i have proven evidences for what i said and you still have none, zero......of course day dreaming is for free so anybody can do that......by the same token of what you are trying to convey with your last sentence, nadal would have developed a game suitable for those conditions too and actually would have done better bBASED ON THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE that he is more adaptable and would relatively have fared better in a non-homogenized era of different surfaces and varied styles.......what you are doing is, blindly assuming based on what fed did in a homogenized era with modern rackets and he is not even 10% adaptable to what nadal is and doesn't even have 30% the heart that nadal has......
I'm not assuming anything, nor do I need to provide any 'proof', because my claim is simply that we don't know how well Federer would have done in a different era
. You're the one making assumptions, not me.
Even if Nadal is more adaptable, success = 1.) initial ability/talent + 2.) adaptability. We need to know 1.) first before we can determine anything, and we don't know that precisely because as you say, "you just can't translate their current games to the past".
Federer is very successful in this era, despite in your view not being very adaptable. There's no reason in principle why that couldn't hold true for previous eras.