OK, and what you personally suggest in case with Becker, for example? Should we count his numerous attempts as almost-titles and put him higher due to this?
Actually I understand what you meant very well. But it can`t work here. Because in the end of the day such very doubtful list turns into... hell, even don`t know what to say exactly.
The same Boris was close plenty of times, but he failed in all of them for a reason too. You can always look at these situations from different angles. You are very near to position "few close attempts" = "deserved to count". It is list of best of the best, attempts should be counted in 10th turn after more important criterias, IMO, and then you realise they don`t change much.
well I didn't mean "giving" them slams or whatever but mainly I meant stop reading "Becker was a claymug", "Borg was not good on hardcourts", even "not as good as Nadal" ... because these were just not true (and it's not only about "bad luck" or "missing something" : Nadal had far more opportunities to win a hardcourt slam than Borg for the reasons you know in Borg's case : Australian open not played, US Open played on other surfaces, Borg retiring early).
Some people who say that are just haters (or Nadaltards in Borg's case), then youngsters who didn't live these period just absorb these arguments (and usually they do that in regard of the modern conditions which are different),
and what I mostly meant was to give an information about that to youngsters.
After that, for Johnny's ranking, that's another point ... or well, it could moderate the "carreer blemishes" in those cases and for instance, have a role in doubtful cases like "Borg versus Nadal".
But mainly my post was not aimed at changing Johnny's list but rather to inform youngsters, esp. as some haters inevitably give these arguments.
The same about "Lendl could never have won on grass in whatever era" argument (common Lendl's haters' argument) which was also bullshit but which Action_Jackson and a few others had fairly countered before me.