People hate on her, but she's a really good coach. Unlike certain teams... even when her teams look bad, if not flat out awful, you can tell there was at least an idea and see the prep in regard to what they're trying to do. And each team she has almost always at least shows potential. Considering the actual individual talent, it's pretty impressive what she does imo. I'd like to see what she could do with a "superteam" or even just a very promising team of 3-4 T2 players like LEV.
I respect potter
posted in
Valorant Discussion
The thing is she can have better rosters than this. She believes that bums like b00 can fly
well eg doesn't really give her roster freedom she really wanted sym but had to go with icy (js reminded me of sym :( my nights ruined)
Anyone can win with a superteam unless they are frod
What makes a coach 'really good' is winning with mid teams
This eg team isn't even mid
They have cracked individuals
They are more than credible to win
we are forgetting that before demon1 joined they were on track to be a bottom feeder team?
potter couldnt do shit before he joined
ya i promise you bro demon1 was not the main reason why they got second in tokyo and won champs
dare I say it was having a 10 man roster to scrim with which was the most important
Vitality didn't win. MIBR didn't win. T1 barely won. I don't think "anyone can win with a superteam" The majority of the best coaches in Valorant, at least based on common consensus, have only won with elite and borderline superteams. So where do you get that being the sole criteria?
- Majority of people considered them a superteam regardless of whether or not thats true by any objective standard. Even this year by most they are considred a superteam.
you can't have a superteam with botppi, same with kicks, we need to move past the superteam tag for newly formed teams, it polarizes a lot more the discussion around a team, but yeah, I agree with you on the part where wins only come for coaches with good rosters
T1 barely won is a crazy statement
Fnc also won in 2023
Vit and mibr are two examples of failed superteams
On what grounds would you claim FNC in 2023 was formed as a super team? None of them had even won anything. Derke was the best previous FNC player. Boaster was not the name that he is today being a pretty lack luster player mechanically and without the prestige to offset it. Leo had qualified once... and chronicle was the only real "superteam" like player. Barring maybe derke.
A comparison would be like Kajaak Verno Cortezia Johnqt(off igl) And valyn (except he can't shoot) being on the same team and calling that a superteam. Which tbf some people probably would. But like wise people would say that they're not a genuine superteam.
when they poached munchkin who was easily top 3 fragging duelist plus the best viper itw ofc they were expected a podium finish by now 😭 but they losing to varrel
also not leaning into munchkin viper from the get go was dumb asf
Where in the fucking message have I referred to 2023 EG
I'd like to see what she could do with a "superteam"
I was replying to this
santiago furia roster was on the level of her team rn
diffed by shaw
"good coach"
Completely disagree that roster player for player clears current eg pretty badly. I also don't think they were particularly good to begin with were in fact quite a fraudulent team. This might actually be a good point if 2023 didn't exist and potter simply hadn't ever done anything.
lets do a 1:1 comparison
alym and paincakes were top t2 prospects before joining
nerve and zerona were ok in t2 before joining
artzin and supamen are both t1 veterans but not standout players at all on previous rosters
eeiu and dgzin are both amazing players stuck in 100t and loud jail respectively
koalanoob and bao are both high ceiling players in tier 2 but struggled to perform to the same level in tier 1
its literally the same team
a 1:1 comparison would be via roles...
Dgzin has been better than Alym in T2 and T1
Eeiu is a genuine tier gap above paincakes and is one of the best initiators itw
artzin and supamen have performed at about the same level in T1
bao and nerve have performed at about the same level in T1 and T2
Koalanoob and Zerona aren't even comparable Koala performed much better in T1 and in T2
Overall the quality of that Furia roster is above current EG Whilst facing far easier first games than this EG team thus far.
this guy did a role comparison between eeiu and paincakes
just say you are clueless bro
also a role comparison is not better at all? crack cocaine take
we are comparing the team as a whole not the individual components of the team
if you compare by player quality 1:1 it is basically the same level of team
yes I did a role comparison between two players currently playing the same role.
paincakes spent all of the 25 year in t2 on sentinel duelist flex and you are comparing him to a top ten scan initiator in americas like it would ever be a fair comparison
has to be ragebait
Yes because he is currently on initiator... and we are judging eg for their current performance on their current roles... are you okay? If they are going to play him on initiator his duelist flex performances in tier 2 are irrelevant. If you'd like... swap zerona and paincakes. Eeiu >>> Zerona Koala>>>paincakes nothing changes
People confuse nice people with good coaching. Don't make me drop the quote.
Potter seems like a really nice person. But you can't call her a good coach if coaches have any impact on winning. They're on a historic losing streak for such an extended period of time.
Unfortunately in the world of competitive sports we are measured by wins and losses. No offense but I'm going to pass on your advice...
FOUR WINS IN A YEAR. A WHOLE YEAR.
Unfortunately in the world of competitive sports we are measured by wins and losses, no offense but I'm going to pass on your advice
(Insert potters record in the last 3 years)
I don't know anything about potter. I mean she seems nice ig but that has no impact on my view of her as a coach. Frost isnt particularly nice and I think hes a top 5 coach in the games history. I do not this this ridgid way of thinking is entirely accurate in a game like valorant this could only ever be true if coaches are the ONLY impact on winning which is obviously not the case. YOU can think she's not a good coach
Okay but over an entire year, she got four wins. At what point can you be objective? Is it 1 win over a year? 0 wins over a year? There has to be an objective line to judge a coach. Sure you can argue that "my line" is 4. But you've only got 3 other options or there is no way to judge a coach. Which if that's the case, what are we even talking about.
I think your entire way of thinking is flawed lol, that's what I'm saying, you are applying a false dilemma. I do not think the quality of a coach is solely judged by any amount of wins. High or Low. What Im talking about is what I can see within the team the preparation and work that I can see in their stats and setups. I am not saying wins and losses should not matter however that should not be the soul basis of comparison.
My entire way of thinking is flawed? Google top 5 coaches of all time. If you can show me that the coaches are not graded based on their wins I will change my mind.
You cannot see "team preparation" because you were not there.
You see what in their stats or setups? They're not winning so their stats are poor and their setups don't work.
This is called being delusional. Here's the definition for you "Being delusional means holding firm, fixed false beliefs that persist despite overwhelming evidence or reason to the contrary."
Delusional or ragebaiting (and failing)... no other options.
what google says doesn't matter... nor does you changing your mind? You can not change your mind and still be flawed.
I simply disagree I don't think you need to be there.
I meant "strats" their setups do work and have worked. Also setups working or not working are not always contingent on the quality of the strats themselves.
Being delusional is to hold false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You have no presented contrary evidence as that evidence is whats in question.
I'm sorry. I don't see how you're not being delusional.
You don't have to be there to judge her preparation? The results of her preparation is a loss. You were not there. You are some how saying that it is still good preparation. You can't confirm there even was preparation. That's an argument from ignorance.
The measurement of a good coach in a competitive league, is winning, by everyone's standards. That's why you're googling it. It gives you the general sentiment for my statement.
You cannot say "their setups do work and have worked" if they are losing their games. That's a fact. You cannot be successful in anything if you're losing. You're being nonsensical.
I have shown you proof. Her win/loss record. There's not a single serious person who believes you cannot measure a professional coach by their win/loss record. You are measuring her performance based on your "feelings" which are not grounded in reality. Potter is losing games, her setups are not working and you're arguing she is some how a good coach. Nonsensical. period.
You're not disproving my belief just stating yours as a counter against it and going in circles.
I disagree, so that statement is not accurate. General sentiment can be wrong.
I can though I just did? I disagree. You could be successful in shooting heads and still lose.
I mean you can't prove that. Not once have I done that. Again going in circles just restating your opinion, which I've addressed. Again you can think whatever you want
why are you getting baited by m4 bro, if he knew anything about valorant he'd be working for 100t rn
Hes not baiting but there is a fine line between his bait and actual intelligence unfortunately.
You've given me no way to counter your argument. You are simply stating an opinion and holding it as a solid argument. You believe the preparation, that you cannot see, is done well. You are saying the setups are good, but they produce bad outcomes. You are saying the stats of the players should sway me to think they are doing well, but the stats are bad.
They won 10 rounds of 26 in their last match. The team went a combined -57.
If we wanted to have an actual discussion, you need to give me more than "wins and losses shouldn't be the sole comparison" What is the rubric you are using the come to your conclusion. What you have provided, I'm using stats, setups and preparation from their last game they just played, and they were bad. It resulted in a loss. Which this entire thread is discussing.
Just a heads up, LEV is not a super team. They are literal tier 2 players minus Kingg.
Also it is not a false dilemma.
It's a measurement of performance. Winning four games in a year is a poor performance. Those are facts that are not disputable.
Coming from someone who knows me based off works they have not read themselves. Ironic.
That's because your conclusion is nonsensical. This is a competitive, professional league and you're treating it like little league baseball where the coach is supposed to teach people morals and how to be good little kids. It's an absolutely bizarre perspective.
It being a competitive professional league does not contradict my point. This analogy is awful morals don't directly correlate to the fundamentals of the sport as my points do.
deadass doesnt even feel like they got rolled that bad lev attack sides just are too good and they lowkey shouldnt of picked split
Potter's dumb for intentionally starting the series 0-1 against LEV, choosing Lev's best Split map in the world and on top of that playing the same exact comp against them.
Great coach.
Discord