We can all agree on that?
I mean seriously, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about the level of play at the three slams Nadal won this year.
No, we can't all agree and no, it doesn't necessarily mean what you think.
In Wimbledon, Rafa had to go through Soderling, Murray and Berdych to take the tittle. That's about as difficult a trio as can be found, arguably more dangerous for Nadal than if Fed replaced one of them; only guy you could put in their place who would provide the same or more level of difficulty would be Djokovic.
Nadal, like many top players, raises his level depending who are his rivals. Close calls on the early rounds are frequent in tennis, always have been. You haven't still upped your game, you're not expecting too strong a challenge, and someone ranked in the 40s plays out of his shirt and causes trouble.
In NY, the main factor was Murray's failure to deliver the goods. The draw meant Rafa to face far more opposition on his road to the final (Murray SF, Nalby QF): they both failed, why should Rafa lose prestige because other players fail? To win he still had to beat Djokovic, who is one of the strongest players on fast HC and who had been good enough to get rid of Federer.
I think you are simply trying to deduct from the huge achievement Rafa has accomplished, 3 slams on a row, on different surfaces.
Petty on your part.