It is the "Age of Novak" :shrug:
A few weeks ago it was all about how Djokovic's dominance was so total that it was boring, someone needed to defeat him to add a little variety. Surely one match result can't completely reverse the landscape of tennis to the extent that this can no longer be considered a Djokovic dominated period.
If Wawrinka hadn't defeated Djokovic (assuming Djokovic won both of those slams along with all others he has actually won), things would be a bit more boring on the variety front, but it'd be perhaps more interesting in terms of looking at someone getting within touch of the all time records.
Wawrinka is a wildcard that has prevented Djokovic from converting his overall dominance (in terms of being consistently above the rest of the field) into more slams. But he is not the only one, or else Djokovic would still be sitting on 2-3 slams per year despite Wawrinka peaking every now and then and denying him a slam or two. What if Murray didn't defeat him in USO 2012 and W 2013? (That's another two seasons with 2+ slams). What if Nadal hadn't risen to surpass him in 2013? (That's another YE #1 and another couple of slams - and a CYGS if we are simultaneously removing Murray). So yeah, if Wawrinka wasn't around it would be even more Djokovic dominated - the same as if Nadal, Murray, Federer, Nishikori or Cilic weren't around it'd be an even more Djokovic dominated era. But (unless the second half of this season goes drastically different to the first half) you can't look 2011 to 2015 and not say it was part of the age of Djokovic, and Nadal is the player that ate most into that dominance, not Wawrinka.
