What more does Rafa have to do?

[blablavla]

I am not sure what you are looking for but Marcelo Rios never won a GS and still became No. 1. The biggest tournament he ever won was Indian Wells.

Also Becker won Wimbledon, US Open and Paris Bercy in 1989, reached the semis in RG and the WTF final yet never became No. 1 that year while Lendl finished 1st.

sure, let's take 2 outliers, and based on 2 outliers thrash the system.
for a moment, 31 years passed since 1989
US, the biggest democracy as it presents itself to the world, had chosen a president who got less votes than the opponent, and for some weird reason they didn't thrash their system, but ATP shall do so

now, on Lendl 1989.
It's so convenient to ignore that Lendl won AO in 1989, had some other solid results, including winning Key Biscayne, that had a main draw of 128 players, where Lendl ranked as #1 had to play the R1 (R128).
In the Sunshine double these days, the seeded players skip R1. Lendl had to play.
Then Lendl reached the final of Wimbledon and USO.
Beside AO and Key Biscayne, he won Scottsdale, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney 2, Stockholm,
Lendl finished the year with 10 titles.
so, perhaps he wasn't a journeyman.
and perhaps this was one of the reasons to change the points distribution, where GS and Masters 1000 count heavier as opposed to 500 and 250 events, don't you think so?

so, what is the relevance of 1989 in the context of discussing performance of Fededer, Nadal and Djokovic? I don't know.
please help.

so the only huge exception is Rios, who got to #1 with 1 GS final in the context of past 52 weeks, but winning 3 M1000 events and some smaller events.
so, based on this you want to thrash the entire ranking system?
dude, go chech some of the GS draws, all of the Big 3 had some draws that are considered 250 event level on this board.

if something, there would be much more evidence that it is much more likely to win a GS tournament with a lucky draw, then getting to #1 because of weak results.

 

[Xemi666]

Hilarious to see the usual suspects acting as if Nadal is equivalent to a Murray or Wawrinka instead of a 20 majors winner. He just needs 1 more slam than the 2nd dude with most slams, that's about it. So he needs 21 for now, though that number will undoubtedly increase since Djokovic is certainly not done winning slams, and maybe even Federer will win more.

 

[DSH]

sure, let's take 2 outliers, and based on 2 outliers thrash the system.
for a moment, 31 years passed since 1989
US, the biggest democracy as it presents itself to the world, had chosen a president who got less votes than the opponent, and for some weird reason they didn't thrash their system, but ATP shall do so

now, on Lendl 1989.
It's so convenient to ignore that Lendl won AO in 1989, had some other solid results, including winning Key Biscayne, that had a main draw of 128 players, where Lendl ranked as #1 had to play the R1 (R128).
In the Sunshine double these days, the seeded players skip R1. Lendl had to play.
Then Lendl reached the final of Wimbledon and USO.
Beside AO and Key Biscayne, he won Scottsdale, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney 2, Stockholm,
Lendl finished the year with 10 titles.
so, perhaps he wasn't a journeyman.
and perhaps this was one of the reasons to change the points distribution, where GS and Masters 1000 count heavier as opposed to 500 and 250 events, don't you think so?

so, what is the relevance of 1989 in the context of discussing performance of Fededer, Nadal and Djokovic? I don't know.
please help.

so the only huge exception is Rios, who got to #1 with 1 GS final in the context of past 52 weeks, but winning 3 M1000 events and some smaller events.
so, based on this you want to thrash the entire ranking system?
dude, go chech some of the GS draws, all of the Big 3 had some draws that are considered 250 event level on this board.

if something, there would be much more evidence that it is much more likely to win a GS tournament with a lucky draw, then getting to #1 because of weak results.

Lendl lost to Becker at Wimbledon 1989 in the semifinals in 5 sets.
Beware of bad data!

 

[blablavla]

Lendl lost to Becker at Wimbledon 1989 in the semifinals in 5 sets.
Beware of bad data!

you are correct, thanks.
it is same on ATP web page, it was me reading in hurry.

 

[Thetouch]

sure, let's take 2 outliers, and based on 2 outliers thrash the system.
for a moment, 31 years passed since 1989
US, the biggest democracy as it presents itself to the world, had chosen a president who got less votes than the opponent, and for some weird reason they didn't thrash their system, but ATP shall do so

now, on Lendl 1989.
It's so convenient to ignore that Lendl won AO in 1989, had some other solid results, including winning Key Biscayne, that had a main draw of 128 players, where Lendl ranked as #1 had to play the R1 (R128).
In the Sunshine double these days, the seeded players skip R1. Lendl had to play.
Then Lendl reached the final of Wimbledon and USO.
Beside AO and Key Biscayne, he won Scottsdale, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney 2, Stockholm,
Lendl finished the year with 10 titles.
so, perhaps he wasn't a journeyman.
and perhaps this was one of the reasons to change the points distribution, where GS and Masters 1000 count heavier as opposed to 500 and 250 events, don't you think so?

so, what is the relevance of 1989 in the context of discussing performance of Fededer, Nadal and Djokovic? I don't know.
please help.

so the only huge exception is Rios, who got to #1 with 1 GS final in the context of past 52 weeks, but winning 3 M1000 events and some smaller events.
so, based on this you want to thrash the entire ranking system?
dude, go chech some of the GS draws, all of the Big 3 had some draws that are considered 250 event level on this board.

if something, there would be much more evidence that it is much more likely to win a GS tournament with a lucky draw, then getting to #1 because of weak results.

I didn't trash the system, I was just trying to show its flaws. I said Becker never became No.1 for a single week that year depite winning WB and the US Open, I never said that he should have finised 1st in the rankings by the end of the year. Austrian Thomas Muster for instance became No. 1 in early 1996 despite not winning any title since October of 1995 and obviously he also didn't win any Slam in that period.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

US, the biggest democracy as it presents itself to the world, had chosen a president who got less votes than the opponent, and for some weird reason they didn't thrash their system, but ATP shall do so

The US is a representative republic.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Nadal can win the AO playing right handed on a unicycle, and Fed fans will still claim that he actually has 8 slams and clay doesn’t count.

 

[BackhandDTL]

Pretty unique angle but it makes sense to me! Vamos

actually I have proven just this week that Roland Garros is likely the most important title in tennis.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/there-is-a-good-argument-to-be-made-that-roland-garros-is-the-most-important-tennis-major.681895/#post-14733243

 

[octogon]

Nadal can win the AO playing right handed on a unicycle, and Fed fans will still claim that he actually has 8 slams and clay doesn’t count.

He "only has 8 slams". Still too one-dimensional. Clay skew!!!!Clay skew!!!

LOL!

Once some people have latched onto a narrative, it's hard for them to let go of, no matter how increasingly dumb that narrative starts to look. Rafa could have 10 slams off clay, and these jokers would still complain that he has too many Roland Garros titles.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Well, ask the ITF what they think. They have listed it as an achievement in the roll of honour. Page 60 in the link.

TSOM? Such things is exactly what is not a thing. No association have credited him for that.

https://www.itftennis.com/en/about-us/governance/rules-and-regulations/?type=constitution

It definitely deserves to be there. Holding all four majors simultaneously is an extraordinaey achievement. I think they wanted to create a record of it, because it should be recognised rather than only holding out for calendar year grand slams which are impossibly rare historically.

 

[Lew II]

He should dominate the full season.

Most consecutive weeks at #1:

Federer 237
Connors 160
Lendl 157
Djokovic 122
Sampras 102
Connors 84
Sampras 82
Lendl 80
Hewitt 75
McEnroe 58
Nadal 56

 

[Jonas78]

You're an awesome guy Machan! Same here, B'order' was awesome! But I find it difficult to believe a tennis player can take down someone who specifically builds his physique for movies.

@sureshs @blablavla @Sudacafan @stringertom @Raul_SJ @RaulRamirez @octobrina10 @Backspin1183 @JoelDali @Genious at Work @Azure @Lleytonstation @DSH @clayqueen @Beckerserve @vernonbc @beast of mallorca @MichaelNadal @topher @weakera @StrongRule and anyone else reading this ... don't bring your bias here but honest opinion please. Look at the picture of Sunny that I posted a few posts back. Aditya thinks Rafa can take Sunny down in a physical fight. What do you guys think?

Sunny should go for the knees!!

 

[Deleted member 744633]

Sunny should go for the knees!!

LOL, brilliant!

 

[blablavla]

He should dominate the full season.

Most consecutive weeks at #1:

Federer 237
Connors 160
Lendl 157
Djokovic 122
Sampras 102
Connors 84
Sampras 82
Lendl 80
Hewitt 75
McEnroe 58
Nadal 56

@Lew II in case if you were not aware, one year has 52 weeks and one tennis season has less than that.
So 56 consecutive weeks at #1 says that Nadal was at the top for longer than 1 full season.

You can troll better than this.

 

[undecided]

sure, let's take 2 outliers, and based on 2 outliers thrash the system.
for a moment, 31 years passed since 1989
US, the biggest democracy as it presents itself to the world, had chosen a president who got less votes than the opponent, and for some weird reason they didn't thrash their system, but ATP shall do so

now, on Lendl 1989.
It's so convenient to ignore that Lendl won AO in 1989, had some other solid results, including winning Key Biscayne, that had a main draw of 128 players, where Lendl ranked as #1 had to play the R1 (R128).
In the Sunshine double these days, the seeded players skip R1. Lendl had to play.
Then Lendl reached the final of Wimbledon and USO.
Beside AO and Key Biscayne, he won Scottsdale, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney 2, Stockholm,
Lendl finished the year with 10 titles.
so, perhaps he wasn't a journeyman.
and perhaps this was one of the reasons to change the points distribution, where GS and Masters 1000 count heavier as opposed to 500 and 250 events, don't you think so?

so, what is the relevance of 1989 in the context of discussing performance of Fededer, Nadal and Djokovic? I don't know.
please help.

so the only huge exception is Rios, who got to #1 with 1 GS final in the context of past 52 weeks, but winning 3 M1000 events and some smaller events.
so, based on this you want to thrash the entire ranking system?
dude, go chech some of the GS draws, all of the Big 3 had some draws that are considered 250 event level on this board.

if something, there would be much more evidence that it is much more likely to win a GS tournament with a lucky draw, then getting to #1 because of weak results.

Sorry, dude, US is a republic. There is a difference and it is signigicant.

 

[blablavla]

The US is a representative republic.

Sorry, dude, US is a republic. There is a difference and it is signigicant.

do you kids even know how the president is being elected in the US?
ever heard of the Bush vs Gore case?

kidos, go learn something before presenting yourself as a clowns.

 

[kevaninho]

The big 3 all have different resumes pretty much. There will always be a case for each to be the GOAT.

But with Federer probably almost done adding weeks at #1, or slams, its really on the other 2 to see what they can still add before its all over.

Djokovic , right now, would have a great claim, if he can go ahead in the slam department. He already has WTF, weeks at #1, Masters , H2H all going for him, and will probably finish outright on top of all these.

Nadal, on the other hand is missing weeks at #1 ( I don't think he needs the record here. Just a bit more ),
WTF ( Again I don't think he NEEDS this, but it would be nice to add it to the list and im sure he wants it ),
and finally IMO, another slam at either Wimbledon or AO.

But me personally, id be happy if he even won 1 more RG title, and finished with the slam record, as at least then, he is in the conversation.

 

[BackhandDTL]

If Ned wins 3 more AO, 5 more Wimbledon’s, another 4 us opens, and donates 3 FOs away (too much skew, look bad)....10 looks better, then he’s in contention for GOAT.

but even then Fred has WTF, Halle, and Dubai, so Ned probably in total needs 15 more Slems, all off of clay. If he wins it on clay it doesn’t count.

 

[JoshuaPim]

The difficulty in the measurement relates to the strength of opposition. Winning x number of Slams is not necessarily greater than winning 20% less Slams, if the opposition is 20% worse. Of course fans of each player will say their generation was tougher, but this is a subjective opinion which can be discounted. It is difficult to work out an objective calibration though. And, given the size of the tennis world, one may imagine that each generation will balance out statistically depth-wise. This however is not an exact science, as proven by the existence of the 3 most numerically successful players within a generation-and-a-half.

 

[undecided]

do you kids even know how the president is being elected in the US?
ever heard of the Bush vs Gore case?

kidos, go learn something before presenting yourself as a clowns.

Kids? Hmm. Someone wants the popular vote to become a thing in the US.

 

[blablavla]

Kids? Hmm. Someone wants the popular vote to become a thing in the US.

you'd better spend your effort on educating all those who whined about Trump winning over Hilary.
did Trump get the majority of votes?
as far as I remember, many were surprised how one candidate can win the elections by having less votes.

but, enough with this political de-tour.

point is, ATP ranking in its history had less cases of #1 players that had weak results.
Beyond Rios, there is probably no other notable exception.
Although, Rios won 3 M1000 titles en-route to #1, so if that is weak, then we might be in a never ending debate here.

And ATP adjusted the ranking system continuously, to the point where I am not sure that in 2021 one could seriously aspire to become #1 without winning GS tournaments.

On the other side, if we look at the GS titles, there will be enough evidence among the Big 3, that 1 individual GS title can be won with a relatively weak draw.
And that GS won vs a relatively weak draw might actually result in taking #1 ranking position, but not the other way around.

This is why #1 ranking is more difficult to achieve and hold than winning GS.
This is why the weeks at #1 shouldn't be dismissed.

 

[B-Line]

20 Slams
Olympics singles gold
Fed H2H 24-16

He needs to:

Win one more AO thus winning each Slam at least twice which Fed and Djokovic has not been able to do
Make the H2H against Djokovic better which is currently 27-29

Definitely my GOAT. As he'll prob win another 3 majors. Fantastic player. 13 French Opens? Incredible.

 

[GabeT]

do you kids even know how the president is being elected in the US?
ever heard of the Bush vs Gore case?

kidos, go learn something before presenting yourself as a clowns.

of all the weird debates in US politics the one about “democracy” vs “republic” is the weirdest. It boils down to people on the right insisting on using the words democracy and republic in ways they haven‘t been used for hundreds of years. There was a time when “democracy” meant direct democracy and “republic“ meant indirect democracy or representative democracy. But that‘s no longer the case. You can read more here: http://volokh.com/2013/10/28/democracy-republic-mutually-exclusive-terms/


sorry for the politics side story. But I think there is something in that debate that echoes a lot of debates at TTW, where the debate is really about definitions

 

[blablavla]

of all the weird debates in US politics the one about “democracy” vs “republic” is the weirdest. It boils down to people on the right insisting on using the words democracy and republic in ways they haven‘t been used for hundreds of years. There was a time when “democracy” meant direct democracy and “republic“ meant indirect democracy or representative democracy. But that‘s no longer the case. You can read more here: http://volokh.com/2013/10/28/democracy-republic-mutually-exclusive-terms/


sorry for the politics side story. But I think there is something in that debate that echoes a lot of debates at TTW, where the debate is really about definitions

it doesn't really mater if you try to joggle the terms.
US "sells" itself to the world as the biggest democracy, yet they have two presidents that recently were elected in spite of the fact that majority of voters voted another candidate. The system stands.
ATP had as well a few cases of "weak", of course relatively weak #1, and based on this we should trash the ATP ranking? give me a break.
Beside, after all updates, I'd like to see a #1 that can get there without winning a GS.
But we have seen some really weak GS draws.
So, anyone who trashes the weeks at #1, shall as well trash the GS count, cause it is statistically easier to win a "weak" GS as opposed to becoming a "weak" #1
that is if anyone has the guts to say that #1 can be weak or GS winner had a cupcake draw.

 

[Chanwan]

Cure cancer

 

[GuyForget]

err, where do we start ...
Beat Djoks anywhere other than clay
Beat Feds anywhere other than clay
Win a YE
Win any slam away from clay + actually beat somebody good (ok Medevev was on fire in Autumn 19 but as I recall Nadal wasn't v convincing + v lucky to win)

but it's cloud cuckoo land that any of these will happen

 

[Beckerserve]

err, where do we start ...
Beat Djoks anywhere other than clay
Beat Feds anywhere other than clay
Win a YE
Win any slam away from clay + actually beat somebody good (ok Medevev was on fire in Autumn 19 but as I recall Nadal wasn't v convincing + v lucky to win)

but it's cloud cuckoo land that any of these will happen

That is just salty. Nadal owns Federer h2h on clay and outdoor hard. 24-16 the overall h2h and 10-4 majors. He owns Djokovic 10-6 at Majors . Outside Australia it is 10-4 Nadal.
Nadal is GOAT as it stands clearly. The clue is how the media are now trying to say GOAT talk doesnt matter. That is because they know by their metrics Nadal is GOAT.

 

[DSH]

1 more AO title (DCGS).
1 more Wimbledon title (TSS).
1 more US Open title (MTOE)
1 WTF title (CSS)
At least 250 weeks as number 1.
100 titles.

That will do it!

 

[Druss]

What Rafa lacks to be considered GOAT besides 0 WTF/YEC and not enough AOs and Wmbledons, is weeks at No1. He spent way too many weeks as the bridesmaid to Federer first, then to Djokovic. I think he has the OE record for weeks at No2 no? How can he be considered the greatest when he spent more time as second fiddle to his 2 greatest rivals?

 

[aldeayeah]

err, where do we start ...
Beat Djoks anywhere other than clay
Beat Feds anywhere other than clay
Win a YE
Win any slam away from clay + actually beat somebody good (ok Medevev was on fire in Autumn 19 but as I recall Nadal wasn't v convincing + v lucky to win)

but it's cloud cuckoo land that any of these will happen

I mean, all of that actually happened (except the YE thing), back when Nadal was in his actual prime.

You do honor to your username.

 

[aldeayeah]

What Rafa lacks to be considered GOAT besides 0 WTF/YEC and not enough AOs and Wmbledons, is weeks at No1. He spent way too many weeks as the bridesmaid to Federer first, then to Djokovic. I think he has the OE record for weeks at No2 no? How can he be considered the greatest when he spent more time as second fiddle to his 2 greatest rivals?

I mean, dominance is a nice thing, but so is longevity.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

The YEC and a lack of indoor titles is a glaring omission indeed , for someone with an otherwise stellar resume.

He just won RG under the roof

 

[Subway Tennis]

Hilarious to see the usual suspects acting as if Nadal is equivalent to a Murray or Wawrinka instead of a 20 majors winner. He just needs 1 more slam than the 2nd dude with most slams, that's about it. So he needs 21 for now, though that number will undoubtedly increase since Djokovic is certainly not done winning slams, and maybe even Federer will win more.

How many do you think Djokovic can still win? I feel he is winning at LEAST 3 more, but I'm interested to see whether the dynamic against Rafa has changed after the RG final.

 

[socallefty]

Nadal has to finish his career with at least 2 more slams than Djokovic and one more Slam than Federer. Combined with his two Olympic gold medals in singles and pretty decent H-H record against both of them, this should be enough for him to make the strongest case for being the GOAT.

Djokovic will likely have the weeks at #1 record, Masters/WTF titles and H-H dominance against him and so, Nadal needs at least two more Slams than him - he already has the two Olympic golds over him also assuming that Djokovic does not win in Tokyo next year.

Federer will not have any record better than him except weeks at #1 and a weaker H-H - so, Nadal has to best him by only one more Slam.

 

[beast of mallorca]

1 more AO title (DCGS).
1 more Wimbledon title (TSS).
1 more US Open title (MTOE)
1 WTF title (CSS)
At least 250 weeks as number 1.
100 titles.

That will do it!

What do TSS, CSS, MTOE mean ?

 

[Daniel Andrade]

He should dominate the full season.

Most consecutive weeks at #1:

Federer 237
Connors 160
Lendl 157
Djokovic 122
Sampras 102
Connors 84
Sampras 82
Lendl 80
Hewitt 75
McEnroe 58
Nadal 56

For me it doesn't matter. If you win all your titles on a single year or in different years as long as you still have more than your competition, for me it's irrelevant. It comes in a third tier after some other variables to consider, IMO.

 

[terribleIVAN]

Rafa needs full spectrum dominance.

Which means he might try invading India or Bengladesh next year.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Rafa has to invent warp speed rockets in order to become appreciated by his haters.

No less than that.

 

[itrium84]

He is one slam away from being easily disputed GOAT.
He is 2 slams away from being disputed GOAT.
He is 50-100 no1weeks away + 2 slams away from being undisputed GOAT.

 

[BackhandDTL]

How many do you think Djokovic can still win? I feel he is winning at LEAST 3 more, but I'm interested to see whether the dynamic against Rafa has changed after the RG final.

it does a little. Novak still the favorite off of clay, but with a new multisurface strategy and Nadal gaining back some of the mental edge, but I think Nadal has a good chance. Not like before, where from 2014-2019 you think he loses before the match begins off of clay.

 

[Fiero425]

1 more AO title (DCGS).
1 more Wimbledon title (TSS).
1 more US Open title (MTOE)
1 WTF title (CSS)
At least 250 weeks as number 1.
100 titles.

That will do it!

And we know it's just about unattainable! Sorry! Times run out on so many accomplishments Fedovic have multiple wins like YEC's and AO! The weeks at #1 is telling; Nadal couldn't hold it for any significant time in comparison to other greats of the game! How can he be the GOAT; giving his dispensation for court surface and injury? Sorry, he's been given enough grace IMO for someone that supposed to be so resilient and tough!

 

[DSH]

And we know it's just about unattainable! Sorry! Times run out on so many accomplishments Fedovic have multiple wins like YEC's and AO! The weeks at #1 is telling; Nadal couldn't hold it for any significant time in comparison to other greats of the game! How can he be the GOAT; giving his dispensation for court surface and injury? Sorry, he's been given enough grace IMO for someone that supposed to be so resilient and tough!

3 more years and we can talk quietly about this.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

For me : One more Wimbly or Aus Open.
One more US open.
1 wtf.
and 1 or 2 Masters 1000 to make sure to hold #1 some more weeks.
Do that and I will consider you GOAT, not before.

 

[The_Order]

What's do TSS, CSS, MTOE mean ?

TSS = Triple surface slam
CSS = Career surface slam (although I wouldn't be calling WTF anywhere near a slam)
MTOE = Most Titles Open Era

 

[Subway Tennis]

it does a little. Novak still the favorite off of clay, but with a new multisurface strategy and Nadal gaining back some of the mental edge, but I think Nadal has a good chance. Not like before, where from 2014-2019 you think he loses before the match begins off of clay.

How many more majors for Novak at your estimation?

 

[BackhandDTL]

How many more majors for Novak at your estimation?

I’d say he gets 3 more. Winning majors on HC won’t be as easy now with Thiem, Meddy, and Tsitsipas imo. Sinner is no mental pushover, and the guys really talented. In a year you can probably add him to the mix.

Grass court idk who’s stopping Novak though. Nadal maybe. He really surprised me with his aggressive style in HC-like conditions, which is promising.

 

[Subway Tennis]

I’d say he gets 3 more. Winning majors on HC won’t be as easy now with Thiem, Meddy, and Tsitsipas imo. Sinner is no mental pushover, and the guys really talented. In a year you can probably add him to the mix.

Grass court idk who’s stopping Novak though. Nadal maybe. He really surprised me with his aggressive style in HC-like conditions, which is promising.

3 more is the same number i keep coming back to. i think the days of him being able to take 3 majors in a single season are past him, but i still think Novak is dangerous enough to take two majors in a season (ie AO/Wimbledon double or reeling off Wimbledon/USO back to back) or 3 majors over the course of 3 seasons.

As you mentioned, there are significant threats to him on most surfaces, and maybe a rejuvenated Federer or Nadal bridge the disparity on grass.

AO should answer a lot of questions....

 

[USO]

He needs to enter the Vienna tournament, otherwise he can't be GOAT.

 

[Lebsta]

If he can achieve the following

1 -2 AO
1 Wimbledon
Even out or lead the h2h against Djokovic
Remain ahead of Fed & Novak in the slams when all 3 retire

This will be enough to pretty much make him undisputed GOAT

 

[Lebsta]

From a Federer fan perspective, I'll have to be really honest here - the person he's trying to hold off is not Federer, it's actually Djokovic (a lot of Fedheads are gonna want me dead for saying this but the more I look at it, the more it looks like this is going to be the case going forward).


With Nadal, Rafa can say he holds the edge over Fed in Masters, Olympics, H2H, win %, beating Fedovic to win 14/20 slams, similar longevity, winning multiple slams on each surface, and that he got the better of Fed at every major they've played at. It's also worth noting that Fed is essentially a middle-aged man now............so Rafa will obviously have a lot more chances at winning more slams and getting his 6th YEN1, while Novak on the other hand is younger than him.

With Djokovic, all those arguments go out the door so it's a MUST for him to stay ahead of the Serb in the slams category

Agreed, the real threat is Djokovic and that's one of the biggest reasons by Fedal fans have become more unified in the last couple of years