Originally Posted by Limpinhitter
Kodes was a great opportunist, and no one can fault him for that. But, you can't convince me that he was as great as Roche, Nastase, Ashe or Emerson. Nor were Tanner, Gildemeister, Gerulaitis or Pecci.
Talent wise, he is as good if not better than Ememrson ( this guy was the GOAT opportunistic since he decided to remain amateur9 but I donīt think Kodes was more talented than Ashe,Roche and , of course, Nastase.He was less talented, without any doubt.
If we go to records, Kodes won as many GS titles as Ashe ( but Ashe won WCT finals so his record is a bit better than Kodes) and more than Nastase and Roche, although one can make a case for Nastaseīs 4 Masters titles, which Kodes never won, so it is about tied.
Roche is far behind them, he was a great talent, with a solid ground game and a terrific volley but quite of a loser if we consider how many opportunities did he have and how many finals he lost.In doubles, however, ranks among the best ever.