Respect for pusher please?

[Dragy]

tennis is a knowledge based sport, knowing a lot of things technically makes you a better player in levels and consistency. In my opinion, all levels below 5.0 are all determined by their exploits knowledge. I think fitness, nor about racquets and strings and stuff are really the determining factors.

Of course the higher you go, the more fitness would matter more but in the level range that we are talking beginner-5.0, are mostly knowledge, personally I believe 4.5+ would benefit more with fitness but the benefits decreases as you go up because at the top, fitness is a norm.

also beating 4.5s doesn't necessarily mean you need to be already a 4.5 or 5.0 to beat, if that's the case, then there is no way someone from ATP ranking 1000x can ever goes up over time and beat better players as based on your reasoning, this is a paradox. you always start somewhere small, such as small exploits (relatively level speaking) and then work your way up to more and more.

I generally like your concept here, BUT I cannot but apply to Mike Tyson and talking about plans. All tennis smarts and secrets you want to apply need some solid ground beneath them. Or your opponent makes you struggle - physically, mentally, shrinking your time and opportunities. You just get punched in your face. Or tripped into mud and held there.

 

[pencilcheck]

I generally like your concept here, BUT I cannot but apply to Mike Tyson and talking about plans. All tennis smarts and secrets you want to apply need some solid ground beneath them. Or your opponent makes you struggle - physically, mentally, shrinking your time and opportunities. You just get punched in your face. Or tripped into mud and held there.

what you said make no sense

if your opponent makes you struggle, means that you are being exploited by the weakness and fallacy and that's all you exploit it back

being exploited doesn't mean they can defend against it either.

and what do you think your opponent is going to think? they could be thinking the exact same thing, since they also don't know how good you are, and they also would think that making the exploit would make them struggle - physically, mentally and shrinking their time and opportunities

you already lost before the match even starts by thinking that you already know all the answer before the match even started, before you even know who your opponents are.

the truth it, you don't know and stop thinking like this then you will start winning

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

tennis is a knowledge based sport, knowing a lot of things technically makes you a better player in levels and consistency.

There's knowledge and there's the ability to effectively use that knowledge appropriately under the right circumstances.

Knowing multiple ways to hit a serve won't necessarily make me a better server; I'd rather have fewer ways that are more reliable.

When one is playing one's best [ie "in the zone"], one is not thinking consciously; one is doing. At that point, it's not knowledge but how you've trained to play.

In my opinion, all levels below 5.0 are all determined by their exploits knowledge. I think fitness, nor about racquets and strings and stuff are really the determining factors.

Of course the higher you go, the more fitness would matter more but in the level range that we are talking beginner-5.0, are mostly knowledge, personally I believe 4.5+ would benefit more with fitness but the benefits decreases as you go up because at the top, fitness is a norm.

Someone who is not as fit can still do well but it probably becomes more and more difficulty and you hit diminishing returns.

But if you ignore fitness, it might hurt you.

also beating 4.5s doesn't necessarily mean you need to be already a 4.5 or 5.0 to beat, if that's the case, then there is no way someone from ATP ranking 1000x can ever goes up over time and beat better players as based on your reasoning, this is a paradox. you always start somewhere small, such as small exploits (relatively level speaking) and then work your way up to more and more.

If you are consistently beating 4.5s, of all types, you are, at the very least, at the top of 4.5, if not higher.

And the more easily you beat them, the larger the gap.

I'm not sure how the ATP 1000 analogy works: a 1000 ranking does not mean his chances of beating someone ranked higher are 0. They are non-zero. And as that happens, that person's ranking will improve.

To make the analogy work, the 1000 player would have to consistently beat players ranked far enough ahead to be analogous to someone consistently beating 4.5s. I don't know what that level is.

 

[AnyPUG]

I would guess, with no supporting evidence, that most of the scorn comes from those who lost. If someone wins, why even bother expending the energy to scorn a lower-level player?

It comes from folks who put premium on form, irrespective win or lose.

What rec player is in it for someone other than themselves? And what does that have to do with pushing?

There's incidental benefit however unintentional if everyone prioritizes long term(sometimes unattainable) vs short term benefits.

That's questionable.
Anyways, I like variety: I'd rather face more styles rather than fewer.

Variety is all good, but variety in the shape of lower quality is not desirable. apples, oranges, bananas - good variety, apples, raw apples, rotten apples - not a good variety.

 

[BanerjeeS]

When I hear the term pusher, I think someone who is consistent and wins by allowing the opponent to make an error. This is a winning strategy at every level.

Unfortunately, I am not this style of player, and I make errors. I like variety and have fun hitting different shots. If you can be consistent w all your shots, then kudos.

Would Medvedev, Djokovic and Nishikori fit the description?

 

[ey039524]

Would Medvedev, Djokovic and Nishikori fit the description?

Yeah, pushers at the highest level.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

what you said make no sense

It makes perfect sense to me: Tyson said "Everyone's got a plan until they get punched in the face."

A military strategist [Von Clausewitz? McNamara?] said "No battle plan survives initial contact with the enemy."

The concept is that you can plan all you want but you had better be prepared to be flexible because that plan might be garbage.

This is where experience and wisdom are much more valuable than knowledge.

you already lost before the match even starts by thinking that you already know all the answer before the match even started, before you even know who your opponents are.

I don't know how you jumped from what @Dragy wrote to the above.

the truth it, you don't know and stop thinking like this then you will start winning

I don't understand this either.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Variety is all good, but variety in the shape of lower quality is not desirable. apples, oranges, bananas - good variety, apples, raw apples, rotten apples - not a good variety.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you only like Honey Crisp apples but don't like the other dozens of varieties out there. There are others who enjoy many different apple varieties just as there are tennis players who enjoy different opponent styles.

 

[TennisCJC]

Many years ago my local ALTA A1 team (ALTA is a league in Atlanta) was in the city finals. A1 was the level and that is consistent with 4.5 USTA. This was decades ago and the league still played singles and doubles at that time but shortly afterward went to all doubles. Our number 1 singles player had played for a D1 college and was in his early 30s. He had a classic, clean and aggressive game with a decently big serve, aggressive groundstrokes and was very good at attacking the net. I don't think he had lost all season or in the playoffs. He played a guy about 5' 9" tall and who weighed maybe 150 lbs at the most. The guy ran like a deer and got everything back. He was a pusher in my view but a high level pusher in that he could hit the ball fairly crisply and move you around given time. He beat our guy in 2 very close sets and you could sense how the pusher was breaking down our guy's shot tolerance and frustrating the hell out of him. Playing a "pusher" is just part of the game and it applies to all levels. Gilles Simon was an ATP level "pusher" and he did pretty well.

Personally, I don't want to push but it works for many. I think it is more fun to be reasonably aggressive on short balls and attack the net when I get a chance. I don't have the patience to extend points and pray for a miss.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Many years ago my local ALTA A1 team (ALTA is a league in Atlanta) was in the city finals. A1 was the level and that is consistent with 4.5 USTA. This was decades ago and the league still played singles and doubles at that time but shortly afterward went to all doubles. Our number 1 singles player had played for a D1 college and was in his early 30s. He had a classic, clean and aggressive game with a decently big serve, aggressive groundstrokes and was very good at attacking the net. I don't think he had lost all season or in the playoffs. He played a guy about 5' 9" tall and who weighed maybe 150 lbs at the most. The guy ran like a deer and got everything back. He was a pusher in my view but a high level pusher in that he could hit the ball fairly crisply and move you around given time. He beat our guy in 2 very close sets and you could sense how the pusher was breaking down our guy's shot tolerance and frustrating the hell out of him. Playing a "pusher" is just part of the game and it applies to all levels. Gilles Simon was an ATP level "pusher" and he did pretty well.

Personally, I don't want to push but it works for many. I think it is more fun to be reasonably aggressive on short balls and attack the net when I get a chance. I don't have the patience to extend points and pray for a miss.

I would describe the deer as a counterpuncher. To me, a pusher is not aggressive, does not hit the ball crisply, and does not move me around; he gets the ball back conservatively into the fat part of the court.

Also, he doesn't pray for a miss; he knows the odds are in his favor for a miss so his strategy is to get as many balls back in as possible. The strategy doesn't always work but it can be very effective.

 

[AnyPUG]

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you only like Honey Crisp apples but don't like the other dozens of varieties out there. There are others who enjoy many different apple varieties just as there are tennis players who enjoy different opponent styles.

You are confusing quality with whimsical personal preferences.
Quality is not subjective and not based on individual taste. It's based on accepted standard as set by widely acknowledged experts in the field. Whether pushing style is great or not is not based whether someone likes to play that style or likes to play against that style.

 

[ey039524]

I took my son to watch the UCI vs. U of Hawaii men's match this past year. The #1 singles was a classic offensive vs. defensive match up. The UH #1 was ripping shots in the corners, and the UCI #1 was just getting the ball back. They split sets, the UCI player eventually wearing down the UH player into making more and more unforced errors. In the 3rd, the UCI player was up a break and had the momentum, but injured his ankle. The match was called when another line sealed the win for UCI. Even though my son and I liked the UH player's game more, it was clear that it wasn't going to hold up throughout the 3rd.

It happens so many times at the ATP level, in which some young gun (like Sinner, Fritz, etc.) comes out firing and puts Djokovic, Med, or someone else down 0-2. But invariably, the errors start creeping in and consistency wins out in the end.

 

[StringSnapper]

One of the goto insults here is you're a 3.5 level pusher who has managed to beat other pushers.

Can we please break this down a bit? Has anyone here ever tried to beat a half decent pusher by pushing back? How did that go for you? I tried it, the match lasted about 10 hours and then I lost. The idea that beating a pusher by outlasted them is easy is laughable. Any player who can do that deserves respect because it means they are basically the king of the pushers. A wall to rival the great wall of China. The ultimate ball basher destroyer.

Honestly if you don't respect pushers, have a go at pushing, it isn't easy as it looks and beating another pusher with that style is some feat.

The ball basher beats the pusher if you can bash through them though. It's just having the right stroke on the right ball and taking the right amount of risk

But yeah gotta respect consistency. You can't win a match if you double fault, mess up all your returns or hit lots of unforced errors. That's step 1 of being on the road to being a good player. If you lose to someone you were the worse player that day, for whatever reason

 

[StringSnapper]

There's knowledge and there's the ability to effectively use that knowledge appropriately under the right circumstances.

Knowing multiple ways to hit a serve won't necessarily make me a better server; I'd rather have fewer ways that are more reliable.

100%

And I'd add if you know multiple ways, great, but you need to mostly, 80% of the time, use the ways which you know your opponent consistently performs poorly at.

I.e. my opponents often want to bash a forehand return, so I'll hit only low slice curving into their backhand and they're handcuffed to only being able to slice it back or use their relatively ****tier backhand.

Now if I hit the rare shot to their forehand, just to throw them off, I make sure it's big and their forehand is cold.


Now I've been playing on grass I've gotten a lot more into serving.

If I'm serving to a typical right with a worse forehand:

Deuce side my go-to is body serve curving into their backhand. Seems to generate a lot of errors, they're not sure forehand or backhand, often times just getting caught out. I'll do this like 50% of the time. It's going to be a good day if they're cursing a lot and blaming themselves for messing this shot up. "You're right there, why can't you play today!!"

30% I'll hit down the line slice skidding away from their backhand

20% of the time I'll go big and flat out wide to their forehand

On the ad court
80% of the time out wide to their backhand, peeling them off the court and keeping it low. They just hate this, the effort to get it back, their generally not so great return which I can easily get back deep and awkward for them. Or they just fluff an error or I hit an ace

20% of the time, flat down the middle to their forehand - I hit more aces doing this because they're leaning so heavily onto their bh side.

2nd serves I mostly go body or slightly backhand with more spin. The goal being to start off a neutral rally ball. Because this serve is so much spinnier than my low slice, I often get a few unforced errors from this too depending on the opponent.


If I'm playing a lefty or someone with a better backhand return, I'll usually reverse this

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You are confusing quality with whimsical personal preferences.
Quality is not subjective and not based on individual taste. It's based on accepted standard as set by widely acknowledged experts in the field. Whether pushing style is great or not is not based whether someone likes to play that style or likes to play against that style.

Ask 10 pros to define "quality" and you will not get 10 identical answers [although there will be strong commonality]. There is definitely a subjective element to defining quality.

Scientific things like the charge of an electron or how much energy a joule represents are examples of things based on accepted standard as set by widely acknowledged experts in the field.; quality isn't anywhere near as objective. I can go to any science reference book and see identical definitions of an electron charge or joule energy output. I can't pick up tennis reference books and see identical definitions of quality. Heck, they may not even define quality; I might have to infer it.

 

[AnyPUG]

Ask 10 pros to define "quality" and you will not get 10 identical answers [although there will be strong commonality]. There is definitely a subjective element to defining quality.

You are confused again. 10 pros do not equate to widely acknowledged experts in the field. Widely acknowledged experts will be able to define quality which most reasonable folks in the field will accept.
But there will be conspiracy theorists who won't believe anything that does not fit into their world view.

 

[pencilcheck]

There's knowledge and there's the ability to effectively use that knowledge appropriately under the right circumstances.

Knowing multiple ways to hit a serve won't necessarily make me a better server; I'd rather have fewer ways that are more reliable.

When one is playing one's best [ie "in the zone"], one is not thinking consciously; one is doing. At that point, it's not knowledge but how you've trained to play.



Someone who is not as fit can still do well but it probably becomes more and more difficulty and you hit diminishing returns.

But if you ignore fitness, it might hurt you.



If you are consistently beating 4.5s, of all types, you are, at the very least, at the top of 4.5, if not higher.

And the more easily you beat them, the larger the gap.

I'm not sure how the ATP 1000 analogy works: a 1000 ranking does not mean his chances of beating someone ranked higher are 0. They are non-zero. And as that happens, that person's ranking will improve.

To make the analogy work, the 1000 player would have to consistently beat players ranked far enough ahead to be analogous to someone consistently beating 4.5s. I don't know what that level is.

All of those "wisdom" phrases you heard from others are true, but it is not the full truth.

1) If mike tyson word is the truth, then there is no point in planning, since there will always be something unexpected that cause you to fell. his words are not the full truth, because plans, practices, and knowledge are still very important.

2) I'm pointing out one exploit that is shared among many lower skilled players. And it just happens that it is a very simple exploit that can be easily replicated from the people I hit with, somehow the taller they are the more susceptible they are to this exploit. That's really it. I even provide an example (MEP).

I'm talking purely in the realm of tennis technique, it has nothing to do with the design of ranking system, and what it represents and how it works. If we are here to discuss ranking system, let's do it another time or different thread, this is a big can of worms I don't want to get into. Similar to how most competitive ladder are structured and have some success but mostly brewing toxicity.

 

[user92626]

I'm trying to get something out of reading you guys' long posts, but I really got nothing. Seriously.

So, how exactly do we improve our tennis? More practice?

 

[optic yellow]

I'm trying to get something out of reading you guys' long posts, but I really got nothing. Seriously.

So, how exactly do we improve our tennis? More practice?

Smarter practice.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I'm trying to get something out of reading you guys' long posts, but I really got nothing. Seriously.

So, how exactly do we improve our tennis? More practice?

Your first mistake was trying to get something out of our posts.

Go work on the 3Fs!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

All of those "wisdom" phrases you heard from others are true, but it is not the full truth.

1) If mike tyson word is the truth, then there is no point in planning, since there will always be something unexpected that cause you to fell. his words are not the full truth, because plans, practices, and knowledge are still very important.

You missed Tyson's point, which was not that planning is useless but that you need to recognize that planning doesn't solve everything and that you need to be flexible in problem-solving rather than dogmatic.

You're looking at it from a binary viewpoint; I'm looking at it from a continuum perspective.

2) I'm pointing out one exploit that is shared among many lower skilled players. And it just happens that it is a very simple exploit that can be easily replicated from the people I hit with, somehow the taller they are the more susceptible they are to this exploit. That's really it. I even provide an example (MEP).

IME, such an exploit only works on players a full level beneath me. Against peers, it usually doesn't.

 

[FRV4]

Ever play a pusher one level above you?

Sorry I was in a bad mood when I wrote that. But to answer your question, perhaps. My guess is all the pushers I faced were the same level as me or below, but there was one kid who could’ve been one level above me. He beat me 6-3 the first time. The second time I went down 0-4 before coming back and winning the set. We didn’t play a full match ever.

edit: got rid of some unnecessary info

 

[LuckyR]

I would describe the deer as a counterpuncher. To me, a pusher is not aggressive, does not hit the ball crisply, and does not move me around; he gets the ball back conservatively into the fat part of the court.

Also, he doesn't pray for a miss; he knows the odds are in his favor for a miss so his strategy is to get as many balls back in as possible. The strategy doesn't always work but it can be very effective.

Well, a high consistancy player at certain levels has to play as you describe. Obviously, at higher levels they can play like the "deer" or even Gilles Simon.

 

[pencilcheck]

You missed Tyson's point, which was not that planning is useless but that you need to recognize that planning doesn't solve everything and that you need to be flexible in problem-solving rather than dogmatic.

You're looking at it from a binary viewpoint; I'm looking at it from a continuum perspective.



IME, such an exploit only works on players a full level beneath me. Against peers, it usually doesn't.

ok. so you agreed with me then. As I don't see how that statement is disagreeing anything I said so far.

can you elaborate about more about what you mean by binary viewpoint and continuum perspective?

now you have something you think is true, can you verify that? are you 100% sure?

you do know the exploit and mistake like this still happens at the pro level. might not be the same intensity or the same context but the principle is the same, and you can find tons of them on youtube.

 

[unini]

Lost to the pusher today, totally. First serve went bad, so I was forced to play longer with more my second serve.
I am too aggresive, thinking of making something drastical,like playing all match diffensively or 6-8 shots before going aggresive.

 

[johnmccabe]

Lost to the pusher today, totally. First serve went bad, so I was forced to play longer with more my second serve.
I am too aggresive, thinking of making something drastical,like playing all match diffensively or 6-8 shots before going aggresive.

No need to try anything special just to beat pushers. Play your normal game with extra patience. When shot quality improves, you move up and run into better pushers.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

ok. so you agreed with me then. As I don't see how that statement is disagreeing anything I said so far.

can you elaborate about more about what you mean by binary viewpoint and continuum perspective?

Your view:
"If mike tyson word is the truth, then there is no point in planning"

My view is that you absolutely should plan but be flexible to change if it doesn't work out. So Tyson was correct AND there is a point in planning.

now you have something you think is true, can you verify that? are you 100% sure?

I can't verify it to someone else; my proof is my own experience and observation of others. Your experience and observations may vary.

Whether I'm 100% sure should be irrelevant: I'm highly confident and if someone wants to use those ideas, fine.

you do know the exploit and mistake like this still happens at the pro level. might not be the same intensity or the same context but the principle is the same, and you can find tons of them on youtube.

My objection was not the existence of such exploits but how easily they are to implement: I can do just about anything against someone lower-rated and still win. Against peers, it likely won't work.

 

[ptuanminh]

You can't push a pusher. there's no power on no-pace balls, theres no power to push.

 

[optic yellow]

Lost to the pusher today, totally. First serve went bad, so I was forced to play longer with more my second serve.
I am too aggresive, thinking of making something drastical,like playing all match diffensively or 6-8 shots before going aggresive.

Be more detailed. Exactly how hard was he hitting? Where was he placing it? How high were the bounces? Was it pure backboard pushing or was there a strong element of (intentional) junkballing to it?

 

[FRV4]

You can't push a pusher. there's no power on no-pace balls, theres no power to push.

Well you can push back at least like half of the time. If you're faster and more conditioned, I would think pushing back is no problem.

 

[unini]

No need to try anything special just to beat pushers. Play your normal game with extra patience. When shot quality improves, you move up and run into better pushers.

Be more detailed. Exactly how hard was he hitting? Where was he placing it? How high were the bounces? Was it pure backboard pushing or was there a strong element of (intentional) junkballing to it?

to the middle all the time, not high speed, good depth. Sometimes high bouncing. On this side, very good baseline coverage, not so good then need to move front-back. No junkballing, even no slices, no dropshots

 

[optic yellow]

to the middle all the time, not high speed, good depth. Sometimes high bouncing. On this side, very good baseline coverage, not so good then need to move front-back. No junkballing, even no slices, no dropshots

So he was sitting far back just absorbing your pressure?

 

[RyanRF]

One player is better than another if they win more. Everything else comparing the two is just noise.

The player who complains about losing to pushers
...
is simply worse at tennis than the pushers.

You might say "well this guy is just a pusher and his bad technique means he has a ceiling and won't improve". Okay maybe, but potential improvement and actual improvement are two different things.

You don't get to brag about how hypothetical future you would totally dominate pushers. Most people who say this don't actually get there.

Stop complaining about the type of players you lose to. It's not a legit excuse. No one wants to hear it.

Do the work. Get to the next level. If you do, you will likely look back and appreciate how pushers helped you develop the tools you previously didn't have.

 

[Dragy]

One player is better than another if they win more. Everything else comparing the two is just noise.

The player who complains about losing to pushers
...
is simply worse at tennis than the pushers.

You might say "well this guy is just a pusher and his bad technique means he has a ceiling and won't improve". Okay maybe, but potential improvement and actual improvement are two different things.

You don't get to brag about how hypothetical future you would totally dominate pushers. Most people who say this don't actually get there.

Stop complaining about the type of players you lose to. It's not a legit excuse. No one wants to hear it.

Do the work. Get to the next level. If you do, you will likely look back and appreciate how pushers helped you develop the tools you previously didn't have.

The point is to find some reasonable ground between wishful thinking “I could have killed every one of his balls for winner, I just missed because I was (always am and will continue to be) rusty”

and

“They who win are just better and to surpass them I need to train a lot and get better” - which is true, but not a target solution.

When you lose to pushers tightly, or win but tightly, you can definitely decompose and analyze and figure out what exactly you need to improve to shift it once and forever (till facing higher level pusher)

 

[mtommer]

...Has anyone here ever tried to beat a half decent pusher by pushing back? How did that go for you?...

Define try and define pusher. Putting aside those who do mean the term as an insult, I am asking about how you define the term without being facetious. The reason for this is thus. Years ago there was a group of older gentlemen that would often visit the same courts I did, played doubles, usually with each other. They were very much pushers and they would often times take great joy in beating younger teams of players who got frustrated losing to them. The local highschoolers for example. Every now and then one would show up solo and would ask me to play with them when the others cancelled or just didn't show. For the most part, I typically played "their" style mostly because they really couldn't run. Sometimes I would win, other times not. While I wasn't trying to win per se, I was trying to keep it enjoyable for them and I got to work on silly shots like super spin or seeing how often I could hit a specific point on the court. Hitting a loopy slow ball is kind of a skill on its own. There were a few times times I would hit far more seriously and as a result half of the group stopped asking to hit while some of the others understood and took it for what it was.

To bring it back to your post, calling someone a pusher can be seen as insulting but regardless of whether one intends it to be an insult or not, as others have already pointed out, it's not typically good tennis either. It's not typically good tennis by any of the players involved including myself when I would just float balls back to them. It does take practice however to get good enough and grow beyond terrible tennis to semi competent levels.

 

[mtommer]

So she is forced to hit winners all the time,

I would just replace forced with could. I think it is an important distinction. One still has to have the skill to hit the winners but the point is that there are ample, ample, ample opportunities to do so.

 

[Fintft]

The point is to find some reasonable ground between wishful thinking “I could have killed every one of his balls for winner, I just missed because I was (always am and will continue to be) rusty”

and

“They who win are just better and to surpass them I need to train a lot and get better” - which is true, but not a target solution.

When you lose to pushers tightly, or win but tightly, you can definitely decompose and analyze and figure out what exactly you need to improve to shift it once and forever (till facing higher level pusher)

To me it usually comes down to not tightening up, as the match is usually on my racquet (especially against pushers) if I execute.
I know that some people use a very good formula of being patient and waiting for a ball to attack, but what works best for me is either hit away from people or thru them.

 

[Fintft]

Define try and define pusher. Putting aside those who do mean the term as an insult, I am asking about how you define the term without being facetious. The reason for this is thus. Years ago there was a group of older gentlemen that would often visit the same courts I did, played doubles, usually with each other. They were very much pushers and they would often times take great joy in beating younger teams of players who got frustrated losing to them. The local highschoolers for example. Every now and then one would show up solo and would ask me to play with them when the others cancelled or just didn't show. For the most part, I typically played "their" style mostly because they really couldn't run. Sometimes I would win, other times not. While I wasn't trying to win per se, I was trying to keep it enjoyable for them and I got to work on silly shots like super spin or seeing how often I could hit a specific point on the court. Hitting a loopy slow ball is kind of a skill on its own. There were a few times times I would hit far more seriously and as a result half of the group stopped asking to hit while some of the others understood and took it for what it was.

To bring it back to your post, calling someone a pusher can be seen as insulting but regardless of whether one intends it to be an insult or not, as others have already pointed out, it's not typically good tennis either. It's not typically good tennis by any of the players involved including myself when I would just float balls back to them. It does take practice however to get good enough and grow beyond terrible tennis to semi competent levels.

How about people who hit very little, if any winners per set? Instead they just keep the ball in play, waiting for you to make errors.
Years ago I lost to a guy who hit one winner in the whole set, and it was a drop shot. I missed too much myself, evidently.

 

[Bud]

Btw, tennis is not broken with this shot, it is just an exploit of a lack of fundamentals in lower skilled players that's all, MEP is actually making the fall shot that I mentioned in this video:

You see him keep making ball drop a lot and force his opponent to move and hit up at low contact point. So she is forced to hit winners all the time, and then all MEP needs to do is to catch them and lob back and repeat.

Keep in mind his opponent is actually good, like D1 recruit, even those players have issues with those, now imagine facing off the typical 3.5 and 4.0 that you mentioned.

You described those lower skilled players like they are gods, almost like if they adapt they will start hitting winners, and win the match, when the truth is that that is the fallacy (big secret among higher skilled players I mentioned) of lower skilled players, that's why they are low skilled.

Good video. Even though he won only 5-10 points by winners, he's got some decent tennis skills. He'd definitely give any 4.0 male a fit and would most likely win. He'd likely win some matches at 4.5 as well, depending on the opponent.

A few observations:

1. The first set she should have won 6-0. She should never have lost the second set that badly. He started adjusting and reading her game better. She should have recognized it and gone back to her patterns that worked in set 1.

2. She didn't give his game the respect it deserved, IMO. His shots were well placed and he made few unforced errors. He was constantly putting her in uncomfortable positions on court.

3. She needs to be more observant about which patterns were working the best. Her cross court, cross court, down the line BH was the go to pattern and she executed it well. I also liked when she mixed in the cross court, cross court then hit it a third time behind him when he was expecting it down the line. Stay with patterns that work until they stop working.

4. Her mindset was incorrect, IMO. She should have looked at this as a challenge to improve her pattern skills rather than getting frustrated, impatient and then trying to end points too early. That's where he won the most points, her UE's.

5. She needs to work on her volleying skills. Way too many easy misses.

6. Her coach needed to recognize her volleying was weak and should have avoided giving her advice to close the net. She had the skills to beat him from the baseline. Again, patience.

7. Don't get sucked into his game style. He's a master at it. Play your game. She started pushing the ball in frustration in set 2.

8. Nearly every short ball she gave him ended up with him hitting a drop shot. I don't think he was able to hit a deep shot off a short ball. She kept failing to recognize it. As soon as she dropped a ball at the service line she should have been ready for the drop shot. She was back at the baseline every time. Her DS recognition finally improved in the TB.

9. Her short slice forehand is a really good shot. When he drops, that's the go to shot. Short slice cross court. Good pattern. Do not use a traditional DS with him. He was too quick and won nearly every point off that shot.

10. Her slice backhand is terrible! She should not have used it in the match and needs to practice it. How does a player get to D1 level with such a poor slice BH?

11. Her serve is sub-par and sits up too high. I don't recall her serving a single ace and maybe a couple service winners in the entire match.

12. His anticipation was better than hers and he also covered the court better.

She should re-watch this match video as it's a gold mine for what she must improve.

 

[Fintft]

Good video. Even though he won only 5-10 points by winners, he's got some decent tennis skills. He'd definitely give any 4.0 male a fit and would most likely win. He'd likely win some matches at 4.5 as well, depending on the opponent.

A few observations:

1. The first set she should have won 6-0. She should never have lost the second set that badly. He started adjusting and reading her game better. She should have recognized it and gone back to her patterns that worked in set 1.

2. She didn't give his game the respect it deserved, IMO. His shots were well placed and he made few unforced errors. He was constantly putting her in uncomfortable positions on court.

3. She needs to be more observant about which patterns were working the best. Her cross court, cross court, down the line was the go to pattern and she executed it well. I also liked when she mixed in the cross court, cross court then hit it a third time behind him when he was expecting it down the line. Stay with patterns that work until they stop working.

4. Her mindset was incorrect, IMO. She should have looked at this as a challenge to improve her pattern skills rather than getting frustrated, impatient and then trying to end points too early. That's where he won the most points, her UE's.

5. She needs to work on her volleying skills. Way too many easy misses.

6. Her coach needed to recognize her volleying was weak and should have avoided giving her advice to close the net. She had the skills to beat him from the baseline. Again, patience.

7. Don't get sucked into his game style. He's a master at it. Play your game. She started pushing the ball in frustration in set 2.

8. Nearly every short ball she gave him ended up with him hitting a drop shot. I don't think he was able to hit a deep shot off a short ball. She kept failing to recognize it. As soon as she dropped a ball at the service line she should have been ready for the drop shot. She was back at the baseline every time. Her DS recognition finally improved in the TB.

9. Her short slice forehand is a really good shot. When he drops, that's the go to shot. Short slice cross court. Good pattern. Do not use a traditional DS with him. He was too quick and won nearly every point off that shot.

10. Her slice backhand is terrible! She should not have used it in the match and needs to practice it. How does a player get to D1 level with such a poor slice BH?

11. Her serve is sub-par and sits up too high. I don't recall her serving a single ace and maybe a couple service winners in the entire match.

12. His anticipation was better than hers and he also covered the court better.

She should re-watch this match video as it's a gold mine for what she must improve.

Nice observations but if I could add one (after watching a few seconds only):
13. Her ROS is subpar, she should have probably killed MEP's first 3 serves (I couldn't stand watching anymore past that).

 

[Bud]

Nice observations but if I could add one (after watching a few seconds only):
13. Her ROS is subpar, she should have probably killed MEP's first 3 serves (I couldn't stand watching anymore past that).

Totally agree. She needs to work on that in practice. She hit clean winners off a few but didn't punish nearly enough.

Overall, I thought his serve was better than hers because it stayed lower and went through the court quicker. She's fortunate he's not a great returner or it would have been a bad day at the office for her. He pushed most if not all of the returns. He placed no pressure on her serve.

 

[Sea70]

A 4.5 will beat a 3.5 pusher, 3.5 counterpuncher, 3.5 baseliner, 3.5 serve and volleyer……..



A 3.5 will lose to a 4.5 pusher, 4.5 counterpuncher, 4.5 baseliner, 4.5 serve and volleyer……..



A 3.5 will see a pusher and automatically assume he’s a 2.5. Then when the 3.5 loses to him, he’ll wonder how he lost to a player worst than him.

If the pusher was really a 2.5 , the 3.5 will win most of the time. If the pusher is actually a 4.5, I don’t care how much patience the 3.5 has or how many different game plans he has . He’s going to lose 99% of the time.



Most people can’t tell the difference in level between different pushers and just put them all in one category.

 

[Fintft]

A 4.5 will beat a 3.5 pusher, 3.5 counterpuncher, 3.5 baseliner, 3.5 serve and volleyer……..



A 3.5 will lose to a 4.5 pusher, 4.5 counterpuncher, 4.5 baseliner, 4.5 serve and volleyer……..



A 3.5 will see a pusher and automatically assume he’s a 2.5. Then when the 3.5 loses to him, he’ll wonder how he lost to a player worst than him.

If the pusher was really a 2.5 , the 3.5 will win most of the time. If the pusher is actually a 4.5, I don’t care how much patience the 3.5 has or how many different game plans he has . He’s going to lose 99% of the time.



Most people can’t tell the difference in level between different pushers and just put them all in one category.

And between equals will the pushers win below 4.0?

 

[user92626]

And between equals will the pushers win below 4.0?

It's 50/50 chance then. 3.5 pusher will lose roughly 50% of time against any other 3.5.

I agree with @Sea70 .

The 'problem' with pushers is their opponents often misjudge the pusher levels. Like, 3.5 sees a 4.0 pusher and thinks oh he's an easy 3.0. And lost and get frustrated.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The 'problem' with pushers is their opponents often misjudge the pusher levels. Like, 3.5 sees a 4.0 pusher and thinks oh he's an easy 3.0. And lost and get frustrated.

The opponents fail to appreciate how much of a tennis matches is won by making fewer errors. It's a powerful weapon, consistency is, but it's boring and that's why the superficial ones underestimate it.

 

[AnyPUG]

The 'problem' with pushers is their opponents often misjudge the pusher levels. Like, 3.5 sees a 4.0 pusher and thinks oh he's an easy 3.0. And lost and get frustrated.

Do you think 3.5s keep making the same estimate repeatedly ? Even the first time, how many games does it take to re-calibrate the level? Or do they lack the tools necessary to execute even if they plan correctly?

 

[Fintft]

The opponents fail to appreciate how much of a tennis matches is won by making fewer errors. It's a powerful weapon, consistency is, but it's boring and that's why the superficial ones underestimate it.

More fun to Live by the sword, die by the sword...
That's why Roger is the Goat.

 

[AnyPUG]

The opponents fail to appreciate how much of a tennis matches is won by making fewer errors. It's a powerful weapon, consistency is, but it's boring and that's why the superficial ones underestimate it.

imo, folks are smart enough to realize what it takes to win.
The need for consistency makes recreational tennis non-recreational and they take up pickleball.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

imo, folks are smart enough to realize what it takes to win.
The need for consistency makes recreational tennis non-recreational and they take up pickleball.

They might intellectually recognize what it takes to win but are unable or unwilling to actually make the changes needed. Those are the ones who complain the most about the pusher. The ones who figure things out don't waste their energy; the pusher was just one more obstacle to overcome on their journey of improvement.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

More fun to Live by the sword, die by the sword...
That's why Roger is the Goat.

I crash the net which is about as double-edged a sword as you can find. But if I figure out that isn't working but consistency is, I'm going all-in on consistency.

How many times has this actually worked? Very few: if my opponent can beat my net game, they generally are just better than I am. Switching to consistency is likely not going to solve anything except I will lose more slowly [which is still worthy of consideration].