Originally Posted by Rogiman
Quality for me, but I'm not sure it's quality in the sense meant above (high winners/unforced errors ratio etc.).
For me quality means you've learnt alot and trained hard and have become masterful in both the gist and the nuances of your profession.
For example, Nirvana is one of the most successful bands of all time, but I've never been able to listen to them, because it's so clear none of them has ever bothered to learn music properly, they saught the easy way - not to take the long path and study classical music and improve on their technique and then build on that and add their own dimension - instead they found a winning formula and it worked for them!
To me this means showing disrespect to your profession and to the people who contributed to its development, and that to me is low quality.
On the other hand you've got Sting, for instance.
Sting is neither Mozart, nor is he one of my favs, but when you listen to Sting you can feel he's an educated intelligent musician, who's familiar with classical music as well as Jazz, and chooses only elite musicians to accompany him.
His music is genuine, but you feel the influences of other (high caliber) musicians in his music.
This is high quality.
Get the analogy?
To me Nadal, a grunting baseliner with awkward shots, is Nirvana - a guy who doesn't care about aesthetics, perfection, and spits in the faces of former tennis legends like Laver and Edberg, who graced the court with both their tennis and demanors.
Federer, well, he's not Sting - much closer to Mozart.
He's a classical pianist, who practised the works of former geniuses in history to perfection, and now is in the phase of composing his own pieces of brilliance, his own symphonies.
And like other geniuses, he's modest, jumping, grunting and making a big deal out of himself is not his way of conducting himself in front of people.
To me, Federer losing to Nadal is like Mozart and Nirvana playing simultaneously on different stages, and the people opting to watch Nirvana, because simplicity sells better than quality.
I once asked a mathematician what drove him, if it was the pursuit of truth, and he told me he didn't care about truth - he saught beauty.
This is me.
Perhaps that gives you some insight about my beaviour of late.
Yes, Roger's game is all about asthetics, art, beauty etc. If you truly admire his game and the beauty of it, you should also understand that unlike the beauty of mathematics or the beauty of a musical composition, the beauty of Roger's game is in real time against all sorts of opponents.
As such, imperfections will creep into that complex amalgamation of strokes and sometimes simplicity will prevail over beauty.
In fact now that you have described your views in greater detail, I am all the more surprised that you are so disappointed.