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.
You didn't answer any of my question, you just keep repeating your mantra.
To be fair Djokovic's slam count isn't really inflated. Obviously the Wimbledon title looks funny but the rest make sense.
Not that much. He struggled both against Baghdatis and Tomic in early rounds, then he took advantage of having Tsonga in the semis instead of Federer. Then he got Nadal who wasn't exactly high on confidence - if I remember correctly Nole broke him at first chance in the 1st set, run away with the second, and in 4th again made use of the fact Nadal got tight when it mattered. He didn't get the win because he was the best grass courter in the world, more like because he made most of his chances and of the moment, I don't think that's unheard of in sport