Definition of a pusher?
- Thread starter heycal
- Start date
looseswing
Professional
This has been debated but in my book it is someone who relies on their opponent to make mistakes and does not take a full swing at the ball. It is the second part to that statement that is crucial.
They are loathed because they really expose people who are not consistent because the pusher will get the ball back without pace and the other guy,lacking hte shots to put the ball away, will eventually miss.
They are loathed because they really expose people who are not consistent because the pusher will get the ball back without pace and the other guy,lacking hte shots to put the ball away, will eventually miss.
LuckyR
Legend
Around here, half the folks define it as a beginner player who takes a poke at the ball (a very rudimentary stroke), but always gets it back. The other half (including myself) define it as someone regardless of their stroke style, who plays high percentage tennis ie looks for his opponent's errors rather than going for winners themselves. By the latter definition, we all push on occasion but a "pusher" would be someone who resorts to that strategy a majority of the time.
SFtennisGG
Rookie
Pushers will be obvious to you whether you know the true definition or not. Im sure someone in here can give you a nice definition but to me pushers are recognized by players playing against them at their own level or above. For example, if you're a 4.0 pusher then a "non pusher" 3.0 opponent would not be able to say for certain if their opponent is a pusher or not. Another 4.0 opponent would know for certain. We all say Hewitt is a pusher but if I played against him, I for certain wouldnt say he was "pushing" anything.
I think it is very clear.
It is a player who gets every ball back letting you make the error.
As Vic Braden says ...... " he returns it to you until you finally vomit"
Another way to look at it is a player who has little offense and waits for you to make the error rather than forcing it upon you with his shots.
They can be identified easily. They have a house full of trophies.
Again ..... Vic Braden quote.
It is a player who gets every ball back letting you make the error.
As Vic Braden says ...... " he returns it to you until you finally vomit"
Another way to look at it is a player who has little offense and waits for you to make the error rather than forcing it upon you with his shots.
They can be identified easily. They have a house full of trophies.
Again ..... Vic Braden quote.
I don't understand the logic behind people saying "someone who plays high percentage tennis", because that doesn't imply they are "pushing" the ball.
I define a pusher as 75% based on the way they hit the ball, by doinking or just slicing it and not utilizing a full swing. The other 25% is based on their style which is mainly hitting everything in and playing more defensively.
A pusher who "just hits it in" blindly will never win above the 3.0 level because they need at least some depth and directional control. A good pusher will probably not win above 3.5 because the consistency of the other players is improved enough to hang with them, and the other players will have the edge with their offensive shots as well.
Pushers seem to want nothing to do with improving the technique of their strokes or learning how to add power to them. They are content dominating the 3.X levels for the rest of their lives.
I define a pusher as 75% based on the way they hit the ball, by doinking or just slicing it and not utilizing a full swing. The other 25% is based on their style which is mainly hitting everything in and playing more defensively.
A pusher who "just hits it in" blindly will never win above the 3.0 level because they need at least some depth and directional control. A good pusher will probably not win above 3.5 because the consistency of the other players is improved enough to hang with them, and the other players will have the edge with their offensive shots as well.
Pushers seem to want nothing to do with improving the technique of their strokes or learning how to add power to them. They are content dominating the 3.X levels for the rest of their lives.
Phil
Hall of Fame
Just a few suggestions...heycal said:
Do's:
-Come to the net to finish off points.
-Make THEM come to the net by hitting short, low slice and the occasional drop shot...and then pass or lob-they're usually not comfortable at net.
-Try hitting the ball deep and down the center of the court-preferably with heavy topspin (they like hard, flat shots between the knee and waist height). They like to run from side to side...don't let them do it...cut off their angles.
Don'ts:
-Don't lose your patience......wait for a short ball to approach the net on; don't play into their trap of trying to hit winners or shots beyond your ability to (consistantly) make. They DEPEND on you to do that.
-Don't play their game, unless you're a pusher yourself. They are better than you at...pushing and will beat you at their game.
pusher..
3.0 and below...
swing style: NA - whatever it takes
serve: yes
volley: huh?
i know i'm winning when: i always win since the opponent can't keep the
ball in play.
3.5
swing style: NA - whatever it takes
serve: whatever it takes to get to your weaker wing
volley: it's a shot that i hit during warmups
i know i'm winning when: other players say i'm like a backboard.
4.5+
swing style: whatever annoys you the most
serve: i like to see your weaker wing fall apart..and also see you mishit
the return on your stronger wing 'cause you are so anxious to hit it.
volley: if u give me a short sitter, i'll hit a winner of it or be ready for a volley.
i know i'm winning when: i hear things like "i can beat this guy. he just gets the ball back", from the other side of the net.
6.0+
likes of brad gilbert, arantxa sanchez-vicario, fabrice santoro, thomas muster...
3.0 and below...
swing style: NA - whatever it takes
serve: yes
volley: huh?
i know i'm winning when: i always win since the opponent can't keep the
ball in play.
3.5
swing style: NA - whatever it takes
serve: whatever it takes to get to your weaker wing
volley: it's a shot that i hit during warmups
i know i'm winning when: other players say i'm like a backboard.
4.5+
swing style: whatever annoys you the most
serve: i like to see your weaker wing fall apart..and also see you mishit
the return on your stronger wing 'cause you are so anxious to hit it.
volley: if u give me a short sitter, i'll hit a winner of it or be ready for a volley.
i know i'm winning when: i hear things like "i can beat this guy. he just gets the ball back", from the other side of the net.
6.0+
likes of brad gilbert, arantxa sanchez-vicario, fabrice santoro, thomas muster...
heycal said:
I'm not an expert but I have played numerous pushers at the 3.5 level and here's what I found is effective. Keep the ball deep and they will usually cough up a short ball that you can put away. When they do hit me a short one I will usually come up and go for a winner to one of the corners. It usually works when it goes in. If you can't put these balls away then you will not win. The problem is that keeping the ball deep and going for winners is tough to do consistently at 3.5, which is why I believe the best 3.5 players will be pushers.
Some people say come up to the net and attack them there, but if you are not a great net player, then there's no hope with that strategy.
Squall Leonheart
Rookie
It is high percentage tennis, I agree. That being said, pushers aren't playing "more defensively," they're playing only defensively. Like many other have said, they don't care abouit form or technique either; they just pretty much put their racquet in front of the ball's path and give just a little tap to get the ball back. Pushers will very rarely have any winners, and they only have them if you didn't want to run for a ball or something like that.
Pushers tend to win at the lower levels because they are concentrating on getting th back any way they can, not proper technique and such. Pushers do improve in that they may get more consistant or be able to make good defensive shots (like lobs or something), but they never gain anthing else.
The other players take more time to improve, they also get more consistent, but they also gain the ability to do more with the ball. This is where they surpass the pushers: they start to be able to attack while still playing high percentage tennis. The pushers do play the percentages, but can't attack because they haven't been learning how to.
So, my definition would be "a player who never attacks. They dink the ball back until and hope for their opponents' unforced errors."
Tennismastery
Professional
paulfreda said:
Those torphies all say "3.5" or "3.0" You don't see too many 'pushers' at the 4.0 level and especially at the 4.5 and above levels.
Don't be decived by Vic's comment: such 3.0 and 3.5 level players who are truly 'pushers' win a lot of tournaments at these levels because the players they often beat are working on more defined, prolific and effective strokes and strategies...strategies that take more time to refine and perfect, more time to become comfortable with than the rudementary patterns that are associated with 'pushing' a ball over the net.
My definition of a pusher is this: a Gravity-Reliant player. This means that a player who hits fairly flat, hard enought to clear the net, but not so hard or too high of net clearance that gravity can't bring the ball down into the court. Players who hit with spin, are able to do more with the ball than simply hit within the context of gravity. This takes longer to master but ultimately allows a player to play and compete at higher levels of play. Pushers don't have a 'repetoir' of shots per se...they usually can hit with underspin to a certain degree and can hit deep or short with minimal pace and not much else; advanced players can hit with more diversity, including sharp topspin angles, dipping passing shots as well as shots hit harder because of the topspin advantage, and they tend to be able to do more with a short ball than a pusher.
Most players who do master spin, move on to higher levels of competition; those who stay 'pushing' the ball, stay at a level for a lifetime. Certainly, players who play decades at the same level can handle most up-and-coming players who are developing a 'game'...until such players actually do develop a game...in which they move on to more prolific levels of play. I remember playing some older guys when I was in my early teens...each of which killed me. Not a long time from then, I played the same guys and killed them. They remained at the 3.5 level and I went on to play college tennis. They pushed, I hit with spin and certainly with a little better overall technique. Yet, these older men were not poor athletes or uncoordinated. They each had good athleticism...they simply learned tennis within a 'pushing' level of technique.
And, while there are some exceptions to this, (where a pusher moved up to a higher level of competition), the question always begs: 'how good would such a player reach if they had learned more advanced levels of play?' Such players who do reach higher levels are truly an exception to the rule!
It is similar to playing the piano with only two fingers: while you can 'hunt and peck' songs on the piano this way, you will never develop into a prolific piano player. And while playing with your index fingers is far easier to do than to learn how to coordinate all the fingers, playing with only two fingers will only allow you to play a certain 'level' of song...songs that are ultimately boring and certainly not enjoyable to listen to very long! Tennis is like this; players who learn easier, less challenging ways to hit a ball over the net, (usually pushing the ball as mentioned earlier), such methods not only are limiting in their effectiveness, they are very difficult to change when the player eventually recognizes the limitations to such mediocre methods.
You can have all those 3.0 level trophies. I certainly would not be very satisfied twenty years later still winning at that level. Those who are satisfied tend to be that because they recognize that change is not an option for them since they are so ingrained in such methods to hit a ball.
Tennismastery said:
But here's the thing: if pushers were as pathetic as you and others paint them to be, they wouldn't be the hated figures they seem to be on these boards. They would be ignored or pitied if they were truly sucky tennis players instead of inspiring the amount of passionate contempt they seem to generate.
Tennismastery
Professional
heycal said:
I am amused by your perception of where I cited (or others) that pushers are 'hated figures'...As a teaching pro, I see thousands of players stagnant at levels far below their potential, because of the way they were taught or the way they learned to play tennis. At no point did my post identify pushers as someone I personally hated. (Where is that coming from?) In fact, I have many students who were pushers for years, come to learn how to get past this level of play. The passion is to change from a level that is inferior to that which a player could achieve if they had learned to play tennis within the framework of more prolific methods.
After all, how many real teaching pros advertise or 'teach' pushing as a teaching philosophy?
For the most part, the pushers I played against as a developing player are fairly ignored. Myself--and others like me who were working on strokes and strategies that did not resort to a pushing methodology--ended up looking at how to beat much better players who, like us, could create more shot selection than simply pushing a ball over the net to say we were 'playing tennis.'
The players who seem to hate pushers are other pushers who are not nearly as good at pushing! Those, and, as I mentioned in my first post, the players who are working on more effective strokes can meet with frustration for a period of time when playing a pusher. This is because pushers do a very good job of keeping many balls in play...and the player working on more effective shot-making often is not consistent enough in such shot-making to win against a pusher. This is probably the frustration we hear about on such posts as these. I remember how frustrated I was for a period of time playing the hackers and pushers when I was developing as a player. But, time and more effective play made such players very easy to beat later on.
I don't dislike any pusher. Heck, they are the ones that at some point, come out to take lessons and clinics. Secretly, I believe it is the pusher who often hates their own game.
How often do you see someone pick up a tennis player and say, "gee, I would love to play tennis, but I just want to be a pusher for the rest of my life"?
The point is, pushing takes little skill in general; you can push a ball over the net with minimal technique and timing. There is nothing personal about the way I feel about someone who pushes a ball over the net...except for a sense of feeling a little sorry for the individual. They seldom will enjoy more diversity that better strokes offer. Many don't know what they are missing since you can always find other players at the same level to compete against which still provides the 'fun' of competition in the simplist sense.
If a player is truly happy in pushing the ball to play tennis, all the power to them. However, deep down, I know that many of these players envy players who can play the game well and secretly wish to play a better, more challenging level of tennis. I know that there are those who don't care and that is just fine too!
Amone
Hall of Fame
What else would you call Nadal but a pusher? What would you call Lleyton Hewitt? They're just more advanced. Pushers stagnate because they don't evolve in their trade. Their stroke production doesn't improve. I think every player who can't push is holding themselves back. If my strokes were to go straight to hell, I know I can hack (read: slice with placement and consistency) my way to at least a 4-6 4-6 loss. I know that if I have by two-handed forehand and backhand, I can counterpunch my way through, maybe to a set, or to a victory if I'm really lucky. And you know what? My A-Game is serve-and-volley, or power, depending on my mood that day. Many people don't seem to give pushers enough credit: Some evolve, they become counterpunchers, or junkballers, but they only stagnate if they stay pushers.
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
heycal said:
The so-called 'Pushers' are typically very consistent, tactically sound tennis players who reliablly best less skilled individuals who over-estimate their own strokes and/or fire-power. Thus, in their role of exposing the weaknesses of others, they are disliked......nay, yes even loathed.
CCLuckyR said:
I'm saying that if you don't hit the ball a certain way that would resemble "pushing", then you are not a pusher. High percentage tennis is more of a byproduct of pushing. Thats why I said that most of the criteria used to classify someone as a pusher is based on how they hit the ball.
Tennismastery
Professional
Obviously, different people define 'pusher' differently. I would never call a top level player (Pro or otherwise) a pusher simply because my definition (and that of other teaching professionals) of a pusher is one who hits with a linear 'pushing' motion to direct a ball to the other side of the net. To label Nadal or Hewitt pushers would be like calling Curtis Strange a golf hacker. The opposite of a pusher would be one who uses full strokes within angular momentum (rotational movements). While most volleys could be considered linear, there is a difference even here: a pusher pushes a volley fairly flat, a more skilled volley player will often add slice to their volley, especially low ones.
Yes, top players have the ability to change their game...to even a pushing modality, only if their regular strokes are failing them. (Usually more likely a lack of confidence in their regular strokes.) A typical 'pusher' has no other game other than to rely on linear strokes to hit a ball over the net.
There is a big difference between a pusher and a 'defensive' player or a 'counter punching' player. These latter players tend to still hit with spin and intention...the difference is they don't necessarily dictate play with this power. Hewitt is definately a counter punching type pro. He still hits huge forehands and backhands (relatively speaking!) compaired to a pusher but doesn't dictate the point as a Blake, Roddick, or Federer might.
A defensive player may use a lot of slice. Steffie Graff was a defensive backhand player and an offensive forehand player. (Although, she could chip and charge on the backhand side to make it offensive on a short ball.)
Most people would label a pusher in similar jargon as a 'dinker'. Neither term brings to mind a prolific shot maker. That doesn't make them a 'bad' person, just a limited tennis player.
Yes, top players have the ability to change their game...to even a pushing modality, only if their regular strokes are failing them. (Usually more likely a lack of confidence in their regular strokes.) A typical 'pusher' has no other game other than to rely on linear strokes to hit a ball over the net.
There is a big difference between a pusher and a 'defensive' player or a 'counter punching' player. These latter players tend to still hit with spin and intention...the difference is they don't necessarily dictate play with this power. Hewitt is definately a counter punching type pro. He still hits huge forehands and backhands (relatively speaking!) compaired to a pusher but doesn't dictate the point as a Blake, Roddick, or Federer might.
A defensive player may use a lot of slice. Steffie Graff was a defensive backhand player and an offensive forehand player. (Although, she could chip and charge on the backhand side to make it offensive on a short ball.)
Most people would label a pusher in similar jargon as a 'dinker'. Neither term brings to mind a prolific shot maker. That doesn't make them a 'bad' person, just a limited tennis player.
Amone
Hall of Fame
What's your opinion on Fabrice Santoro, Dave? I'm just curious, it seems like a question to be asked. He's pretty much a hacker, except that he's a very, very good hacker. Hacking, as per my knowledge, is a popular form of pushing. My favorite, in fact, for when I need to push.
@Raiden: What would you answer to the idea of hacking, since I've got it on the mind? I once managed to outsteady my HS team coach by hacking, so I can assure you that it's a very effective form of pushing.
@Raiden: What would you answer to the idea of hacking, since I've got it on the mind? I once managed to outsteady my HS team coach by hacking, so I can assure you that it's a very effective form of pushing.
Craig A. Clark said:The so-called 'Pushers' are typically very consistent, tactically sound tennis players who reliablly best less skilled individuals who over-estimate their own strokes and/or fire-power. Thus, in their role of exposing the weaknesses of others, they are disliked......nay, yes even loathed.
You must be a pusher. As Tennismastery states, a pusher only gives trouble to developing players. With that being said, those who complain about pushers are either 1) developing players likely less than 4.0 or 2) people who classify pushers as any high percentage players who might actually have good stroke technique (debatable).
During my weaker days I have lost to at least one pusher who did not know how to hit a backhand, and would run around every shot that came to that side. While I was focused on developing as a player, they were more interested in beating a weak 3.0 player than actually developing a backhand and taking risks with it. Most pushers win because of the other person's UEs. I don't consider that highly skilled.
Tennismastery
Professional
Amone said:
Good question, Amone.
First off, I personally would not call Fabrice a hacker. I was working on court with one of my ATP players and Kim Clijsters and Fabrice and Marat Safin were on the court next to us. Believe me, Fabrice can hit as big of shots as Safin when he wants to! Again, however, we need to define the word hacker. To me, hacker is one who uses short, choppy shots as opposed to a person who uses longer stroke patterns to create slice or topspin. Fabrice, while very unorthodoxed, even in his two-handed forehand, still uses a long, fluid stroke within his varied spin groundstrokes and drop shots. (Which is why his drops are so effective, they are fluid shots that resemble his 'normal' slice strokes that are deeper.)
Second, I believe that some players who simply use very unorthodoxed strokes, can indeed, become skilled in such play. I have seen some seniors (notice I said 'some'!) who are extrodinarily good at hacking, dinking, and pushing the ball. However, I still say that if they are that good at playing such shots, I wonder how good they could have been if they had learned and mastered more conventional strokes. Of course, we will never know. Just like we don't know for sure if Sampras would have been better with two hands on his backhand instead of one! (Safe to assume he would not have been better!)
And finally, since competition has so many variables and outside influences-such as confidence, momentum, and psychological influences, a hacker/pusher/dinker can indeed get wins where he or she might not otherwise based on strokes and strategy. However, this is more the exception. Go to any tournament and watch the 3.0 or 3.5 matches then go over and watch the 4.0 and 4.5 or 5.0 matches. Is there a difference? Do the 5.0 players push, dink or hack the ball? If not, then would it be safe to say that if a player wishes to reach such levels as 4.5 or 5.0, should they adopt a pushing/hacking/dinking stroke methodology as a method of learning the game? If the answer is no, then we can probably put this thread to bed as to which method people should try to learn if, indeed, they want to reach said levels.
Thanks for the question!
Dave Smith
Tennismastery
Professional
raiden031 said:
Let me write what my definitions are for these terms: Pusher, Hacker, & Dinker
The pusher is one who literally hits the ball using a linear stroke; one that hits the ball not only flat with a flat racquet face, but on a flat trajectory of their racquet path. They may have a long stroke or a short stroke.
The hacker is one who uses primarily short, abbreviated strokes. They could be slices or even topspin. But they lack usually a fluid, longer stroke. Hackers also can be seen using some element of wrist.
The dinker is one who simply hits soft all the time. They have minimal confidence in hitting the ball with any pace and usually decelerate their swing if they take a big back swing to soften the shot. They seldom use spin although, if they do, it is almost always slice. The dinker can be seen to push the ball like the pusher but almost never have a long, fluid stroke as some pushers might have in hitting a flatter ball.
Does this help?
tennisplayer
Rookie
Dave, your posts are always an education. Thanks.
I play a 4.0 pusher quite often. My game would be 4.5, were it not for my fitness. Let me tell you, this guy is a combination of pusher, hacker, and dinker, and he can run really fast. On the days when I am feeling really fit, I can beat this guy. On the days when I have had very little sleep, and perhaps a little too much to drink the night before, it is a nightmare...
I would say that at any given level, the determining factor as to how well one does against a pusher is determined by one's fitness.
I play a 4.0 pusher quite often. My game would be 4.5, were it not for my fitness. Let me tell you, this guy is a combination of pusher, hacker, and dinker, and he can run really fast. On the days when I am feeling really fit, I can beat this guy. On the days when I have had very little sleep, and perhaps a little too much to drink the night before, it is a nightmare...
I would say that at any given level, the determining factor as to how well one does against a pusher is determined by one's fitness.
Amone
Hall of Fame
Tennismastery said:
I don't mean to sound asenine, but here's a metaphor for you, so that you can see what I see here and perhaps exaplain to me where I am confused.
Instead of a pusher, we'll use the example of... say, Richard Gasquet. A player can play with a similar style at a 3.0 level, but if you were to see that 3.0, and ask how his betters would play, you probably wouldn't say 'Richard Gasquet.' In short, to use some terms which I so recently picked up in a copy of 'The Tipping Point,' Richard Gasquet's game can easily be 'leveled,' or simplified, to a 3.0 level. However, at that point, it's somewhat difficult to see what it originally was. At that point, it can be 'sharpened,' or complicated, to almost any one-hander's game, and to lead it back to Gasquet would be difficult. Now if I were to level Lleyton Hewitt's game to a 3.0 level, I'd see a pusher. If I were to level Fabrice Santoro, or Karsten Brasch's game to a 3.0 level, I'd see a hacker. Where's to say that there can't be a sharpening of the pushing or hacking game?
Here is an old thread with some humorous posts relating to the art of pushing.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=81381
I was laughing hysterically with some of these. So true too.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=81381
I was laughing hysterically with some of these. So true too.
tennisplayer
Rookie
Amone said:
Gasquet hits a very heavy topspin a la Nadal. That in itself "disqualifies" him as a pusher at the pro level, IMO.
I don't know if you have faced heavy topspin - I have, from my 5.5 coach. To him, it is a routine shot. The ball comes at an arc to my backhand, takes a heavy leap with some sideways motion, and it takes everything I have to get the ball back defensively. That is not pushing!!
When you get to Gasquet's level, it will be like returning a heavy kick serve to the backhand, I am guessing. There is no equivalent for this at the 3.0 or 4.0 levels.
Amone
Hall of Fame
Nono, I think you're mistaken. I was saying that Gasquet played an agressive game, with heavy spin. I fancy myself no higher than 3.5, in honesty, and I can play a heavy-spin game, agressively. Most of the male players I know can, 2 in particular stand out. One of them, fittingly, uses a Pure Drive, but that's a story for another time. When I play my topspin game, I play a leveled version of Gasquet's game. No, I don't think I'm great at it. I'm saying that the underlying strategies, powerful and spinny groundstrokes with no fear of leaving the baseline, are often used at lower levels. The game has simply been leveled to the point where you don't connect it to Richard Gasquet, because a 3.0 player can't hit it as well.tennisplayer said:
EDIT: To explain further, the players I did refer to as the professional equivalent of pushers and hackers are also players I have plenty of respect for, so I'm not trying to take anything from them.
BounceHitBounceHit
Legend
raiden031 said:
Wow. I see why people leave these boards in time.
Did you not see the 'wink' at the end of the post?? You have to admit a number of people will label another player a 'pusher' if they just get out-lasted. I'm not saying they are right, just that it happens.
Happy Hitting,
CC
Tennismastery
Professional
Amone said:
Well, I think you are probably close in your interpretation of these players and maybe the corrisponding levels at the 3.0 or 3.5 methods. However, if your explanation held true in a general sense, then the vast majority of pro would resemble those who you mentioned. I have often said in posts that there are exceptions to the rule where a player can indeed 'sharpen' a pushing, hacking or even a dinking game to be more competitive even within said limiting strokes. Heck, I've seen a player put his thumb up the racquet handle and hit a backhand as if holding an upside down frying pan...and nail the shot with regularity! (He was my high school coach and he blew us all away when we were freshmen...never got a game off me after my sophmore year, however!)
The question still begs to be asked: if such players can 'elevate' a hacking, pushing or dinking game to a competitive level, how much better would such players be if they spent the same period of time working on more effective strokes instead of spending time 'elevating' a limiting stroke? Usually, those who are indeed competitive with the unconventional are very good athletes with decent speed, anticipation, touch, or coordination to be able to be competitive with such limited techniques...or a combination of several of these attributes. If so, then it is probably very likely that they would have learned the more conventional, effective strokes fast and been able to master them at even higher levels of competitive use.
Besides, who would you like to emulate? Federer or Gasquet? (Personally, Hewitt hits a farily big ball with very prolific strokes. He just is a fairly small guy with less firepower than many of the bigger hitters. I don't see any 3.0 players stroking the ball the way he does!)
Tennismastery
Professional
tennisplayer said:Dave, your posts are always an education. Thanks.
I play a 4.0 pusher quite often. My game would be 4.5, were it not for my fitness. Let me tell you, this guy is a combination of pusher, hacker, and dinker, and he can run really fast. On the days when I am feeling really fit, I can beat this guy. On the days when I have had very little sleep, and perhaps a little too much to drink the night before, it is a nightmare...
I would say that at any given level, the determining factor as to how well one does against a pusher is determined by one's fitness.
Thanks for the comment. One of the determining factors I see in a competitive player who indeed uses questionable strokes is a strength in some other area...such as speed in the opponent you mentioned. Or, it could come in the touch department, or simply mental toughness where a dinker, pusher or hacker simply refuses to give up! (I used to love to 'toy' with these players when I was much younger--and probably immature!--since I knew they would never give up, I loved to run them all over the court and not try to put the ball away until they were so dead tired from trying so hard!)
How does your 4.0 pusher do with other opponents at the 4.0 or 4.5 level?
Amone
Hall of Fame
Tennismastery said:
Last things first: That depends on the day. Sometimes [in game only] John McEnroe, sometimes Ken Rosewall, sometimes Gasquet, sometimes Safin. Today's playing was a Gasquet day, to be more specific. Last week was more of a transition week, the week before McEnroe. Sometimes, I'm truly my own player, with my flat, counterpunching two-handed forehand.
To continue on to the main part of your question:
Yes. They probably could be much better, stroke wise. There was a post a few weeks ago, I'm sure you read it, about 'A or B' type players. The type B player is the typical pusher, given the strokes you describe. Those strokes being removed, they're still not much about power. They're the mental players, who might get the physical game, but will never have the physical mentality, not really.
Let's imagine for a moment that we were to have a player who pushed. Let's say that we have an ideal pusher. Infinite baselining endurance, wily tactician, and good reaction time. Realistically, he'd be best fit to an all-court game, rallying at the baseline and looking to come to the net to finish pretty much every point. You could slap a looped forehand and a two-handed drive on him, teach him to volley properly (as we all know, pushers can't play the net.
) and let him have a go. He'd probably be successful. What I'm saying isn't that he's being helped by his game. He probably isn't. I've made two arguments here: One, that he could be great with his pushing game (assuming he sharpened it to a counterpunching or junkballing game, which I stand by are really evolutions of that initial defensive instinct), and two, that everyone should have a foolproof game in their arsonal, which the pushing games are.
Tennismastery
Professional
Amone said:Last things first: That depends on the day. Sometimes [in game only] John McEnroe, sometimes Ken Rosewall, sometimes Gasquet, sometimes Safin. Today's playing was a Gasquet day, to be more specific. Last week was more of a transition week, the week before McEnroe. Sometimes, I'm truly my own player, with my flat, counterpunching two-handed forehand.
To continue on to the main part of your question:
Yes. They probably could be much better, stroke wise. There was a post a few weeks ago, I'm sure you read it, about 'A or B' type players. The type B player is the typical pusher, given the strokes you describe. Those strokes being removed, they're still not much about power. They're the mental players, who might get the physical game, but will never have the physical mentality, not really.
Let's imagine for a moment that we were to have a player who pushed. Let's say that we have an ideal pusher. Infinite baselining endurance, wily tactician, and good reaction time. Realistically, he'd be best fit to an all-court game, rallying at the baseline and looking to come to the net to finish pretty much every point. You could slap a looped forehand and a two-handed drive on him, teach him to volley properly (as we all know, pushers can't play the net.
Great points on all accounts.
Tennismastery
Professional
raiden031 said:
I love it!
(arsonal)tennisplayer
Rookie
Tennismastery said:
Dave, he does very well. I've seen him grind them out many times. A typical rally would go like this - hard shot to his backhand from me, deep sliced floater from him; high topspin return from me, short slice to my backhand; DTL slice from me, lobbed cross-court from him; and just when I am out of breath, a lob to my backhand, which I will flub from sheer exhaustion! He's good at what he does, and much faster than me (also some 12 years younger). I call him a pusher, but his shots though "junky" are excellently placed, where I don't want them!
So maybe I am doing him an injustice by calling him a pusher.When I win, I usually feel very fit and fast, and I end up overpowering him - that is pull him off to one side with high, spinny shots and then power a shot to the open court with enough juice that he can't do anything with it. Sometimes I come in and volley - but volleying is dicey since he usually gets to the ball fast, and so has some options.
I figure when I can beat him consistently, I would have gone up at least half a level, so I love these encounters.
Edit: I figure high level players will be able to generate enough power consistently so that it will not be easy to hit well-placed junk balls against them, so they will just eat up this kind of player. That's where I want to get to - hit heavy, pinning rally shots consistently so that the only safe response is a defensive one.
Here's a good thread discussing the different player types:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78147&highlight=playing+styles
I think the term "pusher" has been mis-used by more recent generations as time has gone by. I know that I first heard the term being used in the '70's by players and instructors much older than me and it meant something very specific. In that context there are no pushers who can succeed past the 4.0 or 4.5 level let alone at the elite professional level.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78147&highlight=playing+styles
I think the term "pusher" has been mis-used by more recent generations as time has gone by. I know that I first heard the term being used in the '70's by players and instructors much older than me and it meant something very specific. In that context there are no pushers who can succeed past the 4.0 or 4.5 level let alone at the elite professional level.
