will we ever see a more dominant era than these four?

will we ever see a more dominant era than these four?

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is the vidya addict always included in this, he’s Wawrinka tier

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      because he's british
      bongs also believe that joe hart belongs in the neuer/buffon/casillas debate

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >djokovic

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >federer

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >novaxx

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    gr8 b8 m8

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >20-11
    >3-8
    >22-8
    >20-11

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >four

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Mukek

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >murray

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    murray?

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >four
    nice bait

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >rppney

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >fraudal
    >roidal

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    while nadal was winning the French open, Murray was losing to a yank at Surbiton

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Murray
    Yes.

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    whos' the 2nd guy?

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For a period of 15 years, these were the only four men to be world #1.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    n8 b8 m8

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > murray
    literally who? kek

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is Murray on the list?

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    >11 slam finals

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    yeah whatever, he is a good guy, but not a winner like the big 3, what matters are the trophies

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    Reminder that if Wawrinka won 1 more slam he would be considered greater than Murray.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That would be a shame as Murray was a better tennis player he just had a physically demanding style his body couldn't handle injury free for a long time.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I agree, but the fact that they somehow have the same amount of slams kill any chance he has to be considered "big 4"

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    >Murray has 11 slam finals
    3-8 record
    >14 masters
    14-7 record
    >2 Olympics
    2-0 record
    >1 ATP final
    1-0 record
    his grand slam record fucks everything up, 3-4 or 3-5 isnt that bad, but 3-8 is awful

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I love Murray more than most, and for much of 2016 he was the best player on the tour, but come on now. He's not in the same league as the other three.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He is the best player of recent years outside the top 3 and would have dominated the sport without them.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        there's more distance between his and the big 3's achievements than between him and Wawrinka, Cilic, etc.
        so accepting a big 4 is impossible without extending it to a big 5 or 6.
        to cut it off at 4 is incredibly biased.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What are Wawrinka or Cilic's feats?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they are the feats that are closer in every department to Murray's than Murray is to the big 3.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              What are they?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                just apply the method above. ^
                another example, number of Slams won: Murray has won 3 (three), Federer 20 (twenty).
                Murray's distance to Federer: 17; Del Potro's distance to Murray: 2.
                come on, it's not even close.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, he is the GOAT gatekeeper at best, part of the lesser 4 (Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic, Delpo).

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          *incredibly based

  31. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    AALWAYS seen Fed as the king but its so hard with Rafa on 22 now.

  32. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >still putting those three guys in the same tier as nadal

  33. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kek, "these four" is such a cope.

  34. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tim henman

  35. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tennis is really really shit

  36. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    >11 slam finals
    Hahahahahahahahahahahha

  37. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

  38. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    right, so it's easy to calculate: the big 3 have 30 Slam finals, I believe, so the distance is 19.
    Cilic has what, 3 Slam finals? so the distance to Murray is 8.
    19 > 8. and you can apply this logic to every single statistic, which is why there's no such thing as a big 4, unless you're willing to admit there's a big 6 or 7 that goes all the way from Nadal to Del Potro (which would be ridiculous, and I would agree with you).

  39. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [deleted post]

    >11 slam finals,
    not a statistic
    >14 masters
    ok
    >2 Olympics
    olympic football and tennis are a sham that nobody cares. he wouldn't have either, if it didn't take place in england
    >1 ATP final
    ok
    >and like 40 weeks at #1
    ok

    so it's a gigantic difference from the big 3 and nobody should ever say words big 4 even as a joke. got it.

Your email address will not be published.