Відео

= Excuses. People decline in the NBA regardless of race

I do too. For a second he was looking like the greats but injuries just cooked this man :/

Except that Wawrinka himself doesn’t consider himself in the same class as Murray. He’s spoken about it. Wawrinka won 1 masters 1000 title, Murray 14. Wawrinka reached 4 GS finals, Murray 11. Murray single handedly won the Davis cup for an ungrateful nation that had forgotten how to win. He won 2 Olympic golds, and was world number 1 among elite company. It’s a superficial and disingenuous take to say that Murray is closer to Wawrinka. He is short of the big 3 but he was rightly grouped with them for the majority of his career.

Wawrinka isnt even close lol

One thing people like you forget murray's carreer was finished in french open 2017 at 30 yo , and he had an injury stopping his momentum in 2013/2014 . Murray and Delpotro have been the unluckiest, imagine if he didnt get injured in 2017 he would have reached 10 gs no problem in the weak era that followed

@@Joãoborrachinha that is nonsense argument...

@@martincannings4831 yeah you right about the cap between Wawrinka and Murray my bad...but for me there is no big 4 only a big 3.

Banned member from somewhere typing here.

That grand slam h2h statistic vs. Nadal is skewed because most of their grand slam matches were played at RG. Nadal wasn't good enough to make it deep enough on hard and grass to face Djokovic. Djokovic was good enough to make it deep at RG often enough to face Nadal. Djokovic leads the h2h on hard and grass at slams.

@@giangonz big 4 is comparable you just don’t get it the term was popular from like the late 2000s to early 2010s when Djokovic was less of the obviously great player he is and Murray was getting some big wins on the others it was cause they always made it to semi finals together that’s just a fact the term definitely exists and is definitely fair also Murray and wawrinka are further away than Murray and the big 3

I think the big four are a thing, but it's a different thing than the big three

​@@giangonz No. Every time I see somebody suggest that Wawrinka should also be included, I know immediately that the person so said it doesn't know much about tennis.

Just call it the big 3.5

@robertbuetti2354 No. There very much was a Big 4 era. There is a Big 3 in career achievements, but as far as being perennial competitors at slam finals, Murray was right there with Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic. Did you even watch tennis in that era? Doesn't sound like it.

@@Account-ez9px if there was anything Murray didn’t need to change it was movement he honestly just needed to not have a genetic condition

Won 10 slams at least more Masters 1000 and beingn number 1 for more weeks and years

@@ellenday2155 the era was less of a problem than the genetic problems imo

Meh… it’s a crapshoot. Would Murray look better against the competition of the mid to late 90’s… yes, but the speed of the courts would have probably hurt his game… maybe, it’s hard to say. Could he have gotten to Sampras’s backhand a stole a Wimby or 3… maybe. It’s a fun debate.

@@aintnofriendofmine you don’t know what the fuck the big 4 is then there was a period where the big 4 were making it to the semis of every single tournament and seen as Novak started winning slams around 2011 (he won one in 2008 but it was seen as kinda an anomaly) at that time the term the big 4 makes perfect sense it’s only cause Novak became so dominant and Murray’s injuries started to really hold him back that people say stuff like this

@@petredavid7996 you don’t know what the big 4 is like most new gen fans (I’m a new gen fan) the term came up when Novak had one slam Murray had none and nadal and Federer has a load but it was always expected that those two would become dominant in later years cause they would make it to semis of everything year after year if it wasn’t for massive injuries we might’ve seen that come to fruition but alas we only got it for novak

@peter42466 i know the history of tennis very well, Djokovic had won 3 slams in 2011 and had one of the best season in history of tennis that way he was included in the big 3, but Andy won his first grand slams in 2012 and had just one that year and he never won more then one in a season so was never a time to be included next to this big 3!

@ yes but as I’m saying you’re missing the context around the term being coined from 2008 to 201q there was 100% a big 4 and if Murray had one excellent season (which he almost certainly could have if didn’t have major injuries) we’d all still say there was a big 4

His later haircut is honestly pretty decent

The newer generation of fans sh*ts on him fairly often cause they don’t know how legit good he was

Or just check other comments on this video haha

I would put Sampras instead of Laver

That just misses all of the history around the term the big 4 and misses the nuance of Murray’s career completely and no laver can’t be the big 4 member for a few reason first cause he’s worse than Sampras Agassi macenroe Borg Becker and honestly probably Murray (along with some other I can’t think of) but also more importantly cause the terms the big 3 and the big 4 only exist cause those players were dominant at the same time

@@peter42466 - Rod Laver is the one player who has a legitimate claim to being thought of as potentially as great (or better) than the big 3. No player dominated the sport as much as Laver did for a ten year period (1960-69). He made it to 10 of the possible 12 slam finals in 1960-62 and won all 4 of them in 1962. Then turned pro - so he couldn't play in them again until the Open Era began at the French Open in 1968. So he missed all the slams in 1963, 64, 65, 66 & 67 plus the Australian Open of 1968. That's 21 slams that he couldn't play in during the prime years of his career. During that 5 year period, he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events (there were 3 pro slam events per year during this era). Once the Open Era began... Laver made the finals in 2 of the 3 slams of 1968 - and then made all 4 finals in 1969, winning them all. So he had made the finals of 16 of the 19 Grand Slam events he was allowed to play in during the 1960s. And he made the finals of 14 of the 15 pro slam events during his pro run before the Open Era (1963-67). That means Rod Laver made the finals of 30 of the 34 slam events (88%) in which he participated during that ten year run (1960-69). He won 19 of those 30 finals (63%). @henry-bo3np is absolutely correct. If anyone deserves to be mentioned along with Roger, Rafa & Novak.... it is Rod Laver. The guy won all 4 slams in 1962... and then when he was finally allowed to play them again in 1969... he won all 4 of them again.

@ pretty much everyone agrees he was in a weak era

@@peter42466, The first Big 3 was Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall and Roy Emerson.

Не смеши, лучшая!? Их драли все😂