Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Tennis


football forums

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LFCMike said:

 

Yeah seems like a right dickhead doesn’t he. What was his plan if he didn’t get covid a few weeks ago? 
 

Im a bit disgusted he has a court appearance tomorrow - yet we have a load of refugees etc in detention centres who will never get a court hearing. Just fuck him off. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Don't let the recent debacle distract you from the fact that there never was a big 4. 

Andy Murray = Stan Wawrinka. 

Murray played in twice as many finals and has won over 13% more of his matches. Murray is closer to Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer, than Wawrinka is to Murray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Spike said:

Murray played in twice as many finals and has won over 13% more of his matches. Murray is closer to Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer, than Wawrinka is to Murray

Lost in twice as many finals. 

While I do believe the 'big 4' is a myth that wouldn't have existed if say, Del Potro replaced Murray. Your 2nd comment I must STRONGLY disagree with. Stan the man with his 2 titles is MUCH MUCH MUCH closer to Murray with his 2 titles than Murray is to the 3 guys who've won 10 times as many titles. Give your head a wobble. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Lost in twice as many finals. 

While I do believe the 'big 4' is a myth that wouldn't have existed if say, Del Potro replaced Murray. Your 2nd comment I must STRONGLY disagree with. Stan the man with his 2 titles is MUCH MUCH MUCH closer to Murray with his 2 titles than Murray is to the 3 guys who've won 10 times as many titles. Give your head a wobble. 

It isn’t just about titles. Murray has won well over 100 more games than Wawrinka. Murray consistently got to the finals and lost to… the three best players of all time? He is no big four but he is a league apart from Wawrinka. Wawrinka didn’t lose as many finals because he wasn't good enough to get to the finals.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a stats guy Murray winning % is much closer to the big three’s, than Wawrinka’s is to Murray’s. Big3 sits around 82%, Murray at 76%, and Wawrinka at 63%. Out of context yeah, but how many of Murrays losses are exclusive to Federer, Nadal, and Cuntface? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Spike said:

If you are a stats guy Murray winning % is much closer to the big three’s, than Wawrinka’s is to Murray’s. Big3 sits around 82%, Murray at 76%, and Wawrinka at 63%. Out of context yeah, but how many of Murrays losses are exclusive to Federer, Nadal, and Cuntface? 

Stan had a shorter peak than Murray. That is all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Stan had a shorter peak than Murray. That is all. 

and won less matches and less tournaments and got to less finals. Murray was significantly more successful, that doesn’t mean Wawrinka wasn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Murray has had a way better career than Wawrinka but won't be remembered as a part of the big four historically. What's more telling is someone being rattled enough to bring that up unprovoked the best part of a decade since it was relevant :whistling:.

On Djokovic, it's now come out he did a photoshoot with L'Equipe two days after he 'tested positive for Covid' as well as the awards event thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, RondónEFC said:

Murray has had a way better career than Wawrinka but won't be remembered as a part of the big four historically. What's more telling is someone being rattled enough to bring that up unprovoked the best part of a decade since it was relevant :whistling:.

On Djokovic, it's now come out he did a photoshoot with L'Equipe two days after he 'tested positive for Covid' as well as the awards event thing.

You're at least grounded in reality. Yes, Murray was better than Stan, which I have already stated that saying they are equal is a wind up. But he was So far behind the other 3 it's not funny. Both on the court and in the cabinet. If Murray was from a country that wasnt a western power the big 4 would never have existed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
1 minute ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

You're at least grounded in reality. Yes, Murray was better than Stan, which I have already stated that saying they are equal is a wind up. But he was So far behind the other 3 it's not funny. Both on the court and in the cabinet. If Murray was from a country that wasnt a western power the big 4 would never have existed. 

Over the course of their whole careers, Murray clearly falls comfortably behind the other three, but in the context of the time people actually talked about the Big Four, Djokovic was only just winning his first Grand Slams and Murray wasn't far off. He was basically as unbeatable for the rest of the tour as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. His head to head against Nadal has always been poor, but he's only 14-11 down to Federer, and 25-11 to Djokovic is exactly what you'd get from a player who's the bottom of a top four. Murray also picked up a lot of achievements outside the Grand Slams, winning the Olympic competition twice, the Davis Cup almost single-handedly, and made it to the #1 spot at year's end.

The Big Four in a historical context is a fallacy, obviously, you don't have to look beyond the Grand Slam count to prove that. However, the comparison to Wawrinka is disingenuous. The Big Four were christened thus because there was a phase in mens' tennis where the semi-finals of any Masters 1000 or Grand Slam competition would almost exclusively involve those four players, or at least three of the four. There was a huge gulf between them and the rest of the field. There was also a gap between Murray and the top three which prevented him from from winning more Grand Slams but it was a smaller one. This is laid out in how comfortably Murray (after his peak) dominated the tour in the back end of 2016 where Djokovic had a small dip in form and Federer and Nadal had injury problems.

Ultimately, whether you want to argue over whether you want to call it a Big Three or a Big Four during that era of tennis is semantics. It is very clear that Murray was the 4th of the four, but he was much closer to the other three than anyone else was to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Apparently been re-arrested more or less immediately after the judge quashed the original cancellation and are looking to try and revoke his visa again.

What a shitshow from the Aussie government.

Not true 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber
2 minutes ago, Bluebird Hewitt said:

Looks like you're right on the re-arrest (it was mentioned that it did originate from Serbia), but the potential re-cancellation is still ongoing.

Screenshot_20220110-102719.thumb.png.675f6491109a63b41e5a488be622a285.png

They canceled the visa of a Czech tennis player who had been in the country for weeks already and even played a match in a practice tournament, and detained her O.o unlike Djokovic, she doesn't have the resources to fight the Australian government though, so just agreed to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

football forum
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...