why are game changers teams bad?

no hate, but curious

In before all the if i speak... posts

they are just bad
No one plays well except 3-4 players

not playing against the best teams in the world rn, is making them worst. playing in GC and no in VCL is making some teams bad

smaller sample size of players to select from, also there are studies proving biological males have possible advantages over biological females when it comes to some aspects of gamings but Idk how much truth there is to it.

I think on average men have better hand eye coordination and a faster reaction time.

some players are pretty good. like flor, bob, mel, keenc

v1 loses in knights monthly super early on and they dominate the gc league

If I speak I am in big trouble

i was gonna write an essay but to keep it short

1. A lot of GC players didn't play many years of CS like a lot of the mens pros. Lots of GC pros came from more women friendly games like fortnite, league, and even minecraft so lots of GC pros lack the same game sense and understanding that a lot of the mens players with 5-10 years of tac fps experience have (they still have cracked aim though).
2. Less GC players in general
3. Less org support

Short version: talent pool is small + talent is too spread out + lack of experience at a high level

Long Version:
Gaming has always been male-dominated both in player base and in esports, the reasons for which, is a different conversation. Regardless, the outcome is there is a smaller population of players (non-male) to choose from, which translates to less available talent to compete with. Not to mention the fact that many non-male players might not consider esports as a path for them, for a number of reasons, the main being that it's hard to consider esports as a path if you aren't seeing non-male players succeeding in it. This starts creating a cycle where the non-male esports scene needs more high-level players in order to be able to rival the male player base size and talent pool. However, this need can only be filled if players deem it worthy, to begin with, which relies on the previous success, or lack thereof, that exists before their decision.

In regards, to the existing player base and why the level is not on par with many t1/t2 or even t3 teams, has to do with spread-out talent and lack of experience. Of the current pro-non-male Valorant players, there are some players with t1/t2 talent/potential, however, because the talent pool is not super deep at the moment, these players are spread across teams. This creates top heavy team where a player or two can compete, but the rest of the players can't, which holds the team back. The lack of depth makes it hard to even to that point where you can gain experience because the first half relies on a base level of firepower that you need to compete against a lot of t1/t2 teams. Once a team is in that ballpark of firepower, they still have to be strategically on par, which further holds teams back. Basically, most of these GC teams need more firepower and participate in as many off-season/third-party tourneys as possible to gain experience against t2/13 teams. and talent.

Ik this was long asf, but many people like to cite a genetic difference as a reason why this disparity exists, but it's so much more complicated than that.

They aren't bad there are just levels to the game.

v1 would finish 2nd in emea

Why is challengers bad except a couple teams? Why's it different with gc?