Haha, no but seriously, it's not about defending Roger (I don't think I ever "attacked" him as there's not much to attack). I agree that he didn't show any jaw-dropping levels of tennis on his way to winning it, but not dropping a set, on grass no less, without having to play jaw-dropping tennis is pretty convincing in my mind. You're right that he had no competition that tournament as nobody really played all that well and the players who might have been threats didn't deliver (but you could say the same about Nadal at RG, and nobody's saying he's lucky to win it) but Roger is so much better than these guys on grass that saying he's lucky is an insult to him.
To me, I think Roger for the first 6 months of the year had been more or less flawless with the exception of that weird Haas loss. He obviously was phenomenal throughout AO-IW-Miami, took the clay season off, returned on grass, had that one weird loss, won Halle and then won Wimbledon easily. Doesn't get much better than that. So even if his level at Wimnledon was not quite as pleasing to watch I'd lump it with his run at the beginning of the year because if you win a major without dropping a set, you're doing something right.
