There's combat and then there's mortal combat.
Tennis allows for the psychological strains of one-on-one combat minus the threat of annihilation or permanent physical injury, though I've seen psychological injuries result at all levels. Some are never the same after a certain loss.
Martial arts can be to the end, but primarily it is just pain or possibly permanent injury at risk. Then there is actual mortal combat with loss defined as death. None of the rest truly compare.
I like to think of elite coaches as World Class Chefs while others know how to run a fast food joint and put out the volume with palatable results that fill stomachs on the cheap. You need the spectrum. You even need so-called inferior coaches just as much as you need people with quirky personalities so you have a basis and reference points for judging the norm. If you have a norm in a skill set, then you can judge the superior ones and even the brilliant. Should we only allocate court time for players and teachers above a certain skill level? We need anyone willing to share the game with others, and even volunteers with limited skills and knowledge have a place just like parents coaching kids as volunteers. I had a former college player as a team coach once and I learned little from him while a music teacher volunteer turned out the be the one who got all the kids out to play, including me. I suggest that it's best to help other teachers move forward and not drive them out.
Landsorp on American Tennis Coaching
Yes, Novak is acrobatic much like a flier might maneuver his aircraft. He maintains improbable balance under almost all conditions.
Exemption for AO?
They should give him one since he's had health issues prior to this with food allergies.
Federer wins in this important statistic
Maybe we should just go with the most Sportsmanship awards as the deciding statistic. As for winning percentages, why stop at the Open Tennis Era?
A former world #1 and Now a Coach explains why
I tend to agree with this simply because of the probability that even one play can stay at the top this long much less three in the same era. This has been a second Golden Age of Tennis if you count the '60s-'70s as the first one.
Does playing for precision and consistency make you less of a player? Does playing it safe make you a pusher? Askign for a well known friend.
These people should worry more about the vax effectiveness vs natural immunity than individuals who are willing to undergo a quarantine.
Make them do what they don't like to do. That usually means bringing them up to the net on your terms. Once at the net you can pass or lob them depending on their skillset and yours. Short angle shots are also an option.
With serving, always think of body serves. Pushers tend not to like being forced and this may give you midcourt returns you can attack.
When receiving most pushers have no strong serve or they wouldn't rely on defense only. Try stepping in on their serve before they begin their motion so that they can clearly see you standing well inside the baseline to attack. If they are really weak on the serve, I've seen players standing a foot behind the service line as a challenge and it can rattle a server.
While in the heat of the struggle, I'd keep trying new things. Find one weakness and attack it relentlessly. As a group, pushers are risk-averse and mentally strongest when frustrating their opponent. You need to frustrate them. For instance, if they have an iffy low backhand since pushers tend to play well behind the baseline, keep going to it with angle and backspin. Isolate their weakness and focus on it.
As a proviso: If they are good at handling all of these things then they just might be better than you and your options may decline down to learning from your loss.