pushing a tail wheel backwards? why? they are to be pulled backward aren't they?
Above someone mentioned a tailwheel maule vs a nose gear maule. I understand (although I have not flown a nose gear maule) that the training wheel version can land with a higher cross-wind component than the tailwheel version.
I don't know if this is true for all tailwheel planes (C180 vs C182? 170 vs 172? Texas C150 vs C150, etc.) but I suspect it is.
When planes were first flown, as in WWI, they flew from a field, not a strip, so the plane was pointed into the wind (non-steerable tail skid), rather than always taking off in one direction (or the opposite direction). They had very short take-off and landing runs, so a square field suited them well. When the take-off/landing run got longer, it was hard to get a square long enough to point the plane into the wind, so the steerable tailwheel came into being.
Mentioned above, briefly, is, I think, the main reason that acrobatic planes tend to be tailwheel, and that is a 5-10 knot reduction in speed with a nose gear. In order to get that back, the gear has to retract, that's added complexity (and weight). A retract plane has a greater empty weight than a fixed gear. Adding nose gear and retract adds a couple hundred pounds. More weight = less lift/speed with the same power.
One more thing...
tailwheel planes look better.