Nadal would be almost as good with a wooden racquet. It's not as stiff as the new racquets but it has enough mass to translate to power.
I'm guessing you've never played with a wood racquet. Its deficiences are not about power, but accuracy & spin. When you have a 65 sq inch frame to work with, it not easy to hit hard consistently with spin, without a huge amount of errors, which is why they swung so much slower in the 70s. Its impossible for anyone on tour today to be able to play the same way they do with wood racquets, in terms of everything, grips(western only became common when they switched racquets), style of play etc. I saw Gaudio & Nalbandian play with woodies in an exo last year, & it wasn't pretty. They completely wiffed a few times. The way Nadal can swing so hard without making errors/mishitting is simply impossible with wood. But the same is true of Federer, a wood racquet would eliminate the accuracy of his forehand as well. You can't hit as many winners with wood.
I guess my analogy to the bats is that MLB would just be home run derby if they were allowed the metal, nullifying a large part of the game that is beautiful...I'm saying these racquets have created home run derbies, guys and gals just standing around the baseline banging the cr*p out of the ball, nullifying a large part of the game that is beautiful
its not just that, but metal bats would effectively end anyway to compare the stats of players over the years(which baseball is big on)
batting averages would go through the roof, in essence players would be playing an easier form of baseball & the public doesn't want the game to be easy, thats not why it is popular. so many foul balls, easy outs would now be hits with metal bats. its funny that logic was never considered in tennis, making the game easier has made it more exciting for many, & it has effectively ended anyway to compare players, they are playing a completely different sport.
Thats what I'm saying, soon enough tennis will be like pong video game, just sliding left and right, no option to move forward and back because technology has eliminated it from the game.
I think we're pretty much there already. The game on clay, grass, hardcourt is pretty similar these days, just baseline bashing, back & forth, no forward movement. They even seen to be hitting less overheads than only 10 years ago.
With that said, the reverse would not apply. Even if Borg were raised on the modern game and racquets, he probably wouldn't have a FH like Nadal. After all, nobody else does. It's not just the spin he generates, but how low the ball comes back given that crazy bounce. Or the surprising pace he can generate on his running shots.
The thing is people were saying the same things about Borg in his prime, like how is is possible for him to generate so much spin, etc(I have a TIME magazine article where they actually breakdown his shots). His opponents talked about how exhausting it was to constantly have to return his high bouncing topsin shots. And I've seen him pull of some crazy shots on the run, off some extemely low bouncing balls. Just ask McEnroe.
I think Borg was farther ahead of his peers in generating spin than Nadal is from his. If Borg could be so far ahead of everyone else in his time, not sure why he wouldn't be able to stand out in another time.
