Originally Posted by pc1
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.
pc1, I agree. Rosewall lost 13 years at Wimbledon including his best years. Imagine Samras and Federer would have lost 13 years at Wimbledon and the other Grand Slam tournaments. Their balance would be almost a disaster.