If Spear men have an advantage against Calvary how were Philip/Alexander the Great able to use them against Greece so effectively.
Considering that Greece mainly used Hoplite formations that used spears it shouldn't have been an advantage for the Macedonian army to use horseman. From what I have heard the use of Calvary was one of the main reasons Greece was able to be conquered as a whole. Also, with Greece's hilly and rocky landscape it would not have been an ideal area for Calvary to be effective.
Well a hoplite formation requires flat terrain to operate in, if they can find that space to fight in then cavalry could as well. The reason you don't hear about Greek cavalry is because they didn't have enough land to support them. Land that's supporting horsebreeding is land that's not available for farming and there's generally a lack of good farmland in Greece. In Thessaly and Macedonia there's much more pasturage allowing more cavalry.
Secondly as /u/GoShartYourself pointed out, it wasn't just Alexander with his companions on the battlefield. He had the pikemen in the centre, his cavalry on the wings, and really good light infantry (his Agrianes).
He also used them intelligently and to maximum effect. Alexander (presumably with his companions though the texts don't say specifically) waited till his father drew the Athenians out of position at Chaironeia which opened up a gap between the Athenians and Thebans - into which Alexander charged.
I believe your premise is incorrect. War isn't a CPU game where infantry>calvary>archers>infantry. Phillip was actually the first documented western tactician to understand combined arms. So during a game of rock-paper-scissors the Macedonians can see what their opponent is throwing and counter accordingly. Phillip deserves 90% of the credit Alexander gets, in my opinion.
Source: Warfare in the Ancient World.