I wouldn't say 2009 wimbly was prime federer, but then again roddick wasn't at his prime either. I think his 2004 self was better.
I believe you misunderstood me. I was saying Roddick lost to prime Federer late in the second week of Wimbledon on three occasions (2003, 2004, 2005), and once more when both players were past their prime (2009).
It's my fault for wording it poorly. I was trying to keep my post somewhat trimmed.
I agree that Roddick's form in 2004 was much better, as was Federer's. It amazes me when people allude to 2009 as Roddick's best form/best match just because the results were closer. For the majority of two and a half sets v. Roger in 2004, Roddick's aggression was otherworldly. Federer himself admitted that the rain really gave him a break against that Andy.