tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 28 Jan 2009 21:04:35
From: Kermit The Frog
Subject: The BIG Four?
We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
what do we have? Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
nowhere to be seen.

I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
not where it counts: in slams.

Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.







 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 05:39:32
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Jan 29, 12:47 pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:16:05 -0800 (PST), blueskates1...@aol.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jan 29, 7:10 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07 -0800 (PST), Kermit The Frog
>
> >> <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 29, 12:27 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Jan 29, 12:04 am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> >> >> > what do we have? Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
> >> >> > brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> >> >> > nowhere to be seen.
>
> >> >> > I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
> >> >> > story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
> >> >> > old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> >> >> > Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> >> >> > compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
> >> >> > not where it counts: in slams.
>
> >> >> > Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> >> >> > tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
> >> >> > media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> >> >> > storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
> >> >> > Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>
> >> >> I disagree. I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
> >> >> from the field. The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
> >> >> new Plexicushion. It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
> >> >> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
> >> >> obviously. Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>
> >> >> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
> >> >> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
> >> >> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>
> >> >> Two intangibles came into play this year. One is the vastly improved
> >> >> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
> >> >> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
> >> >> in his match against Roddick.
>
> >> >> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
> >> >> because there are only 4 majors per year. Unless you have each guy
> >> >> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
> >> >> that flies in the face of the evidence.
>
> >> >Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
> >> >rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO. Roger
> >> >and Rafa have proven that time and time again.
>
> >> Not Rafa. He only wins slams againt Fed due to a match-up issue.
> >> Otherwise he hasn't beat any other slam winner in a final hence his
> >> credibilty is "suspect".
>
> >Hasn't beaten any slam winner? How many other players have won slams
> >since 2003?
>
> >Geez.....dumb argument.
>
> >Oh, this is MENSA stuff.
>
> Ok. Let me try and explain it simply:
>
> Roger has beaten FIVE prior slam champions in slam finals since 2003
> (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal and Agassi)
>
> Nadal has beaten ONLY Federer
>
> If Nadal was a true multi-slam winner he would have beaten Hewitt,
> Roddick, Safin and Agassi then met Roger in the final and beat him too
> right ? He didn't.
>
> Ergo the ONLY slam winner Nadal has proven he can beat in a slam final
> is Roger and that is ONLY due to a match-up issue. Roger OTOH has
> beaten FIVE of the best.
>
> This is why Nadal is a "dubious" multi-slam champion. He has not
> PROVEN himself yet that he can beat anybody worthy in a slam final
> except Roger. This is a BIG questionmark.
>
> Got it ?
>
> P.S. I like you better than all the girls in rst. But, please know
> that I am not asking you for sex right now although that may be a
> logical progression in our relationship. God knows I want you. I know
> you want me too.

dave you have truly lost the plot.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 19:40:55
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?

On 29-Jan-2009, GOAT <thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

> On Jan 29, 12:47 pm, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
> >
> > P.S. I like you better than all the girls in rst. But, please know
> > that I am not asking you for sex right now although that may be a
> > logical progression in our relationship. God knows I want you. I know
> > you want me too.
>
> dave you have truly lost the plot.

You have to feel for Dave, Best Buy must be a real soul sucker of a company
to work for.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 04:16:05
From:
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Jan 29, 7:10=A0am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com >
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07 -0800 (PST), Kermit The Frog
>
>
>
> <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 29, 12:27=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 29, 12:04=A0am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> >> > what do we have? =A0Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi fin=
al
> >> > brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> >> > nowhere to be seen.
>
> >> > I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs =
a
> >> > story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old sam=
e
> >> > old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> >> > Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> >> > compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at leas=
t
> >> > not where it counts: =A0in slams.
>
> >> > Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> >> > tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so t=
he
> >> > media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> >> > storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves =
in
> >> > Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>
> >> I disagree. =A0I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
> >> from the field. =A0The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
> >> new Plexicushion. =A0It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat=
.
> >> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
> >> obviously. =A0Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>
> >> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
> >> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
> >> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>
> >> Two intangibles came into play this year. =A0One is the vastly improve=
d
> >> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
> >> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
> >> in his match against Roddick.
>
> >> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
> >> because there are only 4 majors per year. =A0Unless you have each guy
> >> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
> >> that flies in the face of the evidence.
>
> >Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
> >rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO. =A0Roger
> >and Rafa have proven that time and time again.
>
> Not Rafa. He only wins slams againt Fed due to a match-up issue.
> Otherwise he hasn't beat any other slam winner in a final hence his
> credibilty is "suspect".

Hasn't beaten any slam winner? How many other players have won slams
since 2003?

Geez.....dumb argument.

Oh, this is MENSA stuff.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 12:47:11
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:16:05 -0800 (PST), blueskates1111@aol.com
wrote:

>On Jan 29, 7:10 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07 -0800 (PST), Kermit The Frog
>>
>>
>>
>> <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 29, 12:27 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jan 29, 12:04 am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
>> >> > what do we have?  Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
>> >> > brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
>> >> > nowhere to be seen.
>>
>> >> > I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
>> >> > story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
>> >> > old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
>> >> > Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
>> >> > compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
>> >> > not where it counts:  in slams.
>>
>> >> > Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
>> >> > tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
>> >> > media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
>> >> > storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
>> >> > Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>>
>> >> I disagree.  I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
>> >> from the field.  The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
>> >> new Plexicushion.  It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
>> >> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
>> >> obviously.  Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>>
>> >> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
>> >> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
>> >> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>>
>> >> Two intangibles came into play this year.  One is the vastly improved
>> >> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
>> >> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
>> >> in his match against Roddick.
>>
>> >> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
>> >> because there are only 4 majors per year.  Unless you have each guy
>> >> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
>> >> that flies in the face of the evidence.
>>
>> >Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
>> >rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO.  Roger
>> >and Rafa have proven that time and time again.
>>
>> Not Rafa. He only wins slams againt Fed due to a match-up issue.
>> Otherwise he hasn't beat any other slam winner in a final hence his
>> credibilty is "suspect".
>
>Hasn't beaten any slam winner? How many other players have won slams
>since 2003?
>
>Geez.....dumb argument.
>
>Oh, this is MENSA stuff.


Ok. Let me try and explain it simply:

Roger has beaten FIVE prior slam champions in slam finals since 2003
(Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal and Agassi)

Nadal has beaten ONLY Federer

If Nadal was a true multi-slam winner he would have beaten Hewitt,
Roddick, Safin and Agassi then met Roger in the final and beat him too
right ? He didn't.

Ergo the ONLY slam winner Nadal has proven he can beat in a slam final
is Roger and that is ONLY due to a match-up issue. Roger OTOH has
beaten FIVE of the best.

This is why Nadal is a "dubious" multi-slam champion. He has not
PROVEN himself yet that he can beat anybody worthy in a slam final
except Roger. This is a BIG questionmark.

Got it ?

P.S. I like you better than all the girls in rst. But, please know
that I am not asking you for sex right now although that may be a
logical progression in our relationship. God knows I want you. I know
you want me too.


   
Date: 30 Jan 2009 13:45:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
Dave Hazelwood wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 04:16:05 -0800 (PST), blueskates1111@aol.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 29, 7:10 am, Dave Hazelwood <the_big_kah...@mailcity.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07 -0800 (PST), Kermit The Frog
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 29, 12:27 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 29, 12:04 am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
>>>>>> what do we have? Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
>>>>>> brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
>>>>>> nowhere to be seen.
>>>>>> I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
>>>>>> story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
>>>>>> old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
>>>>>> Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
>>>>>> compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
>>>>>> not where it counts: in slams.
>>>>>> Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
>>>>>> tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
>>>>>> media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
>>>>>> storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
>>>>>> Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>>>>> I disagree. I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
>>>>> from the field. The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
>>>>> new Plexicushion. It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
>>>>> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
>>>>> obviously. Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>>>>> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
>>>>> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
>>>>> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>>>>> Two intangibles came into play this year. One is the vastly improved
>>>>> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
>>>>> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
>>>>> in his match against Roddick.
>>>>> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
>>>>> because there are only 4 majors per year. Unless you have each guy
>>>>> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
>>>>> that flies in the face of the evidence.
>>>> Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
>>>> rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO. Roger
>>>> and Rafa have proven that time and time again.
>>> Not Rafa. He only wins slams againt Fed due to a match-up issue.
>>> Otherwise he hasn't beat any other slam winner in a final hence his
>>> credibilty is "suspect".
>> Hasn't beaten any slam winner? How many other players have won slams
>> since 2003?
>>
>> Geez.....dumb argument.
>>
>> Oh, this is MENSA stuff.
>
>
> Ok. Let me try and explain it simply:
>
> Roger has beaten FIVE prior slam champions in slam finals since 2003
> (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal and Agassi)
>
> Nadal has beaten ONLY Federer
>
> If Nadal was a true multi-slam winner he would have beaten Hewitt,
> Roddick, Safin and Agassi then met Roger in the final and beat him too
> right ? He didn't.
>
> Ergo the ONLY slam winner Nadal has proven he can beat in a slam final
> is Roger and that is ONLY due to a match-up issue. Roger OTOH has
> beaten FIVE of the best.
>
> This is why Nadal is a "dubious" multi-slam champion. He has not
> PROVEN himself yet that he can beat anybody worthy in a slam final
> except Roger. This is a BIG questionmark.
>
> Got it ?
>


The goat has a 'match-up issue' with another player....?

Oh dear.


   
Date: 29 Jan 2009 15:25:29
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
Dave Hazelwood wrote:

> Nadal has beaten ONLY Federer

That is a reason to credit Federer, not a reason to discredit Nadal.
There are not that many slam winners remaining on the tour. Both Safin,
Roddick and Hewitt are beyond their peak levels and will most probably
never reach a slam final again. Those are the guys who won slams in the
transition between Sampras and Federer era. Djokovic is the last one to
beat in a final, and that can perfectly happen at e.g. Roland Garros.

PS.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07
From: Kermit The Frog
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Jan 29, 12:27=A0am, drew <d...@technologist.com > wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:04=A0am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> > what do we have? =A0Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
> > brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> > nowhere to be seen.
>
> > I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
> > story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
> > old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> > Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> > compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
> > not where it counts: =A0in slams.
>
> > Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> > tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
> > media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> > storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
> > Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>
> I disagree. =A0I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
> from the field. =A0The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
> new Plexicushion. =A0It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
> obviously. =A0Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>
> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>
> Two intangibles came into play this year. =A0One is the vastly improved
> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
> in his match against Roddick.
>
> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
> because there are only 4 majors per year. =A0Unless you have each guy
> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
> that flies in the face of the evidence.

Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO. Roger
and Rafa have proven that time and time again.


  
Date: 29 Jan 2009 12:10:26
From: Dave Hazelwood
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:51:07 -0800 (PST), Kermit The Frog
<Minh.Doan.7@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 29, 12:27 am, drew <d...@technologist.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 29, 12:04 am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
>> > what do we have?  Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
>> > brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
>> > nowhere to be seen.
>>
>> > I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
>> > story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
>> > old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
>> > Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
>> > compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
>> > not where it counts:  in slams.
>>
>> > Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
>> > tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
>> > media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
>> > storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
>> > Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.
>>
>> I disagree.  I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
>> from the field.  The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
>> new Plexicushion.  It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
>> That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
>> obviously.  Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.
>>
>> If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
>> matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
>> level and put them with the rest of the field.
>>
>> Two intangibles came into play this year.  One is the vastly improved
>> play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
>> anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
>> in his match against Roddick.
>>
>> You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
>> because there are only 4 majors per year.  Unless you have each guy
>> winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
>> that flies in the face of the evidence.
>
>Fair and yes Djokovic and Murray have distanced themselves from the
>rest of the field also, but at slams, it's still the BIG TWO. Roger
>and Rafa have proven that time and time again.


Not Rafa. He only wins slams againt Fed due to a match-up issue.
Otherwise he hasn't beat any other slam winner in a final hence his
credibilty is "suspect".


 
Date: 28 Jan 2009 23:54:36
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On 29 Jan, 05:04, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com > wrote:
> We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> what do we have? =A0Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
> brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> nowhere to be seen.
>
> I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
> story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
> old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
> not where it counts: =A0in slams.
>
> Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
> media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
> Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.


Djokovic and Murray clearly aren't in the same bracket as Fed and
Nadal, but they - and in particular Djokovic - are not that far away
either. This was a setback for both of them but hardly a sign that
they will never win slams.


 
Date: 29 Jan 2009 07:46:51
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
Kermit The Frog wrote:
> We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> what do we have? Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
> brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> nowhere to be seen.
>
> I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
> story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
> old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
> not where it counts: in slams.
>
> Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
> media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
> Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.

I think maybe you are a little bit harsh against Djokovic here. I
definitely think he should belong there, although I don't like the guy,
since he last year reached 3 out of 4 GS semifinals and won one of the
slams. The only weak result was his appearance in Wimbledon where he
lost to Safin in 2nd round. Of course this AO was a step down for him -
he didn't play that well and lost to Roddick in QF. But still I think we
have to wait and see whether he will continue to perform on the highest
level in slams or if 2008 rather was an exceptional year in his career.

Murray on the other hand has only reached one single final in his life
(USO 2008) and is of course hyped a little bit, particularly because his
good results against Federer and beating Nadal in US Open. But sure - he
needs to perform better in more slams to be counted among the top 3.

PS.


 
Date: 28 Jan 2009 21:27:35
From: drew
Subject: Re: The BIG Four?
On Jan 29, 12:04=A0am, Kermit The Frog <Minh.Doa...@gmail.com > wrote:
> We're winding down the business end of the first major of 2009 and
> what do we have? =A0Roger and Rafa both in their respective semi final
> brackets, the other two members of the so called "big four" are
> nowhere to be seen.
>
> I understand why the media hypes things like the big four, it needs a
> story and it always needs/wants a new story and not the same old same
> old, but unfortunately for them, it IS the same old story, Fed and
> Nadal have proven again that they are simply in another stratosphere
> compared to the rest of the field and there is no big four - at least
> not where it counts: =A0in slams.
>
> Of course after AOpen is said and done, Murray and Djoker will win
> tournaments here and there, even beat Fed/Nadal here and there, so the
> media machine will pick up on the "young guns and next generation"
> storyline again, but until these guys consistently prove themselves in
> Slams, there IS NO BIG FOUR.


I disagree. I think Murray and Djokovic have separated themselves
from the field. The AO is an interesting event, especially on this
new Plexicushion. It seems to favour guys who can hit hard and flat.
That should have benefitted Djokovic but he has some physical problems
obviously. Otherwise he'd have defeated an improved Roddick.

If you look at the recent success of Murray and Djokovic in their
matches against Nadal and Federer it is impossible to ignore their
level and put them with the rest of the field.

Two intangibles came into play this year. One is the vastly improved
play of Verdasco, who has been at a level nobody could have
anticipated at this AO and the effect of some warm weather on Djokovic
in his match against Roddick.

You can't have 4 guys consistently proving themselves in majors
because there are only 4 majors per year. Unless you have each guy
winning one per year, you'd have to conclude there is no BIG FOUR but
that flies in the face of the evidence.