Why do you care for the "Spartan Era"? I thought the established procedure would be to belittle the years before he really broke through, so you can claim Djokovic's career is better than Nadal's long before he gets as many big titles as the Spaniard. Whether or not this has anything to do with reality doesn't appear to matter, going by other discussions in here.
As for Fed being poor before Wimbledon SF, that is not entirely correct, he played three good matches and two not so good. You wouldn't say his R1, R2 or QF was unworthy of a world #1, would you? And I'd like to know your definition of when a player is anywhere near the best player in the world. Why is not Indian Wells included? Because he was behind in the rankings? Do you have to have both 1) ranking advantage at the end of the tournament and 2) win the title in order to seem like the best player in the world? If so, then Djokovic only managed three tournaments this year, AO, Miami and WFT. Three is not that much better than two.
Lol, I don't even support that Spartan shit, it's just funny. As for Fed being poor at Wimbledon, I was tempted to write QF, but then again, it was Youzhny who bends over for him. He (Fed) was on his average in that match. In the SF and F he was way better than that and deserved to win and was the best player ATM. He didn't play anything special in IW, he did beat Rafa who was below average. Not saying he played bad, but you couldn't say he was the best player in the world after IW. Simply his level was great at the end of last season (but that is not this season, we are talking about 2012), but this year, he wasn't anywhere near best player before Wimbledon and after Cincy. He had some other good tournaments over the course of the year (IW, Dubai), but in any given moment there were 1 or 2 players better than him (you can't say 1 player is best in the world if he wins 1 tournament, otherwise you could say 'Ferrer is the best in the world' just a week ago - he was best in that tournemant and deserved to win it). And even if one player wins a tournament, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was the best player in that tournament. For example, Novak was way better at the USO than Murray. He showed much better form in all 6 matches before the final and in the final he wasn't outplayed and it's stupid to me if somebody says Murray was the best player at the USO 'just' because he won the 5th set of the final match. That's not saying Murray didn't deserve to win, but those are 2 different things. Back on topic, Fed did show some good form in WTF, but still wasn't the best player in the world, though I would still pick his WTF form over his IW or Madrid form any day.