Earlier this week, Mats Wilander stated that Andy Murray should not be considered a part of the Big Four.
“There isn’t any Big Four, only Big Three. Murray can’t be compared to the other three players. The Big Four concept was created because Andy was the fourth to be always in the semi-finals, but the other three won“, he said.
There is a difference between winning and dominating. From 2008, Andy Murray has had a consistent record at the grand slams, his win percentage amounting to nearly 80%. That is almost the same as the Big Three- Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.
Totally, he has won 45 titles, including three grand slams. It is lesser than what his three rivals have achieved, but it is a lot more than the other players in the top ten. Also, it would be careless to forget that Murray has won two gold medals at the Olympics in the men’s singles, a feat no male tennis player has ever achieved.
He was the most consistent player in 2016, ending the year as the world number one and winning the ATP World Tour Finals for the first time. His three grand slams are not the best way of judging his exceptional abilities as a tennis player. After all, he has reached eleven grand slam finals but has been unfortunate to lose eight. If not for his injury plagued 2017, he would still be holding onto the number one ranking and would probably be a three time Wimbledon champion.
Winning matches only comes down to a few points at the end of the day, but overall tennis domination takes more than a few points. That is why, it is more appropriate to have a Big Four and not a Big Three, because for the better part of his career, Andy Murray has always been a firm and solid force and an integral part of the top four.