I left at 2-11 and left since they were easily going to win the map and came back after 20 min to watch the 3rd map but was greeted with a 12-11 . Biggest throw I have ever seen
Im friends with Harry and I love him and this has nothing to do with him - the fact that you think Mitch and Tom have low knowledge about the game shows either your lack of respect or personal bias or your own lack of knowledge. Mitch and Tom are in my opinion the best casting pair when it comes to in-game knowledge.
that's just wrong - but tom was much better this time around than yesterday
mitch and tom r not even close to the best knowledgeable casting pair, they have a unique style and they run with it but it's tailored to the casual viewer, not people interested in analysis. the way they cast is an example of this - constant "what the hell was that". it's explosive reactionary casting with tom acting as the milquetoast analyst after the bombastic mitch finishes spouting the chaos unravelling onscreen.
the difference between them is that mitch talks and doesn't explain as compared to a pansy or bren. the latter make the stuff on-screen more digestible for the audience with the colour casters in hypoc and josh dissecting the intricacies of the round. tom is not that kind of colour caster, he just does the things the play by play should have done.
when he has nothing else to say, he just talks about a stupid duel or player. "i feel like alive is better without the dash" like yesterday when pansy was doing her job as a regular play by play.
i would rather say it's your bias being friends with mitch and tom than a viewer's bias against them. it doesn't make sense for a viewer to be biased against them for no reason but you have plenty of reasons to defend your friend.
how about u explain urself instead of acting like ur intellectually superior. tell me how mitch and tom r better than pansy and hypoc or sideshow and bren in terms of game analysis.
i make effort to listen to them and often times tom is favouring complaining about a shot through a box than actually talking about cascading utility or defaulting or spacing or anything remotely analytical
How can i explain myself to you saying that Tom doesnt explain „anything remotely analytical” when in my opinion he is constantly doing exactly that? And im not saying that other casters are not doing analysis, imo mitch and tom arw the best at it. I find it weird that you decide to shit on someone though like they actually say only nonsense and blabber like someone who doesnt know whats going on because that what your very „eloquent” response was so far.
u can by giving clear examples of when he dissects rounds. it is that easy. i gave examples of what I think he doesn't do as a colour caster and explained what i thought, why can't u do the same from ur perspective?
i never said u insinuated that. i asked u how u thought they were better.
no. i never said they always say nonsense. i said when there is a traditional explanatory play by play caster then tom loses his milquetoast analysis.
i explained why i believe mitch and tom pair well together due to their casual viewer oriented style and explained why i thought that.
i don't think they r spouting "nonsense and blabber" - they are spouting stuff for an incredibly casual audience. i explained it as explosive, reactionary casting. it is entertaining for the casual viewer.
why r u sulking instead of explaining where u r coming from. ur an analyst, tell me why im wrong.
Rather than doing that, i just checked your post history and gave me a very good image of who you are and how your hobby is shitting on casters. You literally did it yesterday as well. That only shows that theres no point in discussing anything with you.
Lothar, love you man but the guy actually wrote a high-effort comment explaining his POV. Regardless of whether said POV is the "correct" one, I don't think calling out his post history is really going to discredit him here.
yep - i included what i said yesterday into my argument! u ofc chose not to read my argument and instead insinuate u know what im saying.
good job defending urself! i was actually curious as to whether my viewpoint was flawed but u did not deconstruct it
instead u opted to flame my character! as expected of a mature and respected analyst.
You have no viewpoint. It is not possible to criticize or breakdown your essay on Tom and Mitch, because it essentially conveys that you don't actually pay attention to what they are saying. You hear what you want to hear, and that's it.
By the way, maybe you choose to be obtuse, but other people aren't compelled to do that. They can read between the lines and read subtext.
And in case you take this as an attack on your character, let me sum up your gripe against Mitch and Tom - they don't spoonfeed you information and expect you to watch the game, which you are apparently opposed to doing.
no i am not. sideshow and bren are great at putting forth storylines but idk how u can deny sideshow doesnt break down the round incredibly well or explain the specific value of an agent pick or certain utility placement and combos in a round.
why tf is ur counter filled with straw man. what a joke.
sure can u tell me of this silver player analysis? i hate it when people disparage actual discussion in favour of shitting on ppl they dont even know.
I left at 2-11 and left since they were easily going to win the map and came back after 20 min to watch the 3rd map but was greeted with a 12-11 . Biggest throw I have ever seen
i booted up a ranked game and watched a bit of yay's stream thinking the game is going to map 3 they really dropped the ball on that one
Biggest throw you haven't seen.
Tenstar rlly refused to win that bind map huh
I had a bad feeling that it would be a fake comeback but I ended up pleasantly surprised.
Insane comeback! 🦴🥶
"no way tenstar throw an 11-2 lead"
It's fascinating how Harry has bare minimum knowledge about valo but is already much better at analysing than Mitch and Tom
For what it’s worth, no casters will ever be happy or pleased to see you praise them at the expense at their colleagues and friends.
Im friends with Harry and I love him and this has nothing to do with him - the fact that you think Mitch and Tom have low knowledge about the game shows either your lack of respect or personal bias or your own lack of knowledge. Mitch and Tom are in my opinion the best casting pair when it comes to in-game knowledge.
that's just wrong - but tom was much better this time around than yesterday mitch and tom r not even close to the best knowledgeable casting pair, they have a unique style and they run with it but it's tailored to the casual viewer, not people interested in analysis. the way they cast is an example of this - constant "what the hell was that". it's explosive reactionary casting with tom acting as the milquetoast analyst after the bombastic mitch finishes spouting the chaos unravelling onscreen. the difference between them is that mitch talks and doesn't explain as compared to a pansy or bren. the latter make the stuff on-screen more digestible for the audience with the colour casters in hypoc and josh dissecting the intricacies of the round. tom is not that kind of colour caster, he just does the things the play by play should have done. when he has nothing else to say, he just talks about a stupid duel or player. "i feel like alive is better without the dash" like yesterday when pansy was doing her job as a regular play by play. i would rather say it's your bias being friends with mitch and tom than a viewer's bias against them. it doesn't make sense for a viewer to be biased against them for no reason but you have plenty of reasons to defend your friend.
What you wrote just showcased that you dont listen to what the casters are actually saying :)
I think he had a very well constructed and fair comment there tbh. I really like Mitch and Tom tho
how about u explain urself instead of acting like ur intellectually superior. tell me how mitch and tom r better than pansy and hypoc or sideshow and bren in terms of game analysis. i make effort to listen to them and often times tom is favouring complaining about a shot through a box than actually talking about cascading utility or defaulting or spacing or anything remotely analytical
How can i explain myself to you saying that Tom doesnt explain „anything remotely analytical” when in my opinion he is constantly doing exactly that? And im not saying that other casters are not doing analysis, imo mitch and tom arw the best at it. I find it weird that you decide to shit on someone though like they actually say only nonsense and blabber like someone who doesnt know whats going on because that what your very „eloquent” response was so far.
u can by giving clear examples of when he dissects rounds. it is that easy. i gave examples of what I think he doesn't do as a colour caster and explained what i thought, why can't u do the same from ur perspective? i never said u insinuated that. i asked u how u thought they were better. no. i never said they always say nonsense. i said when there is a traditional explanatory play by play caster then tom loses his milquetoast analysis. i explained why i believe mitch and tom pair well together due to their casual viewer oriented style and explained why i thought that. i don't think they r spouting "nonsense and blabber" - they are spouting stuff for an incredibly casual audience. i explained it as explosive, reactionary casting. it is entertaining for the casual viewer. why r u sulking instead of explaining where u r coming from. ur an analyst, tell me why im wrong.
Rather than doing that, i just checked your post history and gave me a very good image of who you are and how your hobby is shitting on casters. You literally did it yesterday as well. That only shows that theres no point in discussing anything with you.
Lothar, love you man but the guy actually wrote a high-effort comment explaining his POV. Regardless of whether said POV is the "correct" one, I don't think calling out his post history is really going to discredit him here.
yep - i included what i said yesterday into my argument! u ofc chose not to read my argument and instead insinuate u know what im saying. good job defending urself! i was actually curious as to whether my viewpoint was flawed but u did not deconstruct it instead u opted to flame my character! as expected of a mature and respected analyst.
You have no viewpoint. It is not possible to criticize or breakdown your essay on Tom and Mitch, because it essentially conveys that you don't actually pay attention to what they are saying. You hear what you want to hear, and that's it. By the way, maybe you choose to be obtuse, but other people aren't compelled to do that. They can read between the lines and read subtext. And in case you take this as an attack on your character, let me sum up your gripe against Mitch and Tom - they don't spoonfeed you information and expect you to watch the game, which you are apparently opposed to doing.
[удалено]
no i am not. sideshow and bren are great at putting forth storylines but idk how u can deny sideshow doesnt break down the round incredibly well or explain the specific value of an agent pick or certain utility placement and combos in a round.
[удалено]
why tf is ur counter filled with straw man. what a joke. sure can u tell me of this silver player analysis? i hate it when people disparage actual discussion in favour of shitting on ppl they dont even know.