I wouldn't bank on it. That one year Djoker won both Madrid and Rome in straight sets, but still couldn't take Nadal at the French, and Nadal reclaimed Rome in 2012 and won Roland Garros again. Monte Carlo is simply Nadal's tournament. 8 in a row is ridiculous. Madrid has always been a bit of a question mark for whatever reason. But to gain the title of Clay King, Djoker would have to beat Nadal at least in two of the Masters tourneys and at Roland Garros, and I really don't see that happening.
Three wins to gain the title of clay king? I don't agree entirely...Federer managed to be clay king in 2009 with just one victory over Nadal. Not a representative year, but still, you never know how this season will play out before it's done. Nadal and Djokovic could conceivably win all big titles without running into each other on every occasion, and even if they do and split their meetings 2-2 then the king will be whoever won RG.
This is of course for the "active" clay king title, we both agree for the career one there will be no changing of the guard in the foreseeable future.
I never considered Federer to be the clay king, even though he did win RG in 2009. To be clay king, I'd have to say you need to beat Nadal at a master's event and at RG.
That's harsh demands to say the least. So if Nadal loses every tournament to different players each time none if them will be clay king even if one should win every title? You can't use a person
as standard, you have to go with results
. Me, I've watched tennis since the 80s. Since the Masters concept were introduced in 1990 It has always been so that if you 1) Win RG, 2) Win a clay masters and 3) is the person who accumulated most ranking points from the clay season, then you're declared clay king. So Nadal has been clay king 2005-08 and 2010-12, Federer 2009, nobody 2004, Fererro 2003, nobody 2002, Kuerten 2000-01, nobody 1999, Moya 1998, nobody 1996-7, Muster 1995, nobody 1994, Bruguera 1993, Courier 1992, nobody 1990-91.