The Four Horseman: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray

[DonRocks]

I know these four have been beaten to death in this forum (but at least I didn't add Brooks Robinson), but I just cannot get over their total domination of the sport for the past dozen years, and even without Murray in the equation, the Big 3 have been unprecedented in their dominance of the sport.

Look at these statistics:

At least one of them made the finals of 38 consecutive Grand Slams, from the 2005 French Open to the 2014 Wimbledon Championships - that's 9 1/2 years-worth of Grand Slams.

As there are 2 finalists per tournament, they made up 62 of the 76 finalists of those 38 Grand Slams.

Beginning with the 2004 Wimbledon Championships, at least 1 of them has been in the finals of 47 of the last 49 Grand Slams - that's 12 1/4 years-worth of Grand Slams which continues to this day, and doesn't show much sign of letting up, at least not just yet.

For 10 consecutive Grand Slams, one of them was champion, and another one was runner-up.

One of them won 34 out of 35 consecutive Grand Slams - if you remove Murray from the equation, one of the Big 3 won 32 out of 35 (Murray is only 3-11 in Grand Slam finals).

You can manipulate and invent all sorts of unbelievable numbers, but this is a pretty good start.

We're witnessing the tail end of perhaps the most historic period of men's tennis we'll see in our lifetimes.

And don't forget the one woman most responsible for who is arguably the greatest female tennis player in history: Venus Williams.

Okay, okay, you want me to talk about someone else who's awesome? Boris Becker! Look!

This is also a rare opportunity to hear the great Arthur Ashe commenting on the match - he doesn't waste words, and everything that he speaks rings of wisdom.

[Steve R.]

First of all, did you really mean that you think Venus is the best woman's player of all time?  Not Serena?  Why?

Secondly, I just can't see why folks, yourself included, seem to rank Andy Murray up there with Nadal, Federer & Djokovic.  Not that he hasn't become a major force on the current tennis tour, but has he really shown himself to be that much of a consistent player or a top winner?  I'd need some convincing to accept his inclusion with the other 3.

[DonRocks]

On 8/27/2016 at 0:55 PM, Steve R. said:

First of all, did you really mean that you think Venus is the best woman's player of all time?  Not Serena?  Why?

Secondly, I just can't see why folks, yourself included, seem to rank Andy Murray up there with Nadal, Federer & Djokovic.  Not that he hasn't become a major force on the current tennis tour, but has he really shown himself to be that much of a consistent player or a top winner?  I'd need some convincing to accept his inclusion with the other 3.

Read that sentence *carefully* - it's ambiguous (admittedly on purpose just to mess with people's minds and get them thinking about things). I first heard about Venus Williams when she was about *12 years old*! (I mean that quite literally - she was a child prodigy.) Can you imagine being a 7-year-old Serena, and having an 8-year-old Venus as your daily practice partner, role model, and object of admiration? Without Venus, we have no Serena. That's really all I was saying, and I don't think it's a very controversial statement. Without Dell Curry, we have no Stephen Curry.

I *don't* rank Murray up there with the Big 3, but you can't come up with those crazy statistics without doing so. He *has* been a Grand Slam finalist 11 times! In fact, I first read the term "The Four Horsemen" in regards to these players just a few days ago, by Jon Wertheim on si.com, and rather liked it.

That said, I do think in terms of "absolute playing ability" (disregarding equipment, era, etc. - just using head-to-head competition and who would win if you could magically plop every player who ever lived down on the same court, in their primes, with the exact same equipment they played with, and in the same peak physical condition they were in), I rank Murray as the #4 player of all-time - even ahead of Sampras (for example, Murray, playing with his racket and Luxilon strings, would have beaten Rod Laver, who played with a wooden racket strung with cat gut, 6-0, 6-0 - he might even have played a Golden Set against Don Budge (that's all 24 points, for those of you who don't know)). That having been said, using the criteria of "in relation to his peers" and "dominance in his own era," Murray might not even be a top 50, because he's *so* far behind the Big 3 that he's barely a blip on the radar screen (which says how truly dominating the Big 3 have been). And using those completely different criteria, Laver is a top 5 player of all-time, Budge a top-10. Hell, William Renshaw (with 7 Wimbledon championships (*)) is possibly a top-20. And *I* could have destroyed William Renshaw when I was 40 years old, using a Wilson Pro-Staff. I watched Budge play a doubles match when he was in his late 50s against some ex-college players in their mid-20s (one of them played for Kansas, for example), and while he was probably the worst player on the court, he still held his own to some degree, so Budge must be taken seriously, even in absolute terms. I think it you put Sampras in *today's* game he'd be a force to be reckoned with - that is some *very* high praise coming from me considering how dramatically I think the sport has changed. Don't forget, however, that each of the Big 3 have won the French - the fact that we have three different players, all playing reasonably close (reasonably close) to their peaks, who have won career Grand Slams, is absolutely amazing: Only eight people have *ever* done it (add Budge, Perry, Emerson, Laver, and Agassi).

(*) It must be mentioned that in Renshaw's day, the previous year's winner got a berth all the way into the finals! The other players had to duke it out just for the privilege of playing the previous year's winner. All Renshaw had to do was show up, one single day,. and win one single match, to be Wimbledon Champion! Doesn't seem fair, does it?

Note: If you go to the video that's a couple *before* the one I link to (I think it's number 05/11), Arthur Ashe pretty much came right out and said that Becker was the most powerful player he's ever seen ... since Lew Hoad. And he specifically included Lendl in that statement - in other words, Ashe implied that Hoad was more powerful than Becker. *That* is saying something, and even if you can't possibly agree, how can you not take Arthur Ashe seriously?

You've said nothing I disagree with, Steve.