Borg I'd say was pretty much identical to Nadal. They have similar styles and would be competitive across the eras with big or small racquets.
Laver, Federer, Connors, Djokovic you just can't compare, because Federer and Djokovic have styles dependent upon the exploitation of high powered racquets.
I can see how Connors and Laver would have adapted to such racquets. But I don't think Djokovic could adapt to light racquets.
This is why I have no respect for the high scores in modern ODIs.
Garry Sobers or Barry Richards would have been devastating with modern bats on modern grassless wickets with modern balls with machine-stitched seams under modern rules which make the bowler bowl where the batsman wants to receive the ball.
But it would actually be hilarious to watch Kane "Dangle Outside Offstump" Williamson try to bat against Gary Gilmour in the 1975 World Cup Semi-Final. Brief, obviously, but hilarious.
You see, this is exactly why I brought this comparison from Tennis, though it's not the appropriate place. You brought absolutely unnecessary factor of advanced racquets - which has very little impact in this comparison. Let me explain why -
First, wide or narrow, Titanium frame with optic fibre string has nothing to do about the quality of Tennis these players play - first reason is, it's not cricket that top edge would go for Six. Federer's opponent is also playing with a similar tool.
Second reason is technical - during dorms, I did play some tennis, but I am sure you are much, much better player. In Tennis, wider string surface doesn't give you batting like advantage, you have to hit the ball with the sweetest spot for control & precision. Wider racquets actually gives more top spin & back spin (slice), because of the higher elasticity of string surface. May be, it might help a bit in volley, but on base line rally, absolutely not much in terms of return.
Third issue is the physical capability - now players need to be much, much faster to reach a ball, hit by a Titanium racquet. Some of the interceptions that modern players play is almost unimaginable, even in 80s.
Last is the adjustment - any player can choose any racquet that he is comfortable with. Many players in 80s, still opted for hand stringed wooden racquet, though wider, metal tool was available, because they were more comfortable.
Now, coming to the comparison, I will quote from a gentleman living close to you now days - someone, played for 25 years professionally before, along & after Rod Laver - the one & only Ken Rosewell.
When (2009), Rosewell was asked the same question (Federer vs Laver), he started to drift away answering directly. That BBC journalist brought him to the point every time he finished his response. Finally, Ken admitted that - top players at our time were good, very good, but the game has gone to a different domain now days. I don't think it will be possible for players of our generation to reach the ball in rally. May be, on grass, in serve & volley Rod will compete neck a neck, but ... that's max.
Coming to the comparison, though it was never my first target, I have to disagree with you here. Federer is unbelievably good, even at this age, but his unique quality is his elegance - in a dark negative like picture, still I'll be able to identify Rogers just from his movements & unique winners. Even in this era of power tennis, he is silky smooth & apparently doesn't have any weakness. In recent QF, he played a forehand passing winner against our boy Raonic & I had to clap it standing. It was played running from forehand corner, dropped on the line & wrong footing 6'5" Raonic on net, 2 yards from the path of the ball!!! May be on grass, Laver might win a set, with his best serve & volley game, on a day, Roger losing his first service %, but otherwise on Clay & Hard Court, simply don't see how he can get engaged in Roger's rally from base line - whichever racquet both can use.
The Borg - Nadal comparison is closer, but still decisive. Indeed, Borg retired at 26, but he was unique of his own - I can't explain how a player can win 6 French & 5 Wimbledon, tournaments taking place in 3 weeks gap on clay & grass, but fail to win any at Flashing Meadow or Melbourne park (Remember, it was grass there till 90s). But he did make 4 US finals on Hard Court, therefore probably the most complete player before the current 3. Having said that, Rafa Nadal is absolutely out of this world on his game - I don't know how you think, Borg'll match his power & stamina on Clay or Hard Court, but may be on grass he might beat Rafa sometimes.
Novak is extremely under rated player, because of being under the shadow of 2 players standing head & shoulder above anyone at 1 & 2 in the history of the game. But, he is probably the best all-round player ever - only player to hold the majors on 3 different surface at a time - in fact 4, he was the Stuttgart Masters Champ as well that time on indoor synthetic. Apparently, I see Novak playing every shot & has probably has the best all-round game on back & forehand (he doesn't have a backhand actually), both top spin & slice. In that regard, comparison with Connors is fair, because Jimmy was also a fantastic all-round player, but different level.
These 3 are extremely unlucky that, their career path crossed each others for over a decade, otherwise each one is good enough to double their GS titles. Had Rafa not been there, Roger probably would have won 7 French as well, something true for Rafa for All England. Almost every Tennis expert widely consider the rank of top 10 is like - Roger, Rafa, Laver, Novak, Pete, Borg, Lendel, Connors, McEnroe, Aggassi/Rosewell - in that order. I am sure, by the time he retires, Novak will come to 3rd or even may be 2nd.
You are absolutely right - that racquet is part of the style, not the skill, which is transferable; it'll take Roger or Rafa or Novak, less than a month to adjust with the pace of the tool, but are you sure that players of old era would have matched that power, speed, flexibility and all-round game so easily?
To be honest, I believe the player prior to 90s that could have competed best with those current 3 actually is McEnroe - JP didn't have the rally or base line game, but he was capable of playing unbelievable winners from impossible angle - something that'll win him points even in current days. Other than that, it was like tennis in slow mo......
More than Gilmore, probably the pace pair who would trouble recent batsmen most are Richard Hadlee & Terry Alderman - not sure how teams will go to lunch on day one, if these 2 starts with the new ball on a slightly green track.
Thanks for reading, if you can reach up to this ..... it's a Friday night
post.
