Those baking courts won’t suit Federer or Nadal. In Paris and Wimbledon, explains Wilander, their superior spin wins titles.
Then how does one explain Roger's five successive U.S. Open titles on an even quicker surface under conditions which are equally, if not more grueling than those in Melbourne ? In addition, Wilander conveniently ignores Roger's most recent victories over both Djokovic and Murray, both of which occurred at a Grand Slam played on a surface other than grass or clay.
At times one gets the impression that ex-players tend to be more subjective than objective in terms of how they choose to analyze the game. Particularly when it involves players who have surpassed their accomplishments -- however mediocre such accomplishments may in fact be.