Respect for pusher please?

[Sea70]

And between equals will the pushers win below 4.0?

I’ll say in the 3.5 range, if you have an aggressive player vs the pusher, the pusher will win more.



The pusher will almost always be more conditioned.

Most players don’t get upset when their opponent’s play well, rather when they make unforce errors. That’s why it’s seldom you’ll see a pusher break down mentally in a match. By design a pusher will make a lot less unforce errors than their opponent if both levels are similar.

Alot of times the pusher doesn’t even need to win, his opponent will lose.



And if you’re not a pusher, you will not beat a pusher of the same level by out pushing him period.

 

[user92626]

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?

Most people tend to keep the same sets of behaviors throughout their lifetime. Rec players are no different. They likely keep on doing the same things, mistakes and nonmistakes.

Only the brave ones are willing to leave comfort and face changes. That entails alot of ugly feelings and pain and many are never ready to deal with.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Only the brave ones are willing to leave comfort and face changes. That entails alot of ugly feelings and pain and many are never ready to deal with.

You could be describing leaving home for uncharted territory in the New World where "there be monsters" ... or changing the grip on one's FH.

 

[user92626]

You could be describing leaving home for uncharted territory in the New World where "there be monsters" ... or changing the grip on one's FH.

It's all the same.

You would think inconsequential rec tennis is pointless in grand scheme of things but somehow I still have a lot of reservation on playing with certain people, ie I kinda fear them in some way. I'm too lazy to dive into the many reasons but the fear is really there.

This begs the question: can we live our lives completely free of (irrational) fear, doubt? Is that even possible?

 

[AnyPUG]

Most people tend to keep the same sets of behaviors throughout their lifetime. Rec players are no different. They likely keep on doing the same things, mistakes and nonmistakes.

Only the brave ones are willing to leave comfort and face changes. That entails alot of ugly feelings and pain and many are never ready to deal with.

imo, you are massively underestimating how the vast majority of humans behave. If what you describe is true, we would still be living in caves.
Just look around you and for a minute think how they came into our lives which is unimaginable from the lives of cavemen not many thousand years ago. Lucky for the human species, what you describe is not based on reality.

 

[user92626]

imo, you are massively underestimating how the vast majority of humans behave. If what you describe is true, we would still be living in caves.
Just look around you and for a minute think how they came into our lives which is unimaginable from the lives of cavemen not many thousand years ago. Lucky for the human species, what you describe is not based on reality.

Not really. Humans moved out of caves due to different processes than due their own changes. It's actually next generations that adopt new ways/things that eventually improve our world today.

Take religions, majority were born with and die with the same religion. It's their offsprings that change religions and that's how we see changes in religions.

Another process is forced changes where people get no choice but change, eg. pay phone booth gone to make way for smartphones.

Most people who've lived most of their lives with gas cars will not buy EVs if they have a choice. EVs are for the next gen of drivers.

Back to tennis, you and have seen plenty of same behaviors in this place than changes, no?

At the courts, once people reach the level that matches their behaviors, they'll stay with that level for life, maybe fluctuate by 0.25 point due to random stuff. But we definitly won't see 10-year 3.5 player suddenly becoming 4.5

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

It's all the same.

You would think inconsequential rec tennis is pointless in grand scheme of things but somehow I still have a lot of reservation on playing with certain people, ie I kinda fear them in some way. I'm too lazy to dive into the many reasons but the fear is really there.

This begs the question: can we live our lives completely free of (irrational) fear, doubt? Is that even possible?

Some people are a lot better at it than others; some actually embrace the unknown. Others are paralyzed by it.

 

[user92626]

Some people are a lot better at it than others; some actually embrace the unknown. Others are paralyzed by it.

Of course there are people of both types. But as I said earlier, the ones embracing the unknown, facing difficult changes are the braves and in minority.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

imo, you are massively underestimating how the vast majority of humans behave. If what you describe is true, we would still be living in caves.
Just look around you and for a minute think how they came into our lives which is unimaginable from the lives of cavemen not many thousand years ago. Lucky for the human species, what you describe is not based on reality.

A few people dared and the rest followed when the venture was successful. There were probably a vast majority of people who were just fine in their caves.

There were also a ton of failures but they didn't make it into the history books for the most part.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Of course there are people of both types. But as I said earlier, the ones embracing the unknown, facing difficult changes are the braves and in minority.

No argument there. I'd go further from "minority" and call them outliers.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

But we definitly won't see 10-year 3.5 player suddenly becoming 4.5

With a big enough sample size, you will. Someone will have the talent, time, money, determination, etc. to make it happen. Oh, and the most important factor: the mental flexibility to allow the coach to completely tear down his game and rebuild it from scratch. Definitely have to leave the comfort zone and endure the slings and arrows of outrageous change.

I know someone taking lessons from Karue Sell and I can see large differences in his game. He's a career 4.0 but I wouldn't be surprised if he made it to 4.5. I doubt 5.0 but just the jump I described is huge.

I know another buddy who also took lessons and I went from losing to him in 3rd set TBs to getting blown off the court 0, 0, & 1 in 90 minutes [including warmup].

The first guy is even more impressive since he's > 60.

 

[socallefty]

Plan A is to adopt a net game to beat a consistent baseliner (including pushers). At lower levels, no one might possess effective error-free net games or effective serves to go along with it and so, they cannot execute the most effective game plan to beat pushers. In addition, many of the lower level players make more errors when they get short balls eventually in a rally that they should hit winners or force errors off. That’s why pushers are gatekeepers to higher levels and have a higher winning percentage at low levels.

Once players are advanced enough to have decent serves, consistent point-ending shots off short balls and the ability to finish points effectively at the net, pushers become just another style which can be beaten by comparable level players more often than not.

To complete the Plan A circle, adopt aggressive baseline game to beat net players, consistent baseline game to beat aggressive baseline players and as said before, a net game to beat consistent baseline players. If Plan A doesn’t work, you can try other styles.

If a pusher can’t play the net well as is often the case at lower levels, you can also bring them to net a lot with drop shots and short slices if those are part of your repertoire and then force net errors or hit lobs.

 

[optic yellow]

To complete the Plan A circle, adopt aggressive baseline game to beat net players, consistent baseline game to beat aggressive baseline players and as said before, a net game to beat consistent baseline players. If Plan A doesn’t work, you can try other styles.

If a pusher can’t play the net well as is often the case at lower levels, you can also bring them to net a lot with drop shots and short slices if those are part of your repertoire and then force net errors or hit lobs.

And if they aren't part of your repertoire you don't deserve to whine about playing against pushers.

 

[AnyPUG]

Not really. Humans moved out of caves due to different processes than due their own changes. It's actually next generations that adopt new ways/things that eventually improve our world today.

Take religions, majority were born with and die with the same religion. It's their offsprings that change religions and that's how we see changes in religions.

Another process is forced changes where people get no choice but change, eg. pay phone booth gone to make way for smartphones.

Most people who've lived most of their lives with gas cars will not buy EVs if they have a choice. EVs are for the next gen of drivers.

Back to tennis, you and have seen plenty of same behaviors in this place than changes, no?

At the courts, once people reach the level that matches their behaviors, they'll stay with that level for life, maybe fluctuate by 0.25 point due to random stuff. But we definitly won't see 10-year 3.5 player suddenly becoming 4.5

People evolve all the time. Average productivity growth (which measures how much people become better on average) is around 2 percent per year according to world's leading experts in the field.

The same or better growth applies to tennis level on average. Why? Because, it's human nature to learn and do better. It's human DNA.

Though playing level may not change from 3.5 for most, the quality of play improves every year. 3.5s of today play vastly improved version of tennis than 10 years ago for example. That's real and that's progress. The level change from 3.5 to 4 is indicative of a player vastly outperforming others in his group. A level change is not the only indication of progress.

You can observe the same with pro tennis - they hit harder, move faster than players did 10 years ago. Did the ranking change? No, but they play much improved tennis.

 

[mcs1970]

@user92626 My parents were born in the late 30s and early 40 s respectively. Today both are doing a lot of things through their phones or watching things on their iPads. People evolve all the time.

I have improved a lot from where I started even if my overall levels are the same due to injuries and age. The challenge of getting even better with my weaknesses is what excites me each time I go to the courts.

 

[johnmccabe]

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.

Yes, it's about level not style. Doesn't matter what style you prefer, get better. stop whining about how your opponents play or how they feel about your style. That's why I don't enjoy the periodic repetitive complaints/defending of pushing.

 

[AnyPUG]

`

 

[AnyPUG]

A few people dared and the rest followed when the venture was successful. There were probably a vast majority of people who were just fine in their caves.

There were also a ton of failures but they didn't make it into the history books for the most part.

If they were "just fine", why don't we find anyone there anymore? I mean the next gens of cavemen.

Regarding "a ton of failures", it's the process of improvement through refinement. No good success is possible without repeated "failures".

Zero failure is the sure sign of stagnation and decay.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

If they were "just fine", why don't we find anyone there anymore? I mean the next gens of cavemen.

it's the S adoption curve: very few in the beginning, an acceleration, a levelling out, and steady state [until the next change].

The point is that 100% don't make the switch immediately. People do it in phases. At the end, all of the holdouts have converted or died.

Regarding "a ton of failures", it's the process of improvement through refinement. No good success is possible without repeated "failures".

Zero failure is the sure sign of stagnation and decay.

No argument there. I didn't bring up the example as proof that change is bad only that change has consequences, not all of which are good. Which is why many avoid change: the downside of a failure is greater than the upside of a success, similar to someone so fearing getting burned DTL in doubles that they hug the alley and give up the middle.

There's a concept in evolutionary biology known as the chaos boundary: too little change and the species stagnates. Too much change and things devolve into chaos. The success of a species is how they can maintain their position relative to the chaos boundary.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

People evolve all the time. Average productivity growth (which measures how much people become better on average) is around 2 percent per year according to world's leading experts in the field.

How much of that is due to technology and how much is due to people changing their habits to do something more efficiently [or, even more radical, to do something that previously was impossible]?

The same or better growth applies to tennis level on average. Why? Because, it's human nature to learn and do better. It's human DNA.

It's also a human characteristic to be lazy and to resist change. The dynamic between the two determines how quickly change is accepted.

During times of feast, the motivation to change is probably very low. "Don't fix what ain't broke!"

During times of famine, the motivation to change is probably very high. "What we're doing is not working. We have to try something else!"

Though playing level may not change from 3.5 for most, the quality of play improves every year. 3.5s of today play vastly improved version of tennis than 10 years ago for example.

I have no data or experience to agree or disagree with that claim. I've been playing USTA for just under 10 years and I can't say I've noticed any NTRP being markedly better.

I do observe that, outside of tennis, there is "grade inflation": "C" used to mean "average" [which most people are]; now it generates wailing and gnashing of teeth.

That's real and that's progress. The level change from 3.5 to 4 is indicative of a player vastly outperforming others in his group. A level change is not the only indication of progress.

You can observe the same with pro tennis - they hit harder, move faster than players did 10 years ago. Did the ranking change? No, but they play much improved tennis.

Yes, there's a lot more emphasis on factors that weren't previously: conditioning, diet, sleep, mental health, "off season" training, etc.

There's also a lot more money involved: that has to change motivations.

However, if one could come up with an absolute measure of performance, it would be interesting to see how it changes over time: it may not be a smooth, linear ascent but could be jagged with even some declines along the way.

 

[user92626]

No argument there. I'd go further from "minority" and call them outliers.

Outliers is a good word to describe them.

I play at this one site for over 10 years. I swear, every single player plays & acts the same as day 1 I met them! For instance I don't remember anyone been a non-volleyer for 5 years and then became a decent volleyer. No one!

 

[mental midget]

'pushing' is a tricky term that really refers more to a style of play than a level of play. there are many good players who simply play high-percentage tennis and wait for errors. less skilled but flashier players who get frustrated when they lose against this style of play are essentially asking 'how do i beat a player better than me?'

if you are the more skilled player, but find yourself losing to this style of play, it comes down to impatience (vanity?) and needless anxiety during points. and the best advice i can give for those players is to embrace the fact that they are not going to hurt you. relax, treat the points like drills, hit deep, and honestly you shouldn't have to do anything special besides maybe come to the net when they cough up something short, just to shorten the match a bit. don't change your game, just reel it in, keep the blood pressure down, and get comfortable with longer rallies.

of course, these players are irritating, and i find it gratifying to simply make them work and face the limitations of their game as the match wears on.

 

[Fintft]

Outliers is a good word to describe them.

I play at this one site for over 10 years. I swear, every single player plays & acts the same as day 1 I met them! For instance I don't remember anyone been a non-volleyer for 5 years and then became a decent volleyer. No one!

I do.

 

[optic yellow]

Pushing is just trading power for safety which at lower levels of rec tennis where great strokes are not developed involves bunting the ball with strong conscious hand guidance to ensure it goes relatively where the player wants it to go. High level "pushers" don't look like "pushers" because they have well developed classic groundstrokes that would devastate average recs players but at the level their game is played at it is the same concept of hitting relatively unthreatening balls and inviting an opponent with worn down patience to make a mistake.

 

[ppma]

'pushing' is a tricky term that really refers more to a style of play than a level of play. there are many good players who simply play high-percentage tennis and wait for errors. less skilled but flashier players who get frustrated when they lose against this style of play are essentially asking 'how do i beat a player better than me?'

if you are the more skilled player, but find yourself losing to this style of play, it comes down to impatience (vanity?) and needless anxiety during points. and the best advice i can give for those players is to embrace the fact that they are not going to hurt you. relax, treat the points like drills, hit deep, and honestly you shouldn't have to do anything special besides maybe come to the net when they cough up something short, just to shorten the match a bit. don't change your game, just reel it in, keep the blood pressure down, and get comfortable with longer rallies.

of course, these players are irritating, and i find it gratifying to simply make them work and face the limitations of their game as the match wears on.

I agree with your post mostly, but itis a style of play that is topped to a certain level. So, in a sense, it speaks about level. Low pace floating junkballs around the serve "T" is not an style, but a call for facing gettin winner after winner shots. Problem is, many <=3.5 rec players will fail at performing these shots reliably, while more experienced players wouldn't.

Pushing is just trading power for safety which at lower levels of rec tennis where great strokes are not developed involves bunting the ball with strong conscious hand guidance to ensure it goes relatively where the player wants it to go. High level "pushers" don't look like "pushers" because they have well developed classic groundstrokes that would devastate average recs players but at the level their game is played at it is the same concept of hitting relatively unthreatening balls and inviting an opponent with worn down patience to make a mistake.

Please, do not confuse pusher with consistent baseline retriever. You distinguish the pusher when he is not capable of generating pace nor placing the ball with purpose.

 

[optic yellow]

Please, do not confuse pusher with consistent baseline retriever. You distinguish the pusher when he is not capable of generating pace nor placing the ball with purpose.

I'm just explaining the two different aspects of the term as it is currently being used. Even high level players whine about their opponents being pushers so clearly there is more to it than the surface literal meaning of the word. This is what I get at when I use the quotation marks. I am saying those higher level players are not pushers in the sense they are pushing the ball with an untrained bunting stroke but that there is something about their playstyle which reminds of the playstyle a stereotypical low level rec pusher's shot arsenal promotes. This is why I get into the concept of what is being done with the shots the player is hitting to their opponent.

 

[mental midget]

I'm just explaining the two different aspects of the term as it is currently being used. Even high level players whine about their opponents being pushers so clearly there is more to it than the surface literal meaning of the word. This is what I get at when I use the quotation marks. I am saying those higher level players are not pushers in the sense they are pushing the ball with an untrained bunting stroke but that there is something about their playstyle which reminds of the playstyle a stereotypical low level rec pusher's shot arsenal promotes. This is why I get into the concept of what is being done with the shots the player is hitting to their opponent.

agree. the 'pusher' style as described by those 'bunting' strokes, floaters, etc. to me is usually just a function of skill level, ie. that's all they can do with the ball. if a player is able to hit winners, then they would do that. and if they're trying but failing, again, that just comes down to trying to play above your level.

i haven't come across too many players capable of hitting proper groundstrokes, who resort to simply bunting floaters back. why would you? if you're playing at your skill level, that's a recipe for a loss. above your level, certainly the same. below your level...then why?

 

[Fintft]

agree. the 'pusher' style as described by those 'bunting' strokes, floaters, etc. to me is usually just a function of skill level, ie. that's all they can do with the ball. if a player is able to hit winners, then they would do that. and if they're trying but failing, again, that just comes down to trying to play above your level.

i haven't come across too many players capable of hitting proper groundstrokes, who resort to simply bunting floaters back. why would you? if you're playing at your skill level, that's a recipe for a loss. above your level, certainly the same. below your level...then why?

Bellow your level, you could play like a tigger, meaning consistent and not go for broke/power.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I agree with your post mostly, but itis a style of play that is topped to a certain level.

Every style has a limit. One could make the argument that bio-mechanically correct strokes has a higher limit but are also have a steeper learning curve and not everyone will have the perseverance to keep at it or the skill to master them well enough to beat peers.

So the pusher might have a lower ceiling but ends up winning more because of the gentler learning curve.

Whether that's desirable is a different question altogether.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Bellow your level, you could play like a tigger, meaning consistent and not go for broke/power.

I don't think Tigger has the patience to be a pusher; he'd play first strike tennis, IMO.

 

[socallefty]

There has always been only one definition of a pusher and it extends to the pro level.

’A player who just beat you and frustrated you because you did not have the firepower to hit through them nor did you have the consistency to outlast them in long rallies’.

I bet even Federer called Andy Murray a pusher to his camp after losing to him and maybe he even called Rafa a pusher after losing to him on slow clay.

 

[Fintft]

I don't think Tigger has the patience to be a pusher; he'd play first strike tennis, IMO.

I have told you before: "Play chess like a tiger" and you make it random only against better players....Same in tennis, I think.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I have told you before: "Play chess like a tiger" and you make it random only against better players....Same in tennis, I think.

Sorry: I thought you were making a Winnie the Pooh reference ["Tigger"].

 

[Shroud]

Sorry: I thought you were making a Winnie the Pooh reference ["Tigger"].

You mean the Chinese leader?

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

You mean the Chinese leader?

"Hu" are you talking about?

 

[optic yellow]

There has always been only one definition of a pusher and it extends to the pro level.

’A player who just beat you and frustrated you because you did not have the firepower to hit through them nor did you have the consistency to outlast them in long rallies’.

I bet even Federer called Andy Murray a pusher to his camp after losing to him and maybe he even called Rafa a pusher after losing to him on slow clay.

This is exactly what I said!

 

[Fintft]

There has always been only one definition of a pusher and it extends to the pro level.

’A player who just beat you and frustrated you because you did not have the firepower to hit through them nor did you have the consistency to outlast them in long rallies’.

I bet even Federer called Andy Murray a pusher to his camp after losing to him and maybe he even called Rafa a pusher after losing to him on slow clay.

Or, you have the firepower, but weren't able to execute your shots, usually due to getting tense?
I got better at this and recently got my revenge on many pushers, including just now.

Albeit I'm still a tad rusty (1HBH DTL MIA) and getting used again to play on clay, taking control of the point with the FH (and running around a lot of BHs - it was funny how loud my feet were squeaking on modified red clay) and finishing the point either with the FH or at the net works well. And let's not forget first strike tennis....

Cheers!

 

[optic yellow]

Or, you have the firepower, but weren't able to execute your shots, usually due to getting tense?
I got better at this and recently got my revenge on many pushers, including just now.

Albeit I'm still a tad rusty (1HBH DTL MIA) and getting used again to play on clay, taking control of the point with the FH (and running around a lot of BHs - it was funny how loud my feet were squeaking on modified red clay) and finishing the point either with the FH or at the net works well. And let's not forget first strike tennis....

Cheers!

If you can't execute the shots then you don't have the firepower. It's of course easier to regain that firepower if you've developed it before.

 

[Fintft]

If you can't execute the shots then you don't have the firepower.

It can be on and off, if you are tense/nervous, that's my point.
Anisomova has firepower, yet Halep destroyed her at last Wimbly, b/c Anisimova was tense.
Rybakina also had firepower and was relaxed the whole tournament and won Wimbly.
Rublev has firepower, probably almost always, yet he might never go higher than #5 since tennis is a sport of errors.

@socallefty The reason Federer is so beloved (or most beloved) is because of his attacking style.

 

[user92626]

Most pushers are one level above their opponents.

Damn right. That's something most of these whiny losers are not aware of.

It's easy to play like a pusher, and therein lies the pusher secret: JUST PLAY DOWN YOUR LEVEL.

Let's say, if a pusher reigns supreme in 3.5, like 100% winning rate, he's probably about an average 4.0. But he will never want to be assigned and compete in 4.0 segment.

 

[optic yellow]

It can be on and off, if you are tense/nervous, that's my point.
Anisomova has firepower, yet Halep destroyed her at last Wimbly, b/c Anisimova was tense.
Rybakina also had firepower and was relaxed the whole tournament and won Wimbly.
Rublev has firepower, probably almost always, yet he might never go higher than #5 since tennis is a sport of errors.

@socallefty The reason Federer is so beloved (or most beloved) is because of his attacking style.

I'm just trolling you with semantics sorry. I know you meant specifically having developed the capability to unleash firepower which is why I wrote the second sentence but I couldn't resist the first because what I said was technically true.

 

[Xen]

Damn right. That's something most of these whiny losers are not aware of.

It's easy to play like a pusher, and therein lies the pusher secret: JUST PLAY DOWN YOUR LEVEL.

Let's say, if a pusher reigns supreme in 3.5, like 100% winning rate, he's probably about an average 4.0. But he will never want to be assigned and compete in 4.0 segment.

That's just sandbagging. A 3.5 pusher has a roughly 50% win rate vs 3.5s. If not, they're just lying about their level and they're not a pusher. I have a friend that I play with alot that I would consider a 3.5 pusher (defensive baseliner). He'll frequently lose to other 3.5s, most notably junk-ballers (old man slicers), but he does very well against my kind of 3.0-3.5 player (younger offense-oriented aggressive baseliner/all-courter). He hits good clean shots with enough depth and pace that I can't run around most backhands. He'll just keep hitting these high loopy balls to my backhand side, which he'll pretty much never make an UE on, while I'll be far more likely to make an UE. I will win points against him if I can take the initiative with a big serve or a big forehand, and keep him moving, but once he forces me into a backhand rally, I'll mostly lose the point.

 

[Fintft]

I'm just trolling you with semantics sorry. I know you meant specifically having developed the capability to unleash firepower which is why I wrote the second sentence but I couldn't resist the first because what I said was technically true.

And are you also telling that to pros like Anisimova or Rublev?
If no, than, logically what you said was not true....

 

[socallefty]

A pusher generally has consistency as their main strategy to win points. An opponent with less consistency can try to use court position, depth, spin, pace etc. to control point patterns and win points. It helps if you can use the serve and return to control point patterns right from the start. If you can’t use any of these to your advantage, then the pusher is just a better player.

Too often, I see the opponent of pushers not hitting deep or towards the sidelines, but right to the middle of the court so that the pusher does not have to move much and that’s how they can keep their errors low. If you don’t make someone move, you are not going to trouble them with pace/spin and if they are more consistent, they will win. Better opponents will force errors from the pusher by making them move, robbing them of time by controlling court position, troubling them with serves/returns and +1 shots.

 

[Bobs tennis]

All you players who believe they are the next Roger are not thinking clearly. Normally, I hear he won but he's a pusher., I'm an old tennis Holic and even when I see a young man or woman who looks good eventually they must slow down get a job and go to work. Tennis is fun It may pay for college, learn from the pusher. He gets it

 

[optic yellow]

And are you also telling that to pros like Anisimova or Rublev?
If no, than, logically what you said was not true....

Yes it's the same phenomenon of lacking that functionality in the moment. Looking at it from the perspective of "is this there or not" it doesn't matter if someone is simply struggling to perform up to their standard or has never been capable of it. In a strict real sense they do not have that game because they are not showing it on the court.

 

[optic yellow]

Better opponents will force errors from the pusher by making them move, robbing them of time by controlling court position, troubling them with serves/returns and +1 shots.

Incidentally all things that help them win against non-pushers too

 

[Fintft]

Yes it's the same phenomenon of lacking that functionality in the moment. Looking at it from the perspective of "is this there or not" it doesn't matter if someone is simply struggling to perform up to their standard or has never been capable of it. In a strict real sense they do not have that game because they are not showing it on the court.

You are wrong when it comes to the likes of Anisimova or Rublev.

 

[Fintft]

A pusher generally has consistency as their main strategy to win points. An opponent with less consistency can try to use court position, depth, spin, pace etc. to control point patterns and win points. It helps if you can use the serve and return to control point patterns right from the start. If you can’t use any of these to your advantage, then the pusher is just a better player.

Too often, I see the opponent of pushers not hitting deep or towards the sidelines, but right to the middle of the court so that the pusher does not have to move much and that’s how they can keep their errors low. If you don’t make someone move, you are not going to trouble them with pace/spin and if they are more consistent, they will win. Better opponents will force errors from the pusher by making them move, robbing them of time by controlling court position, troubling them with serves/returns and +1 shots.

The former worked best, you are right, while the later (hitting right at them) worked to some extend as well (as I can hit thru people).

 

[user92626]

That's just sandbagging. A 3.5 pusher has a roughly 50% win rate vs 3.5s.

If someone wins about 50% of time, he would be normal and wouldn't stand out or be agonizing to his opponents.

Don't forget, one of the requirements of pushers or pusher conversation is that the player wins alot, usually overwhelmingly whereas his opponents try everything, exhausted and fail.

If someone just loses, no matter how consistent his shots are, he's just a regular bad player making stupid shots. At most he's a good player, by "hanging in there" long enough. Nobody cares about bad (pushing) shots that lose games.

He will not be called a pusher, will not make any impression.