GambleNats [#23]
- winning meaningless bo5 but losing numerous important ones isnt a good track record. face it prx was never gonna beat fnatic who lost to two teams the entire year.
- having a close game with a good team has historically not mattered when scaling how good another team is.
face it prx was never gonna beat fnatic who lost to two teams the entire year
Did a whole write up of why this is isn't true and the evidence suggests the exact opposite, take a look at the PRX portion in particular, it's one only paragraph: https://www.vlr.gg/393738/fnatic-was-never-great TLDR: Everything that happened for the next year suggested that they would have
Wanna know why they only lost to two teams?
barely won preseason tourney (no losses obv) ------>
Dominates bum league (name the 2nd best team in EMEA '23 and what they accomplished) (1 loss to liquid, probably a fluke, liquid was trash)------>
Plays 3 teams at Tokyo, only one of which they were truly better than. PRX would very likely have, and EG forsure would have beaten them if not for visa issues affecting their star players ('0' losses) ------>
Runs into the 3rd best team at champs twice, would have definitely, without any doubt, lost to PRX and EG at this point, had they faced them (2 losses to same team) ------> "wE oNlY lOSt tO tWo TeAmS tHe EnTiRe YeAr"
having a close game with a good team has historically not mattered when scaling how good another team is
The entire basis of scaling is by looking at how teams do against each other. Obviously not perfect, but nothing is in this world. There is literally no other way.