1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.
Not very controversial. Outside of the claycourt season, he was shaky all year long, but upped his level by the business enf of Wimbledon and USO, so those wins were decent even if the draws were boring.
2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.
Somewhat controversial. Don't think Murray is more than a 5-6 slam caliber player because he's always had trouble bringing his best in slam finals, but should've won more than three, agreed.
3.Del Potro would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.
Not controversial.
4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.
Now that's a good one. You have a point, Federer was probably better on hard/grass in 2005 when healthy (clearly better on clay in 2006, no contest), but injury ruined his fall season, so 2006 gets the nod. (Federer definitely played better at AO 05 than 06, so that was bad luck in 05 but good luck in 06.)
5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.
And the indoor season because 2011 Djokovic was injured by then. Other than that, not miles better, but better for sure, except on grass where 2015ovic's improved serve is more important.
6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.
Add 2017 as well, he was great regardless of the draw. 2008, 2012, 2007, 2017 are the best four showings.
7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.
Nadal wasn't ahead in any of the sets he lost and didn't have BPs to go ahead in sets 1 and 3. He did in the 5th, though. That's where one may argue he should've broken, wouldn't know what happened afterwards anyway though.
8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.
There was before 2005, then Nadal immediately announced himself as great on clay and good on HC, and only took a year to get good on grass as well.
9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.
In a peak-to-peak comparison, yes. Regarding peak+longevity, as correctly reflected by achievement portfolio, he's got a pretty big advantage over Nadal and a huge one over Djokovic.
10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.
Djokovic has a clearly better slow HC peak, though they are in the same ballpark. As with everything, Federer has better longevity, even on slow HC (Miami 2017).