Not even Jo-Wilfried Tsonga could believe what he saw on Tuesday as his French Open 2013 quarterfinal matchup against Roger Federer finished in a straight sets victory for the Frenchman.
It wasn’t like Tsonga didn’t believe in himself.
It was simply that at this Grand Slam, against one of the true greats in the sport, he didn’t think he would be the one to knock out the former champion. He certainly didn’t think he’d be able to do it in straight sets, and as comfortable as he did.
“It’s extraordinary to be here and to have won,” said Tsonga afterwards (per BBC Sport). “I never dreamt of this moment.
“Today was my moment against a champion who has won everything.”
Yet as remarkable and as shocking as the win was, it was one that many have been indicating wasn’t that far away. After all, the 17-time Grand Slam champion is now into his 30s and showed earlier in the year at the Australian Open that he simply isn’t the lock to make the final that he once was.
Of the Big Four, it was his career that seemed most in jeopardy.
And so, the question must be asked as to whether we’ve seen the end of the Big Four in men’s tennis. Is Federer’s loss further proof that he can’t be considered one of the true elites of the sport or is it just another blip in an otherwise prolific career?
That, it seems, still remains to be seen, but if one is to lean one way or another on the matter, you’d have to think that the “glory days” of the top four seeds making it through to the semifinals are slowly starting to come to a halt.
Novak Djokovic (age 26) and Rafael Nadal (age 27) are without doubt the top two players in the game. They are elite, and their performances throughout their seemingly long careers so far prove that to be the case. But as for another other players who can be considered at the same level as them?
There simply isn’t any.
Andy Murray is close but inconsistent. It’s not about falling at the final hurdle in Grand Slams; it’s simply about the fact that he hasn’t proven himself to be a consistent Grand Slam champion like Djokovic or Nadal.
The likes of Juan Martin Del Potro, David Ferrer, Tomas Berdych and Tsonga are all threatening too, but they aren’t elite. They all have the skill to topple the world’s best (as we’ve seen throughout the year) but they aren’t there yet. And if the Djokovic-Nadal duopoly continues in men’s tennis, they may never get there.
And so that leaves us with Federer.
A true legend of the game who, with disappointing losses in every single tournament he’s entered this year, is struggling to maintain his hold on hegemonic status. And with every Grand Slam tournament that ends without a winners trophy (now just one Grand Slam win in last 40 months), that slip becomes more and more exaggerated.
It’s not that he isn’t brilliant anymore. It’s not that his form has dropped or that his talents are no longer world-class. All of those are still true and if anyone tries to suggest otherwise, then they need to sit down and watch the tape all over again.
Federer is world-class, and always will be, but he’s not Djokovic or Nadal. And given that he’s on the wrong side of 30, he never will be.
The Big Three made for compelling viewing while it lasted. The Big Four – once Murray finally won through at a Grand Slam event – was greater still. The Big Two now, will likely do exactly the same, but it will certainly take some getting used to.
Especially for Roger Federer fans.
Rory O'Donovan
Guest
I guess that it's not only about the stats. A lot of people would rate Federer at his best higher than the others because they have seen them all play with their own eyes. Honestly some of the "statistical" arguments that get floated around here to prove one or the other is greater are full of holes at best, and sometimes verge on the ridiculous. You can stack it up any way you want - if you aren't going to take wins in the big 4 majors as the prime indicator then the stats are never going to decide it. I'd like people to back up their arguments with other reasons than pure stats. Prove that they know more about the sport than what they can glean from wikipedia.
Johnno
Guest
parts of wimbledon only when it was raining, not the whole tournament. Like the OZ open , when it rains the roof goes on.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Federer's the best indoor player of all time The lack of wind and uneven bounce allows him to unload his stroke making with gay abandon. On an indoor court, Federer takes time away from Nadal
clipper
Guest
Wimbledon was played indoors last year, so I would assume a few people took notice of that
mushi
Roar Guru
Logic has no place here
Johnno
Guest
a lot of fed's wins over Nadal are in indoor's that cheapen's the stats even more. On outdoor hardcore Nadal lead's 6-2. Federer leads 4-0 indoors, but no one takes notice of indoor's.
Steele
Guest
Okay, to prove my argument that Novak and Nadal are better players than The Fed, once they realized their potential, read as follows - 2011 is clearly the time that Novak came of age and since then is leading Federer 7 wins to 3. Since 2007 Nadal leads Federer 12 wins to 4. Overall records have Novak trailing by 3 wins and Nadal dominating by 10. Murray also leads Federer by 2 wins and he is only just playing his best tennis now. This post isn't meant to denigrate a great champion in Federer, it is just an eye opener to his many fans who think he's the greatest, simply by looking at his total number of slams. My point is, the guy with the best career may not even be the best player of his generation.
Johnno
Guest
Federer in his time rivals Marcelo Rios was he that good he was overrated Guillermo Coria Juan Carlos Ferrero Nalbandian Scud Marat Safin Davedinko Lleyton Andy rodik Juan Carlos Ferrero Nalbandian Nadal has had Novak and Murray, and a little bit Del Potro
Lancey5times
Guest
I don't think Lleyton is given the wraps he deserves. Incredibly complete player and the best measure is always who the other guys don't want to play. This was Lleyton. His legacy will preserve nicely and we'll later truely recognize how good he was
Johnno
Guest
Safin had the talent but he was hardly consistent like Novak and Murray.
clipper
Guest
I agree - the way he demolished Sampras at the US open final and bet Federer at his peak in the AO semi final is testament to his talent.
clipper
Guest
Yes, Johnno - Leconte or Guy Forget would be closer, but Mecir was far more talented, unfortunately he was hampered by a chronic back condition. If you watch any of his matches you will see that he almost had the ball on a string and used to torment many players, particularity some Swedes like Willander. Kafelnikov actually won 2 slams, so I would say at present I would rate him higher. Davedenko, of course, was caught among the big three and never got past a slam SF, but did win one year end title. Michael Stich was a versatile player, but a bit eratic and boasts a positive head to head over Sampras, so at the moment I would give him the nod over Tsonga
Frankie Hughes
Guest
It's mainly the British media hyping up Murray as member of the 'Big 4' Considering Federer is 31/32 and at the twilight of his majestic career, if Murray wasn't ranked ahead then something would be wrong. In all honesty Murray being ranked 2, is due to Nadal being injured over the last year and Federer's career slowing down. Winning 1 of 6 major finals hardly is the sign of a top player. Del Potro has a major whys he not part of the Djokovic, Nadal and Federer group?
cliffclavin
Guest
thank you Frankie - i have been whinging to my wife about this for some time now - not least in the past couple of weeks - that the big forur is a myth. There has been a top two for 7-8 years - added to my Djokovic in recent years to make it a big three - but to win only one slam (and lose a number of finals) means that you need to include Hewitt who has won Two slams and lost 2-3 finals as well. Including Murray in the Big Four is like including England among the great football nations!! my wife can now rest!
Kane
Guest
You speak of how Federer had the advantage over the other three when he was in his prime before they came of age but you fail to mention that they now have the advantage over him as they are in their prime and he is past it? Goes both ways buddy.
Frankie Hughes
Guest
Marat Safin was not as good as Nadal and Djokovic? Behave Safin came from a rich family and didn't take his career as seriously as his talent deserved. Safin should've won at least 6-8 Majors
Johnno
Guest
Agreed. Blokes like Marat, A Rod,Hewitt,Davidenko, Scud are not in the same league as Nadal,Novak, and Murray.
Steele
Guest
This might cause some conjecture, but i believe Federer to be an inferior player to Novak and Nadal. He is older than those two, therefore got a lot of slams against lesser likes. Then when they came along he had an initial advantage over them due to being in his prime. Also Novak took longer to reach his potential and Federer simply never gets injured. Nadal has a winning record against all three of the big four and is my favorite sportsman due to his humbleness and his tenacity, however I think if everyone played at their best then Novak would win. Basically Novak has the ability to play at a level never seen before. We are pretty lucky to have had such a good era. Poor old Murray probably would of been more successful in another time but still has a bright future. I think Wimbledon is still viable for the Fed, just as long as he doesn't face his old foe Nadal(Federer is his bitch!).
lachjohnston
Roar Rookie
As we currently stand, all four grand slams are held by one of the 'Big 4', so I'm not sure it is done with yet. It would be reasonable to expect that each player in the group would consistently reach the semi-finals of the grand slams, though the odd exit before then is understandable. The fact that Federer has missed the semis in two of the last three slams suggests he is indeed in most danger of dropping out of the group. In the past year 12-and-a-half months though, Murray (French Open 2012) and Nadal (Wimbledon 2012) have also played tournaments where they have missed the semis. So while I don't think Federer is out of the 4 yet, a pre-semi final exit at Wimbledon would see him holding no grand-slams, with an Australian Open semi-final his best result in four slams. If this were the case I think his standing in the group would be in question then.
Johnno
Guest
Good point mastermind, it was a hot day 2 the Fed VS Murray Olympic final, so that final set may have taken it out of him. In saying that though Fed has played marathon matches in grand slams and backed up 2 days later and won his next match and even 3 or 4 times in a GS and won the title , enduring big long draining matches. Maybe he just had an off day. The Olympic gold Fed wanted it as much as Murray for different reasons. Fed has never won a singles gold just a double's , so the 1 title missing from his cabinet he would genuinely want, and Murray wanted a home gold. But the motivation was equal.