Interesting stat, out of all the slam winners with more than 2 slams, only two have failed to reach a Final at the USO, Kuerten and Nadal. I think Nadal is better than Kuerten, but I don't think he can fill Borg's shoes, so I don't think he'll reach the USO final.
He has only been one win short two years in a row. Yes, he was squashed by Del Potro but the Murray match was not as one-sided as people seem to believe. I am not saying it is definitely going to happen, but it is not THAT unlikely. IMO Nadal is not at Borg's level, he is (hopefully) going to end up on the 2nd tier of elite players with Agassi, Lendl, Connors, etc.
You want to see a weak era, look at Keurten's era. Agassi was still dominating. That should tell you everything you need to know. Federer's era actually did respectably well, while it is too early to tell how Nadal's era will do. On average, the players are only 23-27 in Nadal's era, and their time of domination should be now, with an average of 25. So far Nadal's Era has earned 7 slams, (6 for Nadal, and 1 for Djokovic). Del Potro's generation has won 1.
I am not saying I buy into the weak era arguments. I think Federer and Nadal are absolutely terrific. All I am saying is that if only 6 guys in the last 40 years had done it (reached finals of every slam), and then suddenly 3 more in the same generation (Murray, Djokovic, Del Potro) it would really make one analyze how top-heavy this era really is. Or rather, how sadly homogenized.