Wikipedia

Talk:Big Four (tennis)/Archive 2

< Talk:Big Four (tennis)
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Fyunck(click) in topic This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 still big Big four, 2014 and 2015 should be still dominance

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Not sure what the purpose of these posts are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 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)

In any case, regression is not an accurate term to describe 2014 and 2015. The group did not regress. Tvx1 23:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So let's make an overview now we're halfway through the season:

  • The Australian and French Open had a big four final.
  • The five Masters 1000 tournament were won by Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Three of them had a Big four final
  • Federer was sidelines with injuries for most of the season so far. He has now returned to playing. He reached the semifinal at the Australian Open
  • Nadal lost in the first round of the Australian Open and pulled out of the French Open because of injury after the second round
  • The Big Four are currently ranked 1-4 in the world rankings.

Thats's the Big Four so far this season. Tvx1 12:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Other Big 4 chart

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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 agree. This is also discussed at Talk:Big Four (tennis)#Golden Era section. Gap9551 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Since no one disputed its bogusness, I removed the offending chart and associated material. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Big Five" theory

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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. Tvx1 17:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do is merge that with the "Murray's position" section, as in "On the other hand, the success of players such as Wawrinka in particular, who [until today] has won as many Grand Slams as Murray, has led some commentators to suggest that there is instead a 'Big Five'..."? The entire article could do with some streamlining anyway, although I suppose that will have to wait until Federer finally retires and there's no longer anything to add to the article.JamesG360 (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
When a member retires, there will still be a lot to update until the last member retires. Currently the article contains many statistics (e.g., Head to head records, titles won, career evolution/age comparisons) and other content (e.g., Big Two section, 2007 Wimbledon final section) that preceded the Big Four concept. Gap9551 (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that's true although I mainly had in mind the narrative, particularly of the last three years, which really needs refining/ shortening. Suffers greatly from having been written while the story was still developing, particularly in 2014 when Wawrinka/ Cilic/ Nishikori/ Tsonga looked to have broken through the Big Four collectively. Since then they've re-established themselves, it appears.JamesG360 (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, the prose can use some rewriting. Gap9551 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I toned it down a bit for starters. Gap9551 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Had a go at merging and abridging the "Big five"/ "Murray's position" sections. Hopefully more to the point, rather than reading like an attempt to justify one side or the other.JamesG360 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
After the last US Open (2016), it is time to change the page to the Big Five. Wawrinka has proven that he is of the caliber of the mentioned 4!
Really? He reached just 3 grand slam finals (compared to at least 11 for the big four), reached just four grand slam semifinals on top of the three he won, hasn't won any olympic medal in singles and reached just three Masters 1000 finals only one of which he won. He's still a long way away. Tvx1 15:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we should have a section called the "Big Nine." That way we could write "In the last 13 years the Big Nine have dominated so completely that they have won every Major title available (52 Majors)." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

auto-archiving?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

I takes just a simple edit to change the auto-archiving interval. If you want it to be six months that can be easily done.Tvx1 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I would be much happier if it was 6 months. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What a page

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Combined Big Titles Performance Timeline (best result)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@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)

Changes Suggested

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

No, it should not be changed. That section is "meant" to focus on their tournament titles from 2009 to 2013, which it does, and which was a period of particular dominance for them over the rest of the tour. In 2013, they won all of the big titles (4 Majors, 9 Masters, Tour Finals), so it makes sense to include it with 2009-2012. The whole article is about the Big Four and covers their entire careers at various points, so this section is not somehow problematic in a way that the rest of the article wouldn't be by your definition. And their status as the "Big Four" is not dependent on or defined by their rankings, and certainly not their year-end rankings only. Witness almost this entire season in which they have held the top four rankings for only a week or two, but in which the media have persisted in talking about the "Big Four" anyway. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


Suggested content for page:

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)

To me, these don't sound like things that need to be added to this article, as I am unsure that the overall effect will be particularly impressive for the Big Four as a group, but if you have well-sourced data on these points that shows otherwise, I would happily change my opinion. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Career Grand Slam tournament 1st seedings table

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Big 5?

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

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)

Can't do it. It's not like wikipedia invented the term "Big 4." It's Big 4 because all the press and writing on the subject calls them the Big 4. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree: it's not our call. We don't get to decide that it's a "Big Five" just like we didn't get to decide it was a "Big Four". Also, just as a quick rebuttal: Wawrinka's highest ranking is No. 3, rather than No. 1 (like all of the Big Four), he's made only 4 Slam finals (instead of at least 11, which is the minimum for the Big Four), and he's only won a single Masters Series title (instead of at least 14, which is the minimum for the Big Four). There's still a big difference between Murray and Wawrinka. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
SUPPORT I support the proposal for a name change. Wawrinka has won three Grand Slam titles, which makes him on a par with Murray. Wawrinka's raise as a late bloomer is making the term Big Four looking more biased and inappropriate than before. However, whether we should change it to the Big Five or Big Three is still debatable. Personally, I would support renaming the article to the Big Three instead, as there is still a significant gap between Murray/Wawrinka and the other three superstars in terms of their achievements. Murray's inclusion in the Big Four is somewhat controversial and arbitrary from the very beginning, as his achievements aren't really on a par with the other three. There's a saying that goes like this: "Making the finals aren't good enough, 20 years from now, people will only remember the champions." Kenwick (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Not gonna happen because there is no sourcing for it. It's the Big 4 no matter what we think. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The term Big Four was invented by the tennis media because together they dominated the rankings and consistently went deep in slams/masters. Not because of slam titles; a common misunderstanding makes people criticize the term Big Four based on Murray being far behind the other three in slam titles. The term already existed before Murray won his first slam. Murray is top 10 in Open Era in many statistics that reflect that consistency, like slam semifinals/quarterfinals/match wins. Wawrinka and all other contemporary players are far behind. Gap9551 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Overcolored

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Main page: WP:COLOR

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)

I reject the premise that "a non-colored page is less stressful for even non-colorblind users." Shall we also make all the photos black and white? Shall we write to newspapers to have them remove all color also? I would say NO. On first glance I would say there are charts that do seem over-colored. I would also say the putting the flag icons next to the names over and over and over is ridiculous. It's one thing when we list a tournament with hundreds of names and nationalities... readers want to know the nationalities of winners often as much as the player themselves. But this article is dealing with the same four players in every chart. Those same flag icons over and over are useless. I would list the four players once with their flag icons and then remove every other instance, unless they are in a list with other players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
In all honesty, I think we can improve the coloring and thus the accessibility of this article. The colors we use in the timelines are quite bright. Maybe we could use more pale shades of them, similar to how WP:Footy uses colors. Moreover, I think colors could be removed from some tables, like for instance the table of Masters 1000 Big Four finals. Also, we need legends. Neither the colors, nor the characters from the timelines are explained anywhere. Other tables like the "Other Big Four finals" table use color without any indication as to what they intend to convey, even for the fully able-sighted. I full agree with your stance on the flags.Tvx1 12:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Tvx1 for your recent edits. Although there is still a huge room for improvement remained as you explained, your recent edits are much much better. It will require us significant time and efforts, but let's keep improving step by step, shall we? --Mis0s0up (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that’s always the best strategy. I think it‘s best to discuss further how it’s best to make further improve before doing more edits.Tvx1 16:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
What if the flags were deleted in tables that only include the big four and left in the tables that included other players? (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC))

Example

Rank Player Titles Finals
1   Roger Federer 20 30
2   Rafael Nadal 17 24
3   Pete Sampras 14 18
4   Novak Djokovic 12 21
5   Björn Borg 11 16
6  /  Ivan Lendl 8 19
  Andre Agassi 8 15
  Jimmy Connors 8 15
9   John McEnroe 7 11
  Mats Wilander 7 11
11   Stefan Edberg 6 11
  Boris Becker 6 10
13   Rod Laver 5 6
14   Guillermo Vilas 4 8
  Jim Courier 4 7
16   Andy Murray 3 11
  Stan Wawrinka 3 4
  Gustavo Kuerten 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

4 ?? no 3 ....

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Big Three?

Latest comment: 5 years ago41 comments10 people in discussion

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)

I would say we wait. Murray may very well find his form again just as Nadal and Federer did after their injuries. And tennis historians don't and won't look at only those three as GOATs, since there are a handful of others that get just as much praise. They are certainly among the greatest ever though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with User:Ryoung122 that this alternate concept is in sufficient use to be treated here - however I suggest just to mention it in the first paragraph of the introduction. If someone wants to use this concept, he still can easily the "three out of four" data from the article. --KnightMove (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Federer's Grand Slam winning career was effectively over at the end of 2012 at 31yo then low and behold 5 years later at 36yo he goes on to win 2 more tiles and another one at 37yo so Murray still has time to win more titles should his recovery improve.--Navops47 (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I wish the very best for him, but the future is open and has nothing to do with it. As of now the concept of "Big Three" has been used in a variety of media and derserves to be mentioned. --KnightMove (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The more time passes, the more the "Big Three" concept becomes viable. The gap between Djokovic and Murray keeps getting bigger and bigger and the big three are now the top three on the all-time list of grand slam titles.Tvx1 09:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This page seems to only serve to highlight the enormously vast gap between Murray and the other 3 players, rather than the originally intended purpose. There may have once been a time where the big-4 was a thing, but one would be better off arguing that there has probably been a very distinctive big-3 for a much longer time than the duration that a big-4 comprising of these players ever existed. Don't get me wrong, Murray is indeed a great player in my personal opinion and certainly that of most others, but it's almost farcical to attempt to elevate him in this manner, and instead results in either detracting from the achievements of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic, or making glaringly obvious how far behind Murray is, unfortunately. — Anakimilambaste   23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I would also add that if we are to be waiting for anything, we ought to be waiting for him to prove himself to be worthy of being added to this group, and not waiting for him to continue the way he has been for the past 10-12 years while the others have soared away from him and then at some point say, "Yes, we have waited long enough. Let's change this to the Big Three". That just seems to make a whole lot more sense to me.— Anakimilambaste   00:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
This would be going a bit too far. The "Big Four" concept is still much more often used overall, and the "Big Four" were already used when Murray had never been #1. It's not our choice to change that. However, I think we can regard it as consensus to mention the Big Three. --KnightMove (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. What we think is meaningless. The press still calls it the Big 4. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, "the press" also uses Big Three example, better example. I have added it now, and also in the disambiguation page Big Three: [1] --KnightMove (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say they don't use the term. Big 4 is more prevalent and longstanding. And remember this response was to a post that said lets change this article to Big 3. That would be a poor choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Would support moving article title to Big Three and editing accordingly. Big Four concept could be treated with historical section. This article as constructed is an anachronism. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:44, 17 September 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

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/08/federer-djokovic-nadal-ranking-big-three-four-rivalry-history-grand-slam

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)

Though Murray is clearly 4th among the Big Four, grouping him with Wawrinka and Del Potro is riddiculous as he is a class above them in terms of titles and achievements.
Murray has won 3 Grand Slams (and was runner up 8 times). He's won 14 Masters 1000 titles (and was runner up 7 times). He won the year end championships. He was ranked #1 for 41 weeks (before being injured). He has won Olympic Gold in singles twice (which no other player has achieved). And he has won the 4th most prize money in the Open Era.
Wawrinka has won 3 Grand Slams (and was runner up 1 time). He's won just 1 Masters 1000. Has never won the year end championships. Never ranked higher than #3. Never won an Olympic medal in singles.
Del Potro has won 1 Grand Slam (and was runner up 1 time). He's won just 1 Masters 1000. Has never won the year end championships. Never ranked higher than #3. Won 1 Olympic BRONZE and 1 Olympic SILVER medal in singles.Chanbara (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Planning ahead with foresight as they cannot play forever I propose we move the article to BIG TWO in 2020 then move it again to BIG ONE in 2022 of course not what was I thinking that would be Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to recap: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Make sure that you follow these guideline before you make recommendations to jettison No 4 of the BIG FOUR .--Navops47 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
+1. Even if the Big Three remain in the Top 3 positions for another 5 years and Murray finishes his career tomorrow, this does not invalidate the Big Four concept as historically significant. I support expanding the Big Three descriptions in the article, but no move of the article wherever. --KnightMove (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
A number of reliable sources has been provided though, so this is more than simply a Wikipedia editor's opinion. And it it's interesting you mention crystalballing since this article was created years ago for a Big Four on the crystal ball assumption that Murray would become just as successful as the other four, which as we know now hasn't materialized.Tvx1 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually I would disagree with this 100%. This article was not created years ago on any assumptions. It was created because the press and public used the term to describe those four players. The sourcing was overwhelming. It was used all the time then and still used today, so it will always have significance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
If we are retaining this article title as "historically significant" should we move the copy to the past tense where logical and simultaneously create a Big Three (tennis)?
What I find difficult in reading over this discussion is that those adamant about retaining Murray aren't providing any good options for treating the dominance of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic separately with the concision and weight it deserves. What do we do? Perhaps start a Big Three article and see where it goes.
The other compromise possibly is if there's an agreed upon name for this era (Golden era? etc.) we might move the article to that and then provide due weight to each man as deserved. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
No one is stopping you from creating a Big 3 article as long as it's sourced properly. But this article is about the most commonly used term of "Big 4." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This isn't an article about a term. It's a massively over-built career comparison of four men that seeks to summarize the entire era. If it were an article about a term it would be a tenth the size and no one would have a problem. Dontreadalone (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
That is where you have made a mistake. No term, no article. The term "Big 4" has been used heavily for almost 10 years and that's the only reason this article exists at all. Is it massively overbuilt trivia, yes indeed. Could it easily be trimmed by 75%, of course. But this is supposed to be only about the "Big 4" and their comparisons, nothing else. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't dispute in the slightest that this article exists under its current title because of use of the term. I don't think anyone does. I'm saying that the article as currently written isn't about a term and hasn't been for quite some time.
This is de facto the main summary we have of the top of the men's game since the emergence of Federer. It ranks highly in long-tailed searches on Google for that reason and, almost certainly, the persistence of the term is now self-fulfilling. The dogged elevation of Murray in such an article is what bothers people, not a dispute over whether the term has ever been in use.
In thinking about it, a Big Three article may actually grow rather than reduce this problem. The other suggestion of having a summary article for the era is perhaps a better one. Clearly 2004 onward constitutes a unique and talked about era in men's tennis. This could absorb a lot of the tables and other things in here, while this piece would would be pared back to a more strictly term-based article. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Every era has its own uniqueness. Other eras are just as interesting but because it's the current era editors like to write about it more. Murray is in this article because he is 1/4 of the definition. That's just the way it is with the press. Federer/Roddick wasn't much of a rivalry, but print sources made it bigger than life. We simply followed the sources. You are talking about an arbitrary time period of a new article... a 14 year period of trivial factoids. If that were going to happen it would be better if it was decade by decade or perhaps score by score instead of a decade. And every time period of 140 years of tennis would need to be included in a series of articles, not just 2004 to 2018. And for the record this article is no summary, it's a novel. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
If 2004 is arbitrary why does this very article begin its History headlines in 2004? If as you keep insisting we are simply following press definitions then why do we not begin in 2009 and the first attestation of the term? 2004 and the emergence of Federer is the most widely agreed upon generational dividing line of the men's Open era and this article, as I keep saying, long ago exceeded its scope and seeks to cover that entire generation. From a certain perspective it's a form of original research.
The article summarizing 2004 onwards I am imaging would cover much of the same ground but more easily handle issues of due weight and periodicity. It would not have us handcuffed to an increasingly untenable definition in perpetuity. Murray would, of course, feature prominently. But the article wouldn't need to bend over backwards to constantly justify his elevation (cf. the insipid last paragraph to the already gargantuan lead). His accomplishments would speak for themselves in the context of the last two decades as they ought to.
As for an article on one era necessitating entries on others, this is a red herring. Wiki is not paper and those other articles could evolve (or not) as editors see fit. Dontreadalone (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
2004 to 2018 as an era for tennis history article is arbitrary... that's just picking one period of time. You need sourcing that specifically showed the period of 2004-2018 is specifically notable as opposed to 2000 to 2010. Having an article on the term "Big 4" is reasonable, and it happens to have started in 2004. I see no quandary there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh? The Big Four has nothing to do with 2004. Murray wasn't even a pro. The term isn't in use for another five years. 2004 is seminal because it's the beginning of the Federer era—he achieves number 1 and dominates the slams for the first time. You surely know that already. It's no more arbitrary than choosing 1918 or 1945 for a general history article starting point. Dontreadalone (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Look, I don't know what else to say to you. This a two person conversation, and this is an article edited by zillions of editors. Maybe they all agree with you and that's fine. I simply do not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Well I agree with Dontreadalone and there appear to be many others in this discussion who have a similar view. You're right that we need to correctly reflect the sources. However, you're forgetting that we have to give equal weight to the entire set of sources which cover the entire period this article deals with. Currently this article clearly shows an clear and inherent bias towards the view the sources had in 2008-2013 during at the point at which Djokovic and Murray have still managed a sort of similar level of success and were assumed to maintain in what was then still the future. Since then, however, the gap between Djokovic en Murray has become massive and many sources have since acknowledged that they don't form a Big Four at all. This has now been pointed out by many editors as well. Murray having now announced his imminent retirement means the situation is not likely to change anymore. It is thus high time we stop denying that reality and change this article to reflect the current stance of the sources.Tvx1 20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree. I think Andy is better than any other male players in this era, but he still has long distance compare with Roger, Rafa and Novak. He has not his own period in this best era, but we witness big three had their gorgeous time during past ten years.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2019 (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 think you're completely missing the point here. The point that is being raised in the talk page is not that there currently only is a big three, the point is that more an more sources are being published that backtracking on their view of 2008-2012/13 that these four actually formed an equal quality big four during the era of the last ten or so years. For a certain period of time they considered them a big four, but with Djokovic creating a big gap with Murray as well they've changed their view. This isn't only about their current situation, but about their entire era. And that's where your point about Federer is completely off the mark. Even if he were to retire at the end of the season, the massive gap in titles between him and Murray would still exist. He'd still have 17 (or more) grand slam titles more than Murray has. In fact, even if all of them would retire this year the massive difference between him and the other three over the entire era would still be there. The simple fact would remain that Federer and Nadal have reached the same amount of grand slam finals at Wimbledon and the French Open alone respectively than Murray reached at the four combined. And that's why creating an additional article for just the big three would not be a solution to the problem that exists here that this article gives an undue weight to a now anachronistic view that these four are of the same calibre. The best thing to do would be to do is to convert THIS article to big three and dedicated a big section of it to the view that was once held by the sources that they formed a big four and that the sources changed that view once a significant gap was created between Murray and the other three. That would be the only version that gives due weight to all the sources published during the entire period. Them being active or not has nothing to do with it whatsoever. I really wonder just how many editors have to disagree with you before we can move forward.Tvx1 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Historically that makes no difference. And equality among the 4 also makes little difference. There was, per sourcing, a HUGE rivalry between Roddick and Federer. News all the time, press all the time, magazines a heap. Of course using hindsight it was not a rivalry but a slaughter. But we go by the sources. When I come to this article, per the title, I expect to see detailed stats and information on the the famous "Big Four" of tennis. All four of them since that is the well-sourced and famous term used (even today). If we were to change this to something other than a Big Four article, and make it a time period, then a couple things would happen. Many other player stats would need to be added and the article would get way more bloated than it already is. And we would probably need to create other similar time period articles for other famous groups of players. If Federer retires are we going to change this article again to "Big Two" and have subsections of the Big Four and Big Three? That's re-writing history. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Why do you keep repeating that "Big Two if Federer retires" remark? I have already explained in my previous reply that this argument has NOTHING whatsoever to do with them being active. The massive gap in achievements between Murray and the other three remains there whether they are active or not. This is not intended to be a live report on the endeavours of the four most successful active tennis players at any given time, per WP:NOTNEWS. As you say, we go by sources. But that is all the sources. We don't stick solely to the sources from 2008-2012/13 and we don't simply ignore them changing their mind later on. Many editors have correctly pointed out supported with sources that more and more those sources admit that they really were a big three. That they called them a Big Four during a period of time is something we can handle in a WP:DUE manner even when we convert this to a Big Three article.Tvx1 17:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And it's also an absolute fact that the four of them will be forever linked and sourced as the "Big Four" no matter what the achievement gap was. If new sources start calling Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic the "Tennis Trio" then we make an article called the "Tennis Trio"... we don't change history and ignore something that was entrenched for a decade. This is something that is better discussed at the Tennis Project talk page because of the article's high visibility. Maybe everyone there agrees with you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:44, 15 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)

Unless a new article was created, we would certainly add a new section called "2019: Murray's retirement" and only talk of the other three thereafter. Same when Federer retires when we'd only talk of the other two. Assuming Federer ever actually retires :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh please no. When Murray retires we either re-title and reorient this article are we pare it back to the use of the term—which, you keep roundly insisting, is all that this is supposed to be about. Continuing to document the careers of the other men is the worst possible outcome, at least under this title. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No. This is not supposed to be a live news report of active players’ careers. This a collection of the total achievements of a set of players. We mention things that happened before three of them became pro’s, so we also continue updating the numbers when one or more of them retires. Otherwise it would become factually incorrect.Tvx1 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
That’s the whole point being raised here. More and more people are disputing here that we actually give the sources their due weight and are demonstrating that we are actually giving an undue bias to the older sources who once considered them a Big Four but have since reverted their own views. Wikipedia is also a community project and thus if the community comes to the conclusion that the sources actually considered there to have been a Big Three, it is our good right to convert the article.Tvx1 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Big Three

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Table update

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion


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)

Losing in qualification matches normally isn't considered a participation. For example, those qualifying results also don't count towards Federer's Grand Slam participation total, or his win/loss record, etc. Gap9551 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Big Three

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Please see the archived discussions in this talk page, because while you may believe it is a Big Three rather than Big Four, the Big Four has been used more commonly by the media, former players, commentators and even tennis fans throughout the years than Big Three (which has only become more prevalent recently) and so it would be absurd to rename this article to Big Three, especially without consensus. If you however wish for a tennis article on the Big Three, I suggest you raise the issue and seek consensus in the main WikiProject Tennis talk page though bear in mind, this also might raise the need for a Big Five article as well if Wawrinka is counted. And since Murray has just made his singles return in Cincinatti, I would hardly say he is close to retirement despite appearing as so in the 2019 Australian Open. Broman178 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Your post is an embarrassment to posting. The Big Four was a viable and persistent press release for many years. There is a big four and there will always be a big four, just like there was and will always be a Four Musketeers. Now we only have a big three, really a big two with Nadal and Djokovic. That could warrant a new article, since about 2017, but not the removal of this historic-purposes article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Four_(tennis)/Archive_2&oldid=1029382990"