Big Four Dominance - a visual depiction (through 2015)

[El Dude]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

 

[Kirijax]

You see these guys dominate and making history, which is amazing to to see. But you have to wonder if the Big Four Dominance has hurt tennis interest or helped it. A free-for-all where you never know who is going to win is fun too. Maybe that's what we'll have in the women's tour next year. We got a taste of that at the WTA Finals.

 

[Great Hands]

You see these guys dominate and making history, which is amazing to to see. But you have to wonder if the Big Four Dominance has hurt tennis interest or helped it. A free-for-all where you never know who is going to win is fun too. Maybe that's what we'll have in the women's tour next year. We got a taste of that at the WTA Finals.

The problem with a free for all, if it lasts too long, is that you don't have any superstars, you don't get to know the players in the same way, and you don't have the great rivalries at the top which really fuel interest. Of course, having one dominant player can decrease interest too. I think the ideal is to have a group of, say, 4(!) players at the top, who are all great, all different, and all capable of beating each other on any given day, and who all are stronger and weaker on different surfaces, with a few players who can play spoiler on their day if they're on form too, to keep it really interesting. That's why 2012-13 was, for me, a particularly wonderful time. All the big 4 were winning slams, and you also had e.g. Del Potro who could spoil the big 4 party. Players like Berdy and Jo were also more of a threat then, such as Tomas beating Roger at USO12, or Tsonga having match points against Novak in that five set thriller at FO12. And we seemed to get classic 5 set matches routinely at that point, e.g. Andy-Novak AOSF12, Rafa-Novak AOF12, Andy-Novak USOF12, Novak-Stan AO4R13, Andy-Roger AOSF13, Rafa-Novak FOSF13, Novak-Delpo WDSF13 etc. Not many of those right now.

 

[El Dude]

I think there's a middle ground which, to me, is the sweetspot. Take the 80s, for instance. In the early 80s you had Borg, Connors and McEnroe, with Lendl and then Wilander entering the mix. Then Borg was gone, and then by the mid-80s McEnroe faded but Becker and Edberg joined the fray. Then as Wilander, Connors and then Lendl were fading, Courier, Agassi, and Sampras came along. There was no gap of several elite players being in their primes, and the cast was always changing.

As much as I love watching Roger, Rafa and Novak, it is getting a bit stale. Tennis really needs a new challenger or two, young players who can actually upset the top players. But we haven't seen that yet; in fact, the current generation that should be in its prime is the worst in Open Era history.

So the problem isn't only that the Big 3-4 reign is getting stale, but that there's no one to pass the baton to...yet. As I said in my generation series, we're seeing something similar to the late 60s/early 70s, when Arthur Ashe's very weak generation wasn't able to grab the baton and it passed a generation from Laver/Rosewall to Newcombe/Nastase/Smith/Kodes. But it remains to be seen who the equivalent of that latter group will be.

All that said, one of the things I love about tennis is that each generation is different, each era has its own unique qualities. The last decade has been amazing - a trinity of greats unparalleled in Open Era history. While I'm ready to see things shift a bit, it has been an amazing ride.

 

[Kirijax]

A free for all would be nice for a change. We may see that sooner in the WTa when Serena retires. But eventually that gets old and the new superstar will emerge. Sooner or later it always happens.

 

[herios]

I do not see a superstar on the horizon, I think once the current generation runs out, there will be for a few years a small group of players on even grounds winning 1-4 slams.
And do not tell me that would not be exciting.

 

[Kirijax]

I do not see a superstar on the horizon, I think once the current generation runs out, there will be for a few years a small group of players on even grounds winning 1-4 slams.
And do not tell me that would not be exciting.

I would love it for a change.

 

[El Dude]

For comparison's sake, here's the Sampras-Agassi era: spanning the 14 years in which one of them won a Slam, from 1990 to 2003. I colored in all 4+ Slam winners, so you can see Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Courier, Agassi, Sampras, and Federer in this chart, with everyone else in white.



As you can see, while both were prolific players - especially Sampras, whose dominance was comparable, or at least close to the current Big Three - there was a lot more variety, especially in the Masters tournaments.

 

[Great Hands]

Another thing that strikes me on looking at your original big 4 chart is Novak's 2012-14, where there is comparatively little blue in the slam section. He only won 3 out of 12 slams in those 3 years, despite being world no.1 for most of that period, winning the WTFs all of those 3 years, and winning a bunch of Masters in those 3 years too. Novak may look back on 2012-14 as the 3 years, in his prime, that cost him a chance of beating Fed's records and being the indisputable GOAT. Not saying it was all his fault that he only won 3 majors in those 3 years, but it does seem like underachieving given his ranking and performances in all the other big events in those years, as your chart makes clear.

 

[El Dude]

Interesting point, Great Hands. 2012, in my mind, is the Year of the Big Four - the season in which the balance of power was most even. Novak deserved the #1, but he was more the first among near-equals than far above the others. 2013 saw Rafa resurge, but the year that Novak should have probably capitalized on more is 2014. Rafa was dipping and/or injured. Roger was good, but not quite 2012 good. Andy was struggling. Novak should have gotten at least one more Slam out of it.

 

[Kirijax]

Up until this year, Djokovic was 8-8 or something in Slams wasn't he? While he has lost quite a few, he is always there in the SF or final. Another mark of how good he is but he does need to get ahead in the win column in the slam finals.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Novak is #2 in consecutive semi-final streak at GS (he has 14 to Roger's 23).

Novak is #2 in consecutive quarterfinal streak at GS as well (he has 26 to Roger's 36).

Novak's streaks are active. If Novak can reach semifinals in all GSs until AO 19, he will tie RF
and if he does till RG 19 he will surpass Fed (Not going to happen).

If Novak can reach quarterfinals in all GSs until W 19, he will tie RF and if he does till USO 19 he will surpass Fed (Not going to happen).

 

[Great Hands]

Some other observations from looking at Dude's chart:

1. This stat is true of all of the big 4: since winning their first 'big 14' tournament, every member of the big 4 has gone on to win at least one of the big 14 events every year from then on right up to the present, except for one dodgy year for each of them. For Novak, it was 2010, for Roger 2013, for Andy 2014 and for Rafa 2015.

Will 2016 be another of these years, or will all the 'big 4' win at least one of the 'big 14' next year, I wonder?!

2. Also interesting to note that despite the big 4's dominance, there have only been 2 years so far where they won all 14 big events, 2011 and 2013. In 2011 all the big 4 won big events, but in 2013 it was just Novak, Andy and Rafa, as Roger had his dodgy year. (In both 2012 and 2015 they came close, winning 13/14, in 2012 with all the big 4 winning big events, but in 2015 just Novak, Andy and Roger, with Rafa having his dodgy year.)

3. From 2011 through 2013, they won 41/42 events, with only Ferrer's lone win in Paris in 2012 bucking the trend. Extraordinary.

4. 2014 was their least dominant year for a decade, with 4 non-big 4 winners, when there had never been more than 3 since 2004!

5. But this year it has reverted and gone back down to only 1 non-big 4 win - one of the top 4 most dominant big 4 years so far.

 

[Great Hands]

I also note that with the exception of Ferrer, whose Paris win was rather fortuitous (Fedal didn't play the tournament, and David didn't have to beat either Novak or Andy, who lost early) all the players to break the big 4 hegemony and win big titles during their dominance are players who have either huge power and/or the ability to take the ball very early, thus allowing them, on their day, to hit through the big 4 with a ton of winners: Davydenko, Safin, Roddick, Tsonga, Delpo, Soderling, Stan, Cilic etc. It's the only thing that can sometimes break the big 4's amazing consistency, athleticism and defense, I guess.

 

[herios]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

I was looking more closely to this table, of the BIG 4, in the last 3 years, each year were only 3 of them present: in 2013 Federer was scoring no wins, in 2014 Murray did the same, and in 2015 it was Rafa's turn to go blank. Novak had no gaps so far, since joining the winning circle.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

I was looking more closely to this table, of the BIG 4, in the last 3 years, each year were only 3 of them present: in 2013 Federer was scoring no wins, in 2014 Murray did the same, and in 2015 it was Rafa's turn to go blank. Novak had no gaps so far, since joining the winning circle.

Don't worry. Novak might oblige next year. :devil

 

[herios]

I created a chart that depicts what I call "big tournaments" - Slams, the WTF, and Masters in sizes relative to their importance. I colored in the titles won by members of the so-called Big Four, going back to the first big tournament won by Roger Federer in 2002.

Take a look:



This displays how dominant Novak has been since 2011, but especially the last couple years. It also shows how weak Nadal has been the last two years, and Federer for three years now.

I have a little formula of "Dominance Shares" that gives 14 points per Slam, 8 points for the WTF, and 4 pts each for Masters - for a total of 100 possible points. Novak finishes the year at 74, which is the highest dominance share in Open Era history - better even that Rod Laver's 1969 (68) or Roger Federer's 2006 (66).

One more thing. If we define Roger's and Rafa's prime years as the span of multi-Slam years, we come up with 2004-09 for Roger and 2008-13 for Rafa - in both cases, six years. If the same holds true for Novak, 2016 would be his sixth and last prime year. Kind of makes sense to me.

I was looking more closely to this table, of the BIG 4, in the last 3 years, each year were only 3 of them present: in 2013 Federer was scoring no wins, in 2014 Murray did the same, and in 2015 it was Rafa's turn to go blank. Novak had no gaps so far, since joining the winning circle.

Don't worry. Novak might oblige next year. :devil

I doubt you have enough needles for that woodoo doll to make that happen
:devil

 

[Front242]

You see these guys dominate and making history, which is amazing to to see. But you have to wonder if the Big Four Dominance has hurt tennis interest or helped it. A free-for-all where you never know who is going to win is fun too. Maybe that's what we'll have in the women's tour next year. We got a taste of that at the WTA Finals.

Only 'cos Serena didn't play

 

[herios]

You see these guys dominate and making history, which is amazing to to see. But you have to wonder if the Big Four Dominance has hurt tennis interest or helped it. A free-for-all where you never know who is going to win is fun too. Maybe that's what we'll have in the women's tour next year. We got a taste of that at the WTA Finals.

Only 'cos Serena didn't play

She was defeated even in finals, by Stosur. She was not shoe in 100% either.

 

[Carol]

I was looking more closely to this table, of the BIG 4, in the last 3 years, each year were only 3 of them present: in 2013 Federer was scoring no wins, in 2014 Murray did the same, and in 2015 it was Rafa's turn to go blank. Novak had no gaps so far, since joining the winning circle.

Don't worry. Novak might oblige next year. :devil

I doubt you have enough needles for that woodoo doll to make that happen
:devil

He already has used all those needles with Rafa :snicker