http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
This list puts Federer on top with a big margin, 150 points, so it has to be correct for Fed fans. At the bottom of the page you can see how it is produced.
Now let's see how many GOAT points did the top-5 and top-10 have by year, starting in the first year the Big3 won slams.
TOP-5
2003: 145
2004: 155
2005: 157
2006: 163
2007: 172
2008: 177
2009: 189
2010: 177
2011: 201
2012: 206
2013: 191
2014: 175
2015: 209
2016: 181
2017: 146
2018: 159
TOP-10
2003: 192
2004: 205
2005: 206
2006: 206
2007: 215
2008: 219
2009: 235
2010: 219
2011: 238
2012: 250
2013: 231
2014: 231
2015: 251
2016: 224
2017: 196
2018: 212
It's funny how hard it seems you try to put Novak so clearly ahead of Fed from your stats lab.
It isn't that complicated.
There's no overwhelming case that Novak is the player Fed was at his peak. All the weak era arguments are full of speculation as peak to peak is impossible across those generations - as well as the impossible To quantify But significant way players affect each other's development in and across generations. Fed's overwhelming dominance over his generation is just as much an argument for the lack of accomplishment in slams for his generation - as he strangled their hopes as surely as Novak strangled Rafa's last week at the AO rendering him half the player we've seen in slams before. What if Novak arrived in Fed's generation and had to mature at the same time? How would a 23 year old old Novak deal with a 23 year old Fed without the benefit of watching and learning and maturing and being tested via a Fed 6 years ahead of him?
The fact that that it's taken 2 ATG guys from a generation 5-6 years younger to try to lasso Fed down doesn't help your arguments. The fact that they both had several years to watch him crush & demoralize a field that had no warning while they could mature up to the new standard he set, informed by his stature and then allowed to peak while he depletes via age difference (with the exception of Claydal - who was always better there) doesn't help.
Nole couldn't even keep an aging declining Fed off his own peak years, while Fed never lost slams to a geezer like him so significantly in his peak (03-07) years like Novak did. But Fed took him out solid at FO '11, WIMBY '12, bagels him at Cincy in the same year. Not to mention match points @ USO and allowed to win WTF in '11. All this when Novak - at his peak - should be clobbering the Swiss left and right and certainly talking prizes Fed is taking...if Nole is so obviously equal much less his better.
Fed even had the H2H lead at 33 years old. ... Heck, he barley lost to him in Paris a few months ago at 37 and injured.
I think we can see that Novak's certainly not yet made a clear case to be the consistent player Fed is now. With Roger hitting world #1or #2 EVERY year since 2003 up to last year - 16 years in a row! (hopefully for Fed fans - and counting) - when he returned to world #1 at 36 and still finished the year #3 winning his group AGAIN at WTF and giving Zverev an obviously better fight than Novak... at 37. It's too bad they didn't meet in 2017 to first half of 18. While Fed was winning 3 majors Novak couldn't manage even a single SF at a slam that ENTIRE year and a half. Nole was 29-30 years old.
Of course the catch 22 for Fed is that once he was past his peak of a few years he was always going to be at an age-decline disadvantage to Novak's generation. Either they are getting stronger as he gets weaker, or his resources are depleting progressively more rapidly than theirs are - as is the case now. After 2008 that was never going to go anywhere but down for him. So the longer he plays the more he'll naturally he should allow an ATG like Novak to rack up the H2H.
(Too bad Djokovic can't get Laver to enter a wildcard at the AO. He'd rack 'em there too!)
Novak is amazing no doubt. And I'm not contesting he may wind up with more slams or accomplish more amazing feats than Fed when it's all said and done. I think a CYGS is very possible this year considering the weakness of the field.
I'm contesting his obvious superiority over Fed.
It's obviously not obvious.