But seriously, what is a pusher? Someone misses less and wins more, seems to be the common theme.
Not really; most people who win more tend to miss less, pushers or not
@S&V-not_dead_yet dead and
@Limpinhitter give very good description above. A pusher, as usually defined, is a player who takes no risks, puts no pace on the ball and relies on his retrieval skills to 'push' every ball back without much spin or pace until the other guy misses in frustration. A person who hits a deep, low backhand slice is seldom a pusher; a pusher avoids hitting too sharp or deep shots. Short, soft, no pace slices, yes! Deep shots are usually the looping, moonball-ish kind because they're easier to control (for the pusher) and very hard to generate pace off (for the opponent).
Edit: we all push occasionally, usually when we're in a disadvantageous position and are trying to neutralize a rally or when we're tense/nervous and are afraid to miss on an important point. Even many pros tense up and start pushing a bit in such situations. But real pushers push virtually always; this is their default game.
The reason why most people hate pushers is that 1. It's an ugly, unexciting game whether you're watching it or playing against it and 2. When you play against a pusher it's a frustrating game, even when you win. You either have to play their game and out-push them, which is usually an exercise in futility, not to mention is effing boring or you have to swing like a madman to generate your own pace off their slow shots and take all kinds of risks going to the net to finish off points before you die of boredom. Very hard to get any proper, exciting rally going.
Many think that people hate pushers because they keep losing to them. Well, people keep losing to Roger Federer and you never hear a single person call his game anything but exciting and beautiful. So there is much more to it, trust me
I've both lost to some pushers and beaten some 6-0, 6-0; I dare say that I win more than I lose when playing them. I seldom lose to pure pushers; I'm consistent enough and have a decent net game. The ones that give me trouble are the ones that can counter-attack when you hit a shorter ball. Basically they are people who push from the baseline but can attack forward when given the chance; many will argue that these aren't even 'proper' pushers. At the pro level, Nadal is an example of this- he can push like the best of them but, given an opening, he hits an attacking shot either for an outright winner (especially the (in)famous DTL Fearhand) or as a set-up to a volley. Murray is similar when he plays well. When he isn't playing well he is as close to a high-level pusher as one will see at the pro level, just dinking, moonballing, lobbing and backboarding everything. It's also a main reason many people don't like him as a player. He was given a taste of his own medicine vs Mischa Zverev who didn't give him any pace; Andy didn't know what to do with the ball half of the time since he is not used to generating his own pace. It's frustrating since he is one of the hardest hitters of the ball when he actually decides to hit one hard.
So it's not a matter of losing; it's because playing pushers is generally a very unrewarding game. Most people play matches for the competition but also to improve and to learn/practice things one can take to other matches. There's very few things one learns playing a pusher that are applicable when one plays more attacking-minded players, alas.
Playing against pushers builds character; that's the only positive I can think of
