This is the big question guys. In 2011 Djokovic had a stellar year. No one can deny that. But lets face it, Roger was still in his 2010-2011 slump. Since the USO last year he has been a different player altogether. No one can deny that either. So now the question remains: Is Federer at 30 years of age better than Djokovic in his prime?
Let it rip guys. It's all yours.
First of all, you need to face up to the fact that Djokovic dominating in 2011 had nothing to do with Federer being in a "slump". Federer's level of play during 2011 was above what he displayed during most of 2010 and even 2012 prior to Wimbledon, despite these titles that he won. The big difference was of course that Federer was stopped from winning a GS in 2011 by Djokovic, but that doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that he was in a slump.
As for 2012, things are pretty even when you count only the big tournaments, so it will have to be decided at the USO. For now, Djokovic still holds 2 of 4 GS titles and is a finalist at a third GS. As for Federer's titles, what would Djokovic's winning % and title count in 2012 have been had he played his home tournament and maybe a couple of more smaller tournaments? I'd take that one additional GS match win that Djokovic has over all those small tournaments because at their level of GS consistency, one more GS match win is the difference between a final and a semi-final, or even between a GS title and a final...