I would say not so. Good players should size up what is on the board and play the other side, make decisions as if they were the other player based on the most beneficial move for them. If indeed their opponent picks a different move and it somehow counters, then the "good player" didn't really make a genuine effort. Sometimes an excellent player just needs to fall back on basics of winning the game: shooting up the enemy ships.

In real fighter combat, there are a ton of complicated maneuvers that get crazy names, but you don't just perform those maneuvers because you are skilled or that is in your hand. If an F-18 is coming up behind a bandit who hasn't seen him, there is no maneuver to do other than fly into range and attack.

Real fighter combat is actually a really good analogy. You never "perform maneuvers" with fancy names as your objective. Your goal is to kill the opposing pilot as quickly and brutally as possible. The best way to do that is to fly in low and behind him where he can't see you, preferably after a dive out of the sun to keep your speed up, squeeze off a murderous burst, and leave. If you do your job, the dead man will have never even known you were there. Maneuvers happen when the other guy is a jerk about it and tries to keep you from brutally killing him. But the maneuvers are never an end-goal in themselves, they are always designed to solve one of the four problems of BFM (Range, Closure, Aspect, and Angle-off) and solving those four problems puts you in the six o'clock position you're describing.

X-Wing works very differently from aerial combat, but I think the principle of simply trying to murder your enemy as brutally and efficiently as possible is probably a good one nonetheless.

I look to other sources of inspiration to draw parallels and analogy, but the mechanics at play differ to such degree that taking any strategy or tactic that is too specific would be worthless. A lot of basic and general parallels can still be drawn to other wargames or examples of combat. Aerial combat as an example, it holds in the philosophy of attack the enemy without retaliation if possible, be able to retaliate if attacked. The parallels do mostly dissolve when you start to consider strategy and tactics dictated by how planes fly and shoot.

To take another example, particularly from ground combat, you need to consider force concentration when trading shots in x-wing and how the strength of 4 units spread across the board differs from those same units in groups of 2 or in a single group. A lot of the philosophy of x-wing formation flying has been influenced by the principle that your concentrated force, so long as it does not become unwieldy, will defeat the mirror of itself spread thin across the board. Again, details of how x-wing ships move and shoot will make x-wing diverge from the example I draw this parallel from.