How many slams to be considered "a great"?

First topic message reminder :

On a tedious commute today, I was pondering at what point a player goes from being merely successful to being considered one of "the greats".

If their careers ended tomorrow, Federer and Nadal will be seen as all-time greats. I think Djokovic though would be seen just as very good.

As my tennis thoughts often have a Djokovic slant, I wondered what more he needs to do be considered great. More slams is the obvious answer but how many more? One more would see him reach 6, which would equal Becker and Edberg. I think both of those players are seen as greats, so would 6 be enough?

Also, what are the other intangibles? Mats Wilanders for instance won more slams than Becker or Edberg (7) but doesn't seem to have the same level as public sentiment. John Mcenroe also won 7 yet seems to have a much larger repuation and standing in the game than that number would suggest.

So what do you all think it takes to be a great? My personal judgement would be 8 slams makes it definite. If the number is less than that, then the player has a to have a special story or charisma.

You have a point HM - well, several in fact

I must protest though at Fed and Nadal being more ahead in female desirability stakes - I am sure they are both as butch as they need be

HM Murdoch wrote:I suspect both he and Rafa are ahead of Novak in the female desirability stakes though.

I think that they are probably both gay icons of a sort too.

The real advantage they have over Djokovic is longevity in the public consciousness coupled with a rivalry cemented by two hugely memorable 5-set Wimbledon Finals which show-cased a contrast of styles (the parallel with Borg/Mcenroe is uncanny). Djoko's Aus Open 2008 went under the radar and he had to wait until 2011 before he really arrived - that's an 8 year head start for Federer and a 6 year head start for Nadal. In the public eye he's probably a bit of a Lendl to their Mac/Borg.