So why should Djokovic be in the conversation for greatest tennis player of all time?

For starters, we need to shed ourselves of the common notion that simply holding the most Grand Slam titles makes one the greatest, while holding the second most makes one the second greatest, and so on. While Grand Slam titles are still a solid indicator of career success, they’e not the only indicator. Jimmy Connors, for example, only won 8 Grand Slam titles (“only” being a very relative term here), but still holds Open Era records for overall singles titles (109 — still far in first place) and match wins (1254). Perhaps most famously, Ricardo “Pancho” Gonzalez, who played before the Open Era (when professionals were not allowed to play in traditional Grand Slam tournaments) only won 2 Grand Slams before turning professional, but then won an additional 15 Pro Slams while being ranked as the World No. 1 for a mind-boggling eight straight years. While certainly the case for many players before the Open Era, it is often thought that Pancho Gonzalez in particular would have won numerous Grand Slam tournaments had he been allowed to compete, with some estimates as high as 20.

The point being, we cannot say Federer is best, Nadal is the second best, and Djokovic is the third best based solely on their Slam counts (17, 14, and 10 respectively), especially while all three are still active players. There are a myriad of components to look at when considering the greatest, and their potential for future success is a key element of that analysis.

For now, it’s important to note that Novak Djokovic being ranked as the greatest player of all time is not a new concept. Currently, tennis ELO rankings, which factor in games, sets, and matches won against the rankings of a player’s competition to determine the best player at their peak, have Novak Djokovic in 2015 as the greatest player of all time, with Federer in 2007 ranked second.

As you can see, this model is somewhat flawed, as it only seeks to tell us who the best player was at their absolute peak, without looking at their career as a whole. This is why a 2009 Juan Martin Del Potro, for beating Roger Federer in his prime at the US Open, is ranked ahead of Andre Agassi. Del Potro is a great player and US Open Champion, but few will argue that the achievements of his career surpass that of Andre Agassi, arguably the biggest star the sport has ever produced. However, this is just one model, and it currently ranks Djokovic’s game as the greatest of all time right now, in this moment. It’s not the most efficient system, but it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Another important element of this debate is a player’s competition throughout their whole career (not just a specific time in their career, which the model above shows). Andre Agassi, for one, believes Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Noval Djokovic are the three greatest players ever, simply because they have to play each other. However, when taking a close look at their records, this is also the exact reason why I believe Novak Djokovic is absolutely better than Roger Federer.

Before you throw something at me, let me explain…

While I respect the hell out of Federer, and I do consider him to be one of the top 5 players ever, I am of the opinion that his Grand Slam count is bloated and misleading in the GOAT debate (this is usually the moment when a Federer fan throws a chair at me). To understand this at a basic level, let’s look just at records in Grand Slam finals.

Roger Federer — 27 Finals — Record: 17–10

Rafael Nadal — 20 Finals — Record: 14–6

Novak Djokovic: 18 Finals — Record: 10–8

Roger Federer has obviously been to and won the most Grand Slam finals, and that can’t be argued. Nadal has the best win percentage in Grand Slam finals, though this stat is slightly skewed due to Nadal’s overwhelming dominance on clay (9 of his 14 wins are at the French Open, and he’s never lost a final there). Djokovic has the worst win percentage of the three, though you’ll see why in a moment. Let’s take a look at those exact same stats after we remove every other player on tour and compare their finals records just against each other.

Roger Federer — 12 Finals — Record: 3–9

Rafael Nadal — 15 Finals — Record: 10–5

Novak Djokovic: 11 Finals — Record: 6–5

As you can see, things have changed considerably. Nadal still looks dominant, having played in the most finals against the other two opponents, with the most wins and the best win percentage. Djokovic moves down slightly in this model, though he still maintains a winning record against the best players of his era.

As you can see, the player profile that completely changes is that of Roger Federer. Fed’s Slam final count gets reduced by more than half, while his record morphs into a losing scenario that is essentially a blowout. Consider this: All three of his wins against Djokovic or Nadal came before 2008, meaning he has not beat either player in a Grand Slam final in eight seasons. One of the arguments people quickly employ to defend Federer is that he is so much older than Djokovic and Nadal, and those players are beating up on him in the twilight of his career, but Fed’s struggle against them started when he was 26…..

Roger Federer’s Grand Slam count is bloated and misleading, because he won a majority of his trophies in a transitional period in tennis when the competition was weaker. For example, four of his Majors came from wins over Andy Roddick, who, by his own admission, is the worst player to ever hold the World No. 1 ranking. In addition, two more Federer Grand Slam finals were won against players who never achieved a career high ranking greater than World No. 8 — Mark Philippoussis at Wimbledon 2003, and Marcos Baghdatis at Australian Open 2006 (and if anyone says they have heard of either of those players, they’re lying). He defeated Fernando Gonzalez at the 2007 Australian Open, who never achieved a ranking higher than World No. 5, and whose primary accomplishment is winning the silver medal at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. If we include the 2009 US Open against Juan Martin Del Potro, which Federer lost, three of the players he faced in Grand Slam finals literally never made it to another Grand Slam final. His Career Grand Slam is intact only because he played Robin Soderling in the 2009 French Open final while managing to avoid Nadal, who succumbed to an injury-induced upset earlier in the tournament. Even his 2005 US Open title is slightly misleading — He beat Andre Agassi, certainly an all time great, but one who was 35 years old at the time and would retire from tennis by the next year.

I’m not trying to pick on Roger Federer. As is said time and again in all sports, you have to play the opponent in front of you, and Federer did that in dominating fashion for years. It’s not his fault that he came of age during this transitional period, but he did, and the moment his opponents began to approach his talent level, Federer’s dominance slowly dwindled. He has now won only one Grand Slam tournament in the last five years, and has lost his last three finals to Novak Djokovic.