Maybe more 3.5s should just be pushers?

[Sox Fan]

Hmmmmmm....so, after reading all these "I just lost to a pusher and I can't believe it" threads, I started to wonder what was really going on. Here's my theory:

In most of these cases, you have a 3.5 player playing a power baseline game confronting "the pusher" - another 3.5 who has spent years developing slice, drop shots, a dependable second serve and a good mental approach to the game. This player has maybe given up becoming a 4.0 or better and instead plays within their physical ability and has a ton of fun eating up other average players.

So, what to do?

My guess is if you really have the drive and ability to be a 4.0 or better, keep working at developing the big game. In the meantime, these guys will probably continue to eat you up until you develop consistency in your big strokes. If you really don't have the time or ability to be better than a 3.5, maybe you should develop more of a pusher approach. Can I say that on this board? Everyone here sounds like they are huge hitters and believe pushers are communists or something.

Bottom line - does it really make sense to play a big power game as a 3.5 unless you are on the way to being a much better player?

BTW, I am one of those 3.5s trying to develop a big power game.

If this has been brought up before I apologize - i'm still fairly new to the board.

 

[GetBetterer]

I do not like OP's suggestion.

Variety becomes minimized and then the entire world is full of pushers. Oh noes!!!

 

[fruitytennis1]

In most of these cases, you have a 3.5 player playing a power baseline game confronting "the pusher".

The problem is the attempt at a power baseline game...when the person doesnt have solid stroke fundamentals yet-this result in ALOT of errors.

 

[Hewex]

I wish I was consistant enough to be a pusher. And actually, this thread makes me think I should aspire to keep the ball in play enough to "earn" that designation. At 5'8", 150lbs I get no cheap points on my serve and am never going to overpower anyone at the 3.5 level.

 

[dominikk1985]

A real pusher (that only shoves and lobs the ball back) won't get very far.

However a player that uses extreme topsin and slice shots (let's say grafs BH and sabatinis high forehand loop)for defensive play can reach a very high level.
But that kind of player needs some traits or he won't become a good defensive player:
-quick feet
-tons of endurance
-patient mentality (if you wish points to end rather quickly you can't become a good defensive player)
-anticipation skills
-and of course conistency

 

[dozu]

youtoob usta 4.5 shirtless... you can compete at pretty high level with that style. both guys have sound techniques, good footspeed.

the term pusher is too vague.... the choppy/bunting push that just lay the ball back with no spin on it, won't carry you too far. (prolly can fool around at 3.5, but too tough at 4.0s)

 

[dozu]

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

just noticed today that there is a part 2 of the shirtless video...

seems the shirt guy turned the corner a little, but still making more errors than he should

 

[OHAI]

Oh wow that shirtless guy is ridiculous.

 

[dozu]

the shirt guy actually has good form from the ground... but his grip (almost conti) is limiting his spin potential.. otherwise could have run the naked guy really wide with sharper angles.

 

[Ronaldo]

These guys are 4.5?

 

[dozu]

here we go again.

 

[larry10s]

did not read all the posts
at 3.5 consistency /pusher wins
if you strive to visit higher levels of competency its the WRONG APPROACH TO GET BETTER
thats my 2 cents

 

[LeeD]

I think, if you are destined to STAY at 3.5, then pushing works pretty well.
However, if you plan to blow thru 3.5 (olden days, C ), then you need to hit big shots, go for forcing shots and winners.
Now if you PLAN to blow thru 3.5, but have 3.5 shots, by all means PUSH.
If you play for fun, but have 4.5 or higher level individual shots, you will need to use those shots effectively and you will blow thru 3.5.
Once again, if you don't have 4.5 or above shots, PUSH.
If you DO, then you might as well use them, eh?

 

[Blake0]

I guess what you are saying makes sense in some kind of weird logic. But personally if i was destined to stay a 3.5 forever I'd rather hit then push, you're in it for fun anyways and improving even a little makes the game more fun.

Basically,
pushing = boring
Me pushing= Quitting tennis.

 

[Ronaldo]

If pushing means clearing the service line and keeping the ball in play for 5 or more shots well we need more pushers.

 

[gameboy]

Seriously, you are not giving pushers enough credit.

If it was so easy to get to every ball and hit it back (with pace or not), everyone would be doing them. It takes some specialized skills to be a (good) pusher. You can have pretty good pushers all the way to 4.0.

 

[goober]

youtoob usta 4.5 shirtless... you can compete at pretty high level with that style. both guys have sound techniques, good footspeed.

the term pusher is too vague.... the choppy/bunting push that just lay the ball back with no spin on it, won't carry you too far. (prolly can fool around at 3.5, but too tough at 4.0s)

I think the shirtless guy is probably better than he shows in the video.
It doesn't look like his even trying. The guy in blue is putting a lot of effort into each shot while the shirtless guy is just keeping the ball in play practically walking around the court like he is casually hitting.

 

[Mac_Attack]

You cannot stay on the baseline and pound ground strokes against a "pusher" -- you have got to attack! I mean relentlessly.

I just played a USTA match against a classic pusher and I was playing right into his hands and was down 0-4 and two breaks in the first set before I realized I had to get to the net to beat him. I still got burned hear and there by a lob or a short angle, but the relentless pressure meant he couldn't just continue to loop balls back at me with no pace. I serve and volleyed every point (1st & 2nd serve) chipped and charged behind every 2nd serve, and when I was pushed back by a first serve I waited for him to prepare to hit a looper & as soon as he made his back-swing, I moved in to take his shots out of the air. Consequently he couldn't keep playing his game and had to go for his shots more and made errors. I came back to win 7-6, 6-4.

 

[MNPlayer]

B] Everyone here sounds like they are huge hitters and believe pushers are communists or something[/B].

There is a tendency to label anybody who plays with more consistency and less power a "pusher", especially if you lose to such a player . This is entirely relative. My game has a middling amount of power for my level and while some guys would surely describe me as a pusher, others have mentioned my "powerful" ground strokes.

 

[Bacterio]

The problem with all those I just lost to a pusher threads is that it's hard to know when they actually lost to a pusher. So many people equate anything that isn't a baseline power game with being a pusher and that's just for lack of a better word, stupid.

There's a reason they're called "pushers" It means that they don't have developed strokes. They just push on the ball, it's like a short slap of sorts off both sides. The result is that so long as they get their racket on the ball it's going to come back but because they're not doing much with it, it's unpredictable.

Sometimes it goes cross court sometimes it falls so short it's a dropshot, other times they catch it underneath and it's a lob. The only people I call pushers are the ones that play this kind of game unintentionally, they literally just push the ball and create all sorts of different shots just by accident. If you don't have consistent strokes, good footwork or a good strategy, they will make you beat yourself.

On the other hand, there's slicers. Guess what, they have spent plenty of time working on that slice. It's intentional, they are NOT pushing. Then there's counter punchers. Yes they probably could play with a bit more pace, but why bother when their game is to use your pace against you.

I'm almost certain that the majority of the threads where people are losing to pushers or calling someone they just lost to a pusher are actually losses to players that were not only smarter tennis players but probably better as well. Recreational players get so caught up in that mentality, "OMG, my strokes look more like the pros than his, HE'S A PUSHER, I can't believe my superior game lost to that style of play! wah wah wah"

Back on topic, the reason you don't see too many power baseliners revert to pushing to dominate the 3.5 is because they're trying to get better. They're trying to improve that power baseline game to take them into 4.0 and maybe beyond. There's plenty of styles of games that can get you to upper levels, but OG pushing is probably one of the few that won't make it far. Because once you reach higher levels, those short balls are going to be easy putaways for more talented players. I think it would also be impossible to know that 3.5 is going to be your ceiling, so even if someone is destined to never make it beyond that, they'll probably always keep trying to improve.

 

[Cindysphinx]

The reason not to be a pusher is that it doesn't work at all in doubles. So if you want to play only singles your whole life, by all means, push your heart out.

 

[MNPlayer]

The reason not to be a pusher is that it doesn't work at all in doubles. So if you want to play only singles your whole life, by all means, push your heart out.

I dunno, I used a pretty dinky game to win at 3.5 doubles. Higher than that it's tougher though. When you don't use power, placement is key obviously. Come to think of it, one of the best 4.5 doubles players around here almost never hits the ball hard, just barely out of your reach . Maybe that doesn't count as pushing.

 

[Sreeram]

I perfectly agree with OP, I have seen many pushers at 3.0 level but yet to find one at 3.5 level. I call a person pusher if he just pushes the ball in play without any pace or spin. But I recently played a guy who has excellent placement and volley game. He just pushes and rushes the net. My passing shot saved me but any 3.5 without a good passing shot will fall for him badly. Having said that I could have beaten him cleanly if I had more confidence at net. So as a 3.5 player, I believe that I can beat a pusher but if I need to give him crushing defeat then I need to play good at net and overheads. Most of 3.5s including me dont have good net and overheads so they will keep suffering with Pushers.
So when i see a pusher I just understand that this guy has no desire to improve his level and he is happy to sit at his current level. If you need to improve you need to take the risk, take big swing and at the same time try to be consistent.

 

[Hewex]

I perfectly agree with OP, I have seen many pushers at 3.0 level but yet to find one at 3.5 level. I call a person pusher if he just pushes the ball in play without any pace or spin. But I recently played a guy who has excellent placement and volley game. He just pushes and rushes the net. My passing shot saved me but any 3.5 without a good passing shot will fall for him badly. Having said that I could have beaten him cleanly if I had more confidence at net. So as a 3.5 player, I believe that I can beat a pusher but if I need to give him crushing defeat then I need to play good at net and overheads. Most of 3.5s including me dont have good net and overheads so they will keep suffering with Pushers.
So when i see a pusher I just understand that this guy has no desire to improve his level and he is happy to sit at his current level. If you need to improve you need to take the risk, take big swing and at the same time try to be consistent.

You make some good points. I bolded the final line because that is the sticking point. Taking bigger swings and getting more consistant takes practice. You're not going to get that through playing matches where the rally's are 3 or 4 balls. And it's not going to just materialize one week. I've found that most people at 3.5 just want to play matches, they never want to practice. Lessons are great, but if you just play afterwards, you are again reduced to play short rally's, where you cannot work on your game. I'd much rather practice more, and play less matches. Playing matches helps my match play, but it doesn't improve my game, if that makes sense.

 

[Sreeram]

You make some good points. I bolded the final line because that is the sticking point. Taking bigger swings and getting more consistant takes practice. You're not going to get that through playing matches where the rally's are 3 or 4 balls. And it's not going to just materialize one week. I've found that most people at 3.5 just want to play matches, they never want to practice. Lessons are great, but if you just play afterwards, you are again reduced to play short rally's, where you cannot work on your game. I'd much rather practice more, and play less matches. Playing matches helps my match play, but it doesn't improve my game, if that makes sense.

Yes, You are right, there are 2 important things in increasing one's level that I have identified.
1. take big swing and consistency
2. point construction
I see many 4.0 at my club and I have hit with them. They dont hit with any extra power than me but only difference is consistency. I have got a better forehand with more consistency than most of them but backhand not that consistent. So it is not part of your game that rates you but your whole game. My week areas are backhand service return. I am working on them. These stuffs can be developed by match play but takes time. You need to be patient and accept few losses. Instead as you suggested one can practice a lot and play less matches too to develop their game.
Point construction comes only by match play. I have played with people with great technique and skills but they lose to me because of lack of point construction skills. You need skills like reading your opponents game etc. Playing same set of guys every day will not help in developing it. So it is equally worth trying few tournaments.

 

[Hewex]

Great thought on point construction. I really don't give that as much consideration as I should. I get stuck on the technical side too much.

 

[Sreeram]

Great thought on point construction. I really don't give that as much consideration as I should. I get stuck on the technical side too much.

Exactly, I play against people who have great serve but fail to read few pattern in my return. Like i keep missing my backhand service return. They dont analyse it but keep serving to my strength most of the time. Which clearly indicates that they concentrate on their technicalities rather than reading the game and constructing points.
The point is there are so many things to concentrate on our game to improve our level and we need to devote more time to it. But as a recreational player we cannot expect to derive that much time for tennis. Also soon age will be added as a factor in my game....

 

[BMC9670]

There is a tendency to label anybody who plays with more consistency and less power a "pusher", especially if you lose to such a player . This is entirely relative. My game has a middling amount of power for my level and while some guys would surely describe me as a pusher, others have mentioned my "powerful" ground strokes.

I agree. I think I'm a good example of this. I have decent rally strokes, but not a ton of power. I'm patient and don't mind hitting 4 or 5 rally balls to set up my favorite shots (I guess they could be called weapons, but at 3.5, they're more like favorites) I have good placement on a slice approach and like to chip and charge and finish at the net. I also have a good running FH cross court that takes people by surprise.

I once played guy who was so impatient, over hit on everything, tons of UEs and when it was over and he lost to 2 and 1, he goes off on how he hates playing pushers. The funny thing was, I rarely got to hit more than 2 shots before he would make a mistake, so of course, I couldn't set up my "weapons". I said to him "I'm not a pusher, I'm patient." He just said "whatever" and storms off the court.

 

[ryushen21]

I see a lot of this the leagues around my area. The younger guys (like myself) like pace and like to hit big and play an aggressive kind of game. Most of the guys in league though are older and don't have the movement that the young guys do so they resort to slices, drop shots, lobs etc. I used to have a really big problem with this.

I eventually realized that my hitting at them with pace was just really helping them out because it made their shots more effective. So I traded pace for placement and started working on an all court game. When I come in and go for a short angled volley out wide, they aren't going to get to it ever. Or I can catch their short shot closer up in the court and drive it for a passing shot winner.

It's all about playing the player.

 

[fuzz nation]

Yahoo - great thread going here I think. Lots of intelligent observations on the general state of things around the game.

I grew up as a serve and volleyer, so when I see high school kids pulling their hair out either against true pushers or simply against players with more consistency than power, it's easy to see the problems that come with a limited skill set. Most kids who don't know how to effectively transition to the net will usually get owned by either that true pusher or the ultra-consistent hitter because it's like trying to beat back the ocean with a broom (or out-rally a backboard) .

Everyone probably knows the feeling of being plainly outgunned by an opponent with a bigger game. It's not so hard to take when the ball goes blowing past me until game, set, match falls to my opponent. The problems and frustrations come along when we lose without getting blown off the court. That's when we're confronted with our own weaknesses and it's sometimes easier to fault an opponent for employing a junk game that having the maturity to look in the mirror.

I'll offer my own take on the world of 3.5's, along with everyone else. We are what we are. Many 3.5 players are simply 4.0's who hit the panic button too soon in a rally, have a mildly less effective second serve than a 4.0, and haven't quite rounded out their full set of skills for solid doubles. Often when a 3.5 player embraces the tactics of a pusher, at least in terms of making consistency a top priority in their game, that player is well on his/her way to true 4.0 status.

 

[Hewex]

Yahoo - great thread going here I think. Lots of intelligent observations on the general state of things around the game.

I grew up as a serve and volleyer, so when I see high school kids pulling their hair out either against true pushers or simply against players with more consistency than power, it's easy to see the problems that come with a limited skill set. Most kids who don't know how to effectively transition to the net will usually get owned by either that true pusher or the ultra-consistent hitter because it's like trying to beat back the ocean with a broom (or out-rally a backboard) .

Everyone probably knows the feeling of being plainly outgunned by an opponent with a bigger game. It's not so hard to take when the ball goes blowing past me until game, set, match falls to my opponent. The problems and frustrations come along when we lose without getting blown off the court. That's when we're confronted with our own weaknesses and it's sometimes easier to fault an opponent for employing a junk game that having the maturity to look in the mirror.

I'll offer my own take on the world of 3.5's, along with everyone else. We are what we are. Many 3.5 players are simply 4.0's who hit the panic button too soon in a rally, have a mildly less effective second serve than a 4.0, and haven't quite rounded out their full set of skills for solid doubles. Often when a 3.5 player embraces the tactics of a pusher, at least in terms of making consistency a top priority in their game, that player is well on his/her way to true 4.0 status.[/QUOTE]

For me, this.

I'm a low 3.5 player who isn't that consistant from the baseline. The guy I play regularly is much more consistant. If I want to win I have to come to the net a lot. So my game is to play a couple ground strokes, hit a deep approach and come in behind it. I'm hoping to get a volley I can put away, or a short lob.

THat is why I agree with you. I'd love to become consistant enough to become a pusher. By that I mean, deeper groundstroke, moderate pace, moderate topspin and more balls in play. If I can do that to start, I can build up to hitting with more pace. If I start hitting hard to begin with, I have no chance of being consistant.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I dunno, I used a pretty dinky game to win at 3.5 doubles. Higher than that it's tougher though. When you don't use power, placement is key obviously. Come to think of it, one of the best 4.5 doubles players around here almost never hits the ball hard, just barely out of your reach . Maybe that doesn't count as pushing.

I find that at 3.5 doubles, being a pusher will only work when you have a frozen net opponent. If they are actively poaching, they will pick off a lot of balls because the pusher can't generate spin or pace to bother a good poacher.

The other place pushers get into trouble in doubles is when both opponents take the net. No passing shot or offensive lob = big trouble.

 

[Sox Fan]

I think there are some strong biases in modern tennis - anything other than strong topspin groundstrokes is seen as "junk" by many.

Last night I was participating in a clinic at my club. We were playing a competitive ground stroke drill. My team needed one more point to win. I got a moderate pace, low shot to my forehand. I hit a very nasty, low slice forehand down the line. The other player never even got close to getting a racquet on it. I was EXACTY what I meant to do.

The pro said "aw, too bad to end on such a cheap shot". The pro must have thought it was a mistake shot. I just kinda shook my head.

 

[mightyrick]

I think there are some strong biases in modern tennis - anything other than strong topspin groundstrokes is seen as "junk" by many.

Last night I was participating in a clinic at my club. We were playing a competitive ground stroke drill. My team needed one more point to win. I got a moderate pace, low shot to my forehand. I hit a very nasty, low slice forehand down the line. The other player never even got close to getting a racquet on it. I was EXACTY what I meant to do.

The pro said "aw, too bad to end on such a cheap shot". The pro must have thought it was a mistake shot. I just kinda shook my head.

Welcome to my world. A lot of people get upset if you end on a dropshot, as well. For anyone, if the ball goes where they intended it to... the way they intended it go... that is a great shot in my view.

 

[Hewex]

I think there are some strong biases in modern tennis - anything other than strong topspin groundstrokes is seen as "junk" by many.

Last night I was participating in a clinic at my club. We were playing a competitive ground stroke drill. My team needed one more point to win. I got a moderate pace, low shot to my forehand. I hit a very nasty, low slice forehand down the line. The other player never even got close to getting a racquet on it. I was EXACTY what I meant to do.

The pro said "aw, too bad to end on such a cheap shot". The pro must have thought it was a mistake shot. I just kinda shook my head.

I'd forgotten about that shot, it makes for a great approach, especially if it is skidding away from a righthander's bh.

As for the pro, there seems to be one mindset in teaching. The forehand with lots of topspin plus pace, and the bh two handed hit the same way. I get that and am working on that. Someone else mentioned setting up points, and that is where some of these other shots can come in to play.

 

[LeeD]

Sure, pushing is not the best strategy for 5.5 doubles, but I've seen it work against ME in 3.5 mens vs 5.5 womens. The two women hit 95% high lobs, mostly landing behind the service line by about 7', so twas hard to put away the overhead (we were two 3.5 guys). Add a fierce side wind, bright sunshine, and my partner not having a big serve, ='s fun loss for us.
I think smart pushing can win right up to 4.5 men's tennis, the the pusher's have to be 4.5 level or beyond.

 

[skiracer55]

Depends on what you want...

...if you want to win matches, then it might be a good idea to try to sandbag enough to stay at 3.5 and push your way to success. If you want to improve and be the best player you can be...well, that's a whole different discussion, isn't it?

 

[LeeD]

Question always becomes, in a normal doubles match, should we hit back to the strong, or should we pick on the weak?
Me, hit to strong. I lose quite often with that strategy, but a good loss is much better than a lame win.

 

[SuperDuy]

Question always becomes, in a normal doubles match, should we hit back to the strong, or should we pick on the weak?
Me, hit to strong. I lose quite often with that strategy, but a good loss is much better than a lame win.

Id say the 1 up 1 back technique is best, as point moves on slowly both move to net. Right?

 

[LeeD]

1 up and 1 back usually doesn't work for me. For instance, today we (both 4.0's), against a real strong and consistent 4.5 and a rabbit 3.5.
I have no confidence from the baseline.
My partner has no pace from the baseline.
So we lose every point if we both stay back.
But we win most points by moving forwards to effect our volleys and overheads.
I have a huge hit or miss return of serve. Partner is super consistent but soft and non forcing. I make him play duece.

 

[Thepowerofchoice]

I slice people to death(backhands) and people tend to have trouble with my slice. I don't give people a whole lot of pace to work with. I'll return anything which drive people crazy especially big hitter. I can put away shots w my forehands/backhands BUT I prefer to grind people out and look for short balls to put away. I'm very fit and quickness is my strength. Am I a pusher? I'm 3.5 going on 4.0 next month.

 

[LeeD]

Yup, a good pusher, but I say there are pushers right up to 7.0 level.

 

[Thepowerofchoice]

Yup, a good pusher, but I say there are pushers right up to 7.0 level.

Wow..."I am a proud "Pusher"

 

[LeeD]

EVERYONE pushes sometime or another.
I've seen JohanKriek hit push shots when he was not interested.
I've mentioned I've played whole sets using continental grip forehand slices...that is pushing.

 

[CptnRiceKrispy]

Theoretically, wouldn't a 3.5 basliner be considered a "pusher" by a hard hitting 4.0-4.5 basliner?

Even though im a junior id consider myself to be a good 3.5 or weak 4.0 player. at my highschool level, unless im playing a top singles player I find strokes to be more than competitive and im usually the aggressor and forcing points. But when i do play a few of my friends who are accomplished players its quite the opposite. they're dictating a higher percentage of points and i either have to go for it or just try to hang in the point.

 

[GuyClinch]

Because they aren't going to advance - they should give up and play to win? Is that the gist of your argument?

I don't buy that..

1) It's more fun to try to hit the ball hard.

2) Most people like to work towards improving even if it's an unrealistic dream.

3)Pushing is a crappy style for ALOT of players. I see some older but fairly strong guys. These guys don't move THAT well anymore so they win with - for their level pretty strong shots. They play doubles and barely seem to move but hit the ball pretty smartly..

I suppose compared to pros its "pushing" but compared to those lobbing women who they play with they are smacking the ball like Lendl.

Pushing tilts the balance to the young, fit and the fast at the highest levels. Not everyone is a Michael Chang type..

 

[CoachingMastery]

Let's sit down and "define" the term "Pusher"...

My definition from teaching tennis for 35 years is that a pusher, because of inherent swing characteristics, can't hit the ball hard because when they do, they exponentially lose control.

I define a pusher as a "Gravity Reliant" player: hits the ball high enough and hard enough to get it over the net, but soft enough so that gravity brings the ball into play.

Yes, a pusher needs to be able to move well since they don't usually have the shot selections to move their opponent around so that they can't hit more effective shots.

Usually a pusher keeps balls more towards the middle of the court and the variance is depth, not width.

Chang is not a pusher, he, like a Hewitt and others are counter punchers. They hit with lot of spin, well placed shots, but don't hit with as much power as others. They do move very well and win through attrition, more than hitting outright winners.

3.5 players win a lot of trophies...but, they all say, "3.5"

players who are working on developing a more effective game will lose initially to the so-called "pushers"...those who often are seen playing 3.5 for life. But, the funny thing is, those working on more skilled strokes, seldom stay at the 3.5 level long. They may not even win at that level or often only win once and move on up to the 4.0.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pushers nor players who are indeed 3.5 players for life. The only thing wrong would be if those players WANTED to play at higher levels, need to develop their game to do so. Those who use the typical "pushing" strokes as I defined here, can't hit effective enough shots to be able to beat higher players. (Other wise, they would no longer be at the 3.5 level!)

And, yes, some 3.5 pushers on any given day, can beat a 4.0 or maybe even a 4.5 player. But not only is this rare, but it is usually a result of not skilled play on the 3.5 level player's part, but because the higher level player is not playing well, or playing stupid, or as often the case is, is not really a 4.0 or 4.5 level player...(they just think they are!)

Once you define this aspect, then this thread will have great relevance to all.

 

[BMC9670]

Let's sit down and "define" the term "Pusher"...

My definition from teaching tennis for 35 years is that a pusher, because of inherent swing characteristics, can't hit the ball hard because when they do, they exponentially lose control.

I define a pusher as a "Gravity Reliant" player: hits the ball high enough and hard enough to get it over the net, but soft enough so that gravity brings the ball into play.

Yes, a pusher needs to be able to move well since they don't usually have the shot selections to move their opponent around so that they can't hit more effective shots.

Usually a pusher keeps balls more towards the middle of the court and the variance is depth, not width.

Chang is not a pusher, he, like a Hewitt and others are counter punchers. They hit with lot of spin, well placed shots, but don't hit with as much power as others. They do move very well and win through attrition, more than hitting outright winners.

3.5 players win a lot of trophies...but, they all say, "3.5"

players who are working on developing a more effective game will lose initially to the so-called "pushers"...those who often are seen playing 3.5 for life. But, the funny thing is, those working on more skilled strokes, seldom stay at the 3.5 level long. They may not even win at that level or often only win once and move on up to the 4.0.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pushers nor players who are indeed 3.5 players for life. The only thing wrong would be if those players WANTED to play at higher levels, need to develop their game to do so. Those who use the typical "pushing" strokes as I defined here, can't hit effective enough shots to be able to beat higher players. (Other wise, they would no longer be at the 3.5 level!)

And, yes, some 3.5 pushers on any given day, can beat a 4.0 or maybe even a 4.5 player. But not only is this rare, but it is usually a result of not skilled play on the 3.5 level player's part, but because the higher level player is not playing well, or playing stupid, or as often the case is, is not really a 4.0 or 4.5 level player...(they just think they are!)

Once you define this aspect, then this thread will have great relevance to all.

Good description. As mentioned earlier, I do think people with a decent rally ball and a bit of patience are unfairly labeled pushers. Nothing wrong with working a point and setting up or waiting for your favorite shots. That's good tennis. I like the way you describe the TYPE of strokes that help define a pusher. Personally, I like playing retrievers/counter-punchers because it's more fun. Nothing I hate worse than playing someone who goes for winners on every shot. Too many UE's, no rallies, no fun.

 

[Connors Fan]

Just seems to me its a macho thing. If you are not claiming that the only way to play is to bash the ball as hard as you can every shot, you are a pusher. My last tournement the guy I had first had that mindset, Im sure he thought he was on the road to "improvement" by playing hard pro shots. He just self destructed, every point. Im not sure that is admirable to just hit as hard as you can and say that is real tennis. Basically its win or lose on every shot, really not showing point construction, patience or much skill either. Atleast the guys most guys call pushers have a plan, more than can be said by many of the bashers.

My second match I played a true pusher I guess. No spin, no weapons, just told me right before we played, he simply will return everything I hit at him. Damned if he didnt. The harder I hit, the more he liked it. He beat me 6-4 first set. Heck, he even told me how he was going to do it. I would likely have lost the next one, if he hadnt looked me in the eye between sets and said "see, I get everything back". Well, I had two choices, play like a "real man" and bash my way to a loss or change tactics. I decided I was a better pusher than him. I gave him no pace, and then would bring him to the net with a drop or short ball, since he had no weapons, he just hit it back, now with him in no mans land, or drawn to the net, I could pick my time to hit my hard ground strokes.

He crumbled, I won the second 6-2 and 10-4 in the tie breaker. After the set he looked at me, smiled and said "nice job, you figured me out".

My last match was against a guy of about equal level to me. My most fun match, as I felt we played to our levels and hit quality shots. Nothing earth shattering, but I felt we played "good" tennis (I lost 6-7, 3-6). My most fun match, but the match Im more proud of winning was against the pusher. It wasnt fun, but it made me think and play smarter.

The way pusher is described here half the time, it means anyone who hits less hard than the person who is commenting. Its usually some guy who will never rise above 4.0, commenting that some guy who will never rise above 3.5 is a hack pusher and no fun to play. I'm much more impressed by the guy who can get the ball over then net 5 times in a row, than the guy who takes 1 or 2 wild swings every point.

 

[Sox Fan]

Because they aren't going to advance - they should give up and play to win? Is that the gist of your argument?

I don't buy that..

1) It's more fun to try to hit the ball hard.

2) Most people like to work towards improving even if it's an unrealistic dream.

3)Pushing is a crappy style for ALOT of players. I see some older but fairly strong guys. These guys don't move THAT well anymore so they win with - for their level pretty strong shots. They play doubles and barely seem to move but hit the ball pretty smartly..quote


Yeah, that's basically it - not really an argument though, just provoking some discussion. "Unrealistic dream" is actually a good way of putting it. Seems like a lot of folks at 3.5 spend a lot of time trying to get to a higher level they will never achieve. That is, they have a 4.5 playing style and 3.5 ability.

My question is simply: If you don't have the athletic ability or don't have the amount of time to develop your game to be better than 3.5, would you be better off pushing? Meaning, not killing yourself trying to hit like higher level players, making a ton of errors, etc. If you just like hitting hard and don't care to win - well, sure, to each his own.

I think a good parallel would be golf - if you normally score above 90, most good golf coaches would tell you to throw your driver away, tee off with a 3 wood and spend your time on the practice green, not the driving range. The average weekend player would probably pick up 5-6 strokes per round by hitting the fairway 20-30% more often. But, most weekend golfers just LOVE to hit the driver (including me!). Ever play golf with a 65 year old guy who hits nothing but knock down shots with a 3/4 swing, putts like the devil and kicks your ass? Sound familiar?