Is it fun being a pusher?

[OnTheLine]

"Singles state" meaning HS championships?



@OnTheLine can provide a testimonial on the value of the lob.

It's really not that hard to learn: if you already can hit a BH slice [use a Continental grip], you just need to modify the swing path, racquet face angle, and ball trajectory. While that might seem like a lot, you can do progressions: start out hitting a regular slice and then start altering variables. You'll find that as you change one, the others will naturally tend to change too. If you don't, you will hit long.

To use a golf analogy, think of moving from a 2 iron to a pitching wedge in stages. The 2 iron has a low trajectory and moves relatively quickly towards its destination; a pitching wedge has a high trajectory and moves relatively slowly.

Hit a hundred and you should have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. And you can do this solo with self-feeds. Even better if you have a very high wall to hit against.

Then progress to working with a partner: lobbing every ball might get boring for him so maybe do a normal rally and every 5th shot or so, lob. If you can get it high or deep, that's good enough to neutralize just about anyone at 4.0 and even many at 4.5. If you can do both, you're golden.

FH might be more difficult because not everyone slices much with the FH.

As one old saying goes, "In tennis you need a nice hard drive and a nice soft lob."

For example:

Yes I can certainly attest to it. Doesn't mean it wasn't the single most difficult thing for me to learn.
AND ... can only do it with top spin. Could never get the height or depth with a chip/backspin lob.
Much easier for me to learn off the backhand.

And still not a shot that I am totally comfortable with nor consider entirely reliable.

Most people's overheads are just not good enough to deal with a high lob so sacrifice depth before height.

 

[Creighton]

"Singles state" meaning HS championships?

I wish I was that young. I'm in Southern section so our districts are broken up by states. I forgot you guys in other areas have actual districts.

@OnTheLine can provide a testimonial on the value of the lob.

It's really not that hard to learn: if you already can hit a BH slice [use a Continental grip], you just need to modify the swing path, racquet face angle, and ball trajectory. While that might seem like a lot, you can do progressions: start out hitting a regular slice and then start altering variables. You'll find that as you change one, the others will naturally tend to change too. If you don't, you will hit long.

To use a golf analogy, think of moving from a 2 iron to a pitching wedge in stages. The 2 iron has a low trajectory and moves relatively quickly towards its destination; a pitching wedge has a high trajectory and moves relatively slowly.

Hit a hundred and you should have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done. And you can do this solo with self-feeds. Even better if you have a very high wall to hit against.

Then progress to working with a partner: lobbing every ball might get boring for him so maybe do a normal rally and every 5th shot or so, lob. If you can get it high or deep, that's good enough to neutralize just about anyone at 4.0 and even many at 4.5. If you can do both, you're golden.

FH might be more difficult because not everyone slices much with the FH.

As one old saying goes, "In tennis you need a nice hard drive and a nice soft lob."

For example:

Thanks for the video, i'm going to check it out to see if I can learn something.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Most people's overheads are just not good enough to deal with a high lob so sacrifice depth before height.

I'm of the opposite opinion: the further away the OH is struck from the net, the more exponentially difficult it becomes.

A high lob can always be bounced before hitting the OH to blunt most of the height problem. You can't do the same with a deep lob, even one that is low.

 

[MathGeek]

I think it is. I've pushed points before when it seemed the wise thing to do. It's just a conscious decision to hit high percentage shots until your opponent makes an error.

Your approach to pushing seems a lot different than mine.

I would not call that "pushing". Anything that requires precise placement isn't high percentage and takes skill.

Thanks for the chance to clarify. Nothing I do requires "precise shot placement." I'm not aiming for corners or lines when I try and move players left to right. I'm directing the ball to the two outer thirds of the court (left and right, avoiding only the middle third.) Against more mobile players, I might direct the ball to the two outer fourths, avoiding the half in the middle. Both are pretty high percentage for me. But which outer third to go for on a given shot? I often alternate to run them around, but then when they get used to that - I use their momentum against them and hit the ball behind them to the same outer third. It's not skillful shot making - it's the skill of recognizing when the shot to the same outer third is going to catch them.

Likewise for my drop shots. I don't set them up with a high risk, paced shot intentionally deep in the court. I'm just hitting my normal left-right shots to the rear 1/3 of the court. But I'm watching and waiting for the right moment. Eventually there will me a combination of factors - a ball landing deeper than most, a weak return, and a player in poor position or wrong-footed to reach the conservative drop shot. It's not a high risk drop shot - doesn't need to be because the opponent is winded and in poor position and not that mobile to begin with.

Drop shots, targeting the BH, alternating corners. All mid to low percentage play. At our club we call that having a "soft game" but never call these people "pushers". At intermediate levels, pushers just get balls back high over the net and into the middle of the court. Over and over.

If a player is positioning themselves in the court so that shots to the BH are low percentage, they're leaving a lot of room on the FH side, so that's the 1/3 I'm going to hit to. If they retreat quickly back to the same position, I'm going to the FH 1/3 again. If they start staying more in the middle, then I pick on the weak BH. It's not rocket science, and it can be done with high percentage shots.

None of my opponents have ever described my game as "soft." It's a combination of "pusher" and "junk baller."

 

[Dartagnan64]

None of my opponents have ever described my game as "soft." It's a combination of "pusher" and "junk baller."

Probably a local term. We reserve it for guys that don't play with power but use plenty of finesse. Your game sounds more like a finesse game. Using placement and depth variation to make the opponent uncomfortable.

Question though is what do you do when opponent has a BH and wheels enough to get to the entire court with ease?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

...

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@gebruikershaes

He has incomplete strokes with practically no back swing. It's looks more like a badminton strike, which with a tennis racquet becomes a push because of the weight of the racquet.

@SystemicAnomaly: would you agree?

Badminton does include a push shot that is something of a low, gentle placement shot. Often a mid-court push is used in doubles to get the shuttle past the net player but in front of a deep back player (hit so they cannot attack it). If the back player is playing up in the mid-court, then the push shot might be placed deep instead of to the midcourt. There are uses of the push shot for singles as well -- often a low, deep reply (rather than mid-court).

I'll have to look at Misha's strokes closer to see if I would characterize them as badminton push shots. For my own badm push shots, there are relatively small motions of the arm and body forward. I will often apply some "finger power" to initiate a limited wrist action. In the video below, the first 3 types of returns he shows are drop shots. The next 2 are mid-court pushes. The 2 after that are deep court push shots. None of these are really power shots but the push shot can be a touch shot that is hit somewhat aggressively.

Was the badminton strike that was discussed supposed to be more of a drive than a push? To my mind, a drive can be like an aggressive tennis volley whereas a push is more of a gentle placement volley.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

@gebruikershaes

Badminton does include a push shot that is something of a low, gentle placement shot. Often a mid-court push is used in doubles to get the shuttle past the net player but in front of a deep back player (hit so they cannot attack it). If the back player is playing up in the mid-court, then the push shot might be placed deep instead of to the midcourt. There are uses of the push shot for singles as well -- often a low, deep reply (rather than mid-court).

The analogy to tennis from your above description would be when my opponent is at net but not right on top of the net and I hit a low, floating slice that barely clears the net and makes him lunge or lean to volley. Often I hit that shot to give me time or change tempo and it can catch the net man by surprise because he was expecting a hard-driven ball. I also use it in doubles when both opponents are at net but I want to also come to the net: such a shot gives me time to close.

I'll have to look at Misha's strokes closer to see if I would characterize them as badminton push shots.

Agh! No, that wasn't my intent to imply that. My example of Misha's zero takeback FH was in response to the claim that a player had "almost zero takeback" and therefore had an undeveloped stroke.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Was the badminton strike that was discussed supposed to be more of a drive than a push? To my mind, a drive can be like an aggressive tennis volley whereas a push is more of a gentle placement volley.

Seems to me from what little of watched of badminton that a lot of shots are hit not with the intention of winning the point but to get your opponent to pop up a shot which can be smashed. A lot of jockeying for position, as it were.

it's how I play ping pong: much of my serve strategy is centered around angles and short balls designed to elicit my opponent hitting up, even if just slightly, which I can then smash.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Not quite following. I'll have to come back and look at this thread and train of thought later.

 

[joohan]

Tell that to all the 4.5 players this guy has beat.

USTA ranked 4.5, so according to you everyone that loses to that guy are in fact not ranked at what USTA has ranked them?

The lefty has his game polished. It's not pretty (and obviously not anywhere near technically "correct" or whatever) but he knows what he wants to do and sticks to his guns. The other guy is something like a half baked product. Nice first serve, though.

 

[MathGeek]

Question though is what do you do when opponent has a BH and wheels enough to get to the entire court with ease?

I usually lose.

I do test their endurance to see if they can maintain the wheels. But if their strokes are better than mine and their wheels as good or better, they are going to beat me most of the time. I can sometimes beat younger guys with uneven keels who get frustrated and cannot maintain a strategy or making decent shots.

They get streaky, so it becomes a head game - trying to keep them in the frustrated error prone zone. They want to practice their beautiful shots, and I don't let them.

 

[Dartagnan64]

I usually lose.

I do test their endurance to see if they can maintain the wheels. But if their strokes are better than mine and their wheels as good or better, they are going to beat me most of the time. I can sometimes beat younger guys with uneven keels who get frustrated and cannot maintain a strategy or making decent shots.

They get streaky, so it becomes a head game - trying to keep them in the frustrated error prone zone. They want to practice their beautiful shots, and I don't let them.

So do you try to go more low percentage or stick with the high percentage shots the opponent is handling with ease?

I agree that I will usually lose to someone that takes my best game and has no problem responding. They are better. But I definitely will start trying lower percentage play before I give up entirely.

Here is a scenario from my Saturday's singles group:
We play first to 5, no ad sets. I'm tied 4-4 at deuce, opponent serving to deuce for a sudden death point for the set. He serves out wide to my forehead and I'ms stretched so I just get it back deep to the middle. He then hits aonther out wide angle and comes into the net to finish the point. He's 6'2"with a strong overhead and volley game.
So here you are, pulled out wide to your FH with a charging opponent on a sudden death point for the set. What do you do?

I'll wait for answers before saying what I did. But spoiler alert, I won the set.

 

[MathGeek]

So do you try to go more low percentage or stick with the high percentage shots the opponent is handling with ease?

A few years back, I went through a streak of trying low percentage shots. It never worked. If they go in, it's the stuff the opponents like. My best chance is to get them frustrated, and the high percentage junky balls will do that often enough to win once in a while. But each opponent has different shots that trigger them most. But all their triggers are pushing or junk.

 

[FIRETennis]

Tell that to all the 4.5 players this guy has beat.

USTA ranked 4.5, so according to you everyone that loses to that guy are in fact not ranked at what USTA has ranked them?

Reliable drive volleys, net game and serve/return would consistently beat this kind of style around 5.0 NTRP / 9 UTR level.
Curious, does the Most Exhausting Player/Green Shirt guy have a UTR ranking?
Despite the strokes/style, I would guess 7.5 - 8 UTR based on the type of wins.

 

[Dartagnan64]

A few years back, I went through a streak of trying low percentage shots. It never worked. If they go in, it's the stuff the opponents like. My best chance is to get them frustrated, and the high percentage junky balls will do that often enough to win once in a while. But each opponent has different shots that trigger them most. But all their triggers are pushing or junk.

My goal is to make low percentage shots turn into high percentage shots, or at least higher percentage shots. Enough that I can win a point under duress by hitting a great shot so that I'm not totally dependent on the opponent getting frustrated. Not everyone is frustrated by junk balling and pushing and will give as good as they take.

In the scenario I posted above, my winning shot was a DTL FH passing shot winner 3 inches from the sideline and 8 inches from the baseline. Opponent replied, "Well at least i lost on a great shot and not a crappy error".

The reason I hit that shot is I felt confident going for it because a) I've done it before and b) those previous successes led to confidence in the shot. I think belief in yourself is important in sports.

 

[roadto50]

Tell that to all the 4.5 players this guy has beat.

USTA ranked 4.5, so according to you everyone that loses to that guy are in fact not ranked at what USTA has ranked them?

I mean, 4.5 is a pretty wide range despite what people may think. The difference between a low 4.5 and a high 4.5 is night and day. Now do I think he is a 4.5? Yes, because I've seen this style at 4.5 and the guy I know who plays similarly actually has a 50% win rate. So it's definitely doable. With that said, I don't think this guy is beating anyone near the top of the 4.5 pool. Hard to say without knowing exactly who he's is beating and losing to, but looking at how similar he plays to my friend, I like my hypothesis.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I mean, 4.5 is a pretty wide range despite what people may think. The difference between a low 4.5 and a high 4.5 is night and day. Now do I think he is a 4.5? Yes, because I've seen this style at 4.5 and the guy I know who plays similarly actually has a 50% win rate. So it's definitely doable. With that said, I don't think this guy is beating anyone near the top of the 4.5 pool. Hard to say without knowing exactly who he's is beating and losing to, but looking at how similar he plays to my friend, I like my hypothesis.

The smaller the sample size, the more likely you'll see bigger variations. So 4.5 probably has a larger variance from top to bottom than 4.0. But 5.0 probably has a larger variance than 4.5. etc.