As much as it pains me to say this, I'll go ahead and say it: as sloppy as Djokovic has been at the US Open and as haphazard as Federer's game is there, I would not downplay Nadal's chances. I have never seen a player overachieve at a Grand Slam the way that Nadal has at the US Open, but a lot of that has to do with the underperforming of his main rivals and other Top 5/Top 10 players. And there is no reason to discount those as factors going forward.
Obviously, if Djokovic plays Nadal on hardcourts anywhere, he is a definitive favorite because he is just a better player, especially on that surface. But the question is how they each handle the field and the conditions at that particular event. So while I do expect Djokovic to win the US Open, my optimism remains cautious. I could see the great overachiever winning by default again because everyone else underperforms, although such good fortune is unlikely two years in a row.
You will never stop saying that Rafa has "over-achieved." But that's kind of a sloppy phrase. I know it's partisan, from you, but let's look at how meaningless it is, vis-a-vis Rafa, the big 3, and in relation to other players. If a player wins a Major, they did achieve that goal. However, let me offer you Marin Cilic. He certainly found his top game for one US Open, but it doesn't really correspond to the rest of the results in his career, even though he's managed a couple of other finals at Majors, where he hasn't performed particularly well. He played a great tournament at USO 2014, but you could argue that he "over-achieved, based on expectations, in that particular fortnight, and based on subsequent results. If a player has 19 Majors, however, there's a probability that he won them by being a superior player to all of the others, and he has a career to back it up. Nadal won 2 of his USO's beating Djokovic. You will never stop being bitter over the 2013 final, I expect, but that doesn't change the outcome. And it's not like Federer and Novak haven't had less than challenging finals, or paths to glory, in some of their Major wins. If you won't call that "over-achieving," it's only based on your prejudice against Nadal. The Big 3 are where they are because they are extraordinarily talented. Yes, some ways of getting to a Major win have been easier than others, for all of them. But perhaps only in the short-view. In the long-view, the path to such success is a much more painstaking road, which starts with talent, but is worn smooth by great effort, commitment and ambition. None of them has "over-achieved." When they look "lucky," they have accrued the 'luck' that comes to the talented and the committed.
