shurimalonelybird

SKT was never even close to having a 8k gold advantage over G2, I don't know why even compare this series to the TSM vs TL series. and didn't both teams expand around 80% in close gold proximity according to the stats team? how does that make SKT have control over the series to be in a position to throw? SKT did not play better.

edit. Vedius saying SKT would smash G2 if they had better draft. I can't

The point of that comparison was to show a team can play better and still lose. The other important thing to note is how I defined what playing better league was, which is fine to debate. Kobe made a great argument which is the gravity of decisions at different points weigh more, and the problem with my initial statement was that it was an over simplification of what I actually meant.

Whether you want to agree with me or not is up to you, but G2 made a lot of mistakes alongside SKT making a bunch of mistakes. They made different mistakes at different points in the series, but I believe that if the comps were swapped and G2 made the same early game mistakes that they did, it would have been harder for them to make the comebacks that they did.

I also called G2 the better team. I also gave them a lot of credit for all the amazing things they did. I also said Miky should've been the MVP because he was the best player in the whole series. I'd like to think that one perspective on what "playing better league is" should not discount all of the great stuff G2 did and that they hands down deserved to win and I would predict them to win again.

JENSENJENSENYENSEN

it's just confusing when there's many interpretations of 'better' floating around, and yeah, it's hard to be specific and clarify them all. SKT played better but wasn't the better team.

show a team can play better and still lose

here, better means in control for a longer duration of time, which is reasonable and i agree SKT was better.

I also called G2 the better team

here, you must be referring to the important clutch plays later in the game. or maybe the good drafts, but it's kind of weird to call g2 a great team because their coach has a good notebook. with all due respect to grabbz, i think most people care way more about the 5 man team than the coach.

You're 100% right, it is confusing and that's why I'm annoyed the clickbait title was taken in the first place. I said it trying to summarise my thoughts after VOD reviewing for hours. The lesson I've learnt is to go away and think more about what conclusions I want to draw, because with more time to think about it I probably wouldn't over simplify it as much.

G2 is a great team because they're flexible, they're smart, their players are great and their mental fortitude is incredibly strong. Their early game and a couple of their decisions in the mid to late game were questionable but when it mattered most they played extremely well. They have the ability to win the whole thing.

Merkiv

What's your take on how SKT utilized baron? Loco has been saying this for a while, and they also discussed it in detail on yesterday's SI (I'm sure you've seen clips at the very least). Taking baron is one part, but using it is another one. If someone from G2 dies on one side of the map which gives SKT control of the baron, and then G2 decides to pressure the other side of the map instead of going for teamfight that they are likely to lose, in result taking a turret or 2, putting pressure on that side of the map, which causes SKT to split when they actually have baron. And then G2 capitalizes on it again, forcing a skirmish or teamfight and killing a couple members with a buff, which completely halts SKT's push and allows G2 to once again pressure the map somewhere, isn't that entire passage of play in favour of G2, meaning that they played those few minutes better (especially since they constantly were able to take more on the map without baron, than SKT with it)?

To me SKT often played the way NA team would play - get a pick or 2 when roaming as 5, convert that into objective (still grouped as 5) but after that get pulled in all directions around the map, simply because enemy team understands the map better and knows where to pressure it.

You said how SKT would get 4 Jatt Bucks, and G2 would take 2 Jatt Bucks somewhere else on the map, but to me it looked like G2 would take 2 Jatt Bucks and then mug an SKT member of another Jatt Buck he was holding onto, sometimes 2. Just curious what's your take on that is.

I think SKT were overall pretty bad at using Baron. Even before the tournament, I didn't think they were very good at pushing or snowballing a lead, but I attributed that more to them not setting up proper deep vision.

Anyway, the two best examples are from game 1, where they actually secure the baron off of Caps overextending bot but then prioritize a Cloud drake over using the fact they have 3 waves pushing towards G2s base. There was a huge window here where they could've really created a lot of pressure, but didn't. The second example was in game 3, when they tried to force a tower dive mid, at least that's what it looked like to me anyway, and their whole set up and theory behind even trying to dive this turret actually made no sense. So yeah, I don't think their baron usage was good.

MoxZenyte

With the drafts they had, we have 4 close games, but if the teams swapped the drafts, then SKT would have smashed G2? That doesn't point to G2 being the better team, if I'm honest.

Also your point about G2 making the same early game mistakes with SKT's draft can also be flipped to a what-if about SKT making the same late game mistakes with G2's draft, at the end of the day it's a bunch of what if's. There's also a very low chance that G2 do make the same mistakes, there is a 0% chance Wunder gets solokilled under tower in the Renekton vs Camille matchup as Renekton

For the record, I think the games play out MUCH differently if G2 have SKT's drafts. For example, I think Faker playing a cleanseless Syndra into Qiyana and Elise would have punished MUCH harder than what SKT did in that game.

I think you're undervaluing the impact that SKT's drafts had on the early game. You mention how in game two SKT "only" had two points of pressure in Lee Sin + Leblanc, while ignoring the Renekton which was a huge priority pick, and then say that the Yasuo/Gragas bot somehow came out ahead even though Perkz/Miky were hard smashing that lane, and Teddy/Effort were bailed out by the rest of the team until Teddy could farm to relevancy

But this is the point right, what G2 showed this series was a weak early game, not the early game they showed against Damwon, which is why I make this statement. If they play a weak early game with SKT's comps that needed to get advantages early because they were outscaled, then they would lose. The thing that's different from my perspective and Reddit's apparent perspective was that SKT always had overwhelming early game drafts. From what I remember, G2 were often the team with 2 pushing lanes, actually giving them advantages early. In game 1, they actually mess up their laning in the bot 2v2 which costs them the early pressure they should have in that 2v2. And so we loop back, I don't think SKT had strong early game comps, I think they had comps that needed to get ahead early because they were going to get outscaled. Therefore, assuming G2 don't have a good early game and are in that situation, it's only logical to conclude they wouldn't be able to win right?

The problem with me making statements like this is that it assumes everyone is on the same wavelength as me. If you assume something different, then we're always going to clash. What I care about is that you understand how I came to that conclusion, you're free to disagree with it after that though because at the end of the day you're right, it's just a bunch of 'ifs'.

Dzordzio

They made different mistakes at different points in the series, but I believe that if the comps were swapped and G2 made the same early game mistakes that they did, it would have been harder for them to make the comebacks that they did.

Khan said something simmilar at MSI and people memed him hard. This whole point is so ridiculus i can't even argue with that. Thats the point of this game. Pick sacaling comp -> wait for late, pick early -> win early and snowball. If g2 watned snowball early they would've pick more early game champs but they didn't. That's all, end of story. That's "what if" question about draft are so stupid.

I go a bit more indepth in another reply, but the basic idea is that I don't agree that SKT always drafted for early. My perspective was that G2 would often have 2 out of 3 pushing lanes, actually giving them more early pressure than SKT, but they miss-executed and had to rely on their scaling to turn the game around. If G2 had SKTs comp, and were in a position where they were going to get outscaled so they had to be more proactive in the early game, then they played like they did in a lot of these games, they would've lost in my opinion. Does that make sense?

HoloMonarch

I believe that if the comps were swapped and G2 made the same early game mistakes that they did, it would have been harder for them to make the comebacks that they did.

But this is stupid, 3 out of 4 SKT games they picked Rene the first peak, at the moment the strongest lane bully in the game, if we swap the comps, then Wunder will not die one on one under the tower, because now he is a RENE, now he will destroy Khan in lane, G2 cannot make the same mistake by default, because with comp,with all these changes the tactics for the match also change.

My question is more interesting, if G2 would be in the place of SKT, would they be able to finish the game with all these barons and advantage in gold that SKT had? Because my answer is yes, they could

I've answered this question in two other replies so I would encourage you to go read those replies to provide more context around why I said this.

With regards to your other question, yes, I believe G2 would have won if they were in the late game positions that SKT were in because I think SKT used baron poorly and struggled to play well around weak side of the map.

LtSpaceDucK

Well the same can be said for teams in the past that played similar to what G2 displayed versus SKT, Samsung Blue used to be masters of picking late game scaling comps and being able to minimize their losses until they were able to scale and win the game.

I might be wrong but I don't remember existing similar narratives for SSB despite them being behind in gold/turrets and pressure a lot until Dade and Deft were able to reach teamfights.

Even if the narratives make sense we all know if the roles were reversed (G2 losing and SKT winning) and the games happened exactly the same they did there wouldn't be this discussion at all and that annoys me.

If the exact opposite thing happened, I would be saying the same thing about G2. My issue with the current narrative is that fans seem to think that G2 played perfectly and it was all part of their plan.

In game 1, Caps was caught over extending in a sidelane while his team was nowhere near to support him. That cost his team a baron.

In game 2, the first 6 kills were G2 making a number of mistakes and handing this gold over to SKT.

In game 3, Wunder is the one to overextend bot lane and Caps TPs in to try and save him, giving up baron.

In game 4, when G2 are in a position to threaten and set up around Baron, Caps forces an engage onto mata, baiting his whole team into an awful fight which they then lose.

It's like everyone is just ignoring their mistakes, which were big ones and could have cost them games, because they won, which annoys me.

Now this doesn't just excuse SKT. They also did dumb stuff. Their ability to use baron was awful, they played so many teamfights really poorly and they have no idea how to use weak side of the map.

G2 made a lot of mistakes, and I call out what I see. Regardless of the team, I'll do it, just like I did for SKT before the tournament even began.

EBLiddle

They seriously not sending vedius (the current longest serving eu color caster) to the world finals in Europe with an eu team in the finals.

Edit: quickshot confirmed below that vedius will be on broadcast along with himself, frosk, sjokz, dash, jatt, Kobe, deficio and papasmithy so finals is stacked.

I haven't seen the full episode yet, but I just wanted to clarify that Vedius is attending the world final and will be on broadcast. Along with myself, Sjokz and Frosk from the LEC. Completing the team of course is Dash, Kobe, Jatt, Papasmithy and Deficio.

Edit the reason EU talent aren't in Paris yet, mostly, is the broadcast team live in Berlin where the semi finals were broadcast from. As such Berlin based crew stay home until they are needed in Paris for the differing projects and finals of course

MoxZenyte

Granted I haven't analyzed the games for seven hours, but does having pushing lanes necessarily mean they are supposed to have an early advantage? For example in game 4, even if Syndra can get priority on Qiyana with waveclear, would you not agree a cleanseless Syndra should get punished much more heavily by a Qiyana/Elise duo? You have guaranteed stun with Qiyana if you flash, and then Rappel/Cocoon/burst followup. I also don't buy that Yasuo/Gragas is supposed to win lane vs Varus/Nautilus early, considering whenever Perkz plays against Yasuo bot smashes the lane, but G2 managed to put Varus significantly behind. Similarly, in game two Ryze has push on Leblanc, but can you really push and roam when Leblanc and Lee can just blow you up? I think you also said on the podcast that LB+Lee should give SKT a pressure advantage. In game three do you really think G2 have a significant push advantages? I feel like in that game Ryze was the one pushing and moving, and Ori was just sitting in lane (could be misremembering though)

Again, this is from a Reddit analyst, but I would be curious to hear your thoughts. Personally I think that some advantages SKT had were heavily influenced by draft. Sure there were some instances were SKT got early leads where maybe they shouldn't have, but I think the same can be said for G2 (notably the game 4 Yasuo lane)

We get quite granular having this conversation, so I want to try and shift your way of thinking.

Let's take game 3 for example. Renekton, Rek'sai, Ryze, Kaisa, Leona vs Camille, Elise, Orianna, Xayah, Naut. I think we can both agree that Ryze and Kaisa should not be considered early game champions. However, against G2's comp, they probably get outscaled. Why? Well, diving onto a Xayah is hard for Renekton and Kaisa because of the Naut cc + Xayah ult. Orianna also provides mroe teamfight value than a Ryze does. Also, Camille's damage in the late game will be too strong for anyone on SKT to be able to 1v1. She'll also do more damage in teamfights than a Renekton will. With all this in mind, SKT are now aware they are on a clock, so have to win before G2 can get to their late game state. They have a pushing top lane they can play through, Ryze struggles vs Orianna so that's not the easiest lane to play through and bot is pretty neutral, but past 6 it gets harder for SKT (Again, cause of Xayah ult).

So in this instance, all G2 need to do is not actually fuck up or SKT need to be really proactive. They have in theory 2 lanes they can play through to get these advantages, but they have to do it, and it's not easy because their comp isn't inherently designed to be "early game focused." So the fact that they were able to get these early leads could be impressive OR it could be G2 fucking up. Imo, it was a combination of the 2 and your perspective can shift depending on what lense you want to look at.

I hope this makes sense. If it didn't answer your question, I can give it another go.

lifeisfullofbadrng

It does make sense. Overall, I could agree that SKT could've beat G2 if they had better drafts. Or that they could've beat G2 if not for some of the mistakes.

I could even go as far as to say that SKT probably played better League of Legends.

The whole thing that's kind of annoying when you meet this analytical angle is that, firstly, there's a lot of ifs and ifs suck, because they are anything between "this would look better IF not for that one missclick on R" to "my hardstuck gold ass could replace Uma Jan IF I played a bit better" and secondly, it feels as if drafting, team flexibility and very out of book patterns that G2 brings to the table are being dismissed and not counted as part of team's strength (even though Doinb's dark technologies are considered a major advantage of FPX).

TL;DR great analysis, would put it in another words maybe, not surprised people are angery, it's a tense week before finals.

I agree, better words should be used and I too am not surprised that people are angry, which is why I'm here answering questions. Also, I try not to dismiss what G2 did, as I've mentioned a few times in various places, G2 do some amazing things and that's a large part of why I predicted them to win. I believe they can win the finals and have the talent to do so. I did not intend to take anything away from the great things that they did.

0re0n

If G2 had SKTs comp, and were in a position where they were going to get outscaled so they had to be more proactive in the early game, then they played like they did in a lot of these games, they would've lost in my opinion. Does that make sense?

Why would any team have different team comp but for some reason play the same? It doesn't make any sense for me.

So G2 drafted better scaling comp and lost early game but if SKT drafter scaling comp G2 would also lose early game? There is literally no foundation for this conclusion.

I gave more context in a different reply, but basically the only information I have is that I believe G2 played poorly in the early game for most if not the entire series. Because of this, I can argue that their early game performance would be poor regardless of the comp, which is the basis for the argument.

I obviously can't guarantee it, but I base my opinion on recent data, so that's what my opinion would use. It might be wrong, which is fine, but when we're talking hypotheticals I need to base it off of something.

Additional_Geese

but I believe that if the comps were swapped and G2 made the same early game mistakes that they did

Vedius I love your casting and content, and am totally against the way people just ignore the arguments and attack the statement (especially when most people don't understand the game at all), but this is a really strange position to take.

If comps are swapped G2 have a stronger early/mid spike, there's nothing to suggest they would make 'the same mistakes'. There's nothing to even suggest they would approach the game in the same way,

I also think the phrase 'played better' is silly and just creates an entire argument based largely on semantics. You put more emphasis on certain parts of the game than others, maybe you're right to do so maybe you're not, but to claim a team played better because if you moved around a ton of variables it would look different is, well, ridiculous.

It's my biggest problem with League analysis in general: there's some people who know a lot about League of Legends (like yourself) but don't seem to be very good at the actual act of analysis.

I've replied to a bunch of different people, so I would encourage you to go read some of those replies as it will give context to your question.

Regarding semantics, I agree. I made an oversimplifcation at the end of a long VOD stream and it got turned into something that needed a lot more context to make sense. If I could do all of this over, I wouldn't have done any summary. I would've gone away, thought about the key talking points and presented those instead of a generalisation, as that would provide more clarity and give more face value context.

I disagree that people don't know how to do actual analysis, I just thing being able to communicate what you want to say is a skill that not all analysts have mastered. If there's something open to interpretation, you probably haven't done a great job of explaining your point, which is where I think the learning is here.

brother-trick

You do realize that SKT had champs that were better suited to win early game? Maybe with those champs G2 would actually snowball properly which SKT failed to do.

Not sure how much SKT in LCK you watched, but I always claimed from their regular season that SKT is not that great. At their best - and yes, this was their best - they are a really good statcheck team. G2 is just able to surpass that in most of the games, therefore 8-3 this season.

GRF and DWG are generally much more dangerous teams for G2, but with big bo5 problems.

I disagree with your initial argument. If we take game 1 as an example, I do not consider Neeko and Kaisa to be champions that spike in the early to mid game. Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding, but I don't think it would be any easier for G2 to snowball this comp than it was for SKT. Continuing with my example, I think what SKT failed to do was use baron. Multiple times we saw them secure the objective yet fail to push that lead. This is a little more specific than "snowballing with your comp" for sure and if G2 were put in the same mid to late game positions that SKT were in, I have way more faith in G2s ability to actually close out those games.

I watched a fair amount of LCK, but I think saying SKT are "not that great" doesn't really tell you much about what they are good and bad at. I think G2 found creative ways of staying close after falling into early deficits, largely off their own mistakes, while also taking advantage of the fact that SKT couldn't use baron properly.

I think SKT are still the toughest opponents of the 3 LCK teams, partly because of the BO5 problems, but also they're the most likely to adapt compared to the rigidness of the other two. Hopefully in time that will change for GRF and DWG.

LtSpaceDucK

I'm not ignoring their mistakes.

The discussion around their draft revolves around the idea that if G2 picked similar compositions to what SKT did, and SKT picked similar compositions to what G2 did, G2 would lose the series because they would make more mistakes than SKT.

Based on what is this assertion correct, , G2 almost always makes mistakes early game and they manage to stabilize the game and start playing smart in the mid game.

G2 is a lot better than SKT at pushing their advantages, utilizing baron and closing out games, G2 is a lot better than SKT at playing the compositions SKT picked, so I think the notion that G2 would lose with a role reversal is not fair at all.

How can anyone know how SKT or G2 would have played with different drafts.

I'm pretty sure G2 opted for these late game compositions because they recognise the inability of SKT to push their leads and utilize baron, I think I remember Grabbz and G2 members discussing this matter that they feel no rpessure playing SKT.

The drafts were tailored for SKT, if it was another team they would probably pick differently like they did versus Damwon and they will probably do in the finals versus FPX.

I think discussing and making so many claims based on a specific draft of a team capable of playing so many styles is inconsequential.

G2 is a lot better than SKT at pushing their advantages, utilizing baron and closing out games, G2 is a lot better than SKT at playing the compositions SKT picked, so I think the notion that G2 would lose with a role reversal is fair at all.

But there's no evidence in this series to suggest that they would. If we are in agreement that the early game was weak from G2 in every game. And if we agree that in each game, G2's draft would outscale, then it should make sense that if G2 fails to get an early lead with a comp that is eventually outscaled, the likelihood of them winning is now very much lower, right?

I'm pretty sure G2 opted for these late game compositions because they recognise the inability of SKT to push their leads and utilize baron, I think I remember Grabbz and G2 members discussing this matter that they feel no rpessure playing SKT.

This may very well be true, but it doesn't absolve them of the poor plays they made earlier. As I mentioned in my above example, teams don't just give up a number of barons and say "Yep, that was all part of the plan." Their drafts were GOOD, and if they intentionally did this as a specific to how SKT typically play, then props to them, but as mentioned above this doesn't just mean we can ignore all the things they did wrong.

I think discussing and making so many claims based on a specific draft of a team capable of playing so many styles is inconsequential.

What's important to me is that you can understand where I draw the conclusion from even if you disagree with it. I'm not here to buy everyone's alignment, I'm just here to provide more context and explanation behind my reasoning.

ragtagofgoons

I just wanted to stop by and say it's awesome that you are taking the time to type out such in-depth responses to each of these comments and on top of that engaging in discussion. You're a cool dude.

Much appreciated.

HighLikeKites

What makes you think if the drafts were swapped SKT would be able to accumulate the same early game leads and G2 would make the same early game mistakes when the comps and winconditions would be different? That doesn't make any sense.

I gave this context in a few other replies, I would encourage you to check them out and join in on the discussions.

brother-trick

Well, if you want to talk about game 1 - I'd agree there isn't a snowballing advantage to SKT, but also there isn't any scaling advantage to G2. The tradeoff here is Ryze as a realiable splitpusher on G2 vs slightly better teamfighting comp for SKT.

In the end, SKT dared G2 and lost the teamfight. SKT has won historically dozens of times by being only better at that one, lategame teamfight and I've never heard that an analysis that would point at SKT winning because of drafts or because the enemy team made mistakes.

Overall, drafts in game 1 are evenly matched and I do not see how SKT would win this game if drafts were reversed. It came down to execution.

The only game where I feel G2 had a clearly better draft is game 2. And they lost that one.

But I believe G2 also outscale SKT in the teamfight because of how hard it is for them to actually win those fights. For SKT to win, they need to land a good Neeko ult, for that to happen you need flashes to be gone, Banshees to be procced on Ryze, Xayah's ult to be on Cooldown, etc. It's also difficult for Teddy to get good damage down in these fights. If Teddy dives in, he's more likely going to put himself in danger because the only other person that can reliably follow that dive is Leona, and even that's a bit sketchy. This means that Teddy has to play front to back until Renekton is in a position where Teddy can follow, and I believe G2's front to back is just stronger because feathers go through a whole team and so does the Ryze E-Q damage. Ontop of the fact that Kled is a more obnoxious frontline than Renekton is later into the game.

Therefore, in my opinion at least, SKT were outscaled on a side lane and outscaled in teamfights. Their best option was to find some great flank, but G2 warded well for this possibility. It was really hard for SKT to win game 1 in the late game.

Hannig4n

This is a really insightful comment, thank you. Do you think that there was a similar issue for SKT with their game 4 draft? I was surprised to see them throw a lead like that.

I think in game 4 SKT didn't properly use Qiyana. You want to fight with her in narrow choke points or around objectives where she has access to all of her elements and her ult can be used effectively. They rarely did this and when it came down to siegeing onto G2s base, Qiyana was basically non-existent because there was no way for her to be used effectively inside G2s base.

LtSpaceDucK

G2 showed a weak early game with late game compositions if they picked early game like SKT they would probably have a good early game as well.

Why is SKT having a good early game with a early game composition and a bad late game a positive and a sign they played better, but G2 having a bad early but a good late game while playing a late game composition not perceive as equal, it's exactly the same scenario.

But it seems you don't think they had strong early game composition when they had renekton almost everygame, elise, lee sin, le blanc picks that are amazing in lane and perfect to be played around.

G2 showed a weak early game with late game compositions if they picked early game like SKT they would probably have a good early game as well.

But as I said, I think they outscaled, that doesn't mean their early game is garbage. Every game, they had lanes that they could gain advantages through. Just because a comp outscales, doesn't mean it's only win condition is late game, it just means when you reach a certain point your champs are stronger than your opponents for whatever reason. Every game, G2 had an early game option where they could gain advantages yet they never found them because of poor execution. While in some games, one could argue SKT had fewer ways to gain early game advantages yet they were able to find them. Therefore, using this series as data, I am making the assumption that if the roles were reversed, SKT are more likely to execute better.

But it seems you don't think they had strong early game composition when they had renekton almost everygame, elise, lee sin, le blanc picks that are amazing in lane and perfect to be played around.

So they had a strong top side, G2 also got Xayah, which is the strongest early game AD. They also had Ez + Galio, which was also a stronger bot side than yasuo + grag early on. So you can start to see how G2 would just trade pressure on one side of the map to the other, meaning SKT didn't just always draft a strong early game, they had a good early game side of the map. Which, for the record, wasn't even that easy to get early advantages on. Kled and Ornn are both really obnoxious for Renekton and make his life a lot harder when it comes to getting early leads.

If SKT had Renekton top and Lucian bot every game, then we might be having a different conversation, I just don't agree that SKT were always drafting to get an early game comp very game.

brother-trick

The point of that comparison was to show a team can play better and still lose. The other important thing to note is how I defined what playing better league was, which is fine to debate. Kobe made a great argument which is the gravity of decisions at different points weigh more, and the problem with my initial statement was that it was an over simplification of what I actually meant.

So would you agree that in 2017. worlds EDG played better League than SKT? They snowballed every game early, but then lost late to SKT with some ridiculous advantages.

Potentially, I don't remember the games so I cant really say certainty.

The important takeaway is I'm not just saying "A team that gets advantages in the early game is the better team." I'm saying, based on the options that teams have to get leads, and how they execute around them, and how often they do it is a good indicator of how well a team is playing. And I think G2, given the options they had, did not do a great job. Even outside of the early game. I gave some examples in a different comment.

MoxZenyte

I get that you're saying that SKT didn't give themselves enough options to punish G2 early before getting outscaled.

I guess game 3 is the game where I'm most inclined to agree (even thought they also made their own early games mistakes, such as Khan getting Wunder back into the game by unnecessarily dying), but I feel like for game 4 SKT had good ways to win the game. If they had punished Caps better, which to me seems very possible from the draft, or if Teddy/Effort didn't fall that far behind early, then they would have won that game, in my opinion. But both teams made early game mistakes, then G2 made less late game mistakes, and we have a G2 victory.

And then in game 1 I disagree that G2 played worse earlier on, and in game 2, the gold was very even 22 minutes in, and it was actually later game plays from SKT that won them the game. Idk, it just feels like saying SKT outplayed G2 left and right in the earlygame was a bit overblown.

I guess overall we just disagree on how much room the drafts gave SKT to succeed.

And that's cool! Remember that I'm not ONLY looking at the early game, I'm looking at a wide array of things, the early game is just what a lot of people are tunneling on. I think the biggest mistakes from G2 were the greedy plays they made. Caps giving up that baron because he overextended bot was really poor and didn't need to happen. Things like this happened a lot throughout the series.

I appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation with me.

Insab

So what you're saying is that G2 had better early and late game comps. Mid game was better for SKT but if G2 had executed early properly, SKT wouldn't have a chance to utilize their mid game strength. However, the window for SKT was so narrow, even though they could grow their mid game lead, it was hard for them to close. However they executed the mid game better than G2 executed the early (SKT played better). If the comps were switched, you would expect that SKT to have done better early and G2 to have done worse in the mid game so either SKT would have never given G2 a chance due to a strong early game or would have outscaled and won.

Is that a correct interpretation of your argument?

That's a pretty good summary, yeah!

Observing_Everything

Vedius m8. Remember that when you don't give the summary, some people will complain about you not giving a tl;dr at the end of your analysis which makes the video "really hard to watch".

In the end, being a colourcaster for a game like league of legends is such a curse and a blessing i imagine. Because people play the same game as you and because the community is so heavily revolved around the internet, every word you say is interpreted by millions of people in different ways. The blessing is however, that you can actually commit to discussion with fans so easy as the distance between a caster and their audience is much smaller then for instance in traditional sports which us really engaging for the fanbase.

However. The standard you set in this comment is really unrealistic. Leaving things open for interpetation will always happen. I mean look at real life communication(for instance with friends or with a spouse). Even with facial expressions added for clarity, you will always get some sort of misinterpretation in a discussion. Imagine trying to explain something detailed to millions of different people from different backgrounds without leaving something up for interpretation. Good luck trying that.

So that will always happen. At one point, it is not up to you to make things more clear because the more via words, but for other people to broaden their perspective.

This whole debate about G2 playing "worse" then SKT is so overblown in my opinion because a lot of western fans see it as an attack on "their" team. Make this debate about IG vs FPX and the discussion would not be so viral as it is now.

So you do you m8. You are doing an amazing job, just like LS and other analyst. The amount of depth you guys can reach is really something and has only improven over the years.

I much appreciate the comment my friend and thanks for chiming in!

MietschVulka

so, their baron play is bad. and you say they played better then G2 often times, while securing advantages (Baron) that they can't use properly, while G2 does not go for those advantages, but secures advantages (map pressure) that they actually can use very well.

how is SKT better securing useless stuff then G2 getting what they need to then finish games? they did make mistakes, many, but so did SKT. the problem is, Baron, small gold leads, all this doesn't matter because this series was never about that. G2 forced that series into a game of pure map pressure and won under the conditions they set up on their own.

Well, I felt as though G2 were forced to make these map pressure plays because of the situations that they put themselves in. If they had played parts of the game better, these situations wouldn't have been forced, but to their credit they found creative ways of getting out of these situations.

G2 forced that series into a game of pure map pressure and won under the conditions they set up on their own.

I also don't think this is really true. They won so many late game fights that they didn't actually start, they just outplayed SKT. Which is great, I'm not trying to take anything away from G2 here, it just goes to show how mechanically proficient they are and how good their coordination is. It was just a lot of things leading up to these points were either G2 making a lot of mistakes or SKT doing a lot of good things. The basics of it are, there were more moments throughout the series of SKT doing good things than there were of G2, but the good things that G2 did were WAY MORE impactful as they actually resulted in game wins. So what I'm saying is because the number of good plays from SKT was greater, I believe overall they played better league, but G2 actually played better when it mattered, so they were the better team.

I understand that this may be confusing and my language could be better, but this is what I mean when I say these things. I hope it provides more clarity for you.

brother-trick

As for game 4, you have Vlad with free lane on top and Qiyana/Elise as a mid/jg duo. G2 still outscales here all things equal and their comp is easier to execute, but again - SKT's comp had many advantages in the early game.

From the fact that before level 6 they should have fairly easy bot lane, stronger mid/jg duo and fairly free laning phase for Vlad on top.

Yes, I think game 4 is an example of SKT going for more of an "early game comp" that had strong mid to late game tools but would eventually get outscaled. In this case, I believe it would've been expected to have G2 fall behind.

georgioz

My issue with the current narrative is that fans seem to think that G2 played perfectly and it was all part of their plan

No. The issue of fans is that G2 outplays SKT and you say SKT plays better.

Now this doesn't just excuse SKT. They also did dumb stuff. Their ability to use baron was awful, they played so many teamfights really poorly and they have no idea how to use weak side of the map.

Exactly. SKT made a lot of mistakes and had some fundamental problems with their understanding of some of the most important concepts in the game. But SKT still "played better" according to what you say despite all these glaring flaws. What can we know.

If I take what you say at face value we just witnessed a clown fiesta and the bigger clown of G2 lucked out or just drafted more funny costume and just won. Oh, also obligatory "not to take anything away from G2".

No. The issue of fans is that G2 outplays SKT and you say SKT plays better.

G2 outplayed SKT in very specific situations after often putting themselves in this position in the first place when they didn't have to.

SKT made a lot of mistakes and had some fundamental problems with their understanding of some of the most important concepts in the game. But SKT still "played better" according to what you say despite all these glaring flaws. What can we know.

Because the context on how I said it means that, on average, SKT were making better decisions and fewer mistakes throughout the series. G2 however, played better when it mattered most and that's why I call them a better team.

This is why this is more of an argument around semantics more than anything else. If I had simply said, G2 made more mistakes than SKT in my opinion, but it didn't matter because they played better when it mattered most, would you be as frustrated with my comments?

brother-trick

I do not disagree with you on game 1. I also think that in game 2 G2 had a better draft. But games 3 and 4, its SKT all the way in my opinion.

If you cannot utilize advantage that Renekton, Rek'sai, Ryze bring - I do not care what enemy drafted and how it works in the late game - you do not deserve worlds finals because you have absolutely every tool to smash enemy team before 25:00.

Well, in Game 3 I think G2's Camille outscales everyone on a side lane. I also think Ryze loses to Ori early so you can't exactly build advantages early unless you roam. And in game 4, I think it's closer but I still think it's easier for G2 to execute teamfights, I think the Yasuo is going to offer more later than the Varus and I think Qiyana get's hard to play unless you play around certain areas of the map.

I mean, I agree with you that SKT don't deserve to be in the world final, but I don't think I've said that either.

Additional_Geese

I've read those replies - to me there's still a leap from your thought process and break down of the game to "they played better"but I understand that it's just a summary of a much larger collection of thoughts. "If they swapped comps" is to me a strange way to evaluate teams, for a multitude of reasons, but I at least see your reasoning. Ironically I feel like because you're a LEC caster and even want G2 to rock, you have to be extra critical to be ensure (to yourself) you're not being biased (or more dangerous online, perceived as being biased haha) but the fans don't really consider that.

I think it's totally fine to oversimplify and totally understand that at the end of a long stream it's more than likely someone would quickly summarise in a way that doesn't adequately describe their thought process. I fucking hate how reactionary people are on social media and wish people applied a little critical thinking and common sense before reacting to this stuff. Especially with how that reactions tends toward toxicity.

As for analysts I didn't say they can't do it at all, just it's not that strong. It's not a huge thing and for the most part people do a great job, hence so many people love listening to you guys so much, however; too many in the scene aren't able to examine and readjust their own inevitable biases. Not towards teams or players but in the starting points of their arguments.

For example (and I'm not saying this is the case or that the way you're approaching the game is wrong it's just an example of the thought process, not the argument as it pertains to LoL):

You believe that the best way to play the game is by getting small leads early a ballooning those through mid game, closing out the game though a punishing snowball because in your mind the current meta doesn't allow teams to scale and reach breakpoints to stage a comeback.

When a team B beats team A by doing the opposite of this, perhaps even playing poorly in the early game, your belief is that team A attempted to play the game out in the right manner and but for execution, should have won the game. Likewise you think team B overall played worse because of the mistakes they showed in the part of the game you believe to be most important.

But instead it might be better to examine the initial premise again and question whether the belief that forms the argument is wrong. Or not even wrong, just not as absolute as you first believed.

Again: I'm not saying this applies to G2 vs SKT, or that you didn't question the right way to play, or even that your statement was wrong; just that kind of process is something I see all too often in the LoL space.

Analysis is something I do on a near daily basis and as an outsider who enjoys LoL it can be frustrating at times watching how people construct their arguments.

Other than that I want to stress that I enjoy, value, and appreciate your contributions to the broadcast and LoL in general. You've probably had a kinda crazy couple of days with social media popping off over a pretty innocuous statement but... well, fuck the haters as the kids say.

Thank you for your comment and you raise some really interesting points.

I think what you're saying is fair and being able to stop and reflect one ones own biases is important in order to become better. I can only hope that I will continue to do better and people like you will call me out on it. It helps a lot when you construct it like you have today.

Thank you for taking the time to talk to me!

Additional_Geese

On the topic of compliments: obviously the cast on Sunday was great. I loved the colour-combo of you and Jatt, but after the game on PGL you were talking about something with the camera focused on you and I was suddenly struck by how far you'd come as a caster.

I don't know exactly what it was, there was something about the fact you'd just said how tired you were but were soldiering on, the camera angle, the way you were talking about the game - but I was watching on the sofa and let a little "fuck yeah Vedius" with a mini fist pump lol

Thank you friend, that means a lot! I hope I can keep it up.

LtSpaceDucK

"But there's no evidence in this series to suggest that they would. If we are in agreement that the early game was weak from G2 in every game. And if we agree that in each game, G2's draft would outscale, then it should make sense that if G2 fails to get an early lead with a comp that is eventually outscaled, the likelihood of them winning is now very much lower, right?"

But the evidence that SKT has a better early game than G2 is flawed the only way we could claim that is if both G2 and SKT picked for the early game, that didn't happen so it does not make sense saying SKT has a better early game because it can just be a by product of the strengths of their compositions.

G2 being better than SKT late game could also be attributed to them having drafts better suited for late game which would be a fair statement.

One thing there is plenty of evidence of is SKT inability to push leads and utilize baron properly.

I would say there is more bases to support a claim that SKT has a worse late game than G2 than there is of G2 having a worse early game than SKT.

It's then a matter of opinion if you value more how bad SKT is in the late game or how bad G2 is in the early game, in my opinion SKT being bad in the late game is more egregious than G2 being bad in the early game, both teams drafted around their strengths and their weaknesses were very evident and in the end G2 managed to win.

"This may very well be true, but it doesn't absolve them of the poor plays they made earlier. As I mentioned in my above example, teams don't just give up a number of barons and say "Yep, that was all part of the plan." Their drafts were GOOD, and if they intentionally did this as a specific to how SKT typically play, then props to them, but as mentioned above this doesn't just mean we can ignore all the things they did wrong."

I'm not saying their mistakes should be glossed over I fully agree with you on that I just think it's unfair to claim SKT played better based on those mistakes, because they happened in a specific context and might not happen in a different one.

I don't agree with the logic that G2 made mistakes that would still happen if for example drafting was different because them or any other team will play differently based on their draft.

"What's important to me is that you can understand where I draw the conclusion from even if you disagree with it. I'm not here to buy everyone's alignment, I'm just here to provide more context and explanation behind my reasoning."

I said in another thread that I get the logic and arguments I just don't agree with them, I think analysts are focusing too much on very specific aspects of this series and are missing the bigger picture.

Btw it's nice of you to be open for discussion, it gets boring when analysts treat people from this sub reddit like "plebs" that are incapable of having a single coherent thought because there are one or two comments ttacking them and the majority of them are just discussing a specific topic with valid arguments, analysts seem to forget that they were in the same position has most of us in the past.

But the evidence that SKT has a better early game than G2 is flawed the only way we could claim that is if both G2 and SKT picked for the early game, that didn't happen so it does not make sense saying SKT has a better early game because it can just be a by product of the strengths of their compositions.

But then we come back to the original discussion of "I do not believe SKT picked for early game." I also think in every game, G2 had early game options that they failed to utilize. The closest the came was in game 3 when Jankos not only successfully played through bot but also saved his top side. If you now look at my arguments with that in mind, does this make more sense?

I would say there is more bases to support a claim that SKT has a worse late game than G2 than there is of G2 having a worse early game than SKT.

Perhaps, my biggest counter argument to this is game 2, which perhaps clouds my judgement, but the whole team played poorly and just handed kill after kill to SKT.

My other counter argument is G2 actually made a number of late game mistakes. I'll re-use the examples I used in a different comment. In Game 1, Caps over-extending bot lane when there's no way for his team to cover or support him cost his team baron. In game 4, Caps forces an engage onto Mata in the midlane which baits G2 into a terrible fight. There weren't only early game mistakes from G2, there were plethora of them from different people at different points throughout the series.

in my opinion SKT being bad in the late game is more egregious than G2 being bad in the early game, both teams drafted around their strengths and their weaknesses were very evident and in the end G2 managed to win.

I think this is a fair statement to make. The weight of the decisions are definitely different.

I don't agree with the logic that G2 made mistakes that would still happen if for example drafting was different because them or any other team will play differently based on their draft.

Yes, one would assume this is true, but your assumption is no more valid than my assumption. The difference is I'm making my assumption off of my opinion of the game. If your argument was you've seen G2 consistently adapt throughout the series and playing a wide array of comps, then my assumption would be less valid.

Btw it's nice of you to be open for discussion, it gets boring when analysts treat people from this sub reddit like "plebs" that are incapable of having a single coherent thought because there are one or two comments ttacking them and the majority of them are just discussing a specific topic with valid arguments, analysts seem to forget that they were in the same position has most of us in the past.

Glad I can have these discussions with people!

brother-trick

Oh, both teams played 'badly'. As you would expect with 2 fairly evenly matched opponents. But those mistakes are not actually playing badly, but playing against a well prepared and mentally resilient opponent.

In 2017. EDG in one game had 9-0 in kills and 10k gold advantage and in other game they had 6-0 in kills with 6k gold advantage. In both games obviously they got baron and had total map control and still lost the game.

I do not really recall people or analysts saying that EDG played better League of Legends or making arguments that they'd win with reversed draft. General narrative was 'EDG played so well for so long, but you give SKT and inch and they will take miles.'

Narrative back then was - its because SKT is so good that they can turn a single enemy mistake from 100% loss into a win.

Well, maybe I would've had a different opinion to the analysts if back then, I had the knowledge that I have now.

It's all contextual and no series are the same. I did believe that TSM played better league than TL did in the spring finals and got into the same arguments with people that I'm getting into now. Sometimes, that's just what I think.

georgioz

To be frank I disagree with the claim that G2 made more mistakes even. I even watched LS/Nemesis cast of Game 3 specifically, which I think was pivotal for the series and made a comment about it. To sum up in few points:

• No team seems to have some inherent draft advantage. I think you even said on cast that game 3 and 4 SKT had draft advantage although I am not sure.
• G2 made two big mistakes. One was Wunder playing bad early game going 0:2. The second one was Wunder overextending and baiting Caps that resulted in baron at 23 minutes

Now look at some G2 good plays:

• Jankos was very proactive early game. He managed the kill bot and also singlehandedly salvaged Wunder's lane that also snowballed on pick on Faker mid.

• G2 smartly traded objectives, always keeping map presence despite facing very powerful Renekton and Kai'sa that had her build accelerated. The fogo of war play when they caught Kahn was thing of beauty.

• G2 was spot on in decision making always punishing SKT overextension in sidelanes such as when they got two bot towers in one push or when they got bot inhib tower before Faker was able to apply splitpush presence.

Now on the side of SKT. The good (and also bad):

• Khan got advantage early game (and squandered it)

• They punished Wunder overextending, got baron (and then greeded for ward and ended up baron power play with literally +9 gold)

And that is about it. I honestly cannot say anything else. SKT were unable to push Khans insane early game advantage. They even conceded early infernal that G2 had no business securing. Effort played really bad. He whiffed so many of his abilities. SKT greeded for wards wandering in chokepoints mid (a recurring theme in the series). Faker was not that good and Caps played the game very well. Teddy had also questionable plays - such as his bad ulti in Baron fight where he let Caps live.

Overall I think this game was either just bad on SKT side or they simply were not able to cope with pressure from G2 - or both. SKT could not snowball huge lead on Renekton. They were not able to push Baron lead despite getting it at 23 minutes. Their map sense was bad and their understanding when to splitpush with Ryze was off. What a night and day performance compared to G2 in game 1. The SKT teamfighting was lackluster at best.

Now I consider this game as series changing. I think a better team - like G2 - would be able to take either strong Renekton early game or 23 minute baron with fed Kai'sa and run with the game. Instead SKT lost, tilted Effort out of the series and brought in "shaker" in elimination game.

Now I hope you can see how somebody can look at your analysis and be let's say, perplexed.

A lot of what you say here I agree with. The thing is you make great points for game 3, and this is a fine evaluation of the game. I believe there may be more nuance because I think you overlooked the play from Jankos and Miky onto Faker in the mid lane which actually cost them a lot, but for the most part I think your perception of the game is a good one.

The difference for me is that I'm looking at the whole series. I'm arguing that for the majority of the series, SKT were making fewer mistakes and better decisions. So while it may be true that in game 3, G2 played better for more of that game than SKT did, I don't think that's the case for the whole series.

It's totally fine if you disagree that G2 made fewer mistakes in the series than SKT did. We just have different perceptions and that really is fine. As long as we understand each other, having disagreements is healthy and leads to good discussions.

Emeraldaes

There's a lot of if's you're using here. And you're only doing it from one perspective. If the comps were reversed and G2 had SKT's gold lead, G2 would utterly have smashed them because they have shown, all year long, how well they play with baron and how fast their games end when they get it.

Looking at things from one perspective while ignoring all other aspects is honestly so triggering. Not to mention that drafting, and champion pools, are part of being a better team and playing better. The draft is part of the game.

The bias just because it's SKT is so insane.

If the comps were reversed and G2 had SKT's gold lead, G2 would utterly have smashed them because they have shown, all year long, how well they play with baron and how fast their games end when they get it.

I agree with this statement, however my assumption is that they wouldn't have gotten to this point based on their early game performances.

Looking at things from one perspective while ignoring all other aspects is honestly so triggering. Not to mention that drafting, and champion pools, are part of being a better team and playing better. The draft is part of the game.

All I've done is use an argument to make a claim. This claim is that because of G2's over early game performance throughout the series, if they were in a position where they were on a timer and had to get an early lead, I would not have faith in them to execute based on what I saw. If my argument was SKT have no idea how to use baron, then I would've said what you said. Put G2 in this position, and they would most likely stomp SKT. But that's not the argument I'm trying to make.

The bias just because it's SKT is so insane.

I'm not really sure where this comes from. I made a 50 minute video talking about the LCK before worlds, 20 of which was spent talking exclusively about SKTs weaknesses. I made a team power ranking before worlds where I put G2 first and SKT third. I also predicted G2 to win this series. I have also said multiple times that while I think SKT played better for more of the series, G2 played better when it mattered more. The weight of the mistakes made by SKT was much great, which is why I claim G2 to be a better team.

LtSpaceDucK

"But as I said, I think they outscaled, that doesn't mean their early game is garbage. Every game, they had lanes that they could gain advantages through. Just because a comp outscales, doesn't mean it's only win condition is late game, it just means when you reach a certain point your champs are stronger than your opponents for whatever reason."

Agreed

"one could argue SKT had fewer ways to gain early game advantages yet they were able to find them. Therefore, using this series as data, I am making the assumption that if the roles were reversed, SKT are more likely to execute better."

In what instances did SKT have fewer ways to get early game advantages?

"So they had a strong top side, G2 also got Xayah, which is the strongest early game AD. They also had Ez + Galio, which was also a stronger bot side than yasuo + grag early on. So you can start to see how G2 would just trade pressure on one side of the map to the other, meaning SKT didn't just always draft a strong early game, they had a good early game side of the map. Which, for the record, wasn't even that easy to get early advantages on. Kled and Ornn are both really obnoxious for Renekton and make his life a lot harder when it comes to getting early leads."

If you want to take into consideration matchups you can't simply say well x champion is better than x champion. Bot lane is a duo lane kaisa/leona versus xayah/rakan is an equal matchup neither duo has a clear advantage that can impact the game. For top renekton/gragas versus kled/reksai clearly favours SKT, Renekton/lee sin versus Ornn/Jarven is SKT favoured again.

In my opinion the top/jungle duo of SKT was always superior apart from game 4, sure their window to take advantage of that might not be massive but it existed and the fact they weren't able to do it is on them alone.

Also Ez+Galio only advantage is they are able to push the lane faster but that advantage is not nearly enough to punish yasuo/gragas and that was on display G2 wanted push the lane wanted to dive them but couldn't because they realize ezreal is not good in dives because his main damage his Q and it's hard to hit Q's when the enemy is surrounded by minions, Jankos was bot and just wasted time.

One of those instances let's agree to disagree

duo lane kaisa/leona versus xayah/rakan is an equal matchup

I don't agree with this. I think Xayah Rakan is much stronger in the 2v2, has more push and is harder to make plays on. The problem for Leona is if she goes in, she just gets knocked up so the Xayah can disengage and the Rakan can then jump to her. They should also have more waveclear early. This is a strong 2v2 that you should be able to play through.

Also Ez+Galio only advantage is they are able to push the lane faster

I don't agree with this either. Yasuo/Gragas is strong because of their ability to force all ins during lane. This is really hard to do against a galio and an ez, meaning the duo is forced to play defensively. G2 did actually want to set up a dive as well. Their level 1 play was G2 trying to split the map, which they didn't do properly because they didn't bring a sweeper. If you compare it to their game 4 performance you can see what they should've done. Because J4 dies, they can't set up the dive properly because of how far behind he is.

I think game 2 in particular it should've actually been pretty difficult for SKT to get early advantages. You can't really dive an ornn. In theory if LeBlanc is there and Ornn isn't 6 you can, but it doesn't matter because Ornn will always be useful even if he's behind. Bot can't find advantages because of what we discussed. This means the only way they get ahead is by playing through mid and moving around the map. Well, G2 made it easier for them because of the mistakes they made early.

QuaintTerror

Most people like you, no one cares if you said one stupid thing. But this is a strange hill to die on imo.

I enjoy the discussion and I'm fine if people disagree with me. I don't think I lose anything by talking to people.

henoriel

I agree that those are obvious "mistakes", however I think that Kobbe (and Jatt?) pointed out something that i'm not sure you really adressed (apologies if it's already in another of your answer).

This thing is that, those mistakes were punished by SKT, but how many times doing this serie did those risky plays went unpunished and gave G2 a free tower, a inhib , a kill or just free waves or farm?

I find it hard to criticise G2 for those mistakes (even though it's what you are trying to figure out as analyst in your reviews) because they gain so much out of those 60-40 plays and it means that even after a couple of those every early game, they are still only less than 2k behind SKT and permanently apply pressure.

I'm convinced that if they don't go for those risky plays they are nowhere near as succesful, it's their identity as a team (and that lead to them being stomped sometimes because they can't stop)

I mean, I think there's a difference between risky plays and bad ones. I think G2 took more bad plays than they did risks. There are some examples where you could look at the play and go "Okay, I understand why they did that but it didn't work out." However, a lot of the time I couldn't quite understand why they did it. Even when they had information to make a more informed play, sometimes they didn't.

I think G2 did a lot of good things too. I like how in game 1 they traded an inhib for baron and how they played around that. I like in game 3 when Camille roamed to mid lane and they made that early play onto Ryze, as it helped Camille get back into the game. This play was inherently risky as Camille could've just wasted more time, but it worked out.

furbar82

"I think SKT were overall pretty bad at using Baron."
"There was a huge window here where they could've really created a lot of pressure, but didn't."
"So yeah, I don't think their baron usage was good."
"they just outplayed SKT."
"but the good things that G2 did were WAY MORE impactful as they actually resulted in game wins."

=> "So what I'm saying is because the number of good plays from SKT was greater, I believe overall they played better league"

I understand that this may be confusing and my language could be better, but this is what I mean when I say these things.

Its not confusing its just horrible kind of logic. And a discussion that was never a thing in the history of leauge. If I am wrong name me all the series in the past were people discussed the better playing team losing the series.

I have no problem people discussing what G2 and what SKT did good and bad, but people trying to discuss which team played better after a 3-1 series is just so annoying. We never had this discussion and if anyone would have started it 3-4 years ago against a korean team he would get flamed to death. But SKT is losing and suddenly we have these discussions. And no one can explain me why...

It's happening because it's my opinion, and people don't like it. You don't agree with my definitions, and that's fine, maybe I need to change them.

I agree with the statement, both teams made mistakes, both teams did awesome things. In the end, G2 was the better team. If nothing else, you're welcome to walk away from the conversation with that.

georgioz

I think it is not only about the number of mistakes by each team. But it is also about how the teams are able to capitalize on those mistakes SKT were simply not good in that area.

Also I am not sure that I even agree that counting mistakes is a good way of looking at what the better playing team is. There is a ton of historically dominant teams that were lackluster in many areas but really good in one area - like teamfighting.

How does one even evaluate legacy of such a team? Mistake counting is clearly bad way to go about it. Hell, we did not do it when SKT and other koreans were known for getting behind only to come back lategame by superior macro and teamfights.

That's fair, maybe my evaluation is a poor one, which I recognize and will consider for the future. I've thought these things before, and I will likely change my language for the future.

brother-trick

That's completely fine to have a different opinion.

To me its just funny how many of the analysts - and this started happening at MSI already when G2 won - suddenly are making arguments 'if A were true than G2 would not win'.

At MSI many said how it was the cheesy skirmish meta with Pyke and mages/bruisers bot and how G2 will fall off once meta normalizes and here we have G2 with Xayah as their best champ, winning through scaling teamfighting comps against SKT of all teams.

I mean for sure, that's always going to happen though. Some people won't be entirely bought in, other's will find different explanations for success, that's hopefully what makes this all entertaining. If we all thought the same thing, nothing interesting would ever happen.

_Vastus_

This does clarify your stance a bit, but there is one last point I want to go over then. Does making less mistakes make you the better team? Or alternatively, is the strength of a team defined by how they deal with setbacks instead? You say that a lot of G2's more creative map trades were forced by their earlier mistakes.

But even if we assume that was always the case (which I do not think it is, it often simply came down to item spikes and timings that were better for SKT that they tried to fight around), does that creativity not make them the better team? They were able to take unfavorable situations and trade evenly or sometimes up despite being weaker in that stage of the game.

SKT on the other hand looked lost whenever something went wrong (e.g. when they botched their baron setup or when someone got caught), they had no backup plans or anything outside of their usual playbook. That difference in creativity, in being able to turn a negative situation into a positive one, was what ultimately made G2 the victor I think. I think that is where they played much better and it is also what made them the better team in my opinion.

And this is just a weighting thing right? What do you weigh as more important when it comes to evaluating what makes good league of legends and what makes a good team.

I would agree with you and say G2 are the better team. I would vote for them to win that series again. My definition for what good league of legends is though might be different form yours. I value a teams decision making very highly, and I criticize more decisions that don't make sense. I really felt like G2 made so many plays or decisions that just weren't good, and while SKT had their bad moments and those mistakes were weighted larger, that to me was less important than the number of mistakes I saw. Even then, the gravity of some of the mistakes from G2 were pretty big. Like, I've referenced this a lot, but G2 conceded 6 barons. Some of them, were just great plays from SKT, others were really bad mistakes from G2 that could've cost them their games. Maybe my evaluations are wrong though, and maybe I need to re-evaluate, but that's why having these conversations and discussions is good!

iTomes

I feel like that's only really true if SKT doesn't leverage the Renekton matchup though, which is by far the biggest example of an early vs. lategame disconnect in that specific game. If Camille and Renekton go remotely even then yes, G2 has a massive advantage as SKT can't really match the Camille anywhere on the map and just get outscaled in terms of their teamfighting. But that really shouldn't happen and is in fact the opposite of what was happening early. And if Camille doesn't get back into the game after her first disastrous three levels or something (which she really shouldn't have been able to do, and I mostly blame Clid for her being able to pull that comeback off since all he had to do was basically play river Rek'Sai top side and it didn't seem like he was doing that to me in the moment) SKT can just play sidelanes since a starved Camille won't be able to match Ryze, nobody will be able to match Renekton and all bot lane has to do is just not completely fall apart.

Like in this game SKT has much, much better early tools simply because the one lane they need to win hard in order to secure their win is heavily lopsided with regards to scaling. And with top lane going probably worse than it realistically should G2 absolutely had to be proactive in order to not get stomped, which is what they ultimately succeeded at when Wunder got two kills he never should have had an opportunity to get. I don't really see a guarantee of the same thing happening if you reverse the draft, and of Camille not getting beaten up rather badly this time and of the Ryze/Renekton winning the game due to being able to exert sidelane pressure that their opposing team can't match.

Yeah, I think that's a fair argument.

I think the only problem they would have is actually closing the game because the rest of the map wouldn't spike as hard at the same time. So while you would have a really strong side of the map, your ability to actually snowball would be difficult. If SKT could force a lot of fights and as you say, the bot lane doesn't get perma camped then maybe they could do it. But even then, I wouldn't define the whole draft as an early game one, even though I agree with you that SKT do have a heavily favoured early game top side.

Maybe I'm getting stuck in the weeds too much, I like what you wrote. Interesting to think about.

furbar82

Let's take game 3 for example. Renekton, Rek'sai, Ryze, Kaisa, Leona vs Camille, Elise, Orianna, Xayah, Naut. I think we can both agree that Ryze and Kaisa should not be considered early game champions. However, against G2's comp, they probably get outscaled. Why? Well, diving onto a Xayah is hard for Renekton and Kaisa because of the Naut cc + Xayah ult. Orianna also provides mroe teamfight value than a Ryze does. Also, Camille's damage in the late game will be too strong for anyone on SKT to be able to 1v1.

SKT got a 2-0 Renekton top and did absolute 0 with it! They had a fed Ryze and Renekton in mid game and never got a proper split push set up. They fucked up their respawn timings for second drake and gave G2 a free infernal drake when they were actually way stronger on the map. They got baron and then did absolute 0 with it by losing a fight they never should have lost.

SKT did tons of insane fuck ups in game 3, its actually beyond me how someone can say they lost this game because of draft.

I didn't at any point say they lost because of the draft. I said the responsibility fell on them to be more proactive early and generate a lead. I also said it's harder to do that given the whole comp isn't designed to spike early.

I completely agree with you that SKT did a lot of fuck ups on game 3.

Falconpunchu

Wait so who is better skt or g2? I thought you said skt were the better team.

Nope, I said that I felt SKT played better league overall, but I thought G2 were the better team. There are a number of other replies that I've made that try to give more context behind this.

LtSpaceDucK

"But then we come back to the original discussion of "I do not believe SKT picked for early game." I also think in every game, G2 had early game options that they failed to utilize. The closest the came was in game 3 when Jankos not only successfully played through bot but also saved his top side. If you now look at my arguments with that in mind, does this make more sense?"

They picked renekton top in three out of four games also taking into consideration the jungle picks SKT picked to snowball through top that's clear meanwhile G2 never picked a champion that it's main focus was to smash the lane based on the lane matchup, SKT played way more for lane than G2.

Regarding the early game options they were there but if the fact that G2's draft works against them when it's claimed they outplayed SKT in the late game and teamfights the same can be said for SKT. In my opinion SKT had clear advantages in the early game, I remember Fnatic versus Koo Tigers season 5 or Griffin versus IG this Worlds, those teams managed to win mainly because their top/jungle were put in favourable positions and carried the game Khan/Clid weren't able to do the same.

"Yes, one would assume this is true, but your assumption is no more valid than my assumption. The difference is I'm making my assumption off of my opinion of the game. If your argument was you've seen G2 consistently adapt throughout the series and playing a wide array of comps, then my assumption would be less valid."

It all comes down to the difference in opinions about draft I think SKT had a clear advantage in the early game and failed to execute on it your opinion is that they didn't have a clear advantage and them being better in the early game proves that they played better than G2. Both arguments make sense based on our opinions of the game and drafts.

I suppose so! Thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it!

Merkiv

Personally I both agree and disagree with you. No team ever goes into the game thinking "alright, we're gonna concede 1st, 2nd, 3rd baron", and the fact that G2 did, was the result (like you said) of either their mistakes that they shouldn't have made, or good play from SKT.

However, while you're saying that G2 was good at thinking on their feet, and was having good responses to what SKT was doing, you're phrasing it in a way, that makes it seem like G2 players were forced to make something happen so they don't concede the map completely, and the reason for it working out was purely good execution - and that's where I disagree.

We've all seen what happens between 15-25 minutes when G2 don't do those mistakes - they snowball out of control and close out games extremely fast and efficiently. The reason for that aren't godly mechanics from all of their players (that's not to say they don't have amazing mechanics, because they do), but the way they prepare the map beforehand.

In those games they didn't acrue leads like they usually do, but they did play the map the same way, pressuring multiple lanes, forcing SKT to react in some way to what they were doing. And even when falling behind, the state of the map allowed them to negate advantages SKT had. G2 played the map much better than SKT, and if it was actually G2 winning those early games, then they probably would've snowballed like they usually do. Instead they had to settle for negating what SKT was doing, but it was only possible due to better fundamentals and macro from G2.

The real discussion here should be, if the mistakes G2 and SKT commited during those games are weighted correctly, do 2 mistakes from G2 have the same implication as 1 mistake from SKT? At least as far as baron goes, if a team that secures it in fact LOSES the pressure on the map, then - to me at least - it's a much bigger issue, than a player getting caught out which leads to an enemy team getting that baron. And like you said, SKT didn't utilize baron well in the series, or even pre Worlds. I'm certain, that G2's coaching staff was aware of that as well, and they knew how to attack SKT in the event they secure baron.

Like I said, no team goes into the game with the idea of conceding baron, but if you've got a good plan on how to deal with it in case it happens and are able to execute it properly, while the enemy team has no good response to what you're doing, then to me the team with better plan and execution is the one playing better, at least in that part of the game. SKT had definitelly better early, while G2 (to me) had better mid and late game. So it really depends what you value more in this case, but dropping hypotheticals (had SKT gotten G2's draft, had they snowballed better, had they executed this or that teamfight better) just sounds like a bit of a cop-out to me, because in the end they didn't do any of those things. And the game to me starts in draft phase, and that also should be taken into account.

Great argument, I like it a lot!