You go around making these claims but in terms of results, this is RF's best slam consistency wise (10 straight years with SFs if he makes the SF in 2013). He's won 4 times and lost one final compared to winning 5 times and losing one final at the USO. Not that much of a difference.
i didn't ever say federer was bad the AO. he's the 2nd best of the open era there, behind agassi
statistics are little skewed in this era, due to top 4 dominance, combined with slowed down courts. murray, nadal, djokovic, even federer, would not have the consistency they have now if the courts were as they were originally
but more to the point, federer is more beatable at the australian now, and was more beatable at the australian in his peak years. this cannot simply be explained by statistics
at wimbledon and the us, federer was not defeated, and no one looked like beating him either, until 2007 wtih djokovic and nadal
in the australian? nearly lost far too many close matches, did lose there unlike the other two slams
compared to wimbledon and the us open, the australian open is 'worse' for him