I'm going to allow that someone with the username "kawecki"  knows a great deal more than I do about Polish.   My point was, really, that  the Latin alphabet allows  Polish to create those sounds with "sz" and rz" etc. and allows Czech and Slovak to use diacritical marks to create much the same sounds in a shorthand way.   The result is that the sound "ch" (English and Spanish)  = "cz" (Polish)  = "cs" (Hungarian).  For another example, "sh" (English and Albanian) = "sch" (German) = "ch" (French) = "s" (Hungarian) = "sz" (Polish).   The Latin alphabet is the best of the European alphabets, precisely because it can accommodate all of these variations, even if they seem baffling.   Greek and Cyrillic could, if they wanted to;  presumably, Hebrew and Arabic could, too.   The fact is that that they don't.   Try transliterating Welsh into Cyrillic.  Take it from me:  you can't.   A less extreme example?    Try Catalan in Cyrillic.   Tthat's impossible, too. 

I suspect that the reason these other alphabets are inflexible is that they are very closely associated to religions.   The Latin alphabet was, too, but I believe that the Latin genie escaped during the Early MIddle Ages, with important non-Latin texts being written, using the Latin alphabet, using Anglo-Saxon, Welsh, Irish and, later, continental languages.   The Catholic hierarchy doesn't appear to have cottoned on to the significance of language until the cusp of the Reformation, when Tyndale published his English Bible.   Tyndale was murdered, but the pass had already been sold, because Dante, Petrarch and Chaucer were long in print, using the Latin alphabet in ways that separately served their Italian and English needs.