How do we know there wouldn't be more converts with the more ancient liturgy?
My point is that the reform that occurred was not what was forseen by the conciliar documents, which has been noted on occasion by the Holy Father when he was a cardinal.
The following excerpt is from the presentation delivered by H.E. Most. Rev. George Cosmas Zumaire LUNGU, Bishop of Chipata (ZAMBIA)
"Still on the topic on participation of the laity, and this time through music, songs (art.61) and the use of Latin (at international meetings)(art.62), my impression about these articles is that they do not seem to reflect contributions from some mission countries like Zambia. I find this part of the document to be over-optimistic about the organ, Gregorian chant and even the use of Latin at international meetings in an attempt to meet the needs of the people of all time and places. My proposal is that we should not go back to making these instruments of worship universal. Our consideration of our cultural items should not be in comparison to, or in relation to either the organ, Gregorian chant or Latin, although they could still be treated as options for those who find them helpful. Communication and participation is vital in every liturgical celebration including the Eucharistic celebration. Our hope lies in the future and not in the past."
SYNOD OF BISHOPS - 10OCT05 - Participation of the Laity (with music)
Granted, this is only one bishop's presentation but I have read through those delivered by many of the bishops and not one of them suggested a return to the TLM.