Long post about kicks
A while back, someone posed the query as to why kicks seem to be so much more prevalent today than even just a few decades ago. I can espouse my soliloquy on the subject for any who care to hear it. It's a long post, so unless you have insomnia, you may wish to skip it. Bearing in mind, of course, that I do not profess to "know" the answer; I simply give my opinion based on what I consider to be quite thorough personal observation.
I believe there are two primary reasons for this apparent increase in today's frequency of kicks compared to yesteryear, the first and foremost being the continuous epic battle of man versus nature. I can hear the collective gasp of "Huh?" (except for Underclocked uttering his adorable "Whut?") so I shall attempt to explain. In any endeavor of man (in the word's generic sense; not intending to sound sexist), we attempt to control the elements of our environment for our own self interest and purpose. When tools or implements of some sort are required, these will be designed and constructed of materials, natural or "man-made", according to whatever is deemed to have the appropriate characteristics for the task at hand at the time. As time evolves all, these assessments of design and construction are under continuous review and subject to revision as opinions change and materials evolve. Why are modern phenolic blend snooker balls the way they are? Obviously, they need to be of a material that will retain its shape and elasticity under sustained usage in its environment. I would suspect the surface ought have a friction that is high relative to a chalked cue tip (materials may have "relative" frictions as well as an absolute measure of coefficient of friction measured against a standard...for instance, the male and female parts of a Velcro strip could be said to have extremely high friction relative to each other, but both "halves" are quite slick to my fingertip. So the materials of the cue ball, cue tip, and chalk may be tested and manipulated to acquire whatever the desired characteristic may be. The chemical compound of the exact phenolic resin is something that can, using modern technology, be quite easily manipulated, tested for performance, and manipulated some more in order to get the performance characteristics desired, but the "kicker" (pun intended) is that laboratory testing will be specific to the characteristic desired, i.e., a snooker ball material may be developed to a specific, laboratory tested coefficient of friction numerical measurement rather than the subjective opinion of say, someone competent actually trying out a new snooker ball in game conditions. This is a quote directly from the Saluc (Aramith) website regarding SuperPro 1g:
"These sets are quite special: while their packaging and design make them look pretty like the regular Aramith Tournament Champion snooker sets, they are in fact drastically different and allow the W.S.A. professional players to reach the highest scores during the W.S.A. competitions."
They sure seem to be saying right there, "Hey, these are not made of the same stuff as the others." And so comes into play the unbreakable "Law of Unintended Consequences"--by manipulating a variable to a desired outcome, other unforeseen consequences are certain to result. Don't be surprised if the SuperPros are replaced as the official tournament ball before long.
The cloth too has changed over the years but surely, it can't be much different than 20 or 30 years ago. How much can you really do with sheep's hair? Apparently, some type of chemical preservative or something is a variable that has been tinkered with, and as I have previously stated, I personally believe the cloth is stealthily much more responsible for this phenomenon than it is given credit/blame for. Even if it were found that the development of "superior" napped cloth were the main contributor to the kick phenomenon, I for one would not wish to see a changeover to basic pool cloth--heavy napped cloth of English Billiards precedes even the invention of the game of snooker itself. In my opinion, I will be content to accept the occasional kick both as spectator and player as a variable of the phenomenon of a fluke rather than substituting mere pool table cloth for the traditional green baize and the players must deal with it as they will.
Bringing us to what I believe to be the second primary cause of increased kicks: the players themselves. The level of play of the top professionals has improved dramatically during my lifetime; Neil Robertson's century of centuries is irrefutable evidence of this. No offense of course to the old time players, given modern conditions and circumstances, perhaps some or many of the old timers could have been as good or even better than many modern day players were they given today's equipment, knowledge, and mechanical and psychological coaching. As I view things, the single most impressive thing about modern players is the number of ridiculously EASY shots they will make during the course of a frame. That, of course, sounds counter-intuitive, but what I mean by it is that with their mastery of cue ball control, positioning the following shot is so much more often "inch perfect" now than in years past. Evidence? How many 147's do we see now compared to 20 or 30 years ago? About the same ratio increase as with kicks I suspect. How can this possibly tie together? If you had the ability to position yourself perfectly for the next shot to follow, where would you ideally place the cue ball? I would want to leave myself a shortish, fullish shot that I did not need to do a lot of extra work with the cue ball, perhaps just leave myself a nice soft straight shot to let the cue ball roll gently to its NEXT perfect position. Does that sound familiar? Go back a few posts to see that THAT is precisely the type of shot that will have a greatest tendency to actually produce a kick. So I believe that "inch perfect" positional play comes at a cost. If you are only good enough to leave yourself "reasonable" position, you are probably hitting a lot more longer, thinner cuts and using more power to get the cue ball where you want it to go next, therefore, you are automatically going to leave yourself fewer opportunities for a kick to be likely to occur.
I can't say that any of these things is the individual culprit in this drama; most likely it is a combination of a number of factors. Another suggestion of the cause is the heating elements used in modern professional tables, ironically, to give consistency to the playing surface. Unintended consequence? Maybe they need to enclose the base of the snooker table and cool the slate down to a uniform 50 degrees Fahrenheit and see how that reacts?
Like Star Wars, the saga continues...