It is normally a draw when it is two rooks versus a queen, but in certain circumstances two rooks can be better
Queen vs 2 Rooks
1 rook is usually better than two queens.
In a minority of positions, yes.
he muddled his words up, its 2 rooks are better than 1 queen, not 2 queens are better than 1 rook. That position is very hard to get to, there is no way a good chess player cannot see the back rank mate, and in less than 0.1% of positions is that true. He is also incorrect because he said 'usually' and 0.1% is rare and not usual. That statement is <0.1% true.
2 rooks can be usually better but it would depend on the coordination and compensation that the position has to offer for the defending side. if the one with the rooks has 2 pawns while the queen side has nothing then the rooks win clearly but if the queen has double passed pawns and rooks are not coordinating well then the queen would reign more dominant against the rooks
The Queen is very powerful and versatile, but you would not want to trade it for a single Rook. For that reason two Rooks can combine forces and chase the Queen all over the board and make threats that can't be responded to by exchanging pieces, unless, of course, you can get two Rooks in exchange for the Queen
Rule 1: "It all depends on the position" But the more minor pieces there are are in the board, the better for the side with the queen. At least that seems to have been Bobby Fischer's belief
2 rooks can attack a pawn twice and thus are generally stronger than 1 queen