analysts being hindsight harries

there was interesting discourse earlier regarding analysts and their critiques.

love sideshow, sliggy, tmv etc but their opinions and critiques should be taken with a grain of salt. they’re not the team’s coaches, or pro players.

they have no idea what’s going on behind the scenes or the players’ thought process. it’s different to how a pro player would analyze the game.

for example, with sideshows tenz is a problem for sentinels video and the sen v mxs showmatch. a lot of sideshows analysis misses the reasoning why players make the plays they do while fns is able to identity it.

sideshow criticizes pancada for pushing A main ascent against mxs but fns defends him arguing it was a necessary push to gather info since mxs have a lot of ults. it was needed to make a play before the ults turn the round in enemy teams favor.

tldr: take analysts criticisms with a grain of salt, their word is not gospel. theyre not pro players and cannot analyze the game better than an actual pro

Sliggy can definitely analyze the game better than the vast majority of pros

being an analyst is pretty much just being a hindsight harry

ye isnt that literally their job tho, in the end there are lots of factors to consider and its just up to them to say what they think is best, theyre not necessary correct but you cant say what pros think are also the best and correct, up to you decide what opinion or idea is better

I also don't think their are perfect ways to play situations and different coaches players and analysis might prefer situations to be played slightly differently. Maybe in 5-10 years after 100 of thousands of the same situations playing out we can say the percentage play is to do one choice rather than another but currently we don't have that info. Also coaches are hired to analysis stuff because they can often point out errors the players can't see or don't think are errors.