Just curious as I assume you watched a lot of matches. It seems of the matches I watched, I very rarely saw any players playing safeties or choosing to play intentional fouls when they ended up with very tough shots. Did you notice that? Do you think that was due to the relatively generous pockets, which made executing a successful safety even tougher while also making being able to successfully pocket a tough shot a bit easier?
No, I don't think that's the reason, as this has been the case in all the recent 14.1 events played in America, both those on looser pockets and those on tighter pockets. Extremely few players are well versed at 14.1 safety play and are, consequently, less inclined that they might otherwise be to engage an opponent in a defensive sequence or attempt subtle tactical maneuvers.
On the 3 ball Hohmann shot (the score was about 193-170 in favor of Kaci) that, essentially, cost him the final, Dan Barouty, commentator, straight pool guru, and old-schooler extraordinaire, noted the possibility of taking a foul to either a) create a slightly different shot on the three or b) to begin a defensive sequence (and, yes, there was a way to start a defensive sequence that I noticed). This type of play was quite common in the good old days, but I'd have bet the house against all but of few of today's players even considering it as an option.
Kaci was on a foul, and if Hohmann had simply tapped the cue ball a fraction of an inch to eliminate the three ball completely, Kaci would come back to the table without any shot and a little behind in the safety battle that would follow.
In fact, I'm not sure that any of the 25 best 14.1 defensive players I've ever watched are presently under 50 years old. Defensive/tactical play in 14.1 is a lost art form. That said, though, it's excusable in an era in which little 14.1 is contested at the highest levels of the sport. Players simply don't learn the relatively complicated moves game that goes with 14.1.
This is not meant to suggest that the players of yesteryear often chose defense when there was a shot available, for that was not the case, but the old masters had a few more ways/tactics than today's players to beat an opponent to the first good shot.
It's worth noting that, although generally remembered for a) his titles, b) how well he ran the table and c) how often he ran 100+ in major competition, Mike Sigel was a magnificent defensive/tactical player in 14.1, with only Irving Crane and Allen Hopkins notably stronger in this area of the game.
Even back in the day, though, there were two players who, philosophically, were more like the players of today, choosing even the most difficult shot over defense, and they are Luther Lassiter and Jimmy Caras, who will always be remembered for their willingness to take on very difficult shots in competition. Then again, more than a few old timers I've spoke to consider Lassiter to be the best ball pocketer in the game's history.
To sum, players poorly schooled in the defensive and tactical parts of straight pool are usually correct when they shun a tactical sequence, so let's not suggest they are making the wrong choices. That said, though, to put it the way Crane used to put it, mastery of the tactical part of the straight pool will, over time, "buy you a few extra good looks at the table", which will, in turn buy you a few extra match victories. Learning that part of the game wouldn't be a bad idea for today's top pros, but I clearly understand why they don't bother to do so in a discipline so rarely contested.
Last edited: