![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/west_coast.png)
Sure, I'll grant the change of ATP points calculations (which I was unaware of).I just found this on Wikipedia
"Prior to 2009, Federer accumulated the most year-end ATP ranking points in any season, with 8,370 points in 2006. Since the introduction of a new point scale for the ATP rankings from 2009, Djokovic achieved the same feat with 16,585 ranking points in 2015 season." - so that change in the point scale may have altered how the points were calculated I'm assuming.
And of course it's a subjective argument from me - I can only go off what I've seen. I don't expect everyone to agree which is what makes sport great. Across every sport there are these debates (NBA - Jordan/Lebron for instance).
Federer's 2006 season (whilst fantastic) is still slightly behind Djokovic's 2015 IMO due to the number of Masters 1000s Djokovic won that year (four vs six).
Regardless I think the objective argument outweighs the subjective. Stastically Djokovic has Federer covered on all relevant lines:
1. Majors - 22 v 20
2. Weeks at No 1 - 374 (and counting) v 310
3. Masters 1000s - 38 v 28
4. No. of Major finals - 33 v 31
5. All Grand Slams - Djokovic - twice, Federer - once
6. Golden Masters - Djokovic - twice, Federer - nil
7. Years End No. 1 - 7 v 5
8. Head-to-head - 27 v 23
9. Career percentage wins - 83.5% v 82%
10. Majors Head-to-head - 11 v 6
Basically all you have going for Federer is overall no. of titles (which is diminished because many of them are the equivalent of 250 or 500 tournaments) as well as most consecutive weeks at no 1 (perhaps a good argument for a weak era, no?).
It is also very reasonable to project that Djokovic will finish with more titles than Federer.
By retirement Djokovic will probably have more total wins at each Major (he is trailing Federer by 13 wins at the Australian Open, 19 wins at Wimbledon and 8 wins at the US Open, he is ahead of Federer at the French) and is already considered better than Federer on the hard courts as well as clay. Grass is arguable depending on how much you rate tournaments like Basel. For me Djokovic's three Wimbledon finals wins over Federer are pretty determinate in that regard. In either event Djokovic is better on two surfaces and arguably as good on the other major surface.
In all, the only argument that may be left to the Federer fan by the end of Djokovic's career, save for the wholly subjective position you are proposing, will be his consecutive weeks at no. 1, which is in no way decisive or particularly compelling. Unless you know of another statistic that I'm not considering?
Last edited: