You must remember that Kramnik has much more experience than Carlsen. By comparison Carlsen is far stronger. Carlsen nearly beat Kasparov when he was 10!!! Many people say that Carlsen has not reached his full potential yet so, what does that tell you?
I don't see how Carlsen being 22 matters when comparing him right now with Vlad at 37. If youth is an advantage, as is certainly said often enough, then isn't it more impressive that Vlad ties for first in this tournament with someone 15 years younger (and thus presumably mentally quicker)? I mean, if the argument is that Carlsen will improve, fine, but that sort of implies there exists some sort of "ideal age", let's say 28. OK, Carlsen is 6 years from that, and Kramnik is almost 10, which means that Kramnik has "de-improved" for longer than Carlsen as "improved" and therefore, if they are roughly equal now, Vlad was stronger at 28 than Carlsen will eventually be at said age. Of course, this line of reasoning is absurd for a number of reasons but it illustrates the silliness of calling one player better than another of apparently comparable strength because of age disparity in either direction. Unless you're like those characters in that Vonnegut novel who see things as they exist through time and not as they are in the present moment.
P.S. -> FWIW, I do think Carlsen is clearly a bit better than Kramnik right now, but I found the "because he's 22" reasoning silly.
The Champions League is an excellent example of how to combine a double round robin format with matches. Ok, chess will require matches that are longer than two games, and instead of "home and away", it's white and black.
The main failing of a series of matches is finding the funding for, say, Gelfand-Grischuk as opposed to Aronian-Carlsen. But if FIDE used the 8 player double round robin to select the top two players for a match, they could have the best of both worlds; a great double round robin tournament to draw in the fans, and a tense match to please the purists.