pusher is someone who returns everything. rabbit, golden retriever, chaser, dog, bunny, or simon.
'Counterpunching' is a term that originated with boxing I believe. (Let me know if this is wrong, anyone) In general, it seems to be applied to smaller guys who don't have a knockout punch (tennis terms: any big weapon) but are able to dig in and withstand the haymakers (Federer forehand, Karlovic serve, etc.) of a heavier opponent. They use guile and speed more to overcome their size disadvantage, and often are able to win by peppering their opponent with a combination of moves rather than one hard swing. In tennis a counter-puncher is a retriever.
The term pusher is usually derogatory, and refers to someone who hits a lot of junk balls. It almost always is used to refer to a counter-puncher, but not all counter-punchers are pushers.
Here's a good thread which discusses playing styles including pushers:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=58284
i would agree, at the pro level. i think the pushing style of 'softballer/junk baller/ retriever' is the one employed.
for instance..wozniacki softballed oudin to death
murray softballs/junk balls as the situation calls for it
micheal chang was a pure retriever pusher.
Great thread, I've always considered retrievers to be very similar to counter-punchers, but that second post makes a good case against that.
Going by that second post: Nadal would be a counter-puncher. Murray would be a soft-baller.
IMO it's a lazy definition as applied to professional tennis.
If you read on in that thread most you'll find that most professional level players are in fact hybrids. Nadal as an example possesses such a unique hitting style, his rally ball, his safest shot, qualifies as an offensive weapon.
But the "root definition" of a pusher is excluded from any discussion of a professional player as it carries with it a ceiling of 4.0 to 4.5. limit.
As an example, a Murray has all the physical tools to play as tactically and strategically inept as a James Blake. Murray could limit his game to hitting hard, harder and hardest. What separates the two is that Murray is emotionally and psychologically capable and possesses the imagination (for lack of a better term) and patience to stay in points longer, change speeds and spin to consistently find opponent's limits in those last two categories and compared to a Blake has produced far more consistent results, but again he can and does produce every shot including hard, harder and hardest.
That being said, on "a day" the less versatile purely offensive player like a Blake or pre-Stefanki influenced Gonzo can blow any more well rounded, patient and tactically superior player, because on that day even their ill-advised shot selections fall in.
But on the pro-level, simply because a guy finds it within his psychological/emotional comfort zone to hit harder more often, that doesn't relegate the pro who doesn't choose to bang with him to pusher status.
Federer had his most ridiculously consistent years out-lasting most opponents with patience and tactics, forcing everyone, from the counter puncher to blaster past their limits. He could have gone for a winner or near winner within the first three shots of a point every point and surely had the tools to do it but he wouldn't have won as much as he did if he chose to. Is he a pusher too?
IMO it's a lazy definition as applied to professional tennis.
5
If you read on in that thread most you'll find that most professional level players are in fact hybrids. Nadal as an example possesses such a unique hitting style, his rally ball, his safest shot, qualifies as an offensive weapon.
But the "root definition" of a pusher is excluded from any discussion of a professional player as it carries with it a ceiling of 4.0 to 4.5. limit.
As an example, a Murray has all the physical tools to play as tactically and strategically inept as a James Blake. Murray could limit his game to hitting hard, harder and hardest. What separates the two is that Murray is emotionally and psychologically capable and possesses the imagination (for lack of a better term) and patience to stay in points longer, change speeds and spin to consistently find opponent's limits in those last two categories and compared to a Blake has produced far more consistent results, but again he can and does produce every shot including hard, harder and hardest.
That being said, on "a day" the less versatile purely offensive player like a Blake or pre-Stefanki influenced Gonzo can blow any more well rounded, patient and tactically superior player, because on that day even their ill-advised shot selections fall in.
But on the pro-level, simply because a guy finds it within his psychological/emotional comfort zone to hit harder more often, that doesn't relegate the pro who doesn't choose to bang with him to pusher status.
Federer had his most ridiculously consistent years out-lasting most opponents with patience and tactics, forcing everyone, from the counter puncher to blaster past their limits. He could have gone for a winner or near winner within the first three shots of a point every point and surely had the tools to do it but he wouldn't have won as much as he did if he chose to. Is he a pusher too?
IMO it's a lazy definition as applied to professional tennis.
5
Can you really say that Murray can play like Blake or Gonzo? I mean, he might be able to do it for a little while, but not for a sustained period. And I don't just mean from a consistency standpoint (if those guys could do that consistently, we would be having an entirely different discussion), but from a physical standpoint. They just seem a lot stronger than Murray in my opinion.
I hope I am making sense, because the point I am trying to get at is how much does a players physical presence play into their style of play?
I looked it up in websters dictioinary and there was no text only this picture:
LOL j/k I love Caroline.
Pusher is the most overused term on TTW, used by people who think a certain player's style is boring.
"choke(r)" is probably the most overused. and then maybe "goat".Pusher is the most overused term on TTW, used by people who think a certain player's style is boring.
'Counterpunching' is a term that originated with boxing I believe. (Let me know if this is wrong, anyone) In general, it seems to be applied to smaller guys who don't have a knockout punch (tennis terms: any big weapon) but are able to dig in and withstand the haymakers (Federer forehand, Karlovic serve, etc.) of a heavier opponent. They use guile and speed more to overcome their size disadvantage, and often are able to win by peppering their opponent with a combination of moves rather than one hard swing.
[/B]
Instead of trying to outhit the guy, I just sliced all his topspin shots (not baby slice, but a hard and low slice) so he had to hit harder and higher to make his ball stay in, until he'd miss, or hit a short, high ball that I'd walk up to and smack a winner. That is effective counter-punching, not pushing.
Fundamentally, a pusher is someone who doesn't have a stroke powered by their legs and involving a rotation of their shoulders. They literally push their groundstrokes in the same motion that you would use to push a door open. They're extremely common at the beginner and low level recreational level but don't exist at any level of competitive tennis.
One word: Wozniacki.
What is a "pusher"? Does the term differ from the terms "counter-puncher," "grinder," "retriever," etc.? If so, how?
If you're a fan of (insert defensive-minded player's name here), than he or she is a "counter-puncher" or "grinder." If you're not a fan, then he or she is a "pusher." That's the difference.