IT WAS the obvious question to ask at the start of the post-tournament press conference: “Does this match mean that tennis officially now has a ‘Big Five’”? Novak Djokovic, the world’s top-ranked male player, was a clear favourite to beat Stan Wawrinka in the final of the US Open singles on September 11th. Betting markets gave the Serb a 73% chance of winning, as he had done in 19 of their 24 prior meetings. And after securing a one-set lead, Mr Djokovic looked certain to collect a 13th grand-slam title. He does not lose after taking the first set on the hard courts of Flushing Meadows—or at least, he had not done so on the 48 previous occasions.

But after falling behind, Mr Wawrinka produced three hours of outstanding tennis, hit 37 winners to Mr Djokovic’s 23, and won three straight sets to vanquish his opponent. Mr Djokovic is perhaps the greatest returner in the history of the sport, yet was played off the court. He entered the match as the fresher competitor, requiring just nine hours of game time to reach the final, while his Swiss counterpart toiled in 18. But by the end of the match, it was the Serb who was hobbling between shots.

Although Mr Wawrinka’s victory was unlikely, it was far from unprecedented. This was his third major title, drawing him level with Andy Murray—one of the “Big Four” of men’s tennis, along with Mr Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. After Mr Murray won Wimbledon in July, we argued that his consistency in Grand Slams, in which he has reached 11 finals, might have made him as successful as Boris Becker or John McEnroe in another era. And two years ago, when Mr Wawrinka won his first major at the age of 28, we wrote that the dominance of the Big Four was yet to end. What, then, does this make the ageing three-time champion: a thwarted all-time great, or a mere supporting act?

Unlike Mr Murray, Mr Wawrinka’s overall record suggests that he is a very strong player, but not a superlative one. Throughout his career, he has won approximately two and a half matches per major tournament (see chart). That is significantly fewer than Messrs Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray, each of whom has an average greater than four. By this metric, the Swiss veteran belongs in the same bracket as Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer—all older than 30, and with no major titles between them.

Head-to-head records also indicate that Mr Wawrinka is closer to this trio of old-timers than to the Big Four. He has won 22 of 37 fixtures against the former (59%); but just 18 of 80 against the latter (23%). Seven of those have come against Mr Murray, from 16 attempts. Even after triumphing over Mr Djokovic, Mr Wawrinka is the first to admit where he remains in the pecking order. “The Big Four, I’m really far from them,” he said. “Just look at the tournaments they have won, how many years they’ve been there.”

Nonetheless, Mr Wawrinka does stand out when it comes to big matches in major competitions, where he has so far managed to raise his game. Mr Tsonga, Mr Berdych and Mr Ferrer have identical records at the business end of tournaments: each has reached six semi-finals, but only one final, in which he lost. Mr Wawrinka has reached seven semi-finals, and converted those into three finals—and three titles.

His hitting in those finals has been supreme. The barrage that Mr Djokovic endured on Sunday was not even Mr Wawrinka’s most destructive display: he thundered 57 winners to the Serb’s 28 when beating him in the final of the 2015 French Open, and 51 winners to Mr Nadal’s 20 on the way to winning the 2014 Australian Open. Those differentials, of 29 and 31 winners respectively, have only been surpassed in a final once in the last decade—when Mr Federer thumped 98 to Mr Nadal’s 65 at Wimbledon in 2008, in a five-set classic that is widely regarded as the greatest match ever.

Mr Wawrinka’s “clutch” performances have not been limited to the majors: he has in fact won his last 11 finals across all tournaments. He has become something of a late bloomer, too. He is the oldest men’s singles champion at the US Open in more than four decades, and only the fifth man in the Open era to win multiple titles after his 30th birthday.

Does Mr Wawrinka’s knack for winning when it counts and recent elevation of his game mean that we ought to refer hereafter to the Big Five? Probably not—but not only because of Mr Wawrinka’s comparatively thin résumé. Men’s tennis is no longer ruled by a select few. At 35, Mr Federer continues to rage against the dying of the light, and still regularly reaches the semi-finals. But he has not won a major since 2012. Following a number of injuries, Mr Nadal has failed to progress past the quarter-finals in his last eight appearances. Mr Murray and Mr Djokovic are in their primes, but they are now being challenged by talented youngsters Milos Raonic and Kei Nishikori. Leaving aside Mr Wawrinka, the Big Four is already no more.

As for Mr Wawrinka’s place in tennis history, his three slams will ensure that he is remembered as a genuine contender in a highly competitive field. With assistance from Mr Federer, he has also won an Olympic gold medal and a Davis Cup title for Switzerland. Even if his typical level is that of a merely good player, his best displays have been unstoppable. Mr Djokovic puts it plainly. “He plays best in the big matches”, he told reporters after his defeat. “He definitely deserves to be mentioned in the mix of top players.” With performances like this one, it’s hard to disagree.