Talk:Big Four (tennis)

Overcolored

Main page: WP:COLOR

Although many of tennis articles have the same over-color issue, I write this message to reach English Wikipedia editors as many as possible because Big four (tennis) is currently selected as a good article (WP:GA). I inserted {{overcoloured}} in response to requests from Japanese Wikipedia users. Please be noticed that there are many color-blind users who cannot read this article, especially blue link text with certain background colors. Plus, the over-coloring caused edit wars in Japan because some editors imported (translated) from this article to Japanese and then added more colors. As a result, we in Japan have 100+ pages with the over-coloring issue, which is now escalated to the entire Japanese Wikipedia project discussion. I do not instruct you which cells/colors should be revised, but would like to ask English tennis editors to read WP:COLOR and color-blind first.

If you have smart phones and tablets, read this article (Big four (tennis)) with the official Wikipedia app rather than with desktop/mobile browsers. The app does not show colors at all. And a non-colored page is less stressful for even non-color-blind users to understand the context. Thank you in advance for your consideration. --Mis0s0up (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I reject the premise that "a non-colored page is less stressful for even non-colorblind users." Shall we also make all the photos black and white? Shall we write to newspapers to have them remove all color also? I would say NO. On first glance I would say there are charts that do seem over-colored. I would also say the putting the flag icons next to the names over and over and over is ridiculous. It's one thing when we list a tournament with hundreds of names and nationalities... readers want to know the nationalities of winners often as much as the player themselves. But this article is dealing with the same four players in every chart. Those same flag icons over and over are useless. I would list the four players once with their flag icons and then remove every other instance, unless they are in a list with other players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty, I think we can improve the coloring and thus the accessibility of this article. The colors we use in the timelines are quite bright. Maybe we could use more pale shades of them, similar to how WP:Footy uses colors. Moreover, I think colors could be removed from some tables, like for instance the table of Masters 1000 Big Four finals. Also, we need legends. Neither the colors, nor the characters from the timelines are explained anywhere. Other tables like the "Other Big Four finals" table use color without any indication as to what they intend to convey, even for the fully able-sighted. I full agree with your stance on the flags.Tvx1 12:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tvx1 for your recent edits. Although there is still a huge room for improvement remained as you explained, your recent edits are much much better. It will require us significant time and efforts, but let's keep improving step by step, shall we? --Mis0s0up (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that’s always the best strategy. I think it‘s best to discuss further how it’s best to make further improve before doing more edits.Tvx1 16:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What if the flags were deleted in tables that only include the big four and left in the tables that included other players? (Mobile mundo (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC))

Example

Rank	Player	Titles	Finals
1	Roger Federer	20	30
2	Rafael Nadal	17	24
3	Pete Sampras	14	18
4	Novak Djokovic	12	21
5	Björn Borg	11	16
6	/ Ivan Lendl	8	19
	Andre Agassi	8	15
	Jimmy Connors	8	15
9	John McEnroe	7	11
	Mats Wilander	7	11
11	Stefan Edberg	6	11
	Boris Becker	6	10
13	Rod Laver	5	6
14	Guillermo Vilas	4	8
	Jim Courier	4	7
16	Andy Murray	3	11
	Stan Wawrinka	3	4
	Gustavo Kuerten	3	3

Big Four Head-to-Head Grand Slam finals: 30

No.	Year	Championship	Surface	Winner	Runner-up	Score
1.	2006	French Open	Clay	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	1–6, 6–1, 6–4, 7–6(7–4)
2.	2006	Wimbledon	Grass	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	6–0, 7–6(7–5), 6–7(2–7), 6–3
3.	2007	French Open	Clay	Rafael Nadal	Roger Federer	6–3, 4–6, 6–3, 6–4
4.	2007	Wimbledon	Grass	Roger Federer	Rafael Nadal	7–6(9–7), 4–6, 7–6(7–3), 2–6, 6–2
5.	2007	US Open	Hard	Roger Federer	Novak Djokovic	7–6(7–4), 7–6(7–2), 6–4

Big Three?

With Djokovic's 13 Grand Slam, it's time to revisit the issue of the "Big Three" minus Murray.

Let's not forget that Wikipedia policy includes NPOV and reflecting plural major viewpoints.

We can find many sources that support the concept of a "Big Three".

While we don't have to completely redo the article, we could address this issue by:

A. Inserting alternative names in the title (as many articles on many subjects do).

B. Including a section on the "Big Three" argument.

One could claim that it's not just about Grand Slam titles but Murray trails in almost every area, often significantly. Being 3-8 in Grand Slam finals doesn't support the notion that he's in the same category. It's not just that his only 3 GS titles is the same as Stan Wawrinka: it's that it's far less than many others who are considered great but not all-time great, such as Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, etc.

Also, weeks at #1 show that Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal are far ahead of Murray, as does many other metrics.

Here are some sources for "Big Three":

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/07/novak-djokovic-wimbledon-federer-nadal-us-open-best-ever

https://www.bradenton.com/sports/article214950005.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-novak-djokovic-tennis-domination-2017-9

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/andy-murray-tennis-big-four/

Consensus in the past year is building towards a Big Three. With Murray now down to 839 in the world and little sign of him challenging to return to form anytime soon and over 31, I suspect that, in the long run, tennis historians are going to recognize that there's a GOAT-THREE and then Murray, who was the 4th-best in his era but his numbers are so far behind the other three that they don't belong in the same category. They don't.

And considering that quite a few reliable sources agree with that, this article needs to be modified to take into account a major alternate viewpoint.Ryoung122 03:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say we wait. Murray may very well find his form again just as Nadal and Federer did after their injuries. And tennis historians don't and won't look at only those three as GOATs, since there are a handful of others that get just as much praise. They are certainly among the greatest ever though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ryoung122 that this alternate concept is in sufficient use to be treated here - however I suggest just to mention it in the first paragraph of the introduction. If someone wants to use this concept, he still can easily the "three out of four" data from the article. --KnightMove (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Federer's Grand Slam winning career was effectively over at the end of 2012 at 31yo then low and behold 5 years later at 36yo he goes on to win 2 more tiles and another one at 37yo so Murray still has time to win more titles should his recovery improve.--Navops47 (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish the very best for him, but the future is open and has nothing to do with it. As of now the concept of "Big Three" has been used in a variety of media and derserves to be mentioned. --KnightMove (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The more time passes, the more the "Big Three" concept becomes viable. The gap between Djokovic and Murray keeps getting bigger and bigger and the big three are now the top three on the all-time list of grand slam titles.Tvx1 09:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

This page seems to only serve to highlight the enormously vast gap between Murray and the other 3 players, rather than the originally intended purpose. There may have once been a time where the big-4 was a thing, but one would be better off arguing that there has probably been a very distinctive big-3 for a much longer time than the duration that a big-4 comprising of these players ever existed. Don't get me wrong, Murray is indeed a great player in my personal opinion and certainly that of most others, but it's almost farcical to attempt to elevate him in this manner, and instead results in either detracting from the achievements of the Federer-Nadal-Djokovic, or making glaringly obvious how far behind Murray is, unfortunately. — Anakimi_lambaste   23:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also add that if we are to be waiting for anything, we ought to be waiting for him to prove himself to be worthy of being added to this group, and not waiting for him to continue the way he has been for the past 10-12 years while the others have soared away from him and then at some point say, "Yes, we have waited long enough. Let's change this to the Big Three". That just seems to make a whole lot more sense to me.— Anakimi_lambaste   00:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This would be going a bit too far. The "Big Four" concept is still much more often used overall, and the "Big Four" were already used when Murray had never been #1. It's not our choice to change that. However, I think we can regard it as consensus to mention the Big Three. --KnightMove (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. What we think is meaningless. The press still calls it the Big 4. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, "the press" also uses Big Three example, better example. I have added it now, and also in the disambiguation page Big Three: [1] --KnightMove (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say they don't use the term. Big 4 is more prevalent and longstanding. And remember this response was to a post that said lets change this article to Big 3. That would be a poor choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Would support moving article title to Big Three and editing accordingly. Big Four concept could be treated with historical section. This article as constructed is an anachronism. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, I think the idea of the Big Three is more firmly established now: even non-tennis has noticed:

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/sorry-andy-murray-but-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-big-four

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/08/federer-djokovic-nadal-ranking-big-three-four-rivalry-history-grand-slam

Big 3 back to Nos. 1-2-3; Osaka at No. 7 after US Open title - The ... https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../djokovic...3.../4929cfc6-b507-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c9... Sep 10, 2018

I suggest two options: 1. Make a new Big Three article with stats comparing the Big Three and crosslink these 2. Rename this article Big Three and make an Andy Murray sub-section

With Djokovic having moved back to #3 in the world, having now won his 14th Grand Slam, and Murray outside the top 100, over 31, and now appearing to be anywhere close to coming back, it's becoming more clear that Federer/Nadal/Djokovic are a class above. Murray is a distant fourth for this generation and better grouped with Wawrinka and DelPotro.Ryoung122 14:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Though Murray is clearly 4th among the Big Four, grouping him with Wawrinka and Del Potro is riddiculous as he is a class above them in terms of titles and achievements.

Murray has won 3 Grand Slams (and was runner up 8 times). He's won 14 Masters 1000 titles (and was runner up 7 times). He won the year end championships. He was ranked #1 for 41 weeks (before being injured). He has won Olympic Gold in singles twice (which no other player has achieved). And he has won the 4th most prize money in the Open Era.

Wawrinka has won 3 Grand Slams (and was runner up 1 time). He's won just 1 Masters 1000. Has never won the year end championships. Never ranked higher than #3. Never won an Olympic medal in singles.

Del Potro has won 1 Grand Slam (and was runner up 1 time). He's won just 1 Masters 1000. Has never won the year end championships. Never ranked higher than #3. Won 1 Olympic BRONZE and 1 Olympic SILVER medal in singles.Chanbara (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Planning ahead with foresight as they cannot play forever I propose we move the article to BIG TWO in 2020 then move it again to BIG ONE in 2022 of course not what was I thinking that would be Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to recap: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Make sure that you follow these guideline before you make recommendations to jettison No 4 of the BIG FOUR .--Navops47 (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

+1. Even if the Big Three remain in the Top 3 positions for another 5 years and Murray finishes his career tomorrow, this does not invalidate the Big Four concept as historically significant. I support expanding the Big Three descriptions in the article, but no move of the article wherever. --KnightMove (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources has been provided though, so this is more than simply a Wikipedia editor's opinion. And it it's interesting you mention crystalballing since this article was created years ago for a Big Four on the crystal ball assumption that Murray would become just as successful as the other four, which as we know now hasn't materialized.Tvx1 23:10, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree with this 100%. This article was not created years ago on any assumptions. It was created because the press and public used the term to describe those four players. The sourcing was overwhelming. It was used all the time then and still used today, so it will always have significance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If we are retaining this article title as "historically significant" should we move the copy to the past tense where logical and simultaneously create a Big Three (tennis)?

What I find difficult in reading over this discussion is that those adamant about retaining Murray aren't providing any good options for treating the dominance of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic separately with the concision and weight it deserves. What do we do? Perhaps start a Big Three article and see where it goes.

The other compromise possibly is if there's an agreed upon name for this era (Golden era? etc.) we might move the article to that and then provide due weight to each man as deserved. Dontreadalone (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from creating a Big 3 article as long as it's sourced properly. But this article is about the most commonly used term of "Big 4." Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)