Can a "pusher" still win a grand slam? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Can a "pusher" still win a grand slam?

Lurker011
07-20-2008, 09:11 PM
watching Giles Simon play for the first time today,i have to ask,can someone with his type of game actually win one of the grand slams. Lleyton Hewitt last did it at Wimbledon in '02. I think the best chances are David Ferrer at the French and Andy Murray at Wimbledon.

NadalSharapova
07-20-2008, 09:18 PM
ferrer at french? there is no way with nadal being around.

murray? u're havin a laugh mate

With the quality of the "big 3", there is no way a pusher can win

Tabledott
07-20-2008, 09:26 PM
Murray???? You have got to be kidding me ?

Black Adam
07-20-2008, 09:28 PM
Some here will tell you it has already happened with a certain pusher/moonballer aka Rafael Nadal :o :rolleyes:

JolánGagó
07-20-2008, 09:30 PM
Define pusher.

scoobs
07-20-2008, 09:33 PM
Define pusher.
*nod*

What exactly does it mean? Cos Murray hits a fair amount of off-pace shots and junkballs, and Ferrer tends to whack the ball as hard as he can.

Nadal_Fanatic
07-20-2008, 09:36 PM
I'll save GM a response. GlennMirnyi response "Yes they can. Nadal is the proof"

Bad Religion
07-20-2008, 09:37 PM
On the WTA , Radwanska does have a huge chance.

finishingmove
07-20-2008, 09:45 PM
On the WTA

4 times a year

prima donna
07-20-2008, 09:46 PM
Murray is a pusher and I'd say that his chances of winning a slam are quite decent given this essential fact.

GlennMirnyi
07-20-2008, 09:48 PM
Hasn't Faker won a slam?

GlennMirnyi
07-20-2008, 09:49 PM
I'll save GM a response. GlennMirnyi response "Yes they can. Nadal is the proof"

Your response would be what?

OMG OMG OMG RAFA RAFA RAFA TRUE #1 !!!!111!!11!!!11!!!111!!1!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!111!!11!!1!

:rolleyes:

Edomaster
07-20-2008, 09:52 PM
ferrer at french? there is no way with nadal being around.

murray? u're havin a laugh mate

With the quality of the "big 3", there is no way a pusher can win

I think the same, with the quality of the "Big Three", there is no way a pusher can win a Grand Slam.

Ferrer RG with Nadal, Djoko and Roger there!?!? no way.

Murray Wimbli whit Nadal, Djoko and Roger there!?!? no way.

prima donna
07-20-2008, 09:54 PM
I repeat: Murray is a pusher and will be winning slams in no time.

NadalSharapova
07-20-2008, 10:00 PM
murray is a pusher, thats true but he ain't winning a slam in his lifetime

leng jai
07-20-2008, 10:52 PM
Damn I thought I would be all original coming in here and saying Nadal has already pushed his way to grandslam glory 5 times.

adee-gee
07-20-2008, 11:52 PM
Potito Starace to win RG :worship:

nastoff
07-21-2008, 12:05 AM
what is a pusher? Do you mean counter-puncher, or somebody who doesn't have any obvious weapons but an overall good game and is strong mentally? Because Murray does have a lot of weapons but he decides to play the way he plays, so it's all his fault.
Bringing Nadal into this context is laughable - of course. His topspin groundstroke is one of the best shots in the business.

Is Karlovic a pusher or is he a complete player in that context. Or perhaps Guccione or Isner? How come these are decent players and Simon is a "pusher"?
Was Bjorn Borg a "pusher"?

Clydey
07-21-2008, 12:09 AM
Murray is a pusher and I'd say that his chances of winning a slam are quite decent given this essential fact.

I disagree. I think he does occasionally play a pusher, but it's certainly not always his game. He'll do it against a Verdasco, who's likely to beat himself. At the cost of a first round loss, he also did it against Tsonga, who up until this year was absurdly hit and miss.

I think people confuse mixing up the pace with pushing. They seem to assume that you have to play like Blake in order to not be a pusher. Muzza hits slices, short slices, moonballs and he also hits out flat quite a lot. You just have to look at his more recent matches, where he hit more winners than all of his opponents, bar Nadal obviously (and that includes Gasquet in God-mode). Bit of a misconception that Muzza is a pusher.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 12:10 AM
murray is a pusher, thats true but he ain't winning a slam in his lifetime

Will he come back as a ghost and win them after he's dead?

Clydey
07-21-2008, 12:12 AM
what is a pusher? Do you mean counter-puncher, or somebody who doesn't have any obvious weapons but an overall good game and is strong mentally? Because Murray does have a lot of weapons but he decides to play the way he plays, so it's all his fault.
Bringing Nadal into this context is laughable - of course. His topspin groundstroke is one of the best shots in the business.

Is Karlovic a pusher or is he a complete player in that context. Or perhaps Guccione or Isner? How come these are decent players and Simon is a "pusher"?
Was Bjorn Borg a "pusher"?

A pusher is someone who plays for and profits from his or her opponents errors. In other words, pushing the ball back into court and doing very little offensively.

Karlovic isn't a pusher. He looks to get to the net and win the point at the first opportunity.

nastoff
07-21-2008, 12:34 AM
Karlovic and the others are obviously not pushers, I was just trying to say that being aggressive all the time doesn't necessarily make you a better player. If that was the case somebody like Jurgen Melzer would be the world no 1 and Safin would never drop out of the top 50.
If Ferrer is a pusher than Davydenko is too; if Hewitt was a pusher, then Borg was and maybe Nadal is too. Hewitt's baseline game was not about pushing the ball back and doing little offensively - in my opinion.

prima donna
07-21-2008, 12:54 AM
I disagree. I think he does occasionally play a pusher, but it's certainly not always his game. He'll do it against a Verdasco, who's likely to beat himself. At the cost of a first round loss, he also did it against Tsonga, who up until this year was absurdly hit and miss.

I think people confuse mixing up the pace with pushing. They seem to assume that you have to play like Blake in order to not be a pusher. Muzza hits slices, short slices, moonballs and he also hits out flat quite a lot. You just have to look at his more recent matches, where he hit more winners than all of his opponents, bar Nadal obviously (and that includes Gasquet in God-mode). Bit of a misconception that Muzza is a pusher.
I'm well able to distinguish a player with variety from a player that depends solely on that variety as a means to win matches, even the likes of Andre Agassi have referred to Murray's shots as mostly junk balls, therefore in this particular case I certainly stand not alone in my belief.

Murray is a pusher, of course a professional player is capable of hitting winners if need be -- if this is the standard by which to judge whether they qualify as pushers or not, then I'd suggest you go for a hit against even a player like Hewitt that packs a decent amount of firepower -- however is unable to impose himself when faced with a stronger opponent by exclusively choosing to employ this as a tactic, although it must be said that Hewitt would never have won many matches, let alone grand slams, had he been resigned to feeble defensive replies.

Relatively speaking, Murray is not only a pusher, but he's quite good at it -- then again, I suppose that one could argue that based on the mere coincidence that Murray is able to effectively utilize the pace of a player of the caliber of Fernando Verdasco to generate winners as evidence to the contrary.

He's a pusher who occasionally deflects the pace of his opponent to spit back a winner or two, when he isn't doing this then he's merely keeping balls in play hoping for whomever his opponent may be, to eventually implode, somewhat similar to what nearly occurred at Roland Garros against Nicolas Almagro -- who deserves more credit than he received for winning that match because Murray did more pushing than a pregnant woman on that day and yet was still handed a loss due to Almagro's clutch ability to go on the attack.

ChinoRios4Ever
07-21-2008, 12:55 AM
pusher
moonballer
ballbasher

funny place, this MTF.

scoobs
07-21-2008, 12:56 AM
pusher
moonballer
ballbasher

funny place, this MTF.
Nobody has even defined what a pusher is supposed to be :shrug:

Just another meaningless word to add to the MTF lexicon. Mug, faker, choker, yada yada yada.

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 01:03 AM
what is a pusher? Do you mean counter-puncher, or somebody who doesn't have any obvious weapons but an overall good game and is strong mentally? Because Murray does have a lot of weapons but he decides to play the way he plays, so it's all his fault.
Bringing Nadal into this context is laughable - of course. His topspin groundstroke is one of the best shots in the business.

Is Karlovic a pusher or is he a complete player in that context. Or perhaps Guccione or Isner? How come these are decent players and Simon is a "pusher"?
Was Bjorn Borg a "pusher"?

A pusher is someone who has no game and just retrieves balls non-stop until the opponent makes a mistake.

Murray has weapons, I agree, but nobody knows them. In fact, not even him.
Nadal is a moonballer, not a pusher. His topspin is the best if the category is highest moonball.
Karlovic doesn't win points on opponent's mistakes, he can't afford to, he's not a pusher. Neither is Guccione. Are you blind?
Simon is a pusher, he has no weapons.

ChinoRios4Ever
07-21-2008, 01:14 AM
Nobody has even defined what a pusher is supposed to be :shrug:

Just another meaningless word to add to the MTF lexicon. Mug, faker, choker, yada yada yada.

Every day i learn something new mate. :wavey:

alfonsojose
07-21-2008, 01:21 AM
Your response would be what?

OMG OMG OMG RAFA RAFA RAFA TRUE #1 !!!!111!!11!!!11!!!111!!1!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!111!!11!!1!

:rolleyes:

:haha: :haha: :haha:

alfonsojose
07-21-2008, 01:22 AM
Nobody has even defined what a pusher is supposed to be :shrug:

Just another meaningless word to add to the MTF lexicon. Mug, faker, choker, yada yada yada.
:haha: :haha:

Clydey
07-21-2008, 01:43 AM
I'm well able to distinguish a player with variety from a player that depends solely on that variety as a means to win matches, even the likes of Andre Agassi have referred to Murray's shots as mostly junk balls, therefore in this particular case I certainly stand not alone in my belief.

I can't speak to how Murray is perceived by Agassi, but I seriously doubt he has ever called Murray a pusher. When have you ever heard a commentator call someone a pusher or say that they "mostly junkball"? I get the feeling he called Murray a counter-puncher and you are simply using the words "pusher" and "counter-puncher" interchangeably.

Murray is a pusher, of course a professional player is capable of hitting winners if need be -- if this is the standard by which to judge whether they qualify as pushers or not, then I'd suggest you go for a hit against even a player like Hewitt that packs a decent amount of firepower -- however is unable to impose himself when faced with a stronger opponent by exclusively choosing to employ this as a tactic, although it must be said that Hewitt would never have won many matches, let alone grand slams, had he been resigned to feeble defensive replies.

So Murray can't impose his game on stronger players? Would that include Nadal, who Murray hit off the court at AO 08 for most of the match, hitting over 60 winners (double Nadal's winners); Federer, who hit fewer winners than Andy at Dubai; and Gasquet at Wimbledon, who was playing out of his skin? Murray hit more winners than him, too.

Relatively speaking, Murray is not only a pusher, but he's quite good at it -- then again, I suppose that one could argue that based on the mere coincidence that Murray is able to effectively utilize the pace of a player of the caliber of Fernando Verdasco to generate winners as evidence to the contrary.

That's not what happens. Verdasco ends up hitting the backboards with his ground strokes. Murray doesn't have to use his pace.

He's a pusher who occasionally deflects the pace of his opponent to spit back a winner or two, when he isn't doing this then he's merely keeping balls in play hoping for whomever his opponent may be, to eventually implode, somewhat similar to what nearly occurred at Roland Garros against Nicolas Almagro -- who deserves more credit than he received for winning that match because Murray did more pushing than a pregnant woman on that day and yet was still handed a loss due to Almagro's clutch ability to go on the attack.

The biggest pile of nonsense I've read on this forum. And that really is saying something. Basically, no matter how many winners Murray hits, it doesn't matter. He is simply using his opponent's pace because he can't generate his own pace? Here's some highlights of Murray not generating pace. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDatWK9Ut64

Here's another. Watch Murray use Nadal's 100 MPH strokes with heavy top spin so that he can hit huge forehands. I'm assuming that those top spin forehands are 100 MPH. Otherwise, there's just no way Andy can hit massive forehands like that ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExcREAXfzSk&NR=1

As for your point about Almagro, it does little more than prove that you didn't watch the match. If you had, you would know that Murray served and volleyed for the vast majority of the match. On what planet is that pushing?

Nadal_Fanatic
07-21-2008, 02:39 AM
Your response would be what?

OMG OMG OMG RAFA RAFA RAFA TRUE #1 !!!!111!!11!!!11!!!111!!1!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!111!!11!!1!

:rolleyes:
Your posts are pretty predictable. Sorry if I offended you. Nadal only gets number 1 if he earns it.

crude oil
07-21-2008, 03:05 AM
Your posts are pretty predictable. Sorry if I offended you. Nadal only gets number 1 if he earns it.

you got it.

Muster got to #1 by winning lots of clay MMs only for pete & co to treat the system with disdain.

Thomas earned it.

If nadal somehow didnt get #1 that would be more an indictment on how pathetic nadal is on HC rather than on the ranking system.

Of course nadal is not pathetic on HC, he is pretty darn good and he will reach #1 barring injury

Alonsofz
07-21-2008, 03:20 AM
Your response would be what?

OMG OMG OMG RAFA RAFA RAFA TRUE #1 !!!!111!!11!!!11!!!111!!1!!! OMG OMG OMG!!!111!!11!!1!

:rolleyes:

:haha:

prima donna
07-21-2008, 03:31 AM
I can't speak to how Murray is perceived by Agassi, but I seriously doubt he has ever called Murray a pusher. When have you ever heard a commentator call someone a pusher or say that they "mostly junkball"? I get the feeling he called Murray a counter-puncher and you are simply using the words "pusher" and "counter-puncher" interchangeably.
Well, perhaps there was a bit of paraphrasing going on, but apparently Agassi spoke rather candidly in a private setting with a commentator working with ESPN or USA.

Now, I can't exactly recall who it was, but perhaps it last year one of the commentators made mention of how Agassi had remarked that Murray "plays a little too much junk for me."

This initial one wasn't a conversation which took place on air and Andy Murray isn't viewed the same as he is in England, so to speak freely of him in such a manner would be seen as nothing out of the ordinary, it's not as if he's a Pete Sampras or Jimmy Connors that demands respect -- it was a playful comment that paradoxically has some grain of truth to it.

I mean, if you find it awkward for commentators and ex-players to allude to a player's style of play in a negative light, then I'd strongly recommend against listening to Brad Gilbert or Chris Fowler, two guys which hold no punches, it's merely a matter of understanding Gilbert's corky sense of humor and Fowler's indifference to tennis mixed with the journalistic humor to be expected from someone that coverages College Football.

My apologies, as we are drifting slightly off topic, however I've heard even nastier terms used to described players than pusher or moonballer, for example Jim Courier a few years ago basically going off script and going into a diatribe about what a little prick Coria was considered throughout the locker room, diluting such remarks by conceding that he was "a pretty good player."

Also, Roger Federer has shed light on what's been perceived as a lack of aggression, at least from his part -- saying something to the extent of how he's made a career out of going for his shots and that at this level, big matches are to be won and not lost, which incited a riot on MTF, as most people considered this to be Roger reacting impulsively following a close defeat to Murray in Dubai.

gillian
07-21-2008, 03:38 AM
Stupid, stupid question: what is a pusher? Examples of this playing style?

prima donna
07-21-2008, 03:56 AM
I can't speak to how Murray is perceived by Agassi, but I seriously doubt he has ever called Murray a pusher. When have you ever heard a commentator call someone a pusher or say that they "mostly junkball"? I get the feeling he called Murray a counter-puncher and you are simply using the words "pusher" and "counter-puncher" interchangeably.



So Murray can't impose his game on stronger players? Would that include Nadal, who Murray hit off the court at AO 08 for most of the match, hitting over 60 winners (double Nadal's winners); Federer, who hit fewer winners than Andy at Dubai; and Gasquet at Wimbledon, who was playing out of his skin? Murray hit more winners than him, too.



That's not what happens. Verdasco ends up hitting the backboards with his ground strokes. Murray doesn't have to use his pace.



The biggest pile of nonsense I've read on this forum. And that really is saying something. Basically, no matter how many winners Murray hits, it doesn't matter. He is simply using his opponent's pace because he can't generate his own pace? Here's some highlights of Murray not generating pace. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDatWK9Ut64

Here's another. Watch Murray use Nadal's 100 MPH strokes with heavy top spin so that he can hit huge forehands. I'm assuming that those top spin forehands are 100 MPH. Otherwise, there's just no way Andy can hit massive forehands like that ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExcREAXfzSk&NR=1

As for your point about Almagro, it does little more than prove that you didn't watch the match. If you had, you would know that Murray served and volleyed for the vast majority of the match. On what planet is that pushing?
Listen, I've seen enough Murray matches to know that he's a talented player, particularly from the backhand, he has the ability to really put his weight behind this shot, all the while taking the ball incredibly early, but he can't win an entire match on this shot alone against top players.

As for Murray's match against Nadal, well, I've only viewed about 20 minutes worth of youtube highlights, but it seems that he played the most aggressive match of his life, which if one were to follow this line of reasoning, would be the equivalent of suggesting that Tsonga somehow were one of the greatest players to ever come to net, based on his match against Nadal earlier this season.

What Murray does best is improvise, but the reason why he's had an abysmal season at slams has a lot to do with how he's chosen to play, for example I recall Tsonga huffing and puffing near the conclusion of the 4th set -- which would ultimately prove to be the end of the match, yet Murray was unable to duplicate the more aggressive and yet disciplined style he had displayed in what I believe was a 3rd-set bagel in his favor.

Some of his fans have used the wrist injury as an excuse, but he came into this season in superb conditioning, but simply was unable to benefit from it due to his inability to impose what you obviously believe to be one of the most aggressive games on tour.

In any case, Murray isn't going to beat Federer by playing more aggressively, particularly in a best 3 out of 5 set match -- which means that he'd have to rely on Federer's errors, but also would have to hit the occasional winner, same goes for Djokovic, in fact I vividly recall the two playing in Madrid (indoors) and the commentators remarked that Djokovic seemed bemused by Murray's game, yet once Djokovic caught on to this pattern of play, he eventually won that match and has since dominated Murray.

The question is: How is Murray going to beat top players to win a grand slam ? By suddenly hitting a barrage of winners ? No, by using his variety and remaining disciplined by keeping plenty of balls in play, which equates to pushing in my book, because the results of the match would be not in his control, but in the control of the player across the net on whatever particular day.

I actually did see the Almagro and Murray match and if memory serves well, Almagro nearly choked it away but was able to rebound, but the eye sees what the eye wants to see -- especially when it's the eye of a subjective and emotionally invested fan. I mean, it's no surprise that in debates like these fans tend to be the only ones arguing points which supposedly are so obvious that it'd lead to you wrongly suggesting that my observations were in fact based on something I had cooked up in my imagination or more appropriately, an illusion.

Perhaps the talent is there for Murray to develop into something other than a pusher, but presently, he's a pusher and if he wins any tournaments against top players, he'll be doing it by pushing.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 04:56 AM
Listen, I've seen enough Murray matches to know that he's a talented player, particularly from the backhand, he has the ability to really put his weight behind this shot, all the while taking the ball incredibly early, but he can't win an entire match on this shot alone against top players.

He can hit out on the forehand, too. Did you not see the forehands in those clips? The point is not whether Murray actually employs that style of play. The point is that he is capable of it. I have just shown you that he can hit the ball as hard as anyone if he so chooses. I didn't imagine those huge forehands, did I?

As for Murray's match against Nadal, well, I've only viewed about 20 minutes worth of youtube highlights, but it seems that he played the most aggressive match of his life, which if one were to follow this line of reasoning, would be the equivalent of suggesting that Tsonga somehow were one of the greatest players to ever come to net, based on his match against Nadal earlier this season.

Once again, you are either missing my point or wilfully misrepresenting my position in order to strengthen your own. As I said above, Murray is capable of blasting winners. That is the only point I was making. You were at pains to stress that Murray has no weapons against the top players and that he could only generate pace using his opponent's pace.

Those clips demonstrate otherwise. Whether Murray does it 10 times or 1000 times is irrelevant. He is capable of it. However, rather than admit you were wrong, you would sooner pretend that I was suggesting that Murray is the most aggressive player on the planet. I wasn't and you know I wasn't.

What Murray does best is improvise, but the reason why he's had an abysmal season at slams has a lot to do with how he's chosen to play, for example I recall Tsonga huffing and puffing near the conclusion of the 4th set -- which would ultimately prove to be the end of the match, yet Murray was unable to duplicate the more aggressive and yet disciplined style he had displayed in what I believe was a 3rd-set bagel in his favor.

The Tsonga match proves my point as much as it does yours. It is not an issue of limitations. Murray certainly isn't limited. It is his unwillingness to be consistently aggressive, not his inability to be aggressive. It is not that Murray was "unable to duplicate" that aggression. It was that he made a mistake that he so often makes: he went into passive mode for reasons unknown.

Some of his fans have used the wrist injury as an excuse, but he came into this season in superb conditioning, but simply was unable to benefit from it due to his inability to impose what you obviously believe to be one of the most aggressive games on tour.

Where did I say that Murray has one of the most aggressive games on tour? Is this really your plan, to set up a straw man argument and then knock it down? I even said in another reply that Murray often plays the pusher against guys like Verdasco. How did we get from that to "one of the most aggressive games on tour"? I'm genuinely curious.

In any case, Murray isn't going to beat Federer by playing more aggressively, particularly in a best 3 out of 5 set match -- which means that he'd have to rely on Federer's errors, but also would have to hit the occasional winner, same goes for Djokovic, in fact I vividly recall the two playing in Madrid (indoors) and the commentators remarked that Djokovic seemed bemused by Murray's game, yet once Djokovic caught on to this pattern of play, he eventually won that match and has since dominated Murray.

Murray was up a set and 4-1 against Djokovic in that match. It had nothing to do with Djokovic figuring out Murray's game. As with Nadal, Murray let the match slip.

You are making bold assertions and have nothing to back them up. "Murray won't beat Federer by playing aggressively". On what do you even base that? He has comprehensively outplayed Nadal by being aggressive, and Nadal is a superior defender to Federer. Why wouldn't it work against Federer, who is not only a poorer defender but more hit and miss? Murray can hit winners and expect errors. Not only that, but he's good enough to deal with Federer's net play.

The question is: How is Murray going to beat top players to win a grand slam ? By suddenly hitting a barrage of winners ? No, by using his variety and remaining disciplined by keeping plenty of balls in play, which equates to pushing in my book, because the results of the match would be not in his control, but in the control of the player across the net on whatever particular day.

You said that you can distinguish between using variety and being a pusher, yet you have just said that they are the same thing. I'd prefer you pick a position and stick to it. I'll reiterate, Murray has shown that he can hit winners as well as anybody when he plays aggressively. He's far too afraid of potentially giving away the point, though.

I actually did see the Almagro and Murray match and if memory serves well, Almagro nearly choked it away but was able to rebound, but the eye sees what the eye wants to see -- especially when it's the eye of a subjective and emotionally invested fan. I mean, it's no surprise that in debates like these fans tend to be the only ones arguing points which supposedly are so obvious that it'd lead to you wrongly suggesting that my observations were in fact based on something I had cooked up in my imagination or more appropriately, an illusion.

An ad hominem attack. I'll add that to your growing list of debating tactics. My entire life is built on objectivity. I'm an empiricist and I let evidence dictate what I believe. My opinion has little to do with being a fan of Murray. On the contrary, why I support Murray has everything to do with my opinion. In other words, I am not arguing these points because I'm a fan. I'm a fan because of my opinion of him. I argue just as passionately about Nadal.

I'd rather you tackle the points I'm making than resort to childish ad homs. "He's a fan boy, so he's biased". The way to win this argument is to prove me wrong and, crucially, be consistent. Thus far you have done little more than contradict yourself and set up straw men.

Murray most often plays like a counter-puncher, but is capable of playing aggressive tennis and generating pace when he has the guts to do so. Just to be clear, that is my position and those clips show what he is capable of. Show me why I'm wrong.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 04:57 AM
Stupid, stupid question: what is a pusher? Examples of this playing style?

Canas and Simon are examples.

prima donna
07-21-2008, 05:11 AM
He can hit out on the forehand, too. Did you not see the forehands in those clips? The point is not whether Murray actually employs that style of play. The point is that he is capable of it. I have just shown you that he can hit the ball as hard as anyone if he so chooses. I didn't imagine those huge forehands, did I?



Once again, you are either missing my point or wilfully misrepresenting my position in order to strengthen your own. As I said above, Murray is capable of blasting winners. That is the only point I was making. You were at pains to stress that Murray has no weapons against the top players and that he could only generate pace using his opponent's pace.

Those clips demonstrate otherwise. Whether Murray does it 10 times or 1000 times is irrelevant. He is capable of it. However, rather than admit you were wrong, you would sooner pretend that I was suggesting that Murray is the most aggressive player on the planet. I wasn't and you know I wasn't.



The Tsonga match proves my point as much as it does yours. It is not an issue of limitations. Murray certainly isn't limited. It is his unwillingness to be consistently aggressive, not his inability to be aggressive. It is not that Murray was "unable to duplicate" that aggression. It was that he made a mistake that he so often makes: he went into passive mode for reasons unknown.



Where did I say that Murray has one of the most aggressive games on tour? Is this really your plan, to set up a straw man argument and then knock it down? I even said in another reply that Murray often plays the pusher against guys like Verdasco. How did we get from that to "one of the most aggressive games on tour"? I'm genuinely curious.



Murray was up a set and 4-1 against Djokovic in that match. It had nothing to do with Djokovic figuring out Murray's game. As with Nadal, Murray let the match slip.

You are making bold assertions and have nothing to back them up. "Murray won't beat Federer by playing aggressively". On what do you even base that? He has comprehensively outplayed Nadal by being aggressive, and Nadal is a superior defender to Federer. Why wouldn't it work against Federer, who is not only a poorer defender but more hit and miss? Murray can hit winners and expect errors. Not only that, but he's good enough to deal with Federer's net play.



You said that you can distinguish between using variety and being a pusher, yet you have just said that they are the same thing. I'd prefer you pick a position and stick to it. I'll reiterate, Murray has shown that he can hit winners as well as anybody when he plays aggressively. He's far too afraid of potentially giving away the point, though.



An ad hominem attack. I'll add that to your growing list of debating tactics. My entire life is built on objectivity. I'm an empiricist and I let evidence dictate what I believe. My opinion has little to do with being a fan of Murray. On the contrary, why I support Murray has everything to do with my opinion. In other words, I am not arguing these points because I'm a fan. I'm a fan because of my opinion of him. I argue just as passionately about Nadal.

I'd rather you tackle the points I'm making than resort to childish ad homs. "He's a fan boy, so he's biased". The way to win this argument is to prove me wrong and, crucially, be consistent. Thus far you have done little more than contradict yourself and set up straw men.

Murray most often plays like a counter-puncher, but is capable of playing aggressive tennis and generating pace when he has the guts to do so. Just to be clear, that is my position and those clips show what he is capable of. Show me why I'm wrong.
You're a supporter of Andy Murray, but I'm not going to continue arguing a point that is obvious to objective readers. In all fairness, I've acknowledged that Murray has the talent to develop into something other than a pusher, but as of right he is just that and therefore if he were to win a grand slam, he'd do so as merely a pusher.

The fact alone in itself that I think highly enough of Andy Murray to give him chances of winning a grand slam despite the lack of maturation of his game should tell you something, but I'm not going to sit here and start going on about how Murray has both a great forehand and backhand accompanied by excellent touch and a serve which is highly underrated.

You seem to base your analysis on what you as a fan have gathered -- or believe to have gathered by watching several more matches of Murray's than the average tennis viewer would have the opportunity to watch, but I've watched enough Federer matches to make the argument that his backhand is godly, conversely I've also seen enough of his matches to make the argument that his backhand is an awful shot -- reality is merely how one chooses to perceive it.

Murray has played plenty of awful matches, youtube is littered with beatings from Djokovic and other players followed by errors produced by an erratic forehand and a serve that at times has left a lot to desire; just as youtube is littered with matches of Roger Federer shanking backhands like there were no tomorrow and dumping forehands into the net, despite having an open court to work with.

Which leaves one to conclude that most likely Murray possesses the ability to play aggressively at times, but doesn't always do so and in fact has played terribly at times, therefore it cannot be said that he is some tennis god that was born from the thigh of Zeus and sent to destroy his opposition with his numerous weapons; however, it can be said that he is a work in progress/developing young player that exhibits aggressive play from time to time, but has not yet learned to employ this level of play consistently, therefore as a consequence must use more variety and apply defensive skills, as he does not step on the court and start blasting winners like his first match against Nadal would suggest.

Again, I'm more of a brutal critic and my opinion may not do the consensus justice, however based on my standards and the knowledge that I have acquired as a spectator of professional tennis, Murray is relatively speaking a pusher, which seems to have been seconded by the likes of Federer and Agassi.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 05:14 AM
Well, perhaps there was a bit of paraphrasing going on, but apparently Agassi spoke rather candidly in a private setting with a commentator working with ESPN or USA.

Now, I can't exactly recall who it was, but perhaps it last year one of the commentators made mention of how Agassi had remarked that Murray "plays a little too much junk for me."

Sounds dubious. It's not exactly well sourced, is it? I'd be surprised if Agassi said something so negative, given that he and Murray practiced together and he had nothing but nice things to say (particularly about Andy's return game).

This initial one wasn't a conversation which took place on air and Andy Murray isn't viewed the same as he is in England, so to speak freely of him in such a manner would be seen as nothing out of the ordinary, it's not as if he's a Pete Sampras or Jimmy Connors that demands respect -- it was a playful comment that paradoxically has some grain of truth to it.

By England, I assume you mean the United Kingdom? That's like Canada being called the "United States of America". Also, Murray is hardly an idol in Britain. He divides the country. Some long for the placidity of Tim Henman, while others welcome Murray's passion. Negative comments are pretty common.

I mean, if you find it awkward for commentators and ex-players to allude to a player's style of play in a negative light, then I'd strongly recommend against listening to Brad Gilbert or Chris Fowler, two guys which hold no punches, it's merely a matter of understanding Gilbert's corky sense of humor and Fowler's indifference to tennis mixed with the journalistic humor to be expected from someone that coverages College Football.

I have no problem with frankness. That's why I like McEnroe's commentary: he has an honest charm. I just don't buy that Agassi thinks of Murray as a junkballer.

Also, Roger Federer has shed light on what's been perceived as a lack of aggression, at least from his part -- saying something to the extent of how he's made a career out of going for his shots and that at this level, big matches are to be won and not lost, which incited a riot on MTF, as most people considered this to be Roger reacting impulsively following a close defeat to Murray in Dubai.

Federer had just lost to Murray. Do you really think he was giving out sincere advice? It takes a special kind of arrogance to give out tips to someone who has just beaten you without facing a break point.

So no, it was a bitter comment, just like when Federer blamed the rain and the fading light for his loss to Nadal or when he inexplicably asked for Hawkeye to be switched off in the 2007 Wimbledon final or when he said that Canas should still be banned, after losing twice in a row to him. Let's not pretend Federer was concerned about Murray's future.

Kolya
07-21-2008, 05:17 AM
I can't see it.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 05:36 AM
You're a supporter of Andy Murray, but I'm not going to continue arguing a point that is obvious to objective readers. In all fairness, I've acknowledged that Murray has the talent to develop into something other than a pusher, but as of right he is just that and therefore if he were to win a grand slam, he'd do so as merely a pusher.

I told you why I'm a fan of Murray. I am a fan because I hold these opinions. If I didn't hold these opinions, I wouldn't be a fan and wouldn't be arguing with you. Is that clearer? My opinion is not clouded by my support for Murray. Simply, I would not be a supporter unless I held these views. I'm not sure I can be any clearer.

And how could you know how Murray will win a grandslam? Should he win one, you nor I have no idea how it will be accomplished. He won't win one as a pusher, in my opinion. He'll win one by stepping inside the baseline and being aggressive, looking to take advantage of his undoubted talent at the net.

Of course, it serves you to play up my perceived lack of objectivity. In reality, I am completely objective. I recognise Murray's failings and I recognise his strengths. I am under no illusions as to where Murray stands at this point. He is an extremely talented, but inconsistent player who employs the wrong tactics much of the time, whether through fear of going for his shots and possibly losing the point or through uncertainty. I can't say for sure. However, the potential is certainly there to be an aggressive player.

The fact alone in itself that I think highly enough of Andy Murray to give him chances of winning a grand slam despite the lack of maturation of his game should tell you something, but I'm not going to sit here and start going on about how Murray has both a great forehand and backhand accompanied by excellent touch and a serve which is highly underrated.

He doesn't have a great forehand. That is the one side that is bound to be hit and miss. He has a great backhand, but his forehand is erratic. His touch speaks for itself and his serve is either a huge weapon or a complete liability. If he serves in the 60s, it's extremely tough to break him. If he serves below 50, which he often does, he is constantly in trouble on serve because his second serve wouldn't look out of place at the local tennis club.

You seem to base your analysis on what you as a fan have gathered -- or believe to have gathered by watching several more matches of Murray's than the average tennis viewer would have the opportunity to watch, but I've watched enough Federer matches to make the argument that his backhand is godly, conversely I've also seen enough of his matches to make the argument that his backhand is an awful shot -- reality is merely how one chooses to perceive it.

I have never denied Murray's inconsistency. The only point I've made is that he can be extremely effective going forward, but refuses to do it most of the time. It's not an inability to do it. It's a refusal to do it, for whatever reason.

Murray has played plenty of awful matches, youtube is littered with beatings from Djokovic and other players followed by errors produced by an erratic forehand and a serve that at times has left a lot to desire; just as youtube is littered with matches of Roger Federer shanking backhands like there were no tomorrow and dumping forehands into the net, despite having an open court to work with.

Murray has been battered by Djokovic because he sits back against him and can't compete wth the depth Nole has on his shots. Murray drops the forehand short far too often. Djokovic almost always gets it deep off of both sides.

Which leaves one to conclude that most likely Murray possesses the ability to play aggressively at times, but doesn't always do so and in fact has played terribly at times, therefore it cannot be said that he is some tennis god that was born from the thigh of Zeus and sent to destroy his opposition with his numerous weapons; however, it can be said that he is a work in progress/developing young player that exhibits aggressive play from time to time, but has not yet learned to employ this level of play consistently, therefore as a consequence must use more variety and apply defensive skills, as he does not step on the court and start blasting winners like his first match against Nadal would suggest.

I have never seen Murray play terrible when he has played aggressive. I mean that. I'm sure he will play terribly sometimes if he does decide to be aggressive, but I have yet to see him play a bad match if he has went for his shots instead of waiting for errors. And I think he has made steps to being more aggressive in recent months.

He certainly did not push against Almagro. Like I said, he served and volleyed for most of that match. Fact. He learned his lesson against Eyserric and went on to be aggressive in the second round of the French (Argentinian clay courter, forget his name).

prima donna
07-21-2008, 05:42 AM
Sounds dubious. It's not exactly well sourced, is it? I'd be surprised if Agassi said something so negative, given that he and Murray practiced together and he had nothing but nice things to say (particularly about Andy's return game).



By England, I assume you mean the United Kingdom? That's like Canada being called the "United States of America". Also, Murray is hardly an idol in Britain. He divides the country. Some long for the placidity of Tim Henman, while others welcome Murray's passion. Negative comments are pretty common.



I have no problem with frankness. That's why I like McEnroe's commentary: he has an honest charm. I just don't buy that Agassi thinks of Murray as a junkballer.



Federer had just lost to Murray. Do you really think he was giving out sincere advice? It takes a special kind of arrogance to give out tips to someone who has just beaten you without facing a break point.

So no, it was a bitter comment, just like when Federer blamed the rain and the fading light for his loss to Nadal or when he inexplicably asked for Hawkeye to be switched off in the 2007 Wimbledon final or when he said that Canas should still be banned, after losing twice in a row to him. Let's not pretend Federer was concerned about Murray's future.
We've established that you're a supporter of Andy Murray, best of luck.

Anyway, I tend to believe what's stated by those who have both played and assumed the acquaintance of Agassi over the years, not quite sure if you've been watching tennis for a very long time, but Andre isn't the most politically correct guy around, he's fairly blunt and he mellowed out near the end of his career, so this isn't uncharacteristic of him, busting a rookie's balls in sports is common practice -- I'm not arguing against whether or not he said it, but in the case that it was said and the sources are reliable, would it really be so terrible ?

I understand you're fighting for your cause, but you're going up against a brick wall here, because we have contrasting opinions and I'm not going to change them because you feel inspired by Murray hitting winners against Verdasco or because Murray lost after playing a few good sets of tennis against Nadal.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 05:51 AM
We've established that you're a supporter of Andy Murray, best of luck.

Anyway, I tend to believe what's stated by those who have both played and assumed the acquaintance of Agassi over the years, not quite sure if you've been watching tennis for a very long time, but Andre isn't the most politically correct guy around, he's fairly blunt and he mellowed out near the end of his career, so this isn't uncharacteristic of him, busting a rookie's balls in sports is common practice -- I'm not arguing against whether or not he said it, but in the case that it was said and the sources are reliable, would it really be so terrible ?

I understand you're fighting for your cause, but you're going up against a brick wall here, because we have contrasting opinions and I'm not going to change them because you feel inspired by Murray hitting winners against Verdasco or because Murray lost after playing a few good sets of tennis against Nadal.

I'm not looking to change your opinion. I'm more interested in getting you to understand what I'm saying. Thus far you have completely missed the point and are more interested in focusing on the fact that I'm a fan of Murray, as though that somehow weakens my argument.

I'm saying Murray has the potential to be a very good aggressive player, and that he has shown glimpses of that potential. He needs to employ those tactics more often, rather than holding back and waiting for errors. You initially stated that Murray couldn't generate pace unless his opponent generated it for him. I've shown you that you're wrong on that point.

prima donna
07-21-2008, 05:59 AM
I'm not looking to change your opinion. I'm more interested in getting you to understand what I'm saying. Thus far you have completely missed the point and are more interested in focusing on the fact that I'm a fan of Murray, as though that somehow weakens my argument.

I'm saying Murray has the potential to be a very good aggressive player, and that he has shown glimpses of that potential. He needs to employ those tactics more often, rather than holding back and waiting for errors. You initially stated that Murray couldn't generate pace unless his opponent generated it for him. I've shown you that you're wrong on that point.
At this stage of his career, Murray is more reliant on using his opponent's pace rather than generating his own pace, he's shown the ability to perform the latter from time to time, but more times than often the former is true.

I understand your view, however my view is that everything you're saying is irrelevant until Murray clears up his inconsistent play, but yet he has the mentality to win a slam or two, much like Hewitt -- he can be a real pest when he has his head screwed on straight, but only aggressive play will quell the chants of pusher.

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 06:05 AM
Canas and Simon are examples.

And Murray.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 06:10 AM
And Murray.

Matter of opinion and definition. You think anyone who doesn't serve and volley is a pusher. I suppose Stepanek is perfect for you. Serves and volleys plus he can't hit a top spin forehand to save his life.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 06:14 AM
At this stage of his career, Murray is more reliant on using his opponent's pace rather than generating his own pace, he's shown the ability to perform the latter from time to time, but more times than often the former is true.


You have to distinguish between "can't" and "won't". If he wants to, he can generate plenty of pace. Right or wrong, it's a conscious decision.

Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course.

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 06:16 AM
Matter of opinion and definition. You think anyone who doesn't serve and volley is a pusher. I suppose Stepanek is perfect for you. Serves and volleys plus he can't hit a top spin forehand to save his life.

While you say that, Murray will keep pushing the ball both sides and missing all the shots he tries for winners especially on his forehand side.

Don't ride a high horse mate, all you say about Murray being "capable of" pulling winners and stuff means bollocks if he doesn't use it. So until he starts hitting winners when he needs it, just keep it cool.

Kolya
07-21-2008, 06:24 AM
Is Hewitt the last pusher to win a GS?

prima donna
07-21-2008, 06:26 AM
Is Hewitt the last pusher to win a GS?
Indeed he was.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 06:27 AM
While you say that, Murray will keep pushing the ball both sides and missing all the shots he tries for winners especially on his forehand side.

Don't ride a high horse mate, all you say about Murray being "capable of" pulling winners and stuff means bollocks if he doesn't use it. So until he starts hitting winners when he needs it, just keep it cool.

I hadn't realised I was on a high horse. Let's be honest, your definition of a pusher is very broad. It includes anything but all out attack. I have a feeling you would ban the slice if you were in charge.

Murray is undoubtedly erratic. Then again, he's in the top 10 and has nothing to defend in the next two months. He'll likely be top 5 by year's end. Maybe Stepanek should try being a pusher. What say you, sir?

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 06:27 AM
Is Hewitt the last pusher to win a GS?

Faker won the AO didn't he?

There is your answer.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 06:29 AM
Faker won the AO didn't he?

There is your answer.

I rest my case.

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 06:45 AM
I hadn't realised I was on a high horse. Let's be honest, your definition of a pusher is very broad. It includes anything but all out attack. I have a feeling you would ban the slice if you were in charge.

Murray is undoubtedly erratic. Then again, he's in the top 10 and has nothing to defend in the next two months. He'll likely be top 5 by year's end. Maybe Stepanek should try being a pusher. What say you, sir?

I wrote a big post but MTF didn't post it.

A pusher is someone who relies on opponents' mistakes. Plays reactively, not proactively. Being offensive doesn't mean being Tursunov. Attacking isn't ballbashing. Attacking is being proactive, varying the game, dictating the rallies and changing pace, effects, trying to define the point on your terms. Before someone says Nadull is offensive, moonballing to a player's worst shot isn't dictating anything. Killing sitters any futures player can do, and it has nothing to do with being offensive.

Murray's highest ever ranking is the same as Stepanek's, so I don't think he should change his style. If you say he isn't succesful with his style, so isn't Murray.

Also who said slicing is purely a defensive shot. Quite the contrary. Thing is those mug players of this generation can't slice, so they can't use it offensively.

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 06:46 AM
I rest my case.

Faker = pusher. That's as basic as it gets, mate.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 07:04 AM
I wrote a big post but MTF didn't post it.

A pusher is someone who relies on opponents' mistakes. Plays reactively, not proactively. Being offensive doesn't mean being Tursunov. Attacking isn't ballbashing. Attacking is being proactive, varying the game, dictating the rallies and changing pace, effects, trying to define the point on your terms. Before someone says Nadull is offensive, moonballing to a player's worst shot isn't dictating anything. Killing sitters any futures player can do, and it has nothing to do with being offensive.

Murray's highest ever ranking is the same as Stepanek's, so I don't think he should change his style. If you say he isn't succesful with his style, so isn't Murray.

Also who said slicing is purely a defensive shot. Quite the contrary. Thing is those mug players of this generation can't slice, so they can't use it offensively.

Murray is 21. Stepanek is...slightly older. He has time. I'd put my house on Murray not peaking at 8th.

The thing is, you bash players who do what you have just described, above. You seem to want one very specific style of play. If a player doesn't meet those expectations, he's a pusher. Murray changes the pace, shows great touch and, when he feels like it, hits some fantastic winners. You seem to want that on every single point, though. I can't even begin to understand why you think Djokovic is a pusher. Because he doesn't come to the net very often? He has fantaastic strokes and really goes after his shots.

You even tried to say that Nadal hit a 100mph moonball, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Wouldn't you find it boring if everyone played the same way? You watch tennis and spend a lot of time on this forum. You clearly aren't as disillusioned as you would have us believe. In fact, I think you would soon switch off if the game of tennis became so homogenized.

bjurra
07-21-2008, 08:50 AM
If Ferrer is a pusher than Davydenko is too; if Hewitt was a pusher, then Borg was and maybe Nadal is too. Hewitt's baseline game was not about pushing the ball back and doing little offensively - in my opinion.

Davydenko was one of the biggest pushers around in 2003/2004. Never went for a winner, always waited for the opponent to miss. These days he plays very aggressive tennis and tries to decide points for himself. Even when his game is off, he doesnt resort to pusher mode.

Ferrer sometimes plays like a pusher, sometimes he tries to be the aggressor, eg when he is playing Rafa.

FluffyYellowBall
07-21-2008, 09:15 AM
"Pusher" is too broad a term.

Every player is a pusher in way.

This thread is stupid.

nastoff
07-21-2008, 10:02 AM
Federer is a pusher lately, especially during the RG

JolánGagó
07-21-2008, 01:19 PM
This thread is stupid.

Truer impossible.

ryan23
07-21-2008, 01:24 PM
No Way

NinaNina19
07-21-2008, 01:30 PM
Listen, I've seen enough Murray matches to know that he's a talented player, particularly from the backhand, he has the ability to really put his weight behind this shot, all the while taking the ball incredibly early, but he can't win an entire match on this shot alone against top players.

As for Murray's match against Nadal, well, I've only viewed about 20 minutes worth of youtube highlights, but it seems that he played the most aggressive match of his life, which if one were to follow this line of reasoning, would be the equivalent of suggesting that Tsonga somehow were one of the greatest players to ever come to net, based on his match against Nadal earlier this season.

What Murray does best is improvise, but the reason why he's had an abysmal season at slams has a lot to do with how he's chosen to playfor example I recall Tsonga huffing and puffing near the conclusion of the 4th set -- which would ultimately prove to be the end of the match, yet Murray was unable to duplicate the more aggressive and yet disciplined style he had displayed in what I believe was a 3rd-set bagel in his favor.

Some of his fans have used the wrist injury as an excuse, but he came into this season in superb conditioning, but simply was unable to benefit from it due to his inability to impose what you obviously believe to be one of the most aggressive games on tour.

In any case, Murray isn't going to beat Federer by playing more aggressively, particularly in a best 3 out of 5 set match -- which means that he'd have to rely on Federer's errors, but also would have to hit the occasional winner, same goes for Djokovic, in fact I vividly recall the two playing in Madrid (indoors) and the commentators remarked that Djokovic seemed bemused by Murray's game, yet once Djokovic caught on to this pattern of play, he eventually won that match and has since dominated Murray.

The question is: How is Murray going to beat top players to win a grand slam ? By suddenly hitting a barrage of winners ? No, by using his variety and remaining disciplined by keeping plenty of balls in play, which equates to pushing in my book, because the results of the match would be not in his control, but in the control of the player across the net on whatever particular day.

I actually did see the Almagro and Murray match and if memory serves well, Almagro nearly choked it away but was able to rebound, but the eye sees what the eye wants to see -- especially when it's the eye of a subjective and emotionally invested fan. I mean, it's no surprise that in debates like these fans tend to be the only ones arguing points which supposedly are so obvious that it'd lead to you wrongly suggesting that my observations were in fact based on something I had cooked up in my imagination or more appropriately, an illusion.

Perhaps the talent is there for Murray to develop into something other than a pusher, but presently, he's a pusher and if he wins any tournaments against top players, he'll be doing it by pushing.
I agree with what you're saying that Murray can only wins most of his matches right now by relying on his opponents errors and hitting some winners. But that's not a pusher, he's more of a junk ball counter puncher. A pusher is someone who hits useless shots back to their opponent and waits for them to make a mistake. Murray is not a pusher in that sense.

Bad Religion
07-21-2008, 03:16 PM
Santoro is another example of a pusher

But that bastard is too old . So , no chances for him

nastoff
07-21-2008, 03:19 PM
The magician a pusher? :eek:

Bernard Black
07-21-2008, 03:51 PM
I agree with what you're saying that Murray can only wins most of his matches right now by relying on his opponents errors and hitting some winners. But that's not a pusher, he's more of a junk ball counter puncher. A pusher is someone who hits useless shots back to their opponent and waits for them to make a mistake. Murray is not a pusher in that sense.

Sorry Nina, at professional level Murray is the closest it gets to being a pusher...just ask Federer. I wish it weren't so :(

GlennMirnyi
07-21-2008, 04:44 PM
Murray is 21. Stepanek is...slightly older. He has time. I'd put my house on Murray not peaking at 8th.

The thing is, you bash players who do what you have just described, above. You seem to want one very specific style of play. If a player doesn't meet those expectations, he's a pusher. Murray changes the pace, shows great touch and, when he feels like it, hits some fantastic winners. You seem to want that on every single point, though. I can't even begin to understand why you think Djokovic is a pusher. Because he doesn't come to the net very often? He has fantaastic strokes and really goes after his shots.

You even tried to say that Nadal hit a 100mph moonball, which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Wouldn't you find it boring if everyone played the same way? You watch tennis and spend a lot of time on this forum. You clearly aren't as disillusioned as you would have us believe. In fact, I think you would soon switch off if the game of tennis became so homogenized.

EVERYBODY PLAYS THE SAME NOWADAYS. Of course it's boring.

I just had to make this clear.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 05:11 PM
Sorry Nina, at professional level Murray is the closest it gets to being a pusher...just ask Federer. I wish it weren't so :(

Federer had just lost to Murray without even creating a break point. It was a bitter comment, not sincere advice. Do you really think Federer's going to start handing out tips to someone who has just quite comfortably beaten him?

rocketassist
07-21-2008, 05:20 PM
Santoro is another example of a pusher

But that bastard is too old . So , no chances for him

:retard:

Andi-M
07-21-2008, 06:54 PM
Andy Murray has a BRAIN and he uses it on court he will rarely play the same way twice.

He adapts his game to the oppenant and conditions...he will blast some oppenants off court with winners, he can out -finesse his oppenants. He can hit incredibly deep accurate groundies that force his oppenants into error.

He mixes up his game he's talented.
Not to say he dosent get it wrong alot, but the potential is there.

Surely a pusher is someone who has very little pace on their shots and primarily defends from the baseline.

So no a pusher cant win a GS.

Sofonda Cox
07-21-2008, 06:56 PM
Andy Murray has a BRAIN and he uses it on court he will rarely play the same way twice.

.

If he used it off court he might have more fans

Murray will never win a slam because of shite fitness and general moron behaviour

Xenosys
07-21-2008, 07:02 PM
At the moment, Murray's game hasn't matured enough yet to pick the right shots to play at the correct moments. The potential is there for a lot to see, and his fitness has improved a great deal over the past 18 months. He is a tactical player but I get the impression he thinks just a tad too much occasionally.

I don't see him winning Wimbledon at all, but he may get close enough to smell the trophy at the Australian or US Open, and based on his current rate of development, it'll be 3-4 years before he hits a peak and gets near a slam.

nastoff
07-21-2008, 07:13 PM
Andy Murray can play aggressive and he was doing it last season under Brad Gilbert. See Murray - Nadal in Madrid , where Murray was the main aggressor and came close at beating Nadal. However with his current coaching regime he has taken a few steps backwards and is probably playing a more lazy style these days that can brand him as a "pusher". It's not a case - like Simon - that he doesn't have the weapons, it's just that he can't be conditioned to utilise them and play a more aggressive style.
That's the reason why his development has remained slow in my opinion.
The potential is there: both Djokovic and Nadal have said that he's a top FIVE player. Not top 10. Both were insisting on it as well, so they know what they're talking about , don't they?

As for Federer he's a little too arrogant to give enough credit to anybody.

FluffyYellowBall
07-21-2008, 07:16 PM
MTF main course menu

-Moonballers

-Ballbashers

-Pushers
-w/ brains
-w/o brains

nastoff
07-21-2008, 07:19 PM
And the fact that Murray's best performances are on hard courts, goes to show that he's not a pusher.

Xenosys
07-21-2008, 07:24 PM
MTF main course menu

-Moonballers

-Ballbashers

-Pushers
-w/ brains
-w/o brains

Moonballers with a side-salad please monsieur.

Can I have a small serving of volleymisu for dessert please? :)

Mmmm... hungry now.

Good point about the hard-court season. Hard-court's are his favourite surface, so he is capable of winning a slam playing aggressive tennis.

r2473
07-21-2008, 08:09 PM
Define pusher.

he means counterpuncher / retriever.

To but a "human face" to the question:

"Could Michael Chang win a slam if he were playing in this era"?

JolánGagó
07-21-2008, 08:18 PM
"Could Michael Chang win a slam if he were playing in this era"?

Not in his wildest dreams.

Could Ferrer? extremely improbable.

rocketassist
07-21-2008, 09:26 PM
Pushers:

Boredo
Canas
Simon
Benneteau

The likes of Pics and Fakervic are 'grinders with aggression/power'.

Black Adam
07-21-2008, 10:17 PM
Andy Murray has a BRAIN and he uses it on court he will rarely play the same way twice.

He adapts his game to the oppenant and conditions...he will blast some oppenants off court with winners, he can out -finesse his oppenants. He can hit incredibly deep accurate groundies that force his oppenants into error.

He mixes up his game he's talented.
Not to say he dosent get it wrong alot, but the potential is there.

Surely a pusher is someone who has very little pace on their shots and primarily defends from the baseline.

So no a pusher cant win a GS.

Hey fanboy, why then does he keep losing quite easily to Djokovic? He brings on court the same game and attitude and the result is always the same.

Clydey
07-21-2008, 11:54 PM
Hey fanboy, why then does he keep losing quite easily to Djokovic? He brings on court the same game and attitude and the result is always the same.

To be fair, he jokingly said before Wimbledon that he'd maybe need to revise his Djokovic gameplan. He'd have to be thick to not realise how ineffective he has been against Djokovic.

Lurker011
09-08-2008, 02:43 AM
i have to bump this thread,because Andy Murray,your classic "pusher",has a very good chance to win a slam tomorrow.

Clydey
09-08-2008, 02:55 AM
i have to bump this thread,because Andy Murray,your classic "pusher",has a very good chance to win a slam tomorrow.

Get a clue. Did you even see the Nadal match? Murray hit something like 30 more winners than Nadal. He was ultra aggressive. When will people realise that Murray's tactics depend on his opponent? Only an idiot would call Murray a pusher. Especially now.

MatchFederer
09-08-2008, 03:39 AM
i have to bump this thread,because Andy Murray,your classic "pusher",has a very good chance to win a slam tomorrow.

Your bump was f'ing useless.

Bernard Black
09-08-2008, 08:53 AM
Get a clue. Did you even see the Nadal match? Murray hit something like 30 more winners than Nadal. He was ultra aggressive. When will people realise that Murray's tactics depend on his opponent? Only an idiot would call Murray a pusher. Especially now.

True. I hope Murray has the confidence now to believe that playing aggressively, he can beat most players. Will be interesting to see what tactics he uses in the final, he may feel he can afford to be more reserved against Federer as the mistakes will occasionally flow from the Swiss. It would be dangerous to play like this though in my opinion, as if Federer does get on a roll the Scot could find himself a couple of sets down within the hour.

MacTheKnife
09-08-2008, 10:43 AM
True. I hope Murray has the confidence now to believe that playing aggressively, he can beat most players. Will be interesting to see what tactics he uses in the final, he may feel he can afford to be more reserved against Federer as the mistakes will occasionally flow from the Swiss. It would be dangerous to play like this though in my opinion, as if Federer does get on a roll the Scot could find himself a couple of sets down within the hour.

If he stands 10 meters behind the base line to return Federer's serve, he's toast. But I just don't think he's stupid enough to try that. Also, I agree completely with your last sentence. Murray has got to stay even or ahead in this match, if Fed gets a set or two lead, it's over.

Bernard Black
09-08-2008, 10:56 AM
If he stands 10 meters behind the base line to return Federer's serve, he's toast. But I just don't think he's stupid enough to try that.

Definitely, I can see if he tries that Federer dominating all day especially with the wide serve to the deuce court. Murray will need to step in a bit to cut that angle off but of course he'll leave himself more vulnerable to the flat serve down the T.

It's a fine balance, I just hope he gets it right.