Andy Murray Earned His Spot in the Big Four
The numbers behind a career that was far more than just the best of the rest
At the 2024 Paris Olympics, Andy Murray played his last professional tennis match. Alongside Dan Evans, the pair made it to the quarterfinals of the doubles draw, fittingly saving multiple match points in the first two rounds. This run to the quarterfinals would act as a mirror to the entire twilight of Murray’s career, which he had done all he could to extend. The twilight period began prematurely, with a hip injury sidelining him in 2017 and leading to two surgeries. Watching his press conference at the 2019 Australian Open many would never have believed that he would squeeze another five and a half years out of his career. But Murray made a habit of proving people wrong. Scotland wasn’t a tennis country. Scotland still isn’t really a tennis country. But a boy from Dunblane one day became the best player in the world.
My lasting memories will be the grand slams. The late nights staying up to watch proceedings in New York. The summer days spent in front of the TV watching Wimbledon. The continual toil in Roland Garros. The early mornings watching him come up just short at yet another Australian Open. The heartbreaking matches he should’ve won but lost. The incredible matches he should’ve lost but won.
Today’s article is my contribution to the sea of tributes that came flooding in when he announced his retirement in July. I’ve decided to look at a phrase that has become more and more contentious as the years have gone by: The big four.
Big Four
noun
A term used to group four tennis players—Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray—that reflected their collective dominance of the sport in the late 2000s and early 2010s.
The first rumblings of a big four came about after Murray reached the US Open final in 2008. By the end of the decade it was very much a part of the tennis discourse. Federer and Nadal had a long-established rivalry. Djokovic had backed up his 2008 Australian Open title by regularly going deep at the slams and Murray had two slam quarters, a semi and a final to his name, not to mention an impressive 6–4 head to head record in his favour against Federer.
Nowadays, whenever someone so much as mentions the words “big four,” they will get predictable responses that there is no such thing as a big four, and it is in fact a big three. Or, it should be a big five instead. Two common arguments against the existence of a big four stem from grand slam titles:
Murray’s tally of three grand slam titles doesn’t compare to the 20+ titles won by each of Djokovic, Nadal and Federer
Stan Wawrinka has the same number of grand slam titles as Murray
Both statements are true. There is a big three as well. A big three and big four can coexist. The big five claim falls flat when you compare pretty much any other metric of Murray’s to Wawrinka. Just ask Wawrinka himself. This is what he had to say after tying Murray on three slams by winning the 2016 US Open:
“The Big Four, I'm really far from them. Just look at the tournaments they won, how many years they have been there.”
With Nadal announcing his retirement in October this year, Djokovic was asked how it felt to be the last member standing of the big three. Here was his response:
“We knew that that moment is coming sooner than later but it’s still a shock. When it came officially, also for Roger a few years ago as well when he announced retirement, and Andy as well this year. It’s a bit overwhelming for me, to be honest. I don’t know what to make out of it. I still enjoy competing but part of me left with them, a big part of me.”
The initial question was about Nadal retiring and the big three. He didn’t need to include Murray in his answer. But he did. Such is Djokovic’s respect for Murray, the following month he went and hired him as his coach for the start of 2025.
A slightly more extreme view comes from Reilly Opelka. He believes Murray is the “fourth or fifth greatest player in history” and “would have won twelve or thirteen grand slams in any other era.” While this might be a bit of a reach, it’s certainly not as outrageous as it initially sounds. It would be very interesting to see how Murray had gotten on were he born 15/20 years earlier.
Throughout this article I’ve compared Murray and the rest of the big four to players that played a relevant part in the big four era. I’ve defined this era as the 10 years between 2008 and 2017. These years act as bookends for the first and last grand slam quarterfinals of Murray’s career. I’ve defined a “relevant” player as someone that reached at least two grand slam quarterfinals in this time frame. While not perfect, I feel a second slam quarterfinal proves the first wasn’t a fluke. In total, 37 players reached multiple grand slam quarterfinals between 2008 and 2017.
So without further ado, let’s have a look at a few numbers and graphs that show just how good Andy Murray was.
Total Points Won
I’ve compiled the numbers from all of the seasons played by the 37 players between 2008 and 2017 (thanks as ever to tennisabtract.com for the data). Below is a graph showing how total points won % correlates to match win % in any given season. Every season where a player won at least half of their points and half of their matches is included (minimum 20 matches played). The seasons from each member of the big four have been highlighted.
The top right corner immediately jumps out. Djokovic and Nadal’s numbers are particularly impressive while Federer’s are very consistent. Bear in mind Federer’s best performing seasons came before 2008. Murray’s best seasons were a lot better than the rest but not quite at the same level as the other 3. This backs up the theory that a big three and big four can coexist. For the most part, the seasons of the big four that don’t make it into that top right corner were injury-hit or on the comeback from prior injuries. The exceptions were Djokovic and Murray’s lean 2010 seasons and the latter’s 2008 season where he first established himself in the top 4.
That lone grey dot in the sea of colour? David Ferrer’s 2012 season. Those numbers helped him win over a quarter (7) of his career titles that year. His results in the slams read QF, SF, QF, SF - with losses to Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Djokovic. His win over Murray in the Roland Garros quarterfinal that year was his third and final win over a member of the big four in a grand slam. Each time he got one of these wins, he lost to another one of the big four in a later round. Interestingly, Ferrer never faced Federer in a grand slam.
Match Wins
Next up we’ll continue on the theme of match win rates, but this time compare all of the players individually. I’ve taken the match win % across a player’s best five seasons in the big four era and ranked them top to bottom.
31 of the aforementioned 37 players played at least 20 matches in five separate seasons between 2008 and 2017. Once again, there’s a certain four names that jump out. The gap between 4th and 5th is nearly three times as big as the next largest gap between adjacent places. Winning 85% of matches over five seasons is a joke. Four players did it. This graph shows how good Del Potro and Ferrer were as well, and how they can consider themselves unlucky not to have had more success in the slams.
Just for some more context, here’s how that graph looks when you stretch the time period out to a player’s whole career:
Here the big three start to separate themselves, but Murray is still closer to Nadal than he is to the 5th best in Roddick. The graph puts in perspective just how dominant Federer was in the mid 2000s. Going by match win %, his best three seasons were 2004–2006 where he lost a total of 15 matches. During this time he went on a run of 195 straight matches without losing in straight sets. This run started after his loss to Kuerten in the 2004 Roland Garros 3rd round and was ended by none other than Murray in the 2006 Cincinnati 2nd round.
This graph also illustrates just how good Nishikori was. He was a fair bit better than Wawrinka and Cilic over the course of a season. However, those two proved that grand slams are won by turning it on over a much shorter period of time.
Ranking Points
Winning points translates into winning matches. Winning matches translates into ranking points. While ranking points are arbitrary, they serve as a useful tool for comparisons within set time periods. Two players might have a similar match win % for a year but if one of them is getting results at the big events while the other isn’t, the ranking points will reflect that. However, with the points being arbitrary, they have been changed a number of times over the years. The last big change came in 2009 where points were effectively doubled for the grand slams and masters and the 500 tournament category was introduced (the points were changed again this year where all the rounds except winning a tournament were given a slight boost). With that change in mind, I’ve adjusted the time period to 2009 to 2017. Here is the average year-end ranking points for each player’s best five seasons in that time period (min. five seasons finishing in top 50):
There's a theme starting to develop. With ranking points ~doubling with every additional match won at a tournament, the distribution of points at any given tournament is near enough exponential. This graph partially reflects that, albeit 2nd to 4th are higher than they should be. Djokovic’s numbers are a joke. What's even more crazy is that it pretty much took until 2024 for him to slow down a bit.
Forgetting about the best five seasons for a minute, Murray averaged a year-end ranking points total of 7499 between 2009 and 2016 (He cut off the 2017 season after Wimbledon). Other than the rest of the big four, no player earned more than 7499 ranking points in a single season in that time period. The closest anyone came was Wawrinka with 6865 in 2015. Speaking of Wawrinka, this graph highlights how on the whole he got his wins at bigger tournaments than Nishikori. In his best five seasons, he won 219 matches and earned 24430 ranking points giving a ranking points per match win rate of 111.6. Nishikori on the other hand won 230 matches and earned 17965 points giving him a rate of 78.1. Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray's rates were 181.6, 153.4, 150.9 and 129.5 respectively. The best rate anyone had in a single season in this era was Djokovic with 199.8 ranking points per match won in 2015. For reference, if a player only played the slams and tour finals and won every single match they would have a rate of 287.9*.
*Technically a higher rate is achievable, more on that in the appendix.
Grand Slam Performance
Finally, we’ll have a look at the players’ performance in grand slams. For better or for worse, tennis players are defined by the number of slams they win. Most fans have at least a rough idea of how many slams each player has won. The big three have made that easier in recent times by hoovering them up. As a result, it took a special player to win multiple slams in the same era. Here’s a graph of grand slam titles won by year from 2008 to 2017:
Federer seems low on this graph, but then again he did win a small matter of 12 grand slams before 2008. Wawrinka caught Murray in 2015 and then kept on track with him. The graph provides the most convincing case for a big five, but if anything gives as much of a case for a big two. The greatest what if is Del Potro. A few more injury-free seasons and he could well have been in the conversation with Murray. His win rates compared to Wawrinka and Cilic on the previous graphs speak for themselves. Djokovic and Nadal are where you’d expect them to be, but a quick word on their longevity. Obviously the numbers here are just for a 10 year period. If we forget everything up to the end of 2017, Djokovic has won 12 slams since and Nadal 6. That would put them 3rd and tied 10th in the open era respectively.
Only seven players won a grand slam between 2008 and 2017 (we can extend that timeframe by a couple of years on either side and it would still be true). A further nine players came within one win of a title. In the interests of not over cluttering this and the following graphs I’ve upped the criteria to a minimum of seven grand slam quarterfinals reached in the big four era. This means Soderling (2 finals), Roddick (1) and Anderson (1) miss out. Here’s a graph of grand slam finals reached by year from 2008 to 2017:
This is where the big four start to separate themselves. One of the reasons that such a gap forms is that it was the big four that were beating the rest of the players in most of the semifinals. If we take everyone from Wawrinka downwards, their combined record in semis in this time frame was 12-30, with seven of the wins and 26 of the losses coming against the big four. Murray’s record against these players in semifinals was 8–1, with the sole loss coming to Wawrinka in Roland Garros in 2017. His only other loss to a non-big three member in a grand slam semi was against Roddick in Wimbledon in 2009. Eight of the 20 grand slam finals between 2012 and 2016 featured Murray. Just six of the finals featured a non-big four member.
However, if we dig a little deeper, the results in previous rounds prove to be very illuminating. Here’s a graph of grand slam semifinals reached by year from 2008 to 2017:
If I could only present one graph as a justification for the big four moniker, I think it would be this one. Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Murray separate themselves even further here. Murray and Nadal with 21 slam semifinals in this time period have over double the next highest in Wawrinka. Murray’s total sees him 8th on the all time list of most grand slam semifinals, ahead of names like McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Borg and Wilander. Granted, careers are longer now, but Murray reached his last semifinal a few weeks after turning 30.
Murray won more semifinals than he lost. He by and large beat the players he was meant to beat and lost to the players he was meant to lose to. His record against non-big three players in semifinals was 9–2. His record against the big three was 2–8 (interestingly that is exactly the same as his record against them in finals).
Now for a look at the quarterfinals:
As you would expect, the graph is slightly more bunched. When there’s eight spaces to play for at each tournament, the big four can’t hog them all. Despite this, Murray still has double the nearest non-big four member. Of the players here, no one other than the big four has a career-long winning record in grand slam quarterfinals. Wawrinka did however win an impressive nine out of 13 slam quarters between 2013 and 2017.
The previous graphs have centred on the big four era. Below I’ve combined each of them and extended the timeframe to make it 2000 onwards. A player’s line stops the year they played their last singles match at a slam.
The first thing to note is just how dominant Federer was in the 2000s. Funnily enough, that match win % that was referenced earlier translates into success at the majors. When we look at any graph—especially the titles one—the steeper the line, the more dominant the player. Starting with his Wimbledon title in 2005 and culminating in the Australian Open title in 2010, Federer reached 18 out of 19 slam finals, winning 12 in the process. Djokovic was on one slam when Federer won his 16th, but has since averaged not too far off two slams per year.
The story with Murray is what could have been. In 2016 he nearly matched Nadal’s number of quarterfinals. Nadal was at the end of a couple of lean years with injury struggles, but was able to get back to near his best in the succeeding years. When Murray succumbed to injury and lost to Sam Querrey in the 2017 Wimbledon quarterfinal, this was the last time he made it past the third round of a slam. Right up until that moment he was a class above the rest.
These graphs also display the longevity of the big three. Nadal has 17 years between his first and last slam titles while Federer and Djokovic have 15 years each. Everyone else that had a meaningful say in the big four era had achieved all they could by the late 2010s and didn’t progress any more at the latter stages of the slams. Thanks to injury, Murray had the same fate.
Denying the existence of the big four cheapens the accomplishments of the big three. 20 times Murray lost to Djokovic, Federer or Nadal at a slam. If he’s just another guy, those results are just footnotes in the history books.
. . .
This article focused on the prime of Murray’s career, but he managed to extend it for another seven years after that. If I had to choose a point to define his career, it probably wouldn’t be any of the points in the grand slams he won, or even any of the many others where he made a deep run. I keep coming back to this one against Kokkinakis at the Australian Open last year:
I was at Melbourne Park doing analysis for the match that night. Sat in a small room in the broadcast centre into the early hours, I was glued to the TV. I had been due to finish earlier that night, but opted to stay as I didn’t know how many more of these matches we were going to get. As it turned out, this would be Murray’s last win at the slam he had come so close to winning so many times.
Before this point and this game, Murray had struggled to make inroads on the Kokkinakis serve. His only prior break had come after saving set points with Kokkinakis serving for the second. He was hanging in, but comfortably lost the tiebreak to find himself two sets to love down. He quickly went down a break in the third. Up steps Kokkinakis to serve at 6–4 7–6 2–0 40–AD. This was Murray’s fourth break point of the game, nearly doubling his entire tally for the match thus far. He had seen a 0–40 lead slip and had fended off two game points. It felt like now or never. Then bedlam ensued.
Murray retrieved two forehands from opposite corners of the court, followed by three overheads. The third overhead he managed to get back over Kokkinakis onto the baseline and suddenly it was anyone’s point. A few shots later Kokkinakis is dumping a forehand into the net and the whole place erupts. This point started the comeback that would see Murray win the longest match of his career. At age 35. On a metal hip. The pair shook hands at the net at 4:05 am.
These two lines from the poem of the same name written by Dylan Thomas have been overused to the point of cliché, but that break point against Kokkinakis and the wider post-hip surgery stage of Murray’s career were both perfect examples.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
After all the madness I walked home into the night. I didn’t regret staying at all.
And while we’re on the topic of clichés, I’ll finish with one more.
Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.
Appendix
Cover photo adapted from Francisco Diez, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
.jpeg){kind=link}
Maximum ranking points per match won
Still here? The tournament that offers the most ranking points per match played is the tour finals. If a player wins all of their matches at the tour finals (5) they’ll earn 1500 ranking points, for a rate of 300 per match. If they win all of their matches at a grand slam (7) they’ll earn 2000 points, for a rate of 285.7. However, to qualify for the tour finals a player needs to be ranked in the top 7 or have won a slam and be ranked in the top 20 (being ranked 8 is enough if there are no slam winners in that 9 to 20 range).
A round robin match at the tour finals is worth 200 points so in theory a player could win one round robin match and lose the other two (two other players in the group would need to do the same) and then win the semi and final to earn 1100 ranking points for just three matches won (rate of 366.7). Technically, a player “only” has to win one slam to qualify for the tour finals. 2000 ranking points is normally right around the 20 mark in the rankings. So there is an incredibly remote scenario where a player turns up at one grand slam, wins it, sneaks into the top 20 and qualifies for the tour finals. From there, they win one group stage match but their sets/games won rate helps them get through to the semis where they go on to win the whole thing. That would give them a year-end points total of 3100 for just 10 matches won, or a rate of 310 points per match. We could add in walk-overs but I think that would be taking it too far…
The highest rate a player could get where they don’t have to rely on luck or the performance of others would be winning two grand slams and winning all five matches at the tour finals for a total points haul of 5500 with 19 matches won. This would give a rate of 289.5. Given the requirements for players to play 500 series and masters events, where the best case points per win rates are 100–200, Djokovic averaging 200 points per match won over the course of a whole season is incredible.