Define 'pusher'

[Djokodal Fan]

Any one apart from Roger in top 4 is considered pusher.

there you go.....

[slowfox]

Why is there always an undercurrent that being a pusher is a bad thing..??

[axel89]

Federer
federer=pusher

[jokinla]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk_rhsDxUFs

[Gonzo_style]

****s definition of pusher:

"Player who transforms Federer in Federror".

[BHud]

Ughh...that video is heinous to watch...

[tacou]

Originally Posted by slowfox

Why is there always an undercurrent that being a pusher is a bad thing..??

I agree. While I don't think any true "Pusher" exists in the top 50 or even 100, most counter punching styles are reviled on here.

To me, there is no difference between a player determined to keep the ball in play at all costs (Simon) and a player who will smash at the first relatively attackable ball (Tsonga).

Both can put on spectacular displays (one with foot speed and redirection; the other with power and placement) and horror shows (one with mind numbingly long rallies and retreats from net; the other with heaps of unforced errors and terrible shot selection).

Again, I don't think pushers exist on tour. A pusher has no weapon. Simon is an excellent counter puncher who can flatten out and crush ground strokes from either side, on the run or in place. And if Simon is not a pusher, no one is.

[Relinquis]

The author Martin Amis called it craven retrieval. Basically you try to get the ball back and play shots that have a very high percentage of not going out while still keeping some pressure on your opponent.

The current number 5 (4?) in the world David Ferrer is pretty much the pinnacle of what a pro pusher's game can look like. Check out his match against Nishikori or Almagro during this Australian Open for an example of how it can put extreme pressure on your opponent.

[Danny_G13]

Originally Posted by nikdom

Really interesting discussion here. Agree with all of you but then I don't think this is the crux of the matter that the OP is getting at.

If I'm right, the OP is really asking why is Murray's game style not liked more (or defined in negative terms), however you define it.

First off thank you all for a very interesting bunch of replies - some variety in how you all define it but my initial suspicions seem fairly sure now, that it's a defensive method of waiting for an opponent to make an unforced error by continually keeping the ball in play and not going for winners yourself.

Secondly to Nik here, no, not strictly - there was a slight hint at that perhaps but that wasn't the primary reason - I genuinely was curious at what such a widely-used term was actually being used to mean - it's all very well everyone calling this player or that player a 'pusher' but it's interesting if many of them disagree on what that means.

I think we need to separate two things here -

1. A player's game style as a valid, effective way of playing the sport and winning matches

2. Game style as appreciated by the viewer, regardless of effectiveness or validity.

IMO, a comparison to two other sports might make this difference clear.

For the Brits, take Cricket for example. I see the difference between Federer and Murray (on style of play points only) as the difference between a flamboyant opening batsman and a middle-order batsman known for consistency. Both are necessary in a good cricket team. A middle order batsman may not always take the most aggressive cut because it's in their mentality to score runs without too many risks. Both are valid, effective ways of scoring runs and winning matches and in fact a team needs both (Fed needs to defend too/Murray hits winners as wel). But most viewers will prefer watching a good opener simply because it's a more exciting, visually appealing way of batting. Indians will appreciate this difference most if they consider Tendulkar vs Dravid.

For those stateside like me, take the NFL. Some teams run the ball to death and others with good quarterbacks and receivers like to pass. Running the ball is a valid, effective and even necessary part of playing the sport offensively, but if folks are honest, it's not the most appealing form of earning a W. I'd rather see an awesome pass and catch than 20 rushes slowly inching up the field.

This is what is at the bottom of the name calling both ways. I'm not saying there aren't fans of a more defensive style, but a clear majority likes more offensive play as viewers.

Anyone agree with me?

I was with you all the way till you mentioned cricket and NFL! One is barely-glorified rounders with convoluted scoring, the other is chess with shoulder pads and cheerleaders.

[coloskier]

Originally Posted by slowfox

Why is there always an undercurrent that being a pusher is a bad thing..??

Because it is. It is boring, and has no flair. However, after watching tonight, Murray is no longer a pusher. Lendl finally got through to him.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by tacou

I agree. While I don't think any true "Pusher" exists in the top 50 or even 100, most counter punching styles are reviled on here.

To me, there is no difference between a player determined to keep the ball in play at all costs (Simon) and a player who will smash at the first relatively attackable ball (Tsonga).

Both can put on spectacular displays (one with foot speed and redirection; the other with power and placement) and horror shows (one with mind numbingly long rallies and retreats from net; the other with heaps of unforced errors and terrible shot selection).

Again, I don't think pushers exist on tour. A pusher has no weapon. Simon is an excellent counter puncher who can flatten out and crush ground strokes from either side, on the run or in place. And if Simon is not a pusher, no one is.

Well Monfils-Simon, Djokovic-Nadal, any matches between great defensive player can be some pushing fest. Sure you will see some nice highlights, but you will also see whole minutes of nothing. It can be slow ball in the middle in the case of Monfils-Simon, or aggressive ball in the middle, it still the same. Nobody dare to take the risk to pull the trigger, except when in a excellent position. But when these defensive players play an offensive one, then it become really interesting.

Ferrer is disliked because he can beat the lesser player by simply defending well and by waiting patiently the opportunity. But against top player he really go for his shot and try to construct the point in an aggressive manner.

[always_crosscourt]

The top 20 are all pushers. The only player in the world who isn't a pusher is Rosol.

[Slimshady53]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk_rhsDxUFs

[Metalica]

I believe even the most defensive of pros should be considered counterpunchers since they still have to hit it hard enough so the other guy dont smack it for a winner or come to the net for an easy volley. I've always believed the term pusher should be used to describe recreational players who dink the balls back waiting for the error (no topspin, hence pushing the ball). Counterpunchers draw the error while pushers wait for the error.