PDA

View Full Version : Wozniacki vs Radwanska - IW SF: What Defines a 'Pusher'?


Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 03:53 AM
Can somebody who actually watch tis match, explain to me what defines either of these players as a 'pusher'? They are both trying to be offensive. They are both displaying great variety-of-shot. Can somebody please, using this match as an example, explain what a pusher is?

To me, this looks like two highly skilled players who can;'t hit a 100 mph groundie.

thegreendestiny
Mar 20th, 2010, 03:55 AM
I saw that point. It was an anomaly from their usual play and does not change anything. :shrug:

Infiniti2001
Mar 20th, 2010, 03:59 AM
I dunno, but I enjoy watching Radwanska :shrug: A better serve and a little more power, and she can make some real noise.

n1ko0
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:03 AM
I post this at 6-2 3-2 in the 2nd.

Can somebody who actually watch tis match, explain to me what defines either of these players as a 'pusher'? They are both trying to be offensive. They are both displaying great variety-of-shot. Can somebody please, using this match as an example, explain what a pusher is?

To me, this looks like two highly skilled players who can;'t hit a 100 mph groundie.

agreed! :worship: they are both trying really hard and producing some really good rallies, haters just want to hate and need to get over themselves. and im not only saying this as a caro fan but also as a tennis fan

dybbuk
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:05 AM
Wozniacki isn't playing like a pusher tonight because she doesn't need to. Radwanska hits with too little pace. :shrug: Hence why Caroline seems to be quite a big hitter in comparison during some of these rallies. Wozniacki only plays like that when she's playing a big name, then she sits back and waits for her errors.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:07 AM
I saw that point. It was an anomaly from their usual play and does not change anything. :shrug:With apologies if English isn't your first language, I'm not talking about any one point. It's a set and a half of tennis by now.

What defines this brand of tennis as 'pushing'?

moby
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:10 AM
Wozniacki is playing her usual game. Heavy topspin with a lot of margin. Radwanska's incompetence in dealing with any kind of topspin bouncing above shoulder height is what's making Wozniacki look remotely aggressive. It's hard not to be aggressive when your opponent is giving up all these short paceless puffballs.

thegreendestiny
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:12 AM
With apologies if English isn't your first language, I'm not talking about any one point. It's a set and a half of tennis by now.

What defines this brand of tennis as 'pushing'?

English is my fourth language. I was referring to a certain point somewhere in that period. :wavey:

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:16 AM
Wozniacki isn't playing like a pusher tonight because she doesn't need toWhich brings back the inital question. What IS playing like a 'pusher'? If Wozniacki isn't doing it, are you saying Radwanska is? And if so, can you please explain it? The example is right in front of you, if true.
Wozniacki only plays like that when she's playing a big name, then she sits back and waits for her errors.If you generate enough pace, and have enough placement, you can sit back and wait for errors from anyone. Go look at Chris Evert tapes from 1974.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:22 AM
English is my fourth language. I was referring to a certain point somewhere in that period.Plaudits. Now that you understand that I'mreferring to an entire match, not just ie point, care to comment?

King Halep
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:37 AM
second set was quite entertaining. Aga had to attack more because she couldnt outrally Caro, but she just had too many errors. Made a few easy misses on break points. If it was pushing it wasnt boring.

thegreendestiny
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:41 AM
Plaudits. Now that you understand that I'mreferring to an entire match, not just ie point, care to comment?

That point is still a reflection of the entire match. Even if they are trying to be very aggressive throughout, it is still anomalous to their game play. One match doesn't change anything at all. Remember Caroline's AO campaign this year?

stangtennis
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:55 AM
Unforced errors Winners Aces Double faults
Caro 25 21 4 0
Aga 38 18 1 2

Bruno71
Mar 20th, 2010, 05:07 AM
On this board, a "pusher" is one of 2 things:

1) A player who doesn't risk going for a winner every time they can. This match is a good example of that from both sides.
2) A euphemism for "fucking bitch."

EIther way, it's best ignored.

TennisFan66
Mar 20th, 2010, 02:54 PM
I post this at 6-2 3-2 in the 2nd.

Can somebody who actually watch tis match, explain to me what defines either of these players as a 'pusher'? They are both trying to be offensive. They are both displaying great variety-of-shot. Can somebody please, using this match as an example, explain what a pusher is?

To me, this looks like two highly skilled players who can;'t hit a 100 mph groundie.

...........

I watched the match, but has given up with the WUM pusher comments. Haters use 'Pushniacki' as an insult. Well, know what. The girl is now ranked 2 in the world. She's 19 yr of age. Still improving and making lots of $$. Oh and rather easy on the eye too.

So there's a lot to hate. IMHO the pusher comments are just used by plastic fans, who doesn't know tennis well. They don't know what else to say. They have nothing worth saying to say. So they call someone a 'pusher', when they don't like her.

Such 'fans' are easy to spot and impossible to have any rational dialogue with. So best just to ignore.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 04:06 PM
Hey Admins - Any chance you could put this thread back in General Messages. I accept the need to move it. It could be interpreted as a scoring thread. But that was not my intent, Rather, it seemed an opportune example of a match that could contribute to the ongoing debate about whether 'pusher' is a legit term. I could always start a new thread, but out of fairness to those who responded to this one, I make the request.

angliru
Mar 20th, 2010, 06:03 PM
Pusher -s
noun
Term used by so-called tennisfans about tennisplayers who use brainpower, commitment, skills, tactics, a great variety of shots, and precision in the execution of these shots instead of a neanderthal-like gameplan based solely on physical strength.

fouc
Mar 20th, 2010, 06:52 PM
Pusher -s
noun
Term used by so-called tennisfans about tennisplayers who use brainpower, commitment, skills, tactics, a great variety of shots, and precision in the execution of these shots instead of a neanderthal-like gameplan based solely on physical strength.

I added this to Urban Dictionary, hope you don't mind :)

Viktymise
Mar 20th, 2010, 07:08 PM
On this board, a "pusher" is one of 2 things:

1) A player who doesn't risk going for a winner every time they can. This match is a good example of that from both sides.
2) A euphemism for "fucking bitch."

EIther way, it's best ignored.

I see you've really given alot of thought to that theory.

Nicolás89
Mar 20th, 2010, 07:25 PM
I think pusher is a term used only on this forum, so it doesn't mean anything really.....:shrug:

moby
Mar 20th, 2010, 07:42 PM
Pusher -s
noun
Term used by so-called tennisfans about tennisplayers who use brainpower, commitment, skills, tactics, a great variety of shots, and precision in the execution of these shots instead of a neanderthal-like gameplan based solely on physical strength.In that case, our bad. Wozniacki is definitely not a pusher... she is... something ... else...

serenafan08
Mar 20th, 2010, 07:43 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't think Wozniacki isn't a pusher? I've seen her play a lot, and it looks to me like she's trying to hit with pace, she's trying to hit deep. She just doesn't have as much pace as the other girls. I actually like her game; her strokes are nice and smooth (at least I think they are). To me she's not a pusher, she's just a girl who is trying hit with pace but can't.

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 08:41 PM
I think pusher is a term used only on this forum, so it doesn't mean anything really.....:shrug:Having seen it, I know there's a video where one of the top players, I think Wozniacki, laughs about the fact that people call her that. So the term has leaked away from here. Or it's evidence that some players do view this forum, (though I doubt any of them post).

Volcana
Mar 20th, 2010, 08:48 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't think Wozniacki isn't a pusher?We haven't had a decent definition of the term yet, so who knows? She's not a passive player. But neither is Radwanska (elder) or Jankovic.

What all three share is that, when up against a power baseliner who can really hit deep from corner-to-corner, they all three have trouble constructing their offense. Martina Hingis, post-2000, shared this problem. You could beat her into submission.

But when not up against that particular style of player, when that player is having a good day, the variety of these player's games does come out.

Viktymise
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:11 PM
She's [Wozniacki] not a passive player. But neither is Radwanska.

:spit:

The Dawntreader
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:16 PM
That final point of the second game of the second set, i think is really indicative of the complaints people have addressed about Wozniacki's game.

No courage at all to finish points. I'm a cynic perhaps, but 10 years ago you had audacious juniors, players who had the inclination to WIN rallies and impose themselves on rallies and ultimately their opponents. It's such a waste for Wozniacki IMO to play with such passivity and such restraint.

It would be unheard of even 5 years ago to see IW semi-finalists playing in this ilk. It's not tactical, it just seems like pure regression.

Apoleb
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:19 PM
I can't believe we're at this again. Probably no one takes the term as seriously as Volcana does anyway.

Pushing is a strategy, and it basically consists of getting back the balls with enough depth that you "force" your opponent to come up with mid-low percentage shot in order to break through. It's a skill, no doubt about that. But a skill that makes the matches ugly to watch. And it's not equivalent to dynamic tactics and point building strategy.

No one plays like a "pusher" all the time. But some players employ it more frequently than others, and some are really good at it. Wozniacki is among those.

Apoleb
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:31 PM
Having seen it, I know there's a video where one of the top players, I think Wozniacki, laughs about the fact that people call her that. So the term has leaked away from here. Or it's evidence that some players do view this forum, (though I doubt any of them post).

lol @ TF inventing pushing.

I've seen players and coaches using it a few times in coaching breaks. Even Chris Evert described ASV's tactics at one point in the RG final of 98 as "pushing."

tennisbum79
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:46 PM
I think pusher is a term used only on this forum, so it doesn't mean anything really.....:shrug:
No.

This term has been around for sometime now.
Even club or public park players use the term as a way to separate good hit parteners from someone nobody want to hit with.

Among men, it is synonym with inadequte supply of testosterone.

Among young boys, it means someone who plays like a girl.
I saw a documentary on tennis channel about boys 10-14 years old at Bolletery Academy were cusing this term to convey why they dreaded playing some players.


BTW, mathias, your bad rep was unncessary.
Just post your argument in the open discussion.

TheAllan
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:47 PM
That final point of the second game of the second set, i think is really indicative of the complaints people have addressed about Wozniacki's game.

No courage at all to finish points. I'm a cynic perhaps, but 10 years ago you had audacious juniors, players who had the inclination to WIN rallies and impose themselves on rallies and ultimately their opponents. It's such a waste for Wozniacki IMO to play with such passivity and such restraint.
The long rally at 40-30 (Wozniacki serving)? Don't get that example at all. That was a quality point, with lots of changes in angles and pace, especially from Wozniacki's backhand. She only hesitated once after hitting a big forehand which Radwanska only barely returned with a high, deep ball. Yes, she could have opted for a smash, but that was far from an easy put-away. Hitting it directly would be a very risky shot, and by letting it bounce she would have needed to smash it from behind the baseline. Again high-risk after an exhausting rally, and Radwanska almost certainly could have returned it. She went for a safer route, which turned out to be the smart decision as Radwanska was just as tired and soon made a mistake.

However, I saw plenty of inclination to both dominate and win the rally.

rnwerner
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:55 PM
"Pushing" is nothing bad. It is just "bad" to watch for some of us (me too) or to play against a so-called pusher.

Credit to Wozniacki, she deserves her ranking and her success.
But i just don't like her style of tennis.

rnwerner
Mar 20th, 2010, 09:56 PM
In my opinion, Dulgheru is a pusher by definition.

Corswandt
Mar 20th, 2010, 10:35 PM
I think pusher is a term used only on this forum, so it doesn't mean anything really.....:shrug:

The term isn't used only here at TF (unlike say "mug", which seems to be an MTF exclusive), and goes way back. In the essay "Derivative Sport in Tornado Alley", first published in 1992, David Foster Wallace (who was an excellent junior tennis player), describes himself as a pusher:

"I couldn't begin to tell you how many tournament matches I won between the ages of twelve and fifteen against bigger, faster, more coordinated, and better-coached opponents simply by hitting balls unimaginatively back down the middle of the court in schizophrenic gales, letting the other kid play with more verve and panache, waiting for enough of his ambitious balls aimed near the lines to curve or slide via wind outside the green court and white stripe into the raw red territory that won me yet another ugly point. It wasn't pretty or fun to watch, and even with the Illinois wind I never could have won whole matches this way had the opponent not eventually had his small nervous breakdown, buckling under the obvious injustice of losing to shallow-chested "pusher" because of the shitty rural courts and rotten wind that rewarded cautious automatism instead of verve and panache." (pp. 9-10 of the British paperback edition of "A Supposedly Fun Thing...").

Corswandt
Mar 20th, 2010, 10:45 PM
We've already had about 80354325720 threads discussing the definition of "pusher", with the OP's implicit point usually being that a player he/she likes doesn't deserve to be awarded such an ignominious label.

:yawn:

Since we're merely retreading TFs favourite topic, I'll merely repost my own previous reply to it:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=17002228&postcount=13

tennisbum79
Mar 20th, 2010, 10:52 PM
We've already had about 80354325720 threads discussing the definition of "pusher", with the OP's implicit point usually being that a player he/she likes doesn't deserve to be awarded such an ignominious label.

:yawn:

Since we're merely retreading TFs favourite topic, I'll merely repost my own previous reply to it:

http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=17002228&postcount=13
Well put

Viktymise
Mar 20th, 2010, 10:57 PM
We've already had about 80354325720 threads discussing the definition of "pusher", with the OP's implicit point usually being that a player he/she likes doesn't deserve to be awarded such an ignominious label.

:yawn:


In this particular case I feel that the OP knows that said "pushers" are absolutely no match for Serena in any sort of high stake match, yet doesn't want people to hold them in such contempt in fear that down the line when Serena thrashes them in a high stakes match, it can't be said she faced pitiful opposition and her achievements can in no way be diminished.

Corswandt
Mar 20th, 2010, 11:08 PM
In this particular case I feel that the OP knows that said "pushers" are absolutely no match for Serena in any sort of high stake match, yet doesn't want people to hold them in such contempt in fear that down the line when Serena thrashes them in a high stakes match, it can't be said she faced pitiful opposition and her achievements can in no way be diminished.

Good point - heaven forbid someone remarking that, apart from her own sister and a couple of Belgian part-timers, Serena's opposition right now consists of either harmless pushers or mental midgets.

Viktymise
Mar 20th, 2010, 11:18 PM
Good point - heaven forbid someone remarking that, apart from her own sister and a couple of Belgian part-timers, Serena's opposition right now consists of either harmless pushers or mental midgets.

I imagine if a said "pusher" had beaten Serena in a slam final (I know, I know LOLz), this thread wouldn't exist.

Spiritof42
Mar 20th, 2010, 11:32 PM
"Pusher" is one of the most overused terms in this forum.
Wozniacki and Radwanska both have decent defensive skills, and yet they managed to hit a combined 39 winners (21+18) in a 17-game match (6-2 6-3).

Randy H
Mar 20th, 2010, 11:46 PM
The word pusher is heavily over used, but let's try and explain this...

A 'pusher' is someone whose game by nature is to allow their opponents to create errors rather than risk making any of their own. To me, the difference between say Martina Hingis, and Anna Smashnova, is that Hingis, while not a powerhouse, was looking to create a point. Sometimes this was out of her control because she didn't always have the necessary power, but the intent was always there. She hated being pushed around, because she thrived off of toying with an opponent by using court craft. A player like Anna Smashnova *loved* being pushed around, because her goal was to frustrate her opponent into as many errors as possible. She had little intention to her game but to throw up high balls and count on her speed and stamina to grind you down with the same kind of point over and over.

Radwanska lacks power, but when she's matched up against someone who doesn't terribly overpower her, you can see that she uses the court rather well. She can throw in drop shots, move into the net, she changes direction on the ball very well and she'll take her chances when she has them. Wozniacki is much more content to loop the ball up the middle even in rallies where it would appear as though she *could* be taking some chances to go for winners or control the point. Not that she's as defensive as someone like Anna Smashnova, but seeing the points between Radwanska and Wozniacki, Agnieszka is the one who is more willing to try and finish the points, much like a Hingis (albeit a poor man's version ;))

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 20th, 2010, 11:47 PM
"Pusher" is one of the most overused terms in this forum.
Wozniacki and Radwanska both have decent defensive skills, and yet they managed to hit a combined 39 winners (21+18) in a 17-game match (6-2 6-3).

The match lasted for one hour and forty minutes and cosisted of 134 points.

Midnight_Robber
Mar 21st, 2010, 12:58 AM
I certainly won't deny that Caroline is good at her game and very successful at it. But as Apoleb, Corswandt, Randy H and others have pointed out a pusher is different to a crafty counter-puncher. (And Wozniacki fans only have themselves to blame for deliberately inviting comparisons between Caro and Hingis in the first place, which was only going to ever end poorly for Caro.)

In what I saw of the match, Radwanska seemed physically incapable of hitting winners that rely on any kind of power, while her netplay and volleys were dreadful and wildly off that day so she had no way to end the points. (I'm no Radwanska fan, but I've seen her lob and volley much better than she did that day.) But of the two players I agree with Sam H. that Radwanska seemed to be the one who was actually looking to end the points, albeit ineptly.

Caro is quite robust (she is not a 'small' player) has great defense and good speed around the court, and has more base power than Radwanska too but you get the impression that if she could rally forever and a day then she would rather do that than make some kind of decisive play to end the point. There's also little sense of point construction with her. (Someone like JJ gets accused of 'pushing' which she does but when she plays well she'll at least construct the point and create an opening to rifle her bh down the line.) I also agree that everybody pushes at some point or other - you have to - but it's deathly dull to watch when it is a player's central game plan or their A game.

Volcana
Mar 21st, 2010, 01:14 AM
Weeding out all the pre-conceived opinion, and generic vitriol, and going back to my original question, I'm gathering the following

1) That what I saw on court in the Wozniacki-Radwanska IW semi, for the vast majority of the points, wasn't 'pushing'. As it certainly wasn't just returning the ball to the middle of the court, waiting for the opponent's errors, purely defensive, passive play.

2) What some people call 'pushing' has a lot to do with weight of shot. If you hit the ball hard, but usually avoid the lines like the plague, a la Jennifer Capriati, you aren't a pusher, cause you hit hard. Whereas a playing who can't generate a lot of pace, but who has to rely on angles and percentage play, is much likelier to be call a pusher, even if they hit closer to the lines than the player who hits hard.

There have been some other answer in this thread that have beem very informative (thank you Corswandt, Randy H) but they didn't specifically reference last night's match.

I thought that, if there were two 'pushers' on the court, it be obvious all over the place what that was, and so easy for people to point out. There do seem to be those who feel that a 'pusher' is any player who doesn't go for winners in low percentage situations, a usage I find over-broad.

Chakvenus
Mar 21st, 2010, 01:31 AM
I certainly won't deny that Caroline is good at her game and very successful at it. But as Apoleb, Corswandt, Randy H and others have pointed out a pusher is different to a crafty counter-puncher. (And Wozniacki fans only have themselves to blame for deliberately inviting comparisons between Caro and Hingis in the first place, which was only going to ever end poorly for Caro.)

In what I saw of the match, Radwanska seemed physically incapable of hitting winners that rely on any kind of power, while her netplay and volleys were dreadful and wildly off that day so she had no way to end the points. (I'm no Radwanska fan, but I've seen her lob and volley much better than she did that day.) But of the two players I agree with Sam H. that Radwanska seemed to be the one who was actually looking to end the points, albeit ineptly.

Caro is quite robust (she is not a 'small' player) has great defense and good speed around the court, and has more base power than Radwanska too but you get the impression that if she could rally forever and a day then she would rather do that than make some kind of decisive play to end the point. There's also little sense of point construction with her. (Someone like JJ gets accused of 'pushing' which she does but when she plays well she'll at least construct the point and create an opening to rifle her bh down the line.) I also agree that everybody pushes at some point or other - you have to - but it's deathly dull to watch when it is a player's central game plan or their A game.

i agree with this and find it well said.
Caroline does indeed seem capable of good shots, but relies on rallying more often than not while Agnieszka seemed to look for the kill at net (occasionally). Caroline's tactic won last night, and just might whenever these two play in the future, but she really could do a little more construction and become quite a contender, in more eyes than just those of her fans.

Sam L
Mar 21st, 2010, 01:42 AM
The word pusher is heavily over used, but let's try and explain this...

A 'pusher' is someone whose game by nature is to allow their opponents to create errors rather than risk making any of their own. To me, the difference between say Martina Hingis, and Anna Smashnova, is that Hingis, while not a powerhouse, was looking to create a point. Sometimes this was out of her control because she didn't always have the necessary power, but the intent was always there. She hated being pushed around, because she thrived off of toying with an opponent by using court craft. A player like Anna Smashnova *loved* being pushed around, because her goal was to frustrate her opponent into as many errors as possible. She had little intention to her game but to throw up high balls and count on her speed and stamina to grind you down with the same kind of point over and over.

Radwanska lacks power, but when she's matched up against someone who doesn't terribly overpower her, you can see that she uses the court rather well. She can throw in drop shots, move into the net, she changes direction on the ball very well and she'll take her chances when she has them. Wozniacki is much more content to loop the ball up the middle even in rallies where it would appear as though she *could* be taking some chances to go for winners or control the point. Not that she's as defensive as someone like Anna Smashnova, but seeing the points between Radwanska and Wozniacki, Agnieszka is the one who is more willing to try and finish the points, much like a Hingis (albeit a poor man's version ;))

Completely agree with your comments on all players. I also think it's stupid to classify "pushing" as ugly tennis just as much as it is to classify power hitting as ugly tennis.

Slutiana
Mar 21st, 2010, 02:16 AM
In that case, our bad. Wozniacki is definitely not a pusher... she is... something ... else...
:spit: Indeed.


The word pusher is heavily over used, but let's try and explain this...

A 'pusher' is someone whose game by nature is to allow their opponents to create errors rather than risk making any of their own. To me, the difference between say Martina Hingis, and Anna Smashnova, is that Hingis, while not a powerhouse, was looking to create a point. Sometimes this was out of her control because she didn't always have the necessary power, but the intent was always there. She hated being pushed around, because she thrived off of toying with an opponent by using court craft. A player like Anna Smashnova *loved* being pushed around, because her goal was to frustrate her opponent into as many errors as possible. She had little intention to her game but to throw up high balls and count on her speed and stamina to grind you down with the same kind of point over and over.

Radwanska lacks power, but when she's matched up against someone who doesn't terribly overpower her, you can see that she uses the court rather well. She can throw in drop shots, move into the net, she changes direction on the ball very well and she'll take her chances when she has them. Wozniacki is much more content to loop the ball up the middle even in rallies where it would appear as though she *could* be taking some chances to go for winners or control the point. Not that she's as defensive as someone like Anna Smashnova, but seeing the points between Radwanska and Wozniacki, Agnieszka is the one who is more willing to try and finish the points, much like a Hingis (albeit a poor man's version ;))
I agree 100% with this analysis. And the thing is, I have seen enough matches where Wozniacki has been playing in that same gamestyle and, even when getting beaten badly, she is unable and unwilling to change her "strategy" in exactly the same vein as one of these "brainless ball bashers" are unable/unwilling to do.
I certainly won't deny that Caroline is good at her game and very successful at it. But as Apoleb, Corswandt, Randy H and others have pointed out a pusher is different to a crafty counter-puncher. (And Wozniacki fans only have themselves to blame for deliberately inviting comparisons between Caro and Hingis in the first place, which was only going to ever end poorly for Caro.)

In what I saw of the match, Radwanska seemed physically incapable of hitting winners that rely on any kind of power, while her netplay and volleys were dreadful and wildly off that day so she had no way to end the points. (I'm no Radwanska fan, but I've seen her lob and volley much better than she did that day.) But of the two players I agree with Sam H. that Radwanska seemed to be the one who was actually looking to end the points, albeit ineptly.

Caro is quite robust (she is not a 'small' player) has great defense and good speed around the court, and has more base power than Radwanska too but you get the impression that if she could rally forever and a day then she would rather do that than make some kind of decisive play to end the point. There's also little sense of point construction with her. (Someone like JJ gets accused of 'pushing' which she does but when she plays well she'll at least construct the point and create an opening to rifle her bh down the line.) I also agree that everybody pushes at some point or other - you have to - but it's deathly dull to watch when it is a player's central game plan or their A game.
Agreed again. It's actually ridiculous that Aga gets accused of being a pusher. Sure she lacks weight on her strokes, but she's more often than not looking to be proactive and play in ga Hingis-lite x57 role.

Spiritof42
Mar 21st, 2010, 03:04 AM
The match lasted for one hour and forty minutes and cosisted of 134 points.
Yeah, they played a lot of points (many games went to deuce), but even so I think these are respectable numbers. Of course, it will never be good enough for some people...

There do seem to be those who feel that a 'pusher' is any player who doesn't go for winners in low percentage situations, a usage I find over-broad.
Some tennis fans seem to have a very specific (if not downright narrow and rigid) conception of the way the game ought to be played, and feel that anything that doesn't fit their preferred pattern is crap. Their loss, not mine.

Midnight_Robber
Mar 21st, 2010, 04:02 AM
Yeah, they played a lot of points (many games went to deuce), but even so I think these are respectable numbers. Of course, it will never be good enough for some people...

Some tennis fans seem to have a very specific (if not downright narrow and rigid) conception of the way the game ought to be played, and feel that anything that doesn't fit their preferred pattern is crap. Their loss, not mine.

Again, I won't deny that there is a sense of 'how dare that type of tennis defeat the tennis that I deem to be superior' behind some of the complaints with Caro, as well as a near-hysteria about her being number #2 in the world. :o

But there are some of us who don't hate Caro or her game, but aren't attracted to it either and don't find it compelling viewing. If Caro is on and playing a player that I find interesting/enjoyable (i.e. Zheng) - I'll happily watch, but I won't go out of my way to watch her matches in general. She seems pleasant, personable and genuinely popular on the tour. All fine and well. But her particular brand of curiously uninteresting tennis just doesn't do it for me and I'm willing to watch players ranging from Gonzales and del Potro to Monfils and Murray (though the latter in small doses). I can see the worth in both Fed and Rafa's games. I can watch styles as varying Pierce and Dav on the one hand to Hingis and Kournikova on the other. I could watch Sveta (when on) but also appreciated Myskina's craft.

I found JJ quite grating as a personality but I preferred watching her tennis to Ana's - but again, I could also watch Ana (when she was decent). I quite liked Chaky's game (when she was good) yet my overall fav is Venus Williams who I also like to watch (when she's good) and stylistically they're hardly alike. I'd rather watch Justine than Kim any day, but I won't switch off when Kim comes on (unless she's playing a moonballer or a defensive player.) Radwanska's weak shots can be frustrating but when the other parts of her game are working (volleys, drop shots, lobs, angles) I'm willing to watch.

I liked ASV back in the day, alongside Graf, Seles none of whom could be accused of playing alike. I have my preference (attacking, powerful tennis) but that doesn't mean that I don't have room for other styles or don't appreciate them. But at the same time, I'm not obliged to like all styles or follow them (see, Dementieva, Safina, Stosur). My issue with Caro is that I honestly can't see anything distinctive about her tennis - there isn't one part of her game (shot, ability, aspect)that I can point out to and say - this is outstanding/stellar/excellent/idiosyncratic. Which gives me no incentive to want to watch her. Doesn't mean that I think her brand of tennis should disappear but also doesn't mean that I'm obliged to watch it.

Also doesn't mean that those who don't want to watch Caro are narrow-minded or don't watch a wide range of different styles. Just means that they don't want to watch *that* style, as is their right. :shrug:

fufuqifuqishahah
Mar 21st, 2010, 04:18 AM
Let's compare the 3 best "pushers" right now

This of course is all debatable

Jankovic is a counterpuncher grinder
Wozniacki is a creative grinder
Radwanska is a sly grinder

JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to hitting with power
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to speed/anticipation
Radwanska > Wozniacki > JJ when it comes to shot variety
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to court awareness
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to defensive game
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to miracle shots
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to consistency/UE
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to staying mentally rigid

fantic
Mar 21st, 2010, 04:22 AM
Let's compare the 3 best "pushers" right now

This of course is all debatable

Jankovic is a counterpuncher grinder
Wozniacki is a creative grinder
Radwanska is a sly grinder

JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to hitting with power
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to speed/anticipation
Radwanska > Wozniacki > JJ when it comes to shot variety
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to court awareness
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to defensive game
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to miracle shots
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to consistency/UE
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to staying mentally rigid

huh, that's an interesting take. thx

kman
Mar 21st, 2010, 04:48 AM
I love how 80% of the talk on this forum is about Wozniacki.

Slutiana
Mar 21st, 2010, 05:05 AM
I love how 80% of the talk on this forum is about Wozniacki.
Puh-leeze

Volcana
Mar 21st, 2010, 05:05 AM
I love how 80% of the talk on this forum is about Wozniacki.Compared to 80% of it being about the Williams Sisters!?!?! :lol:

Actually, CaroWoz should be the talk of the forum. If she wins tomorrow, there's an argument she's the best player on the tour right.

Get donw off the ledge. Remember you friend knows the Heimlich Maneuver. And it loks like Obama is going to get a healivily bowlerized version of universal healthcare passed.

Let me explain.


'Right now' means we don't count injured players. No Serena, no Safina, no SharapovaKuznetsova's 2010 record is horrendous.I BELEIVE Venus is a far better player. But IW trumps Dubai/Acapulco.Who's left?

Clijsters - Hasn't shown it in 2010
Henin - Ask yourself. Would you bet on a player who's deliberately not playing the way she's most successful?
Dementieva - Hot legs, but Woz's ahd the better 2010 resume.
Azarenka - Win something this year
Radwanska (elder) - They just went H2H
Jankovic - call me this time tomorrow
I'm not convinced CaroWoz will ever even win ONE slam, but in THIS time-slice.....

There's an actual, honest-to-God argument, with facts to back it up, that Caroline Wozniacki, as we sit here today, is the best female tennis player in the world.

Y'all say what you want to. That's something I would dearly love to be able to say I'd been for even ONE day.

Sam L
Mar 21st, 2010, 08:59 AM
Some tennis fans seem to have a very specific (if not downright narrow and rigid) conception of the way the game ought to be played, and feel that anything that doesn't fit their preferred pattern is crap. Their loss, not mine.

That's pretty much it. And my only guess is that it's because they don't play tennis themselves and/or they haven't seen tennis aside from the last two decades or so of tennis i.e. with wooden racquets. :shrug:

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 21st, 2010, 11:02 AM
Jankovic is a counterpuncher grinder
Wozniacki is a creative grinder
Radwanska is a sly grinder


Wozniacki creative???
She might be a "great player" but she she's definitely not creative.

Slutiana
Mar 21st, 2010, 11:56 AM
Let's compare the 3 best "pushers" right now

This of course is all debatable

Jankovic is a counterpuncher grinder
Wozniacki is a creative grinder
Radwanska is a sly grinder

JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to hitting with power
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to speed/anticipation
Radwanska > Wozniacki > JJ when it comes to shot variety
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to court awareness
JJ > Wozniacki > Radwanska when it comes to defensive game
Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to miracle shots
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to consistency/UE
Wozniacki > JJ > Radwanska when it comes to staying mentally rigid
Jelena isn't a "grinder" she's a counterpuncher, period. And neither is Radwanska, I guess she's a counterpuncher too but she counterpunches with variety compared to JJ being aggressive at the right moments and using angles.

I agree with everything else though, apart from the fact that it should be Radwanska > JJ > Wozniacki when it comes to shot variety

Compared to 80% of it being about the Williams Sisters!?!?! :lol:

Actually, CaroWoz should be the talk of the forum. If she wins tomorrow, there's an argument she's the best player on the tour right.

Get donw off the ledge. Remember you friend knows the Heimlich Maneuver. And it loks like Obama is going to get a healivily bowlerized version of universal healthcare passed.

Let me explain.


'Right now' means we don't count injured players. No Serena, no Safina, no SharapovaKuznetsova's 2010 record is horrendous.I BELEIVE Venus is a far better player. But IW trumps Dubai/Acapulco.Who's left?Clijsters - Hasn't shown it in 2010
Henin - Ask yourself. Would you bet on a player who's deliberately not playing the way she's most successful?
Dementieva - Hot legs, but Woz's ahd the better 2010 resume.
Azarenka - Win something this year
Radwanska (elder) - They just went H2H
Jankovic - call me this time tomorrow
I'm not convinced CaroWoz will ever even win ONE slam, but in THIS time-slice.....

There's an actual, honest-to-God argument, with facts to back it up, that Caroline Wozniacki, as we sit here today, is the best female tennis player in the world.

Y'all say what you want to. That's something I would dearly love to be able to say I'd been for even ONE day.
I enjoy your usual posts, but when you talk about Caroline you get a bit. :cuckoo: Especially bearing in mind this is the first tournament she has even gone deep in this year. :lol: Whereas Venus has won two tournaments, made a slam QF and has only lost one match so far this year. :shrug:
Wozniacki creative???
She might be a "great player" but she she's definitely not creative.
Co-sign.

Marshmallow
Mar 21st, 2010, 07:50 PM
The word pusher is heavily over used, but let's try and explain this...

A 'pusher' is someone whose game by nature is to allow their opponents to create errors rather than risk making any of their own. To me, the difference between say Martina Hingis, and Anna Smashnova, is that Hingis, while not a powerhouse, was looking to create a point. Sometimes this was out of her control because she didn't always have the necessary power, but the intent was always there. She hated being pushed around, because she thrived off of toying with an opponent by using court craft. A player like Anna Smashnova *loved* being pushed around, because her goal was to frustrate her opponent into as many errors as possible. She had little intention to her game but to throw up high balls and count on her speed and stamina to grind you down with the same kind of point over and over.

Radwanska lacks power, but when she's matched up against someone who doesn't terribly overpower her, you can see that she uses the court rather well. She can throw in drop shots, move into the net, she changes direction on the ball very well and she'll take her chances when she has them. Wozniacki is much more content to loop the ball up the middle even in rallies where it would appear as though she *could* be taking some chances to go for winners or control the point. Not that she's as defensive as someone like Anna Smashnova, but seeing the points between Radwanska and Wozniacki, Agnieszka is the one who is more willing to try and finish the points, much like a Hingis (albeit a poor man's version ;))

I think I liked this one best - so many lengthy posts though I couldn'tread through all.

Weeding out all the pre-conceived opinion, and generic vitriol, and going back to my original question, I'm gathering the following

1) That what I saw on court in the Wozniacki-Radwanska IW semi, for the vast majority of the points, wasn't 'pushing'. As it certainly wasn't just returning the ball to the middle of the court, waiting for the opponent's errors, purely defensive, passive play.

2) What some people call 'pushing' has a lot to do with weight of shot. If you hit the ball hard, but usually avoid the lines like the plague, a la Jennifer Capriati, you aren't a pusher, cause you hit hard. Whereas a playing who can't generate a lot of pace, but who has to rely on angles and percentage play, is much likelier to be call a pusher, even if they hit closer to the lines than the player who hits hard.

There have been some other answer in this thread that have beem very informative (thank you Corswandt, Randy H) but they didn't specifically reference last night's match.

I thought that, if there were two 'pushers' on the court, it be obvious all over the place what that was, and so easy for people to point out. There do seem to be those who feel that a 'pusher' is any player who doesn't go for winners in low percentage situations, a usage I find over-broad.

Volcana, I get your point and I agree. From where I stand I think the point to note is that in that match that you reference, neither player was 'pushing' by any definition, it was purposely, quite aggressive play and even creative from Aga. I liked it.

I think it highlights the flaw in rigidly labelling especially elite players pushers. Caroline has a pretty strong backhand, and I've seen her outhit some players with that shot - e.g. Dementieva in Charleston and Serena (moving poorly) in Sydney. [Caroline was also bagelling opponents in her early match at RG 2008 and I think Wimbledon 2008 too - and it wasn't a result of pushing...] It might be more accurate to use the term pushing situationally - than blind labelling.

BUT... anyone who watched Caroline against Petrova... would be justified in calling her a pusher. It was SOOOOOOOOOO bad... to the point that even unbiased commentators Chris Bradenham and Jo Durie were mocking the fact that this girl is top 4, and was totally powerless when Nadia strung it together. She was pushing pitifullyand justified be called that. It was embarrassing.

So it's understandable - if she plays most of her matches like that - to label her a pusher, but it doesn't mean she plays all her matches like that.

But Radwanska is no pusher IMO. Basically as Randy said. Caroline possibly (on the whole) but not Aga.