Pushers follow same winning principle as anyone including pros!

[user92626]

In replying to another thread, it just dawned on me that pushers are just disciplined players who follow the same winning principle as any good players. That is, if they get their hand on the ball relatively comfortably they'll make their opponent pay sooner or later. Is that not the same as Nadal's, Federer's playing?

So rule #1, It don't matter whether you hit hard or soft, from the baseline or closing in, paint the line or the middle, simply DON'T LET them get to your ball with ease.

Right?

 

[Curious]

simply DON'T LET them get to your ball with ease.

I feel like that involves some risk taking. No? How will you do that? By using more angles/depth/spin/pace? All risky if you’re not good enough.

 

[AlexSV]

Sort of falls apart with the guy who bunts it down the middle endlessly. It's pretty easy to get to his ball.

 

[Curious]

The biggest tip for me so far has been the realisation that you need to wait until a real opportunity to attack arises. If leopards had started attacking their preys as soon as they saw them they would have been extinct by now. You have to learn to stay in the point, enjoy the rally until you get the short ball/open court( big space in front/behind/side of the opponent). And don’t forget, attack doesn’t have to be violent, you can do it softly by going for the right angle and depth.

 

[user92626]

I feel like that involves some risk taking. No? How will you do that? By using more angles/depth/spin/pace? All risky if you’re not good enough.

ALL rewards in life have risk. If you want free of risk , do nothing. Right?

 

[user92626]

Sort of falls apart with the guy who bunts it down the middle endlessly. It's pretty easy to get to his ball.

Exactly. That guy deserves punishment from pushers or anyone. He's acting like a mindless ball feeder. Not a player with brain.

 

[zaph]

Maybe a better way of putting it is defensive vs aggressive players. Both try to achieve the same thing, they just go about in different ways. A defensive player minimises their own unforced errors and wins off their opponents mistakes. An pure aggressive player goes for high risk shots, betting they will get more winners than errors.

Such players are called ball bashers at req level because few club players have the ability to play an aggressive style without giving away too much errors. Most players are a balance between the two, including the pros.

Personally I choose safety first, especially early in a match and on the serve. I want to minimise errors and if the ball flies past me, I just say too good and play the next point. To many that is pushing but I hit with proper technique, can slice and hot topspin shots from both wings. I can also outhit a lot of club ball bashers, if I really want to.

My point is being a good player means finding the balance between defense and attack. I tend to swing more towards defense because I am small and fast. So it is the style of tennis that works best for me.

 

[zaph]

Exactly. That guy deserves punishment from pushers or anyone. He's acting like a mindless ball feeder. Not a player with brain.

I have beaten players doing exactly that. Just fed the ball endlessly up the middle till they self destructed. If my opponent isn't good enough to "punish" that, why should I bother doing anything else?

 

[user92626]

You have to learn to stay in the point, enjoy the rally until you get the short ball/open court( big space in front/behind/side of the opponent).

Stay in the point WHEN you have to.
But "enjoy the rally" sounds like you're not actively trying, not working on, applying a plan, not taking any risk. So, unless you're well above your opponent or he's equally mindless, you bound to lose.

When i win, i always notice that im trying to assert effort, mentally and physically. Im carrying a plan, often facing risks. But its good, calculated risks. (There u go again, mental calculation. Not mindless, park strolling style playing).

 

[user92626]

I have beaten players doing exactly that. Just fed the ball endlessly up the middle till they self destructed. If my opponent isn't good enough to "punish" that, why should I bother doing anything else?

You have simply played far inferior players to your level.

Think about this, could u describe a worse player than them? The very least thing one is sort of required to do is to be able to hit a ball that comes nicely in the middle to him.

Imagine he can hit such ball -- hit it any way back to your court -- but you are the one to move and feed it back to him at one place, that sounds like a losing, energy sapping proposition FOR YOU.

 

[user92626]

Maybe a better way of putting it is defensive vs aggressive players. Both try to achieve the same thing, they just go about in different ways. A defensive player minimises their own unforced errors and wins off their opponents mistakes. An pure aggressive player goes for high risk shots, ...

Let me ask u a simple question.

Can you use this defensive/aggressive style and UEs" approach WITHOUT consideration for my aforementioned principle, ie dont let opp get to your ball comfortably, and expect success?

Is this aggressive/defensive explanation a complete way to describe how you should play to win? I think not.

 

[Curious]

Stay in the point WHEN you have to.
But "enjoy the rally" sounds like you're not actively trying, not working on, applying a plan, not taking any risk. So, unless you're well above your opponent or he's equally mindless, you bound to lose.

When i win, i always notice that im trying to assert effort, mentally and physically. Im carrying a plan, often facing risks. But its good, calculated risks. (There u go again, mental calculation. Not mindless, park strolling style playing).

You can hit three types of balls returning a neutral ball (unforced situation).
Going for a winner.
Sending it back neutral again.
In between. A shot that aims to put some sort of pressure on the opponent.
You’re more for the third and I’m for the second.

 

[user92626]

You can hit three types of balls returning a neutral ball (unforced situation).
Going for a winner.
Sending it back neutral again.
In between. A shot that aims to put some sort of pressure on the opponent.
You’re more for the third and I’m for the second.

You won't know your shot be a winner until AFTER you hit it (and it turns out to be a winner). At the time of executing you only know that you need to execute it well and away from opponent.

So, you are really not going for a winner or anything, but you're advised to hit the ball as best as you can and keep it away from opponent. Don't let him get on it too comfortably.

 

[Curious]

You won't know your shot be a winner until AFTER you hit it (and it turns out to be a winner). At the time of executing you only know that you need to execute it well and away from opponent.

So, you are really not going for a winner or anything, but you're advised to hit the ball as best as you can and keep it away from opponent. Don't let him get on it too comfortably.

My last words again:
Don’t over do it. Wait for the opportunity to attack. That’s smart. Otherwise is stupid.

 

[zaph]

You have simply played far inferior players to your level.

Think about this, could u describe a worse player than them? The very least thing one is sort of required to do is to be able to hit a ball that comes nicely in the middle to him.

Imagine he can hit such ball -- hit it any way back to your court -- but you are the one to move and feed it back to him at one place, that sounds like a losing, energy sapping proposition FOR YOU.

Well they lost, which suggests I was a better player than them but surely any player you beat is worse than you by definition?

Of course I am having to run more than more opponent but I am fit enough to do that and to be blunt, when you're winning you generally have more energy.

Let me ask u a simple question.

Can you use this defensive/aggressive style and UEs" approach WITHOUT consideration for my aforementioned principle, ie dont let opp get to your ball comfortably, and expect success?

Is this aggressive/defensive explanation a complete way to describe how you should play to win? I think not.

Yes but a good pusher does make it awkward for their opponent. Constantly aiming at the backhand, moon balling, hit balls with heavy topspin or slicing it. To avoid giving their opponent rhythm.

However if I have a choice between a low percentage shot and simply placing a safe ball in my opponents hitting zone. I will give my opponent an easy ball. At least I am giving them one more chance to make a mistake.

 

[zaph]

Stay in the point WHEN you have to.
But "enjoy the rally" sounds like you're not actively trying, not working on, applying a plan, not taking any risk. So, unless you're well above your opponent or he's equally mindless, you bound to lose.

When i win, i always notice that im trying to assert effort, mentally and physically. Im carrying a plan, often facing risks. But its good, calculated risks. (There u go again, mental calculation. Not mindless, park strolling style playing).

Winning is winning, it doesn't matter how you go about doing it. You don't get extra marks for doing it in a more risky way.

 

[user92626]

Well they lost, which suggests I was a better player than them but surely any player you beat is worse than you by definition?

Of course I am having to run more than more opponent but I am fit enough to do that and to be blunt, when you're winning you generally have more energy.

"You were a better player" is not my point. Your opponent is far inferior than you is my point. Considering, you only fed the ball endlessly up the middle and beat him. You're running a lot more than he who's standing in one spot to hit!!! ... and you had to have the skill to redirect any placement ball from him back to one spot. That's like two things you have to do consistently more than he does!!! Is there any less your opponent can do? LOL.

 

[zaph]

"You were a better player" is not my point. Your opponent is far inferior than you is my point. Considering, you only fed the ball endlessly up the middle and beat him. You're running a lot more than he who's standing in one spot to hit!!! ... and you had to have the skill to redirect any placement ball from him back to one spot. That's like two things you have to do consistently more than he does!!! Is there any less your opponent can do? LOL.

Sending the ball back up the centre is easy and I don't understand your problem with running. I play tennis partly to get fitter, so I really don't mind running. If you play defensively you better be prepared to run.

Look ultimately if I can get one more ball over the net than you, I beat you.

Most of the time I do move my opponent about, I was merely countering you point that you have to do that. Sometimes hitting the ball down the centre is the best option because it takes away your opponents ability to hit the angle.

 

[Curious]

@user92626 ,
Do we agree with the points made in this video?

 

[user92626]

Sending the ball back up the centre is easy and I don't understand your problem with running. I play tennis partly to get fitter, so I really don't mind running. If you play defensively you better be prepared to run.

Look ultimately if I can get one more ball over the net than you, I beat you.

Most of the time I do move my opponent about, I was merely countering you point that you have to do that. Sometimes hitting the ball down the centre is the best option because it takes away your opponents ability to hit the angle.

There is NOT any problem with running itself. But there's problem if one can not run anymore.

Willing to run more and more than the other guy is mostly about work ethic and proving to yourself that you have the fitness. BUT that is not the objective of sport competition. If most things being equal, including your opponent's level to yours (you're not competing in a very lopsided match, are you?) you shouldn't want to run more, drain your energy more and faster than the other guy.

Efficient energy management for long term is also the name of the game. That's why they design long matches like best of 5, or best of 3 played consecutive days.

 

[user92626]

@user92626 ,
Do we agree with the points made in this video?

Yeah, those are my point.

The two guys demonstrate all the points won by making the shots uncomfortable for opponent to hit/return/trade shots. Opponent either cannot reach the ball or reach it awkwardly and produce errors. My point exactly

 

[Dartagnan64]

In replying to another thread, it just dawned on me that pushers are just disciplined players who follow the same winning principle as any good players. That is, if they get their hand on the ball relatively comfortably they'll make their opponent pay sooner or later. Is that not the same as Nadal's, Federer's playing?

You've described a counterpuncher not a pusher. Pusher will never make someone pay. They will just get the ball back into the safest spot they can hit to reliably. A counterpuncher plays defense until an opening occurs and then will hit an offensive shot to make you pay.

True pushers are 100% defensive at all times. Never taking risk. Never putting on pressure. No pros really do this. Closest would be Simon.
Counterpunchers are 75% defensive but will turn on the gas 25% of the time when a favorable condition occurs (short ball, wheelhouse ball). Think Nadal and Djoker
All court players are 50% defensive but will push the risk more often to create openings then attack. Think Federer and Shapovalov.
First strike players are 75% offensive and will take first opportunities to attack the corners and lines even on more challenging balls. More likely to serve big and volley. Think Raonic and Becker.
Ball bashers are 100% offensive and always try to hit winners and aces from the get go. No pros really do this either.

 

[Curious]

Yeah, those are my point.

The two guys demonstrate all the points won by making the shots uncomfortable for opponent to hit/return/trade shots. Opponent either cannot reach the ball or reach it awkwardly and produce errors. My point exactly

If we agree with the points made in the video then we’re on the same page although our interpretations are different.

 

[Miki 1234]

simply DON'T LET them get to your ball with ease.

Right?

Not really, pusher just puts the ball in the court in any manner possible and hopes for the best . It just works in many cases.
The rule you mentioned is absurdly hard to do.
To consistently get in to the point against top player is not even possible for anyone but top player.
You will not hit 2 shots on average over the net...
There was a great vid on nishioka channel against good junior.
Kid on average didnt reach 2 shots on average against shortest and least powerfull pro.
No such thing as pusher after age 14 in serious tennis.
The shots are to fast .

 

[user92626]

Not really, pusher just puts the ball in the court in any manner possible and hopes for the best . It just works in many cases.
The rule you mentioned is absurdly hard to do.
To consistently get in to the point against top player is not even possible for anyone but top player.
You will not hit 2 shots on average over the net...
There was a great vid on nishioka channel against good junior.
Kid on average didnt reach 2 shots on average against shortest and least powerfull pro.
No such thing as pusher after age 14 in serious tennis.
The shots are to fast .

If that's pusher that everyone is talking about and fear, honestly I haven't come across one.

I haven't lost to anyone who (mindlessly?) simply just "puts the ball in the court"

All my opponents that I lost to seemed to do alot of intent hitting (like hard, fast or suprising), and tactics, you know, mindful strategies (with their ability).

Alot of time when we were playing, there were a few guys standing at the back fence coaching my opponents on what to do. People love to pull for the underdogs.

 

[Miki 1234]

If that's pusher that everyone is talking about and fear, honestly I haven't come across one.

I haven't lost to anyone who (mindlessly?) simply just "puts the ball in the court"

All my opponents that I lost to seemed to do alot of intent hitting (like hard, fast or suprising), and tactics, you know, mindful strategies (with their ability).

Alot of time when we were playing, there were a few guys standing at the back fence coaching my opponents on what to do. People love to pull for the underdogs.

Pusher is just a mind set when confronted nothing more.
Only when confronted they show their true self and it ends up with them trying to win with putting the ball in court not skill any more.
Normaly they have their game which as you said it normaly decent to good.
But what keeps them from improving is their fear of losing . Its same when in soccer one team is winning and then tries to keep the ball so other team cant play.
It never ends good.

Pusher stops pushing and starts to tank and attack every ball when he sees he will not win because he plays to win .
That is a dead give away of a pusher.
That being said there are quite good pushers and some i cant beat any more as well so no shame im losing to one...
All im saying there are non in serious tennis for money.

 

[zaph]

There is NOT any problem with running itself. But there's problem if one can not run anymore.

Willing to run more and more than the other guy is mostly about work ethic and proving to yourself that you have the fitness. BUT that is not the objective of sport competition. If most things being equal, including your opponent's level to yours (you're not competing in a very lopsided match, are you?) you shouldn't want to run more, drain your energy more and faster than the other guy.

Efficient energy management for long term is also the name of the game. That's why they design long matches like best of 5, or best of 3 played consecutive days.

The objective of sports competition is to win and one way of winning is to work harder than your opponent. This works in plenty of sports, Liverpool just won the league based party on running further and working harder than their opponents. In tennis many of the top players are covering a lot of ground and one of their advantages is their exceptional fitness.

If I am fitter and faster than the person I am playing, I would be daft not to use that advantage. Plus everytime I retrieve another ball, my opponent still has to hit it, even if they are not covering the same amount of ground as me. Playing all those extra shots is still mentally and physically draining for them.

I am small, lightly built and fast. It doesn't take much energy for me to cover the court. I play to my strengths. Your advice is like telling a big powerful player not to use their power because not every player can do that. You play to your strengths and one of mine is court coverage.

 

[zaph]

Pusher is just a mind set when confronted nothing more.
Only when confronted they show their true self and it ends up with them trying to win with putting the ball in court not skill any more.
Normaly they have their game which as you said it normaly decent to good.
But what keeps them from improving is their fear of losing . Its same when in soccer one team is winning and then tries to keep the ball so other team cant play.
It never ends good.

Pusher stops pushing and starts to tank and attack every ball when he sees he will not win because he plays to win .
That is a dead give away of a pusher.
That being said there are quite good pushers and some i cant beat any more as well so no shame im losing to one...
All im saying there are non in serious tennis for money.

You can say exactly the same about non-pushers. They find their so called my aggressive and skillful shots aren't working, go for too much and lose. I know plenty of players whose progress has stalled because they try to play too aggressively and don't have a decent defensive game.

The truth is a good player, unless they have exceptional attacking shots or a huge serve. Needs a balance between defence and attack to progress.

 

[zaph]

You've described a counterpuncher not a pusher. Pusher will never make someone pay. They will just get the ball back into the safest spot they can hit to reliably. A counterpuncher plays defense until an opening occurs and then will hit an offensive shot to make you pay.

True pushers are 100% defensive at all times. Never taking risk. Never putting on pressure. No pros really do this. Closest would be Simon.
Counterpunchers are 75% defensive but will turn on the gas 25% of the time when a favorable condition occurs (short ball, wheelhouse ball). Think Nadal and Djoker
All court players are 50% defensive but will push the risk more often to create openings then attack. Think Federer and Shapovalov.
First strike players are 75% offensive and will take first opportunities to attack the corners and lines even on more challenging balls. More likely to serve big and volley. Think Raonic and Becker.
Ball bashers are 100% offensive and always try to hit winners and aces from the get go. No pros really do this either.

It is an arbitrary line and I increasingly don't buy this pusher/counter puncher divide. I have very rarely ever encountered a textbook pusher. The player with little technique who just bunts the ball back deep all the time.

Take a player at my club, he almost scoops the ball back into play and is very fast. His shots behave very different to most ground shots and other players find them difficult to attack. He wins on errors but when his opponent coughs up a short ball, he simply moves up the court and bunts the ball into the space. He has made them pay but he didn't hit a huge shot to do it. Is he a pusher?

Or take myself. I play defensive but if I see my opponent way over to one side of the court, I will go for the gap. Yet I rarely just smack a flat attempted winner. I will try to put spin and shape on the ball to hit it down the line or cross court. Often than is enough to get the ball past my opponent. Am I a pusher?

Plus the definition of a pusher/counter puncher depends on who that player is playing. Against a low level opponents, I can dominate them, so I look like a counter puncher. Put me against someone better, it is all I can do to get to the ball, so I look like a pure pusher.

 

[ByeByePoly]

The objective of sports competition is to win and one way of winning is to work harder than your opponent. This works in plenty of sports, Liverpool just won the league based party on running further and working harder than their opponents. In tennis many of the top players are covering a lot of ground and one of their advantages is their exceptional fitness.

If I am fitter and faster than the person I am playing, I would be daft not to use that advantage. Plus everytime I retrieve another ball, my opponent still has to hit it, even if they are not covering the same amount of ground as me. Playing all those extra shots is still mentally and physically draining for them.

I am small, lightly built and fast. It doesn't take much energy for me to cover the court. I play to my strengths. Your advice is like telling a big powerful player not to use their power because not every player can do that. You play to your strengths and one of mine is court coverage.

If you are the only one running on the court, isn't that the Rocky Balboa strategy? I know all about covering a lot of court per match ... my frequent flier miles were as high as anyone's ... what I was known for. But at some point it occurred to me that it was selfish of me to keep all the running for myself. I had never heard about worrying about opponent angles until ttw ... and wouldn't have cared. Once I saw my tournament success from forcing the other guy to hit/pass while moving, you would have never convinced me any "increased angle exposure" wasn't WAY worth it. But that was my game ... much more risk of losing for me if I didn't move the opponent. It's all about UE in the end ... I was still low UE with a lot of dtl, and moving opponent, and low 1hbh slice. I played against human backboard baseliners ... we both knew who won if we both hit to each other ... not me. It's a different risk/reward if you are the best baseliner on the court that day. That actually was one of my warm-up and early match questions I asked myself with a new opponent I didn't know about. If we both play baseline all match ... who wins? Sometimes the answer was me ... but that sometimes often meant 2+ hour match in the heat. To win a summer tournament meant 5-6 matches ... I was not in the kind of shape for every match to go 2-3 hours ... needed some shorter ones in early rounds.

This is not a one size fits all discussion ... the only thing winners have in common is the low UE ... more than one way to skin a low UE cat. Also ... my context is always under the assumption of playing the same level opponent. If much lower ... hitting right to them will do ... if much higher they can hit right to you.

Also ... there is a match strategy component to this. A pro example would be Isner ... knows he will rarely be broken, frees him up to take chances on return games ... often only needs one break. I held most of the time with s&v ... on a hot day maybe not in my interest to grind every single point of opponents service game. If one gets broken often ... maybe need to grind 24x7. In rec tennis in the heat ... a player can win 1st set easily ... legs degrade ... and lose the match. Win two sets ... you leave with the balls.

 

[Miki 1234]

You can say exactly the same about non-pushers. They find their so called my aggressive and skillful shots aren't working, go for too much and lose. I know plenty of players whose progress has stalled because they try to play too aggressively and don't have a decent defensive game.

The truth is a good player, unless they have exceptional attacking shots or a huge serve. Needs a balance between defence and attack to progress.

Pusher can in theory play better but players you mentioned not even in theory since they lack fitness and even some basic shots most of the time.
Balance is hardest to achieve and many would rather win right now , no matter how.
Problem is that mind set stays as a habit.
Some even have a problem of not wanting to win but only improve.
Which just becomes a excuse of not giving your best sooner or later.
Its hard to play to win but not at any cost.

 

[user92626]

You've described a counterpuncher not a pusher. Pusher will never make someone pay. They will just get the ball back into the safest spot they can hit to reliably.

True pushers are 100% defensive at all times. Never taking risk. Never putting on pressure.

I have said in another thread that, by TT's description of pusher, pusher is someone who severely plays down, like plays opponents several level inferior to him! That's the only way he can win by simply putting the ball back and never taking risk. That's like me playing some of the elderly who have fitness and mobility issues. They literally cannot sustain hitting the ball more than 2, 3 times.

Is this the kind of matches that TT warriors often refer to? Is it a common thing?

Regarding those who lost to pushers (the type that you describe here) and bitterly complain about it, you gotta wonder what kind of tennis they're really playing when they lost to someone who "never take risk, never put on pressure." Right?

 

[ByeByePoly]

I have said in another thread that, by TT's description of pusher, pusher is someone who severely plays down, like plays opponents several level inferior to him! That's the only way he can win by simply putting the ball back and never taking risk. That's like me playing some of the elderly who have fitness and mobility issues. They literally cannot sustain hitting the ball more than 2, 3 times.

Is this the kind of matches that TT warriors often refer to? Is it a common thing?

Regarding those who lost to pushers (the type that you describe here) and bitterly complain about it, you gotta wonder what kind of tennis they're really playing when they lost to someone who "never take risk, never put on pressure." Right?

Sorry ... you aren't getting what players generally mean when they use the term "pusher". It's not a level thing, it's a style of just getting everything back in play (usually with abbreviated strokes) and letting opponent make the errors. Most players that have played tournament 3.5 and 4.0 singles have run into this style ... often a right of passage to get past them. But that can be the same for other styles ... getting past the s&v, the grinder, the slicer, the moonballer, etc. The 4.0 pusher is every bit the 4.0 as the rest ... assuming not playing up and a proven win/loss with wins in that division.

I have said before ... I hate the term pusher. If a player is winning competitive matches aganst players at same level ... focusing on the strokes is missing the forest for the trees.

What the player grumbling "pusher" means when they come off the court is "how did I lose to that"? The answer is always you made too many errors.

 

[ByeByePoly]

The bigger question isn't the definition of "pusher" ... but who do they practice with? They got that good practicing with someone. Maybe every time you find a high level pusher ... you really have found two of them.

 

[user92626]

Sorry ... you aren't getting what players generally mean when they use the term "pusher". It's not a level thing, it's a style of just getting everything back in play (usually with abbreviated strokes) and letting opponent make the errors. Most players that have played tournament 3.5 and 4.0 singles have run into this style ... often a right of passage to get past them. But that can be the same for other styles ... getting past the s&v, the grinder, the slicer, the moonballer, etc. The 4.0 pusher is every bit the 4.0 as the rest ... assuming not playing up and a proven win/loss with wins in that division.

I have said before ... I hate the term pusher. If a player is winning competitive matches aganst players at same level ... focusing on the strokes is missing the forest for the trees.

What the player grumbling "pusher" means when they come off the court is "how did I lose to that"? The answer is always you made too many errors.

If you don't keep your sight so narrow you'll see what I mean.

You cannot have any style, any ability to get everything back if you ain't have the level. Just like, you can't do s & v style like Dustin Brown if you ain't his level. You can't do Nadal's style of defense, running if you ain't have Nadal's level of fitness and hitting skills.


The subtlety of pusher's style which no one gets is his overall level is well over his opponent's in many ways, namely the hitting and fitness skills. For anecdote, I play with some elders who are many levels below me as I explain. I give them all my doubles court space, 2 points and several games in advance; and I still beat them. That's because my overwhelming fitness and hitting skills make up for these handicaps.

Likewise, pushers like @zaph (who admits he's a pusher) use his far better running and hitting skills (altogether it's just level) to destroy their mishap opponents who can't even play from one spot. If my experience and zaph's experience are not examples of lopsided, mismatch levels, I don't know what is.

 

[ByeByePoly]

If you don't keep your sight so narrow you'll see what I mean.

You cannot have any style, any ability to get everything back if you ain't have the level. Just like, you can't do s & v style like Dustin Brown if you ain't his level. You can't do Nadal's style of defense, running if you ain't have Nadal's level of fitness and hitting skills.


The subtlety of pusher's style which no one gets is his overall level is well over his opponent's in many ways, namely the hitting and fitness skills. For anecdote, I play with some elders who are many levels below me as I explain. I give them all my doubles court space, 2 points and several games in advance; and I still beat them. That's because my overwhelming fitness and hitting skills make up for these handicaps.

Likewise, pushers like @zaph (who admits he's a pusher) use his far better running and hitting skills (altogether it's just level) to destroy their mishap opponents who can't even play from one spot. If my experience and zaph's experience are not examples of lopsided, mismatch levels, I don't know what is.

"The subtlety of pusher's style which no one gets is his overall level is well over his opponent's in many ways, namely the hitting and fitness skills."



Most pushers are fit and fast (but like someone said ... a spectrum) ... not following you on a pusher's hitting being better, unless you mean less UE.

Your playing old dudes, bets, court restrictions is not relevant to how most competitive players (tournaments, USTA) playing against same level use the term pusher. They usually play the same level (say within -1 to +1) almost every match ... tournament, usta, club league ... so by definition when they use the term with implied "same level". Just fyi ...

From your initial post:

"So rule #1, It don't matter whether you hit hard or soft, from the baseline or closing in, paint the line or the middle, simply DON'T LET them get to your ball with ease."

This is why "pusher" is an imprecise term. The bottom of that pusher spectrum has zero concern with placement , or opponent ease ... just gets it back. Green hits many balls back like this. Move up the pusher scale ... and you find Mr short stroke/pop that is good at hitting targets. Move to the top of the pusher echelon ... and you find Mr Green hit his first real full stroke when forced to hit a passing shot. Actually ... potentially one more level up ... rips the passing shot.

You are now responsible for me saying the term pusher WAY TOO much.

 

[user92626]

"The subtlety of pusher's style which no one gets is his overall level is well over his opponent's in many ways, namely the hitting and fitness skills."



Most pushers are fit and fast (but like someone said ... a spectrum) ... not following you on a pusher's hitting being better, unless you mean less UE.

Your playing old dudes, bets, court restrictions is not relevant to how most competitive players (tournaments, USTA) playing against same level use the term pusher. They usually play the same level (say within -1 to +1) almost every match ... tournament, usta, club league ... so by definition when they use the term with implied "same level". Just fyi ...

From your initial post:

"So rule #1, It don't matter whether you hit hard or soft, from the baseline or closing in, paint the line or the middle, simply DON'T LET them get to your ball with ease."

This is why "pusher" is an imprecise term. The bottom of that pusher spectrum has zero concern with placement , or opponent ease ... just gets it back. Green hits many balls back like this. Move up the pusher scale ... and you find Mr short stroke/pop that is good at hitting targets. Move to the top of the pusher echelon ... and you find Mr Green hit his first real full stroke when forced to hit a passing shot. Actually ... potentially one more level up ... rips the passing shot.

You are now responsible for me saying the term pusher WAY TOO much.

Your "fit and fast" only gets you to the ball.

After that you still have to rely on your hitting skill to hit the ball. And you hit the dang ball consistently, over and over, from various positions, like a good ball juggler who doesn't drop any balls, until your opponent gets sick of hitting and commits errors. So, tell me, hitting on the run, from various positions of the court vs otherwise, and the former outlasts the latter, you don't think the former is well above the latter? The former isn't more advanced than the latter?

 

[ByeByePoly]

Your "fit and fast" only gets you to the ball.

After that you still have to rely on your hitting skill to hit the ball. And you hit the dang ball consistently, over and over, from various positions, like a good ball juggler who doesn't drop any balls, until your opponent gets sick of hitting and commits errors. So, tell me, hitting on the run, from various positions of the court vs otherwise, and the former outlasts the latter, you don't think the former is well above the latter? The former isn't more advanced than the latter?

You are giving me a headache... let's save some typing:

Hitting skills ... low to high:

- covering court and getting the ball over the net in the court consistently low UE is minimum ante
- add being able to hit target areas of court
- add being able to win against many styles
- add pace and spin and full strokes and full unit turn, footwork, etc

In singles ... covering the court and getting ball back low UE is bare minimum ... no need to measure before that.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Your "fit and fast" only gets you to the ball.

After that you still have to rely on your hitting skill to hit the ball. And you hit the dang ball consistently, over and over, from various positions, like a good ball juggler who doesn't drop any balls, until your opponent gets sick of hitting and commits errors. So, tell me, hitting on the run, from various positions of the court vs otherwise, and the former outlasts the latter, you don't think the former is well above the latter? The former isn't more advanced than the latter?

You need to divide your "more advanced" between 1) running ... and 2) hitting.

Edberg said something like ... "tennis is running and hitting ... but mainly running".

Everyone here wants to see videos of strokes. If there were two legit 4.5 singles players I didn't know ... and you wanted me to predict a winner with either 1) strokes from baseline not moving ... or 2) spider drill ... I pick spider drill. If doubles ... I pick strokes ... even better volleys.

 

[user92626]

@ByeByePoly

The latest argument is about what you said -- "not following you on a pusher's hitting being better"

And I explain to you how a pusher's hitting is superior to his loser opponent's, given the premises.


Who is Edberg? Is he still alive today? I go by today's standard, living players. Look at Nadal , Federer vs Domimic Thiem, Zverez, etc. I doubt the younger guys are slower than the veterans or running less, but they still fall short against the veterans. If anything, the youngsters were the ones doing more running, and still lost.

It's not clear cut that "tennis is running and hitting ... but mainly running".

 

[user92626]

BBP,

Let me explain it this way to you:

If you beat someone, your stuff is already considered better than him. If you beat him via the weirdest, unorthodox way, you are even more talented. That's pushers and their ways.

It's like, we admire Federer when he beats his opponent, but on the way he used several tweeners to win critical points. Or, Nadal hitting banana shots. That's the thing that's gonna make people ooh and ahh, and believe Federer, Nadal more advanced, more talented than their opponents.

 

[ByeByePoly]

BBP,

Let me explain it this way to you:

If you beat someone, your stuff is already considered better than him. If you beat him via the weirdest, unorthodox way, you are even more talented. That's pushers and their ways.

It's like, we admire Federer when he beats his opponent, but on the way he used several tweeners to win critical points. Or, Nadal hitting banana shots. That's the thing that's gonna make people ooh and ahh, and believe Federer, Nadal more advanced, more talented than their opponents.

I think this is going to require @Curious ... I have lost my ability to be the user92626 whisperer.

 

[Curious]

I think this is going to require @Curious ... I have lost my ability to be the user92626 whisperer.

Where’s my hammer?

 

[ByeByePoly]

Where’s my hammer?

Give him one of those Christopher Walken villian talks.

 

[user92626]

I think this is going to require @Curious ... I have lost my ability to be the user92626 whisperer.

But it makes sense right? Haha

 

[user92626]

Where’s my hammer?

Hey My serve is getting better now. Thanks to your contagious obsession.

 

[Curious]

Hey My serve is getting better now. Thanks to your contagious obsession.

I’m delighted. If other areas of your game require more obsession let me know.

 

[RajS]

I get what @user92626 is saying. To state it like a mathematical theorem: for each non-pusher belonging to the set of rec tennis players, there exists a pusher in the same set who is better than him.

Right? (j/k)

 

[zaph]

I get what @user92626 is saying. To state it like a mathematical theorem: for each non-pusher belonging to the set of rec tennis players, there exists a pusher in the same set who is better than him.

Right? (j/k)

Nah it is simpler than that.

The set of players who complain about pushers or condemn their style belong exclusively to the set of players that lose to pushers.

Players who beat pushers and junkballers don't have any problem with them.

 

[ByeByePoly]

Nah it is simpler than that.

The set of players who complain about pushers or condemn their style belong exclusively to the set of players that lose to pushers.

Players who beat pushers and junkballers don't have any problem with them.

Pushers are like beer ... an aquired taste. At first it's all you can do to finish off one of them ... but later no problem downing a six pack of them.