Yes. But please note that I am not really arguing against the notion that Borg was a very versatile player. He certainly was. I have no problem giving him a high mark in that department. I would give a higher mark only to Laver. My argument was mainly against the notion that Federer has any less versatility than Borg. Similar arguments as you present for Borg on hard courts can be presented for Federer on clay, and this was pretty clear to me already before he won the FO. His losses in 4 RG finals and a bunch of Master's clay finals mirror the losses of Borg at the USO on hard courts, with the difference that beating Nadal on clay is probably even tougher than beating Connors or McEnroe on hard courts. Even so, he did manage to beat Nadal in a couple of Masters finals on clay. My argument is simply that Federer is at least every bit as versatile as Borg was. The only one among those goat candidates that I see clearly lacking in versatility is Sampras for obvious reasons.