Pushers can be beaten!

[atp2015]

Yes, pushers can be beaten at any level! I was thinking about the upcoming potential match-up between Nadal and Fed at AO 18 and it's clear with superior ground strokes from the backhand wing Fed was finally able to beat Nadal's pushing strategy.

Now coming back to rec level, the same principle should apply.
IMO, pushers can be beaten with 4.0 level ground strokes. I'm talking about typical pushers at rec level - the ones who play the 3.5 to 4.5 levels who don't/can't hit offensive shots, but rely on errors or breakdown of your opponent.
The popular strategy often discussed to beat pushers is to become a better pusher or engage in net game because most pushers are not good at the net. If pushers cannot be beaten with baseline bashing, I think it's time to take a hard look at the quality of ground strokes and technique. Fed achieved it by upgrading his BH topspin shot. What about us!

 

[navigator]

No pusher has ever been beaten.

 

[TennisCJC]

Steppenwolf once said "godd*mn the pusher man" and he know what he was talking about.

of course, you can beat a pusher at the rec level but you can also lose to one. I saw a pusher beat a former D1 college player at 4.5 level. this pusher was fit, fast, placed the ball extremely well including passing shots and lobs but he very very rarely hit the ball hard. I think it comes down to execution. Does the pusher or shot maker execute their shots and tactics better on that day?

 

[Deleted member 120290]

By definition, a pusher cannot be beaten. You only call them a pusher if you lose to them.

Once you start beating them, you no longer refer to them as a pusher.

 

[J011yroger]

If Nadal is a pusher, sign me up.

J

 

[SinjinCooper]

If Nadal is a pusher, sign me up.

J

If the solution is I get Federer's strokes, sign me up.

(If the solution is I need Federer's strokes...uh oh.)

 

[atp2015]

If Nadal is a pusher, sign me up.

J

You are too good for Nadal and will destroy him.
I have heard 3.5 players from NY area hit harder than Nadal and someone who plays a few levels above in that area would send Nadal packing to retirement home.

Federer himself has said Nadal hits balls slow. For him, Nadal is a pusher.

 

[IowaGuy]

it's clear with superior ground strokes from the backhand wing Fed was finally able to beat Nadal's pushing strategy.

Except on clay, of course

 

[J011yroger]

Except on clay, of course

Except maybe on Blue clay or at altitude.

J

 

[IowaGuy]

Except maybe on Blue clay or at altitude.

If Fed is so dominant against pushers then he should play the French Open this year

 

[J011yroger]

If Fed is so dominant against pushers then he should play the French Open this year

It worked in 09!

J

 

[atp2015]

If Fed is so dominant against pushers then he should play the French Open this year

Sure, because pushers don't play anywhere else, no? you can find them only on clay...

 

[IowaGuy]

Sure, because pushers don't play anywhere else, no? you can find them only on clay...

Their retriever/attrition tactics are just much more effective on clay.

Not much success for pushers on grass. For example, Michael Chang (IMHO one of the prototype pushers/retrievers) won the French, and was a finalist at AO and USO. But best he ever did at Wimbledon (which had faster surfaces in his day than currently) was quarterfinals.

 

[J011yroger]

Sure, because pushers don't play anywhere else, no? you can find them only on clay...

And in the WTF...

J

 

[IowaGuy]

It worked in 09!

Do you predict Fed will play the French Open this year?

 

[J011yroger]

Do you predict Fed will play the French Open this year?

Yes!

J

 

[Deleted member 120290]

Do you predict Fed will play the French Open this year?

Yes because by the time FO rolls around, everyone will be injured except for Federer and 127 alternates from the Futures tour.

 

[J011yroger]

Yes because by the time FO rolls around, everyone will be injured except for Federer and 127 alternates from the Futures tour.

B2LIEVE!

J

 

[atp2015]

Their retriever/attrition tactics are just much more effective on clay.

Not much success for pushers on grass. For example, Michael Chang (IMHO one of the prototype pushers/retrievers) won the French, and was a finalist at AO and USO. But best he ever did at Wimbledon (which had faster surfaces in his day than currently) was quarterfinals.

I get your point.

It's kind of irony - you would think retrievers should be able to retrieve fast on faster courts. Because they are known for speed and agility...
speedy players do better on slow courts and non speedy guys do well on faster court. kind of opposites attract theory here..

or retrievers are not really fast in spite of the popular belief. They are slow and always reactive - and that's how they compete well on slower courts.

 

[J011yroger]

I get your point.

It's kind of irony - you would think retrievers should be able to retrieve fast on faster courts. Because they are known for speed and agility...
speedy players do better on slow courts and non speedy guys do well on faster court. kind of opposites attract theory here..

Counterpunchers like Hewitt and Murray had their best success on faster courts.

J

 

[Fintft]

If Nadal is a pusher, sign me up.


J

But he is and I used to be a fan of his fighting spirit, not playing style! Federer ftw!

 

[FiReFTW]

It's kind of irony - you would think retrievers should be able to retrieve fast on faster courts. Because they are known for speed and agility...

Im not sure I understand the logic of why anyone would think that.
The ball is slower on clay than on hard courts, so the player has more time to get to it.
How is it logical that they can defend better on hard courts? The slower the court the better they can defend.

 

[GuyClinch]

It's not entirely crazy for rec tennis. If you are a hustler - and you are on slow courts you are fast enough to run everything down. But if you are on very fast courts - its like bam - the point is already over before the guy decides to move. They get essentially stuck in their tracks. This is more of a 3.0 -3.5 kinda thing..

Basically the court needs to be slow enough such that speed and hustle can help you. If its like crazy fast its not going to matter. For example a wooden gym floor (if you ever tried to play tennis on that - super fast).

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Im not sure I understand the logic of why anyone would think that.
The ball is slower on clay than on hard courts, so the player has more time to get to it.
How is it logical that they can defend better on hard courts? The slower the court the better they can defend.

On the other hand, clay also gives big hitters more time to wind up and hit faster shots. That's how the game is played on clay nowadays. Big hitting from behind the baseline, obviously with a lot of movement, but it's very rare to do well without big groundstrokes on clay. It also helps that the ball tends to bounce nice and high, which aggressive players tend to enjoy.

Whereas on quicker, skidding surfaces, junkballers, slicers, pushers have a better chance of disrupting the opponent's rhythm, the ball stays lower, you need more compact strokes and greater variety. That's as long as the serve gets returned.

There's a club coach in Melbourne who has been winning the state grass court open for about 5 years in a row. His serve is pretty normal compared to his opponents but he plays a very controlled, compact game, keeping the ball low on both topspin and slice, doesn't use massive pace but can create fast enough angles. The control and placement on his slices is amazing, they're all about 3-5 cm above the net.
That's what happens at the highest levels. The margins are much smaller, cos the players have amazing accuracy.
What some may call low percentage, for a good player may be high percentage play.

 

[FiReFTW]

On the other hand, clay also gives big hitters more time to wind up and hit faster shots. That's how the game is played on clay nowadays. Big hitting from behind the baseline, obviously with a lot of movement, but it's very rare to do well without big groundstrokes on clay. It also helps that the ball tends to bounce nice and high, which aggressive players tend to enjoy.

Whereas on quicker, skidding surfaces, junkballers, slicers, pushers have a better chance of disrupting the opponent's rhythm, the ball stays lower, you need more compact strokes and greater variety. That's as long as the serve gets returned.

There's a club coach in Melbourne who has been winning the state grass court open for about 5 years in a row. His serve is pretty normal compared to his opponents but he plays a very controlled, compact game, keeping the ball low on both topspin and slice, doesn't use massive pace but can create fast enough angles. The control and placement on his slices is amazing, they're all about 3-5 cm above the net.
That's what happens at the highest levels. The margins are much smaller, cos the players have amazing accuracy.
What some may call low percentage, for a good player may be high percentage play.

I completely disagree with everything you just wrote.

1.In todays modern game you dont need a ton of time to wind up, the strokes are compact and produce a ton of RHs

2.Even ignoring point 1, we are talking about playing defenders and retreivers which wont hit fast shots but get the ball back and defend, no matter what court you are you will have a ton of time to get in position and wind up and whatever

3.on Clay the ball bounces higher (most people prefer a medium bounce to hit hard) and also the clay slows down the bounce alot, so the ball is slower hence you cant hit the same pace shots than if the ball bounced much faster into your strings, you would get much more pace then, hence the defenders have alot more time to get to a well placed corner shot on clay

4. It is Clay courts where junk ballers, defenders can disrupt the opponent best, and its pretty logical to why that is, Clay courts are not as 100% consistent as hard courts, patches of clay, bumps, skidmarks can all affect the ball to bounce unpredictable.
Also the ball bounce has the biggest variety aswell as topspin strokes spin into the sandy clay and the ball gets bumped and bounced high, while the slice contrary to some people's believes bounces lower than on hard courts because it spins backwards and skids on the sandy clay (not as low as grass tho).

 

[zaph]

Nadal fastest forehand was 103mph, which is faster than most first serves of the posters here and you think he is a pusher? You know nothing about tennis. Yes he uses a more defensive strategy against one of the greatest attacking players of all time, but that does not make him a pusher.

The blunt truth is, if pushers cause you problems, you're not very good. They have no weapons and give you an age to setup your shots. You can go to the bar, order a drink, some crisps, relax, watch the telly and still be back in time to retrieve most of the shots hit by a pusher.

Which is of course why many players struggle against them. They have flawed technique, so when ask to control or generate pace off a paceless ball, they self destruct.

Beating a pusher is not difficult, you have control of the rally. Just move them about till you get an opening and then put it away. That does require the ability to hit more than two or three shots in a row and have control over where it is going. If you can't do that, best practice more, you're not that good.

 

[FiReFTW]

Nadal fastest forehand was 103mph, which is faster than most first serves of the posters here and you think he is a pusher? You know nothing about tennis. Yes he uses a more defensive strategy against one of the greatest attacking players of all time, but that does not make him a pusher.

The blunt truth is, if pushers cause you problems, you're not very good. They have no weapons and give you an age to setup your shots. You can go to the bar, order a drink, some crisps, relax, watch the telly and still be back in time to retrieve most of the shots hit by a pusher.

Which is of course why many players struggle against them. They have flawed technique, so when ask to control or generate pace off a paceless ball, they self destruct.

Beating a pusher is not difficult, you have control of the rally. Just move them about till you get an opening and then put it away. That does require the ability to hit more than two or three shots in a row and have control over where it is going. If you can't do that, best practice more, you're not that good.

I agree.

Tho very good pushers on clay are quite hard to beat because its hard to outhit them if they are very fast and get everything back.
Being super aggressive and attacking the net is a good option but some people dont have good net game.

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

I completely disagree with everything you just wrote.

1.In todays modern game you dont need a ton of time to wind up, the strokes are compact and produce a ton of RHs

2.Even ignoring point 1, we are talking about playing defenders and retreivers which wont hit fast shots but get the ball back and defend, no matter what court you are you will have a ton of time to get in position and wind up and whatever

3.on Clay the ball bounces higher (most people prefer a medium bounce to hit hard) and also the clay slows down the bounce alot, so the ball is slower hence you cant hit the same pace shots than if the ball bounced much faster into your strings, you would get much more pace then, hence the defenders have alot more time to get to a well placed corner shot on clay

4. It is Clay courts where junk ballers, defenders can disrupt the opponent best, and its pretty logical to why that is, Clay courts are not as 100% consistent as hard courts, patches of clay, bumps, skidmarks can all affect the ball to bounce unpredictable.
Also the ball bounce has the biggest variety aswell as topspin strokes spin into the sandy clay and the ball gets bumped and bounced high, while the slice contrary to some people's believes bounces lower than on hard courts because it spins backwards and skids on the sandy clay (not as low as grass tho).

Different strokes for different folks as they say

 

[atp2015]

Nadal fastest forehand was 103mph, which is faster than most first serves of the posters here and you think he is a pusher? You know nothing about tennis. Yes he uses a more defensive strategy against one of the greatest attacking players of all time, but that does not make him a pusher.

The blunt truth is, if pushers cause you problems, you're not very good. They have no weapons and give you an age to setup your shots. You can go to the bar, order a drink, some crisps, relax, watch the telly and still be back in time to retrieve most of the shots hit by a pusher.

Which is of course why many players struggle against them. They have flawed technique, so when ask to control or generate pace off a paceless ball, they self destruct.

Beating a pusher is not difficult, you have control of the rally. Just move them about till you get an opening and then put it away. That does require the ability to hit more than two or three shots in a row and have control over where it is going. If you can't do that, best practice more, you're not that good.

A lot of 3.5s here hit harder than Nadal

But seriously, I don't know why you think posters are comparing Nadal to people on the forum. He is a superstar with 15 majors and forum folks are his fans or rival fans.
There is no competition between stars and their millions of fans. And Nadal is not just a star, he is a superstar and the greatest clay court player of all time. We are talking about the moon(Nadal) and little pebbles(fans) on the beach.

With that let's see why Nadal is a pusher.
If he is such an attacking player, what stoped him from winning 7 Wimbledon titles like Sampras and Fed?
Win couple of WTF to show how your versatile skills match up.
103 mph forehand won't slow down on grass or hard court, does it ?
We need a good reason how someone who can win 10 titles on slow court can't win one on faster courts. The reason is pushing. There is nothing wrong with it. But no brownie points either.

 

[dgold44]

Yes, pushers can be beaten at any level! I was thinking about the upcoming potential match-up between Nadal and Fed at AO 18 and it's clear with superior ground strokes from the backhand wing Fed was finally able to beat Nadal's pushing strategy.

Now coming back to rec level, the same principle should apply.
IMO, pushers can be beaten with 4.0 level ground strokes. I'm talking about typical pushers at rec level - the ones who play the 3.5 to 4.5 levels who don't/can't hit offensive shots, but rely on errors or breakdown of your opponent.
The popular strategy often discussed to beat pushers is to become a better pusher or engage in net game because most pushers are not good at the net. If pushers cannot be beaten with baseline bashing, I think it's time to take a hard look at the quality of ground strokes and technique. Fed achieved it by upgrading his BH topspin shot. What about us!

Beating a pusher is very tough if you lack a good net game !!!
I find doing tons of drop shots and bringing them to the net is good way

 

[dgold44]

Nadal is an aggressive baseline basher !!!

Murray is more the classic pusher

 

[atp2015]

Beating a pusher is very tough if you lack a good net game and your baseline bashing is not as good as you think it is!!!

Agreed with bolded correction .

 

[mad dog1]

Yes, pushers can be beaten at any level! I was thinking about the upcoming potential match-up between Nadal and Fed at AO 18 and it's clear with superior ground strokes from the backhand wing Fed was finally able to beat Nadal's pushing strategy.

Now coming back to rec level, the same principle should apply.
IMO, pushers can be beaten with 4.0 level ground strokes. I'm talking about typical pushers at rec level - the ones who play the 3.5 to 4.5 levels who don't/can't hit offensive shots, but rely on errors or breakdown of your opponent.
The popular strategy often discussed to beat pushers is to become a better pusher or engage in net game because most pushers are not good at the net. If pushers cannot be beaten with baseline bashing, I think it's time to take a hard look at the quality of ground strokes and technique. Fed achieved it by upgrading his BH topspin shot. What about us!

Not sure @dgold44 would agree with you.

 

[dgold44]

Not sure @dgold44 would agree with you.

I am usually 50-50 against pushers because I am usually in good condition

 

[zaph]

Dear lord, there are no ATP level pushers. Such a player does not exist. Murray has great variety, defence and likes to break his opponents rhythm by varying the pace, but he is in no way a pusher. Neither is Nadal.

A pusher does not really exist above the most basic levels of tennis, it is that simple.

If you lose to them, that is your problem, they are beating you, because they are exposing flaws in your game. Fix the flaws and stop complaining.

 

[PMChambers]

Pushers vs Junk Baller
You'd think it would have been boring era.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Steppenwolf once said "godd*mn the pusher man" and he know what he was talking about...

Not to be a putz but just to set the record straight, Steppenwolf was a "they" not a "he". (Steppenwolf was also a novel by Herman Hesse written in the 1920s). BTW the song, "The Pusher", was actually written by folk singer/songwriter, Hoyt Axton, and not by any member of the group, Steppenwolf. Nonetheless, for your listening pleasure...

youtube.com/watch?v=3XqyGoE2Q4Y&t=69

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

A pusher does not really exist above the most basic levels of tennis, it is that simple.

Pushers seem to max out around 4.0, which I would not call "the most basic levels". At that point, they either peak or evolve.

The only pushing I see at 4.5 and above is by people who are trying to change things up or believe they are going to win/lose no matter what they do. I saw an Open match where the eventual winner started pushing out of nowhere in the 3rd set and his opponent started overhitting and missing. His opponent was a legit Open player also [this was the QFs] but the winner must have seen a weakness in his opponent's game to adopt a new strategy.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

This can be employed to beat a pusher:

Spoiler

 

[atp2015]

Pushers exist in EVERY level including top 10 atp. The pushers at the highest level push harder.
Pusher is anyone who plays defensive style most of the time.
I'm sure some people define it differently - no strokes etc.

If winning points are dominated by opponent's ufe than winners, the player is a pusher.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Pushers exist in EVERY level including top 10 atp. The pushers at the highest level push harder.
Pusher is anyone who plays defensive style most of the time.
I'm sure some people define it differently - no strokes etc.

If winning points are dominated by opponent's ufe than winners, the player is a pusher.

I think a lot of people overestimate the # of winners they hit and underestimate the # of errors.

I charted one of my matches and figured out my error:winner ratio was 4:1. And it didn't seem like a particularly skewed match although I'd have to do it more often to get a baseline.

 

[atp2015]

I think a lot of people overestimate the # of winners they hit and underestimate the # of errors.

I charted one of my matches and figured out my error:winner ratio was 4:1. And it didn't seem like a particularly skewed match although I'd have to do it more often to get a baseline.

You are right , pure winners are a few compared to errors.

Winners and forced errors vs unforced errors makes more sense.

 

[GuyClinch]

I think a lot of people overestimate the # of winners they hit and underestimate the # of errors.

I charted one of my matches and figured out my error:winner ratio was 4:1. And it didn't seem like a particularly skewed match although I'd have to do it more often to get a baseline.

Part of the problem though is that errors/winners is a crappy metric. What happens in actual matches is that someone who hits with more pace/spin/control will force his opponent into returning more difficult shots. That degree of difficulty WILL generate errors. A very simple test of this is to rally with someone far better then you. Their 'rally' ball with 'bother' you if you can find someone good enough.

The 'real' universal tennis strategy is not pushing - its just hitting shots that for you are easier and for your opponent are slightly harder. This is of course IS the strategy that 'real' pushers use - (aka not ATP guys that are called pushers by losers) - they hit shots that are very easy for them (a push shot - minimal spin - pace - use gravity to bring down - aimed to safe area) and are slightly harder for you - because you are not as consistent and try to hit a SLIGHTLY more aggressive shot.

It's a game of attrition.. So the pusher hits shot that he can hit with 95% success rate and you hit returns that you hit with only 80% success rate. You get to all of them but you eventually make errors.

Now pros do the same thing of course. A very simple pattern that Federer uses is he runs around his backhand when he gets a shot that direction and hits his forehand - back to the opponents backhand. Now boom - the laws of attrition kick in. If the opponent returns with his backhand to a safe spot where Fed can hit his forehand again - Fed can simply hit another forehand. And because his forehand is more reliable, has more spin, and pace this is a losing 'deal' for the opponent. But if he tries to change direction on the ball and hit down the line - Fed can cover that ball - hit his forehand cross court and again the opponent has a more difficult shot then Federer.

So now you see Fed's chance of hitting another inside out forehand successfully is 95%. His returners chance of hitting another cross court backhand is say 93%. His chance of hitting a DTL forehand winner is 10%. His chance of hitting a DTL shots that Fed runs down is like 90%. etc..

Point is that is what tennis about - creating exchanges that favour your percentages. Pushing is one way to do that against low level players. But against better players it doesn't work. The reason being is that they can hit shots well enough so the pushers percentages go down. With pace and spin - the pusher has to run down shots - and the percentages will slip. Move them around and they slip in percentage to say 80% on alot of shots - and you are consistent enough to send that back with a 95% rate. And you now win..

So sure you don't hit many errors. But EVERY winning player hits shot that puts pressure on their opponent - even pushers. Pushers don't think you can even get it back - that's all the pressure they need. Pros OTOH rely on placement, spin and power to shift the percentages in their favour - and not winners. Quite frankly if you chart out winners - alot of them are off of mistakes - at the pro level.

So in the Fed scenario - Fed hits a really good forehand into the guys backhand corner. The guy returns it - but doesn't get the ball deep enough cross court - its weak and lands short. Fed then just murders ball to opposite corner. Sure its a winner - but it was set up because he played the percentages.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Pushers should be severely reprimanded or rehabilitated using humane methods. They should never be violently struck.

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

The blunt truth is, if pushers cause you problems, you're not very good.

Beating a pusher is not difficult, you have control of the rally. Just move them about till you get an opening and then put it away. That does require the ability to hit more than two or three shots in a row and have control over where it is going. If you can't do that, best practice more, you're not that good.

Wrong, beating a pusher is hard. Very hard.
It takes dedication to the sport.
It takes playing several times a week.
Pushers dominate 3.5 because at this level, they play once a week.
You can NOT play reliable offensive tennis only playing once a week. You will UE lose.
Ever notice that the pusher your lost to is on the court EVERY time you play?

Oh, just charge the net you say?
That requires an investment in learning a net game.
An investment most players are unwilling to ever make.

Oh, just drop shot the pusher and lure him to net?
That requires an investment in learning to drop shot.
An investment most players are unwilling to ever make,
as they spend the majority of this tennis time mindlessly bashing from the baseline.

It takes learning how to not just mindlessly hit.
You need to learn to hit away from the opponent and make him run.
That requires control of your shots.
It requires you to keep the ball in, and not hit as hard as you can.

The pusher LAUGHS at your pathetic excuse for a tennis game.
You can't hit the ball in 3 times in a row.
You're a god damned JOKE to the pusher.
Not even a real match. Just let the basher crush himself.
Rope a dope.

Beating a retriever was my most satisfying win of 2017.
It took 6 matches, and I finally got a set off him.
It required my very best tennis, balance of defense and offense.
Once I beat him, I have not lost to any 3.5 player I've come against since.

 

[atp2015]

How is it logical that they can defend better on hard courts? The slower the court the better they can defend.

Since the court is the same for both players, the hard court should make it hard for the slower player to get to balls on his side of the court as well.

There are multiple theories - the one i believe is the higher bounce created on clay. Almost everyone struggles against higher bounce.
Players who hit better top spin on clay win, nobody hits top spin like Nadal. He wins on clay not because the surface is slow and defends better, because he attacks a lot better on clay because of massive top spin he is able to generate and relegates who rely on slice and flat shots to pushers.
That's why McEnroe, Sampras, Fed struggled on clay compared to other surfaces because they didn't/couldn't attack with top spin to make ball bounce higher.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Since the court is the same for both players, the hard court should make it hard for the slower player to get to balls on his side of the court as well.

There are multiple theories - the one i believe is the higher bounce created on clay. Almost everyone struggles against higher bounce.
Players who hit better top spin on clay win, nobody hits top spin like Nadal. He wins on clay not because the surface is slow and defends better, because he attacks a lot better on clay because of massive top spin he is able to generate and relegates who rely on slice and flat shots to pushers.
That's why McEnroe, Sampras, Fed struggled on clay compared to other surfaces because they didn't/couldn't attack with top spin to make ball bounce higher.

Note also, though, that McEnroe and Sampras played S&V, which doesn't do well on clay.

 

[Bender]

Fed was finally able to beat Nadal's pushing strategy.

Where can I acquire Rafa's 80 mph, 3000 rpm pusher forehand?

Edit: He's also made 5 Wimbledon finals, winning 2, and 4 USO finals, winning 3. Wouldn't call that being a slow court specialist. The player closest to being a pusher in the big four is Murray, and he's no pusher either.

The point of pushing is that there is no aggression, just pure defence using poor or limited technique. Nadal plays with controlled aggression, always attacking the backhand, and hits a winner as soon as he is able. That's not pushing in any way, no matter how much you try to make pushing look like a good thing.

 

[a10best]

Since the court is the same for both players, the hard court should make it hard for the slower player to get to balls on his side of the court as well.

There are multiple theories - the one i believe is the higher bounce created on clay. Almost everyone struggles against higher bounce.
Players who hit better top spin on clay win, nobody hits top spin like Nadal. He wins on clay not because the surface is slow and defends better, because he attacks a lot better on clay because of massive top spin he is able to generate and relegates who rely on slice and flat shots to pushers.
That's why McEnroe, Sampras, Fed struggled on clay compared to other surfaces because they didn't/couldn't attack with top spin to make ball bounce higher.

Then Jack Sock should have done well at FO and other clay surfaces.

 

[user92626]

By definition, a pusher cannot be beaten. You only call them a pusher if you lose to them.

Once you start beating them, you no longer refer to them as a pusher.

Worth repeating