Originally Posted by kiki
Thanks for mentioning what a great champ Kodes was
Coming back to Borg, it is false he wasn' t great on hard just because of his unluckiness at Flushing Meadows
The next two best HC events of that time were Las Vegas and Toronto
In 79 Borg demolished Lendl & Mac in the semis and final of CO
That same year he demolished Connors to win Vegas and in 1980 he outgunned Vitas for another Vegas title
He completely destroyed the 4 best hardcourters of his time in two consecutive yrs
Kodes was an excellent player and frankly he was the perfect example of how it's tough to judge the strength of a player by early round matches in those days. The seeding committee could be very off in their judgements sometimes.
Next year Kodes were one of the top seeds.
When you judge great players we have to judge them on how great they were on all surfaces, not this recent nonsense that a great HAS to have won all the majors. That's recent stuff to promote players like Agassi for example who was a great player but I believe they wanted to push him more. Sure to win all the majors is good but it's not the end all.
Rosewall not winning Wimbledon doesn't not eliminate him from greatness. It's the circumstances of the times. It's not hypothetical but fact that Rosewall wasn't allowed to play all the majors for many years. These were years in which he probably would have won many classic majors.
Borg also was great on all surfaces.
Some players can't win on some surfaces like grass or red clay. It shows that they couldn't adapt and perhaps, just perhaps there was a flaw in their style of play or perhaps physically. I don't think that was a problem with Borg and Rosewall.