Jet are 'pullers'.......at least that what the piston guys say...
Beyond that the real issue with pusher props is that they are less efficient... the prop has to deal with a disturbed airflow.. one that has already been 'used' by the wing....
'Tractor' props get clean air so the entire disc is working harder, hence its area can be reduced and the prop can have bigger blades with more bite( coarser pitch) ..none of these alone makes a big difference but together they add up..
In addition the basic configuration of the a/c to have a pusher prop was aerodynamically too advance for the technology of the time. It is basically an unstable airframe, made stable by oversizing the front surfaces to provide balance and control authority. However th is is only needed as the control systems of the time were unable to deal with an unstable aircraft, it had to be inherently stable to fly successfully. An unstable version would have add weight advantages with the accompanying performance benefits. Again incremental improvements that would have yielded better performance.
However the advent of the jet engine made efficiency improvements in aerodynamics slip down the list of priorities as speed improvements were needed to deal with all this new found power.
I think the best example of this is the Mustang and the Sea Fury. They both had highly efficient wings, which gave them such performance (and some speed reserves as witnessed by Reno Racers). Yet the efficiency of these aerofoils was not match until well into the third generation of jets.. we are looking to the century series. All because power was so plentiful and accessible.
I'm still searching for an answer to the 'best fighter (interceptor) question...The Bearcat does seems to be the winner, but the unknowns of the Yak 9 are bothering me....I wish they had flown together at Duxford or that somebody (Ray Hanna perhaps) had been able to fly both.. that insight would have been good.