In my last article I spoke a of the importance of consistent accurate potting in modem billiards. In preparing this article I spent some time looking through the literature regarding potting and came across many points on which I would like to comment. But space is limited, let me make just one that may—or may not—be somewhat controversial.
Joe Davis could most certainly pot, of this there is no doubt, and his positional play both at billiards and snooker was—in his heyday— considered little short of miraculous. On page 21 of his, "How I Play Snooker," Joe talks of the importance of positional play in snooker, no less relevant to billiards: "Until and unless the pot is automatic, needing only a small part of your concentration, control of the cue ball is impossible."
I am quite convinced that for maybe 99% of players precisely the opposite is true. Position should be obtained without actually trying— now before writing to the editor telling him to sack this lunatic—think about it. There is hardly a player who is not aware of the importance of positional play and knowing this he mostly concentrates more on getting the cueball into position than he does on actually potting the red, trying to do two things at once which is not easy. It is all very well for a player of the calibre of Davis to talk about making the pot automatic so that the player may concentrate on position, but for the rest of us the point where the tip strikes the cue ball should, hopefully make the positional side of the stroke as automatic as possible, leaving the player to devote the major part of his concentration into getting the object ball in the pocket. This is not an easy thing to do but, with practice, it is easier than trying to concentrate on two things at once and not giving full attention to either. Joe Davis considered that it was the scoring part of the stroke that should be automatic and maybe for him it was. For most of the rest of us, struggling with the game, I feel that full attention should be given to the score with the position being the automatic side of the matter, using our judgement in picking the correct part of the cue ball and relying as much as possible on central cueing with the correct strength, screw, or top, rather than on side.
I have a strong feeling that the modern snooker star goes through this process in a matter of seconds, choosing where he wishes to strike the cueball, and when striking keeping his eyes firmly concentrated on that part of the object ball that he wishes to hit so that it will go into the pocket. How often, when potting the red, do you let your eyes wander to the line the cueball will take before the red has actually gone down?
I would wager that for many players this happens quite often. Barrie agreed with me that this is a common fault, especially on thin pots, and I am pretty sure that Karnehm would also agree.
The ability to down the red into a middle pocket consistently leaving good position for the half-ball loser, or for top-of-the-table continuation, is indispensable to good billiards. I once saw Norman Dagley score 1209 points in five visits to the table - 52, 506, 0, 299, and 352! Mostly postman's knock but when playing from hand, usually after a cross loser, he never once failed at the pot and position as in the diagram usually bringing the cueball back from the top cushion.
Concentrate on the pot and correct strength to run the cueball into the circle. Mastery of this positional pot will improve any amateur's game.
Nothing like as easy as it looks when played by someone of Dagley's calibre.