Men's Tennis: Does Novak Djokovic Have It in Him to Become a GOAT?

This is a question that has emerged as increasingly realistic: Is Novak Djokovic, 2011's star player by a long mile, a potential all-time great?

Clearly, the facts have been laid bare by what has been a stellar first three months on the calendar season: 26 straight victories, no defeats and four titles—the Australian Open, of course, being the highlight.

It would strike most people as odd that Djokovic isn't being described quite as convincingly as quite simply the best player at the moment. There is always that intangible hesitation that accompanies the challenge raised by anyone in this Federer-Nadal era.

Alas, there is, after all, someone still ahead of Djokovic in the rankings.

Does the Serb, however, have what it takes to carve a place in history for himself? This may be a silly question—every tennis player carves some history for themselves, its just some who carve such huge bits people forget about everyone else.

Who remembers nowadays your Carlos Moyas or Yevgeny Kafelnikovs? More appropriately, why bother?

Its the grand slams, naturally.

Moya and Kafelnikov are even only vaguely known because they won grand slams (Moya one, Kafelnikov two), and Djokovic, so far, has done just that. It takes much more than just two flawless runs to make real history, however.

Just ask Mr. Federer or Nadal—they would know, of all people, what it really takes to build a fine tennis mansion.

You have to go double digits in certain things: Masters Series shields, single surface streaks (well he has certainly done that this year) and ultimately, grand slam victories.

Nadal himself is still in the works—one away, in regards to the latter. Djokovic, certainly has shown in the last few months that he has the capability, but what he hasn't shown so far, at least in GOAT proportions, is a fair share of consistency.

Indeed, for all his recent success, it is somewhat belated. He had surged on the scene in 2007, after all, making him a fair veteran in the top five, where he has been ensconced since. He has made four finals and only won two, along with four semifinals, at grand slam level.

Great stats, no doubt, but no quite yet GOAT stats.

Let's get this straight: Djokovic is a tremendous player, who has done absolutely everything right in the last three months to so much as earn a place in this very discussion. He has won his matches, and, fortuitously, had to beat, five times, Federer and Nadal in doing so.

Were Federer and Nadal out of the equation, we would be singing the sycophantic praises of a player who has, in all honesty, a 2011 so far which would rival the first quarters of Federer's in the years 2004-2006.

It is only because of the spectres that are Federer and Nadal, that Djokovic's success has relegated to that of an aberrant, anomalous run in the midst of the great era of Fedal.

Almost like a stubborn fire is the greatness and aura of Federer and Nadal—you can try all you can, but it would take a hell of an effort to quell it.

Nonetheless, Djokovic's achievement is unique. There have been patches like his—David Nalbandian's in late 2007 is memorable, for instance, in back to back victories over Fedal—but none so sustained as the Serb's.

It's not as if he is new, however; Serbian standards have been embattled at the gates for years and for them to make a surge so sudden is probably something more sinister than anomalous.

Djokovic has found a new wind - whether it will hold yet for the next six months is still very much in question, but its answer will likely definitively shape the face of men's tennis for the next few years. 2011 is poised to become more than just a marking in the annals - it could well be an annus mirabilis in men's tennis, and certainly for Novak Djokovic.

There are caveats, however. On a technical level, there just seems something lacking in Djokovic's game, or tennis make-up, that would question is potential GOATness. All-time greats, we have learned, seem to be born as such, and live slowly unfolding, glorious destinies.

We didn't know much about Federer or Nadal, and the Olympian careers they would enjoy, in the early 2000s (save perhaps, in Federer's case, for the odd prophetic comment by John McEnroe, as at a certain match with Sampras at Wimbledon 2001).

As it happens so often, we never know greatness until it has hit us.

Still, there are aspects of 'greatness' which define a player, long before they fulfill their destinies. Sampras had that killer serve, McEnroe that verve for the volley, Federer that forehand, and Nadal that heterodoxy.

Djokovic just seems somewhat ordinary—no one talks, for example, about 'that glorious forehand' or 'that marvellous backhand'.

Of course, he is an impeccably well-rounded player, who directs his groundstrokes just aggressively enough that he has fallen out of the Andy Murray trap: having all the shots, but none that win big time.

Maybe we can qualify it as a new form of consistency; an all-roundedness so complete that it blurs out all the weaknesses, without emphasising any of its weapons.

Is Djokovic really at the point of surpassing Federer and Nadal? One would highly question that presumption.

It is a form of consistency that has gotten him to this point this year so far, and certainly a winning sort of consistency. By all counts, we can safely conclude, at least, that Djokovic would probably make it into the board of all-time greats; two grand slams are more than enough.

Whether he has it in him to translate this current winning consistency into a three-of-the-four-slams-a-year kind of consistency, however, is still to be seen.