What does Novak need to have had a better career than Federer?

As Novak won his 15th slam, he moved into 3rd place in slams won and is now chasing history, with probably 2 or 3 more years at or near the top of the game. As it stands, he’s behind Roger on most key stats but he’s starting to really close in on some of them:

Slams

Federer - 20
Djokovic - 15

Masters

Federer - 27
Djokovic - 32

Total Titles

Federer - 99
Djokovic - 73

WTF/OG

Federer - 6
Djokovic - 5

YE1

Federer - 5
Djokovic - 5

Weeks at number 1

Federer - 310
Djokovic - 236

Realistically, a lot will be judged on whether he can get the slam record, which will be very challenging. I also doubt he’ll pass Fed on total titles but all the rest looks potentially under threat?

Another FO would be a big step - it would make him the only man to have won all 4 slams at least twice in the open era.
If he got that and reached 18 slams, he would probably just shade it.
Unless Fed wins the FO this year, of course

That looks kind of impressive from Djokovic - be interesting to compare with Nadal. But in terms of WTF, YE1 thats kind of impressive. I was thinking that Federer might want to start focusing on beating Jimmy Connors tournament wins ... but I see that Djokovic is not too far away from that either. The Weeks at number 1 record will fall to Djokovic if he stays at number 1 for the next 17 months. Djokovic will be number one for some time given he holds three grand slams. But I suppose most people focus on the slams won and there is still a fairly big difference in that. The big question as ever is how long will Djokovics body hold up.

A second FO this year would also give him a second NCYGS, which would put him level with Laver as the only player to have held all four slams at the same time twice. Forgot to mention that in my original post.

Not sure Lavers grand slam has the weight as Djokovic's NCYGS - three grass surfaces & a clay surface with hardly anyone from outside Australia playing the Australian Open.

Just to compare with Fed at circa the same age, in early 2013, Fed had:

17 slams (+2 to Novak)
21 Masters (-11 to Novak)
76 titles (+3 to Novak)
302 weeks at number 1 (+66 weeks to Novak)

For all his longevity, Fed hasn’t won a WTF or been YE1 in that timeframe, so his 6 wins and 5 YE1 respectively are as they were when he was Novak’s age.

No name Bertie wrote:Not sure Lavers grand slam has the weight as Djokovic's NCYGS - three grass surfaces & a clay surface with hardly anyone from outside Australia playing the Australian Open.

No-one has ever done it before or since in the professional or amateur game. Laver did it twice.

All these guys we're talking about - Djoko, Fed, Laver et al - are great players and it is to Nole's credit that anyone is talking about him in the same breath as legends of the game such as Laver.

   The time to assess Djoko's place in the pantheon of the gods (not sure that phrase quite works, but what the hell) is when he retires. In the meantime, he's already established as ONE of the great names of the sport.

Are we all assuming, then, that Federer has no big ones (ie, Slams or at the very least a YEC) left in him? Because that could yet be a factor in whether or not Djokovic can level or even surpass him in a couple of key categories.

You never rule Federer out completely, but personally I don't see him bagging another Slam. I think 2017-18 was a mini fairy tale for him; for the previous three years or so he'd still been playing at a high level, good enough to be the 'best of the rest'. It was just that he couldn't find a way past Djokovic when it really mattered. Wimbledon '14 and '15, US Open '15, Australian Open '16 etc. With Djokovic having an eighteen month lull with injury and motivation issues, and similar problems plaguing Murray (plus, out of the blue, suddenly finding a way to beat Nadal consistently) it made sense that Federer would be the beneficiary of all this, and he helped himself beautifully with those three quick Slams and a return to the top of the rankings.

But I just can't see a way for him to beat an in-form Djokovic at a Slam, so if Novak is back at his best for the next year or so, that's curtains for Roger.

I said the other day that if Djokovic were to win at Roland Garros in June, and if he did so by conquering a fit Nadal, I'd probably put him at number one all-time. That said, I can accept that for some people, a gap of four Slams would still be too much for some to countenance him going ahead of Roger. I think if Djokovic dominates for the next year or so he'll add 2-3 Slams, and without doing the maths right now that would take him past Roger in terms of year-end number one rankings and pretty close in terms of total weeks at the top. I think something like eighteen Slams, 6 year-end finishes in top spot, 250+ weeks at number one and winning head-to-head records (I can't see these being reversed at this stage) against Nadal and Federer would be enough, considering the era he's done it in.

Chris you make a fair point about Federer's 'resurgence', in that really it is debatable whether it was one of any kind as he was the no2 in the world prior to his layoff. if Djokovic was fit during 2017 I'm sure we'd have seen some scintillating matches between those two.

I've a feeling Federer has one more big slam in him. If his level was really poor I'd be worried but I thought it was more Tsistipas was outstanding in that match. I know he's 37 but he's also one of the most talented sportspeople in history so these things balance out imo.

I suppose it will be interesting if Novak ends up objectively more successful than Fed if he will become the undisputed GOAT. I think he probably will surpass 20 unless the elbow concerns resurface and/or someone like Tsitsipas just explodes onto the scene. For me, Federer has played in a way we have arguably never seen before and won't see again for a very long time. As astonishingly brilliant as Djokovic is, and I actually can appreciate his style, my feeling is there will be another player of his ilk eventually. Still, I'll leave that up for everyone else to decide.

Realistically Djokovic can never be regarded to have a better career than Federer, his stats are too dependent on slower courts suiting his style of play and the fact for more most of his career his bored most fans to death alongside Nadal.

A CYGS, especially if it involved a final at the French Open against an in-form Rafa, could get the job done this year.

Otherwise you need the total slam numbers.

Let's not give on Federer either. A lot of people wrote him off in 2013 and the talk on this very forum prior to 2017 was that Federer would do well to get one more slam.

I think he is totally in the mix at Wimbledon this year. Rafa hasn't gone deep there in most recent years, Novak is a problem for him there but it's plausible on grass that Novak might not reach the final, or even that Federer could beat him. I think a poor showing at Wimbledon and the Federer is finished argument looks better. I think it's too early to call. After so many years maintaining his level reasonably high, its too soon to call it.

Just checked the bookies odds. Federer is at 20% chance to win Wimbledon this year; Djokovic is the favourite.

Can we just clarify that neither Djokovic nor Federer come close to Rafael Nadal when considering the best on clay.   I am just not convinced of the idea that to be "the GOAT" requires Djokovic (nor for that matter Federer) beating a prime Nadal in the final at Roland Garros.  Rafael Nadal is no longer in his prime - is carrying a whole load of chronic age and impact related conditions.  

Djokovic has developed his clay court game so that in both the latter stages of Djokovic and Nadal's career - they are much more evenly matched on clay.  But overall clay is Nadal's bread and butter - he knows how to get through tournaments and win finals.  For Djokovic it has always been more of an effort.

No name Bertie wrote:Can we just clarify that neither Djokovic nor Federer come close to Rafael Nadal when considering the best on clay.

True - that is clear from the career results, in the same way Rafa can't come close to either of them on hard or grass.

The discussion about clay prompts me to say that in 2011 - an incredible year for Djoko - the Serb managed to outperform an in-his-prime Rafa on Rafa's favourite surface.

It still annoys me that the pair did not meet in the RG final that year as I think Djoko would have won. It is equally galling that Rog and Rafa have never met at the USO.

Any discussion about individual greatness could well include that 43-match run in 2011 by Djoko during which he constantly beat the others of the Big Four - as well as everyone else.

Should this be subsumed into the Goat Debate Sticky?