In all seriousness, it’s surely more fluke than Madrid at this point:
i mean madrid wasnt a fluke considering sen and geng were good NEARLY all year long
red123 [#2]i mean madrid wasnt a fluke considering sen and geng were good NEARLY all year long
True, but sen did fail to make Shanghai and geng got grouped at champs (to 2nd and 4th place to be fair). Also loud didn’t make regional playoffs the rest of the year, kc made no more lans, th, prx, and edg were missing one of their players
Less flukey than Bangkok tho by this logic
a whole event is never a fluke, if the teams were better than they shouldve won. The teams that adapted to the meta fastest were better, now that theres a slight meta shift and other team got more prep they are better. nothing wrong with that
GambleNats [#4]a whole event is never a fluke, if the teams were better than they shouldve won. The teams that adapted to the meta fastest were better, now that theres a slight meta shift and other team got more prep they are better. nothing wrong with that
agreed, at Bangkok and definitely at kickoff tejo's pick rate wasn't as high, tejo meta wasn't "discovered" yet.
Post-bangkok? Tejo's pickrate is through the roof. Bangkok wasn't a fluke, just a COMPLETELY different meta.
Though G2 have looked impressive throughout - I do expect them to fumble a bit at Toronto without Tejo, but they're really good in individual talent and definitely more so on team play, so you never know.
T1 winning wasnt a fluke but man they got some really lucky rounds last map (sylvan 1v3 ninja defuse to convert the bonus, stax finding the perfect gap to stop the defuse on time)
I disagree with your title but the rest is all fair. I refuse to believe you can fluke a Masters win, however the dip in form from every team outside of Americas was a major surprise. On the other hand though, I think teams that we may have considered middle of the pack have raised their potential significantly, such as RRQ, XLG, and Wolves.
ScoutViolet [#7]agreed, at Bangkok and definitely at kickoff tejo's pick rate wasn't as high, tejo meta wasn't "discovered" yet.
Post-bangkok? Tejo's pickrate is through the roof. Bangkok wasn't a fluke, just a COMPLETELY different meta.
Though G2 have looked impressive throughout - I do expect them to fumble a bit at Toronto without Tejo, but they're really good in individual talent and definitely more so on team play, so you never know.
oh yeah for sure, I think G2 will be worse but I dont think it will be enough to fall out of the top 4
Mirage27 [#9]I disagree with your title but the rest is all fair. I refuse to believe you can fluke a Masters win, however the dip in form from every team outside of Americas was a major surprise. On the other hand though, I think teams that we may have considered middle of the pack have raised their potential significantly, such as RRQ, XLG, and Wolves.
also similar to last year, teams that missed Bangkok are adapting fast to the meta after kickoff.
Uncleben [#3]True, but sen did fail to make Shanghai and geng got grouped at champs (to 2nd and 4th place to be fair). Also loud didn’t make regional playoffs the rest of the year, kc made no more lans, th, prx, and edg were missing one of their players
Less flukey than Bangkok tho by this logic
by this logic though you could argue shanghai was a bit of a fluke
geng got grouped at champs. 100t, t1, and drg made no more lans. th and edg were missing one of their players
sure maybe not as much as madrid, but it’s not like geng is the perfect winner
Also you can't blame T1 for getting knocked out by toronto and champs winners
Tempest24 [#6]Any international vct event win cannot be called a fluke
Bangkok was a fluke
Tempest24 [#15]at least put some effort in ur baits
?
Not a bait. T1 didn't deserve to win. Not a single player went positive.
Discord