PDA

View Full Version : New big 4?


Lin Lin
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:20 AM
We have Serena,Venus,Clijsters,Henin as big 4 a few years ago,now we have Wozniacki,Sharapova,Arzarenka and Kvitova being our new big 4,agree?:confused::confused:

Lilowannabe
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:26 AM
Potentially. The blondest big four too!!! What a difference a generation makes though. The big four of the last decade (WS, henin, clijsters) were perhaps the most athleticaly gifted group ever in womens tennis, as effective defending as they were attacking. With the new big four, they either have great attack, poor defense (shazza, Kvitty) or great defense, pooor offense (wozzy) azarenka falls somewhere in the middle IMO

NeKo
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:29 AM
Except Wozniacki, I agree.

BepaMaria
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:42 AM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

Caipirinha Guy
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:43 AM
Wozniacki? :weirdo:

We have more like BIG 3.

Yoncé
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:45 AM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

You're starting to get too much for me :spit:

sammy01
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:46 AM
venus, serena and kim have all won slams more recently than maria, and well we know caro cant win one. if this is the 'new' big 4 god help womens tennis.

DemiCrayanhan
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:46 AM
atm, we have a big 1...the rest are nowhere to be found. let's see what march brings. if we end up with even just a Big 2, i'd be pleased with some increased competition.

bbjpa
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:46 AM
A slamless one in a big four ? :spit:

goldenlox
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:46 AM
When you have 5 different slam winners in a row and a 6th who was #1 for that whole 15 months, I dont see a big 4.
2012 is a big 1 so far. Then we'll see as this year goes on

Lin Lin
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:50 AM
A slamless one in a big four ? :spit:

Andy Murray is also in the big 4 I guess:confused::confused:

Sombrerero loco
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:50 AM
give radwanska a couple of years and she will be in

DemiCrayanhan
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:59 AM
Andy Murray is also in the big 4 I guess:confused::confused:

if caro makes it to at least the semis of all the next 5 majors, she can start knocking on the door, just like andy.

Direwolf
Feb 22nd, 2012, 11:00 AM
Potentially. The blondest big four too!!! What a difference a generation makes though. The big four of the last decade (WS, henin, clijsters) were perhaps the most athleticaly gifted group ever in womens tennis, as effective defending as they were attacking. With the new big four, they either have great attack, poor defense (shazza, Kvitty) or great defense, pooor offense (wozzy) azarenka falls somewhere in the middle IMO

Wozniacki doesnt have a Great Defense
:confused::confused::confused:

Holdsworth
Feb 22nd, 2012, 11:05 AM
Wozniacki ?? :confused: She will be world#6 soon

Chrissie-fan
Feb 22nd, 2012, 11:23 AM
People would rather fall death than say anything nice about Woz, so she should not be included I guess. So that eliminates the idea of the big four, so we are left with the big three. Unfortunately Kvitova is sick which leaves us with the big two. I've just heard that Azarenka is injured, so that leaves Sharapova. If something should happen to her we're left with a big zero.

But seriously, yes. The top three have clearly seperated themselves from the rest of the field now. Wozniacki - we'll see what happens for the rest of the year, but it's clear that she's struggling at the moment. But I don't think that the big three (or four for those willing to give Woz some slack) will totally dominate like the big four in the mens game. There are at least half a dozen other girls capable of challenging them and win even the sports most important events.

Miracle Worker
Feb 22nd, 2012, 11:27 AM
How Maria can be in new big 4 if she has wins against old big 4 from 2004-5-6? She is in big 4/5/6 for ages.

Aryman3
Feb 22nd, 2012, 11:56 AM
As regards Radwanska - Weeks not years

Miss Atomic Bomb
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:01 PM
How Maria can be in new big 4 if she has wins against old big 4 from 2004-5-6? She is in big 4/5/6 for ages.

Maybe not the 'new' member, but a member of the current top 4. And I agree with the latter, Sharapova has been a part of the top 4 before.

Which begs the question - did Kim ever genuinely deserve to be a part of the Big 4 before her comeback?

Till 2005 we had Serena-Venus-Henin-Lindsay, then we had Amelie in the mix, and later on it was Serena-Venus-Maria-Henin. Kim was never in the same league; yet she seems to be mentioned in the big 4 discussion even before she won her last two slams. May be it was because she was in the same age bracket as Serena, Venus and Henin and riding their coattails?

One could also debate Stosur being in the big 4 instead of Wozniacki.

Mynarco
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:02 PM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

:tape::tape::tape:

The current big 4 are definitely the top 4 ranked players atm. If later on if Stosur can pick up her forms on HC + clay, getting into top 4, I am fine with that as well.

Steven.
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:02 PM
I find it really interesting that people (lately) have grouped Clijsters instead of Sharapova in the big 4 of the 00s when she only won 2 slams during that decade, and one of those came when Henin wasn't playing and right at the end of the decade. She was never dominant either except in tier 2s and lower (Sharapova won more slams and tier 1s than Clijsters in the 00s).

People on TF have really selective memory and seem to only remember the most recent happenings.

The last big four was Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova. The current players need to separate themselves from the pack before we can label them the big 4. Sharapova and Wozniacki both need to start winning slams, and we have to see if Kvitova and Azarenka continue to dominate first.

C. Drone
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:16 PM
:tape::tape::tape:

The current big 4 are definitely the top 4 ranked players atm. If later on if Stosur can pick up her forms on HC + clay, getting into top 4, I am fine with that as well.

that would be fun Stosur being part of it with her 1-9, 0-6 and 0-3 H2H. :lol:

Mistress of Evil
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:20 PM
Before Kimberly cameback Sharapova was light years ahead of her and way more appropriate to be named a member of the Big Four. :shrug:

Mynarco
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:21 PM
that would be fun Stosur being part of it with her 1-9, 0-6 and 0-3 H2H. :lol:

But she still holds a slam :shrug:
Martha has two GS finals to compensate the lack of it for the past 12 months

homogenius
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:22 PM
Andy Murray is also in the big 4 I guess:confused::confused:

no

on topic : there is eventually a Big2 but nothing more.over the past year Vika and Petra have results that separate them from the rest of the field imo, and then you have maria with consistent results especially in slams, Na and Sam with a slam but inconsistent results otherwise, and players winning second tier events like Caro and Aga etc...

slydevil6142
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:32 PM
I find it really interesting that people (lately) have grouped Clijsters instead of Sharapova in the big 4 of the 00s when she only won 2 slams during that decade, and one of those came when Henin wasn't playing and right at the end of the decade. She was never dominant either except in tier 2s and lower (Sharapova won more slams and tier 1s than Clijsters in the 00s).

People on TF have really selective memory and seem to only remember the most recent happenings.

The last big four was Venus, Serena, Henin, Sharapova. The current players need to separate themselves from the pack before we can label them the big 4. Sharapova and Wozniacki both need to start winning slams, and we have to see if Kvitova and Azarenka continue to dominate first.

I can see some people havent been watching tennis very long. True that Kim hadnt won any slams but EVERYONE knew she was an amazing player and most of her falters in the late round of slams was more mental than anything else. Kim played Serena by far the closest at the 99' US open. She was also just a breathe away from winning the French Open in 01'. Kim started playing tennis at the same time roughly Venus, Serena, and Justine hence why they are grouped together. Maria wasnt even in the conversation until 04 and quite frankly noone ever really picked her against the top 4 however her superior mental strength got her some wins.

Steven.
Feb 22nd, 2012, 12:45 PM
I can see some people havent been watching tennis very long. True that Kim hadnt won any slams but EVERYONE knew she was an amazing player and most of her falters in the late round of slams was more mental than anything else. Kim played Serena by far the closest at the 99' US open. She was also just a breathe away from winning the French Open in 01'. Kim started playing tennis at the same time roughly Venus, Serena, and Justine hence why they are grouped together. Maria wasnt even in the conversation until 04 and quite frankly noone ever really picked her against the top 4 however her superior mental strength got her some wins.

Nobody is arguing that she is an amazing talent and was a prospect for a multi-slam champion and future no. 1 when she burst onto the scene in the late 90s, however she was just never dominant despite being no. 1. At all. You could argue that she was dominant in 2003 but people seem to forget that she only reached no. 1 by doing what Maria is currently doing - being consistent in slams. She never did much damage anywhere else iirc except tier 2s until Henin rightfully took away the no. 1 after her US Open win I think.

Maria herself was also a major prospect long before she broke through at the tender age of like 9. When she did have her breakthrough, it took a mere 3-4 months for Maria to ascend into the top 5 and stay there for well over 4 consecutive years while slowly racking up the slams or losing to the top players at the latter stages as well (bar a few erratic losses in late 2007).

I guess I can understand age being a factor in this top group, but look at the ATP where Novak broke through 4 years after Nadal andd Federer. And besdies, Maria won her first slam only one year after Henin. :p

Singleniacki
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:00 PM
Expect Radwanska to snatch no.4 in the coming months, hoping Marion can sneak in top the Top 5 by the end of the year also (I wouldn't believe myself if I said this 2 years ago :tape:)

everythingtaboo
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:02 PM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

I love Vera too, but no.

Maybe Aga? Or a couple years down the line... maybe, maybe Sabine if she can get it all together.

Simugna Help
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:04 PM
The current top 3 players have 2 slams, YEC, 5 tier 1 titles - very strong but not comparable to the men's big 4. Their dominant rivalry is shaping up slowly, but I feel they need to at least repeat those achievements over the next 12 months to be talking about era of their dominance.

marineblue
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:09 PM
But she still holds a slam :shrug:
Martha has two GS finals to compensate the lack of it for the past 12 months

So what? Her results this season are dire.:lol:

slydevil6142
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:18 PM
Nobody is arguing that she is an amazing talent and was a prospect for a multi-slam champion and future no. 1 when she burst onto the scene in the late 90s, however she was just never dominant despite being no. 1. At all. You could argue that she was dominant in 2003 but people seem to forget that she only reached no. 1 by doing what Maria is currently doing - being consistent in slams. She never did much damage anywhere else iirc except tier 2s until Henin rightfully took away the no. 1 after her US Open win I think.

Maria herself was also a major prospect long before she broke through at the tender age of like 9. When she did have her breakthrough, it took a mere 3-4 months for Maria to ascend into the top 5 and stay there for well over 4 consecutive years while slowly racking up the slams or losing to the top players at the latter stages as well (bar a few erratic losses in late 2007).

I guess I can understand age being a factor in this top group, but look at the ATP where Novak broke through 4 years after Nadal andd Federer. And besdies, Maria won her first slam only one year after Henin. :p
I suppose I never saw Maria as being in the big 4 b/c at no point in her career (prior to maybe now) have I thought she was the fourth BEST player in the world. Yea Maria won a slam before Kim but IMO I always saw Kim as a better player. Justine owned Kim in Slams (at the time :)) but Kim was beating her in most of the other tour events. To be honest before 2003 the real big 4 was Serena, Venus, Caprati, Davenport. ... the glory days of American tennis. I personally think the current big 4 are.... Petra, Serena, Vika, and Kim.
But with Kim on the way out and Serena losing motivation with what im expecting to be Venu's last year on tour I think it ultimately will be a Petra, Vika, Maria, and maybe Woz?.... Im thinking another new star will come along before then though. My two cents ha.

atominside
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:19 PM
So what? Her results this season are dire.:lol:

lolwhut?

atominside
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:20 PM
And about the maria/kim thing, both are on the same level.

Craig.
Feb 22nd, 2012, 01:20 PM
So what? Her results this season are dire.:lol:

She's played two tournaments, reaching a Slam final in one. Dire indeed :weirdo:

sammy01
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:00 PM
Maybe not the 'new' member, but a member of the current top 4. And I agree with the latter, Sharapova has been a part of the top 4 before.

Which begs the question - did Kim ever genuinely deserve to be a part of the Big 4 before her comeback?

Till 2005 we had Serena-Venus-Henin-Lindsay, then we had Amelie in the mix, and later on it was Serena-Venus-Maria-Henin. Kim was never in the same league; yet she seems to be mentioned in the big 4 discussion even before she won her last two slams. May be it was because she was in the same age bracket as Serena, Venus and Henin and riding their coattails?

One could also debate Stosur being in the big 4 instead of Wozniacki.

yes. they were the 'big 4' because when they were all healthy and fit they would make the semis or better of slams and win all the other tour titles worth winning between them. in 2003 between the 4 of them they contested all the slam finals. not to mention kim was YEC winner in 2002/3.

Simugna Help
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:06 PM
She's played two tournaments, reaching a Slam final in one. Dire indeed :weirdo:

LOL @ the knee-jerk reaction. He was talking about Stosur and her R1 loss at AO.

Shivank17
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:09 PM
its more like the ATP (not that level though) Big 3 plus a slamless pusher who can never win slams.

cellophane
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:11 PM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

:rolls:

marineblue
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:27 PM
She's played two tournaments, reaching a Slam final in one. Dire indeed :weirdo:

Samantha Stosur? Yo sure about that bro?:cuckoo:

pov
Feb 22nd, 2012, 02:45 PM
Andy Murray is also in the big 4 I guess:confused::confused:
Good point! Yes Murray is considered part of the ATP big 4. That's because, although he hasn't yet won a major, he's a perennial contender. He also has kept his ranking top 4 for some time. I'd say that, if the players you mentioned are competitive and stay ranked top 4 throughout this season, then they'll be the big 4. IMO currently there is no big anything on the WTA.

bobito
Feb 22nd, 2012, 04:55 PM
its more like the ATP (not that level though) Big 3 plus a slamless pusher who can never win slams.

Nope. Serena, Justine, Venus and Kim were closer to the current top 4 in the mens. Put 2003 Clijsters on the current tour and she'd be very much the dominant player.

To liken Murray to Wozniacki is preposterous. Could seriously imagine Wozniacki pushing 2002 Serena or 2007 Justine as close as Murray pushed Djokovic in the Australian Open semi-final?

Good point! Yes Murray is considered part of the ATP big 4. That's because, although he hasn't yet won a major, he's a perennial contender. He also has kept his ranking top 4 for some time. I'd say that, if the players you mentioned are competitive and stay ranked top 4 throughout this season, then they'll be the big 4. IMO currently there is no big anything on the WTA.

Like Clijsters in 2003, Murray is up against some ridiculously strong competition. Had he been around a decade ago when Hewitt, Kuerten, Costa, Johansson and Ivanišević were winning slams then he'd have bagged half a dozen or so.

CloudAtlas
Feb 22nd, 2012, 05:17 PM
I'd say Kvitova, Azarenka, Wozniacki and Radwanska since they are from the same generation. I made this point on twitter a few days ago.

I think Kvitova will be the Serena of this generation in that she will probably pull ahead of her peers in a few years and have the greatest career. Azarenka and Wozniacki can be Henin and Venus , in so that they may have equal careers but their fans argue that a certain accomplishment that the other doesn't have makes one better than the other. Then Radwanska will be Clijsters , consistent but most of the time coming up short against the other 3 and pretty much being a punchbag for when they are playing well.

Someone on Twitter also likened Sharapova to Davenport in response to this , in that she hangs around , gets to Slam finals and perhaps gets #1 rank again but in Slams she comes up short against better players of the younger generation and doesn't win any more.

Battiv
Feb 22nd, 2012, 05:19 PM
We have Serena,Venus,Clijsters,Henin as big 4 a few years ago,now we have Wozniacki,Sharapova,Arzarenka and Kvitova being our new big 4,agree?:confused::confused:

They are too different. Williams's and Belgians are the best of decennium; the other four are the best, perhaps, only now.
Only the future will be able to show how much they are great. I believe that Sharapova isn't playing many years again, even if she's yooung;
and I believe that Wozniacki is suffering tiredness: she has played too much.
I don't consider Azarenka a superstar, but she can deny me. Kvitova is the strongest among these.

Neither Clijsters was a superstar and she has taken advantage by physical problems of Henin and the inconstancy of american sisters.

dsanders06
Feb 22nd, 2012, 05:21 PM
I'd say Kvitova, Azarenka, Wozniacki and Radwanska since they are from the same generation. I made this point on twitter a few days ago.

I think Kvitova will be the Serena of this generation in that she will probably pull ahead of her peers in a few years and have the greatest career. Azarenka and Wozniacki can be Henin and Venus , in so that they may have equal careers but their fans argue that a certain accomplishment that the other doesn't have makes one better than the other. Then Radwanska will be Clijsters , consistent but most of the time coming up short against the other 3 and pretty much being a punchbag for when they are playing well.

Someone on Twitter also likened Sharapova to Davenport in response to this , in that she hangs around , gets to Slam finals and perhaps gets #1 rank again but in Slams she comes up short against better players of the younger generation and doesn't win any more.

So much delusion in one post...someone help me :sobbing:

Craig.
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:32 PM
LOL @ the knee-jerk reaction. He was talking about Stosur and her R1 loss at AO.

Samantha Stosur? Yo sure about that bro?:cuckoo:

Whoops :p Sorry about that!

Sammo
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:36 PM
Wozniacki? Really, replace her with Stosur or Na or someone else.

Brad[le]y.
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:38 PM
No. Replace the Wozzer with Stosur or Vera.

:spit: :hug:

manu32
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:40 PM
No

MrJovani2293
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:52 PM
I think yes. The top 4 aren't the ones who just win Grand Slams. We have to remember that they are just 4 tournaments out of the many on the tour. The top four are going to be the most consistent players, the ones we see in the semifinals of tournaments the most and the ones winning the most. Sharapova (if she can defend and keep the serve and determination going), Azarenka (if and only if she can keep the form she is playing with and for her the most important is she needs to keep her attitude in check, cause once that goes everything goes for her), Kvitova (consistency, I haven't forgot the U.S. Open). Wozniacki is the only one that is debatable for me. She needs to keep the form of 2010, at least the one at the beginning of 2010. She needs to be consistent with the results and defend her point for the ranking will go. She can be replace by Stosur, Bartoli and Radwanska, as they are the ones I see playing the best now. If Li, Vera, Jankovic (I still have hope), and Ivanovic can get it together they will be there to replace Wozniacki or even any of them.

terjw
Feb 22nd, 2012, 08:57 PM
There is no big 4 in the WTA right now. True Vika is on a winning streak - but plenty of players have had winning streaks. The big four were that dominant that anyone mentions the big 4 it still refers to the Williams and the Belgians even today even though they are not #1, #2, #3, #4.

bobito
Feb 22nd, 2012, 09:16 PM
There is no big 4 in the WTA right now. True Vika is on a winning streak - but plenty of players have had winning streaks. The big four were that dominant that anyone mentions the big 4 it still refers to the Williams and the Belgians even today even though they are not #1, #2, #3, #4.

Spot on.

miffedmax
Feb 22nd, 2012, 09:23 PM
My favorite Big Four.

http://www.golfcourseonline.com/gridiron-greats/images/Jim_Marshall.jpg

Marshall

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8pBtwxra6_g/R_096gJUF0I/AAAAAAAADC8/tQJxb9KW5Y4/s400/Carl+Eller.jpg

Eller

http://images.supersport.com/Johanna-Larsson100206CelebratesR300.jpg

Larsson

http://www.profootballhof.com/assets/Page_Alan_Action_180-220.jpg

and Page.

The Four Norsemen!

MakarovaFan
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:10 PM
Honestly the idea of a big 4 represents 4 players who not just win the big events, but always seem to be around in the end stages of all the events.....Mens tennis DOES have this right now, but the only women really doing this is (like it or not) Maria Sharapova. In her 14 counted events on her ranking she has made atleast the QFs at 10/14; SFs or better of 7/14 and made the SFs of 3/4 majors. Yes Kvitova and Azarenka have the biggest results, they still aren't the "regulars" that get deep in the biggest events. Within the last 1/2 years only Maria and yes Wozniacki have been players that you routinely go deep in most of their events, all these other have been far too erratic.

goldenlox
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:33 PM
There was a 2 year period when Henin/Clijsters or Williams/Williams were the slam final for 8 majors in a row
Thats a big 4.

Now we have 5 different slam winners in a row, while a 6th was #1 for 15 months, and 3 others who were in the last 4 slam finals.
You cant have much more parity. Thats 9 and leaves out Radwanska, who since Wimbledon is collecting points like a top 5 player.

roelc
Feb 22nd, 2012, 10:54 PM
since wimbledon it was kvitova, sharapova and azarenka who competed in the important finals (+ radwanska?)
one year ago it was clijsters, wozniacki and zvonareva.
so let's see how long this one lasts. let s not forget that azaranka and kvitova only played one slam final so far. surely they will go deep in other slams but they still need to prove the consistency that the former big 4 had.
sharapova is in the inbetween generation

Charlatan
Feb 23rd, 2012, 12:10 AM
I'd say Kvitova, Azarenka, Wozniacki and Radwanska since they are from the same generation. I made this point on twitter a few days ago.

I think Kvitova will be the Serena of this generation in that she will probably pull ahead of her peers in a few years and have the greatest career. Azarenka and Wozniacki can be Henin and Venus , in so that they may have equal careers but their fans argue that a certain accomplishment that the other doesn't have makes one better than the other. Then Radwanska will be Clijsters , consistent but most of the time coming up short against the other 3 and pretty much being a punchbag for when they are playing well.

Someone on Twitter also likened Sharapova to Davenport in response to this , in that she hangs around , gets to Slam finals and perhaps gets #1 rank again but in Slams she comes up short against better players of the younger generation and doesn't win any more.

you must not be serious :lol:

Nicolás89
Feb 23rd, 2012, 12:20 AM
:haha: Pressed stans! Cheatnin retired quit mentioning her, it's bad for your health, serious.

Truth is they are indeed the big four right now who can deny that? Those old hags were good but way passed their primes, get over them, recycle them and recognize the new crew.

CloudAtlas
Feb 23rd, 2012, 01:25 AM
you must not be serious :lol:

Well I'm not saying that those 4 are on par with the previous big 4 in terms of quality or potential achievements , but more so in terms of them being the players of this generation who are relatively the most successful. Me saying stuff like 'Azarenka and Wozniacki can be Henin and Venus' does not mean I believe they are as good as those two , or that they will equal what they achieved in their careers but rather that when drawing relevant comparisons , there may exist a similarity in terms of hierarchy as existed between the previous 4.

I don't think my post was that unreasonable, as I can picture Petra achieving the most of the early 90's generation with Vika and Caro perhaps having equal success and Radwanska achieving the least of the 4. I also don't think my Sharapova-Davenport was all that ridiculous, seeing as though Maria has negative h2h's against the main three since her comeback.

fifty-fifty
Feb 23rd, 2012, 02:34 AM
There is also big 4 on the men's tour and If we were to compare them we'd have something like this

Nole=Vika
Rafa=Petra
Fed=Masha
Murray=Woz

So Woz not winning a slam is not a big deal

Charlatan
Feb 23rd, 2012, 02:47 AM
Well I'm not saying that those 4 are on par with the previous big 4 in terms of quality or potential achievements , but more so in terms of them being the players of this generation who are relatively the most successful. Me saying stuff like 'Azarenka and Wozniacki can be Henin and Venus' does not mean I believe they are as good as those two , or that they will equal what they achieved in their careers but rather that when drawing relevant comparisons , there may exist a similarity in terms of hierarchy as existed between the previous 4.

I don't think my post was that unreasonable, as I can picture Petra achieving the most of the early 90's generation with Vika and Caro perhaps having equal success and Radwanska achieving the least of the 4. I also don't think my Sharapova-Davenport was all that ridiculous, seeing as though Maria has negative h2h's against the main three since her comeback.

I understand that part.

I just don't get how you drag Aga into this imaginary Big 4, firstly. I mean she has never been to a slam semi final yet.

Plus, I don't see Vika and Wozniacki having the same number of slams. Pretty obvious. But yes, i can agree with the comparison of petra literally being the serena in this generation and maria, being lindsay :)

Halepsova
Feb 23rd, 2012, 05:17 AM
I think you become a big 4 when you reach the final or at least semifinals at GS regularly. None of them did. :shrug:

naranka
Feb 23rd, 2012, 06:23 AM
There is also big 4 on the men's tour and If we were to compare them we'd have something like this

Nole=Vika
Rafa=Petra
Fed=Masha
Murray=Woz



An admirable try, but not quite.

The only common denominator between Azarenka and Djoker is a winning streak, and hers doesn't even compare. Petra=Rafa is just wrong. Everything about his game is effort and grinding. When Kvitova is on her game she makes it look more effortless than anyone, ever. If anything, the two pairs should be reversed. H2H, Nole has won the last 7 over Nadal. Petra has won the last 4 over Azarenka, whose only 2 victories were three and four years ago, when Kvitova wasn't even Kvitova yet.

Fed=Masha? Ugh. The most beautiful game in the history of tennis=one of the ugliest?

Murray=Woz. Seems about right. But I'm afraid that holding both of them together in my mind to consider this would literally bore me to death.

Raiden
Feb 23rd, 2012, 07:56 AM
Andy Murray is also in the big 4 I guess:confused::confused:I disagree with that so called top 4 concept even in the ATP (Murray is just a placeholder for the still recovering "past and future top 4" Juan Martin Del Potro :p

As for WTA, I'll go no further than admitting to the existence of a sorta "top 2" for the moment. Even that is pretty dicey.

bobito
Feb 23rd, 2012, 08:32 AM
If we're honest about it, the WTA doesn't even have a big 1 at the moment, though perhaps Kvitova and Azarenka have the potential.

Caipirinha Guy
Feb 23rd, 2012, 09:05 AM
Comparing Sharapova to Federer is like comparing Whitney Houston to Britney Spears. :o

Simugna Help
Feb 23rd, 2012, 09:09 AM
Comparing Sharapova to Federer is like comparing Whitney Houston to Britney Spears. :o

Federer being analogous to Britney Spears. :facepalm:
What you should have said:
"Comparing Sharapova to Federer is like comparing Britney Spears to Frank Sinatra."

Pops Maellard
Feb 23rd, 2012, 09:28 AM
LOL at Wozniacki in any "big 4".

LUVMIRZA
Feb 23rd, 2012, 09:32 AM
:lol: WTA has no biggies right now. We'll have to wait atleast until the end of 2013 Australian open to even think about it.

Setsuna.
Feb 23rd, 2012, 10:24 AM
If we're honest about it, the WTA doesn't even have a big 1 at the moment, though perhaps Kvitova and Azarenka have the potential.

This.

madmax
Feb 23rd, 2012, 11:44 AM
An admirable try, but not quite.

The only common denominator between Azarenka and Djoker is a winning streak, and hers doesn't even compare. Petra=Rafa is just wrong. Everything about his game is effort and grinding. When Kvitova is on her game she makes it look more effortless than anyone, ever. If anything, the two pairs should be reversed. H2H, Nole has won the last 7 over Nadal. Petra has won the last 4 over Azarenka, whose only 2 victories were three and four years ago, when Kvitova wasn't even Kvitova yet.

Fed=Masha? Ugh. The most beautiful game in the history of tennis=one of the ugliest?

Murray=Woz. Seems about right. But I'm afraid that holding both of them together in my mind to consider this would literally bore me to death.

Maria's game is ugly?:fiery:
Speak for yourself clown...when she gets into her groove and starts blasting winners from all over the court, she's simply delightful and very entertaining to watch.

Caipirinha Guy
Feb 23rd, 2012, 02:05 PM
Federer being analogous to Britney Spears. :facepalm:
What you should have said:
"Comparing Sharapova to Federer is like comparing Britney Spears to Frank Sinatra."

We all know I meant Maria is a Britney :angel: