Roger,
I understand that distance can be very intimidating on tight tables. I'm with you on that. I'm older now and I have cataracts, so my eyes aren't as sharp as they once were. So you and I both must try to get in a bit tighter which makes position a bit more dificult. But bigger angles create problems too, so what you give up on one side of the equation you can compensate for on the other. When cutting across the face of a ball a bit of spin is generated on that object ball. That spin can and does cause some shots to jar in the pocket even on tables which aren't so tight.
Roger, The quote you site was not directed at you personally. I was generalizing for the masses, buddy.
Tom
Tom,
If I understand you correctly, I think we're generally on the same page. You can adjust your stroke shot by shot, or you can employ a more systematic way of adjusting your game to different equipment. The latter takes into consideration the tradeoffs between angle and distance, as well as positional routes along with stroke speed.
Watching the pros play, it never ceases to amaze me just how much they demand of their cueball position, esp guys like Buddy and Johnny. They almost always pick the "right shot" for the CB to travel into the object ball rather than coming across it. Even on no brainer patterns they'll go 3 cushions instead of rolling up with inside to garuantee position. One thing to notice is how they invariably elect to take speed out of the equation, when given a choice.
The other great style of positional play imo is someon like Efren, who feels his way along many patterns that require him to employ massive amounts of english (often inside) coupled with extraordinary speed control to run near-impossible outs. That is sheer natural talent that I won't try to emulate, whereas Buddy's game is highly exportable and teachable (obviously not to his level, but I'm speaking to his pattern play).
-roger