PDA

View Full Version : Do you think "pushers" are respected enough for their style of play?


Singleniacki
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:35 AM
I know it is an overworked subject. I mean, i'm not a fan watching their style of play, but, "pushing" must be a difficult style of play to enforce. Should ballbashers deserve more respect because they come up with the better shots? Or do the players you respect have a mix of the two? Players that enforce both styles of play have entered the top echelons of tennis so why do some people believe that a pusher is not a real player?

Golovinjured.
Oct 17th, 2009, 09:22 AM
From me? Yes.

From the forum as a whole? Definately not.

ElusiveChanteuse
Oct 17th, 2009, 10:23 AM
I respect all kinds of style of play too.:shrug:

Singleniacki
Oct 17th, 2009, 10:27 AM
I'm not blaming anyone.

It just seems to have become a popular thing on TF.

DOUBLEFIST
Oct 17th, 2009, 10:29 AM
Well, what some people call pushing, isn't- imho.


And what they say isn't, IS.

For example, many say that Hingis pushed. I think that's dead wrong.

I think a distinction needs to be made between "Pusher" and "Counter Puncher." Hingis was a Counter-puncher. She used other peoples pace and tactical errors to EVENTUALLY go for her shots.

A pusher just sits back and waits for UNforced errors. It certainly is a valid style of play. I just HATE it. I prefer power and athleticism with some variety in there now and then.

terjw
Oct 17th, 2009, 11:15 AM
Ex-professionals working in the world's media and commentary boxes - overwhelmingly YES.


Agree. And when these so called "pushers" get results - they should be respected. But as far as a number of posters in this forum goes - NO they aren't respected enough. A so called "pusher" may just may "push" a whole match - and if they win doing that - good luck to them. But it is far more likely that the haters have just shut their eyes and ignored it when the "pusher" constructs a point herself. More often I suspect the hater hasn't even watched the match but just blindly looks at the Winners column in the stats when they call a player a "boring pusher".

A lot of posters just look at the stats and the Winners and Unforced Errors. Well hello - in case it hasn't sunk in to these posters - not every point is a winner or an unforced error. What about these other points:

Let T(p) = total points won by a pusher
Let W(p) = winners by a pusher
Let UE(o) = Unforced Errors by the opponent
Let N(p) = The other (Neglected) points won by a pusher

N(p) = T(p) - { W(p) + UE(o) } and is never specifically given in the stats.
These points could be for a number of things including when the so called "pusher" constructs a point and finishes with a shot that the opponent just reaches but can't control. Against a player with a weapon - it might have been too fast for the opponent to get to and been an outright winner. But the end result is the same and just as enjoyable to watch.

A low Winners and UE count will tend to indicate a player who is consistent and does a lot of pushing. But it in no way means that's all the player does. And there's been plenty of matches I've watched with so called "pushers" that have been really enjoyable.

Cookie Power
Oct 17th, 2009, 11:25 AM
It's a valid way to play, and nothing to be ashamed of. But it will only get you so far, because if your opponent is playing towards their highest level you simply won't be able to beat them. A style of play that rests almost entirely on how well your opponent is playing seems a bizzare option at Grand Slam level for example. Pushers do not win slams.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think it's that pushing isn't respected, It just doesn't have as much respect as other styles of play.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 17th, 2009, 12:53 PM
It's a valid way to play, and nothing to be ashamed of. But it will only get you so far, because if your opponent is playing towards their highest level you simply won't be able to beat them. A style of play that rests almost entirely on how well your opponent is playing seems a bizzare option at Grand Slam level for example. Pushers do not win slams.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think it's that pushing isn't respected, It just doesn't have as much respect as other styles of play.
Agreed. Good post. I like the part about that slam winning especially. True champions are players like the WS and Sharapova who go out and win their matches on their rackets rather than leaving it up to their opponents to decide the outcome.

I don't think spectators (us) have to respect pushing at all. Most of us watch tennis hoping to be entertained, and pushing is never going to do that.

On the other hand, maybe the players don't respect Wozniacki (I'm assuming this thread is about her) enough. Read all the online tips on how to beat pushers, and one of the biggest things they stress is respecting them. I'd say this is true considering some of the comments a few players and coaches have made about her and her game-style.

Chrissie-fan
Oct 17th, 2009, 01:37 PM
It's a valid way to play, and nothing to be ashamed of. But it will only get you so far, because if your opponent is playing towards their highest level you simply won't be able to beat them. A style of play that rests almost entirely on how well your opponent is playing seems a bizzare option at Grand Slam level for example. Pushers do not win slams.
There is some truth to that. On the other hand defensive players (I son't use the word pusher which is meant to sound like an insult) are often good at exploiting another players' weaknesses. Besides, if you don't have the physical strenght of a Serena Williams or a Sharapova trying to outhit them when they are up to par is always going to be a losing tactic.

As for whether they are respected enough, well, if you are good at what you're doing respect will automatically come your way. Not from everyone of course, but the same thing can be said about the hard hitters (the so-called "ball bashers"). There's no way a player is able to please everyone out there. But all that doesn't really matter. It isn't about what this or that fan might say about your style of play but about what the record books will show when your career is over.

delicatecutter
Oct 17th, 2009, 04:24 PM
Wozniacki has a legion of fans, although it is questionable it's actually for her style of play.

Her loss to Stosur is just plain bad though.

sweetpeas
Oct 17th, 2009, 04:33 PM
As for whether they are respected enough, well, if you are good at what you're doing respect will automatically come your way. Not from everyone of course, but the same thing can be said about the hard hitters (the so-called "ball bashers"). There's no way a player is able to please everyone out there. But all that doesn't really matter. It isn't about what this or that fan might say about your style of play but about what the record books will show when your career is over.

Thanks,chrissi fan- 100% right.:wavey::bounce::kiss::lol:

Mackep83
Oct 17th, 2009, 07:55 PM
You dont choose being a pusher, right? I dont think example Jankovic or Hingis could have been a good ballbasher, they dont have the right power plus they are one of the best defensive players ever. A tennisplayer should play with their strongest weaopen, and for wozniaki (hingis, jankovic) its the defensive game, so why dont just accept their game, cause a match between a ballbasher and a defensive players is almost fun every time..

LeonHart
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:00 PM
I'm over it. Whoever uses the word pusher to describe a top player obviously has a tennis IQ below 50, and they've never played a "pusher" in real life.

The Dawntreader
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:06 PM
The argument is in direct objection to the fact that 'brainless ball bashers' don't get ANY respect. The amount of time i've seen that expression on this board, is nauseating. Totally ignoring the courageous aspects of that style of play, no matter how many errors are produced.

I don't use the word pusher, but they're certainly players on tour who are completely passive, almost to the point of non-participation:lol:

Ryan
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:27 PM
The argument is in direct objection to the fact that 'brainless ball bashers' don't get ANY respect. The amount of time i've seen that expression on this board, is nauseating. Totally ignoring the courageous aspects of that style of play, no matter how many errors are produced.

I don't use the word pusher, but they're certainly players on tour who are completely passive, almost to the point of non-participation:lol:



It's just as valid to hate ball-bashing as it is pushing. Both are overreactions, but you'll never change it.

~Eclipsed~
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:44 PM
They get as much respect as they should get. Personally, players that play to win a match should get more respect than players that play not to lose. The latter is just not as courageous and shouldn't be respected as much as a player with a style trying to win a match.

Beat
Oct 17th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I'm over it. Whoever uses the word pusher to describe a top player obviously has a tennis IQ below 50, and they've never played a "pusher" in real life.

this.

Ryan
Oct 17th, 2009, 09:12 PM
They get as much respect as they should get. Personally, players that play to win a match should get more respect than players that play not to lose. The latter is just not as courageous and shouldn't be respected as much as a player with a style trying to win a match.



There's no courage in going out and NOT THINKING. Thats essentially what many "ball-bashers" do - it takes no courage at all to swing for the fences, because your brain is not engaged in the action of hitting the ball. Obviously I'm not talking about anyone NEAR the top of the game, but in tight situations, even top players "go for broke"; commentators say it takes more courage, and I agree, to consistently keep the ball IN PLAY in important points. Its easy to shut your brain off and blast a forehand.

Singleniacki
Oct 17th, 2009, 09:56 PM
thanks for the informative responses, i must say, in real life i am a massive pusher :lol:

Dave B
Oct 17th, 2009, 10:03 PM
I like all different styles of play, but I have noticed something with labels. If you win a GS, you are no longer called a pusher, you are called a counter-puncher. Just like when you win a GS your serve is no longer slow as crap-it is "tricky".

terjw
Oct 17th, 2009, 10:53 PM
I like all different styles of play, but I have noticed something with labels. If you win a GS, you are no longer called a pusher, you are called a counter-puncher. Just like when you win a GS your serve is no longer slow as crap-it is "tricky".

Don't know about that. I have my doubts. I do know that if you are runner-up in a GS - you still get called a pusher and that getting to the final was a fluke.

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 12:52 AM
I'm over it. Whoever uses the word pusher to describe a top player obviously has a tennis IQ below 50, and they've never played a "pusher" in real life.
Amen, amen, AMEN!! Players at my level (NTRP 4.0) are "pushers." Players at the WTA and ATP levels aren't. Period. END OF DISCUSSION.

Volcana
Oct 18th, 2009, 01:06 AM
It's a valid way to play, and nothing to be ashamed of. But it will only get you so far, because if your opponent is playing towards their highest level you simply won't be able to beat them. A style of play that rests almost entirely on how well your opponent is playing seems a bizzare option at Grand Slam level for example. Pushers do not win slams.a) I have no respect for the term 'pusher'. It's like a neon saying the person using the term doesn't really understand tennis.

b) I disagree with the idea that defensive players don't win slams. What happens is that when a defensive player wins slams, we simply try and define them away from being defensive.

Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario would certainly fall into the category, for example. Her game was built virtually entirely on her ability to run down shots, not hit winners. Yet there she is with four slam singles titles. Sure she hit the occasional winner. When the opponent gave her something easy to kill. But she was a classic retriever. She kept getting the ball back unitl that 'something to kill' came up. Which is a prety good description of say, Wozniacki's game.


-

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 01:17 AM
a) I have no respect for the term 'pusher'. It's like a neon saying the person using the term doesn't really understand tennis.

b) I disagree with the idea that defensive players don't win slams. What happens is that when a defensive player wins slams, we simply try and define them away from being defensive.

Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario would certainly fall into the category, for example. Her game was built virtually entirely on her ability to run down shots, not hit winners. Yet there she is with four slam singles titles. Sure she hit the occasional winner. When the opponent gave her something easy to kill. But she was a classic retriever. She kept getting the ball back unitl that 'something to kill' came up. Which is a prety good description of say, Wozniacki's game.


-
If Chris Evert were playing today, she would be called a "pusher" by a lot of posters on this board.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 02:14 AM
There's no courage in going out and NOT THINKING. Thats essentially what many "ball-bashers" do - it takes no courage at all to swing for the fences, because your brain is not engaged in the action of hitting the ball. Obviously I'm not talking about anyone NEAR the top of the game, but in tight situations, even top players "go for broke"; commentators say it takes more courage, and I agree, to consistently keep the ball IN PLAY in important points. Its easy to shut your brain off and blast a forehand.
I'll never believe it takes more courage to push on MP than to hit a winner lol

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2009, 02:29 AM
I'll never believe it takes more courage to push on MP than to hit a winner lol



Good point. MP's are unlike any other point in tennis - going to hit a winner on MP takes a ton of guts, more than keeping the ball in play, true. But in tense situations for the most part, I'd really argue (especially in today's game) it takes courage to restrain yourself and focus on keeping the ball in play, and in many instances more courage than just "going for it" - that IMO just means you cant handle the pressure situation and want to end the point ASAP. Again, not really applying this to top players.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 02:52 AM
After reading some of the posts in this thread, I think they get way too much respect :tape:

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 02:55 AM
Good point. MP's are unlike any other point in tennis - going to hit a winner on MP takes a ton of guts, more than keeping the ball in play, true. But in tense situations for the most part, I'd really argue (especially in today's game) it takes courage to restrain yourself and focus on keeping the ball in play, and in many instances more courage than just "going for it" - that IMO just means you cant handle the pressure situation and want to end the point ASAP. Again, not really applying this to top players.
I actually think that Kim Clijsters' MP at the USO final was the perfect MP. It was a pretty good balance between the two IMO. Hit a strong forehand that isn't too risky and will go in but is enough to get the weak reply, then go for the smash.

Probably it's important to find a good balance between keeping the ball in play but still going for it lol.

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:18 AM
After reading some of the posts in this thread, I think they get way too much respect :tape:
After reading your post, I am 100 percent certain that you don't play tennis.

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:23 AM
I actually think that Kim Clijsters' MP at the USO final was the perfect MP. It was a pretty good balance between the two IMO. Hit a strong forehand that isn't too risky and will go in but is enough to get the weak reply, then go for the smash.

Probably it's important to find a good balance between keeping the ball in play but still going for it lol.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's no "probably" about it. Until recently, the most successful players on the WTA Tour were those who found that balance you mentioned.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:23 AM
After reading your post, I am 100 percent certain that you don't play tennis.

Haha I've been playing tennis since Im 10 and Ive had a regional ranking. I'm a 5.0 to 6.0 level player.

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:28 AM
Haha I've been playing tennis since Im 10 and Ive had a regional ranking. I'm a 5.0 to 6.0 level player.
No offense, but anyone can claim that they are a high-level player; in fact, that's Standard Operating Procedure on the Tennis Warehouse boards. Have you any documentation (namely, an online playing record) to back up your claim?

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:33 AM
No offense, but anyone can claim that they are a high-level player; in fact, that's Standard Operating Procedure on the Tennis Warehouse boards. Have you any documentation (namely, an online playing record) to back up your claim?

No cause I dont have my ranking anymore. I also teach tennis to children and privately to adults. Look I dont give a damn if you believe me or not, The way I play personally is agressive and thats also what I like to watch. Pushers' game is just very unattractive to me and they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:36 AM
No cause I dont have my ranking anymore. I also teach tennis to children and privately to adults. Look I dont give a damn if you believe me or not, The way I play personally is agressive and thats also what I like to watch. Pushers' game is just very unattractive to me and they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game.


So because YOU don't like their game, it means in general they get too much respect? You should be able to realize the ignorance of that.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:41 AM
So because YOU don't like their game, it means in general they get too much respect? You should be able to realize the ignorance of that.

Ok no need to start calling me ignorant or anything, I think its stupid to wanna have a game like that. a complete tennis player needs to have weapons. If you never play agressive, never go to the net, never hit any winners, you are probably not maximizing your potential as a tennis player. Plus I have to disagree with you on "pushers think way more than ballbashers" thing. Ball bashers at least need to think of a way to outplay you, hit to the right spot to hit the winner, while a real "pusher" just puts the ball back in play, it's often in the middle of the court, loopy, very repeatitive.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:44 AM
I think its stupid to wanna have a game like that. a complete tennis player needs to have weapons. If you never play agressive, never go to the net, never hit any winners, you are probably not maximizing your potential as a tennis player. Plus I have to disagree with you on "pushers think way more than ballbashers" thing. Ball bashers at least need to think of a way to outplay you, hit to the right spot to hit the winner, while a real "pusher" just puts the ball back in play, it's often in the middle of the court, loopy, very repeatitive.


False. The ball-bashers I think of, and am referring to, do not construct points the way counter-punchers and aggressive baseliners do - they bash. hard. And it takes no restraint, brain, or knowledge of point construction to hit the ball hard.


I'm not saying I like a typical defensive game, but I respect its merits - you cant have tennis with only ONE style of play. You need variety, the white to the black, Yin to the Yang and all that garbage. As long as girls hit the shit out of the ball, and miss 50% of the time, defensive tennis will thrive - it'll always be around, but it'll be at its best IMO when players miss so often.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:52 AM
False. The ball-bashers I think of, and am referring to, do not construct points the way counter-punchers and aggressive baseliners do - they bash. hard. And it takes no restraint, brain, or knowledge of point construction to hit the ball hard.


I'm not saying I like a typical defensive game, but I respect its merits - you cant have tennis with only ONE style of play. You need variety, the white to the black, Yin to the Yang and all that garbage. As long as girls hit the shit out of the ball, and miss 50% of the time, defensive tennis will thrive - it'll always be around, but it'll be at its best IMO when players miss so often.

Well the pushers Im thinking of dont have much variety, they always do the same things. Hit slow balls deep enough, sometimes slice when theyre on the run and dont have a choice, to me that takes no thinking whatsoever. Youre totally dependant on the other player. If they play bad, you win, if they play well, you lose. Im not saying I love brainless ballbashing, but at least it can produce spectacular points while pushing is never exciting.

Ryan
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:54 AM
Well the pushers Im thinking of dont have much variety, they always do the same things. Hit slow balls deep enough, sometimes slice when theyre on the run and dont have a choice, to me that takes no thinking whatsoever. Youre totally dependant on the other player. If they play bad, you win, if they play well, you lose. Im not saying I love brainless ballbashing, but at least it can produce spectacular points while pushing is never exciting.



I never said pushers have variety, I said that you need different varieties of playing styles to make tennis interesting. Choosing to wait out your opponent is just as valid a tactic as choosing to go for broke. Defensive players don't have a game thats appealing to most people and you can cheer for whatever style you want, but if you don't respect the other type of game, it does mean you are ignorant.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 03:54 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way, but there's no "probably" about it. Until recently, the most successful players on the WTA Tour were those who found that balance you mentioned.
Well by probably I basically meant definitely lol. :p

darrinbaker00
Oct 18th, 2009, 04:01 AM
No cause I dont have my ranking anymore. I also teach tennis to children and privately to adults. Look I dont give a damn if you believe me or not, The way I play personally is agressive and thats also what I like to watch. Pushers' game is just very unattractive to me and they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game.
Now that's the proper way to respond to a knucklehead on the Internet. Well done. :yeah:

Like you, the style I play (serve-and-volley) is also the style I like to watch the most. However, because players who are described as "pushers" always give me fits on the court, I have learned to respect that style of play. Besides, like I said in an earlier post, Chris Evert would be considered a "pusher" by today's standards, and she didn't do too poorly.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 04:04 AM
I never said pushers have variety, I said that you need different varieties of playing styles to make tennis interesting. Choosing to wait out your opponent is just as valid a tactic as choosing to go for broke. Defensive players don't have a game thats appealing to most people and you can cheer for whatever style you want, but if you don't respect the other type of game, it does mean you are ignorant.

Not respecting something and ignorance dont have anything to do with eachother whatsoever. You need to learn more vocabulary. And it's fine that there are different types of games but I do think that some players deserve more praising than others because they have a complete game, or they're really clever, or theyre really maximizing their potential as a tennis player, and I just dont think pushing the ball in robotically is included in that.

Apoleb
Oct 18th, 2009, 04:14 AM
I am certainly impressed everytime I see Wozniacki getting ball after ball back with so little UE. Obviously that does require talent. Not the type that will win you slams in the double digits, but it's clear that not everyone can do it.

Still, aesthetically I don't find that game pleasing and I'm allowed to say it stinks for my senses.

Chrissie-fan
Oct 18th, 2009, 05:23 AM
I do think that some players deserve more praising than others because they have a complete game, or they're really clever, or theyre really maximizing their potential as a tennis player, and I just dont think pushing the ball in robotically is included in that.
Well, many a "ball basher" isn't maximizing her potential as a tennis player either - unless of course that's all they are able to do. You often see them making a truckload of UE when they are not on, but they will still continue to do the same thing and "beat themselves" because they don't seem to have the ability to change tactics.

If Wozniacki is such an awful player, why do so many players lose against her? "She's just pushing the ball" (which is already a nonsense statement to begin with) is a rather poor excuse because there are no rules against her opponents doing the same thing. If it's such an effective tactic that is so easy to realize and you're losing by going for your shots, just start "pushing" yourself and beat her at her own game.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 05:27 AM
Well, many a "ball basher" isn't maximizing her potential as a tennis player either - unless of course that's all they are able to do. You often see them making a truckload of UE when they are not on, but they will still continue to do the same thing and "beat themselves" because they don't seem to have the ability to change tactics.

If Wozniacki is such an awful player, why do so many players lose against her? "She's just pushing the ball" (which is already a nonsense statement to begin with) is a rather poor excuse because there are no rules against her opponents doing the same thing.

Ok lol there is pretty much nothing in that post that is opposed to what I said. I never said ball-bashers were maximizing their potential and I never said Wozniacki was an awful player. I think she is very good, but she just pushes the ball in most the times, and I think she would benefit alot from developping weapons and using them.

LeonHart
Oct 18th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Well the pushers Im thinking of dont have much variety, they always do the same things. Hit slow balls deep enough, sometimes slice when theyre on the run and dont have a choice, to me that takes no thinking whatsoever. Youre totally dependant on the other player. If they play bad, you win, if they play well, you lose. Im not saying I love brainless ballbashing, but at least it can produce spectacular points while pushing is never exciting.

Umm no, brainless ballbashers are incapable of rallies, period. They either hit for the winner or the miss :tape:

And if that's your definition of pusher then none of the top players are pushers.

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 06:02 AM
Umm no, brainless ballbashers are incapable of rallies, period. They either hit for the winner or the miss :tape:

And if that's your definition of pusher then none of the top players are pushers.
GoDokic just described Wozniacki...:confused:

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Umm no, brainless ballbashers are incapable of rallies, period. They either hit for the winner or the miss :tape:

And if that's your definition of pusher then none of the top players are pushers.

Well if thats your definition of ballbasher, then no top player is a ball-basher. And I would say that Wozniacki pretty much fits my definition in most of her matches.

PLP
Oct 18th, 2009, 07:05 AM
If Chris Evert were playing today, she would be called a "pusher" by a lot of posters on this board.

Unfortunately I think you are right. :tape:

Some people on the board misunderstand & overuse the term, obviously anyone who thinks Hingis or Chris was a pusher has no clue. :lol:
As for ASV, and Caro, as well as other 'pushers', they definitely seem to suffer undue disrespect here. You either win or lose and there is more than one way to win a match, but to each their own I suppose.

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 18th, 2009, 09:29 AM
If Chris Evert were playing today, she would be called a "pusher" by a lot of posters on this board.

Didn't expect such a lame argument from you.

LeonHart
Oct 18th, 2009, 06:20 PM
GoDokic just described Wozniacki...:confused:

No. FFS the game of tennis depends on not only your game but the game of your opponent. Wozniacki may seem like a pusher when she's playing the likes of a Kuznetsova or Dementieva, but if you watched her match vs. Razzano at Eastbourne earlier this year you know that when she's able to take control of the ball she will go for her shots. You really think all the players she beat this year self-destructed and gave the match away? :weirdo:


And yes GoDokic I wouldn't say any of the top players are ballbashers either. They have to have some sort of tennis IQ to reach the top of the rankings, although some of the top players go into ball bashing mode when they get tight/tired.

Dominic
Oct 18th, 2009, 06:26 PM
And yes GoDokic I wouldn't say any of the top players are ballbashers either. They have to have some sort of tennis IQ to reach the top of the rankings, although some of the top players go into ball bashing mode when they get tight/tired.

Well if she plays like a pusher 95% of the time and plays one relatively agressive match once in a gazillion years, she is still a pusher.

TheBoiledEgg
Oct 18th, 2009, 06:45 PM
Nadal is :tape:

Vlover
Oct 18th, 2009, 07:34 PM
As for whether they are respected enough, well, if you are good at what you're doing respect will automatically come your way. Not from everyone of course, but the same thing can be said about the hard hitters (the so-called "ball bashers"). There's no way a player is able to please everyone out there. But all that doesn't really matter. It isn't about what this or that fan might say about your style of play but about what the record books will show when your career is over.
I concur! That is why I don't pay much attention to the belly aching that some do about style over substance. Each player is entitled to custom their own style, how effective is their style is what matters in the end. Achievements are judged by winning not on aesthetic appeal.

I personally prefer a more offensive style. I love to see rifled shots instead of just getting the ball over the net to see who will get tired first or miss by creating their own shots but to each their own.

Dave B
Oct 18th, 2009, 08:10 PM
No. FFS the game of tennis depends on not only your game but the game of your opponent. Wozniacki may seem like a pusher when she's playing the likes of a Kuznetsova or Dementieva, but if you watched her match vs. Razzano at Eastbourne earlier this year you know that when she's able to take control of the ball she will go for her shots. You really think all the players she beat this year self-destructed and gave the match away? :weirdo:


And yes GoDokic I wouldn't say any of the top players are ballbashers either. They have to have some sort of tennis IQ to reach the top of the rankings, although some of the top players go into ball bashing mode when they get tight/tired.

This is a great point. A few years ago, everyone called Kim a pusher because they just watched her matches with the WS. In most of her other matches she actually had more winners and errors than her opponents. Regardless, many on this board talked about how they hated it that she was so passive.

Caro is more powerful than most of the non-top players. She just looks passive when playing the power players. Despite that, she still manages to win a lot of matches, something very few players, particularly this year, have managed.

I just think it's funny when people are like, "she should develop weapons". If it were that easy, she would, and so would a lot of other people. But hitting the winners that Serena does, for example, is next to impossible, and its not like Caro can just "learn" it. She has weapons, and she maximizes them. They are just not as big as many of the other top players.

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 18th, 2009, 08:23 PM
This is a great point. A few years ago, everyone called Kim a pusher because they just watched her matches with the WS. In most of her other matches she actually had more winners and errors than her opponents. Regardless, many on this board talked about how they hated it that she was so passive.

Caro is more powerful than most of the non-top players. She just looks passive when playing the power players.

:bs:

In all seven matches played at the USO Wozniacki had less winners than her opponents, that including Voskoboeva, Martic, Cirstea, Oudin and Wickmayer.
C'mon now, she wasn't able to hit more winners than her opponent playing Medina Garriges on grass :tape:

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:08 PM
:bs:

In all seven matches played at the USO Wozniacki had less winners than her opponents, that including Voskoboeva, Martic, Cirstea, Oudin and Wickmayer.
C'mon now, she wasn't able to hit more winners than her opponent playing Medina Garriges on grass :tape:
Didn't she have like 2 winners against Oudin (one of them being a let-cord?). Some ridiculously low amount like that anyway. :tape:

Feyd
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:11 PM
Didn't she have like 2 winners against Oudin (one of them being a let-cord?). Some ridiculously low amount like that anyway. :tape:

She had 5 winners in that match. It doesn't matter when you have an extremely comfortable 6-2 6-2 on the scoreboard though.

iPatty
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:13 PM
Nadal is :tape:

...according to Fedtards when The Maestro loses for the umpteenth time of course.

Anyway, let me just put it this way: pushers get the amount of respect they deserve from me. :)

Lord Choc Ice
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:16 PM
She had 5 winners in that match. It doesn't matter when you have an extremely comfortable 6-2 6-2 on the scoreboard though.
Oh right, well anyway, she only had one winner in the second set, which was a let-cord fluke, so really, she wasn't going to hit any winners in the second set. Pusher alert.

Chrissie-fan
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:36 PM
I hope that one day Caro will win a tournament without hitting even one winner in any of her matches - just to annoy the hell out of her detractors. :devil:

SOA_MC
Oct 18th, 2009, 11:43 PM
She had 5 winners in that match. It doesn't matter when you have an extremely comfortable 6-2 6-2 on the scoreboard though.

Oh right, well anyway, she only had one winner in the second set, which was a let-cord fluke, so really, she wasn't going to hit any winners in the second set. Pusher alert.

Love how people like you always run to get and mention the winners number but forget the most important numbers and they are 6-2 6-2

Ryan
Oct 19th, 2009, 01:04 AM
:bs:

In all seven matches played at the USO Wozniacki had less winners than her opponents, that including Voskoboeva, Martic, Cirstea, Oudin and Wickmayer.
C'mon now, she wasn't able to hit more winners than her opponent playing Medina Garriges on grass :tape:



She also missed less. Which, whether you like it or not, was the more important factor in those matches.

sammy01
Oct 19th, 2009, 01:43 AM
She also missed less. Which, whether you like it or not, was the more important factor in those matches.

which is where womens tennis has become sad, its not about how many you make anymore its about how many you miss.

the point is playing defensive points isnt bad, neither is going for winners if its a mix. the players that get little respect from me are the ones that play the exact same way every point, be it pushing the ball endlessly or smacking the hell out of it with their eyes closed.

we all gasp when serena hits a great winner, but we also gasp when she runs down some crazy shots. we all no and respect that dementieva can belt her forehand, but we also no and love it when she sqaush shots some ungettable ball back on her forehand side.

defense, attack, counter puch are all ways of constructing/playing a point, but the very best and the ones that gain our respect the most know which situation demands which type of point.

OsloErik
Oct 19th, 2009, 04:40 AM
Ultimately, anybody who wins matches without cheating deserves respect :shrug:. The derision of a player as inferior to someone with fewer accomplishments simply because of a disagreement about playing styles is completely illogical. There is too little respect for the good pushers, and the word pusher has taken this bizarre negative connotation that it doesn't deserve. There is equally little respect for the good power hitters, who get branded ball bashers even though they make use of specific tactics. Ultimately, players who play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses deserve more respect than they are generally given. Personally, I think pushers get more flak because their strengths aren't viewed as real strengths.

Apoleb
Oct 19th, 2009, 05:17 AM
Ultimately, anybody who wins matches without cheating deserves respect :shrug:. The derision of a player as inferior to someone with fewer accomplishments simply because of a disagreement about playing styles is completely illogical. There is too little respect for the good pushers, and the word pusher has taken this bizarre negative connotation that it doesn't deserve. There is equally little respect for the good power hitters, who get branded ball bashers even though they make use of specific tactics. Ultimately, players who play to their strengths and minimize their weaknesses deserve more respect than they are generally given. Personally, I think pushers get more flak because their strengths aren't viewed as real strengths.

I think it's totally fair to develop a point of view about a player based on the aesthetics of the game. I don't watch tennis only to cheer for winning players. I watch it because I enjoy the game, and I think many other people do. The "pusher" players tend to have a very unappealing playing style for a lot of tennis fans, and I'm not sure what's the big deal when they bring that up.

switz
Oct 19th, 2009, 05:54 AM
meh. i'm sure the "pushers" are kept up at night worrying about gaining the respect of the great minds inhabiting this forum :tape:

Dunlop1
Oct 19th, 2009, 06:19 AM
which is where womens tennis has become sad, its not about how many you make anymore its about how many you miss.

This is what tennis is about.
At all levels of play, whoever makes the fewer mistakes wins.
If you make fewer mistakes while hitting 100 flashy winners great. If you do it hitting 1 winner, also great.

OP: What is your definition of a pusher?
I am not aware of any WTA pusher, but I don't really follow lower ranked players. C Woz is not a pusher.

DOUBLEFIST
Oct 19th, 2009, 06:53 AM
C Woz is not a pusher.
C Woz is a pusher.

bandabou
Oct 19th, 2009, 07:14 AM
It ain't about being a pusher.. some players like to engage in rallies or have built their games by being consistent. Nothing bad with that.

It's those players that NEVER are willing to pull the trigger that are boring. The whole field is open yet they can't bring themselves to go for the winner..instead they just put the ball in play and let the rally begin all over again.

That's just plain sad because playing like that will only get you so far. No coincidence that the majority of the major winners are players who can and will pull the trigger...even on the men's side, only Nadal cane come away with it..but even him, mostly on clay.

So Disrespectful
Oct 19th, 2009, 09:09 AM
This is a generalisation, but some attacking players do possess the footspeed and tools to play pushing tennis, but most pushers don't have the power to play aggressively.

MaBaker
Oct 19th, 2009, 09:40 AM
I hope that one day Caro will win a tournament without hitting even one winner in any of her matches - just to annoy the hell out of her detractors. :devil:
That would be a triumph for tennis.

Joe.
Oct 19th, 2009, 03:25 PM
i think it would just be sooo boring to be a pusher.

Chrissie-fan
Oct 19th, 2009, 03:42 PM
i think it would just be sooo boring to be a pusher.
Well, the most boring thing of all for me is a match between two players who go for their shots and keep missing - an unforced errors festival so to speak. But a Sharapova or Williams match with lots of winners I can enjoy. I basically respect all types of play - agressive baseliners, serve and volleyers, defensive baseliners.... I can admire each type of play when it's done well.

donniedarkofan
Oct 19th, 2009, 05:03 PM
No cause I dont have my ranking anymore. I also teach tennis to children and privately to adults. Look I dont give a damn if you believe me or not, The way I play personally is agressive and thats also what I like to watch. Pushers' game is just very unattractive to me and they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game.

what a bunch of crap! i wish i could go to Canada and teach you a lesson or two, but i'll be in the States in january, maybe then? I'll show you my pushing in the first set(and i'll win)then i'll show you my agressive game(and win as well). Since you're a tennis coach as i understand, our match should be played without any spectators. We don't want your students to see this...I can push and i can hit winners.Duh!:worship:

hey, i'm a tennis coach also, so maybe my students can show you that you gotta respect a pusher!

plus, the idea of tennis is to make less errors than your opponent

LeonHart
Oct 19th, 2009, 05:27 PM
C Woz is a pusher.

Yea you're right. She's able to push her opponents around the court, that's the only reason why she'd be called a pusher ;)

Dominic
Oct 19th, 2009, 05:31 PM
what a bunch of crap! i wish i could go to Canada and teach you a lesson or two, but i'll be in the States in january, maybe then? I'll show you my pushing in the first set(and i'll win)then i'll show you my agressive game(and win as well). Since you're a tennis coach as i understand, our match should be played without any spectators. We don't want your students to see this...I can push and i can hit winners.Duh!:worship:

hey, i'm a tennis coach also, so maybe my students can show you that you gotta respect a pusher!

plus, the idea of tennis is to make less errors than your opponent

....hem.. ok lol did you actually have a point or are you just being a retarded? Wheter you can beat me at tennis or not is not relevant whatsoever in this thread. Some ppl can be me at tennis, yeah, so!? The only thing I said is that a game that relys on pushing is very unattractive to me, now thats my personal taste and if you dont agree with it, first of all, I dont give a tiny rat's ass, and second, get lost you weirdo.

donniedarkofan
Oct 19th, 2009, 09:03 PM
....hem.. ok lol did you actually have a point or are you just being a retarded? Wheter you can beat me at tennis or not is not relevant whatsoever in this thread. Some ppl can be me at tennis, yeah, so!? The only thing I said is that a game that relys on pushing is very unattractive to me, now thats my personal taste and if you dont agree with it, first of all, I dont give a tiny rat's ass, and second, get lost you weirdo.

Yeah i did have a point. This line was the one that pissed me off:
"they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game"
That is a bunch of crap. I'll wait for your "A" game and i'll do my thing with pushing the balls all around the court and i'll show you how a good pusher can drive crazy the best agressive player there is. It's all about good movement and being smart enough and believe me, it's a great feeling when this agressive player strikes the ball so hard and yet i'm running down all of his shots. Mostly i'm playing like a counter puncher, but still i like to be agressive and push a little bit when it's needed.Plus there's no need to call me weirdo. I'm pretty normal, happy guy. Playing tennis for almost 21 years now(i'm 25) gave me so much...so please, respect me the same way as i respect you.

LeonHart
Oct 19th, 2009, 09:14 PM
Yeah i did have a point. This line was the one that pissed me off:
"they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game"
That is a bunch of crap. I'll wait for your "A" game and i'll do my thing with pushing the balls all around the court and i'll show you how a good pusher can drive crazy the best agressive player there is. It's all about good movement and being smart enough and believe me, it's a great feeling when this agressive player strikes the ball so hard and yet i'm running down all of his shots. Mostly i'm playing like a counter puncher, but still i like to be agressive and push a little bit when it's needed.Plus there's no need to call me weirdo. I'm pretty normal, happy guy. Playing tennis for almost 21 years now(i'm 25) gave me so much...so please, respect me the same way as i respect you.

That's exactly how I play. I absorb my opponents power and redirect the ball. The harder they hit, the better for me. And I'm pretty quick on my feet too ;)

donniedarkofan
Oct 19th, 2009, 09:23 PM
That's exactly how I play. I absorb my opponents power and redirect the ball. The harder they hit, the better for me. And I'm pretty quick on my feet too ;)

Exactly. I do the same very often. I take the ball early. That's the way i was trained. I play inside the baseline most of the time, not very hard but quick. It's a huge difference.

It all depends how is your opponent playing. When i see a guy trying to hit winners all over the court i switch to pusher mode, yet still waiting for my chance to hit a winner myself. When i see a guy who's running the ball down i try to be patient but still be agressive. There is nothing better though than pissed off attacker after hitting all this hard flat balls and in the end i'm winning.:):)

Jacob#1
Oct 19th, 2009, 10:28 PM
When you are in a non-english speaking country, thew do not possess the language -- when the native speakers slur the words together to off the least possible phonetic information possible: what is that?

Professional tennis has something other that "pushers".

Safina has respect. She rallies the ball back and forth until someone fucks up, no one is ever ready for it.

OsloErik
Oct 20th, 2009, 04:12 AM
I think it's totally fair to develop a point of view about a player based on the aesthetics of the game. I don't watch tennis only to cheer for winning players. I watch it because I enjoy the game, and I think many other people do. The "pusher" players tend to have a very unappealing playing style for a lot of tennis fans, and I'm not sure what's the big deal when they bring that up.

You missed my point. I don't begrudge people their preference of player or style. I DO begrudge people being biased or stupid, who say Na Li (or Li Na, I've gotten bored remembering which way is Chinese and which way is European) is better than Wozniacki, when every piece of evidence says the contrary, or posters who call Hantuchova superior to Wozniacki on the grounds that she hits bigger groundstrokes.

I don't care if someone thinks Wozniacki's game is like watching paint dry (well, actually, I guess I care a little because my estimation of him or her decreases, and my curiosity about paint in his or her country increases) as long as he or she has enough sense to recognize that she's a top 10 player for a reason and that winning matches is what makes one a good player. If someone wants to watch Petra Kvitova abort forehands all day and hit 60+ errors in a straight-set win rather than see someone engage in rallies and change pace and angle, go for it. But don't tell me Kvitova is superior, because that's just being wrong, and I try to correct that when I see it.

Dominic
Oct 20th, 2009, 04:45 AM
Yeah i did have a point. This line was the one that pissed me off:
"they will always lose to an agressive player that is on their game"
That is a bunch of crap. I'll wait for your "A" game and i'll do my thing with pushing the balls all around the court and i'll show you how a good pusher can drive crazy the best agressive player there is. It's all about good movement and being smart enough and believe me, it's a great feeling when this agressive player strikes the ball so hard and yet i'm running down all of his shots. Mostly i'm playing like a counter puncher, but still i like to be agressive and push a little bit when it's needed.Plus there's no need to call me weirdo. I'm pretty normal, happy guy. Playing tennis for almost 21 years now(i'm 25) gave me so much...so please, respect me the same way as i respect you.

Ok first calling my post crap and being so sure you could beat me easily without even knowing me is not respectful at all, and its also very weird, hence, I called you that. Second, dont act like you can teach me anything in tennis. You dont have a clue about me, You dont know that I can play great defensive tennis and that I still enjoy hitting hard and lots of winners way more. Like I said I had a regional ranking and teach tennis and played and been successful in regional tournaments, so keep your tennis lessons and your "It's all about good movement and being smart enough and believe me, it's a great feeling when this agressive player strikes the ball so hard and yet i'm running down all of his shots." to yourself. I know all of that and I prefer to be agressive. Also, when I say a pusher will always lose against an agressive player who is on theyre game, I was obviously talking about players with comparable levels, or rankings. of course Wozniacky could beat an agressive player ranked 800 in the world but put her against an on form Venus or Sharapova and she will lose.

Donny
Oct 20th, 2009, 05:05 AM
This is silly.

Just because something is effective doesn't mean you have to enjoy watching it.

And moreover, you don't get to tell someone what 'pusher' means.

Apoleb
Oct 20th, 2009, 05:44 AM
You missed my point. I don't begrudge people their preference of player or style. I DO begrudge people being biased or stupid, who say Na Li (or Li Na, I've gotten bored remembering which way is Chinese and which way is European) is better than Wozniacki, when every piece of evidence says the contrary, or posters who call Hantuchova superior to Wozniacki on the grounds that she hits bigger groundstrokes.

I don't care if someone thinks Wozniacki's game is like watching paint dry (well, actually, I guess I care a little because my estimation of him or her decreases, and my curiosity about paint in his or her country increases) as long as he or she has enough sense to recognize that she's a top 10 player for a reason and that winning matches is what makes one a good player. If someone wants to watch Petra Kvitova abort forehands all day and hit 60+ errors in a straight-set win rather than see someone engage in rallies and change pace and angle, go for it. But don't tell me Kvitova is superior, because that's just being wrong, and I try to correct that when I see it.

I wasn't contradicting your point anyhow as much as pointing my view. But in any case, "better" can be very subjective. They're better according to standards weighed differently than yours. They aren't as successful (or effective overall), and that's as objective as one can be.

I just find it funny how so many people take the "pusher" thing so seriously. Hell, even Dinara's coach used the word when he was speaking to her in Tokyo. "stop pushing the serve" :lol: It's just a degratory term for players with a very boring game. Oh and Wozniacki isn't really a master of "changing pace and angles". She's a master of getting the ball beyond the service line.

OsloErik
Oct 20th, 2009, 05:57 AM
Just because something is effective doesn't mean you have to enjoy watching it.

Just as something you don't enjoy watching isn't always devoid of tactics, skill, and 'goodness'.

I wasn't contradicting your point anyhow as much as pointing my view. But in any case, "better" can be very subjective. They're better according to standards weighed differently than yours. They aren't as successful (or effective overall), and that's as objective as one can be.

I just find it funny how so many people take the "pusher" thing so seriously. Hell, even Dinara's coach used the word when he was speaking to her in Tokyo. "stop pushing the serve" :lol: It's just a degratory term for players with a very boring game. Oh and Wozniacki isn't really a master of "changing pace and angles". She's a master of getting the ball beyond the service line.

Fair enough. I still think using the word "better" requires objectivity, and a lot of pushers are objectively better than their more aggressive peers.

I'll amend my Wozniacki comment to "changing pace and depth". Very few players consistently force an opponent to step four feet inside the baseline, then four beyond the baseline, and yo-yo them up and down like that, all the while adjusting the speed. Part of why she does well against players with sloppy footwork, even if they are fast. She really makes you focus on the small things in a game, and a lot of the bigger hitters have neglected the development needed to handle those little things.

darrinbaker00
Oct 20th, 2009, 05:59 AM
This is silly.
That's what I like about it. :bounce:

Just because something is effective doesn't mean you have to enjoy watching it.
No, but you should respect it.

And moreover, you don't get to tell someone what 'pusher' means.
No, YOU don't get to tell someone what it means. I do. :p

~Eclipsed~
Oct 20th, 2009, 08:47 AM
There's no courage in going out and NOT THINKING. Thats essentially what many "ball-bashers" do - it takes no courage at all to swing for the fences, because your brain is not engaged in the action of hitting the ball. Obviously I'm not talking about anyone NEAR the top of the game, but in tight situations, even top players "go for broke"; commentators say it takes more courage, and I agree, to consistently keep the ball IN PLAY in important points. Its easy to shut your brain off and blast a forehand.

I think that varies from player to player. I.E. my favorite (Venus) is an aggressive player, but when she gets tight she gets tenative which ends up getting her in trouble. She should blast away in tight situations because that's her game as long as she positions herself correctly.

I don't know what commentators you're talking about, but all I know is with the exception of a few players like Dokic, Sharapova, etc. most players just try to keep the ball in play when they get tight. Logically, because most would prefer to wait for an error from their opponent instead of going for a shot and making the error themself.

donniedarkofan
Oct 20th, 2009, 10:15 AM
Ok first calling my post crap and being so sure you could beat me easily without even knowing me is not respectful at all, and its also very weird, hence, I called you that. Second, dont act like you can teach me anything in tennis. You dont have a clue about me, You dont know that I can play great defensive tennis and that I still enjoy hitting hard and lots of winners way more. Like I said I had a regional ranking and teach tennis and played and been successful in regional tournaments, so keep your tennis lessons and your "It's all about good movement and being smart enough and believe me, it's a great feeling when this agressive player strikes the ball so hard and yet i'm running down all of his shots." to yourself. I know all of that and I prefer to be agressive. Also, when I say a pusher will always lose against an agressive player who is on theyre game, I was obviously talking about players with comparable levels, or rankings. of course Wozniacky could beat an agressive player ranked 800 in the world but put her against an on form Venus or Sharapova and she will lose.

Well, english is not my native language, therefore you should be aware that there is a possibility that my intentions are different than the actual outcome of my post(s). I never said your post was crap, i pointed out one line that made me say:"crap".
You know, me saying that i can beat you at tennis is exactly the same what you did with saying that any pusher will lose against "on fire" agressive player. As a tennis player you should know that saying this kind of stuff make you look like a tennis rookie.
Womens tennis is completely different than mens, and i was thinking about mens tennis as i am a men. In womens game there is a huge disproportion in strenght, some women are very strong and some are, well...weak. I'm talking about fisical strenght. So it's easy to assume that Wozniacki will lose against Serena Williams when shes on fire. But, in mens tennis saying stuff like that is unproffesional. We can't say the same thing about Murray and any other agressive player, the same goes for Chang back in the day ETC. I wanted to show you, that you're wrong. I played against some of the best in tennis when i was 14 and 15. I played court to court with Murray and Nadal when we were all kids, i've seen stuff. Of course anyone can say this, you don't have to believe me, but i get emotional when people say things like you do.

I will say this again - an excellent pusher ranked in top 5 in ATP can beat any agressive player in ATP's Top 5. The same goes for players ranked below...It's all about good tactics and being fast. If you can play deep balls, run the balls down all the time and use your opponent strength, you can win against the best agressive player there is. Period. However, if you're to slow, or your balls aren't deep enough, or your shots selection isn't right, then an AVERAGE player can beat you easily.

Corswandt
Oct 20th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Nadal is :tape:

I saw most of the Shanghai final yesterday and Nudd-Ahl hit a grand total of 1 (one) winners in the first eight games of the match, and had King Kolya not saved that SP, Nudd-Ahl might have taken it hitting a total of 2 (two) winners. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. Playing any more passively than Nudd-Ahl did there would be a logical impossibility.

Singleniacki
Nov 3rd, 2010, 07:07 AM
Bump.

I still think they aren't :lol:

Maryamator
Nov 3rd, 2010, 08:47 AM
It needs extreme patience to build up a consistent playing style.

"pushing" is consistent and is sometimes more tiring than blasting winners

it is true that watching pushers is boring, but let's not underestimate their abilities

rockstar
Nov 3rd, 2010, 11:18 AM
:lol: at people saying that they prefer power athletic play
it's definitely takes less athletic skills to whack the ball and pray it goes in than to run and get everything back

Corswandt
Nov 3rd, 2010, 11:19 AM
it's definitely takes less athletic skills to whack the ball and pray it goes in than to run and get everything back

Myth.

goldenlox
Nov 3rd, 2010, 11:35 AM
I would think a lot of young players dont have a big weapon.
So having a #1 who plays great defense is something they can use as a model.

You certainly need to be fit and focused if you cant hit a monster serve or forehand.

I would expect Caroline is becoming a role model to a lot of young players

C. W. Fields
Nov 3rd, 2010, 01:19 PM
PU - SHER who says
....NI

http://www.tennisforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=56948&d=1288789370

Disrespect her at your own risk!

laurie
Nov 3rd, 2010, 01:59 PM
I would think a lot of young players dont have a big weapon.
So having a #1 who plays great defense is something they can use as a model.

You certainly need to be fit and focused if you cant hit a monster serve or forehand.

I would expect Caroline is becoming a role model to a lot of young players

History has shown that players who get to the very top with an exclusively counter punching style of play burn out relatively early in their careers and then struggle until retirement.

On the mens side you have Lleyton Hewitt, Michael Chang and Jim Courier (Courier was not a counterpuncher per se but was forced into that role when he played Sampras in those slam meetings and he hated it and his career suffered). Bjorn Borg achieved an incredible amount but that style of play took its toll phsyically and mentally, at the age of 26 he was finished.

On the womens side both Martina Hingis and Arantxa Sanchez were no longer competitive at relatively early ages.

I think Caroline is aware of this and is trying to do something about it by aquiring a bigger serve and looking to go for winners a bit more.

The problem for Caroline is that because her instinct is to counter punch, in the crunch situations, she goes back to her instincts. That could prevent her from winning lots of slam titles in future.

Caroline also really has no excuse to be a counter puncher because she is blessed with a physique to be a more aggressive player. Historically counter punchers tended to be shorter and so acquired a consistent style of play and determination to take them far.

Its a modern phenomenon for tall players to be counter punchers because in the mens game, Andy Murray and Gael Monfils also have similar issues which they are both trying to address, which so far has prevented both talented guys getting to the very top. Rafael Nadal is the only counter puncher I've seen who's willed himself to become more aggressive in crunch situations.

I don't expect to see many younger players adopting Caroline Wozniacki's style of play.

ElusiveChanteuse
Nov 3rd, 2010, 02:03 PM
If Wozniacki can push it to a new level (like winning slams constantly), I don't think it's impossible for people to realize it actually also is another good style of playing.:shrug:

rockstar
Nov 3rd, 2010, 02:40 PM
Myth.

you are telling me that someone like kleybanova or rezai is more athletic than clijsters, wozniacki or jankovic?

Patrick345
Nov 3rd, 2010, 03:14 PM
There are certain aspects of Wozniackis game you obviously have and can respect

- she is extremely fit.
- she is moving very well for a big girl, So well that people forget her size.
- she has a great court awareness and intuition to always play the right ball from a defensive position.
- she has a better serve than most pushers.

She has almost mastered that style of play to perfection, but there is the obvious flaw of all pushers, that she is at the mercy of her opponents. That her forehand can be broken down, that creative players like Schiavone can out-smart her, that powerful players can out-hit her. I donīt think she is as mentally tough as many believe. Itīs just that playing defensive tennis is less "Choking" prone than constructing and finishing points offensively. She often loses her ways, when the opponents are playing well and donīt make errors.

Corswandt
Nov 3rd, 2010, 03:21 PM
you are telling me that someone like kleybanova or rezai is more athletic than clijsters, wozniacki or jankovic?

I saw the word "skills". Now I see you meant fitness.

Corswandt
Nov 3rd, 2010, 03:23 PM
Itīs just that playing defensive tennis is less "Choking" prone than constructing and finishing points offensively.

This is something I've been saying for years, but I never seem to get anyone in here to agree with me until now.

Brena
Nov 3rd, 2010, 03:27 PM
you are telling me that someone like kleybanova or rezai is more athletic than clijsters, wozniacki or jankovic?

Strangely enough, Alisa can defend, and hit winners on the run out of defensive positions, better than those three. However, she obviously can't do it on regular basis, and I'm not sure if she's fit enough when it comes to playing several matches in a row.

n1_and_uh_noone
Nov 3rd, 2010, 03:44 PM
History has shown that players who get to the very top with an exclusively counter punching style of play burn out relatively early in their careers and then struggle until retirement.

On the mens side you have Lleyton Hewitt, Michael Chang and Jim Courier (Courier was not a counterpuncher per se but was forced into that role when he played Sampras in those slam meetings and he hated it and his career suffered). Bjorn Borg achieved an incredible amount but that style of play took its toll phsyically and mentally, at the age of 26 he was finished.

On the womens side both Martina Hingis and Arantxa Sanchez were no longer competitive at relatively early ages.


I am sure Caroline would gladly have any of these careers in a heartbeat. Hopefully, winning a Slam soon will get her to add more to her game. She does need extra oomph in her game, after all ASV and Hingis (while winning Slams) did not have to contend with as many power merchants in their time.

Fuzzylogic
Nov 3rd, 2010, 04:26 PM
All I'll say is I'd rather watch a mentally stable, consistent pusher than an erratic mental flake who's a good ballstriker, but only in patches. Doesn't really mean I enjoy pushing though.

goldenlox
Nov 3rd, 2010, 04:37 PM
All I'll say is I'd rather watch a mentally stable, consistent pusher than an erratic mental flake who's a good ballstriker, but only in patches. Doesn't really mean I enjoy pushing though.
Its not either/or. Its both. There will always be players like Petrova and Kvitova. They can hit huge winners and will come thru the juniors onto the pro tour.

But there is also a place for players who can wear down the big hitters, and dont mind prolonging rallies and waiting for the right opportunities.

And I think a lot of kids will watch Wozniacki and try to incorporate some of what she is doing.

MB.
Nov 3rd, 2010, 04:38 PM
Let's recap how to win points in tennis:
1.) Hit the ball.
2.) You win the point if the ball falls in the court and bounces twice before your opponent hits it or if your opponent hits the ball out or in the net.

The main thing is; you win points the way you know how to win points best. For example, payers like Ana would never be able to be 'pushers'--they're not built for it. Each player has their own way of winning points, none more or less respectable than any other.

Sammo
Nov 3rd, 2010, 05:00 PM
No, but they are mediocre players who offer almost no entertainment for those who like watching quality tennis.

madmax
Nov 3rd, 2010, 05:07 PM
No, but they are mediocre players who offer almost no entertainment for those who like watching quality tennis.

this:worship: I'd much rather watch a headcase ballbaher who is capable of producing screaming winners than some boring ass talentless grinder - tennis like all the sports is entertainment first and foremost, and no one wants to see 100 Pushniackis grinding each other to death in endless rallies.

Sammo
Nov 3rd, 2010, 05:16 PM
this:worship: I'd much rather watch a headcase ballbaher who is capable of producing screaming winners than some boring ass talentless grinder - tennis like all the sports is entertainment first and foremost, and no one wants to see 100 Pushniackis grinding each other to death in endless rallies.

Agree I had so much fan watching Mirjana Lucic's match against Jankovic, she was hitting the ball like she was nuts

goldenlox
Nov 3rd, 2010, 05:23 PM
Tv networks are going to put Wozniacki on before they put Lucic on.

I think plenty of young players coming up will be copying Wozniacki. Her style works in today's game.

Sammo
Nov 3rd, 2010, 06:31 PM
Tv networks are going to put Wozniacki on before they put Lucic on.

I think plenty of young players coming up will be copying Wozniacki. Her style works in today's game.

Uh yeah, Wozniacki world number 1, Lucic world number 98... But if Lucic was world number 2 she would be much more popular than Wozniacki because her game is actually fun to watch.

madmax
Nov 3rd, 2010, 06:36 PM
Uh yeah, Wozniacki world number 1, Lucic world number 98... But if Lucic was world number 2 she would be much more popular than Wozniacki because her game is actually fun to watch.

I'd bet all my money that even if Sharapova was ranked 118, she would still attract more TV viewers than MS Boringniacki:lol:

Bingain
Nov 3rd, 2010, 08:15 PM
Uh yeah, Wozniacki world number 1, Lucic world number 98... But if Lucic was world number 2 she would be much more popular than Wozniacki because her game is actually fun to watch.

I :hearts: Lucic, but dude, wake up. If Lucic were #2:eek:, Wozzy would hit 48 winners :bowdown: and 8 aces :bowdown:every match.

Anyway. Getting back on topic. I believe the term "Pusher" had existed before Wozzy hit her first ball. There were/are/will be much behated grandpas/mamas at the clubs who still use Pro Staff Originals and wearing $2 tees but consisting beating younger and powerful hitters using latest racquets and wearing fashionable dresses--by doing nothing but pushing. :fiery: There are reasons why these "pushers" are hated. There are reasons why the term "pusher" has been so dismissive. Well beings get trashed... this is pathetic and end of the world.:sobbing:

Two contradicting concepts always wrestle in sports. On one hand, they want glamor; they want spectacular shots; they want magic. Because this is what draws spectators. OTOH, players, teams, franchises, they want, besides attacks, impenetrable defense. Why? Because magic alone doesn't win games/matches/championships. Sometimes we get them all in a package, other times we don't. Some best talents were not, are not, and will not be all time greats. :sad: :sobbing:

Time comes when we don't have any really special new talents--no new Hingis, no new Mandlíkova. And if only Safina had half of her bro's talent. :help: Okay, we got a Sharapova. And for every Sharapova, there came 100 Errorpovas. We got an Ivanovic, and 500 Headlessovic. They are the ones flooding the fields. Some of you guys prefer an Errorpova. I couldn't watch error fest without breaking a screen. I ended up picking up a "pusher." To each of his own though.

Anyhow, with the charting and financial success of Wozzy, I won't be surprised to see waves of new pushers flooding the fields. And then, when pushers become norms, and more often than not tourneys are won by them, the term will likely become norm, something good. Until a different talent breaks the norm? Maybe the new talent will be labeled "bitch pitbull?":tape:

Hian
Nov 3rd, 2010, 08:38 PM
They aren't good for tennis, but if people like them :rolleyes:

MB.
Nov 3rd, 2010, 08:40 PM
I believe the term "Pusher" had existed before Wozzy hit her first ball. There were/are/will be much behated grandpas/mamas at the clubs who still use Pro Staff Originals and wearing $2 tees but consisting beating younger and powerful hitters using latest racquets and wearing fashionable dresses--by doing nothing but pushing.

Wait, you mean wearing 'fashionable dresses' doesn't make you a better player? :eek: Someone send Masha the memo, stat!

Jakeev
Nov 3rd, 2010, 09:24 PM
I had mad respect for "pusher" Anna Smashnova. She did everything she could to be a successful tennis player with limited abilities and she still won several titles and beat many a big-hitting player.

Too bad she was injury prone though because I think she still could have had good results today if she were still around.

guapogreg08
Nov 3rd, 2010, 09:29 PM
Let's recap how to win points in tennis:
1.) Hit the ball.
2.) You win the point if the ball falls in the court and bounces twice before your opponent hits it or if your opponent hits the ball out or in the net.

The main thing is; you win points the way you know how to win points best. For example, payers like Ana would never be able to be 'pushers'--they're not built for it. Each player has their own way of winning points, none more or less respectable than any other.

I'm sorry, but your final statement is just unequivocally false. It takes an infinite amount more of skill and talent to be a player with a complete game. Complete with tactics, power, precision, speed, etc. A player who simply runs back and forth, while obviously possessing some degree of the aforementioned attributes,"pushing" the ball back to the other side of the court, lacks a certain dexterity than players with a more complete game. Obviously, much of this, to a degree, is subjective, but some aspects, like how much power one can generate, are inarguable.

oomph
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:57 AM
This is a typical case of people trying to be different IMO. They see a majority of people thinking one way and subconsciously steer to the other direction while trying to rationalize it with a seemingly logical excuse.

Point is, "defensive baseliners" or pushers are inferior to more offensive by definition for the following reasons:

1. Offensive players are just way more successful.

2. Defensive pushing fests are pathetic to watch.

3. Offensive players don't have to depend on their opponents mistake.

If a "defensive baseliner" is better than and offensive player, it's because she is exceptionally good in another area.

People say Wozniacki's style is working for her, but it doesn't: she only reached the semis of a slam once this year and it's the only one she has ever reached. Her record against top players is terrible.

Being mentally stable enough to survive an onslaught of chokers is no compliment to your game.

I thought people trying and being able to win on their own terms against stiff opposition where universally regarded higher.

And LOL at Nadal being a pusher/similar to Wozniacki.

stangtennis
Nov 4th, 2010, 03:42 AM
she only reached the semis of a slam once this year and it's the only one she has ever reached.
No, where were you during last years US Open? She reached the final, so this years US Open is not the only slam semi-final she ever reached.

Dominic
Nov 4th, 2010, 05:11 AM
I think they're respected too much :)

Setsuna.
Nov 4th, 2010, 06:49 AM
It's a valid way to play, and nothing to be ashamed of. But it will only get you so far, because if your opponent is playing towards their highest level you simply won't be able to beat them. A style of play that rests almost entirely on how well your opponent is playing seems a bizzare option at Grand Slam level for example. Pushers do not win slams.

To answer the OP's question, I don't think it's that pushing isn't respected, It just doesn't have as much respect as other styles of play.

100% agreed.:yeah:

Juju Nostalgique
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:12 PM
Should they??? :confused: :shrug: :scratch:

Matt01
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:25 PM
People say Wozniacki's style is working for her, but it doesn't:


LOL!!!!11

oomph
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:34 PM
No, where were you during last years US Open? She reached the final, so this years US Open is not the only slam semi-final she ever reached.

Has she ever reached a SF in Wimbledon? FO? AO?

:wavey:

Matt01
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Has she ever reached a SF in Wimbledon? FO? AO?

:wavey:


Has she ever reached the #1 ranking? :wavey:

Oh, wait...:tape:

oomph
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:45 PM
Has she ever reached the #1 ranking? :wavey:

Oh, wait...:tape:

Who gives a shit, honestly. That proves that the WTA ranking criteria are ridiculous, not that she is fantastic.

Matt01
Nov 4th, 2010, 12:50 PM
Who gives a shit, honestly. That proves that the WTA ranking criteria are ridiculous, not that she is fantastic.


I do give a shit and I'm sure lots of other people do, too. :shrug: And if anything it proves that Caro's style is working for her because otherwise she would not have made it so far.

goldenlox
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:04 PM
Caro is the 10th YE #1. And she is 20. Vera is #2. A lot of wins by players who dont have a big weapon.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:08 PM
Caro is the 10th YE #1. And she is 20. Vera is #2. A lot of wins by players who dont have a big weapon.

Don't you ever get sick of posting the same message over and over again? Seriously just put it in your sig. :lol: It'd save a lot of time.

goldenlox
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:10 PM
Caro is only YE #1 for a few days. I couldnt have said it that much.
Yet.

Lord Choc Ice
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:13 PM
Caro is only YE #1 for a few days. I couldnt have said it that much.
Yet.

Believe me you have.

Hian
Nov 4th, 2010, 01:49 PM
I think they're respected too much :)

:bounce:

madmax
Nov 4th, 2010, 02:02 PM
Has she ever reached the #1 ranking? :wavey:

Oh, wait...:tape:

Well, Safina reached Nr.1 ranking as well...:wavey:
Look where is she now...oh wait:sad:

Matt01
Nov 4th, 2010, 02:18 PM
Well, Safina reached Nr.1 ranking as well...:wavey:
Look where is she now...oh wait:sad:


Aren't you a Sharapova fan? Don't throw with stones when you're sitting in the glashouse...

tea
Nov 4th, 2010, 02:41 PM
Who gives a shit, honestly. That proves that the WTA ranking criteria are ridiculous, not that she is fantastic.
About everybody, honestly. With just a couple of exceptions. First is, a group of those whose faves never reached to #1 even though they're kinda better players than Caro. Here where the source of endless bitterness comes from...:lol: Second group is, a bunch of people who think their faves are far superior to the others, because they "been there, won it all"; how ironic is that they are trying to diminish #1 importance now, while certainly years back they were jumping all around praising this achievement of reaching #1. Must hurt that their faves are not in their early 20s anymore.:sad:

Jajaloo
Nov 4th, 2010, 02:49 PM
To answer the OP, no pushers are not respected enough on TF.

Curcubeu
Nov 4th, 2010, 03:18 PM
No, of course they are not respected, at least not on this forum :o

How often did I read haters cheering that Alex withdrew from some tournaments or being defeated on HC, just because she is a very defensive player. :rolleyes:

But I think professionals or other insiders respect them very much, because they know that "pushing" is not less diffficult than "ballbashing" :)

CWTennis
Nov 4th, 2010, 07:58 PM
I respect them a lot! :worship:
And I love when other players choke against them! :devil::lol:

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9607/jj1s.gif

kiwifan
Nov 5th, 2010, 12:47 AM
Pushers should be running cross country meets instead of ruining a creative dynamic sport like tennis. :p

Sp!ffy
Nov 5th, 2010, 01:02 AM
Real pushing doesn't exist in the professional game.

That's the sort of stuff you see in highschool tennis.