user92626
G.O.A.T.
I just hit the ball left, right, right, left, left, right when I can set up well. Otherwise, I just hit the ball back and wait for another opportunity to hit the ball left, right, right, left, left, right.
Works well.
How to beat a damn pusher.
- Thread starter zaph
- Start date
I just hit the ball left, right, right, left, left, right when I can set up well. Otherwise, I just hit the ball back and wait for another opportunity to hit the ball left, right, right, left, left, right.
Works well.
LuckyR
Legend
It's mostly about question 5.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
In club courts I always see the importance of other question/answers as well. For example regarding 1st question, I see opponents of pushers going for too much for no reason on serves and returns. If your best first serve is coming back the same way as your average second serve, and if your second serve is not getting attacked.... then apply simple "risk vs reward" system and why even bother with a risky first serve. Or.. go and develop a better and consistent first serve, enough to trouble the opponent CONSISTENTLY. (Hint: pushers are very concervative on returns, and so they are likely to get the ball back almost all the time, but this also means, they probably won't be attacking your weaker serves as much as your usual opponents).
Again... I am not saying ... doing one is better than other. But if you are true to yourself and answer those questions, you can figure out how to adjust your game, and come up with a plan, which could be different for each individual based on their skills and endurance. Ohh... and of course there is no guarantee you are going to WIN against the pusher... but at least you have a plan. And even if you lose, you know why you lost, and can go from there (would be less frustrating experience as well).
Again... I am not saying ... doing one is better than other. But if you are true to yourself and answer those questions, you can figure out how to adjust your game, and come up with a plan, which could be different for each individual based on their skills and endurance. Ohh... and of course there is no guarantee you are going to WIN against the pusher... but at least you have a plan. And even if you lose, you know why you lost, and can go from there (would be less frustrating experience as well).
Last edited:
LuckyR
Legend
My point is that it usually more about ego soothing (which leads to tactical errors) than stroke mechanics. Hence the gnashing of teeth on the Forum.
Dragy
Legend
It's an interesting research to make: once you put your ego aside, how many pushers are actually good enough? Is there any single "dreaded" one to actually beat you if you don't beat yourself?
LuckyR
Legend
All true. But that frustration doesn't come from their lack of of success alone, it comes from a lack of success against someone they have no respect for.
user92626
G.O.A.T.
Same. I got no respect for a leaky faucet either.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
That's progress: if I spent hours trying to fix a leaky faucet, I'd end up with a leakier faucet.
But I can pay a plumber to fix my faucet; I can't pay an NTRP 5.0 to win my match.
Dragy
Legend
That’s why you hate playing a pusher
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
That’s why you hate playing a pusher
I don't run into many pushers at 4.5. And I think my S&V/attack the net style is the worst possible matchup for a pusher because it denies them their normal rhythm and forces them out of their comfort zone by making them hit passing shots.
Pushers don't like taking the initiative; their sweet spot is benefiting from opponent errors. So their least-favored scenario is when they're constantly put into a position where they have to take the initiative by hitting a passing shot.
Dragy
Legend
Agree, and I also seldom face anyone pure-pusher style. People tend to look down at soft-shot players, even when those actually take opportunities and finish balls.
It’s frustrating when a person doesn’t miss, but you just go and see how same person gets dismantled by a better player, and you make your conclusions
Dragy
Legend
I’ve personally won from far behind by playing safe until it’s an absolute approach opportunity. And lost when I’ve been under pressure and couldn’t pull off anything but weak loopy balls to the bidder of the court - and opponents good enough to finish me. Try to push yourself and see how better opponents make you run, go for passers and trying to hit good lob to avoid being smashed with an OH.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
I'll make one observation: when I make errors lobbing, it's usually because I was so intent on avoiding the net man that I hit the lob out. I could improve my results if I worried less about the net man and more about simply hitting a quality lob and giving him the chance to smash [or err].
[It's different in doubles because I'm usually lobbing from a position of relative safety around the BL whereas my partner might become a sitting duck at the net. But he should know that.]
Same thing with passing shots: I worry so much about not giving the net man a volley that I err on the passer.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
There are multiple ways to dismantle a pusher but they might require altering one's game. If I'm accustomed to getting a lot of errors from big-hitting opponents [who also hit a lot more winners], I'm not going to do so well vs a pusher.
optic yellow
Legend
I thought pushers couldn't exist at 4.5 because players of that level can reliably punish soft shots.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Whoever wrote that either isn't familiar with 4.5 or is making broad, sweeping generalizations.
optic yellow
Legend
Is 5.0 the level where that is possible? I thought that was 4.5 for some reason. I was led to believe every 4.5 can hit clean consistent TS on both wings.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
That's as true as 3.5s who hit harder than Nadal.
optic yellow
Legend
I am confused what distinguishes 4.5 from 4.0 then.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
Go read the USTA NTRP description. But take it with a huge grain of salt because there is a lot of overlap.
I'm in the camp that thinks there aren't any magical skills that the 4.5 has that the 4.0 does not. In fact, the 4.0 might do some things better than the 4.5. However, on average for a typical match, the 4.5 is better at the things that matter more [ie serve, return, error management, shot selection, footwork, etc.]. The 4.0 might, for example, have a bigger serve but that won't make up for all of the other areas where the 4.5 is better.
Why would this matter? Everyone gets dismantled by someone better. Just because someone has better technique and is more aggressive doesn’t necessarily mean they will definitely achieve a higher ceiling that they can look down on a so called pusher as having some lower defined ceiling or not see the value in his consistency . There are many other things needed to get to the next level. Plus once you get there can you keep up with others at that level? Your beautiful top spin shots might be sitting ducks at the next level.
My feeling is that rec adults who started late in tennis should play the style they like. However reagardless of what style my opponent plays or how poor his technique looks, I automatically think of someone who can consistently keep the ball in, as a solid player at that level.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
There's a certain way of thinking, which seems more predominant in tennis than any other sport I've played, of a "right" way and "every other way". Certain attributes [ie power and TS] are lionized and others [consistency and slice] are shunned. In most other sports in most situations, the latter are at least acknowledged and respected [although not lionized]. Tennis seems to be the exception where someone can lose consistently to a certain style and still think he's the better player.
There is an interesting basketball example by Gladwell in one of his books: a girls BB team, coached by a father who had zero BB experience, was beating much "better" teams [the girls were more athletic, had way more experience, had better fundamentals] with one simple tactic: full court press. Get in the face of the inbound passer, swarm whoever had the ball, etc. The "better" teams never practiced against this, got flustered, and threw the ball away, time after time. Parents started complaining that they weren't playing "correctly". Sounds a lot like the guy who just lost to a pusher...again.
I'm with you: I can't help noticing my opponent's technique but I try not to let that lead me into self-delusion. If the guy can hit good passing shots and lobs, my net game will be under attack, no matter how funky his strokes look. Some people just can't get past the surface look.
Dragy
Legend
I may not put my point well, just saying it’s not right to say pusher plays wrong tennis. I bring up “better player” who beats same person, because it clearly illustrates how you are not too good if you lose to a guy (pusher or not) who gets reliably beaten by a 3rd person. I generally believe that if you see particular player being beaten by particular better player, it’s more humbling than just reading on internet how you are just not good enough.
For example, we’ve seen lots of @GSG matches, ones he won, and some he lost. And not every loss was against way better player - some guys just had it to win, on that day or generally.
Watch more tennis with players you face. Film your own matches and analyze how you lose points. Work on improving those areas - techniques, footwork, decisions. That’s an entertaining journey of improvement
I may not put my point well, just saying it’s not right to say pusher plays wrong tennis. I bring up “better player” who beats same person, because it clearly illustrates how you are not too good if you lose to a guy (pusher or not) who gets reliably beaten by a 3rd person. I generally believe that if you see particular player being beaten by particular better player, it’s more humbling than just reading on internet how you are just not good enough.
For example, we’ve seen lots of @GSG matches, ones he won, and some he lost. And not every loss was against way better player - some guys just had it to win, on that day or generally.
Watch more tennis with players you face. Film your own matches and analyze how you lose points. Work on improving those areas - techniques, footwork, decisions. That’s an entertaining journey of improvement
The reality is most rec adults have a defined ceiling in tennis because real life and other priorities get in the way.
My turning point was getting bageled in doubles by two guys who did nothing more than put the ball in play. I did not even mind that since I have always respected consistent players, as much as the fact that in that particular match I resorted to tweeners. I was already practicing a lot and also moved to tennis after being a solid racquetball player. Yet I was so focused on not making mistakes that I resorted to bunting and still got bageled. So what did I gain?
After that match I decided that practices were going to be specifically to find what strokes I could consistently swing out and keep in than try to hit winners. The second thing was deciding that win or lose I was going to try out those strokes in real games. If doubles, I would let my partners know that winning was not my sole goal. It took a while to experiment and see what worked in real games, but I finally found the strokes and serve that have good depth, pace and more importantly consistency for my level. Win or lose the fact I can play that way is what gives me a lot of joy as I move into my older years.
optic yellow
Legend
What level would you say is the level where all players can consistently (I allow for the occasional error with this description) blast TS groundstrokes off balls where they have time?
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
4.5 18 and up.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Haha, controversy! I've encountered some 4.5s in the wild, well 2, that literally couldn't hit a topspin shot, but that's rare. They were older and only playing 40 and up doubles exclusively based on their record (I looked them up because they got bounced so easily from the 1st round of my tournament that it was strange watching them get blown off the court) and they were trying to play in a singles tournament at 4.5. I would bet money if I was asked to choose that the final 4 4.0 players in that particular tournament would easily beat them too, but of course the 4.0s were in their 20s and 30s and played singles often. So, it depends how loose and wild you want to get with the 4.5 rating.
If 4.5 includes every 4.5 out there including people who, as an extreme, only play 55 and over doubles a few times a year, then it gets tricky, if we are discussing purely 4.5 18 years and up, I'm pretty sure nearly all of them can hit topspin consistently.
optic yellow
Legend
4.5 doubles isn't 4.5 singles? Not the same game.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Yes, indeed, if I understand that as a statement.
optic yellow
Legend
It was half question half statement I guess. I meant that I've seen a lot of people say it's not the same game so I was asking if it was reasonable to treat the ratings differently. Tbh it feels like ratings should really be based on singles only but that seems like a discussion for another thread.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
UTR and WTN have different #s for singles and doubles. NTRP does not.
They are different enough where separate ratings make sense.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
5.0.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
optic yellow
Legend
Glad I was right here.
As someone who has only learned about the formal or orthodox parts of tennis recently the lack of agreement over what constitutes a certain rating astounds me. Those terms are thrown around all the time in discussion. Why is this? The one source I have gathered is that different regions have different skills rated at the same number. I remember seeing this in one of the drama threads involving MEP I read when I was lurking last year. I think the core of that argument was that 4.5 Atlanta = 4.0 New York and that New York was more correct according to what the USTA tries to say the numbers are supposed to be.
Last edited:
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
You're combining two very different topics: your original question had to do with a skillset and now you're talking about ratings. In theory, there's no difference [skillset A should universally translate to rating B]. In practice, there is wiggle room.
Ratings are results-based, not skills-based. I could hit beautiful strokes and serve big and still lose to someone apparently less skilled than I due to many factors [fitness, mental weakness, consistency, shot tolerance, etc].
Skills are subjective: what looks like a great FH to some might look wonky to others. And as you're finding out, there isn't agreement even on a seemingly simple question that you posed. And @travlerajm and I are both 4.5s: if we can't agree on what a 4.5 is capable of doing consistently, you're never going to get universal agreement.
I still think the NTRP descriptions are a good foundation; you just can't treat them like a formula. More like a guideline. If you can hit shot X and the description says that 4.5s have mastered that shot, that doesn't necessarily mean you are a 4.5 since there are so many other factors.
How about this instead: the more accurate the description is of a certain player, the more likely the player is that NTRP. No guarantee, though. The description doesn't say anything about fitness and focus [mental toughness]. Someone who can check all of the boxes but is deficient in these two areas likely isn't that NTRP.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
MEP is an outlier: there is a big mismatch between the description of a 4.5 and the subjective appearance of his game. Some put more weight on their subjective judgement and conclude he's not a 4.5. Others point out his results are massively positive against other 4.5s in a tennis hotspot [Atlanta] so the probability of him achieving 4.5 by chance is almost nil.
The bottom line is that, again, NTRP is results-based: as long as MEP continues to achieve similar results, he will maintain his 4.5 rating. And he's closer to getting bumped up than down.
I'm not a believer in the regional difference theory: if MEP's region was very small and isolated, yes, the chance goes up. But Atlanta is neither. I find it hard to believe that a NTRP x + 0.5 would only be an x in another region. Personally, I think some of the people who believe this are engaged in some ego protection because they believe that MEP's aesthetically unpleasing game must therefore mean he has a lower rating. If MEP is winning against other computer-rated 4.5s in Atlanta, he'll probably do likewise in NY [or TX or FL or CA or VA, etc].
Consider this MEP quote from an interview by Ian over at Essential Tennis that was part of the whole MEP saga:
Ian: “Why do you think you trigger those people so much? What is it about them, or tennis, or you, or a combination that draws out such a negative reaction from some people?”
Ben: [sighs] “I would say, to some small extent, there are some people out there who probably put a lot of money into lessons and getting better at tennis and didn’t achieve that level for whatever reason and they’re frustrated…so they’re looking to find fault with people and there are plenty of things they could find about my game that are imperfect or non-traditional but for when I started and how long I’ve been playing, I’m pretty happy with where things are.”
If you want to look at aesthetics, point the video camera at the player.
If you want to look at results, point the video camera at the opponent [in MEP's case, watch them self-destruct with errors].
People's perception of skill have a lot to do with the former.
Ratings concern the latter.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
MEP has the widest disparity between his WTN singles and WTN doubles I have ever seen.
His WTN singles is 11.5. His WTN doubles is 23.0. Both are based on large sample sample size, over 80 matches total. In other words, he’s a solid 5.0 singles player and a high 3.5 doubles player rolled up into one package.
S&V-not_dead_yet
Talk Tennis Guru
True that. I wasn't even considering singles vs doubles. I'd say his play style does very well in singles but not so well in doubles because of the net man, who can intercept a lot of shots which would be tough to attack in singles from the BL. If the other team played only 2 back, he'd do a lot better.
This difference, BTW, is the same reason that S&V does well against this style.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Don't fret, there's disagreement on these forums from some people, in the real world there is more agreement.
I've proposed the geographical difference theory before and some people would respond that there aren't any differences because they captained a team from the flyover states to a national title, so how could a region like Texas or California or Atlanta have better rated players if their team didn't win nationals every year? I personally don't think one region has to win nationals every year to have the larger group of better players. If you venture to other threads Utah is headed toward being a 3 time national champion at 4.0 via their super captain, does it make me think UTAH has the best 4.0 players in the country, the ones that don't make it to nationals? No, to me it's further proof that success at nationals has little impact in assessing the skills of those left behind.
As far as skills or looking good and results,
Take the highest level of any ratings tennis in NTRP, it's tournaments, large ones and sectionals/nationals. The players winning large tournaments at 4.0 and 4.5 and slugging it out at sectionals and nationals all have good looking strokes, a majority are ex college players who've played since they were 10 or younger. The self-taught adult rarely wins at that level, if we are talking 18 + and even though I am getting older, in my world, 18+ is tennis, where the real competition is.
Now, back to geography.
It's to everyone to decide. First, the most frequent argument I've read whenever this comes up is, if one region is better, why don't they win nationals every year. I don't think that is a good way to look at it.
What I have personally seen at 4.0 and 4.5 between large tennis areas and smaller:
Memphis and Little Rock and Nashville and Mississippi: 4.0 leagues will have 1-6 teams, 4.5 leagues will have 0-3 teams. Memphis and Mississippi will have 0-3 singles tournaments per year and very light participation. Little Rock impressively might have 6 singles tournaments, but the same 6-10 players, the same, will be at every tournament, playing each other, creating their ratings. This I've seen for 3 years, no new players, just the same guys over and over. Most areas have zero 5.0 play occurring.
A large area like Dallas: 4.0 leagues will have 3 "conferences" with 10-15 teams each with max rosters. 4.5 leagues will have 10 teams. There will be 1-3 singles tournaments every single weekend in the summer. Dallas city championships will have 3-5 teams that could win against any team I've seen in non Atlanta Southern. There are entire 4.5 teams of ex-college teammates who've never been a 4.0 in their USTA life. In the smaller areas there are many 4.5 teams that put in the time and effort to claw their way to 4.5 beating all the 4.0s around them (all 20 or so in some areas).
I've also called around looking for clinics and I have no idea why but the pros would ask where did you move from, "Dallas" then they would make some remark like oh well, then you'd probably like this group better, it has the level you are probably used to playing. Strange really.
Women are a little different, but small ancedote, there are 4.5 W in non-atlanta southern who fought their way through all the 4.0s in a season or two and made it to 4.5, athletic and self-taught. Then somewhere like Dallas will have multiple teams full of division 1 and 2 women who started their post-college careers in Dallas from all over the US, they've never been a 3.5 or 4.0, and yes, they are very different in skill level to the 4.5s in southern. They also beat down any women in Dallas that work their way up to 4.5 and send them back to 4.0 quickly.
The multiple tournaments in larger areas can have 20-30 players per level, the smaller areas are lucky to make a tournament and if it makes have 4-8 players.
My conclusion is that larger areas just have more players, playing opportunities, ex-college tennis players, and more "friction" churning out a mass of more tennis skill. But, you may draw a different conclusion.
beltsman
G.O.A.T.
That's basically my strategy against everyone.
- try to get the point on to my FH
- hit to the open court or BH until I get a short ball
- hit short ball aggressively to open court
- put away shot OR start over again if opponent makes a good shot
Basically just being patient and hitting aggressive but safe shots to big targets in the open court. If the ball isn't a good one to hit, just get it back any way possible and reset the point. Obviously it takes some patience and fitness to be willing to build points like this, and the acceptance that you will make some mistakes. But the ideal goal is to run your opponent ragged and start to induce more errors.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
The problem is: you are asking wrong questions.
For example. Question: which level can hit consistent topspin shots?
ALL.... wait... NONE.... (maybe leave out absolute beginner).
A 3.0 who learned to hit topspin, can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 4.0.
A 4.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 4.5.
A 4.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 5.0.
A 5.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 5.5.
On a match... a 5.0 is not going to make silly errors when hitting neutral topspin balls against a 4.5. But everything changes when he is playing a match against another 5.0 at his same level, this is because of two reasons, a) He knows he has to do more to be assertive and in control of the point, so he is going for more b) The incoming ball is more assertive than before, and so it makes it harder from placement/depth/pace/heavyness of incoming ball.
This is why probably everyone answers that "magic consistency is 0.5 level above them"... because that is what they probably see when they play with that 0.5 level person above. And yea that 0.5 level person below, or same level misses too many... when they play with them.
So in summary...... one person control only "half" of the things on the court. How good or how bad he is on court is determined also by the person on the other side of the net.
A well trained coach, who can feed balls perfectly can make a 3.0 feel like a 5.0
For example. Question: which level can hit consistent topspin shots?
ALL.... wait... NONE.... (maybe leave out absolute beginner).
A 3.0 who learned to hit topspin, can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 4.0.
A 4.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 4.5.
A 4.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 5.0.
A 5.0 can hit top spin shots ALL day against a consistently fed ball, if he is not trying to get pace and depth of a 5.5.
On a match... a 5.0 is not going to make silly errors when hitting neutral topspin balls against a 4.5. But everything changes when he is playing a match against another 5.0 at his same level, this is because of two reasons, a) He knows he has to do more to be assertive and in control of the point, so he is going for more b) The incoming ball is more assertive than before, and so it makes it harder from placement/depth/pace/heavyness of incoming ball.
This is why probably everyone answers that "magic consistency is 0.5 level above them"... because that is what they probably see when they play with that 0.5 level person above. And yea that 0.5 level person below, or same level misses too many... when they play with them.
So in summary...... one person control only "half" of the things on the court. How good or how bad he is on court is determined also by the person on the other side of the net.
A well trained coach, who can feed balls perfectly can make a 3.0 feel like a 5.0
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
This is not just in rec level. @optic yellow if you watch enough pro matches on TV, you see this all the time. Someone who was distroying opponents along the way on early rounds, and seems like untouchable, and superskilled, come up against big3 on their good day, and becomes nobody. That consistent attacking player immediately becomes a super errattic player, who cannot keep 3 balls in a row on court.
Morch Us
Hall of Fame
Every skill has its level..... Hitting topspin shots on both wings .. had a 3.0 level... a 4.0 level and a 5.0 level.
Hitting consistent volleys has a 3.0 level ... a 4.0 level and a 5.0 level.
When the 3.0 guy try to hit a 4.0 volley... the consistency drops, but winners increases. How erratic someone is (over a range of opponents) purely depends on what he is trying to do, the general style of play and personality (and not much on his absolute level). More aggressive players make more errors at any level. More defensive players (yea you can call them pushers) make less errors at any level.
Hitting consistent volleys has a 3.0 level ... a 4.0 level and a 5.0 level.
When the 3.0 guy try to hit a 4.0 volley... the consistency drops, but winners increases. How erratic someone is (over a range of opponents) purely depends on what he is trying to do, the general style of play and personality (and not much on his absolute level). More aggressive players make more errors at any level. More defensive players (yea you can call them pushers) make less errors at any level.
justRick
Rookie
Someone suggested to man-up and hammer hard winners back from weak balls. This prompted me to setup the ball machine to feed weak loopy short balls so that I could practice drilling them back as hard as I can. The feeds weren't very consistent (bc of the balls), but that was good. My success rate was maybe 60%. Way too many unforced errors! Success should be at least 90%. I have some work to do.
While you are rennovating your TS put away approaching with a slice away from them is a solid option. Even better if you can hit it with a bit of side. Also useful for short balls below net height. Brady from DTL says TS is better so yr goal is good
beltsman
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, this. If they want to run all day long. I take it as a challenge to tire them out! Throw in droppers, short slice, deep lobs, and you can really run them around and induce errors. Plus, at the rec level, not too many players have the fitness to run for 2+ hours and not have fatigue negatively affect their game.
Every now and then I do run into a fitness freak, and it does suck to realize that I'm getting tired faster even though they are running more.
optic yellow
Legend
Here is what I stumbled into saying about this in another thread:
What I just don't understand is why rating is used so frequently when people are talking about player skill if it has so much more to do with results. To answer your original question that is why I conflated them. It does seem like there is some real value in having a number that can represent player skill in the game that exists independent of some unique environmental condition if people are constantly misusing NTRP rating for this purpose.
Similar threads
