Vedius‘ smurf?
I wish, but I have made that joke before
LETS GOOOOOOOOO
Vedius's voice sprouting demoralizing sentences makes the best motivational video !
LOL
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!
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.
"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!
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-eval...
Read moreI 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.
Read moreLet'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.
"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 pro...
Read moreMost 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.
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.
Read more"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Read moreThere'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 ...
Read moreI'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!
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.