information because we have one hand tied behind our back and can't use tables and stats to flesh out and enhance what's being presented in plain text.

Tables and statistics aren't the enemy. Used wisely (as was done in this case) tables are an extremely powerful way to present lots of information in an easy to understand and visual way that text sometimes simply can't do. Tennis is all about stats, percentages, records and head-to-heads, and any article worth anything should present these in the best way possible even if that means using a few dreaded tables. ;) Chanbara (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Tennis is all about stats, percentages, records and head-to-heads." This is a very revealing claim I think. Statistics, percentages and head-to-heads are clearly important, but to say that tennis is all about them is the same as saying that football is all about league tables. What we require is a mix of text, prose and images. People absorb information in multiple ways, and we need to cater for that. While tables and statistics might be easy for some to understand, prose are much easier for others. Tables are fine, and good, but lots of tables give you information, without giving you context. We require both. If you think that people are editing because they believe that tables are the enemy, then frankly I think you're wrong.

With regards to these specific tables: the 'new young guns' one doesn't work: it's arbitrary and recentist. The 'new young guns' is a journalistic term and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. At the very least, for a table like that to work, you need clear criteria for including the data - in other words, objective information as to why these players are to be included?

The other table has more merit: it had criteria for inclusion, and it speaks to the topic of the article - The Big Four and their period of dominance in tennis. I'm not a huge fan of the title (we can work on that) and I might make it a bit shorter, but I felt that it worked - I'd be happy to include it (although I'm still not a fan of the 'all time tournament titles' table personally)

But look - if you're not happy with this, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. I think this needs more input focusing on how we write tennis articles and want them to look. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I chose my words poorly when I said "Tennis is all about stats, percentages, records and head-to-heads." I really only meant to point out that when one talks about tennis players (when watching a match on TV for example), the commentators/analysts will invariably bring up all kinds of stats, show grids, tables, etc... to make their points clearer and to lead credence to what they're saying. That's what tables are for. My intention has always been to enhance and help make some of the unclear text clearer, add pertinent info to help show progression and put things into proper context. My intention is not to replace prose with tables. Just to use both when appropriate and not be limited by some arbritational "there are too many tables" rule. As far as the "young guns" table goes, I believe I specified the purpose of it well enough with the text I had written above it and also because it shows that the Big Four's dominance is not limited to just their peers, but also the up-and-comers being publicized as the future stars by the ATP Tour. Anyway, glad to hear that you at least see the value of the iffy-titled "closest peers" table. Chanbara (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was too hasty when I deleted these tables, the 'closest peers' one especially. The main reason I deleted it was because the players included in the table appeared to be hand-picked and without clear reasons for their inclusion, if we could agree on some sort of consensus for inclusion into the table i.e. total number of matches won against the Big Four then I'd certainly consider its re-inclusion. What's funny is I created a similar table not too long ago (which was also deleted - if you go back far enough on the edit history you'll come across it, and the reasons for its deletion earlier on the Talk page), however, instead of head-to-head records, it compared their 'closest peers' via titles, finals, semifinals & quarterfinals at important tournaments. This way of course the inclusion of players was not down to my personal interpretation. I'm a fan of 'The Big Four vs the rest of the field' section you created, it was needed and that was what I was attempting to achieve when I created the table I used early on in this article's infancy. For what its worth I'm a big fan of statistics, records, head-to-head records, percentages myself too, and this article will never be complete in my opinion for that very reason, we're already at 106,440 bytes and its not even close to achieving what it should. I think separate articles are needed for records, honours, statistics related (but relevant) to the dominance of the Big Four and should be created linked up appropriately at some point in the future. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mwhittaker92, you've just renewed my faith in humanity. ;) Seriously though, now we're getting somewhere. I would say you were definitely too hasty deleting the 'closest peers' table, particularly since we already were on the same page in terms of consensus of who should be on the list. You obviously didn't read the text I had above the table which read:

"A detailed look at the Head-to-Head records and dominance of the Big Four against other top and frequently played players on the ATP tour. This table includes the only 12 players that have recorded at least 1 victory against each of the Big Four,[hth] as well as the 2 players who have recorded at least 1 victory against 3 of the Big Four and have also won over 10 matches overall, as of April 6, 2013."

As you can see, this is virtually identical and a callback (I even added a reference link labeled [hth]) to what you yourself had added at the bottom of the 'The Big Four vs the rest of the field' section. The only 2 additional players on the list were Ferrer and Hewitt, who have both won over 10 matches over the Big Four overall. It seems unconscionable not to include the regularly #5 (and current #4) Ferrer just because he's never beaten Federer, or former #1 Hewitt, just because he's 0-1 against Murray.

Anyway, I'd say we definitely have a conscensus on adding the table back in. We just need to come up with a more appropriate name for it... Chanbara (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Shelf Life

This article is rapidly approaching its editing shelf life. Articles like this one can be seen in many papers these days. Roger is now number 5 and looking older by the minute. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly. My hunch is that '2011-2013' may end up being the title of the dominance section. '2013-' may be titled 'decline of Federer'. Or it may not. It's not our job to predict trends, encyclopedia articles will necessarily lag behind events and speculation. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If they are no longer the "Big Four" by sources, and Fed drops any further, then by definition we can't write new things about this "Big Four" anymore. Words will have to be changed to past tense too. Sentence two will have to say "These players were considered dominant in terms of ranking and tournament victories until 2013. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but equally we can't just change at the drop of a hat - we need time. Media at the moment are speculating. Maybe in 12 months we will be able to write "The period of the Big Four's dominance came to an end during 2013, as Federer's form declined and Nadal suffered from injury. This continued in 2014, during which the men's game was dominated by Murray and Djokovic". Or maybe be we'll be writing in 6 months time "Despite a decline in form for Federer in 2013 and the consistency of David Ferrer, Federer's 2013 US Open win resulted in many commentators continuing to refer to 'The Big Four'". The point is that we don't know, and we have to lag behind events somewhat. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Federer's level of play has dropped, clearly. This article need to be heavily modified or deleted. I do not think the periods of Murray's and Federer's dominance overlapped at all.--STA654 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be deleted since the "big four" existed with sourcing. But since it's looking like the "big four" does not exist anymore this article would not be updated anymore except to render things in past tense. It was still big four at years beginning so I'd be willing to let the year finish, but by December I think this article has run its course and the individual players stats should not be updated afterwords. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not only premature but completely unnecessary to want to delete and/or discontinue this article. The term "Big Four" is not solely based on these 4 players being ranked 1-4. It is a term coined by the media because of their impact on the game and despite Federer being ranked #7 at the 2013 US Open, analysts like John McEnroe still include him and refer to him being part of the Big Four. Until that changes, Federer retires, or another player takes his place, this will likely continue and thus the article continues to be relevant. Furthermore, the other 4 players in the Top 8 (Ferrer, Berdych, Del Potro, and Tsonga) have so far only won 1 Top-Level tournament each, so the Big Four are still the Big Four in the eyes of the media and are the 4 best known players in Men's Tennis. Moreover, the article is not limited to the period of time during which they were ranked 1-4 (starting September 8, 2008). Much of the article covers the period before this in order to give context and should therefore continue even after this is no longer the case, particularly since the future is unknown and Federer could return to the Top 4 rankings next year. Sections of the article that are specific to the period where they were ranked 1-4 can be more-or-less "locked down" (for lack of a better term), but other than using some past tense terms, the rest of the article should stay current. Chanbara (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I would look at it as if it were a band breaking up. Or perhaps the "Three Tenors" if one of them leaves. You don't update Beatles albums if it's only a Paul McCartney album. If they aren't the big 4 anymore then it would pretty much stop when that happens. This certainly has a shelf life. If Federer decides to play another ten years but only play occasionally it would be ridiculous to include him here. This article would be done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Agreed, or at least, it would become a largely 'historic' article, with perhaps an evolving 'aftermath' section as the players play out their career. This isn't shouldn't be an article about the careers of these four players - which is why I'd rather remove the pre-2004 stuff from the Grand Slam tables for example. Crucially, though, we should remain driven by sources. If they talk about the end of the big four, or the death of it, which people have started doing, then we can follow suit. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

True. It's really looking like this should solely be from 2008–2013... the year Murray rose to the year Federer fell. All facts and figures could be from that window of time. There could be a small section saying what had happened prior to this time period, and a small section of the aftermath, but otherwise talking about the 6 year period of their reign of wins. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Placement of aftermath section

Shouldn't the aftermath section go at the end of the article with it's own large heading? It seems like being buried in the subsections might not be the best place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In the long run. But for now it's still evolving (for all we know, Federer will win the Australian Open, Ferrer will get an injury, and the Big Four will continue to dominate for a few more years). So I'd keep it within the history section for now - we can change this in a year or so's time when the situations is clearer. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The big four essentially ended at the close of 2012. 2013 was the transition year from big four to Djokovic/Nadal + Murray. There is no big four competition as of now. Could there be in the future?.... possibly if that's what the sources tell us. Right now the sources tells us it done with. There should be no updating of charts for 2014... just aftermath stuff. If perchance the sources tell us otherwise in the future, then we can always append the charts. But there really was no big four in 2013 let alone 2014. The shelf life of this article has gone on an extra year, as it should have to bookend the beginning of the big four, until its demise. That's what the aftermath is for so we can again transition away from charts and use links to the Djokovic-Nadal rivalry and perhaps Federer's schedule decreasing and retirement article/sections. That's why I thought "aftermath" should have its own full section at the bottom. I won't continue to argue where it should go... that is only my opinion. Others may agree or disagree on placement. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think for a minute this era is over. Can't you see that is Rafa-Roger at semifinals at Australian Open?. Do you guys know that if Roger wins the title he will be number 3 in the ATP Rankings next Monday January 27?. You can't say this era is over while all four are still playing and reaching semis of the four majors. The end of an era is seen generally a couple of years after a guy is retired. I think we have to wait a little more before declare this era is over just because Federer finish 6th in ranking last year and didn't win a major. Don't you remember Pete Sampras? he didn't win a tournament for more than two years, but retired as 2002 US Open champion, and that win is part of the Edberg+Becker+Agassi+Sampras era in this page.

I don't see a reason why the stats starting in 2014 should be apart of the others. What if again, they finish 2014 1-4 in the rankings? Should we inserted again those numbers and declare the era wasn't over after all? . I say, let's wait to see it clearer.--190.7.201.2 (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Be careful on this article's size

This article has become quite large over the past year, and while it isn't likely to grow what, with the demise of the Big Four, we need to be careful just in case. It's at 547k which can cause older browsers and handheld devices to freeze upon editing and reading. And at 61k of readable prose, it's at the point where it's supposed to be divided into two articles per WP:ArticleSize If it stays as is I see no serious problem, but for any new additions we should trim and shorten an equal number of other sections to compensate. This is supposed to summarize this latest group of big four tennis players, and not be a 12 part mini-series. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It's getting out of hand, I don't think there's a place for sub-sections such as Main International Awards. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Post Big Four?

I don't think for a minute this era is over. Can't you see that is Rafa-Roger at semifinals at Australian Open?. Do you guys know that if Roger wins the title he will be number 3 in the ATP Rankings next Monday January 27?. You can't say this era is over while all four are still playing and reaching semis of the four majors. The end of an era is seen generally a couple of years after a guy is retired. I think we have to wait a little more before declare this era is over just because Federer finish 6th in ranking last year and didn't win a major. Don't you remember Pete Sampras? he didn't win a tournament for more than two years, but retired as 2002 US Open champion, and that win is part of the Edberg+Becker+Agassi+Sampras era in this page.

I don't see a reason why the stats starting in 2014 should be apart of the others. What if again, they finish 2014 1-4 in the rankings? Should we inserted again those numbers and declare the era wasn't over after all? I say, let's wait to see it clearer.--190.7.201.2 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! This notion that the "Big Four" is something that had an end date when all 4 players are still active and more importantly when they're still being refered to as the "Big Four" as was done just a few days ago on the official ATP site no less (http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/01/4/Australian-Open-Day-9-Quarterfinals-Nadal-Djokovic-Murray-Federer.aspx) is LUDICROUS. These four players will always be known as the "Big Four" of this era, just like Borg/Connors/McEnroe/Lendl will always be the "Big Four" of theirs, so putting an arbitrational end date and stopping career title counts, records, head-to-heads, accomplishments, etc... when we don't know the future and when they're all still active makes absolutely no sense. When analysts, commentators, and journalists talk about the Big Four's titles, records, and accomplishments as they STILL DO (and no doubt will continue to do so in the future) they don't put an end date on it because there isn't one yet. It's stupid to put one on this article. Chanbara (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

However channel 7 commentators in Aus were saying lets see if Federer can get back and make it a big four again. So perfectly resonable to suggest that it was over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.40.62 (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple other sources have declared it over months and months ago. We go by sourcing here at wikipedia, not our wishes. "IF" in the future, those sources should be proved wrong, that is when we would lump all the same big four together again. It would be easy to do. Until we actually see and hear it, the big four is over. hey right this second its a "Big one". Wawrinka played great the entire Australian Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think for now, tables should just be updated as normal, with no new sub-heading. For example, there's no point in having a PBF section in the rankings section, what's the point? People can see for themselves if Federer falls to number 10 in the world at the end of 2014 and Nadal, Djokovic and Murray remain the top three guys, and the same goes for other tables, if Federer doesn't win another Slam and the other three win 10+ between them its pretty clear the Big Four ended as a group around without a separate section telling them so. There's no definitive point in time where the Big Four suddenly became a Big Three or whatever it is at the moment - all four of them made the quarterfinals in Australia, I'm sure some sources would still consider that pretty dominant. We can always come back and decide between us (and dates of sources) as to when approximately it ended, if we need to put a date on it, but its too early to do so now, Federer looked pretty good against Tsonga and Murray to me, sure Nadal destroyed him, but thats nothing new. The statistics is another issue altogether, the longer we update it as Federer struggles to keep up is going to dilute them and make their period of dominance look weaker than it actually was, but again we can always come back and rectify this once the dust has settled. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of what we want. Per most sources the Big Four is over and this is now a historical article, not current. We really shouldn't be updating it at all and should just update the rivalry articles. That's the way it should be. But as a compromise I thought we could keep adding some info but in separate charts or columns. That seemed like a reasonable compromise. To have no new charts or columns is not correct per sources and cheapens the article terribly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

..."and this is now a historical article, not current. We really shouldn't be updating it at all and should just update the rivalry articles". Well, I have a question: what about the upcoming tournaments? With each win of this four players the totals of wins rise, thus we should rise the totals in this table:

	Grand Slam Tournaments	Pro Slam Tournaments	Grand Prix / Masters Series	Year End Tour Finals	Year End WCT Finals	Total
Borg + Connors + McEnroe + Lendl	34	0	73	11	10	128
Federer + Nadal + Djokovic + Murray	38	0	72	9	0	119
Edberg + Becker + Agassi + Sampras	34	0	46	10	1	91
Laver + Rosewall + Emerson + Newcombe	38	23	13	0	2	76

But if "we really shouldn't be updating it at all" the totals would be wrong. For example, when Andre Agassi won his last Grand Slam title 2003 Australian Open all of the other 3 members of his group Edberg + Becker + Agassi + Sampras where already retire (not big four at that time, only Agassi was still playing), but that win add in the table. So why the future wins of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray shouldn't? --Mijcofr (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that "NONE" of the tables should be updated per sources. But I don't own this article so I only do what I can. That other group you talk of is just some arbitrary group used in this particular article for some reason. Really everything past 2012/2013 should now be scrapped. But in the honor of compromise we have talked of separate tables or columns for Post Big 4 stats... and compromise is better than a black or white back and forth argument. Now of course, it could turn out that the sources will wind up being wrong, and Federer will amazingly win a Major this season. I don't see it happening, but if it does you would see me do an about face and declare the sources wrong and that the all the tables need to go back and be all inclusive once again. But doing that before the miracle happens is POV and original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, we had to wait three years for it but Federer has proven he is still able to win a Major. And it wasn't even Wimbledon.Tvx1 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Post big four, head to head

With Stanislas Wawrinka victory at 2014 Australian Open where he defeated Nadal and Djokovic; he has now at least one victory over the 4 big. Should the head to head table be updated or should we start a post big four head to head table?195.148.98.77 (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably start a post big four table. Readers may want to see what has happened in the non-big four era, though in a much briefer style. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it really post big four?

Six months after Wawrinka's Grand Slam win, the next two Grand Slams have seen a Nadal-Djokovic and a Federer-Djokovic final. So is the Big Four really over like we claim it is? Apperantly Federer's form is the basis on which we measure this. However, thus far this season Federer reached a Grand Slam Semi-Final, a Grand Slam Final which he only narrowly lost in five sets and two Masters Series 1000 Finals and is still ranked no°3 of the world. On that basis it's not post Big Four. Ironically enough, if there is one of the "Big Four" players that has dropped back a bit, it's not Federer but Murray; who has reached only one Semi-Final on the three Grand Slam so far this season, hasn't progressed beyond the Quarter-Finals on any of the Masters Series 1000 tournaments so far and as a results dropped to the 10th place on the World Rankings. In fact if you watch the results from recent seasons a Big Four was really exaggerated. More actually there has been, and still is, a Big Three (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic) with Murray as their fiercest competitor. At least one of those three (or a combination of them) have figured in every of the last 38 Grand Slam Finals. Tvx1 (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't over as "we" claim it was, it was over as most sources claimed it was. 2013 was a non-big 4 year per the sources but we waited till 2014 for "post big four" to give a little overlap "per the sources." However, "the sources" appear to be backtracking and using big 4 more often again, and if anything it's Murray who is being talked less and less of (unfair because of injury recovery). With this new talk we may need to re-evaluate the situation. I still think it's closer to a big 2 (Nadal/Djokovic) than a big 4 right now, but we go by sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This was something I had been considering as well. Throughout Wimbledon, the BBC has consistently made reference to the big four in their coverage and indeed a quick google shows many sources that indicate the big four still exist as a dominant quartet (1, 2, 3 and 4). Based on this, I feel it is a big premature to call 2014 Post Big Four. Obviously it isn't worth changing everything yet but we may be better renaming it to something like 'Decline' which acknowledges the era is still continuing but maybe isn't the force it once was and we can reassess at the end of the year. We should also make sure we don't try and twist things to fit with the idea that the Big Four era is coming to an end as we need to keep the article neutral.Username of a generic kind (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. Decline would be a much more accurate description. Three of the Big Four have reach Grand Slam Finals and Masters 1000 Finals this season and two of them won some of those tournaments. And their are more of these tournaments to follow this season. Post Big Four is much to premature at the moment. Tvx1 (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Murray simply isn't the calibre of the other three, making the term "Big Four" a real stretch. He's never been world no. 1, trails the others in major wins, and has now fell to world no. 10 while Djokovic, Nadal and Federer occupy the top three (or should that be Big Three) spots. Murray is the Lleyton Hewitt of his generation, not an all-time great like the other members of the Big Four have cemented themselves as. 90.222.117.102 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Murray's position isn't what's up for discussion here though. Regardless of your beliefs we have to go by what reliable news sources are saying. If you find evidence to prove that there is a general belief that Murray doesn't belong then you can bring that up but until then it isn't a matter worth discussing. But anyway, the point being made is that the Big Four has not ceased, contrary to previous beliefs. I noticed someone has already changed a few of the headings in the tables from 'Post Big Four' to 'Regression'. Unless anyone opposes this, I feel we should now start to roll this out throughout the whole article. Username of a generic kind (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've always maintained that this was premature. And the "most sources" claim never held water either, as the most important/legitimate sources like the ATP site have continued to refer to them as the Big Four all year along (from January to the present included). Same thing with the ESPN, Tennis Channel, and Eurosport commentators/analysts, and many other articles written all year. The Big Four remain the Big Four not only because they continue to show up in the later stages of all the big tournaments, but also because of the already-won titles they bring to the table. Except for a few random losses here and there to other players, there has been no real/consistent break-through from any other player(s). This could change and likely will as the gap starts to close and with the Big Four getting older, but it's unlikely that they will stop being refered to as the "Big Four" at the Grand Slams and Masters any time soon (as has been the case all 2014, a year in which some people had previously and quite prematurely mislabelled as "Post Big Four" on this article). Chanbara (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the change of headings, but I would change the wording from "regression" to "decline".

So, a month and a half later, Federer has reached another two masters 1000 finals and won one of them. This now means that thus far three of the big four have won top-level tournaments thus far this season. This all adds to the fact that "post big four" was way to premature. Tvx1 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tournament Records

It says in the table that Federer's 4 Australian Open's are an all time record. Roy Emerson has won the Australian Open 6 times. It also says that Federer's 5 US Open's are an all time record. Richard Sears, Bill Tilden and William Larned all won 7 US Open's. Federer's achievements in the Australian Open and US Open are open era records. Perhaps another symbol could be used to show this.Perfectamundo (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Federer's Australian Open (shared with Andre Agassi and Novak Djokovic), US Open (shared with Jimmy Connors and Pete Sampras) as well as his Wimbledon (shared with Sampras) performances are no outright Open Era records either. Tvx1 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, I removed the errors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

They had returned and I removed them again. Tvx1 (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They keep returning, so I had to remove them yet again. Tvx1 23:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And again. Tvx1 10:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

They returned once again. Tvx1 10:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Big four all over again

With Andy Murray reaching the final at 2015 Australian Open, there will be a top Big Four all over again at the ATP Rankings on Monday February 2nd. "regression since the start of 2014 to the present day" I don't think so!. It's clear that Big Four are still dominating the tennis world, yes, even Andy Murray.--Mijcofr (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that during 2014 Murray's best performance in a top tier tournament was ONE semi-final (French Open). Aside from that he reached quarterfinals at best. So including 2014 as dominating is wrong. Don't forget two Grand Slams were won by non-big four players and one even featured an entire non-big four final. Just because Murray has reached a Grand Slam final now doesn't mean the big four are dominating the sport as a group. Mind you, Federer has lost in the third round and Nadal in the quarterfinal. It can even still be won by Wawrinka, a non-big four player. And how dominating would that leave them? It's just way to soon to make an assessment for 2015, given the fact the year is not even one month old and not even one top tier tournament has been completed. Tvx1 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think since 2008 to 2012 there was a clear dominance of the big 4, in Grand Slams, and in ranking. Why emergence untill 2010? the difference is who was the dominant inside the top 4, but they were by far the most dominant players from 2008 to 2012. Since 2013 maybe a regression, Federer droped to No.6, Ferrer rise to No.3, and in 2014 Murray to No.6 and Wawrinka to No.3. In other words, for me it is:

• 1999-2004: emergence and dominance of Federer.
• 2005-2007: Big 2 (Federer & Nadal)
• 2008-2012: Big 4 (Federer & Nadal & Djokovic & Murray)
• 2013-present: maybe regression, we'll see

--Tommy Boy (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes Federer had a dip in 2013 were he dropped to No.6, but he rebounded and is now No.2 again. Murray had an even worse dip in 2014 dropping as far as No.12, before now rebounding back to No.4. Despite these dips neither of them has gone entirely. They're both still there. Tvx1 (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that you can't say this or any era are finish or in "regression" until some time later, maybe two years in a row of poor performance (by Big Four standards). As said right here, Federer looked like he was gone in 2013 and bounce back to number 2 in 2014. Why can't that happen to Murray too, one year remove from back surgery? What if this year all four majors are won by these players and finish-like right now- 1,2,3,4 at the rankings? What happen with "regression" in that scenario? I agree with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tommy_Boy: 2013-present: maybe regression, we'll see. --Mijcofr (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you that more time should be given and more developments should be considered before make such a general assessment. Last year, 2014 was already labelled "Post Big Four" in January after the AO because Wawrinka had won. The year was only a month old though. Needless to say, eight months later we had had a Nadal-Djokovic Grand Slam Final, a Federer-Djokovic Grand Slam Final and three of the four winning top tier tournaments. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site so were are not to required to bring hot of the needle news scoops. We can afford to wait and allow the sport's events to develop before making such a significant change to an article like this. We don't need to jump guns to be up to date at all. So for 2015, I suggest we wait quite some time before making an assessment, let alone a significant change to the article. We should just keep updating the results for the time being. The first Grand Slam of the year has already offered us a Big Four final to begin with. Tvx1 (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it's probably worth waiting a bit to see how 2015 pans out. On the face of it we might expect to see Murray challenging again and Federer/ Nadal slipping back, but we'll see I suppose and in the clay court season Nadal might well reign supreme once more.

However as it stands the 2014 part of the article is far too long and detailed and I'd propose cutting it down rather a lot to give the main details: 2 slams won by non-Big Four players, 2 Masters 1000 titles likewise, Murray slipping out of the top ten, something of a collective recovery at the end of the year. Probably does need a bit of trimming down, even before we come to editing the 2015 information. Thoughts?JamesG360 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I now did something of a clean-up of the 2014. It's still too long, arguably, but at least it's hopefully more coherent and more of a summary than a blow-by-blow account.JamesG360 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Very good job indeed. However the section has been expanded again with a paragraph on the "rise of Wawrinka". That new paragraph contains too much unsourced opinion of the editor, if you ask me. Tvx1 22:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I only got a brief look at the new version. Agree with your assessment though. I'd deliberately stopped my editing job at the end of 2014 anyway, because the current season is only half-way through at the moment and it's not clear how things are going to change. At the moment Nadal's on a slide but there is still plenty of time in the year for him to reverse that, like Murray did last year.JamesG360 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still in the page history if you want to take look at it. Tvx1 23:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So again four months later, all of the big four have reached the finals of the top tier tournaments held since the Australian Open. Only one of these five top tier finals featured a non big four finalist (Tomáš Berdych). This again shows that big four aren't done and dusted at all and that we really should learn to give the world some time to evolve before making major assessments. Tvx1 17:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that's commonly ignored in assessing the current state of the big four's dominance is seeding at tournaments. With first Federer, then Murray and now Nadal dropping outside of the top four of the World Ranking this has resulted in these players ending up in each other's quarter of the draw of the tournaments more often and often, making it impossible for all four of them to reach the semifinals even before the tournament starts. With that the chance of two of them reaching the final drops as well. Tvx1 12:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam tournament performance comparison

There is a timeline comparing the Big Four's results at the grand slams. I have two questions regarding this timeline. Firstly, some tournament names are underlined or written in italics (i.e. AUS, WIM), but I can't find any explanation why this is done. Secondly there is sentence underneath the timeline stating that the big four have all reached the semifinals of only 4 out of a possible 24 grand slams. This number seems to be incorrect though. I'm guessing it stopped being updated some years ago. Nevertheless out of the 32 grand slams I have found all four of them have participated in simultaneously, only 19 could have featured the entire big four in the semifinals. This is because in the other 13 at least two of the big four were in the same quarter of the draw and it was thus impossible for all four of them to have reached the semifinals anyway. I have been bold and corrected the number. Tvx1 18:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because they got seeded that way does not invalidate the numbers. It was possible if they were ranked high enough not to get a poor seeding. I changed it to remove the possibles, and got rid of the silly big three language. It looks like it's underlined when 3 players make the semis, and italicized when 4 players make the semis. I removed it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not only a question of achievement that determined them not being in the same quarter of the draw. Even if a group of players is not seeded 1-4, it is perfectly possible for each of them to be in an other quarter of the draw. That's even possible if they're unseeded. In such cases it's pure coincidence where you end up. So, no I don't consider a Grand Slam tournament where two or more Big Four members were in the same quarter of the draw to be one where all of them could have reached the semifinals. And I certainly don't consider them not to all reach the semifinals to be a measure of level of dominance. Even in a tournament where two or more are in the same quarter of the draw it is perfectly possible for them to only lose to an other Big Four member. Tvx1 16:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Regression

I know that a Big Four member still was able to win each Masters and Slam at 2013, IMO it really was the start of the regression based on the chart of the Slam when Nadal and Federer exited or was absent so many times on Slams and Murray was absent on RG and was QF only on USO. You could say it was a dominant pre-USO by Nadal and dominant post-USO by Djokovic, you could say the same with the regression in 2015 where a Big Four still won Masters and only missed one Slam against Stan Wawrinka (who himself now has seemingly jumped himself out of the other non-Big Four members with his two Slams) or even 2014 where while it has no dominance, still had the big titles still won by Big Four (only Wawrinka, Marin Cilic and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga were able to win the Masters/Slams outside the Big Four). 2013 was Nadal dominant but we have seen how Fed struggled and Murray struggled in the latter part of the season and isn't as iron clad as compared to the AO 2011-RG 2012 period. 07:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjzr (talk • contribs)

But if they keep winning what does it matter? I mean look at Federer. His peak ended in 2007. In 2008 he had mono and has never been as good a player since then. That's what happens with that disease. But he did win again because he was so much better than the competition. He's even worse now as far as speed and back pains and steadiness, but he's still in the big four. It'll be interesting to see what happens to him and Nadal in the coming year as their bodies break down even more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

But as a group, they still regressed. 2013 was almost all Nadal is more of a "Big One" rather than a "Big Four", as much as this season it is also sort of a "Big One" with Djokovic while the others are catching up. I am not talking about if someone is out of the Big Four, just saying that compared to the real domination as a group they had during 2011-early 2012, they have regressed, but still are winning virtually every big title (Djokovic winning 4 Masters and 1 Slam, Murray winning 1 Masters), with only the French Open missing. What is the difference between the Fed (and Murray, who didn't win against a Top 10 player during that year) regression of 2013 from the Nadal regression of 2014? Zjzr (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying. But many years are uneven where one player is up while others might be down. I'm not sure where you get 2013 as being all Nadal though. Nadal and Djokovic split the year end No. 1 title between the ATP and ITF. Very very close. 2012 was a pretty even year but 2011 was a huge Djokovic dominance. 2010 was a big Nadal year, while 2009 was much closer. So these things vary a lot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There's been sort of a pattern in the last couple of years where each member of the Big Four in turn (apart from Novak) has had a bad run of form. Federer in 2013, Murray in 2014 and now Nadal have all slipped back. But the first two recovered, and they are still winning many titles and going deep into tournaments. Not sure that the regression is all that clear yet. I just did a quick check and the Big Four have won 14/19 singles tournaments at least one of them entered in the year so far, and have reached 21/29 possible final slots. Not bad for a group whose dominant period is apparently over. I think it's clear that there's something of a regression, given that 3/6 of the last Slams have gone to non-Big Four players, but they're still pretty good at locking down final slots and titles in tournaments they enter. JamesG360 (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have another Big Four Grand Slam final (and three of the four in the semis), so they are still putting in strong performances. Tvx1 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, fine work by the various members of the Big Four and that's a 15th title between them for the year, along with maximum possible semi-final and final appearances at Wimbledon. All the same, we'll have to keep an eye on Nadal's form as it's still not great...JamesG360 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And Federer is apparently still able to beat another Big Four member (even in straight sets) at a Grand Slam. So even though it's true that they are arguably no longer dominating as a group through three of the four taking turns having a dip, it's not true that they are regressing as an entire group. Tvx1 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Big Four will be ranked top 4 again tomorrow, and are winning every important title in sight. Each of Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray has won at least a M1000 title in 2016, and Federer made 2 slam finals in the last 12 months. Are there solid sources to support the idea of 'regression' that is claimed in certain performance tables for 2014-2016? Gap9551 (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Broken ATP Tour links

Since the ATP updated its website in about the middle of 2015 a lot of the older links appear to have been broken/ changed so that they no longer work, and either need to be updated to the new urls, or alternative references to those topics found where possible.JamesG360 (talk) 12:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of these urls should be retrievable using the Internet Archive. Tvx1 01:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Golden Era section

Why is Borg + Connors + McEnroe + Lendl considered an era in this article? Borg and Lendl were certainly not in the same era. They played only 7 times and met just once in a Grand Slam, and their timelines of Slam titles are not overlapping. The citations provided do not support these four players forming an era either. Including them in the table with their combined title counts may be misleading to the reader, as it gives the impression that that era was stronger and more competitive than it actually was. By the way, Rosewall and Newcombe were hardly in the same era either, differing 10 years in age and they played just once in a Slam final (amateur and pro combined). I think for a group of players to form an era, each pair should have a significant number of matches and their primes (periods during which they won Slams) should overlap. Gap9551 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Golden era included Lendl... I'd have to check sources. But the other major golden era was the 20s-early30s. When I think of tennis's Golden Era it's the earlier period that comes to mind above all. Everything else is compared to that time in history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, in particular with the Borg/ Lendl eras only barely overlapping. Borg retired in 1981, about the same time that Lendl emerged as a force on the tour. Not a "Big Four" era. The whole section from "Murray's position" through to this probably could do with some editing/ merging/ simplifying to reflect this.JamesG360 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

2015 in review

So with the season at an end, the Big Four have acheived the following:

• All but one Grand Slam, and all but one Slam final slot, as well as the Tour Finals title.
• All Masters titles, and all but two Masters final slots.
• 24/30 titles in total, and 39/49 possible final appearances in all tournaments (of the six titles they failed to win, four featured only one member of the Big Four).
• Top three rankings held throughout the year, and Nadal ends in 5th despite a small slide.
• 252 wins in 279 matches against all non-Big Four opponents, or 90.3% (over half of the losses were Nadal's, who has had a poor season but finished fairly strongly), and also a 41-8 record against top ten opposition.

It's not a total dominance, perhaps, and in particular the season has been dominated by Djokovic ahead of Murray and Federer, but you could argue that 2015 has seen the group work hard to re-establish themselves after a "blip" in 2014. Is the era of the Big Four really over yet? The 2014 and 2015 seasons summaries are still a shade overlong and will probably need a rewrite. In the meantime, roll on 2016.JamesG360 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)