It's representative of an era when surfaces required even the best players to be specialists, either in full or in part. The modern game allows players to play one game on all surfaces and the best players will be very successful on all of them.
To say that the top players have slight preferences for one surface over another is proof that homogenisation is a myth is just silly. It's not just about the top 4 - at every single slam you see the vast majority of seeds playing to their ranking. 10 years ago it just wasn't the case. You'd have low and unseeded players in SFs, top seeds regularly losing in the first few rounds, and so forth.
Modern surfaces are designed to be predictable and put the same players in a position to win every single tournament. Why? Big names bring dollars. It's in the best interests of organisers to make sure that the top players have the chance to win as many tournaments as possible. And the top players benefit from that. Hence their bigger slam counts.
stop posting.............stop fucking posting ............just stop dont type anymore you epic useless troll