The counterpuncher will win - since he posesses the offensive game to take advantage of mistakes. And if the pusher is a dinker - they make a ton of mistakes even though the ball stays in the court.
Most people that complain about "pushers" don't have the offensive game to punish them for the inevitable short ball they produce. While a high level player like a Murray could potentially just hit tough defensive shot after tough defensive shot.. A regular pusher doesn't have the strokes to turn every single shot into a deep topspin rally ball..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxD3xyfuEQ
As you can see in the only video of a pusher on the net - the opponent that gets beat by him doesn't do enough with those balls. I am not knocking the guy because honestly most rec players couldn't do much better (likely me included) but that's the issue.
Pete
The counterpuncher will win - since he posesses the offensive game to take advantage of mistakes. And if the pusher is a dinker - they make a ton of mistakes even though the ball stays in the court.
Most people that complain about "pushers" don't have the offensive game to punish them for the inevitable short ball they produce. While a high level player like a Murray could potentially just hit tough defensive shot after tough defensive shot.. A regular pusher doesn't have the strokes to turn every single shot into a deep topspin rally ball..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxD3xyfuEQ
As you can see in the only video of a pusher on the net - the opponent that gets beat by him doesn't do enough with those balls. I am not knocking the guy because honestly most rec players couldn't do much better (likely me included) but that's the issue.
Pete
yea, but isn't a counterpuncher outside his comfort zone playing against a pusher?
yea, but isn't a counterpuncher outside his comfort zone playing against a pusher?
Depends on who is the better tennis player during that match.
Say 4.5 pusher vs 4.5 counterpuncher. You'll agree there are both in 4.5, right?
So who wins? You know, that's why they PLAY the game and not theorize all day from home.
Sometimes, a suck team like the 49'ers can actually dominate a former SuperBowl team like the Cardinals.
OK, I"m a niners fan since 1957.
3.5 counter puncher vs 3.5 pusher .... who wins? Still, gotta play the match, and all the strategy and braintrust ideas can't insure the outcome. Just having more weapons doesn't mean guananteed success. And possibly, having LESS weapons might make you better at what you do !! :shock::shock:
More weapons, more options, can your brain handle it?
Less weapons, less options, but is it enough to handle your opponent?
Gotta play the game, which is why they do!
My definition of pushing doesn't agree with yours. I say there are 7.0 pushers. I've certainly seen enough in 5.5 to know it's possible.
Remember, what's important here is the PERCEPTION of pusher to an EQUALLY skilled or ranked player. Many top pros would say Chang was a pusher, Solomon,Dibbs, Barsasetchi, Ferrer, or anyone who chooses to make you run as opposed to END THE POINT.
YOU say 4.0 is the highest a pusher can be. That's because YOU are only 4.0 or 4.5.
You say what detemines a pusher from a counterpuncher is technique.
I say the determining factor is mental attitude.
Since most top pros would agree at least BradGilbert was a pusher, and he even agrees, maybe the definition is more in the mind of the player, rather than his strokes.
Brad could hit winners just like any other 7.0 pro, but he chooses to push you around the court, giving you no pace to hit, mixing his spins and placements, and really retrieving, getting, and fetching to drive you nuts, not to beat you.
My definition of pushing doesn't agree with yours. I say there are 7.0 pushers. I've certainly seen enough in 5.5 to know it's possible.
Remember, what's important here is the PERCEPTION of pusher to an EQUALLY skilled or ranked player. Many top pros would say Chang was a pusher, Solomon,Dibbs, Barsasetchi, Ferrer, or anyone who chooses to make you run as opposed to END THE POINT.
YOU say 4.0 is the highest a pusher can be. That's because YOU are only 4.0 or 4.5.
to Will Hamilton
i agree with your definitions thus far (BTW i'm a FYB fan)
how would you classify Andy Murray? Is he simply a better counter-puncher than Hewitt, or Chang for that matter?
where's the line between counter-puncher and Federer, who can beat you counterpunching or aggressing?
"When we both play well it’s a close match, but I always feel it’s the attacker who holds the key to success, so it’s up to me whether I win or lose, not up to him. That’s why I don’t mind the match-up, to be honest."
The counterpuncher will win - since he posesses the offensive game to take advantage of mistakes. And if the pusher is a dinker - they make a ton of mistakes even though the ball stays in the court.
Most people that complain about "pushers" don't have the offensive game to punish them for the inevitable short ball they produce. While a high level player like a Murray could potentially just hit tough defensive shot after tough defensive shot.. A regular pusher doesn't have the strokes to turn every single shot into a deep topspin rally ball..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YxD3xyfuEQ
As you can see in the only video of a pusher on the net - the opponent that gets beat by him doesn't do enough with those balls. I am not knocking the guy because honestly most rec players couldn't do much better (likely me included) but that's the issue.
Pete
The guy missed 3 relatively easy volleys. Thats a no-no.
Maybe, but LeeD is not dumb enough to go counter to what HaroldSolomon and BradGilbert actually SAID during their careers.
LeeD could care less about 4.0 perceptions in tennis, because they can only comment based on their ablilities.
Guys like the two examples above played tennis at 2.0 levels up to 7.0, and are much more qualified to make judgements on what is pusher and what is not pusher.
And LeeD certainly spent enough time talking to Dibbs and Solomon, Dibley and Stockton, to know THEY talk about opposition in terms of PUSHER vs hitters or inbetweens....
Yeah, like I said, a 4.0 player can only express what his 4.0 experience tells him for his information.
Not everyone is 4.0.
Maybe, but LeeD is not dumb enough to go counter to what HaroldSolomon and BradGilbert actually SAID during their careers.
LeeD could care less about 4.0 perceptions in tennis, because they can only comment based on their ablilities.
Guys like the two examples above played tennis at 2.0 levels up to 7.0, and are much more qualified to make judgements on what is pusher and what is not pusher.
And LeeD certainly spent enough time talking to Dibbs and Solomon, Dibley and Stockton, to know THEY talk about opposition in terms of PUSHER vs hitters or inbetweens....
Maybe, but LeeD is not dumb enough to go counter to what HaroldSolomon and BradGilbert actually SAID during their careers.
LeeD could care less about 4.0 perceptions in tennis, because they can only comment based on their ablilities.
Guys like the two examples above played tennis at 2.0 levels up to 7.0, and are much more qualified to make judgements on what is pusher and what is not pusher.
And LeeD certainly spent enough time talking to Dibbs and Solomon, Dibley and Stockton, to know THEY talk about opposition in terms of PUSHER vs hitters or inbetweens....
Thank you, but it's prolly my volleys.
Olympic figure skating judges are EXPERTS at the sport, and have watched it with full interest for over 20 years, or at least over 5.
Typical 4.0 has been playing for 5 short years, and only in his little pond.
Big difference between skill judgements of an Olympic judge vs a decent recreational player.
I don't agree with this logic. That would mean that an Olympic figure skating judge wouldn't be qualified to judge the competition. Simply because you can't do something -- like some crazy figuring skating jump -- doesn't mean you can't accurately / intelligently assess the quality of a performance or, in our case, what is necessary to play tennis at a high level.
So BradGilbert is stupid, ridiculous, and silly....
HE said he was a pusher, as did Dibbs and Solomon.
Honestly do we have to let Lee derail EVERY SINGLE THREAD with the world pusher in it into this semantic argument?
Most sensible rational people agree with Will definition - as I do of course. Why? Because under LeeD definition there is NO DIFFERENCE between a pusher and counterpuncher. In fact since every tennis player (even Federer) plays ALOT of defense tennis then every player is a PUSHER.
Yes. Brad Gilbert should be tarred and feather for stealing the word designed for people with half strokes who block and dink the ball back and applying it to pros with full strokes who absolutely PUNISH the ball.
If you give Murray a crap ball he absolutely pounds the F-in life out of it. These guys have NOTHING in common with the pushers we rec players are talking about. Please..just stop letting him do this...
Now back to the OP yes counterpunchers beat pushers because using normal intelligent definitions of these words counter punchers can do everything pushers can - and alot that they cannot.
Pete
It's good to know the whole world revolves around the 4.0 players.
My definition of pushing doesn't agree with yours. I say there are 7.0 pushers. I've certainly seen enough in 5.5 to know it's possible.
Remember, what's important here is the PERCEPTION of pusher to an EQUALLY skilled or ranked player. Many top pros would say Chang was a pusher, Solomon,Dibbs, Barsasetchi, Ferrer, or anyone who chooses to make you run as opposed to END THE POINT.
YOU say 4.0 is the highest a pusher can be. That's because YOU are only 4.0 or 4.5.
It's good to know the whole world revolves around the 4.0 players.
to Will Hamilton
i agree with your definitions thus far (BTW i'm a FYB fan)
how would you classify Andy Murray? Is he simply a better counter-puncher than Hewitt, or Chang for that matter?
where's the line between counter-puncher and Federer, who can beat you counterpunching or aggressing?
he can knock the heck out of the ball.
IMO, Murray needs to do so more often. He lets other guys take the initiative too frequently. His losses in majors this year were all to big hitters -- Verdasco, Gonzo, Roddick, and Cilic.