PDA

View Full Version : Is Murray the biggest pusher on the tour?


Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 10:03 AM
Those that watched his match against Gulbis know what i'm talking about.
Murray went only 2-3 times to the net in the whole match.Had Gulbis gone more to the net or dropped some good droppers,he'd have at least taken a set.Murray's pushing tactic against Gulbis was effective and worked well.Why fix it if it ain't broke :).I was supporting him and he won.Well done.

Notice:this is an observation,not a criticism.

gj011
06-25-2009, 10:05 AM
No. Djokovic is bigger pusher these days.

joeri888
06-25-2009, 10:07 AM
No, pusher is too strong a word, I think when he gets obvious chances hes too good atttackingly to be called pusher. I just really think he's too freakin defensive and it's very frustrating. I always saw his talent, his touch at net, his dropshot, all that. He kinda let go of the dropshot, hits a lot of defensive balls and actually plays very very little at the net. His game relies mostly on defense and winning free points or easy putaways with his first serve. I think he's a great player, but for instance, I'd think he'd make a lovely serve-and-volleyer if he wanted to be. Not all the time, but 30-50 percent of first serves he could play that way effectively I think.

Hope his game gets better with age, but I just hate the fact a game like this can be rewarding. Therefore I hope the first attacking player he faces takes him out really. Whether that's wawrinka, Roddick, or even Federer in the final I don't care.

rod99
06-25-2009, 10:07 AM
murray knew that gulbis wanted pace so he took pace off the ball and make gulbis create it himself. "pushing" isn't always a bad thing. the good thing about murray is that he scouts his opponents and has a different gameplan depending on who the opponent is.

joeri888
06-25-2009, 10:07 AM
No. Djokovic is bigger pusher these days.

Lol... Djokovic plays too defensive, but he still goes for a lot. Still like his game 10 times better than Murray's although it's much worse atm

pennc94
06-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Not sure if Murray is the biggest pusher, but he sure did push against Gulbis.
I think he realized that Gulbis was a bit too wild today. Murray did the bare minimum to win without trying for anything huge. Not exciting to watch by any means. Against the better players, however, he will need to take a few risks if he wants to go deep.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:10 AM
Those that watched his match against Gulbis know what i'm talking about.
I thought Nadal was too defensive but now i'm sure i dead was wrong.
Murray went only 2-3 times to the net in the whole match.Had Gulbis gone more to the net or dropped some good droppers,he'd have at least taken a set.Murray's pushing game was effective and worked well.Why fix it if it ain't broke :).I was supporting him and he won.Well done.

Notice:this is an observation,not a criticism.

It was a tactic.

Did he play like that against Nadal at the US Open? Does he play like that against Federer? No, he doesn't. It was a tactic that worked against Gulbis.

It was a straight sets win. Jeez, you guys have no appreciation for intelligent play. A guy employs a tactic for one match and suddenly you think he does it in every match.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:12 AM
No, pusher is too strong a word, I think when he gets obvious chances hes too good atttackingly to be called pusher. I just really think he's too freakin defensive and it's very frustrating. I always saw his talent, his touch at net, his dropshot, all that. He kinda let go of the dropshot, hits a lot of defensive balls and actually plays very very little at the net. His game relies mostly on defense and winning free points or easy putaways with his first serve. I think he's a great player, but for instance, I'd think he'd make a lovely serve-and-volleyer if he wanted to be. Not all the time, but 30-50 percent of first serves he could play that way effectively I think.

Hope his game gets better with age, but I just hate the fact a game like this can be rewarding. Therefore I hope the first attacking player he faces takes him out really. Whether that's wawrinka, Roddick, or even Federer in the final I don't care.

He blew Wawrinka off the court in last year's US Open with attacking play. You guys need to learn to appreciate that he does not play exactly the same way from match to match. He's not going to ballbash against Gulbis or take unnecessary risks.

maximo
06-25-2009, 10:12 AM
It was a tactic.

Did he play like that against Nadal at the US Open? Does he play like that against Federer? No, he doesn't. It was a tactic that worked against Gulbis.

It was a straight sets win. Jeez, you guys have no appreciation for intelligent play. A guy employs a tactic for one match and suddenly you think he does it in every match.

Agree with all of this.

rommil
06-25-2009, 10:14 AM
I don't know if his game qualifies as a "pusher" but Murray's game is one of the most mindful tennis out there.

bluetrain4
06-25-2009, 10:14 AM
He does push a lot sometimes, and I understand why people don't like it, but against Gulbis, it really was the perfect tactic. Can't fault him for "pushing" today.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:14 AM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

zagor
06-25-2009, 10:16 AM
Those that watched his match against Gulbis know what i'm talking about.
I thought Nadal was too defensive but now i'm sure i dead was wrong.
Murray went only 2-3 times to the net in the whole match.Had Gulbis gone more to the net or dropped some good droppers,he'd have at least taken a set.Murray's pushing game was effective and worked well.Why fix it if it ain't broke :).I was supporting him and he won.Well done.

Notice:this is an observation,not a criticism.

For me(just my opinion)there are no such thing as pushers in proffesional tennis so the answer is no.

vtmike
06-25-2009, 10:17 AM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

Are you saying Fed is not as versatile as Murray & Nadal?

rommil
06-25-2009, 10:18 AM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

Nadal's game and accomplishments aside, this deluded statement is just taking it to another level.
BTW this thread has nothing to do with Rafa.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:18 AM
Are you saying Fed is not as versatile as Murray & Nadal?
Fed is more of a ball basher.

Dgpsx7
06-25-2009, 10:21 AM
I don't think he is necessarily a pusher he was just putting a gameplan through today. He knew that Gulbis would work off of pace so he kept slicing it to him and it worked. This is very similar to what Roddick did today he kept slicing to Kutisyn because he knew if he hit hard that he would use the pace. Roddick did this and he is by no means a pusher. Both Murray and Roddick are amazing players and they played to win today.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:22 AM
Also the grass is very low bouncing despite peoples beliefs otherwise. Slice is great on this surface.

maximo
06-25-2009, 10:23 AM
Are you saying Fed is not as versatile as Murray & Nadal?

Federer slices every return which = boring.

shadows
06-25-2009, 10:24 AM
Murray is a neutralising counter-puncher; he works out how to nullify his opponents strengths, and in the meantime attacks their weaknesses.

DownTheLine
06-25-2009, 10:25 AM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

What makes you think that, that's how tennis should be played?

Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 10:26 AM
It was a tactic.
Did he play like that against Nadal at the US Open?
I didn't watch that match so i can't really tell.
Does he play like that against Federer? No, he doesn't. It was a tactic that worked against Gulbis.
It was a straight sets win. Jeez, you guys have no appreciation for intelligent play. A guy employs a tactic for one match and suddenly you think he does it in every match.
That's why i said don't fix it if it ani't broke.That tactic worked against Gulbis and may work against other players as the tourney progresses,so he doesn't have to change.Don't take it as a criticism Cly.

EtePras
06-25-2009, 10:27 AM
Nobody is a bigger pusher than Roddick, so this thread fails.

rommil
06-25-2009, 10:29 AM
Fed is more of a ball basher.

That's graceful ball basher to you.


BTW please try not posting if you have fallen from your bed bunk that morning. Thank you.

Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 10:30 AM
Agree with all of this.

Yo max,i didn't mean that Murray is a pusher.I actually meant "did he apply a good working pushing" tactic" today? Btw i just changed the title of the thread.

P_Agony
06-25-2009, 10:31 AM
It was a tactic.

Did he play like that against Nadal at the US Open? Does he play like that against Federer? No, he doesn't. It was a tactic that worked against Gulbis.

It was a straight sets win. Jeez, you guys have no appreciation for intelligent play. A guy employs a tactic for one match and suddenly you think he does it in every match.

I agree with you it was a tactic, and quite a good one in this case, but this tactic sometimes fails him when he faces players that are better defenders or very good attackers. This tactic has failed him against Gonzales at the FO.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:32 AM
That's graceful ball basher to you.


BTW please try not posting if you have fallen from your bed bunk that morning. Thank you.
Yes a ball basher with girly movement. This thread was made from someone that woke up on the wrong side of the bed. lol

rod99
06-25-2009, 10:33 AM
Fed is more of a ball basher.

this is not a true statement. federer is more versatile than either of these guys, with murray a close second.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:34 AM
I agree with you it was a tactic, and quite a good one in this case, but this tactic sometimes fails him when he faces players that are better defenders or very good attackers. This tactic has failed him against Gonzales at the FO.

Gonzo woud have beaten Murray no matter what at the French, I reckon. At the moment, Gonzo is simply a superior clay courter. I'd be very surprised if Gonzo beats Andy on grass, should they meet.

OrangePower
06-25-2009, 10:34 AM
Murray is a neutralising counter-puncher; he works out how to nullify his opponents strengths, and in the meantime attacks their weaknesses.

Exactly. That is by no means a "pusher". A pusher is not able to construct points or put away shots, and is not able to exert any pressure on the opponent. A pusher can only get everything back and rely on completely unforced errors by the opponent. Whereas a counter-puncher creates opportunities with good defense, is able to capitalize on openings that this creates, and can keep the opponent under pressure.

I for one enjoy watching Murray play because there is more that I can learn from him than from most other players on the tour. Let's face it, 99.9% of us do not and will never have the strokes that these guys have, so we can't emulate their game. But we can definitely learn strategy and point construction from someone like Murray.

Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 10:35 AM
Nadal_Freak and Fed fans,please don't turn this thread into another Fed vs Nadal ***. We already have enough of such threads here.

serve/and/volley
06-25-2009, 10:37 AM
Murray is a neutralising counter-puncher; he works out how to nullify his opponents strengths, and in the meantime attacks their weaknesses.

Exactly. Murray is the very best at Brad Gilbert's style of tennis.

Rafa on the other hand is an agressive counter-puncher. Rafa is a much more offensive player than Murray. Look at Rafa's utter destruction of Murray at Indian Wells this year.

Murray is not the biggest pusher on the tour. He is not even the biggest pusher in the top 10. That would be Gilles Simon.

People like Murray's game because his is the only type that amateurs can replicate. There is no way you can replicate Rafa's game, and there is no way you can replicate Federer's game. Murray's game you can, since he doesn't really have any huge weapons. Murray's best shot is his backhand, but that is used to break an opponent down, instead of dominating them like Nalbandian's backhand.

So in short, all you amateurs watch Murray's game and learn, because it will improve your own game.

SmAsH999
06-25-2009, 10:45 AM
you can't call someone a pusher who had 88% first serves in, around 30 winners, and only 5 errors for the whole match.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:47 AM
Exactly. Murray is the very best at Brad Gilbert's style of tennis.

Rafa on the other hand is an agressive counter-puncher. Rafa is a much more offensive player than Murray. Look at Rafa's utter destruction of Murray at Indian Wells this year.

Murray is not the biggest pusher on the tour. He is not even the biggest pusher in the top 10. That would be Gilles Simon.

People like Murray's game because his is the only type that amateurs can replicate. There is no way you can replicate Rafa's game, and there is no way you can replicate Federer's game. Murray's game you can, since he doesn't really have any huge weapons. Murray's best shot is his backhand, but that is used to break an opponent down, instead of dominating them like Nalbandian's backhand.

So in short, all you amateurs watch Murray's game and learn, because it will improve your own game.

I don't think they can emulate Murray's game. They can learn from his tactics, but by no means can they hope to have strokes even remotely on a par with Murray. He has one of the most complete, complex games on tour. I have no idea why you think an amateur could emulate Murray's game.

serve/and/volley
06-25-2009, 10:50 AM
I don't think they can emulate Murray's game. They can learn from his tactics, but by no means can they hope to have strokes even remotely on a par with Murray. He has one of the most complete, complex games on tour. I have no idea why you think an amateur could emulate Murray's game.

His game is not as complex as Federer's or Nadal's. But that topic is subjective. I learn more from watching Murray than I do from Nadal.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-25-2009, 10:50 AM
Fed is more of a ball basher.

Nonsense. Federer has been credited for years for being one of the few players with all-court sense & skills, which a ball basher (or dreary baseliner) would not have.

joeri888
06-25-2009, 10:51 AM
He blew Wawrinka off the court in last year's US Open with attacking play. You guys need to learn to appreciate that he does not play exactly the same way from match to match. He's not going to ballbash against Gulbis or take unnecessary risks.

I know that. In all my posts I've said that I respect his results and his will to win, and his fighting spirit. I just WISH he would keep the history of british tennis and wimbledon in his mind and would try to win in an attractive way, especially up a set and a break. I understand that he doesn't, but I will never be his fan because he produces matches like these. It's perfectly legitimate but I won't ever like it.

btw, I also didn't say I believed Wawrinka stands a chance. I'll just be rooting for him.

Tennis_Maestro
06-25-2009, 10:52 AM
No, no, no and no!

He is not a pusher/hacker whatever the hell you wanna call it, this thread gets made every bloody week of every bloody month of every bloody year!

He plays an unconventional tactical game where by he adapts his game to exploit each respective player's weakness he comes up against.

He has all the shots and all the mental capabilities worthy of being the next Wimbledon Champion.

Nadal_Freak
06-25-2009, 10:52 AM
Nonsense. Federer has been credited for years for being one of the few players with all-court sense & skills, which a ball basher (or dreary baseliner) would not have.
Fed just pounds the heck of the ball while Murray slices and dices. Fed should learn from Murray.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:53 AM
His game is not as complex as Federer's or Nadal's. But that topic is subjective. I learn more from watching Murray than I do from Nadal.

Right. Nadal uses a lot more variety.

ChanceEncounter
06-25-2009, 10:54 AM
It was a tactic.

Did he play like that against Nadal at the US Open? Does he play like that against Federer? No, he doesn't. It was a tactic that worked against Gulbis.

It was a straight sets win. Jeez, you guys have no appreciation for intelligent play. A guy employs a tactic for one match and suddenly you think he does it in every match.

Saying he doesn't like the style of play doesn't mean he has no appreciation for his ability to win. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

JeMar
06-25-2009, 10:55 AM
He's not a pusher, he's more of a counter-puncher.

joeri888
06-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Saying he doesn't like the style of play doesn't mean he has no appreciation for his ability to win. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Exactly. He's not a pusher either, and I'm sure it's very hard what murray does. I just can't watch it.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Saying he doesn't like the style of play doesn't mean he has no appreciation for his ability to win. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

It kind of does when we get another "Is Murray a Pusher?" thread.

That indicates a lack of appreciation, wouldn't you say?

aphex
06-25-2009, 10:56 AM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

even you, the freak, can't be that blind!

Fed just pounds the heck of the ball while Murray slices and dices. Fed should learn from Murray.

if you ever played tennis in your life you would realize that federer's slice>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>murray's slice


try playing sometime-you might like it

maximo
06-25-2009, 10:57 AM
even you, the freak, can't be that blind!



if you ever played tennis in your life you would realize that federer's slice>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>murray's slice

Oh look, the deluded hater strikes again.

aphex
06-25-2009, 10:58 AM
Oh look, the deluded hater strikes again.

oh look, the idiot unable to spell gives it another shot

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 11:00 AM
oh look, the idiot unable to spell gives it another shot

I wish you would stop with the grammar insults. You're not exactly a literary genius yourself.

maximo
06-25-2009, 11:00 AM
oh look, the idiot unable to spell gives it another shot

Yep, he's definitely delusional...

orangettecoleman
06-25-2009, 11:03 AM
If playing everything high-percentage and low risk wins you the match, that's called being a smart player, not a pusher. Murray is perfectly capable of being more aggressive but is smart enough to know that it's silly to risk losing the match through making errors unless playing it safe isn't working. this is exactly the difference between someone like murray and someone like gulbis by the way. gulbis wants to be the big man and hit winners all the time, and that's why he self-destructs with UEs every other match.

Tennis_Maestro
06-25-2009, 11:03 AM
Fed just pounds the heck of the ball while Murray slices and dices. Fed should learn from Murray.

Thats nonsense! Federer has all the shots as well, he just doesn't resort to tactical measures in his game, whereas Murray will play that he knows is right, Federer will play the shot that he feels is right. Reason v Instinct

Federer has a great slice backhand and more defensive counter attacking ability than you choose to believe. Murray is simply more cautious in his stroke play.

FlamEnemY
06-25-2009, 11:03 AM
Fed is more of a ball basher.

Really nothing personal against you, but that was one bad comment.

As for Murray - his game gets on my nerves. I know it's only a tactic he uses, no 'pusher' can make it to No3 in the world, but it's so annoying to watch him grind away matches when he can do a lot more.

Tennis_Maestro
06-25-2009, 11:06 AM
Murray and Nadal's game are hardly alike.

Nadal plays with extreme topspin on atleast 70% of his shots and although they do both possess a lot of variety, Murray's comes in a much different form to Nadal.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 11:08 AM
Murray and Nadal's game are hardly alike.

Nadal plays with extreme topspin on atleast 70% of his shots and although they do both possess a lot of variety, Murray's comes in a much different form to Nadal.

Nadal is very effective at what he does, but I'd hardly call what he does "variety". He pretty much never changes up the pace.

aphex
06-25-2009, 11:09 AM
I wish you would stop with the grammar insults. You're not exactly a literary genius yourself.

i think you mean syntax... i forgot a couple of commas...this is teh intranetz, big deal-i do know the difference between 'your' and you're' though....

aphex
06-25-2009, 11:10 AM
Yep, he's definitely delusional...

yep, you're definitely an idiot...

Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 11:10 AM
i think you mean syntax... i forgot a couple of commas...this is teh intranetz, big deal-i do know the difference between 'your' and you're' though....

English isn't the first language for many of us.So please fellas let's get back on topic.

Tennis_Maestro
06-25-2009, 11:11 AM
Nadal is very effective at what he does, but I'd hardly call what he does "variety". He pretty much never changes up the pace.

I think the poster's that have been refering to his game as possesing variety are on about about his consistent ability to drop shot, play cat and mouse @ net, retrieve and even hit aces.

To be fair he developed most of this during his last year's monumentus success.

maximo
06-25-2009, 11:11 AM
yep, im definitely an idiot...

Fixed it for you.

aphex
06-25-2009, 11:13 AM
Fixed it for you.

yes, you are. glad you realized it.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 11:14 AM
i think you mean syntax... i forgot a couple of commas...this is teh intranetz, big deal-i do know the difference between 'your' and you're' though....

Syntax refers to sentence structure. You are calling him out on spelling errors. There's a big difference. You might want to engage your brain and make sure you're in the right before you correct someone.

You're right. This is "teh intranetz". So why on earth are you going around acting like a spelling ****, then? Unless your goal is to be a hypocrite, I just don't get it.

SaunderS
06-25-2009, 11:36 AM
I wouldnt say biggest pusher, but does slice very often.

P_Agony
06-25-2009, 11:51 AM
Fed just pounds the heck of the ball while Murray slices and dices. Fed should learn from Murray.

What are you talking about? Federer has the best slice on tour. Best dropshot too. Federer should teach Murray and Djokovic how to hit a dropshot, both FH and BH.

maximo
06-25-2009, 11:52 AM
What are you talking about? Federer has the best slice on tour. Best dropshot too. Federer should teach Murray and Djokovic how to hit a dropshot, both FH and BH.

Federer shouldn't teach Murray, Murray should be teaching Federer.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 11:54 AM
Why put any effort out when you can win playing 30%? There was no need for Murray to do anything special today. Put the ball back deep, put some spin on it, and move the ball around. Eventually Gulbis misses. Results in frustration, and more misses.



He will however, will need to change the way he plays when he plays a quality opponent (i.e. one that doesn't make a billion UEs). However, I don't expect him to have much trouble at all until the SF, where he will most likely meet Roddick or Hewitt.

P_Agony
06-25-2009, 11:55 AM
Federer shouldn't teach Murray, Murray should be teaching Federer.

maximo after Wimbeldon:

http://www.maniacworld.com/ugly-side-of-pacman.jpg

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 11:56 AM
What are you talking about? Federer has the best slice on tour. Best dropshot too. Federer should teach Murray and Djokovic how to hit a dropshot, both FH and BH.

I think Federer has a better dropshot than Murray, but in no way do I think his slice is better. Murray is far more offensive with his slice than Federer.

tudwell
06-25-2009, 11:56 AM
If all I had to do to win a match was hit a few slice backhands each point, I'd be all over that. Murray just did what he had to do to win. He doesn't play everyone the way he played Gulbis today. Look at his match against Nadal at the U.S. Open last year. He was very aggressive, because he had to be to win the match. Slicing and dicing is just a one way ticket to Bagelsville against Nadal.

maximo
06-25-2009, 11:57 AM
maximo after Wimbeldon:

http://www.maniacworld.com/ugly-side-of-pacman.jpg

P Agony after Wimbledon:

http://i42.tinypic.com/rhr3pl.jpg

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 11:57 AM
Why put any effort out when you can win playing 30%? There was no need for Murray to do anything special today. Put the ball back deep, put some spin on it, and move the ball around. Eventually Gulbis misses. Results in frustration, and more misses.



He will however, will need to change the way he plays when he plays a quality opponent (i.e. one that doesn't make a billion UEs). However, I don't expect him to have much trouble at all until the SF, where he will most likely meet Roddick or Hewitt.

I think he'll have more trouble with Gonzo than with either of those players. Not that he won't still beat Gonzo. I could see him beating Murray before I could see Roddick doing it, though,.

King_Grass
06-25-2009, 11:58 AM
Federer shouldn't teach Murray, Murray should be teaching Federer.

Nobody needs to learn boring pusher tennis from Murray

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 12:04 PM
I think he'll have more trouble with Gonzo than with either of those players. Not that he won't still beat Gonzo. I could see him beating Murray before I could see Roddick doing it, though,.



Actually I think Murray would crush Gonzo here on the grass. Roddick is a different story though because he doesn't miss. If he serves well, and plays with good pace off the ground he will be able to give Murray trouble. Although Roddick had a few hiccups in his opening rounds, he's been playing with good length and pace off the ground so far. It will be close if they do meet in the SF, that's for sure. I think Roddick going in as an under dog helps him out abit, as although Murray has the crowd behind him, he also has a ton of pressure on him also (and despite what Murray says, he really did feel the pressure that first day. His serve really bailed him out against Kendrick).



Also, if Hewitt does manage to get through to the SF, I would think Hewitt is playing well, and could also give Murray some trouble. I actually think Hewitt matches up well against Murray. Moves just as well, and is just as patient as Murray is. He could potentially force Murray into going for abit too much.

THUNDERVOLLEY
06-25-2009, 12:09 PM
Murray should be teaching Federer.

...in what--how to fail to win slams and not be a legend of the sport?

I think Federer will skip that doomed class.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 12:13 PM
Federer shouldn't teach Murray, Murray should be teaching Federer.
Teaching him what exactly everything Murray can do Federer can do better

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:14 PM
Actually I think Murray would crush Gonzo here on the grass. Roddick is a different story though because he doesn't miss. If he serves well, and plays with good pace off the ground he will be able to give Murray trouble. Although Roddick had a few hiccups in his opening rounds, he's been playing with good length and pace off the ground so far. It will be close if they do meet in the SF, that's for sure. I think Roddick going in as an under dog helps him out abit, as although Murray has the crowd behind him, he also has a ton of pressure on him also (and despite what Murray says, he really did feel the pressure that first day. His serve really bailed him out against Kendrick).



Also, if Hewitt does manage to get through to the SF, I would think Hewitt is playing well, and could also give Murray some trouble. I actually think Hewitt matches up well against Murray. Moves just as well, and is just as patient as Murray is. He could potentially force Murray into going for abit too much.

I'll have to respectfuly disagree. Murray reads Roddick's serve so well and I don't think Roddick could handle Murray's serve if he keeps it up. Hewitt's problem is that he doesn't have a great first serve to begin with and Murray will get involved in a lot of his service games. I think Hewitt will fare a bit better against Murray's serve, though. I honestly see Murray straight-setting both of them purely because neither of them can hurt Murray off the ground. Roddick just doesn't go after his forehand anymore. Gonzo, on the other hand, is so streaky that he has that potential to just whack forehand winners.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:15 PM
Teaching him what exactly everything Murray can do Federer can do better

Federer sure can hit a better backhand than Murray. He really showed Murray how much better his game was in those 6 losses.

King_Grass
06-25-2009, 12:16 PM
maximo after Wimbeldon:

http://www.maniacworld.com/ugly-side-of-pacman.jpg

Funny! Why does that guy have bobblehead in his profile picture? I guess he really is a bobble head if he thinks Murray is more exciting than Nadal or Federer... LOL

maximo
06-25-2009, 12:18 PM
Funny! Why does that guy have bobblehead in his profile picture? I guess he really is a bobble head if he thinks Murray is more exciting than Nadal or Federer... LOL

bobble head?

Its pacman you fool...

VivalaVida
06-25-2009, 12:19 PM
Federer slices every return which = boring.
Murray moonballs every damn point which = boring

Federer is actually possesses offensive capabilities just like Nole. That is why they are more fun to watch then Nadal and backboard Murray.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 12:20 PM
Federer sure can hit a better backhand than Murray. He really showed Murray how much better his game was in those 6 losses.
A backhand compared to a better complete game you take your pick

King_Grass
06-25-2009, 12:23 PM
bobble head?

Its pacman you fool...

Don't care who that is...All I know is that you are a bobble head!

Dutch-Guy
06-25-2009, 12:27 PM
Nooooooo.This good thread has gone downhills:cry:

thejoe
06-25-2009, 12:30 PM
No. He can do everything. He does push, that is undeniable, but that is by no means all he can do. It frustrates the hell out of me, but if it gets him the win, you can't blame him for it.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:31 PM
A backhand compared to a better complete game you take your pick

Really? Murray slices better, volleys better, defends better, has a better backhand, and moves better (marginally so).

The serve is a tough one to call. Murray serves harder, but until now has not been as consistent.

thejoe
06-25-2009, 12:38 PM
Really? Murray slices better, volleys better, defends better, has a better backhand, and moves better (marginally so).

The serve is a tough one to call. Murray serves harder, but until now has not been as consistent.

Not really. Federer's is far better. Murray does volley better, obviously has the better backhand, but I'd still give the slice to Federer. Movement depends on the surface.

endbegin
06-25-2009, 12:38 PM
Murray does tends to get defensive and has a weakish second serve - and this is when some top players can take advantage of him.

He does have a lot of variety and is definitely a more cerebral player than most, as evidenced by his play against Gulbis today. However, don't forget that he served lights out, and he won't be able to serve at 80% first serves as the competition improves. Neither will the top guys miss all those half court returns that Gulbis kept missing, or want to keep hitting silly drop volleys all the time.

Interesting to see how this unfolds.

Fed a ball basher, huh? It is like you install a waterfall in your backyard and say that's just like the Niagara falls.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:46 PM
Not really. Federer's is far better. Murray does volley better, obviously has the better backhand, but I'd still give the slice to Federer. Movement depends on the surface.

Not sure why you'd give the slice to Federer. Murray uses it much more offensively. Federer uses it as a containg shot.

And Murray serves harder than Federer. He has a bigger first serve. All things being equal, Murray's is better. Federer often gets a higher percentage, but he puts more spin on it. His first serve is very potent, but not as potent as Murray's, who serves at 130mph+ on most flat serves.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:47 PM
Murray does tends to get defensive and has a weakish second serve - and this is when some top players can take advantage of him.

He does have a lot of variety and is definitely a more cerebral player than most, as evidenced by his play against Gulbis today. However, don't forget that he served lights out, and he won't be able to serve at 80% first serves as the competition improves. Neither will the top guys miss all those half court returns that Gulbis kept missing, or want to keep hitting silly drop volleys all the time.

Interesting to see how this unfolds.

Fed a ball basher, huh? It is like you install a waterfall in your backyard and say that's just like the Niagara falls.

The level of competition has no bearing on Murray's first serve percentage.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 12:49 PM
The level of competition has no bearing on Murray's first serve percentage.
It does if the pressure is on

President
06-25-2009, 12:50 PM
Murray is naturally a defensive player, but I wouldn't call him a pusher. He's more of a counterpuncher. The only reason it may have seemed like he was a pusher today is because Gulbis didn't realy give hm a chance to do anything else...

thejoe
06-25-2009, 12:51 PM
Not sure why you'd give the slice to Federer. Murray uses it much more offensively. Federer uses it as a containg shot.

And Murray serves harder than Federer. He has a bigger first serve. All things being equal, Murray's is better. Federer often gets a higher percentage, but he puts more spin on it. His first serve is very potent, but not as potent as Murray's, who serves at 130mph+ on most flat serves.

You're only considering the power, and assuming that that is the be all and end all. Pace is by no means everything, even though Federer can serve over 130 too. Federer places the serve way better than Murray, and disguises it better too. Federer gets a higher percentage, more aces, more free points and has a much better second serve. So Murray might get an extra few mph here and there, but this does not equate to a better serve.

Federer uses his slice aggressively too. Why would he use it when dictating the point if it was solely a containing shot? He does this frequently.

endbegin
06-25-2009, 12:54 PM
The level of competition has no bearing on Murray's first serve percentage.

It can ... especially if the other guy can get more returns in, can get a better read on the serve, it can cause someone to perhaps go for more causing more misses. 1st serves are not as simple as just tossing it up and whacking it ... the match situation, the crowd, the expectation ... everything factors in.

It isn't impossible but anyone (not just Murray) serving 125 mph and higher at 80% in a semi or a final is rare.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 12:57 PM
Really? Murray slices better, volleys better, defends better, has a better backhand, and moves better (marginally so).

The serve is a tough one to call. Murray serves harder, but until now has not been as consistent.
I give Murray Defense and Backhand over federer if it wasn't for his age Federer would have Defense

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 12:57 PM
It does if the pressure is on

In that case, the same applies to any player.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 12:58 PM
In that case, the same applies to any player.
Yes it does which is what I was implying

thejoe
06-25-2009, 12:58 PM
In that case, the same applies to any player.

Of course it does. It's impossible to deny that. I've seen Federer really step it up sometimes.

eg. 3rd set tiebreak Wimbledon last year, didn't miss a first serve
FO final this year, 2nd set tiebreak, 4 aces from 4 serves.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 01:00 PM
It can ... especially if the other guy can get more returns in, can get a better read on the serve, it can cause someone to perhaps go for more causing more misses. 1st serves are not as simple as just tossing it up and whacking it ... the match situation, the crowd, the expectation ... everything factors in.

It isn't impossible but anyone (not just Murray) serving 125 mph and higher at 80% in a semi or a final is rare.

First serve % is always going to vary. That applies to everyone. I don't see Murray's serve being affected by the pressure, particularly as he never goes for extra on it.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 01:01 PM
First serve % is always going to vary. That applies to everyone. I don't see Murray's serve being affected by the pressure, particularly as he never goes for extra on it.
Easier said than done we will have to wait into the second week if Murray makes it to judge that

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 01:02 PM
Yes it does which is what I was implying

So if it applies to anyone, it stands to reason that Federer won't serve as well when the pressure is on. What, therefore, was your point?

thejoe
06-25-2009, 01:05 PM
So if it applies to anyone, it stands to reason that Federer won't serve as well when the pressure is on. What, therefore, was your point?

Federer seems to though. AO this year being the exception.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 01:06 PM
So if it applies to anyone, it stands to reason that Federer won't serve as well when the pressure is on. What, therefore, was your point?
It was, every player is human you are aware of that so they will feel the pressure every now and then but Federer imo will handle it better than Murray as he has more experience

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 01:06 PM
I give Murray Defense and Backhand over federer if it wasn't for his age Federer would have Defense

Federer has great defence, but he's never been on Murray's level. It's pretty even on grass, but certainly not on hard.

endbegin
06-25-2009, 01:07 PM
So if it applies to anyone, it stands to reason that Federer won't serve as well when the pressure is on. What, therefore, was your point?

Yes, like I said earlier, it applies to anyone. Therefore, the point is that although it seemed like Murray could hit an ace at will, as the matches get closer and more competitive this will not be the case. As a result, the matches will be more close.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 01:07 PM
It was, every player is human you are aware of that so they will feel the pressure every now and then but Federer imo will handle it better than Murray as he has more experience

That's a bit presumptuous. That remains to be seen. I can't say I've ever seen Murray's serve break down under pressure.

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 01:09 PM
Federer has great defence, but he's never been on Murray's level. It's pretty even on grass, but certainly not on hard.
Yes this true but take into account of age difference that plays a huge factor in defense I would take Murray on any given day on defense today but when federer was his age he was a beast on defense it was either 'you hit a winner' or 'you lose the point' against federer

All-rounder
06-25-2009, 01:13 PM
That's a bit presumptuous. That remains to be seen. I can't say I've ever seen Murray's serve break down under pressure.
I wouldn't say break down but his level of consistency in first serves dropped at the AO against verdasco

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 01:14 PM
I'll have to respectfuly disagree. Murray reads Roddick's serve so well and I don't think Roddick could handle Murray's serve if he keeps it up. Hewitt's problem is that he doesn't have a great first serve to begin with and Murray will get involved in a lot of his service games. I think Hewitt will fare a bit better against Murray's serve, though. I honestly see Murray straight-setting both of them purely because neither of them can hurt Murray off the ground. Roddick just doesn't go after his forehand anymore. Gonzo, on the other hand, is so streaky that he has that potential to just whack forehand winners.


Eh, Roddick I think can still hurt Murray off the ground. His forehand really started to pick things up after the 3rd set. Put some heat off both sides.



What I think you're not seeing though is that both Roddick and Hewitt are very consistent off the ground. Murray loves to counter punch, but if you don't feed him pace, he tends to have trouble dealing with those types of players. There's two ways to go about beating Murray, one is to force him to play aggressive, and make him become impatient. The other is to just simply blast him off the court ala Gonzalez at the FO.




Although Murray does read the Roddick serve well, it's not like Roddick can't have a day where he can serve right through Murray. If his serve is on, it's almost impossible to break serve. Federer for 2 sets was unable to even get a sniff at breaking Roddick at the USO in 2007, and he was playing very well that match.

baseline08thrasher
06-25-2009, 01:27 PM
For me(just my opinion)there are no such thing as pushers in proffesional tennis so the answer is no.

Of course there are pushers at that level. They may look very good doing their tactic, but it's still considered pushing, it's just at that high professional level.

And of course they will take advantage of short balls, but I think Murray plays smart consistent play that we should all learn from.

World Beater
06-25-2009, 01:28 PM
I think Federer has a better dropshot than Murray, but in no way do I think his slice is better. Murray is far more offensive with his slice than Federer.

hahahahh


hahah

err..sorry...continue..

JeMar
06-25-2009, 01:29 PM
Eh, Roddick I think can still hurt Murray off the ground. His forehand really started to pick things up after the 3rd set. Put some heat off both sides.



What I think you're not seeing though is that both Roddick and Hewitt are very consistent off the ground. Murray loves to counter punch, but if you don't feed him pace, he tends to have trouble dealing with those types of players. There's two ways to go about beating Murray, one is to force him to play aggressive, and make him become impatient. The other is to just simply blast him off the court ala Gonzalez at the FO.




Although Murray does read the Roddick serve well, it's not like Roddick can't have a day where he can serve right through Murray. If his serve is on, it's almost impossible to break serve. Federer for 2 sets was unable to even get a sniff at breaking Roddick at the USO in 2007, and he was playing very well that match.

I'd love to see Andy come through and get a big win, but I really can't see it happening right now. Roddick seems like he's too content to sit and wait in rallies, or to rush the net. Neither of these approaches will be successful against Murray. If he commits to attacking every second serve, going after his forehand, and having basically won the point already before he comes to net, I give him an outside chance. If he doesn't, it'll be Murray in straights.

P_Agony
06-25-2009, 01:34 PM
I think Federer has a better dropshot than Murray, but in no way do I think his slice is better. Murray is far more offensive with his slice than Federer.

I REALLY disagree with you, but oh well - your opinion. IMO Fed's slice is the best on tour. Taylor Dent and Murray come close.

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 01:37 PM
I'd love to see Andy come through and get a big win, but I really can't see it happening right now. Roddick seems like he's too content to sit and wait in rallies, or to rush the net. Neither of these approaches will be successful against Murray. If he commits to attacking every second serve, going after his forehand, and having basically won the point already before he comes to net, I give him an outside chance. If he doesn't, it'll be Murray in straights.


He didn't seem very content to ralley in the 4th set today. Think he just needs abit of motivation to play aggressively. He was playing very well that 4th set.

JeMar
06-25-2009, 01:40 PM
He was also playing someone ranked way below him that really had no business on the court with someone like him. I hope he can bring that same kind of confidence into a match with someone like Murray. That great backhand he hit against Kunitsyn that got him the first break in the fourth set probably would've come back against Murray. I don't know if his movement has improved enough to be able to hang with Murray in the extended rallies they would most definitely have.

luckyboy1300
06-25-2009, 01:56 PM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

the versatility of your boy is so great that his knees couldn't keep up with it?? doesn't make that much sense to me.

harr
06-25-2009, 02:43 PM
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned today's winner counts. I don't know where to check them, but Gulbis seemed to be only a couple ahead for most of the match (at one stage the winners:unforced errors was 31:5 for Murray and 33:18 for Gulbis iirc). And it's not as if Murray hit many passing shot winners. I doubt many would claim that Gulbis was pushing, yet he didn't seem to be doing much better offensively than Murray.

Ray Mercer
06-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Really? Murray slices better, volleys better, defends better, has a better backhand, and moves better (marginally so).

The serve is a tough one to call. Murray serves harder, but until now has not been as consistent.

If you think Murray has a better slice you're a moron. 14 Slams pal. The onky thing Murray has going for him is falling apart in slams. Federer was able to neutralize a red hot Gonzalez in Australia in 07. Murray was crushed at the French by one stroke. Where was his great ability to adapt then?

vtmike
06-25-2009, 02:56 PM
bobble head?

Its pacman you fool...

bobble head! :D :D

NamRanger
06-25-2009, 03:02 PM
He was also playing someone ranked way below him that really had no business on the court with someone like him. I hope he can bring that same kind of confidence into a match with someone like Murray. That great backhand he hit against Kunitsyn that got him the first break in the fourth set probably would've come back against Murray. I don't know if his movement has improved enough to be able to hang with Murray in the extended rallies they would most definitely have.



I think Roddick can hang with Murray from the baseline; the question is whether or not Murray will get impatient or not. If he doesn't, then Roddick will have to pull the trigger and he needs to make sure he does it well.

Clydey2times
06-25-2009, 03:02 PM
If you think Murray has a better slice you're a moron. 14 Slams pal. The onky thing Murray has going for him is falling apart in slams. Federer was able to neutralize a red hot Gonzalez in Australia in 07. Murray was crushed at the French by one stroke. Where was his great ability to adapt then?

Amazing logic. Federer won 14 slams; therefore, he has a better slice. McEnroe won 8 slams. Does that mean every shot he has is better than a player who won fewer slams?

And Murray lost to Gonzalez on clay. Let's not pretend that it was on Murray's best surface. Murray has also lost to Monaco and Simon on clay. Let's see how Gonzo does if he plays Murray in the quarters on grass. Pretty sure you won't be putting your house on Gonzalez.

In future, use some common sense.

Ray Mercer
06-25-2009, 03:33 PM
Amazing logic. Federer won 14 slams; therefore, he has a better slice. McEnroe won 8 slams. Does that mean every shot he has is better than a player who won fewer slams?

And Murray lost to Gonzalez on clay. Let's not pretend that it was on Murray's best surface. Murray has also lost to Monaco and Simon on clay. Let's see how Gonzo does if he plays Murray in the quarters on grass. Pretty sure you won't be putting your house on Gonzalez.

In future, use some common sense.

Why don't we just wager on the Fed/Murray matchup if it takes place. I got Fed and you can have Murray. If Murray is so much better take the bet.

royer
06-25-2009, 03:53 PM
For me(just my opinion)there are no such thing as pushers in proffesional tennis so the answer is no.

Thank you zagor! You are absolutely correct. I'm so tired of people on this site using the word "pusher" to refer to pro players who may take a bit off their shots and keep the ball in play. I have yet to see a pro player who I would describe as a "pusher." Get real people! If you've ever played a true "pusher" at your local club, you can surely see how this term does not apply to virtually ANY professional tennis player.

lambielspins
06-25-2009, 03:58 PM
Really? Murray slices better, volleys better, defends better, has a better backhand, and moves better (marginally so).

The serve is a tough one to call. Murray serves harder, but until now has not been as consistent.

Yes Murray does everything except the forehand better than Federer. In that case I guess we should expect him to win 20 slams or more right.

Ray Mercer
06-25-2009, 04:02 PM
Murray's not a pusher but he has no explosive weapons. Generally more weapon equals more entertainment. There's nothing sweeter than watching Federer rip a sick forehand through the court or another player pick up a shoelace volley. Murray can't hit that big forehand and never really attempts to hit big winners therefore his rally's sometimes become stale. He's obviously an awesome tactician but he's just not an entertainer. He's kind of like the Tim Duncan of tennis.

oy vey
06-25-2009, 04:21 PM
He's obviously an awesome tactician but he's just not an entertainer. He's kind of like the Tim Duncan of tennis.

Excellent comparison. Duncan!! :)

jimbo333
06-25-2009, 04:29 PM
Murray is the new Borg!!!

I said this a year ago and nobody believed me, you soon will:)

Winners or Errors
06-25-2009, 05:18 PM
I don't know. I watched most of the Gulbis-Murray match today. Murray played excellent tennis, was almost always in the right place, and simply took Gulbis out of his comfort zone. Didn't look all that defensive to me. Sure, Gulbis made lots of errors, but he was in very bad court positions trying to hit unrealistic winners.

If someone in the "Murray is a pusher" camp could post something (not today's Gulbis match, because it absolutely wasn't pushing, just brilliant tennis), I'll gladly watch it and argue on your terms.

I just don't see it. Perhaps I'm blind.

Winners or Errors
06-25-2009, 05:19 PM
He's obviously an awesome tactician but he's just not an entertainer. He's kind of like the Tim Duncan of tennis.

+1, not flashy, but does what he needs to in each match to win...

Winners or Errors
06-25-2009, 05:21 PM
Murray is the new Borg!!!

I said this a year ago and nobody believed me, you soon will:)

Interesting. You should start a new thread with some more thorough analysis than this statement. I think it'd garner some talk, and probably deserves its own thread. I'd read it.

SempreSami
06-25-2009, 05:31 PM
Murray employs a different strategy depending on the opponent.

Makes me lol that people on here went on about how they want a brainless basher like Gulbis to beat someone who plays tennis differently.

jimbo333
06-25-2009, 05:36 PM
Murray employs a different strategy depending on the opponent.

Makes me lol that people on here went on about how they want a brainless basher like Gulbis to beat someone who plays tennis differently.

Indeed mate:)

That match today, really was great to watch, Murray really did play brilliantly, only 5 unforced errors in the whole match and about 40 winners, great stuff!!!

grafrules
06-25-2009, 05:37 PM
Murray employs a different strategy depending on the opponent.

Makes me lol that people on here went on about how they want a brainless basher like Gulbis to beat someone who plays tennis differently.

I find Gulbis boring to be honest. He is just a clone of a bunch of others these days, except even more error prone, less determined, and devoid of any tennis brain cells.

jimbo333
06-25-2009, 05:38 PM
Interesting. You should start a new thread with some more thorough analysis than this statement. I think it'd garner some talk, and probably deserves its own thread. I'd read it.

I havn't got time now, but I will in the future. I've been saying this for about a year, he MIGHT be that good:)

Not forgetting that most consider Federer greater than Borg, so Murray wouldn't even have to beat Federer maybe to achieve this comparison! And he has a better Head to head than him recently as well anyway!!!

Just a thought, but I may be on to something here:)

grafrules
06-25-2009, 05:58 PM
Murray does volley better

Does he really!?! I dont feel that way.

Ray Mercer
06-25-2009, 06:00 PM
I find Gulbis boring to be honest. He is just a clone of a bunch of others these days, except even more error prone, less determined, and devoid of any tennis brain cells.

If he is playing lights out it's pretty impressive to watch however that seems to be once in a blue moon. I remembver a couple of years ago watching him play robredo at the US Open and it was pretty impressive. He was just crushing winners left and right.

grafrules
06-25-2009, 06:02 PM
If he is playing lights out it's pretty impressive to watch however that seems to be once in a blue moon. I remembver a couple of years ago watching him play robredo at the US Open and it was pretty impressive. He was just crushing winners left and right.

I see what you are saying. It is hard to be successful in todays game with a game that is completely reliant on "playing lights out" though. Most times it turns into an ugly error fest from him.

Tennis_Bum
06-25-2009, 06:09 PM
Both Murray and Nadal play tennis the way it should be played. Versatility for the win.

Yes, they both push the ball as hard as they can to win. Well, the past 2 years any way, Nadal has pushed better than Murray, but I think Murray is going to surpass Nadal in that area of pushing because you can't push well if you obviously are injured or afraid to play a tournament because you know you will lose. How pathetic.

Currently, the # 1 pusher is Nadal and a close second is Murray but he is picking up steam.

Tennis_Bum
06-25-2009, 06:13 PM
It was, every player is human you are aware of that so they will feel the pressure every now and then but Federer imo will handle it better than Murray as he has more experience

Fed actually served pretty damn well when he was playing the French. There was a lot of pressure because a lot was on the line for Fed. If he didn't win French, imagine how many choke articles, blogs, posts around the world about his inability to win French again and again with or without Nadal being there.

Fed is serving well now, but it's only for first 2 rounds at Wimbledon. Let's see how he serve for the entire tournament. I hope he keeps it up to at least get to the final to give himself a chance to win the title.

Ray Mercer
06-25-2009, 07:41 PM
I see what you are saying. It is hard to be successful in todays game with a game that is completely reliant on "playing lights out" though. Most times it turns into an ugly error fest from him.

Yeah I agree for the most part he just breaks down and goes for way too much. You would think his team would focus more on strategy and taking something off the ball until the time is right.

Lion King
06-25-2009, 09:31 PM
murray knew that gulbis wanted pace so he took pace off the ball and make gulbis create it himself. "pushing" isn't always a bad thing. the good thing about murray is that he scouts his opponents and has a different gameplan depending on who the opponent is.

Agree completely. Pushing ain't always bad. Letting your opponent self-destruct may be good!

TheNatural
06-25-2009, 11:50 PM
Those that watched his match against Gulbis know what i'm talking about.
Murray went only 2-3 times to the net in the whole match.Had Gulbis gone more to the net or dropped some good droppers,he'd have at least taken a set.Murray's pushing tactic against Gulbis was effective and worked well.Why fix it if it ain't broke :).I was supporting him and he won.Well done.

Notice:this is an observation,not a criticism.

I think it looks like he pushes because he hits with an open racket face so he can hit the ball pretty well without so much effort. He doesn't have to try to rip the hell out of the ball with crazy spin on every single shot. I think that's what is effective about his game.With his swings he can easily suddenly crank up the pace a bit and surprise his opponents. I would say he played excellently with excellent control all match v Gulbis.

slice bh compliment
06-26-2009, 04:12 AM
What is a pusher these days?
Traditionally, it's been a player who hits moonballs down the middle and waits for his impatient opponent to self-destruct. When his opponent learns how to generate his won angles and his own pace, the pusher is beaten. This kind of pushing does not work at high levels of tennis. So I believe there are no pushers of this sort in pro tennis.

As I see it, at an advanced level, a pusher can be a player whose weapons are movement, consistency and defense. And if you add some serious mental toughness, this player wins tournaments.

Borg pushed, but also had a deceptively big serve and insane passing shots.
Wilander, same thing, only not as big a serve.....but in the late 80's, he added a sweet slice BH and some more volley skills. Also he served and volleyed to the ad court on big points. Gutsy pusher?
Agassi pushed at times, can you believe that? But he'll never be considered a pusher because of his power, and the fact that he generally played really close to the baseline. But he pushed and moaned like he did in 12s and 14s.
Chang pushed, too, obviously. What a retriever. A defensive artist...with a strangely high-risk serve toward the end of his career.
Hewitt's returns, lobs and passes were pretty amazing, too.

As we go along in the history of tennis, these 'pushers' have opponents who come to the net less often....so the 'pusher' ends up dictating more and sneaking in at times, too. So, imho, they cease to be pushers.

As mentioned before, Murray has weapons other than his defensive skills. He 'pushes', but not in the traditional sense. He has a big serve like Borg. He returns better than Hewitt or Chang, and lobs just as well. He has earned a PhD in passing shots. He plays that Nalbandian contra-tennis, but he's also got some serious heat on his groundstrokes at times, and he can turn defense into offense as well as anyone ever.

I've heard people expressing the opinion that Roger is a pusher, too. Of course, he blends amazing defense with a winning all-court game...and he is not the S&V genius that Sampras, Stich, Becker and Edberg were.

Look, just because a guy makes very few errors and plays mainly from the baseline does not make him a pusher.

What about Nadal? I feel Rafa pushed early on, and did well with that game plan on clay and against a weak opponent on faster courts. But a few beatdowns on hardcourt cured him of that, and he started to dictate a lot more and he turned into an all-court player with the best defensive skills in the world.

Now, I think even Hewitt cannot be considered a pusher.

Anyway, that word comes from 12s. It's semantics.

I prefer an attackng player, but I applaud a player like Murray, who really mixes things up.

Henman = one dimensional attacking player. Knows he cannot win from the back. Knows he might wear a guy down by attacking.

Sampras = attacking player who played the whole court.

Roger = attacking player with superb defensive skills. Knows how to win. Wish he attacked more, but he is either afraid or too smart to attack more.

Rafa = defensive king, with added finishing skills. But when he's hurt or in doubt, he reverts to that passive game. And people like Tsonga and Soderling can take advantage.

Murray = a weird, lanky version of Hewitt....with bulked up firepower and Mecir-esque movement. I'm impressed. I think he will win WImbledon soon. And he will inherit Roger's ''Grasspusher'' nickname.

Go Murray! Allez Roger! If that's pushing, I'll take it.

tahiti
06-26-2009, 06:56 AM
If your strokes are so accurate that you can keep the ball in play and just make 5 errors in a match it doesn't mean you're a pusher. It means you're a pretty good tennis player.