I find tribalism around favorite sports teams and players to be irritating and even immature. That said, it is interesting how one cannot help but have a favorite player. Mine is, as tented pointed out, Roger Federer. I have other players I like and keep track of, but none that I care about--or enjoy watching--as much as Roger. Yet Roger is 32 and won't be around forever, so for me the question is: who is next? I think I could go there with Grigor Dimitrov as I like his similarly smooth style of play, but I'm not ready to invest yet until I'm convinced he'll at least be a top 10 player and Masters contender. So Grigor might end up in that category of "players you like, but aren't that great."
In a way I think everyone has a favorite great - one of the Big Four - and then other players they like. But there are few tennis fans, I would imagine, that aren't invested in one of the Big Four. In other words, its really rare (I'm guessing) to run into a fan who just loves David Ferrer above and beyond anyone else. I'm sure there are some, but the drop-off in "primary fandom" but plummet after the Big Four.
As for Novak, Kieran, while I understand what you're getting at by using the term "Third Wheel" as far as popularity goes, its inaccurate in terms of dominance in the game, at least over the last three years. If you take 2011-13 as a whole, Novak has been the best overall player. Consider year-end rankings:
Djokovic: 1, 1, 2
Nadal: 2, 4, 1
Federer: 3, 2, 5?
Murray: 4, 3, 3
Consider Slam wins:
Djokovic: 5
Nadal: 4
Murray: 2
Federer: 1
Even though Rafa has had the best year in 2013, Novak's overall consistency has been remarkable. Compare the Big Four's Slam results this year:
Djokovic: W, F, SF, F
Nadal: A, W, 1R, W
Federer: SF, QF, 2R, 4R
Murray: F, A, W, QF
I'd say that Novak's overall Slam results this year edge Nadal's, but Nadal's five Masters crowns give him the edge in year-to-date points. Novak has also played in 10 of the last 13 Finals. That's a Federer-esque streak.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Novak never win more than one Slam per year again, but he's probably going to keep on doing it for a few more and, I would guess, finishes with somewhere in the 9-12 range, 9 being very conservative.
In a way it may be that Novak has become the Ivan Lendl of the current era. While Lendl finished four years at #1, it seemed like he was usually the 2nd best player. During the early 80s he played second fiddle to McEnroe. Then when it seemed like Lendl was taking over as the dominant player in the game, his dominance was marred by his inability to win the most prestigious tournament of all.
Lendl was ranked #1-3 nine years in a row, and #8 or better for 13 years straight. He was always there, holding his own against three generations of great players--Connors/Borg/McEnroe, Becker/Edberg/Wilander, and Sampras/Agassi/Courier--yet he remains the only 6+ Slam winner with a losing record in Slams. In the end, Lendl was the best overall player of the 1980s.
Novak is 6-6 in Slam Finals, and 1-4 in his last five. I really wouldn't be surprised to see him finish his career something like 10-12. No shame in that - it simply means that most of the time he wasn't the very best player in any given tournament. Even in 2012, which Novak finished the year as #1, Rafa had re-asserted himself early on, and then Roger took over. Novak simply was, day in and day out, as good or almost as good as anyone else, but only in 2011 was he clearly the best player in the game.
Among all-time greats, there seem to be two general career trajectories: 1) Players who flash brightly for a short period of time, then fall quickly and/or retire, and 2) Players with tremendous longevity who maintain a high level of player for a decade or more, but don't necessarily have a high peak of more than a year or so in which they clearly dominate the game.
Some examples of the two types:
1) Borg, Wilander, McEnroe, Courier
2) Connors, Vilas, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Agassi, Djokovic? Murray?
Even the less-than-greats end up having one or the other of the two types of career. Lleyton Hewitt, for instance, was more in the 1st category, while Tommy Haas is more in the second.
Three names are conspicuously absent: Sampras, Federer, and Nadal. All three seem to be in both categories, especially Roger - which is one of the reasons why they (and he) are considered among the very best ever.
laydownlaughing:clap
