It was bound to happen eventually and now he has finally got it.
Novak Djokovic deservedly won the French Open on Sunday as he achieved the ‘career grand slam’. He defeated British hope Andy Murray in four sets (3-6, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4) to confirm his status as one of the greatest athletes in the modern era.
His achievement makes him just the fifth man in the history of the sport to complete such a feat, as he joined the likes of Rod Laver and Andre Agassi, as well as current legends Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, to have won all majors.
Now a winner of 12 grand slam events including six Australian Open crowns, Djokovic is without doubt among tennis’ elite.
But today I pose the question – is he on track to leave a greater legacy on the sport than Roger and Rafa?
In other words, when he retires, will Novak overtake Rafa and Roger as the second greatest tennis player of all time behind Rod ‘Rocket’ Laver?
Regrettably I like many other so-called sport gurus of today’s world never got the chance to see the great Rod Laver in action.
Though from all reports, archives and opinions he and Roy Emerson without doubt ruled the tennis world through the 60s.
Rocket all up won 11 grand slam titles, but achieved something no one else has done in the history of the sport – the calendar year grand slam, in 1962 and 1969.
It’s a widely debated topic – but in my opinion, due to his sheer number of titles (200), long-lasting win/loss record and legacy that he left on the sport through the professional circuit and tournaments such as the Davis Cup, I rate Rocket as the GOAT.
But onto the real topic of conversation – Djokovic versus the modern greats of Nadal and Federer.
Stats would suggest that Federer and Nadal are still on top – but clearly Djokovic is quickly catching up on them.
Admittedly, Federer still has five more grand slams than the Serb (with 17 majors), while Rafa sits just three in front due largely to his dominance at Roland Garros since 2005.
Yet since 2010, the superiority that Roger possessed (and then eventually he and Rafa possessed) over the sport has diminished significantly.
We all know the brilliance of Djokovic since the beginning of the decade as well as the plague of injuries that have hit both champions – hindering their chances at winning successive grand slam titles.
It’s crazy to think that Novak has won 11 majors since 2010 to Federers two, while five of Rafa’s eight majors since 2010, have come at RG.
Subsequently Novak has shown his ability to win on all surfaces – but it’s not just Grand Slams where the champ has left a legacy.
Djokovic possesses a win-loss record of 83 per cent as it currently stands (730 wins to 149 losses). This type of ratio defies belief and sits just above Federer’s long-lasting record of 81 per cent (1070 wins to 242 losses).
In terms of career titles, Federer has 23 more, yet his time is beginning to run out. Nadal will eventually be overtaken by Djokovic in terms of career titles, as he leads currently by just four.
Davis Cup is another really interesting point of comparison between the three champions. Djokovic and Federer both hold one cup each, while Nadal has been instrumental in all four of Spain’s Davis Cup titles since 2004.
But when talking about the best the discussion should go beyond just stats. Times change and different influences can impact the success of a career whether it be the competition around a player, injuries, personal difficulties or changes it support team.
All three of these champions have had golden eras in which the sport will remember them.
In essence, Roger Federer took control of tennis through the mid 2000s, as the gap between him and the rest of the field grew particularly in 2006 and 2007. There are a few tournaments that particularly stick out in my mind.
The 2007 Australian Open was just a master class as Roger went through the entirety of the tournament without losing a set. He became the first man to not drop a set in a grand slam tournament since Bjorn Borg in 1980. Challenged by the rise of Nadal that he could never beat on clay, Roger still managed win Wimbledon six times in seven years, including epic wins in the final of 2007 against Nadal and 2009 against Roddick.
Nadal has left a legacy as the most dominant clay-courter we have ever seen, not just at Roland Garros, but Monte Carlo and Barcelona as well. Arguably the best patch of his career came in 2008-2009, where he won the French (2008), Wimbledon (2008) and the Australian Open (2009) to announce himself as a serious player on all surfaces.
His dominance at the French has remained, yet his weaknesses particularly on hard court and grass have been revealed by not only the modern greats, but veterans of the circuit as well, shown by his surprisingly early exits from grand slams in the last few years.
Yet despite the legacy’s of these incredible players – Novak Djokovic has been able to create a mighty career for himself.
In an era where tennis looked up to the might of Rafa and Roger, Djokovic has been able to be dominant in the presence of tennis royalty.
After winning his first title in 2008, Djokovic would struggle until 2011, which can only be called an incredible year in his tennis career. Titles at the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open as well as five ATP Masters titles and a rise to World No. 1, Djokovic announced himself as a potential great.
Since then we have seen the Djoker challenged and tested time and time again.
Andy Murray has been in terrific from since his first title in 2012, always around the mark, giving himself a chance right at the pointy end of grand slams.
Yet the fact of the matter is that Novak has continually got the better of him when it’s really mattered.
Apart from the 2012 US Open and Wimbledon 2013, Djokovic has beaten Murray in every other Grand Slam final, leading that ledger 5-2.
As well as Murray (and Rafa at RG), Stan Wawrinka has posed as a threat to Novak beating him at the Australian Open (2014) and the French Open (2015).
Yet once again Djokovic’s response to this challenger has been formidable. Since that loss at the French in 2015, he hasn’t lost at Grand Slam level.
I think it’s time to acknowledge that we are in the presence of one of the best, the sport has ever seen.
It’s concerning that Djokovic is only 29 and that he still has lots of tennis left in him. It looks inevitable that he will go past Rafa in career GS and it looks like he will get close to Roger as well.
I’ve called Rocket the GOAT and I will stick to that claim.
But I think we have a close second who is on the verge of something very, very special – the calendar grand slam.
Will Taylor
Roar Guru
well said Bill!
Rory
Guest
Style is absolutely critical in the GOAT debate, if there has to be one. Stats can never tell the whole story, it's impossible to compare even in the same era due to players peaking at different times. Tennis can be a beautiful game, Federer plays it that way, that's a big part of it.
Rory
Guest
I've a feeling Novak only took over Federer on H2H when Federer was already well into his 30's. Obviously at the beginning Novak was quite young. These things don't mean much as cold stats. You need to understand what's behind them. For example, Federer at 34 can still beat Djokovic, claimed here as the "GOAT" and at the peak of his powers, over 3 sets. Nadal-Fed head to head is different again, with Nadal very dominant, but there also more to that than numbers. In the end, head to head will not tell the story. Decades from now, when the stats all look pretty much the same from that distance, it will be something else that matters.
Bill Cord
Guest
Actually, Rosewald was really successful against Laver in Laver's first year on the pro tour and after 1970, when both were past their prime. Laver posted a 80-64 record against Rosewald that included a 7-4 in pro and amateur slams. When Laver won his pro calendar slam, in 1967, he defeated Rosewald in two of the finals.
Bill Cord
Guest
Laver won more pro grand slams (8) than anyone along with over 100 pro tournament wins. The pro tour in the 1960s featured the eight top players in tennis. This was a major factor in Roy Emerson winning 12 amateur slams because he made the decision not to turn pro to avoid facing Laver and Rosewald on a weekly basis.
Bill Cord
Guest
Federer won two slams after age 29.
steve
Guest
Only six of feds slams have come against the rest of the big four, all but one of djokovic's has, what Djokovic is facing now is similar to what Federer faced when he piled on the slams.
Bill Cord
Guest
This article could have been written about Federer, in 2009. At that time Federer had a much better resume than Djokovic and yet he only won two slams after 2009. Djokovic is somewhat better off because he does have not a Nadal or Djokovic nipping at his heels, which means he will probably reach 15-17 slam wins. Djolovic's main problem is age and he will probably win that 15-17 slam around his 31-32 years of age and he will be slowed by age enough that winning slams will not be automatic. His best bet is too win the remaining slams this year and win at least two, in 2017. That would give a real chance to tie or pass Federer before he turns 32 and turns into a pumpkin. Despite how Djokovic finishes his career, Laver is still the GOAT based on what was mentioned in the article plus the fact he won a third pro calendar slam, in 1967, along with eight pro slams between 1965-67, which really gives him 19 total slams.
Johnno
Guest
He beat fed an aged 31 Fed to get gold. But only 2-3 weeks before, Fed dusted Murray off to win wimbeldon final, so my answer to that is big deal, as Fed was beating Murray at aged 31.
duecer
Guest
Becker and Edberg definitely, Jim Courier maybe at his best, Thomas Muster was really just a clay court specialist, Kafelnikov won two but didn't get close in the other two. Becker and Edberg were really late 80's players, the other players worked out Jim Courier who could never get back to his best. Gasquet isn't a good example as he's never been in a GS final or higher than 7th - Berdych, Raonic or Tsonga would easily be as good or better than Martin or Forget.
steve
Guest
Hewwit maybe, the other two hardley, Murray took down Fed for his gold and Nole for his wimby in straight sets and has a better match winning percentage than those three having played in the era of possibly the 3 best players ever, Murray is overrated in some ways and underrated in others.
Lancey5times
Guest
No need to get aggressive Jack (if that is your real name), Fed won I think 7 GS titles after the age of 29 (Novak's age now) and is still in the top 3 players in the world at the age of 35. Who's to say Novak won't do the same? You would be a brave man to bet against it. You may turn out to be correct but to assume he will start losing just because he has had or win continue to celebrate birthdays I don't believe is a call that can be substantiated either by history or likelihood given current level of play. The Boris comparison is very odd. The guy is 50 years old!
Johnno
Guest
duecer not great players etc Becker/Edberg/Jim Courier/Thomas Muster/Kefelnikov were all better or equal to Andy Murray, plus Agassi/Sampras, it was just as strong if not better than right now for depth at the top. And Todd Martin/Guy Forget is better than Richard Gasquet types.
Johnno
Guest
Hewitt Safin Roddick are as good as Murray Steve. You overrate Murray.
steve
Guest
But when you compare the guys fed beat to the fact that novak had to beat nadal, fed and murray for his slams does make that group look pretty average.
duecer
Guest
The 90's may have had variety, but it did not have a list of truly great players, so I would disagree with your assessment. Agassi went missing for awhile, so would've been more of a rival for Sampras. If your assessment was correct then there would be a couple of players like Murray who is now 2 wins for 8 losses in grand slam finals, because the top players over the last decade have been superior to those of the 90's.
Scott
Guest
Jack, you say by no definition can Novak be ahead of Federer, yet who currently has the head to head lead? Is it Roger? What about Nadal? Who had the head to head lead. Novak, has the lead on both. In the end, this will tell the story, not who has the most majors.
Johnno
Guest
Fed aged 22, beating Mark Phillipousous(aged 27 and Scud was fit) who was awesome on grass, was no an easy slam win for Fed(and the added pressure of it being his first slam win). Fed had no easy slam wins. Safin/Roddick/Hewitt/Scud/Agassi/Baghdatis(when he was good and he was a fighter), were not easy slam wins. Maybe Soderling was an easy one or Fernando Gonzalez but that's about it. He beat Andy Murray when he was a senior player. He pinched one easy slam of a 20 year old Djokovic and a young 21 yr old Nadal(who had won 3 french by 21 at wimbledon in 2007(Nadal still took him to 5). So by my watch 4 easy slam wins, and it's very debatable whether beating 21 yr old Rafa in 2007 could be counted as an easy slam win, as he had already won 3 Gslams at Rolland Garros. He beat Murray in 2012 at Wimbledon, a tough win to get.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Can't really compare eras - Laver's was grass and pro/amatuer messy, it's too different now to compare. The 90's had too much variety for one man to dominate which puts Pete's 14 slams as more impressive than 14 now in my opinion. Federer had some easy slam wins early on but now Djoker too is benefiting from a weary Federer and Nadal. They are all amazing players and you can compare stats all day and skew them to your preference so any of them could be the goat really. For me, it's fed still, not just because of his numbers, but because of the way he played, some people don't appreciate that and like to stick to numbers but that counts for me, it takes the game to another level.
Coy to yer ploy
Guest
"Federer still has five more grand slams than the Serb (with 17 majors), while Rafa sits just three in front due largely to his dominance at Roland Garros since 2005." Nope, Nadal sits just TWO in front.