Here are the facts
66-15 (playing 18 more than 2009)
2008 @slams Roger losing 15 sets, wins 1 slam
AO 4 sets lost (defeated)*Out early in semis*
FO 6 sets lost (defeated)
W. 2 sets lost (defeated) *only in finals to Nadal*
US.3 sets lost (winner) *absolutely crushed everyone, murray, etc*
55-8 (losing to all the people he crushed the previous year)
2009 @slams Roger losing 16 sets, wins 2 slam (FO being a gimme)
AO 3 sets lost (defeated)*Nadal of all people*
FO 5 sets lost (winner) *Nadal knocked out early and still only lost 1 less*
W. 3 sets lost (winner) *Lost more sets even though he is the winner?*
US.4 sets lost (defeated) *Oddly losing to Delpo who he crushed many times*
I find it odd that Roger is playing more the year he is sick and injured, and less the year that he is fine?
If Nadal had made it to the finals the contrast would be even greater. So I ask you did Roger have a "great" year at all and if so was it because he won the FO alone? What would be the odds of Roger beating an unhealthy Nadal at the FO? Were Roger's sats raised in 2009 because of Nadal's absence?
IMO if not for Nadal being out this year would have been a tragedy for Roger, but even with good fortune on Roger's side he still had a worse year than when he was supposedly sick and injured.