You get an A for entertainment, a D for logic. I say this with love and respect for a lot of what you usually say, but this is just kind of silly.
The main fallacy is that you're penalizing Rafa for playing with "technical advancement" while ignoring the fact that every single player he faced also had the same benefit. If Rafa gets and edge with the rackets he uses, that's because he learned how to optimize the tools at hand. The corollary is that Borg dominated with "stick and kite strings" against players who also used the same. How can you penalize Rafa, while lauding Borg - both of whom played against opponents with the same advantages and disadvantages, respectively/
And I just don't think we can imagine players playing in widely different eras. I think it is disrespectful to, say, Ken Rosewall or Rod Laver to imagine them getting crushed today because of their size. Every player is a product of their environment, and I think greatness should only ever be judged relative to the context in which they played in.
The one thing I agree with is that Sampras, at least, would have dominated Rafa on grass, whether in the 90s or 2000s. He was about as good as Roger on grass, but with a stronger clutch mentality imo, and would have been less bothered than Roger was by Rafa's game.
Rankings will be forever argued, but I think the general consensus is moving towards Novak or Laver as #1, with Roger and Rafa rounding at the top 4. You could throw Tilden in for being so dominant during his time, but there's no way Rafa isn't in the top 5, or if we don't want to rank individually but rather in tiers, in the very top tier of "GOAT level" players.
A more interesting and debatable discussion would be how to rank the next group. Slam-centric conventional wisdom would have Sampras next (looking at only Open Era players), but taking a broader, less Slam-centric view, there's a good argument to put him in the same group, if not behind, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, and even Connors. I personally think that peak Borg and McEnroe were as good as the Big Three, but behind them overall due to the latter trio's remarkable longevity (and moreso, sustained excellence while playing for so long).
