Novak Djokovic is not the greatest player of all time. He has been ludicrously anointed this acronym on the back of the Australian Open title, by the same pop journalists who proclaimed Nadal the GOAT after his 2013 season. The GOAT tag isn’t a sombrero which is lobbed between mates on holiday, one day worn by Nadal and the next Djokovic and then Federer again if he wins in Rio.

Let’s address some issues brought up recently regards to Novak Djokovic being the GOAT. People are claiming Roger Federer played in a weak era. Claiming that Roger Federer won his Slams in a “weak era”, therefore neglecting them is, completely wrong. Tennis writers who peddle this argument are similar to science teacher who believe that electrons are arranged in shells of eight. They simply need to do more reading.

David Ferrer is the perfect control variable for this. Born just eight months apart, Ferrer is still going strong deep into his career like Federer. Let’s have a look in which era Ferrer blossomed in. Out of the last 16 Slams, Ferrer has played, he has managed quarters or better in 12 of them. With this in mind surely Ferrer could impose himself on “the weak era”. Well no; between 2004-2007 he made two quarters or better in the 16 Slams. Or maybe, in fact, that era wasn’t as awful after all. surely Ferrer was throwing his weight around, bunting through these less skilled players. No. One semifinal and one quarterfinal.

An article written in the Metro, a national English newspaper, backed up claims that Djokovic was the GOAT, saying he had just played the best season ever. The lack of knowledge is just laughable. Tennis writers peddling this view resembles a historian who hasn’t bothered to study beyond the last 30 years or tennis history. Rod Laver won the career Grand Slam twice in his career, once as an amateur in 1962 and then repeated the feat as a professional. And yet you say that Djokovic played the best season ever despite failing in his main ambition, the French Open.

Another claim, that Djokovic has turned the head-to-head positive against Federer, isn’t fair. Federer is still playing tennis at 34. It is testament to the Swiss that the head-to-head has turned negative. He keeps playing Djokovic in semifinals or finals of events at the age of 34. If Djokovic was better in his early years he would have played Federer a lot more, but instead he didn’t give the opportunity. He tended to retire or lose meekly before facing Federer and Nadal. French Open 2005 Djokovic retired saying, “my legs had turned to rock”; he abandoned a match with Nadal at Wimbledon due to a “toe blister”; dizziness prevented Djokovic from defending his Aussie open crown in 2009.

Djokovic’s brand of tennis is another reason why he can’t be considered the GOAT. Djokovic’s tennis resembles a bug free, no achilles heel, “Boss” who you have to beat at the end of a Playstation classic game. Federer, on the other hand, represents the hero, spanning the tennis genres, playing serve and volley at the beginning of his career before retreating to the baseline before re-introducing old school tennis late in his career. Federer has defined tennis, he practically has invented two shots, the squash shot forehand and his famous SABR–and his style influences the younger breed who are throwing in more net charges after a few Federer clinics.

Sportswriters are sucked in by the present. And why not, I suppose? It is their job to build up the latest sporting event but placing a survey in a national newspaper asking who is the Greatest Player of All Time and having the 4 options as “Djokovic, Federer, Nadal and Other” sums up the flawed transcendent power of the present. Even more so when Rafael Nadal gains just 4% of the vote and Djokovic gains 64%. Give the sport 40 years and Djokovic and Nadal will be categorised under the other option.

By Harry and Tom Dry