Pusher Philosophy; or A Revelation: You Are Not Better Than The Pusher

C

Cowboyardee

Rookie
Here are a few thoughts I've had after seeing many threads here about the dreaded pusher. I don't know if these thoughts will be useful to anyone. I hope at least they're interesting. Whatever. Here goes:

"I keep losing to this total pusher even though I know I'm way better than he is."

"I totally destroyed that pusher. He could barely get a point off me."

Two statements. The first is one we've all heard a thousand times. And it's also incorrect. We'll get back to that. The second statement seems plausible at a glance. If you've ever made the first statement, you probably dream of saying the second one. But if you think about it, I bet you've never heard anyone say it in real life. There's a reason.

Let's start by defining the 'pusher.' Most people would define him as someone who doesn't hit the ball hard and gets nearly everything back. But if you pick at it a little, that definition starts to fall apart. Take a 3.0 level 'basher' and put him up against a 5.0 level player and chances are his pace would be woefully inadequate. Does he hit the ball 'hard' or not? Now take a 3.0 pusher and put him up against the same 5.0 player. Does he get nearly everything back? Probably almost nothing. Does a 4.0 pusher hit 'hard' if he's playing a 3.0 opponent? Does a 4.0 basher lack consistency at the 3.0 level? The point is that whether you hit aggressively and/or consistently is relational to the level of tennis you play.

Some also might say that a pusher is someone who doesn't put the ball away. That's even worse. For one, it ignores the player's level in the same way as the above definition. For another, though 4.0+ pushers aren't as common as 3.5 and below pushers, they still exist. And these guys can certainly still manage to put away a fat, juicy sitter from inside the service line. They just don't do much to earn said sitters at their level.

So here's a better definition:
A pusher is someone who does not dictate rallies at the level where he is most competitive.

That's it. Pushers don't hit 'hard' or 'soft' - they hit hard enough that opponents at their level don't wallop them effortlessly, and soft enough that they don't threaten to win the point unless their opponent slips up. And they don't return shots consistently or inconsistently - they return the ball consistently enough that they tend to stay in the point despite ceding control to their opponent, and inconsistently enough that the match is still competitive.

Don't believe me? Consider again an example from earlier: that 5.0 playing against a 3.0 pusher. Only consider the game from the 5.0's perspective. Double bagel, no sweat broken, a cakewalk. But afterward, he wouldn't feel like he played a 'pusher.' He'd just feel like he played a guy who wasn't on his level, who couldn't handle his game in the least. In fact, unless he was paying particularly close attention or watched the 3.0 play against other 3.0 level players, the 5.0 wouldn't likely even realize his opponent was considered a pusher at his regular level.

This is why the second quote from above has never been said in real life. No one has ever totally destroyed a pusher. Because someone is only a 'pusher' to you if they are competitive against you in the first place.

And it's also why the first quote from above is wrong. You are not way better than the pusher. Maybe a little better. Maybe a little worse. But the pusher who beats you is on your level. Not just because he beats you (though that's plenty reason), but by definition.

So how do you beat the pusher?

In the most concrete sense, it depends on your game and the pusher in question. A change of tactics might work - a common example is drawing him to the net and forcing him to hit volleys. But then if everyone at your level could easily do this, then the pusher wouldn't be competitive at your level, would he? And does that tactic work against the 4.0 pusher who also regularly plays doubles? Maybe not.

In keeping with the philosophical tone of my ramblings here, I'll provide an answer that appears so general and uninsightful as to be useless:
You beat the pusher by getting better. Ideally by getting better until the other guy is no longer a pusher but just a member of the unclassified mass of lower level players that simply can't handle your game.

Sounds dumb, right? But at the same time, isn't that why so many tennis players look down on pushers? Because their game is geared towards allowing their opponents [you] to mess up rather than advancing towards higher levels of play?

There are two important things to realize here.
1) The pusher is an opportunity. He points out flaws in your game and passively lets you work on them and fix them and test their effectiveness. A malware scan for your tennis game.
2) Improving your game does not necessarily mean hitting the ball harder, putting more shots away. Sometimes the opposite. It may mean improving your shot selection so that you are not attempting low percentage winners when you are assured to see an easier putaway if you just worked the point a bit more. It may mean improving your consistency. It may mean developing tactics and shots that aren't commonly executed well at your level (the drop shot to draw the pusher in and force him to volley, for example). It may mean developing your mental toughness so that you don't self-destruct whenever you hit an unforced error. It may mean thinking more analytically in a match, prodding your opponent more thoroughly for weaknesses and exploiting them rather than sticking always to your A game.

If you're going to use the pusher to improve, you have to be honest with yourself and accurately read what that walking malware scan is telling you about the bugs in your system. The first step to doing that is accepting the following statement, knowing fully its truth:

I am not better than the pusher. The pusher is on my level, and he shows me how to be better.
 
Cowboyardee said:
Here are a few thoughts I've had after seeing many threads here about the dreaded pusher. I don't know if these thoughts will be useful to anyone. I hope at least they're interesting. Whatever. Here goes:

"I keep losing to this total pusher even though I know I'm way better than he is."

"I totally destroyed that pusher. He could barely get a point off me."

Two statements. The first is one we've all heard a thousand times. And it's also incorrect. We'll get back to that. The second statement seems plausible at a glance. If you've ever made the first statement, you probably dream of saying the second one. But if you think about it, I bet you've never heard anyone say it in real life. There's a reason.

Let's start by defining the 'pusher.' Most people would define him as someone who doesn't hit the ball hard and gets nearly everything back. But if you pick at it a little, that definition starts to fall apart. Take a 3.0 level 'basher' and put him up against a 5.0 level player and chances are his pace would be woefully inadequate. Does he hit the ball 'hard' or not? Now take a 3.0 pusher and put him up against the same 5.0 player. Does he get nearly everything back? Probably almost nothing. Does a 4.0 pusher hit 'hard' if he's playing a 3.0 opponent? Does a 4.0 basher lack consistency at the 3.0 level? The point is that whether you hit aggressively and/or consistently is relational to the level of tennis you play.

Some also might say that a pusher is someone who doesn't put the ball away. That's even worse. For one, it ignores the player's level in the same way as the above definition. For another, though 4.0+ pushers aren't as common as 3.5 and below pushers, they still exist. And these guys can certainly still manage to put away a fat, juicy sitter from inside the service line. They just don't do much to earn said sitters at their level.

So here's a better definition:
A pusher is someone who does not dictate rallies at the level where he is most competitive.

That's it. Pushers don't hit 'hard' or 'soft' - they hit hard enough that opponents at their level don't wallop them effortlessly, and soft enough that they don't threaten to win the point unless their opponent slips up. And they don't return shots consistently or inconsistently - they return the ball consistently enough that they tend to stay in the point despite ceding control to their opponent, and inconsistently enough that the match is still competitive.

Don't believe me? Consider again an example from earlier: that 5.0 playing against a 3.0 pusher. Only consider the game from the 5.0's perspective. Double bagel, no sweat broken, a cakewalk. But afterward, he wouldn't feel like he played a 'pusher.' He'd just feel like he played a guy who wasn't on his level, who couldn't handle his game in the least. In fact, unless he was paying particularly close attention or watched the 3.0 play against other 3.0 level players, the 5.0 wouldn't likely even realize his opponent was considered a pusher at his regular level.

This is why the second quote from above has never been said in real life. No one has ever totally destroyed a pusher. Because someone is only a 'pusher' to you if they are competitive against you in the first place.

And it's also why the first quote from above is wrong. You are not way better than the pusher. Maybe a little better. Maybe a little worse. But the pusher who beats you is on your level. Not just because he beats you (though that's plenty reason), but by definition.

So how do you beat the pusher?

In the most concrete sense, it depends on your game and the pusher in question. A change of tactics might work - a common example is drawing him to the net and forcing him to hit volleys. But then if everyone at your level could easily do this, then the pusher wouldn't be competitive at your level, would he? And does that tactic work against the 4.0 pusher who also regularly plays doubles? Maybe not.

In keeping with the philosophical tone of my ramblings here, I'll provide an answer that appears so general and uninsightful as to be useless:
You beat the pusher by getting better. Ideally by getting better until the other guy is no longer a pusher but just a member of the unclassified mass of lower level players that simply can't handle your game.

Sounds dumb, right? But at the same time, isn't that why so many tennis players look down on pushers? Because their game is geared towards allowing their opponents [you] to mess up rather than advancing towards higher levels of play?

There are two important things to realize here.
1) The pusher is an opportunity. He points out flaws in your game and passively lets you work on them and fix them and test their effectiveness. A malware scan for your tennis game.
2) Improving your game does not necessarily mean hitting the ball harder, putting more shots away. Sometimes the opposite. It may mean improving your shot selection so that you are not attempting low percentage winners when you are assured to see an easier putaway if you just worked the point a bit more. It may mean improving your consistency. It may mean developing tactics and shots that aren't commonly executed well at your level (the drop shot to draw the pusher in and force him to volley, for example). It may mean developing your mental toughness so that you don't self-destruct whenever you hit an unforced error. It may mean thinking more analytically in a match, prodding your opponent more thoroughly for weaknesses and exploiting them rather than sticking always to your A game.

If you're going to use the pusher to improve, you have to be honest with yourself and accurately read what that walking malware scan is telling you about the bugs in your system. The first step to doing that is accepting the following statement, knowing fully its truth:

I am not better than the pusher. The pusher is on my level, and he shows me how to be better.
Click to expand...

Id take it a step further to say if you lose to the pusher, the pusher is simply a better tennis player than you. The scoreboard says so.
 
There's really no good definition for a pusher because it's simply a degrading term meant as an insult used by sour losers. No matter how you try to define it it tends to run into contradiction or an oxymoron.

Take your "better definition" for example. For a player who has mastered the balance of soft and hard, or forcing or unforcing his opponent into making errors, who really knows, and yet he doesn't dictate the game? He who's beaten doesn't feel he's lost, and he who's won doesn't get the credit. Very zen like.
 
scotus said:
Last week I totally destroyed a pusher.

He barely got a point off me.
Click to expand...

Thumbsup-alec.gif
 
Do you guys not find it 'easier' to play a pusher?

I find it with them they don't give a lot of power on their shots, which gives me a lot of time to set my self up.

Pusher plays a shot, high, slow etc.

I feel as though I have the time to run to the ball with my left hand on the racquet, set my feet up, take the racquet back smoothly, and hit and concentrate on making a good contact and direction.

I find the guys who hit very flat and hard with low net margin trouble me more as I'm having to dig the ball back.
 
We don't use the term pusher in the UK, we use the term "solid". Which means you will expect very few errors, but they don't hit a big ball or dictate. If I called someone a pusher it would put me in bad taste with club members and other players and I would come across as a sore loser.
 
TheDestroyer said:
Do you guys not find it 'easier' to play a pusher?

I find it with them they don't give a lot of power on their shots, which gives me a lot of time to set my self up.

Pusher plays a shot, high, slow etc.

I feel as though I have the time to run to the ball with my left hand on the racquet, set my feet up, take the racquet back smoothly, and hit and concentrate on making a good contact and direction.

I find the guys who hit very flat and hard with low net margin trouble me more as I'm having to dig the ball back.
Click to expand...

Simon/Murray hit flat and low and people consider them pushers?
 
I don't play pushers. I'd rather lose to an attacking player than beat a pusher. Literally, come to the net and you can beat a pusher.
 
If you can't beat someone at tennis, chances are they are a better tennis player than you.

The 200th ranked pro would probably call Hewitt or Giles Simon a "pusher," but the truth is, they are just better at tennis.
 
The point is that you need different strategies against different opponents. IMO, pushers force you to really show your all court abilities, and that's why these modern players get so frustrated with them. Most all modern players play almost 100% from the baseline, but that perfectly plays the matchup into pusher's hand. You have to either implement some all court attacking patterns yourself, or force the pusher to show his all court abilities by drawing him to net. If you just keep on hitting from the baseline, the pusher will bunt back most all your shots and you'll lose!

In short, pusher is a great player and forces you out of your comfort zone to improve your game.
 
TheDestroyer said:
Do you guys not find it 'easier' to play a pusher?

I find it with them they don't give a lot of power on their shots, which gives me a lot of time to set my self up.

Pusher plays a shot, high, slow etc.

I feel as though I have the time to run to the ball with my left hand on the racquet, set my feet up, take the racquet back smoothly, and hit and concentrate on making a good contact and direction.

I find the guys who hit very flat and hard with low net margin trouble me more as I'm having to dig the ball back.
Click to expand...

I hit one-on-two for half an hour yesterday. One person hit the ball flat, low and hard. The other hit the ball softer but he's the better player. It's kind of odd alternating between the two different kinds of shots. The guy that hits the ball slower can also hit the ball hard but only does that now and then.

I think that I get a better workout with someone that hits harder as I have to move more to get to the ball and have to practice with less time for setup. Playing the slower ball is probably easier for me.
 
Pushers let people realize that they can't win when they aren't gifted free errors from the opponent. If you can't beat a pusher, you suck, it's that easy.
 
I practice/play sets against some very good, attacking players who don't miss a whole lot. So my game is geared towards hitting the ball harder and deeper.

Well, I played a guy the other day who just used my pace against me. I was missing putaway shots but I kept going for them, knowing I would just have to recallibrate a bit.

And it worked, I won the match without resorting to pushing back.

And it was actually fun to play someone who got so much back without crushing me off the court. Great workout.
 
Pushers are terribly frustrating but a great way to improve your own consistency.

What really irks me are dinkers and junkballers.
 
If you are frustrated by pushers, I suggest you incorporate some of this style of play in your practices.

One drill I like to do with a practice partner is to play some points where one player plays the role of the pusher. Moonballing, high topspin, slices, dinks, are all allowed and encouraged. The other player tries to be aggressive, but in a strategic manner (no stupid/suicide approaches, no blasting a flat winner from 5 feet behind the baseline), and by waiting for the right opportunity (slightly shorter ball, etc...).

If you start to do this in practice, you will feel a lot more comfortable the next time you play a pusher. As a bonus, you will also learn to play defensive tennis yourself, which can be effective even if it is not your go-to style.
 
Solid post.

I've gotten to the point where I beat the 4.0 pushers pretty badly. In fact, I merely categorize 4.0 pushers as just another 4.0 player, most of whom I beat. As I've stepped up my game, I've encountered another totally different animal, the 4.5 pusher.

The 4.5 pusher is basically the 4.0 pusher on steroids. They are faster, stronger, and get more balls back then the 4.0 pusher. They hit better defensive shots. Often, they have an excellent shot they can win points with, even though their default game is the pusher game. In fact, if a 4.5 pusher played a 4.0 or a 3.5, THE PUSHER would be the one dictating the points. It is only when a 4.5 pusher plays another 4.5 they fall back on the pusher game.

I lost 6-3, 7-6 the other day to a 4.5 "pusher". Shots that would be winners at the 4.0 level were lobbed over my head when I get into the net. My penetrating shots were blocked back deep and near the baseline. This "pusher" would lull my to sleep by bunting balls back deep, and then when I hit a short ball he would crush it with his forehand.

These players have exposed some serious holes in my game that I thought I had fixed at the 4.0 level, but still get exposed at higher levels. If I had a choice, I would play a pusher at least a couple times a month. It is basically a diagnostic of your game.
 
^Eh, sometimes. I usually get lobbed to death. I prefer just hitting corners with 3/4 pace shots and moving them around
 
tennisfreak said:
Solid post.

I've gotten to the point where I beat the 4.0 pushers pretty badly. In fact, I merely categorize 4.0 pushers as just another 4.0 player, most of whom I beat. As I've stepped up my game, I've encountered another totally different animal, the 4.5 pusher.

The 4.5 pusher is basically the 4.0 pusher on steroids. They are faster, stronger, and get more balls back then the 4.0 pusher. They hit better defensive shots. Often, they have an excellent shot they can win points with, even though their default game is the pusher game. In fact, if a 4.5 pusher played a 4.0 or a 3.5, THE PUSHER would be the one dictating the points. It is only when a 4.5 pusher plays another 4.5 they fall back on the pusher game.

I lost 6-3, 7-6 the other day to a 4.5 "pusher". Shots that would be winners at the 4.0 level were lobbed over my head when I get into the net. My penetrating shots were blocked back deep and near the baseline. This "pusher" would lull my to sleep by bunting balls back deep, and then when I hit a short ball he would crush it with his forehand.

These players have exposed some serious holes in my game that I thought I had fixed at the 4.0 level, but still get exposed at higher levels. If I had a choice, I would play a pusher at least a couple times a month. It is basically a diagnostic of your game.
Click to expand...

I like Berdych's game as a model against pushers or just really good defensive players. All pros these days are really good defensive players and I like his overall approach for breaking down defenses. It may not work against some of the top players but it seems to work against the vast majority.
 
tennisfreak said:
Solid post.

I've gotten to the point where I beat the 4.0 pushers pretty badly. In fact, I merely categorize 4.0 pushers as just another 4.0 player, most of whom I beat. As I've stepped up my game, I've encountered another totally different animal, the 4.5 pusher.

The 4.5 pusher is basically the 4.0 pusher on steroids. They are faster, stronger, and get more balls back then the 4.0 pusher. They hit better defensive shots. Often, they have an excellent shot they can win points with, even though their default game is the pusher game. In fact, if a 4.5 pusher played a 4.0 or a 3.5, THE PUSHER would be the one dictating the points. It is only when a 4.5 pusher plays another 4.5 they fall back on the pusher game.

I lost 6-3, 7-6 the other day to a 4.5 "pusher". Shots that would be winners at the 4.0 level were lobbed over my head when I get into the net. My penetrating shots were blocked back deep and near the baseline. This "pusher" would lull my to sleep by bunting balls back deep, and then when I hit a short ball he would crush it with his forehand.

These players have exposed some serious holes in my game that I thought I had fixed at the 4.0 level, but still get exposed at higher levels. If I had a choice, I would play a pusher at least a couple times a month. It is basically a diagnostic of your game.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a counter puncher with a varied game, not a pusher.
 
Pushers are basically guys who aren't very good at tennis - but they are still better then the guys that lose to them - so they depress the crap out of people. Losing to a pusher makes people quit the game..

This is why some people hate them - in their mind they think they are good at tennis. If you accept that you are not great at tennis and that you need to improve they are really good guys to play against. You get in long rallies - you get to work on grooving your strokes.. and you improve your fitness.

I like the guys people call pushers..That being said if you really are good at tennis you will crush 'legit' pushers. In my view pushers don't have good serves and can't rally with good pace..

Obviously if you want to call Murray a pusher - then yeah he can crush everyone..
 
tennisfreak said:
Solid post.

I've gotten to the point where I beat the 4.0 pushers pretty badly. In fact, I merely categorize 4.0 pushers as just another 4.0 player, most of whom I beat. As I've stepped up my game, I've encountered another totally different animal, the 4.5 pusher.

The 4.5 pusher is basically the 4.0 pusher on steroids. They are faster, stronger, and get more balls back then the 4.0 pusher. They hit better defensive shots. Often, they have an excellent shot they can win points with, even though their default game is the pusher game. In fact, if a 4.5 pusher played a 4.0 or a 3.5, THE PUSHER would be the one dictating the points. It is only when a 4.5 pusher plays another 4.5 they fall back on the pusher game.

I lost 6-3, 7-6 the other day to a 4.5 "pusher". Shots that would be winners at the 4.0 level were lobbed over my head when I get into the net. My penetrating shots were blocked back deep and near the baseline. This "pusher" would lull my to sleep by bunting balls back deep, and then when I hit a short ball he would crush it with his forehand.

These players have exposed some serious holes in my game that I thought I had fixed at the 4.0 level, but still get exposed at higher levels. If I had a choice, I would play a pusher at least a couple times a month. It is basically a diagnostic of your game.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a pusher to me. It sounds like...what a tennis player is supposed to do to win.

The hardest to beat is the 7.0 Djokovic pusher. Fast as hell. Gets EVERY ball back, sometimes just by tapping the ball. Doesn't overhit. Redirects the ball into corners and lines. Usually beats the non-pusher 7.0 Federer type.
 
^Eh, sometimes. I usually get lobbed to death. I prefer just hitting corners with 3/4 pace shots and moving them around
Click to expand...

Dude. Going to the net is an expression - you don't have to get so close that you physically touch it. Try standing back just in front of the service line - split step there. You will still have time to close if the pusher tries to pass you..
 
GuyClinch said:
Dude. Going to the net is an expression - you don't have to get so close that you physically touch it. Try standing back just in front of the service line - split step there. You will still have time to close if the pusher tries to pass you..
Click to expand...

Last weekend, I was hitting serves that were five feet off the ground at the back curtain in doubles. The guy on the deuce side was standing almost at the curtain, just getting his racquet on the ball and lobbing it deep to the baseline. That basically reset the point. It's pretty effective too in neutralizing a serve.
 
Flatballs said:
Id take it a step further to say if you lose to the pusher, the pusher is simply a better tennis player than you. The scoreboard says so.
Click to expand...

Can't agree with this at all...you don't think a better tennis player has ever lost to a worst tennis player? So Rosol is better than Rafa, Robredo is superior to Fed, Cornet is better than Serena? I have thousands of examples, and could go on..but hopefully you see the point.

If you re-phrase it to "if you lose to a "pusher" then the "pusher" was simply a better tennis player than you THAT DAY. The scoreboard says so." then I wholeheartedly agree.

Point is, in the wonderful sport we all play and love, on many days a better OVERALL player can be undone by a lesser opponent. It happens....it's part of the beauty of the game. If it didn't happen the game would quickly get tedious as you would have to constantly search for better and better opponents in order to be challenged, when often the biggest opponent is your own focus and mental strength.
 
Their is a whole dynamic of pushers, everyone, well, nearly all, miss. And this is why they lose to them. FORCE, and also a great amount of time, DEPTH.

Your normal "hitting partner" and you hit with normal to great FORCE, and practice, play, with normal to better than normal DEPTH. You are both pleased and relaxed and happy with this. You feel like a pro, you look like a pro, your enjoying tennis life!

And then you meet the pusher!(and, I agree, Djokovic is the best pusher in the world, maybe ever!!). He purposely hits the ball with low to no FORCE. Because some have low to no speed, athletic ability(some have great athletic ability, yet CHOOSE this evil path of "tennis life"haha), and they know that, they also PURPOSELY hit the ball SHORT AND LOW. They know "Mr. tough guy".. yeah, that is you and me, can't hit the ball from a smaller area of the court, much lower over the net, for what we play tennis for, A WINNER!(or, to at least hit the ball HARD with FORCE, like we are GETTING SOMETHING DONE on a tennis court!)

And then you find yourself in this horrid nightmare of a chess match bunting the ball. Why?.. well, you haven't PRACTICED HITTING this short, low, no pace ball(Only one poster has mentioned to actually PRACTICE against these horrible people, and yes, THAT GUY IS THE ONLY ONE WHO IS CORRECT!!) and because of the lack of practice to said ball, now has to be led around the court by this idiot, with no: a)proper approach shot, b)proper volleys, c)proper overhead, to "DESTROY THE PUSHER!!"

And that is why most hate them. They can't feel any FORCE off the ball, and, used to this force, hit everything 3 more feet deep, and 3 more feet to their left(if they are righty and hitting a forehand). So, this creates great PAIN!(believe me, i have been there!) The hitter goes, "Well, why in the hell do i even PRACTICE in the FIRST PLACE if i have to play THIS CRAP!" And this is why we hate playing pushers. Too much "adjustments", feels NOTHING like the "real tennis" we see and love on TV(or, at the very least, have PRACTICED with our normal hitting partner). They are doing NOTHING,(at least in our minds), to improve our game. Yet, we are down 4-1, and getting KILLED by KILLING OURSELVES!(yes, the most painful feeling in the world, just want to beat down this idiot making us look like an idiot who hasn't put any PRACTICE into his game!)

So, the answer is, getting better. But, its like the random phrase, "watch the ball better".. their is technique to everything. So, the answer should be, "Practice and get better at everything you and your partner DON'T PRACTICE." And, as I mentioned above, that is: a)solid approach shot, b)split step, c)angled volley, d) solid angled overhead, e)playing pushers in practice so U know U and your new spin strings can ADJUST and make enough safe power to rush the pusher, f)hitting the ball off the rise, which I feel is the most important, but also requires "talent"(aka great hand eye, racket timing) to execute. This last thing will tell the pusher that HE is in for a long day, not you, as then he is the one scrambling to make his last second bunts at the ball from a tough position.

And finally, their is one high level player I know who hits massive topspin on his forehand, and plenty on his backhand. I have never ever heard him complain that he has to play, had to deal with, even noticed, the guy on the other side, being a "pusher"(and I have seen him destroy many with ease, yet lose by over hitting to the super high level "5.0 pushers" that have insane speed/agility, and can stand 8 to 12 feet behind the baseline, and "get everything back" until my buddy gets too fatigud FROM HIS OWN HIGH OUTPUT GAME and then starts to overhit and miss barely out!) But even he has got smarter/better and employs more net attacking/strategy to beat these high level pushers. Hope this helps.
 
My practice yesterday was like this. My partner was off his game (out of shape or injury but he wasn't moving that well), and he wasn't putting much pace or depth on the ball. He can typically cream the ball but he's very good at the soft game too.

The hardest part about hitting against this is not putting every ball away.
 
I just played a pusher in my weekly league. He was elevated to division 1 because someone called in absent. It's been a long time since I played one, so I was thinking about all the pusher conversations here, and wondering how I should play him.

I started out by wining the first 2 games fairly easily. I then decided that I would just overwhelm him with power and try and win 6-0. I proceeded to lose the next 4 games in a row, as the guy just redirected all my power shots at nice angles. The guy was amazing at net and mid court, so anything I floated got dispatched.

I was thinking "Oh my God, I can't believe this is happening to me." I then backed off the power and started hitting better angles, and going for more accuracy with my serves. Basically I accepted that I had to play tennis with him. I ended up winning 6-4, but it was scary.
 
movdqa said:
Sounds more like a grinder. Hewitt comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Something of a pusher/grinder hybrid, perhaps. He has bad technique (literally pushes the ball with a locked wrist and elbow... no racket head lag), so can't really generate much power, but he can redirect power extremely well, and is very accurate.

Against someone like this, if your technique is good, and you can generate easy power, you can just relax and hit a ball that is 30% faster than his, with just as much accuracy.
 
At the courts I play at on weekends, there are these handful of younger guys who never play sets, and never even play points. They just bash the ball for 2 hours, missing every 3rd or 4th shot long, swinging for the fences on everything, balls going into everyone elses courts which they don't try to stop. They obviously think they are the tennis elite. These are the types who come here thinking they are 4.5..yet I know after 2 or 3 dinks their games will start to fall apart and I'm barely a 4.0. Another guy at these courts said that he saw them actually play a set once, and they couldn't put a first serve in the box. These are the guys who go off on pushers here. The last time I checked, bashing the ball as hard as you can from behind the baseline is not the only definition of "tennis".
 
dman72 said:
At the courts I play at on weekends, there are these handful of younger guys who never play sets, and never even play points. They just bash the ball for 2 hours, missing every 3rd or 4th shot long, swinging for the fences on everything, balls going into everyone elses courts which they don't try to stop. They obviously think they are the tennis elite. These are the types who come here thinking they are 4.5..yet I know after 2 or 3 dinks their games will start to fall apart and I'm barely a 4.0. Another guy at these courts said that he saw them actually play a set once, and they couldn't put a first serve in the box. These are the guys who go off on pushers here. The last time I checked, bashing the ball as hard as you can from behind the baseline is not the only definition of "tennis".
Click to expand...

We had two guys like that at our club for a while. A curious breed. The first time they came, I thought they must be very high level. But then it became apparent that they never serve, that they never play points, and they never hit more than 5 in a row in the court. I kept trying to convince them to play my 11 year olds in a match, but I think deep down they knew they would loose.
 
Anaconda said:
I can't remember losing to a pusher. I'd rather play good people. You improve by playing people who beat you. You can beat a pusher simply by coming to the net.
Click to expand...

You said that you never play pushers - so of course you cant remember losing to one. Pushers who win are good players. Deal with it.
 
There is a small problem with this thread that keeps bugging me as I read through the post.

First of all, I think it would be more appropriate to approach the matter through the lens of probability rather than relying on crude determinism. We could say that being better than your opponent makes it likelier for you to win instead of proceeding as if it must imply you will win.

If we do not proceed this way, we immediatedly run into a problem because people sometimes loose to each other. We could consider that being better than your opponent means winning (the deterministic case) which readily implies that if the player A looses to B and vice-versa, they are of equal competence. The ridicule here is that it would require only one vitory from B to make the reasoning hold because we'd be working with a bivalent type of logic. If we use probabilities other than 0 and 1, generalizing the reasoning to a stochatic system, you get rid of this very possible, yet ridiculous interpretation -- because, then, what matters is the observed frequency of victories versus defeats.

Second of all, we have a problem of transitivity here, whether we go with the stochastic model or not. It's perfectly possible for three players to yield this sort of result: A beats B, B beats C and C beats A. If we say that A must be better than B, then B must better than C and C must be better than A which, by transitivity, implies that A is better than itself and also that it is both better and lesser than B... This alone should convince all of you that using head-to-head records to rank players by qualities as tennismen and teniswomen is nonsense. To build your ranking, you need a specific type of ordering relationship and one of its property must be transitivity -- and the head-to-head comparison ISN'T transitive, as I have shown.


If you want the short hand for my post, I am saying that concluding a pusher is a better player on the grounds of his head-to-head record is fallacious. For future reference, the "better than (or equal to)" relationship is
-reflexive;
-antisymmetric;
-transitive.

So, if you pick another metric, make sure it respects these properties or else you won't get the pyramid-like ranking of players you're probably looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steady Eddy
Pity the pusher!
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
ubercat
U
Z
Respect for pusher please?
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
7K
movdqa
movdqa
goeblack
Easy way to beat a pusher.(if you are better than them)
Replies
46
Views
4K
dman72
D
D
Another Pusher Thread
Replies
31
Views
1K
zaph
Z
1
Pusher Anonymous?
Replies
4
Views
273
ChaelAZ
ChaelAZ
Back
Top