I made this post to compare Alfa and Leo. Why are you bringing up something irrelevant? I never said Alfa clears Chronicle
| Flag: | Papua New Guinea |
| Registered: | October 22, 2024 |
| Last post: | June 23, 2025 at 8:13 PM |
| Posts: | 185 |
I made this post to compare Alfa and Leo. Why are you bringing up something irrelevant? I never said Alfa clears Chronicle
The argument “peeking Leo = peeking an op” is dumb. First of all why is it only used to glaze Leo? Why can’t we say the same for peeking Aspas, Alfa, Demon1, Less, Yay, etc (all in prime form)? Plus Tokyo wasn’t even Leo’s best tourney, Lock In was. Alfa had a higher peak at Tokyo
Winner of GenG/FNC faces G2 in finals
Losing that round contributed to their loss for sure, but it isn't THE reason why they lost. You said they were getting rolled early, but that only makes their comeback and mental fortitude seem even stronger. They had to play flawlessly to even reach OT, how could you take that away from them by saying that it doesn't matter? Yes, patitek missed a huge shot. But he also won a crucial 1v1 when they were down 3-12 that literally kept the comeback alive. You can’t cherry-pick his bad round and ignore the good one — both contributed equally to the final score at the end of the day. Team game for a reason. TL lost cause they weren't able to close out 14 rounds, but patitek's whiff did contribute to them being unable to close out 14 rounds.
Why does everything before 12-12 mean nothing? If they won one extra round in the first half they would've won 13-11 and that whiff would've never even happened. And what about the last round of the game when it was 12-13? TL's plan didn't work and they got outplayed by PRX that round, but it doesn't matter and nobody's else on the team is to blame because patitek whiffed the previous round?
Point is he may have whiffed but hes not the sole reason for the loss. TL could've gotten more rounds on defense, other players also whiffed in crucial moments, etc
He won the 1v1 at 3-12 that gave them the chance to comeback in the first place
G2 vs FNC Toronto GF, ez sweep for Goat2
how we falling for the worst bait of all time
Why bro getting flamed for the truth. People think Ascendant and Radiant are close because both players usually have solid aim, good crosshair placement, basic fundamentals, and decent game sense. But that’s surface-level stuff. The real difference shows when you get into the tiny, niche things that separate good players from absurdly good ones. Radiants have obtained layers of knowledge and instinct you only develop from playing at that level constantly. Sure, someone in Ascendant can beat a Radiant in a 1v1 aim duel, but in a real match? Radiants are making decisions two steps ahead, punishing habits, reading rotations, juggling pressure better, and doing all that while keeping top-tier mechanics. They're mastering parts of the game that most people don’t even notice exist. It’s wild how wide the gap actually is.
You could train your ass off and climb from Iron to Ascendant with discipline and good habits. The skills you need to develop from Iron to Ascendant are simpler and easier to understand in my opinion. Not saying its easy, it's definitely hard. But I assure you the gap between the top 5% and the top 0.001% is way bigger than most think.
I'm sorry but if you've played 500 hours and you're still in Gold, that's on you. You either don't care enough to actively grind and improve your skills, or you're just ass.
Coming from ExRad btw
This is first round chill
Also like I said this list was made quickly, probably not the perfect list, its just a mock draft
Pacific
Nah JoxJo was translating for Meteor
Who would be the first round picks for each region? Assume each region is separate (no imports) and the worst team of the league picks first. Also consider language barriers and where orgs are from (Meteor in DFM or Jawgemo in LOUD wouldn't make sense)
Americas
Quickly made a sample list, probably missed some people that deserve to be on here. Also too lazy to do the other regions
cahotic
Flag: United States
Registered: February 19, 2025
Last post: May 23, 2025 at 8:37 PM
Posts: 1
LOL bro made a new alt just for this post
Also I do not understand the argument of "peeking Leo = peeking an op". Leo does have world class mechanical skill, but it's not like he's unanimously everyone's #1 for best aim itw. Whenever that conversation comes up we often see names like Aspas, Demon1, TenZ. Meteor, Primmie, Jemkin, Something, etc, along with Leo. So why can't we say "peeking aspas is like peeking an op"? Or anyone else on this list? Why is this argument only ever used to justify Leo's greatness, when there are several players with equal or arguably even more threatening raw aim? Why do we bring this up as if it's unique to Leo?
Brutmus
Flag: Albania
Registered: May 23, 2025
Last post: May 24, 2025 at 7:38 AM
Posts: 7
If Leo has the best stats why not put him over Aspas and Chronicle? Are you saying stats are all that matter? You replied to this post 3 times only talking about stats and not addressing any of my other points
0/8
You could argue the same for prime Yay, Aspas, Derke, Alfajer, TenZ, literally any other player in the conversation. That without them, X team wouldn't have won any trophies. Take the example of Yay. In his prime, he would win rounds for OPTIC/ENVY that they never should have won. You can rely on him in any situation. Would often take over the entire server. To use your words, he was easily the best player on one of the best teams in VCT at the time. And he did this for 2 years straight, just like Leo. You can make similar arguments for other players in the conversation.
Thats kind of what I was thinking. But a lot of people say Leo clears cuz he is more "perfect" of a player than Alfajer (or any other player in the conversation like Yay Meteor Derke etc), that Alfajer has flaws that Leo doesn't have. He has more impact than Alfa. What do you think about this?
Why Alfajer over Leo? In your opinion
Definitely agree. Leo never had the chance to prove if he could maintain that insane level beyond two years. So it feels a bit unfair to compare his legacy directly with other people in the conversation since Leo left at the top and we don't know what could've have happened. That missing “what if” makes the conversation tricky. Solid top 5 imo, but a little overrated.
Well being on FNC and the team system definitely brought out the best of Leo. He was always a good player but FNC helped him reach higher peaks and unlock his potential
I agree and can see your point, but the last part makes it seem like you didn't read my last post at all
"Insane level of performance for 4 straight years" may be a stretch, plus you're just cherrypicking some games. But I agree, Leo has always been good, even before joining FNC. Yay was also good when he was on Andbox at the start of his career, too. Both have been good throughout their entire careers, but their "prime" was about 2 years each. The difference is Yay got to play through a 3rd and 4th year where his performance fell off, while Leo never had the chance to prove if he could maintain that insane level beyond two years. So it feels a bit unfair to compare their legacies directly when Leo left at the top, since we don't know what could've have happened. That missing “what if” makes the conversation tricky.
But I guess for now, since we don't know and may never know, it is fair to put Leo over Yay due to Yay's falloff
He definitely is insane mechanically. I'm just saying different players have strengths and weaknesses so I think it's a bit unfair to say Leo is way better cuz he has ABC which other players in the conversation don't have, when they have XYZ. Probably could've used better examples
I don't really like the "plumber era" argument. Like saying that Tenz's peak at 2021 was not that good because everyone was bad. Thats PRECISELY why its so impressive, he was that good when no one else was. Same with Yay. Many argue he "abused chamber." Everyone was trying to abuse chamber but none had the success as Yay. He didn't have an advantage over others, he was simply better. You can't discredit his ability to maximize the potential of the agent and bring the best out of it. And Yay was also just as good the year before, when he was playing pretty much all Jett.
But yeah thats my point. You can make a strong case for Leo being top 3, but I'm just confused as how people are able to put him there with no hesitation, like its obvious that grass is green. He isn't CLEARLY better.
Ok good point, it is hard to find a flaw.
However, although players like Meteor Yay Aspas have flaws that Leo doesn't have, you could also argue that they have strengths that Leo doesn't have. Like insane mechanical skill, the ability to single-handedly carry rounds, etc. Not saying Leo has bad aim or he can't win rounds singlehandedly. But players like Prime Yay, Aspas, etc, just are special and gifted in that way. So I think it ultimately comes down to who's strengths you value more highly
Chamber definitely did help Yay, but one could argue that everyone was abusing chamber at the time, so why weren't they as good as him? Sure the agent was busted, but you can't discredit Yay's ability to maximize the potential of the agent and bring the best out of it. And Yay was also just as good the year before, when he was playing pretty much all Jett. Also I think it's unrealistic to expect players to be consistently good for MANY years, since meta evolves and new talents emerge and etc. The fact that Yay and Leo were able to stay at the top for 2 whole years in itself is already a huge achievement. Should we discredit Yay from his insane 2 year performance just because he wasn't able to maintain it year 3? If we're saying Leo is so good cuz he's been at the top for 2 years, why shouldn't we say the same for Yay?
I agree about the recency bias part, and I think its due to Leo taking a break from val at the perfect time. His team was crumbling and he was still looking good, so now when we think of Leo all we think about was his prime. If Yay retired after 2022, he'd probably be regarded higher than Leo
I've been watching val for many years so I have definitely seen Leo play. I get your argument of his high impact in rounds, which I definitely agree with. I don't really like how you cherry picked specific rounds to use as your argument, since I'm sure I can do the same given 30 mins of research, for players like Alfajer Yay Meteor Derke etc, and how they saved their teams countless times as well. Leo was consistently top 5 in events he's played for 2 years straight, but the same can be said for someone like Yay.
Everything you mentioned is very valid, but I was more looking for a response to my question what differentiates him from the other players in the conversation. He is undoubtedly an amazing player. So you're saying it's his high impact in rounds that puts him above the rest?
Yay was top 5 in every event he played in both 2021 and 2022. Just like Leo, he was one of the best for 2 years straight. In fact many could argue that Yay at his peak clears Leo at his peak, and Yay carried his team through many games as well. Why then, do we see Leo placed so much higher than Yay without hesitation? I'm not even a yay fanboy, just using him as an example because I'm genuinely curious.
He is a perfect player and really consistent, I never disagreed with that. But you can't really use the stat that he never bottom frags to justify putting him top 3 goat itw though, cause its due to his role and FNC's system as a team. Yay and Meteor play duelist/senti, which is just completely different. Also Yay has been consistently good throughout 2021 and 2022, just like Leo, and some can argue Yay's prime > Leo's prime. In that case, is Leo only better because of Yay's falloff? Is that the criteria?
Yall are missing my point. I agree Leo's one of the best players we've seen, but I personally just don't understand why people consider him a clear top 3. Why is it Leo and not Yay? Why is it Leo and not Meteor? Etc. What has Leo done that makes him so clearly better than the rest?
He is a perfect player I agree, but shouldn't we attribute some of the credit to his team? There's a reason why FNC was able to draw out his full potential as a player. Also, being a perfect player and being considered a "GOAT" are two different things, what has Leo done that makes him CLEARLY a top 3 candidate?
I'd say Aspas for obvious reasons and Chronicle makes sense since he just has hella trophies. But how is Leo any different from say, Meteor, Yay, Derke, Less, or Alfajer? What does he have that makes him very clearly above the rest?
Why do people always have Leo like top 3 in GOAT lists? He is an incredible player no doubt but what has he really done to outshine the other players in the conversation? He was a decent player on Guild, but not world class. At his peak he was top 1 ITW but that only lasted for about half a year. He was still great during FNC's falloff in Champs 2023 and the next year until he stopped playing, but he wasn't at his prime. I feel like Alfajer and Leo are very close in terms of legacy, they both peaked around the same time and remained consistently great for a long time. But in GOAT conversations or top 10 lists, Alfajer doesn't come close to Leo AT ALL.
Imo he is undoubtedly top 10 and there is a good argument for top 5, but what has he really done to the point where people just put him top 3 without hesitation?
Not sure if riot intentionally designed this but nevertheless the game has become very volatile. Imo its the biggest reason why its so hard for teams to create a dynasty. Do you think the game would ever evolve to a point where teams became so good that the volatility of the game would be irrelevant?
Luck plays a role but thats not the main point of my thread. Im trying to say that there are so many variables (including luck but also things like how good one’s aim is feeling on a particular day, mental state, etc) that makes it almost impossible to be consistent. So teams should aim to minimize the volatility of these variables
Yeah just goes to show how close the level of competition is at the highest level, and as a result, tiny little things could have drastic effects on the outcome of a game
TermiAutumnSoloGOATS
Flag: South Korea
Registered: May 22, 2025
Last post: May 22, 2025 at 11:10 PM
Posts: 4
Nah I think its mostly just that people got used to their gimmicks and found ways to counter them
Yes exactly. Look at T1 with their double-duelist comps. They won Bangkok fair and square, but now they no longer work and they're ass
Thats my whole point about why G2 is consistent. They have solid fundamentals and try to minimize the volatility. But even though G2 doesn't rely on gimmicks, they still don't win. Why? Cuz the game is that volatile.
Discord