Phoenix,
Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two.
He was 21 when he lost to Hoad in 1956. And he won all the other three majors from the ages of 18 - 20, and the ages of 33-37, so his age is no excuse!
In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.
Yes I know, he won everywhere bar Wimbledon regularly. Everywhere bar the biggest tournament of them all.
In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.
1974 was a year I can excuse him for losing in the final, aged 39 and against Connors who was just a completely new type of player from what Rosewall and his generation had faced before.
I can't excuse him for 1970 though.
The odds are very high that Rosewall would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.
No-one can prove it and it's also irrelevant. He was 0-4 in the finals of the biggest tournament in the game.
Sometimes I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.
I know what you are saying but I slightly disagree - i.e. you would presumably demote Sampras because he was relatively poor on clay, despite him dominating all other surfaces. Yet his overall record, including winning a record 7 Wimbledons, demands for me that he be placed above Rosewall.
Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French?
Let's put it this way - I consider Federer GOAT, just ahead of Laver. If Federer hadn't won the French, I would still have Laver top.
So yes - if we are talking about being GOAT - not just one of the greats, but GOAT, you have to have won all four slams (assuming you participated enough everywhere to have done so - i.e. can't hold it against Borg at the AO, Gonzales at most of the slams). It's not good enough to reach 4 finals and never win at a particular slam, and expect to be ranked No 1 all-time (this argument goes for Borg and his failures at the US Open as well).
Don't think so and I think Djokovic is a super clay court player and I would not hold it against him if he never won the French.
He can never be GOAT if he hasn't won the French though. Not when Federer and Laver have won all four slams.
Look at Navratilova, she took many years to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.
Pancho is a different case to Rosewall. He missed even more of his career to the pros, and was not good enough (i.e. too young or old) to be a contender at Wimbledon when he was allowed to compete. Therefore I can make concessions for him that I cannot for Rosewall. I say it again - if a man makes 4 Wimbledon finals and does not win a single one, he cannot be GOAT.
I don't consider Pancho the GOAT either by the way, because he never won a clay court major in the pros. He was essentially a Sampras equivalent but played in a weaker period of mens' tennis with a divided tour.