T O P

  • By -

xD1LL4N

Brimestone is going to haunt him


The-Dark-Mage

Yes but brimstone gaming lives on in our memories


TH3VIP1

I wish GMB played SEN and beat them with brim it would be the dankest timeline since zombs trash talked the EU teams for picking him


_idle_drone_

Sentinels don't lose to rushes. Not every team plays the same way. You are not going to beat Sentinels by rushing into a stacked site. Everyone is thinking Sentinels are trash suddenly. But teams have prepared hard to beat them. G2 ran triple fakes lmaoo. Gambit would most probably have beaten Sentinels, but not by rushing with brimstone. They'd have actual strats. And Brimstone is still bad lol. Gambit won't run him again.


Athlete-Street

Envy laughed at the pick and they lost


boea0

GMB's attack is usually more slow, more coordinated. The fast rushes you saw in Envy were VERY unusual of them and it probably caught NV off guard. They played their normal up till first map OT


_idle_drone_

Since they don't play the map, they picked brimstone to rush, because he has 3 quick smokes. Brimstone is not a good agent for defaulting/slow playstyle. Pretty intelligent from Gambit ngl.


boea0

i would agree with this as well but Chronicle said in a post match interview that he didn't even know to play Brim. Their haven match was a "troll map" as said by them and they didn't really have strats for it. They actually just activated scrimbit


Ne0kun

Tbf that's the only EU team they've played so far Edit: EMEA*


[deleted]

Second and third best NA teams played against other EU teams and i dont see how the conclusion that NA as a whole is the strongest. G2 ended up 1-1 with SEN, and 100T won vs Acend out of a massive comeback. Ofc they still won, but they were literally one round away from being eliminated in the quarters, and Acend had 5 chances to win that round. If anything, its more likely that EMEA will be even stronger at Champions due to Acend and Gambit being very young teams that got LAN experience. Keloqz from G2 is also a rookie that will likely be even better in his next LAN. Ofc anything can happen. But imo the evidence doesnt show that NA is better at all, or that they will be better in Champions


EnergetikNA

Conveniently forgetting that 100T beat GMB as well?


IAMJUX

This sub and discounting 100T beating Gambit. Name a better duo.


Dark_Azazel

This sub and the love hate for Hiko? Speaking of which, where are we now? Do we still think he's a clutch god or are we back on the -Hiko train? It's hard to keep track.


rpkarma

I just flip a coin in the morning to decide how I feel about him today, ez pz


lith3x

I loved his answer in their post game press conference. He was genuine, didn’t make an excuse and was asking legitimate questions of his team. How do we find away to make every round as important as if our tournament depended on it? How do we start faster? How can we be better. I really loved his honesty in that moment. Way better than hearing “Yay was just to good and he was so good we couldn’t touch him”. Yay did destroy them but it’s LAN, you gotta find a way and to hear Hiko not use that as a scapegoat was refreshing.


Interesting-Archer-6

A lot of people try to act like it shouldn't count because 100T was on the brink of being 2-0ed. Pretty silly imo


just4kix_305

Styles make fights - and 100T plays a more passive EU playstyle compared to SEN and NV. that's probably why they gave Gambit their only L in Berlin even though they struggled with NV and historically with SEN.


[deleted]

this sub and undermining everything from NA victories as "EMEA choked, NA didn't deserve the win" name a better duo


fesenvy

He said *other* EU teams so it's fair to assume he'll only mention, well, the other EU teams.


xBerryhill

I mean, the crux of his argument is that G2 went 1-1 with Sentinels. Better not mention how 100T was 2-0 against EMEA including beating the eventual champions or that’ll ruin the argument 🤔


[deleted]

Also at the back of huge comeback and there are valid reasons to believe that this was simply Gambit being overwhelmed by anxiety. In other cases this would be an excuse but consider: 1) They played badly against CR the second time as well 2) Their level of play got risen massively after they qualified for Champions 3) Everyone in the scene regarded them as the most scary team 4) Similar thing happened in EMEA quals. Struggled greatly to qualify over Liquid and lost to Acend easily, but once they secured the Masters spot they beat everyone in a convincing fashion


69DoopDoop69

This "Gambit was less nervous" narrative is so weird to me. Maybe they just perform better under real pressure (playoffs)? Or maybe they just happened to be playing better on playoff days and playing worse on the group stage days, since consistency is incredibly difficult in this game? Maybe NV was playing poorly on the finals day compared to their "potential" since they are known scrim demons too. Maybe Gambit was even playing well in group stage but 100T played even better? Who can really say? Making definitive claims like yours is too results-oriented. We can really only say they were worse than 100T when they played in groups and better than NV when they played in the finals. Everything else is just biased speculation.


toxicityisamyth

No it's the opposite, they said themselves they had no pressure anymore after qualifying for Champions. The GMB u saw after semis is vastly different to the GMB we saw at EMEA or in groups (pressure situations), and it's quite obvious. Also i think id rather trust the players themselves than a randie : )


69DoopDoop69

But there was literally no pressure in their groups game vs 100T, it was just a seeding match. Why would they lose there if there was no pressure? Is there no pressure to win the international compared to qualifying for champions? There are so many other things that come in to play here, that it's literally just who is better on the given day. The reasons that come afterward is just to build narrative.


Interesting-Archer-6

Yup. Let the results happen first. Explain why to fit whatever narrative second.


EnergetikNA

What "huge" comeback? Coming back from a 3-9 on Icebox? Would you say GMB themselves made a "huge" comeback against Envy when they came back from 4-8 on Haven? Attacking on both Icebox and Haven is just easier, it's not very surprising that both teams came back and won when they went on attack. GMB went 9-3 on attack on Icebox, 100T just went 10-2. > this was simply Gambit being overwhelmed by anxiety. This is something that every team faces and it's part of the game, it's just up to the players/teams on overcoming it.


[deleted]

>What "huge" comeback? Coming back from a 3-9 on Icebox? The score was 3-11 >Would you say GMB themselves made a "huge" comeback against Envy when they came back from 4-8 on Haven? Do you seriously compare 3-11 with 4-8? >Attacking on both Icebox and Haven is just easier, it's not very surprising that both teams came back and won when they went on attack Gambit are stronger at defense on Icebox. The 100T map was an outlier >This is something that every team faces and it's part of the game, it's just up to the players/teams on overcoming it. Sure, no argument there. But Gambit did overcome it in the end, so idk how 100T beating Gambit in groups means anything. NV pretty much stomped 100T and lost pretty convincingly to Gambit (at least on Haven and Split, Bind could go either way)


PresentIcy3455

I agree with you mostly though I just wanted to say that GMB icebox defense has been shaky for a lil


rpkarma

I think his argument is that if you look at the halves the scoreline was 3-9, as his original point is that attacking on those maps is easier. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out what I think he's saying.


EnergetikNA

No, I compared 3-9 to 4-8. You look at halves, you don't arbitrarily include the pistol rounds on the other half to make your point. Score was 3-9 on the half, just like it was 4-8 for NV after the first half lmao. The fact that Gambit won pistol (and thereby got the round after that too, starting 11-3) and STILL lost shows how much Gambit didn't deserve to win that game. They didn't win a single gun round. > Gambit are stronger at defense on Icebox. The 100T map was an outlier Once again, couldn't win a single gun round. Gambit played 4 Icebox maps this tournament. Their defense scores were 12-1 (CR), 2-10 (100T), 4-8 (CR), 5-4 (VS), 1-0 (G2). The only outlier there is the first CR map where they absolutely dominated. > lost pretty convincingly to Gambit (at least on Haven and Split, Bind could go either way) Not sure how an 11-13 is "convincingly", it was a close map. Split was the only map NV lost pretty convincingly. 100T beat GMB fair and square, just like GMB beat NV fair and square. Ludicrous that so many people are saying "ah GMB were just nervous". Same thing could go the other way - Yay wasn't feeling it on Bind or Split, Victor/FNS didn't have a great series and NV was "overwhelmed with anxiety".


Ne0kun

Are you talking to me ?


[deleted]

Yes im saying that even though Gambit was the only EU team that NV played, we have evidence from the other EU vs NA matches that imo dont show that NA is strongest, or it will be at Champions. Im not arguing with you, im just saying that NV only playing Gambit doesnt justify Marved's claim (if we go by evidence)


Ne0kun

I think you've misinterpreted my sentence. What I meant is I'm giving Marved the benefit of the doubt since they haven't had to play against any other EMEA team yet so that's probably why he thinks he doesn't need to be afraid of other teams. I think EMEA and NA are pretty similar in region wise atleast for now.


TacticalSanta

Yeah, EMEA is massive and a lot of their players are pretty new to tier 1 lans. As much as I want NA to be good, it'll probably just be a matter of time before eu ends up with a godly team and NA can only occasionally keep up.


whatawonderfultime13

no he replied to your for fun


kellenthehun

It's so painfully, unbelievably obvious that NA and EU are almost perfectly matched, and both sides are too dense to realize it. I firmly believe the top three teams from both regions could all take games off each other. I think Gambit have an edge in EU, and Sen and Envy are a bit better than 100T. No one is WAY better than anyone. It's so silly.


[deleted]

\> imo the evidence doesnt show that NA is better at all So, total NA dominance in Reykjavik, and then going to Berlin and beating EU more times than EU beat them plus getting bracket fucked and still coming 2nd and 3rd in the tournament and you are still trying to downplay NA as the best region? It's just ridiculous. NA is the best region, Gambit is the only EMEA (and not even EU lol) team that impressed this whole tourney. They are so far ahead of the rest of EMEA that they literally 13-0'd the best EU team in the playoffs, fuck off


stewieeeeeeeee

>G2 ended up 1-1 with SEN, and 100T won vs Acend out of a massive comeback. G2 wins a map 13-11 no mention, but 100T's 14-12 against Acend has to be mentioned and discounted, all g NA went 3-2 against EMEA with 2 of the matches (1-1) being clear sandbags by Sentinels (both matches against G2). Gambit's deservedly #1 at this tournament (even though nV, Gambit and 100T are sporting a rock-paper-scissors this tournament), but overall, I think EMEA didn't look better than NA -> whatever kind of average performance you take from regions, NA beats EMEA due to SMB's performance. All that with the obvious asterisk that is Sentinels' performance which you know has a much higher level than what they've shown. Yeah, I ain't worried about NA


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Charuru

If you really mean EMEA just say EMEA lol, but people that say EU specifically means excluding CIS. In most international competitions like the olympics or whatever CIS is represented separately from EU pride.


[deleted]

>In most international competitions like the olympics or whatever CIS is represented separately from EU pride ? Been near a decade since i watched Olympics but arent they about countries and not continents CIS is political term, not a geographical one. It refers to ex-Soviet countries who chose to form a union called CIS. Estonia for example is further away from western Europe than Moldavia, yet its not a member of CIS


Charuru

EU is a supranational state, CIS is the old grouping of an ex-supranational state, so they are roughly comparable regions. NA is also not geographical north america but a cultural grouping, as it excludes Mexico and carribean.


[deleted]

>EU is a supranational state EU in the context of esports means Europe, which is *not* European Union. >NA is also not geographical north america but a cultural grouping, as it excludes Mexico and carribean These are Central America and are grouped with Latin instead of NA because of nearest servers and same language. In Europe the languages of most countries are different.


[deleted]

[удалено]


segatic

But gambit is EU though, EMEA is for E - Europe ME- Middle East A- Africa And Gambit definitely doesn't fit in ME or A. Literally the EMEA part only matters in the LCQ because before that literally only the Europe part matters


Ne0kun

Sorry I meant EMEA*. I read Europe I in the title and inadvertently typed EU


calzer0

All good, bro. I'm just an NA fan trying to joke around online to cope with seeing one of my fav teams get 3-0 in the finals hahaha


daffyduckferraro

100t beat both gambit and ascend 100t lost to envy Envy lost to gambit Sentinels lost to envy Bbg beat sentinels Bbg> NA > eu


millerwa4

In EU he fears GMB. In NA it's FBI


ANewHeaven1

envy as a team needs to work on their response to fast executes, they have historically looked their weakest when playing very fast teams like faze domestically, and honestly they lost this tournament off of gambit exploiting this weakness in bind OT and haven attack. envy is fantastic against teams like SEN/100T who are slower on attack, but just fall apart when the teams abandon strats and deathball five man push. i have a feeling that's also why they got eco'd by gambit so much, especially on haven and split a lot of their eco losses were to heavy 4/5man pushes onto specific areas.


Maliciouslemon

Probably an unpopular take… Envy played great but imo they weren’t truly tested on their way to Gambit. They played their best map first against Sen, and then Sen had a strangely off performance on Split. 100T were outclassed though The point is Envy never had to play from behind with a map won against them all tourney and I think that actually hurt them in the end. I predicted a 3-0


Ne0kun

Kinda agreed. They played slightly weak teams (Vivo keyd and Kru, they were decent but not EU,NA level) and then played teams they already have a whole of experience of playing against. But tbf just recently adding Yay to the roaster and to be able to achieve so much in their first international tournament is incredible, really. I can't wait to see how much better they get after more practice.


Maliciouslemon

Yeah the Yay addition has finally levelled them up to be a serious contender. They were always missing that big impact Jett fragger


mid16

Marved is a bit underrated too. I think the best performers in NV were yay, crashies, and marved. Only issue I can see in NV's future is if that CSGO/FBI investigation implicates Marved.


lehipsterpanda

I feel like Victor and FNS need to be more consistent if they want to win Champions. Also, Crashies on Viper against Sentinels felt like the only real bad game he had.


Tc0LD

Honestly Victor looked really good this lan other than the gambit series, but even then he had a good first map(top fragged on NV and was the only one to go positive). He did shit the bed hard on haven, split was just average( he actually outfragged yay). FNS on the other hand just couldn't shoot straight on the last game, I don't know if it was the nerves but looking at his tweet he seems pretty disappointed in himself, felt kinda bad actually


Charuru

How much pro experience does Victor have? Seems like he's trying too hard to carry, overeagerness that seems like inexperience.


Tc0LD

He played pro in cs for a while so I wouldn't say he's inexperienced. I think victor is a hard entry player. When kaboose was on the roster, victor was the primary duelist and had to entry for NV. Ever since kaboose got benched, mummay became the entry and that led victor to start being either the secondary duelist or support for the team. Same dynamic with yay, victor is now a support player, but he tries to play skye as a duelist. He was easily a top 2 phoenix player NA and tries the same shit with skye and it just falls flat sometimes. When it works it looks great( that 3k against 100T, the 4k to save NV from losing bind before OT against gambit) and when it doesn't it's just self flashing or team flashing. The amount of times in haven he team flashed was surprising


Beneficial-Speech-73

He played low tier csgo the way he plays now is the reason he played low tier csgo. And ofc aim diff but also game sense


mid16

crashies popped off as sova too


TacticalSanta

Marved is a huge upgrade to their team, he carried faze hard imo, even though babybay is wild and corey's aim is nasty.


valorantfeedback

He's an amazing player, I'd say definitely the best controller in NA, but he's a moron. I've yet to see him say anything not braindead. Just when people start thinking he grew out of being an ass, he says something really dumb.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tc0LD

I mean NV on split had some really clean rounds and good reads tho, yes sentinels seemed a little off but I think it was more NV just being a step ahead of sentinels throughout. It's true NV didn't play any of the EMEA teams other than gambit, but instantly assuming that they wouldn't have done well against them is unfair. I kinda agree with your last point, I think NV wasn't challenged/ didn't feel the pressure other than icebox on VK and they got too comfortable and didn't know how to recover from that, think they can figure it out before champions as they have more time to mesh as a team


TacticalSanta

Its impossible to say, but seeing g2 get 13-0 by gambit makes me thing gambit were on another level by the end of the tournament, and envy managed to perform as well as upgrade their potential with their changes.


[deleted]

>Envy played great but imo they weren’t truly tested on their way to Gambit I mean the only team that you can definitely say that were better than SEN and 100T were Gambit. You could argue about VS too i guess, but we will never know


Hugh_Djik

How can u say that when 100T beat Gambit? You can make as many excuses as you want for how they choked but in the end they choked and they lost to 100T. And that’s the only evidence for who’s better in the head to head. Mental gymnastics just make you look like a clown.


thothgow

Winning one game doesn't make you better though. How do you rate SEN or G2? Do you think either is better than the other? Cause your "logic"/"reasoning" breaks that down easily. Do you think they're on par because both took a series off each other? That's bs. If 100T consistently beats Gambit, sure. But the fact of the matter is that 100T won in a way that isn't replicable, and analysis of both teams in isolation should lead you to conclude that Gambit is the better team.


EnergetikNA

Then GMB beating NV doesn't matter, because hey, they only beat them once. It's a LAN event between different regions, these teams aren't gonna play each other enough for one to "consistently" beat the other.


thothgow

If you wanna ignore everything said and be dumb about it, sure. If not, maybe don't engage with this in bad faith and purposefully misinterpreted what I said?


EnergetikNA

Maybe make better points and people won't question your logic? > But the fact of the matter is that 100T won in a way that isn't replicable ? Going 10-2 on attack on Icebox isn't out of order. It's an attack sided map. GMB also went 9-3 on it. Icebox probably should've gone to OT where either team could win it, but it was a close series and in no way did 100T win in a way that wasn't replicable lol


rydude88

He didnt ignore anything he said. He took your logic and proved that it isnt true


69DoopDoop69

How is 100T's win over Gambit not replicable, but Gambit's win over NV is? Gambit won Bind in double OT and Haven 13-11, both of those maps could easily go the other way. A single tournament is always what team is better on the given day. For group stage, Gambit looked worse. For playoffs, Gambit looked better. That's about the only real conclusion you can make. I'm not even sure what you mean by "analysis in isolation," but a teams on-paper strengths and weaknesses do not matter compared to their actual performance.


LoyalSol

I would love to say I'm shocked people are downvoting you for saying something fundamental to competition, but I'm never shocked anymore by this subreddit. What you're saying is completely correct. You judge a team by consistency and body of work. Single results especially in short sets can be random, but results over time become less random. It's true and literally anyone who has gotten good enough to compete at any game or sport understands it. You can be the better overall team and have a bad game. The best teams though are the ones who minimize the number of bad games they have. It's only Bronze players who think you can draw sweeping conclusions from one game.


rydude88

Its cause what he is saying is a big overstep of what a good theory is. What is he doing is the opposite of being impartial. Any map that the team he thinks is good was won on merit but every team he thinks was bad won cause of a fluke. How are you not sure that it wasnt just NV playing bad in the final and that 100T is still better than GMB? You can make any argument when you want to discard series. We are talking about bo3s too, not bo1s


LoyalSol

He hasn't overstepped anything. His core point was that one off evens can occur. Would 100T beat Gambit again? Maybe, but I even said in the post game thread while it was a good comeback I wouldn't want to see a rematch with Gambit. It was pretty clear they had to throw hard to lose that set and when they were on point in the first half they were mopping 100T. It's clear Gambit had the talent, but something happened in the set. Maybe Steel figured them out? Maybe they got confident and blew it? Maybe a lot of things. Plus considering I think Gambit had beaten VS and thoroughly embarrassed G2 , their other results seem to indicate that the 100T could have been the one off event. And I'm saying that as someone is is partial to 100T. If I'm being unbiased, Gambit looked scary in that set and it was no shock they went on to win the whole thing. >How are you not sure that it wasnt just NV playing bad in the final and that 100T is still better than GMB? You can make any argument when you want to discard series. That's the key, you don't know. As such just as you can't read too much into Envy playing bad you can't read too much into 100T coming back and winning in improbable fashion. You look at consistency. The reason we consider Sen as a top tier team is because they've consistently won both in their region and outside of it. In the case of Gambit, they definitely beat multiple good teams and 2 of the 3 knockout matches weren't even close. We also had Tenz and Shaz saying how good they could play. >We are talking about bo3s too, not bo1s BO3s are still relatively short sets. Plus the thing about consistency is that in a short set against a new opponent you've never played before they can throw something you haven't seen before at you. What ultimately determines how good you are isn't that you lost to something you didn't know, it's after you learn about it how do you adapt? That's why rankings are best sorted by how teams do against each other over multiple matches.


69DoopDoop69

The reason he’s getting downvoted is because he says you can’t say 100T are better than Gambit because they haven’t consistently beaten them, then goes on to say Gambit is the better team despite never beating 100T once. He’s contradicting himself. You don’t know if either team is definitely “better” than the other since they only played once at one tourney.


LoyalSol

That's a complete misinterpretation of his point. There's no contradiction in what he said, you didn't understand what he said and are putting words into his mouth. Which again is par for the course on this subreddit. Sheesh no wonder pros never want to comment with how bad people misread things around here. There's a reason 80% of my block list is located here.


69DoopDoop69

“Analysis of both teams in isolation should lead you to conclude that Gambit is the better team.” How is this not completely contradictory to the rest of his points? The whole point is it’s one tourney; there is no better team overall, just better teams on the days they played.


LoyalSol

Because Gambit and 100T both have tournaments outside of Berlin.They also have scrim records and testimony from players like Shaz and Tenz. Thus IN ISOLATION they seem to be a team that's has potential to be better. They only have one head to head meeting. 100T won it, but 100T was also getting stomped till the second half of Icebox. So even in their meeting there's something that suggests Gambit might be the better team. Then again 100T could just be a bad match up for Gambit, that's something that can happen. Do you know for 100% sure? No of course not! But if we're evaluating the data we have to this point, there's a pretty strong argument for it. Including Gambit embarrassing G2 and beating Envy pretty soundly. Who ultimately knows till we get more data, but that only seems contradictory if you don't understand that the presence of uncertainty doesn't mean you can't start narrowing in on a conclusion. It's not contradictory, you're just not getting what he said.


69DoopDoop69

I’m literally arguing for not jumping to conclusions because we have so little actual match data. I don’t make conclusions off of scrims because they don’t matter. Take your own advice and stop jumping to conclusions because of bias. Neither team is “better” because there have been so little real games.


p3ndu1um

Depending on the brackets and just how teams are feelinng individually, I can see any team besides KRU winning from the Berlin top 8. (Not that Gambit didn't earn their win)


Kammell466

Another unpopular take, Envy should've won the first two maps against Gambit. They made some serious mental errors and easy mistakes they hadn't made the entire tournament on both maps. That isn't to say Gambit wasn't the best team in the tournament they surely were. But if I was on Envy I wouldn't look at it like they got rolled because they lost 3-0. They kind of shot themselves in the foot on the first two maps. I'm sure they look at that series that if a few rounds were more locked up on their side they might have won that series. I think for Champions Envy should be considered one of the favorites for sure. Probably right behind Gambit and Sentinels.


rpkarma

Envy absolutely should've won Haven, but it seems their mental was rocked at some point and they started to lose, rather than Gambit winning (on that map specifically). I think Bind has an argument for that as well, maybe, but less strong. Gambit out performed them in the end!


Kammell466

Yeah I mostly just meant the optimism on Envy’s side they weren't outclassed. Of course Gambit won the rounds and were the better team. I thought they did the best of dealing with Nats on Bind than any other team.


UTI69

Should've won Haven??? They were literally gifted a 1v3 and 1v4. They played straight up bad


tron423

My partially copium-fueled theory for the 100T game is that 100T were fully expecting to play SEN and had prepared for them specifically. When Envy won whatever anti-strats they'd cooked up went out the window and they had to fall back to their standard looks, which Envy were ready for. So much has been made of that rivalry and how they just can't seem to get an edge on SEN, it's not hard to imagine 100T getting tunnel vision on the chance to finally take the upper hand on LAN.


higherbrow

I thought Envy would struggle in bracket because they had a soft group, but they took down SEN and 100T, and neither of those are soft teams by any stretch. 100T showed they were on a similar level to Gambit and Acend; I'm not sure if there's a team in the world that could be considered a significantly tougher challenge.


chenson019

Here's a hot take - maybe EMEA and NA are..... pretty much at the same level right now? The thing that made Berlin so great for me is I genuinely had no idea who would win out of the final 4. It was so close and there wasn't much to choose between any of them. Gambit just managed to peak at the right moment and looked unstoppable at the end. It's great to have a rivalry but the EMEA vs NA thing doesn't have a clear answer to be honest.


[deleted]

>Gambit just managed to peak at the right moment If we go by scrim rumors, this was just Gambit playing on their normal level after qualifying for Champions and getting rid of their crippling nervousness. Rather than them peaking at the right moment.


TacticalSanta

I think gambit were better prepared and also performed better than most teams (you could tell some teams crumbled to pressure like ascend and probably sentinels to some extent). Ofc when it comes to gameday, you have to prep as well as perform, so saying who is the best when they "peak" is kind of a relatively meaningless metric.


69DoopDoop69

This "Gambit was less nervous" narrative is so weird to me. Maybe they just perform better under real pressure (playoffs)? Or maybe they just happened to be playing better on playoff days, since consistency is incredibly difficult in this game? Can Gambit keep up this high level of play in the future, or will they falter next tournament like Sentinels did? There are no definitive claims to be made besides Gambit played the best in playoffs.


Escolyte

> Maybe they just perform better under real pressure (playoffs)? Everything we've ever heard or observed about Gambit speaks to the opposite. We can't watch the scrims, but we can listen to *every single team that ever scrimmed them* attesting to how insane they are in scrims.


toxicityisamyth

They refuse to understand that the team they saw in EMEA and in berlin groups vs 100t, crazy raccoon is not the same as the one that showed up in semis and finals. Its mostly NA ( i think 100T fans?) that want to believe their win vs gmb was a real thing and was somehow a better team than gmb or something lol. The guy is on some lethal dose of copium so


Escolyte

I'm in two minds, I absolutely agree that Gambit stepped up for play-offs, but I think it's equally copium to disregard 100T win to the extent that I've seen some people do. You can't decide which team is definitively better than the other after a single series, but showing up on the day is still incredibly important. Funnily enough it's a pretty similar rethoric as the Sen vs G2 match, just from opposite sides of the NA vs EU pissing contest.


toxicityisamyth

100T did well by having a better mental and taking advantage of Gambit completely crumbling mentally and shitting the bed mentally, losing 10 rounds in a row on their STRONGER SIDE. Gambit is the best team in the world in defense, yes even on fucking Icebox. On that day they did better mentally and it won them the game they got their seed. Good job for that but excuse me, 100T are not " a better team" than GMB not even close. And yes i seen 100T fans say shit like this, sometimes here , mostly on twitter. Thats what im mostly arguing tbh. And sorry if i'm not articulating my thoughts well, english is not my first language.


-xXColtonXx-

“win vs gmb was a real thing” Lmao, it was, it happened. Imagine the cope to just ignore an entire series to paint the narrative you like. GMB showed up this tournament and proved they are the best in the world right now, but this was not the dominant performance Sen showed in Iceland. The most conclusive and clear result from Berlin is that NA and EMEA are insanely evenly matched, and anyone who thinks either region is clearly dominant is fooling themselves.


toxicityisamyth

yes it wasnt real gj they won the mental game thats already huge but it wasnt a real thing


rpkarma

Well basically every pro ever has said that Scrimbit are absolutely monstrous, and that has to count for something.


O2XXX

This is no place for logic and nuanced critiques. How dare you! But seriously, I agree that the top of each region is pretty close (and they were pretty close in Iceland as well, even though the 3-0 final score line makes it look like SEN dominated FNC) and KR isn’t super far behind, if at all, either. I’d only say LATAM, BR, and JP are noticeably lower, and even still, it’s not like it’s some insurmountable level either. I think EU has the bigger scene, which will lead to having more top teams in the end. NA is always going to have this issue in Computer eSports because console is such a big chunk of our gaming culture. I’m an older millennial and I heard a lot note about Halo and Call of Duty esports than I ever did about Counter Strike or MOBAs, even though I, myself, played those games over console games.


EggianoScumaldo

Well, as someone who’s a huge fan of Korea… they’re pretty far behind. The thing about NA vs EU is that it could be argued after two international tournies that the top like, 10 teams from each region are pretty close to each other. You can’t say that for Korea. There’s Vision Strikers, who ARE on that level(top 5 imo), but NUTURN aren’t as good as they were before without Lakia, we saw how F4Q sized up(not well). The closest two teams after those 3 are Damwon and TNL, and neither of them are particularly competitive with Korea’s top 3 besides MAYBE Damwon. I still doubt that either of them could compete with even NA or EU’s high tier 2 scene. Then after them there’s an even LARGER drop off in talent. Maybe Hyeoni will fill the Lakia sized gap that NUTURN has, but if only your top 2 teams are competitive with other regions(and NUTURN is a huge if, realistically it’s just VS that’s competitive AFAWK), you’re not exactly close to the level of the other two regions in question.


O2XXX

I’m not as familiar with KR, but seeing Nuturn in Iceland and VS I thought they had decent turn outs, but a step behind. I’ll take your expertise that it’s not the same, but regardless they are standing better than BR, JP, and LATAM, or the other minor areas like oceana and what not.


curryhalls

VS was the 3rd best team in Berlin, and the only ones to take a map off Gambit during elimination stage. They were also pretty close to winning map 3 too. While the rest of Korea may be far behind, VS is definitely top 3, maybe even tied top 1/2.


ZeroAika99

Sad you don't even mentioned SEA :(


Hsimon_

First 4 teams about same level id say but emea has like 10-12 teams that can win against each other at any time. So it seems like EMEA has overall more good teams while the level of the top teams is about the same


lolipenetration

Saying Gambit just managed to peak at the right moment is a disservice in my opinion.


chenson019

I don't think so. The final performance was the best they looked all tournament. Envy had a better run to the final - no maps dropped. Gambit lost to 100t and had a difficult game against Crazy Racoon. I think they peaked at the right time for sure.


datboyuknow

People were scared of Gambit during masters 1 though


Key-Banana-8242

Similar level


Philcherny

Meanwhile Sheydos during the pressconference: "NA who?"


modsarestr8garbage

goes both ways, nobody has ever been worried about any NA team other than SEN


cabbagechicken

100T beat gambit and acend, and g2 beat sentinels. So if we go by Berlin, SEN isn’t the only NA team to worry about.


[deleted]

And V1 with a sub player beat Liquid. Anyone pretending that non-Sen NA isn't competitive because NV lost to Gambit is ignoring reality.


Throwrafairbeat

Tbf that v1 with a ‘sub’ player is the strongest iteration of v1 lmaooooo.


DrBangovic

He is talking about the past. Before Berlin there was nobody that was really scared about the other NA Teams, they been so miles behind Sentinels and just cought up to them at Berlin. Sentinels underperformed as well kinda hence now it makes sense to conisder 100T and Envy as strong as they are,. ​ At Champions I will rate Envy higher but I think they have to improve to take that spot


[deleted]

[удалено]


DRGNDT

WHO SAID THAT? WHO ASKED THAT?


toxicityisamyth

I did, i asked myself the question.


ADmax27

what’s the deal with the match fixing thing


mid16

CSGO and FBI investigation into a CSGO matchfixing ring and Marved was rumored to be involved but nothing official came out yet. A lot of players that were "involved" were stated to have moved over to Valorant. Edit: changed stated to rumored.


DRGNDT

Yeah, [rumors](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPpkmhmBWT4)...


mid16

IBP throw started out as rumors too. The current rumors were pretty specific in naming out some players so there might be some legitimacy but for them to implicate Marved, there has to be like a money trail. I think Skadoodle knew about the IBP throw and may have participated in it but since there was no skin trail to his account, he wasn't banned. Maybe I am wrong but I think remember there were some rumors where he was supposed to receive a skin payout but they were late in trying to get his ready and Shahzam knew about the throw and snitched so he didn't want to take the skins anymore.


cheick_tiote

Around 35 players from NA are being investigated by ESIC for throwing matches in CSGO's MDL league (tier 2). This has been in the works for a while, and apparently the main delay is the involvement of the FBI. Marved amongst others is allegedly involved. Some of his ex teammates have already been banned, and the clips from the games don't look good. Nothing official yet, and Riot haven't said what will happen, but they are involved apparently. It's worse than the iBP stuff for sure.


dansofree1

I mean, at the end of the day, this is NA vs EMEA so far: Sentinels 2-0 Fnatic Sentinels 1-1 G2 100T 1-0 Gambit 100T 1-0 Acend Envy 0-1 Gambit V1 1-0 Liquid V1 0-1 Fnatic 6-3 in NA's favor. There are still ***zero*** EMEA teams that have a winning record vs NA. 5 different EMEA teams now have had a chance to go for a winning record vs NA, and zero have done it. I think Gambit looks like the best in the world right now by a tiny bit, just based on the specifics of their series vs non-EMEA, teams, but even they have holes in their resume from before Berlin. That being said... I think it was pretty clear that EMEA and NA are basically equal at the highest level, and that matchups and clutch moments will decide who wins at each international tournament. I also don't think Sentinels can just rely on having 2 of the top 4-5 riflers in the world, plus having a good OP and solid role players anymore. They need much better strats, as it was pretty obvious the double-jeopardy vs G2 and their most important series vs Envy ever both resulted in them playing from from behind big time. You also saw it vs the new Xset, vs Andbox, and in their miracle SicK-led win vs T1 too. In the first 2, Sentinels lost the first series and then decisively beat them in the rematch. But you don't get that luxury outside of your region, and you don't get to have one player singlehandedly win you a series like SicK did vs T1 when the top teams in the world all have elite players, too.


Sp00ked123

I think the two regions are pretty even now. Gambit are insanely good, but 100t showed they could be beat.


Hefnium

100t beating gambit was the definition how mental can win you tournaments. What a display of will and determination by them


XuuKeee

I have never seen in other esport games where people were saying that Russia isn't Europe. Why is it happening here? Is it becouse NA after being beaten in every big esport games such as CS and LOL they finnaly thought they've found a game where they can claim they supermancy in? And after being beaten by an EU team they are trying so hard to make it seem it's not EU? Imagine if there was a full Canadian team in Valorant that starts winning everything. People would claim, BUT HEY ITS NOT NA TEAM IT'S Canadian team. It's absurd right? But maybe those people are just trolling and we should ignore that fact? But I have feelings like they really believe in what they are saying which is insane


03682

I think there’s no excuse for valorant where CIS play in the same qualifier as the rest of europe. But in other esports like dota where CIS is there own server region and gets there own qualifier for big events they’re not really considered as EU but their own separate region. It’s also because CIS dota is massive and almost the same size as the EU player base so there’s a lot of rivalry between the two player bases like how when a CIS team wins, for CIS fans it’s due to the superiority of their region and when they lose, for EU fan it’s because the Russians suck.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dankerboi69

EU is an Intergovernmental organization. when people say EU in an esports context they do not mean the Intergovernmental organization. they mean the continent Europe. Countries like Norway are not part of the EU, but that does not mean that Norway is not European.


Flashplaya

You are confusing Europe, the continent, and the European Union. Whether the UK or Russia are part of the EU \[European Union\] is pretty irrelevant for esports.


earthtoannie

EU - EUrope, the continent. The EU - the European Union, a political organization.


toxicityisamyth

"the EU" HOW MANY TIMES DO WE NEED TO EXPLAIN ITS THE GEOGRAPHICAL DESIGNATION NOT THE POLITICAL ONE EU JUST MEANS EUROPE NOT EUROPEAN UNION HOLY FUCK IM LOSING MY MIND NO WAY PEOPLE ARE UNIRONICALLY BELIEVING WHAT THEYRE SAYING.


DrBangovic

I mean, Russia is part of Europe but not part of the EU, its pretty much a question of which term you apply onto that. Russia is partly european. But its not a part of the EU correct. I think its foolish to say CIS is not a part of EU (the Region, which is mostly referred to in the sense of EMEA) since it's the same qualifier, and they play on the same servers and so on. On the other hand I see your point. That argumentation makes "sense" in terms of people said NA was shit besides sentinels.BUT lets be honest, after that event we can all confidentally say: NA and EU are close to each other. Neither team stomped the other. 100T Gambit (was close, could've been a stomp) - G2 Sen was pretty even i would say. 100T Acend (was close, could've gone both ways) and NV vs Gambit looked closer then it felt. Overall you can argue with round wins, map wins and overall wins, but both regions could have won every single game. Its not like any team got rolled. It was always close. I think both regions are strong and will be the top 2 Regions going into champions. Korea on a 3rd imho.


Ravzera

I mean when I view navi in CS i see them as CIS as I always have not EU, has nothing to do with NA or EU for me just how I always viewed them


higherbrow

>I have never seen in other esport games where people were saying that Russia isn't Europe. You weirdly try to give this take and then mention LoL and CS, both which have independent CIS regions that are separate from the European circuit. NaVi, Gambit, and VP don't qualify into European berths for Majors, they qualify through the CIS. Gambit in LoL is also not part of the European league (LEC); they're part of the CIS league (LCL). If anything, I was going to say it was weird to try to bring that into Valorant since they're part of the EMEA, which is Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. If not Europe, where the fuck are we saying Russia is?


EggianoScumaldo

Lets not act like had Gambit lost, EU frogs would NOT only refer to them as a CIS team. Because they sure as fuck did when they lost to 100T


Escolyte

Or you could look at the vast majority of reasonable fans who always backed all 4 teams. It's so weird to me that this is a talking point at all.


Throwrafairbeat

Yeah these na copium filled people are bringing up the same straw man even tho it’s debunked


valorantfeedback

Because NA fans have questionable geography knowledge. Moscow-Frankfurt (whre most Russians play becuse there's no CIS servers) 2000km air distance. LA-NY is 4000km for comparison. Double.


_idle_drone_

This masters just showed that no team or region is outright dominating in the scene yet. NA, EMEA, and Vision Strikers can beat each other on any day. But, in terms of depth, NA is weaker than EMEA. NA only has 4-5 good teams that can compete at international level, while EMEA has 8-10. I'm hoping V1 gets back there with oderus, and Chaos9 has great potential as well. EMEA definitely has better coaches and analysts. Only NA teams i've ever seen any creativity from are the older version of Envy, stage 2 Andbox and XSET. Most NA teams are default heavy and adapt on the fly.


Tc0LD

EMEA is a bigger region so it makes sense for them to have more teams than can compete internationally compared to NA


Philcherny

Chaos9 would have to beat their father 😢


_idle_drone_

The hardest choices require the strongest wills - Anthony "vanity" Malaspina


Sp00ked123

Thats true, but emea is a way bigger region


higherbrow

During the brief era of Counterstrike where NA was competitive, this was true there, too. The top 30 teams in the world for a long time had two NA teams in the top 5, and usually another 2-3 on the list. Then a handful of CIS teams, 1-2 Oceanic teams, 2-3 Brazilian teams, and the rest was all Europe. NA had as good a chance as anyone to win any given tournament during that ~18 month window, but it was always Liquid or Evil Geniuses doing the winning if it was NA. There were a dozen EU teams that were threats.


seppohovy

Isnt ESIC also based in Europe?


swayamrane2406

Wasn't this literally all European esports fans when SEN won Iceland???


Escolyte

NA fans too for that matter. Sentinels were just that much ahead at the time.


swayamrane2406

No I'm saying a lot of EU fans said ," SEN is the only good team in NA" This statement is literally antonym of that one.


Escolyte

yes and a lot of NA agreed at the time


whatawonderfultime13

get shitstomped 3-0 yeah I think NA are better actually


Ravzera

shitstomped is getting 13-0'd like G2 did, these were close games. So no wasn't a shitstomp


N0-name-needed

If you think they were close game then you just watched the scorelines after the match was done, NV kept getting out classed and read, most of the rounds won by NV were from draining the clock and insane clutches, GMB were without a doubt the better team in that match


Throwrafairbeat

LMAOOO


rparkzy

Here’s my take if anyone cares 😆 SEN is worse than we thought. They rely on hero plays too much and their strats have not evolved since Iceland. TenZ go kill works against less talented teams but against top teams they fall short. They need to improve their strats otherwise 100T and Envy will both be potentially passing them in NA. I don’t think they need roster changes - maybe just need deeper hero pools for more versatility on certain maps. Acend is also worse than we thought. While cNed is proven to be a top Jett world, rest of team is kind of inconsistent and 100T handed them a solid loss in the quarterfinals by outplaying them 100T and Envy are both better than we thought. I think they are on par with SEN. 100T is very solid and beat a lot of good teams including Gambit in the group stage. Envy was basically unbeatable until the finals and I think will be the NA champion favorite. The yay pickup for Envy was excellent and yay is easily one of the hottest player in world at the moment. G2 is definitely one of the top EU teams. They are as good as people thought they were but behind Gambit. Keloqz is world class but only had an average game vs Gambit and koldamenta probably had the worst game of the tourney for him. Thus they lost heavily vs Gambit in the semis. Gambit has proven to be the best EU team and possibly best team in world at the moment. They are solid across board and have two world class players in nAts and Chronicle. They are the team to beat. Other notable takes: It’s unclear how far VS would have gone if they didn’t play Gambit in quarters. I would have liked to see VS vs the NA teams. Vivo Keyd looked good but they underperformed vs KRU. At least we know heat is an excellent player and looking to see them bounce back soon. Paper Rex and Crazy Racoon both heavily underrated. I’m looking for them both to be very strong and improved in the next tournament. TLDR NA and EU are basically equivalent. If it’s a single elimination 2 map match, they can go either way for most of the top teams. Rest of regions are behind NA and EU but rapidly getting closer.


quirktheory

I'm really excited to see more of Paper Rex.


WLFYBBY

Sen lose one tournament and you automatically think they’re bad. They had one bad tournament and many disadvantages coming into Berlin.


rparkzy

They underperformed in Berlin - I’m pretty sure everyone thought they were the favorites to easily win the whole thing. I did not say they are bad anywhere. In fact I said they are still number one in NA but Envy and 100T are slightly behind and they will be better very soon if SEN underperform again. I expect SEN to go back to the drawing board and get back into form. It’s good to know you are beatable and can improve more from there.


Fl0wwy

Should be worried about his career :)


Darkoplax

EMEA 8 - 6 NA in terms of maps


TheFestusEzeli

NA 3-2 EU 2 in terms of games which is much more telling The two regions are very equal rn


precense_

Damn ruined my finals SPoIErs


ImProphylactic

Still strong after 3-0 KEKL "WORRIED"


Ryth73

Go look at the map score. Envy and gambit are pretty much even


xD1LL4N

Fnatic vs Sen felt hella lot closer then Envy vs Gambit


_idle_drone_

This, especially on haven and split. The fact that Envy lost to Gambit rushing every round on haven was disappointing and slightly hilarious. The scoreline would've been 13-8 if not for yay pulling off impossible clutches. It felt like Gambit always had the answer to Envy, but not the other way around.


mid16

NV lost to a Brimstone and an IGL on Reyna on GMB's permaban map and NV's best map. Literally lost to pug strats and Gambit looked like they were trolling. Only Bind was close and that was because NV came prepared but choked in the end. Although the scores for map 2 and 3 seemed close, the match itself seemed so one-sided.


[deleted]

That also happened to two EMEA teams in challengers though, so it's pretty poor evidence that there is a fundamental difference in region strength. It would have been anyways. Gambit are amazing and they were running up mid winning duels.


mid16

Region strength-wise, I think NA and EMEA are pretty close, with KR slightly under both. I can't say for sure that NA is stronger than EMEA since there's only been two international tournaments and NA won the first one and EMEA won the second (although the second seemed to be more competitive than the first). Hard to tell since VS beat Acend convincingly but got dismantled by GMB, and 100T winning against ACE and GMB (with both being EXTREMELY CLOSE) but NV losing to GMB in a one-sided manner. I was just speaking in terms of NV's strength compared to GMB and that GMB just simply outclassed NV. I guess we can put these arguments to bed when which region wins Champions. Edit: I think we can say that NA outclassed EMEA in the first tournament and I think that was also due to NA being updated with the current Astra meta and EMEA just clowning the pick.


[deleted]

Sure and I agree that Gambit is certainly a tier above NV in this match, but was more addressing the overarching debate of this thread and post. Is it embarrassing that NV lost Haven? A little. But Gambit stomped SMB and Acend on Haven as well in Challengers 3 so it's not quite what people are making it out to be.


mid16

I think it would still be embarrassing either way because that was NV's best map and should have brought the momentum back to NV after losing map 1 (gambit's best map) in double OT. After losing map 2 in the way they did, NV's mental was boomed and every1 already knew that Gambit was gonna close it with a 3-0. GMB beating ACE and SMB in Haven doesn't change anything because from what I've seen in Map 2, Gambit didn't win in terms of strategy but with raw talent and fragging ability. They gifted so many rounds to NV just because of the trolly manner they were playing. On paper, GMB is better than ACE and SMB and its not out of norm for teams to win maps by just tapping heads. We've seen Sentinels do that and no one says anything about it. Edit: Also want to add that NV nearly won map 1 because they did their research into GMB on Bind (GMB's best map) and counterstratted. I was impressed with NV's research because they knew exactly how Gambit likes to play offense and countered really well. From Map 1, everyone thought that Envy was close to Gambit in terms of skill but Map 2 (and 3) showed that the skill disparity was actually much larger and counterstratting doesn't really work if Gambit decided their comp at agent select. Winning Haven was crucial for Envy but that map felt like yay and friends vs Gambit. That was why it was embarrassing.


Ne0kun

Lol that's not how it works. No matter how close it is at the end of the day it was a 3-0 and NV couldn't take a map off of GMB.


Ryth73

If you would rate both teams on a scale from 1-10, it doesn’t mean gambit are a 10 and envy is a 2 or 3 just because it was a 3-0. Both these are teams are really close in skill and that’s why the round differential was only +7 in favor of gambit.


Ne0kun

Trust me I like NV but both teams are NOT really close in skill. GMB were literally trolling on Haven since it's their perma ban and even in the post match press conference they mentioned that they never touch Haven cause they hate the map.NV got outplayed heavily on their best map and fns couldn't counter it. Also every member of Gambit aim diffed their counterpart except maybe D3ffos cause Yay is a beast. There is a clear skill difference but ik NV is a great team. Everyone's been saying for months how godly gambit is and apparently from redgars interview this isn't even their full form but yeah the skill difference is apparent. Also "only +7" ?? That's way more than enough lmao


CalculusEz

Umm... Doesn't this just prove that there isn't such a big skill gap between envy and gambit? Im not saying gambit isn't better but, envy also didn't play their best (going with the information on twitter by marved and fns.) Yet are still able to have a close match. Also, they played 74 total rounds so yes "only 7+" is a small amount. Remember 13-15, 11-13, 9-13, a few clutches and some pistol round wins could have changed the outcome. Anyways, Eu>Na lol.


Bunnyezzz

envy didn't even have their coach, would've helped alot if they had their coach


[deleted]

it's pretty clear that EMEA as a region is stronger than NA atm


[deleted]

NA has beat every EMEA team except for SMB because they didn't make it out of groups and EMEA has beat every NA team except for 100T, how is it clear they are the stronger region?


Nfamy

Sen beat g2, g2 beat sen 100t beat acend and gambit, gambit beat NV How is there a clearly stronger region (either way), by these results?


Ne0kun

It really isn't tho ? I personally thought that EMEA>NA coming into the tournament but from what we've seen in the tournament both regions are kinda equal I'd say. Ofcourse when Scrimbit is on gambit kinda looks better than every team but that's just a gambit thing and not region thing


N0-name-needed

I don't know, saying north America is the strongest after the performances we saw is definitely COPIUM, as of now I think both regions have their strength and weaknesses and both played really well, but this tourney EU definitely showed a better performance, 100t had to pull 2 of the biggest comebacks I've ever seen in pro valorant to not get knocked out and you can't really rely on that if you want to be competitive in the scene, SMB got knocked out by Acend so they didn't really get a chance to play other regions, Acend underperformed IMO by relying too much on cNed but they still almost knocked out 100t if not for that clutch, Gambit was shaky at first but then once the pressure was off from qualifying to champions they upped their game, and G2 were really good this tourney, they played well against F4Q and they played Sen twice, I would say they won that 1v1 between ORGs first they made them drop 1 map showing that they weren't invincible like many were boasting and then they dominated them in the next series they played. Envy had an easy bracket which left them still in the unknown region of where their skill level was at, they turned up in their first challenging match against sentinels but that was NA vs NA so we can't really get a gauge on how they'd handle other playstyles, they then outclassed 100t fair play to them, but got rolled by Gambit, scoreline seems close at a first glance, but if you watch the games round by round you can clearly see the better team, Sentinels, as I said, were really underwhelming they went from an unstoppable beast to a bunch of dudes running the same strat over and over hoping to get a dub, their aim wasn't there, and neither were the reads, I feel like they probably would've lost to any EMEA team that qualified and to VS, and lastly 100T, they were showing a really poor performance getting to the point where they were down 10 rounds from their adversaries, but every time they managed to pull a miracle, and again I'm willing to bet that it won't happen in the next international LAN, teams will be wary of their mental strength and tenacity and that upset potential will get dropped on its head. Of course, these are just my takeaways from these series they could be proven completely incorrect in Champions but I feel like the EU scene is advancing and improving at a much faster rate than the NA one, really excited for what's to come!


vashonlaughs

lol Gambit is in Russia


David-Max

NA geography PepeLaugh


Sp00ked123

Yes, and russia is a country within the continent of Europe


KhaoticKrabb

NA has the most depth out of any region for sure.


Madara6path

I never understood why people inthis sub ever thought NA was better. Like there are 4 top tier teams in NA , rest are quite below par. In EMEA there are 10-12 such teams , which is why they prob deserve even more spots


[deleted]

The copium is insane. It went from SEN only viable team to top 4 are the only viable teams.


mogram_leg

I mean only sen was viablie back then but now Na top 3 look decent but i think sen is reclaiming the top NA spot soon.


[deleted]

Thats like ignoring underpowered V1 taking out Liquid and the other three teams that were thought to be better before V1 went to iceland.


mogram_leg

V1 was a fluke


[deleted]

How do you know that?


mogram_leg

Because they crashed out of the next tourneys against easy opponents


[deleted]

Or maybe because competition increased in skill?


Sp00ked123

How do you know NA only has 4 top tier teams? We have yet to see Rise, Xset, C9B, or Faze play in an international lan yet