Let's Talk Defensive Strategy

mosconiac

mosconiac

Job+Wife+Child=No Stroke
Silver Member
I'm having trouble with this aspect of the game. I'm trying to develop a general set of guidelines to govern my safety play, so I can walk away the winner of defensive flourishes more often.

Here's my problem: I've heard two Schools Of Thought on this topic when it comes to playing safe off the stack.

SOT#1: The first guy to get up table generally wins the battle.
SOT#2: NEVER scrape off the rack & go up table.

These directly contradict. What's a developing player to believe?!?!

I've been employing the second SOT because I've learned the hard way that you can leave a dead one when scraping off the rack. Unfortunately, this just leads to a series of punt shots where we slide off the closest ball only to go to the rail & back to stick the guy back to the stack. Eventually the balls loosen up & the opportunities to slide off a close ball go away. I'm probably 50/50 on winning these flourishes...that's not good enough!

Here's a great example from a classic match between the Cowboy & the Deacon on youtube. Which way would you play it?

I'd play response#2 and try to stick the cueball right against the balls AND push the two object balls up near the side pockets to put pressure on my opponent...but maybe it would be better to pull the cueball to the end rail?!?!? If I get the cueball there, my opponent would be forced to try the "scrape & go up table move"...which would be a low-percentage for him. Hmmm.

CowboyvsDeaconSituationResponses.jpg
 
Last edited:
mosconiac said:
I'm having trouble with this aspect of the game. I'm trying to develop a general set of guidelines to govern my safety play, so I can walk away the winner of defensive flourishes more often.

Here's my problem: I've heard two Schools Of Thought on this topic when it comes to playing safe off the stack.

SOT#1: The first guy to get up table generally wins the battle.
SOT#2: NEVER scrape off the rack & go up table.

These directly contradict. What's a developing player to believe?!?!

I've been employing the second SOT because I've learned the hard way that you can leave a dead one when scraping off the rack. Unfortunately, this just leads to a series of punt shots where we slide off the closest ball only to go to the rail & back to stick the guy back to the stack. Eventually the balls loosen up & the opportunities to slide off a close ball go away. I'm probably 50/50 on winning these flourishes...that's not good enough!

Here's a great example from a classic match between the Cowboy & the Deacon on youtube. Which way would you play it?

I'd play response#2 and try to stick the cueball right against the balls AND push the two object balls up near the side pockets to put pressure on my opponent...but maybe it would be better to pull the cueball to the end rail?!?!? If I get the cueball there, my opponent would be forced to try the "scrape & go up table move"...which would be a low-percentage for him. Hmmm.

CowboyvsDeaconSituationResponses.jpg
Click to expand...

Here's my problem: I've heard two Schools Of Thought on this topic when it comes to playing safe off the stack.

SOT#1: The first guy to get up table generally wins the battle.
SOT#2: NEVER scrape off the rack & go up table.

These directly contradict. What's a developing player to believe?!?!

Here's a great example from a classic match between the Cowboy & the Deacon on youtube. Which way would you play it?

I don't believe either of the two previously provided options is best for a good player. The first option is far too risky and the second option gives opponent an advantage over the current shooter for he could then go off the rack with sufficient spin to pull cueball back off a side rail winding up frozen or near frozen to center of the foot rail so you won't have option to draw cueball on your next shot.
I'd draw off a very slightly fuller hit on your second option so as to leave the cueball very close, if not frozen, to center of bottom cushion (if you can't consistently accomplish this, you are not a sufficiently good player for the move).
One way to convince yourself as to which way is best is to play your best for both players to see which side winds up making the most balls for this particular rack--keeping statistics while doing this at least ten times for each of the three options. That should be enough for comparison purposes.
I very strongly suggest two or three hours of doing this for all who are unsure as to which of the three options is best if they want to learn 14.1 strategy. By the way, make a mental photograph of cuetip impacting the cueball whenever attempting the option I've provided. You figure to execute the shot better after attempting it one or two times using this method of aiming.
For a better game,
Eddie Robin
 
Eddie - it's a pleasure to see you posting here, I've heard a lot of great things about your 1-pocket game. Your book on the subject is going for like 300 bucks now that it's out of print.

It's good there's a less expensive way to learn something you.

On the subject of this particular post... I never did get why 'they' say it's so bad so send your opponent up table. The usual answer is that you never know when you might accidentally leave them a dead ball. But plenty of situations come up where you know for sure that only one ball is going to move, and that ball isn't going to create anything dead. So why not park them on the head rail so that it's very tough for them to thin hit something from several feet away?

My opponents seem to always sell out when I park them way at the top of the table, unless they intentionally foul, which should end badly for them anyway.
 
I agree

CreeDo said:
Eddie - it's a pleasure to see you posting here, I've heard a lot of great things about your 1-pocket game. Your book on the subject is going for like 300 bucks now that it's out of print.

It's good there's a less expensive way to learn something you.

On the subject of this particular post... I never did get why 'they' say it's so bad so send your opponent up table. The usual answer is that you never know when you might accidentally leave them a dead ball. But plenty of situations come up where you know for sure that only one ball is going to move, and that ball isn't going to create anything dead. So why not park them on the head rail so that it's very tough for them to thin hit something from several feet away?

My opponents seem to always sell out when I park them way at the top of the table, unless they intentionally foul, which should end badly for them anyway.
Click to expand...

Good answer. I totally agree with you. Make your opponent shoot those long shots. They will mess up and give you a good shot. The closer to the rail, the better. As LeRoy Kinman always told me "Put them on the Brunswick".
 
Against bad players I play far more often the safety which leaves them uptable, even if there is a ball or two available for pocketing next to the rack. If they happen to make the shot, they won't usually make too long of a run. Against good players, they are usually favourites in making those long shots plus making a substancial run so I rather keep them in bay and continue freezing them behind the rack. Also, good players can make an efficient 2-rail kick-foul behind the rack from uptable if the rack is almost untouched so I won't be able to send them uptable again.
 
Sending someone up table isn't a bad thing. I think people say that because as Mike Sigel would say, "They don't tickle the balls right." If you're good at slightly, barely-touching the corner ball---- send'm up to the "Brunswick."

Mind you, make sure there isn't a dead ball in the stack---or make sure you're not creating a dead ball in the stack when doing so.

In this scenario... I don't like either 1 or 2. I like option 3: Shoot at the right corner ball with right english and a little low to freeze the CB at the bottom-center of the rail.

If you shoot option 2, all it makes this shot a "lock" and then you're shooting into the rack from a frozen or near frozen position. You might as well get there first and force your opponent to deal with that crap.

From that frozen position, you can stick the CB beneath the rack---or, you can tickle your balls and send them to the Brunswick. You sell out if you're not in practice with the shot. Slightly brushing the balls without moving them while having enough speed on the CB to get to the opposite end-rail is a must-have in your toolbox.
 
Bodendorfer said:
What about number3.
Click to expand...

Well, my response was based on the options / choices presented. I assumed there was a specific reason 2 choices were presented otherwise it would have been much easier to simply ask, "what would you do?"

I assumed the person asking was after thoughts based on those two basic concepts for a reason, so I limited my thoughts to my choices. :)

I'll bet if you were standing at an actual table rather than a photo of the rack you may find even more and better options. :shrug:
 
FWIW, Jimmy Moore played option #1 (scrape off the closest ball & leave him up table).
 
When I was learning to play, "Leave 'em long!" was the normal response among the people I learned from.
 
3andstop said:
Well, my response was based on the options / choices presented. I assumed there was a specific reason 2 choices were presented otherwise it would have been much easier to simply ask, "what would you do?"

I assumed the person asking was after thoughts based on those two basic concepts for a reason, so I limited my thoughts to my choices. :)

I'll bet if you were standing at an actual table rather than a photo of the rack you may find even more and better options. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Dont Settle for what you see.Be Aware that tiers is alaways more and somthing better. Go By what you see not what someone is trying to get you to agree on. You make your choices. Your choice mite be the correct joice. Be open Not just a folower.
 
Regarding my previously given option for given situation

CreeDo said:
Eddie - it's a pleasure to see you posting here, I've heard a lot of great things about your 1-pocket game. Your book on the subject is going for like 300 bucks now that it's out of print.

It's good there's a less expensive way to learn something you.

On the subject of this particular post... I never did get why 'they' say it's so bad so send your opponent up table. The usual answer is that you never know when you might accidentally leave them a dead ball. But plenty of situations come up where you know for sure that only one ball is going to move, and that ball isn't going to create anything dead. So why not park them on the head rail so that it's very tough for them to thin hit something from several feet away?

My opponents seem to always sell out when I park them way at the top of the table, unless they intentionally foul, which should end badly for them anyway.
Click to expand...

In top level play, one normally avoids sending cueball uptable if there's even one chance in fifty of leaving a dead shot when doing so. You must not have noticed how this could easily happen in this particular case in the first option AND in the one that follows mine. One must decide if the glancing off the side of the rack on way uptable can leave a dead shot. I used the word 'normally' because it is always a matter of comparing options and taking the best for your level of ability to execute.

Seems most won't notice how in one of the quotes that corrected mine by glancing off the bottom ball at the far corner, there's the possibility of leaving a dead-shot that opponent might make by way of a kick off the side rail at the left. Notice how that corner ball can nudge the ball just above it into a dead kiss-off. Super players avoid taking such chances whenever they can.

In defensive play, much like in the game of chess, one must sometimes think as much as 3, 4, or even 5 moves ahead. Lesser players don't do this. My opinions are often only correct only for very top-level players because I naturally can't give an opinion based on each and every level of ability to execute.

Most would not have mastered the ability to draw off a ball with an accurate measurement of speed as must be accomplished in my suggested move which is why I even provided a most basic tip in effort to provide at least one way to help develop that particular ability; there are other such tidbits of basic tech that would aid in measuring one's speed of draw of course, but, sadly, they are not to be found in current books on fundamentals.

I previously expected my suggested move would be more easily understood and only now realize I'd have to write a few pages for some to understand it. This has happened a great many times with shots in my books but I can't write a page of explanations for each and every diagrammed shot of my books would be two thousand pages long. The reader simply has to use his noodle a bit or stick to simpler things until he can.

Eddie Robin
 
Question for Eddie

Question for Eddie on his option 3.

I very much like Eddie's 3rd option, something I'll try next time I'm shooting. The question I have is this: Even if you missed the bottom rail on the draw, not enough or too much, and the cue ball ended up behind the rack slightly off the rail. How bad would that be? It seems that even there it would be a pretty effective safety (but I may be woefully ignorant) and less risk than missing the up-table attempt.
 
My r2nd reply re 14.1 defensive options (sup to leave title for ea reply?)

Thomas McKane said:
Question for Eddie on his option 3.

I very much like Eddie's 3rd option, something I'll try next time I'm shooting. The question I have is this: Even if you missed the bottom rail on the draw, not enough or too much, and the cue ball ended up behind the rack slightly off the rail. How bad would that be? It seems that even there it would be a pretty effective safety (but I may be woefully ignorant) and less risk than missing the up-table attempt.
Click to expand...

Logical question; it seems that there is always more that can be explained.

Thanks for liking my suggested option for I, like everyone else, likes to feel that they are right. I can see how the options provided by others have their place as well if one lacks ability to consistently leave cueball extremely close to the bottom rail with a nip-draw. If you decide to pass on mine, you should then weigh your chances of leaving a dead-shot with options one (uptable) and option four (off corner ball at the right) and go with option-two (cueball left near back of bunch) only if absolutely.....Uuugh! The only way I can possibly imagine myself ever going for option two was if I had to play with Ed Taylor's reading glasses. Leaving cueball close to the bottom of the bunch leaves opponent with just toooooo great a chance at beating you to the next decent shot.

Gotta get back to getting my new place in shape; still have unopened boxes all over the place. So that's it for now,

for continual and rapid improvement,
Eddie Robin

PS: Artie B; I don't know how to get around these forums very well so I hope you will see this note (maybe it can be passed on to ya by another AZ member). I'd really like to talk with ya again. How about us meeting again next time you go to that same Health-Store Market that's near my end of town. My email, in case you've lost my number, is er89121@aol.com
 
Eddie/Artie:

Would either of you like to share any insight on taking intentional fouls while being kissed to the rack (and the tangents take you to a sell-out position or scratch)?

I was recently told to "push" the CB into the rack to create a new tangent to get to a rail and back to the muck. Is it better to do that or just take the 15-ball penalty (and not risk a sell out) if you're playing a good player?
 
Eddie Robin said:
Leaving cueball close to the bottom of the bunch leaves opponent with just toooooo great a chance at beating you to the next decent shot.
Click to expand...

...and that was what was happening all too often in my game situations. I would stick the guy to the rack and we'd roll the CB off the stack and back into it until things loosened up too much or someone sold out.

I had a feeling that there was a better way and it appears that going up table or leaving the opponent stuck to the bottom rail is superior. Thanks for the input. It's been a real treat to see Eddie & Artie post in my thread! :thumbup:

BTW, I just checked Babe Cranfield's book and he stresses the up-table/leave 'em long strategy.
 
Intentionally giving up points to play safe in 14.1

SpiderWebComm said:
Eddie/Artie:

Would either of you like to share any insight on taking intentional fouls while being kissed to the rack (and the tangents take you to a sell-out position or scratch)?

I was recently told to "push" the CB into the rack to create a new tangent to get to a rail and back to the muck. Is it better to do that or just take the 15-ball penalty (and not risk a sell out) if you're playing a good player?
Click to expand...

What did you mean by muck?

Shot choice naturally depends on the exact situation you are in at the time. I'll be quite willing to provide my opinion if I can see the situation you are in. There are times to lose a point intentionally in 14.1, and even times one should do so precisely as you have described; and, if you were an excellent ball runner, there are even times when you would be best off with the taking of a 15-point penalty.

Mosconi, when truly great, around 1953, would continually beat O. Lauri to the next decent shot from his enthusiastic willingness to take as many 15-point penalties as necessary to accomplish that goal. He was doing that almost as often when I'd first watched him in 1954 or 1955.

There are of course times when one must take unusual risks. Understanding such things and knowing when to select which option is an important part of being a top 14.1 player. Just like many a player capable of running a hundred or two may run them all wrong, not all good players know much about the defensive part of the game.

You can pick up this kind of knowledge by simply planning sufficiently far ahead while continually assuming that your opponent will in turn notice the best of his available defensive options.

I'll be including books on the game of straight-pool if and when I ever manage to get back into the business of publishing billiard books. That's been my goal for a long time but have lacked sufficient funds since 1997, and, though still in fairly good health, I'm now 70 and getting a bit older each and every year.

for a better game of straight-pool,

Eddie Robin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top