I think the whole Djokovic situation is pretty fascinating. I know someone whose former housemate is a tennis writer and he apparently says that the feeling around the circuit is that Djokovic's drop off has been there for all to see, in that the work rate and committment clearly fell away in the past year or two. There's absolutely no shame in that, obviously, as when you're one of, it not the most dominant champion of recent times, it must be extraordinarily hard to maintain that, particularly as he seems very family-focussed, which doesn't often lend itself to being at the top of an individual sport. When you see him now he looks perpetually tired and, just as importantly, burned out mentally, IMO. Whatever that extra 3-4% was, whether it was mental or physical, he just seems to have lost it at the moment.
I think he will come through this and win more majors, but equally, I don't think it's impossible that he might now become just another top 4 or 5 player, rattling around the latter stages of majors but just coming up short most of the time. Last year I thought he had a really good chance of breaking the record. That looks pretty far away right now. He'll be 30 by the time of the French Open. Is it likely that we'll see a 30+ player win 6 majors? For example, Federer is, if you judge on the numbers alone, the best player of all time and a player who has aged pretty well, at least in terms of consistently competing and his last win was in 2012 when he was about to turn 31. Logically, you'd think that Djokovic is unlikely to maintain his previous level of dominance, so 3 slams a year would be a huge ask. That'd mean he'd need to win an average of 2 a year - half of the available slams - for the next 3 years. Or if he was nicking the odd one a year, occasionally two, you're looking at him still needing to be winning slams in 4-5 years. That's a steep slope to climb.
The thing in his favour is that there really aren't that many top players around at the moment. Murray is obviously flying, but after that you have Raonic, Wawrinka and Nishikori, all of whom can win tournaments, but also have pretty obvious weaknesses. Then you're down to Monfils, Cilic, Thiem, Nadal and Berdych, who, while dangerous on their day, are an even more flawed group for varying reasons. After that, Goffin, Tsonga, Kyrgios, Batistuta Agut, Dimitrov and Pouille don't exactly strike you at this moment in time as potential slam winners in the near future. Maybe in a couple of years we'll see that bunch start to feature, but right now I wouldn't like to put money on anyone outside of Murray, Djokovic or Wawrinka. Raonic will likely win one sooner or later, but when I watch him I'm never convinced he could beat someone like Murray or Djokovic, for example, with any sort of consistency, if he was playing really well. If he was fit and in reasonable form, I'd still give a 35 year old Federer every chance of taking him out, for example.
I reckon the whole Djokovic issues speaks to how impressive Nadal and Federer were to have been able to stay on the top of that wave for so long. Longevity usually isn't factored into a player's greatness in tennis - unlike football where it seems to have a massive bearing on the impression people have of players - but it is one of those things that's really underappreciated, IMO, as that sort of consistency, both in terms of desire and performance, is beyond the vast, vast majority of sportspeople.
Also, the record will be broken at some stage, I'm sure, but right now it's really difficult to see a player coming through who might be the next double digit slam winner. It might be that we'll all be arsing around on the Caf in in 40-50 years time, wondering whether we'll ever see a player break the record, or maybe even come close.