To be or not to be has always being the question to ask when a player captures the imagination of fans. Wild surmises are then usually made, these in turn are tempered by more conservative views, which in turn are themselves discredited by the very same wild surmises—and the cycle goes on and on.
Often, the true significance of a player is only seen when something memorable is achieved (i.e. the breaking of a record, the near-defeat/defeat of a prominent player or the changing of a rule to an exception).
Believed by most tennis observers to be—in some capacity—true, was the belief that no one could beat a fully fit Rafael Nadal on clay. Whether this was true or not was beside the point—the main idea was that for Rafael Nadal to lose on clay, a whole lot more than the opponent just turning up it was required.
And this brings me to the subject of Novak Djokovic and his ascent to the top.
Had it been any other player—barring Djokovic or possibly Juan Martin Del Potro—who defeated Nadal in Sunday's final at the Madrid Masters, it's quite likely that nothing would have been made of it. All would've put down to a bad day or a hampering of some sort. Since it was Djokovic who defeated Nadal, this brings to the forefront a significance which I'm questioning.
Is Djokovic The Real McCoy or just a random guy on a streak that anyone can replicate?