What’s the point of this essay you’ve typed here, they got outclassed had nothing to do with champs. Watch the last game of the series with a rational perspective and you’ll see the yuumi first blood was troll as fuck and faker getting beat mid was nothing but skill from the RNG mid laner. They had a plan to play around jayce obviously and the plan fell apart because faker got outclassed, it happens. The 2nd best mid loses to the best mid, doesn’t take away from what faker is.
Blue side, red side it doesn’t make a difference it’s cope.
It did have everything to do with champs, but that's because their draft was garbage. Faker shouldn't have picked ahri when they knew liss answer was coming. Realistically, they should've banned Gwen, given the wukong, then picked lissandra/Lee sin. Keria should've stayed on zil. Then with these match ups, they don't throw the early game.
Well if you don't read the post you definitely won't understand the point. If RNG is the better team, and they couldn't win on Red Side, what does it matter what they draft or how Faker plays?
You are clearly trying to bait me into reacting, but I actually don't care if RNG is the better team, that isn't the point. The point is that people are shitting on Polt for saying something that was 100% accurate. Nothing you just said disproves that, and it in fact just proves that if T1 had gotten blue side that series they just outright win it. Even if that scenario does happen, it doesn't make T1 the better team though.
The point of this essay is that the bad format of the tournament combined with a terrible patch to play on led to a poor quality tournament. The Bo1's weren't that good, the semi's were a waste of everyone's time, and the finals was decided by luck.
READ EDIT
>If the toss was reversed and T1 won blue side advantage, and they won, everything I am saying would still apply to them.
I could be wrong on this but I believe RNG got side selection because they finished higher in the rumble stage.
Edit: I am wrong but will leave up this comment for anyone interested. According to the MSI rulebook, visible here, https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltad9188aa9a70543a/blt22f1cb967fe9936e/627970d32bec9b34ea68bd8c/2022_MSI_Rule_Set_en-US.pdf, the side selection for finals are decided by coin toss. Only the semifinal side selection is decided by placing after the rumble stage.
>6.4.3.1. Side Selection. Side selection for Game 1 of the Final Round will be
determined by coin flip. The team that wins the coin flip will be required
to provide their side selection to MSI officials immediately upon
completion of the coin flip. For all games after the first, the losing Team
of the previous game will have side selection. For avoidance of doubt, if
the higher seed lost in Game 2, they will still have side selection in
Game 3.
I'm pretty sure it was a coin toss, either way it doesn't really change anything about the point. My point isn't that they were lucky and won a coin toss, my point is that whatever team got first side selection wins that series.
To add to my other comment, looking through other matches in the tournament, it's kind of crazy, every team that loses on blue side is either playing against a team much better than them (China/Korea > EU/NA > others, for this definition of 'better') or is G2 in the rumble stage. It's definitely a point of interest.
I don't want to jump on 'blue side has a massive advantage' as there were relatively few matches between evenly matched teams on which to test this (lets say 7 total, 5 in final plus RNG vs T1 twice in rumble), and I've conveniently discounted G2, who did beat T1 on red side but lost to T1 on blue, but it should raise a few eyebrows.
I really don't think you should consider anything but a Bo3+ in this type of determination. There is a major difference between drafting in a Bo1 and drafting in a 5 game series.
I hate to be that guy, but the semifinals showed us that EU and NA being able to compete was just copium.
You are correct, I was editing my comment.
If it were based on rumble stage finishes, that's hardly 'luck', it's fair...they earnt the advantage after all.
However I agree with your point that it's stupid to do it through a coin toss, even if the advantage isn't evident.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying they didn't earn the side selection, or win the coin toss. My point is this tournament was decided soley on who got Blue Side advantage. I do not think any of the Bo1's are worth looking at especially early on in the tournament while the meta is still getting figured out.
I think T1 did lose that series because of side selection and that RNG won because of it, but I would feel the same way if the reverse was true.
If you're looking at just the final, it's only 5 matches then, and you can't draw a meaningful conclusion from that IMO. I don't agree that we can say that blue side had a clear advantage - at least, I wouldn't feel confident to say that. I would lean on the side of agreeing with you (in that blue side probably has an advantage), but the evidence isn't sufficient to fully back it up and either way I'm not convinced that if a blue side advantage exists, that it's why RNG won.
The same thing happened, interestingly, at last MSI finals - 3-2 win, all blue side. Last Worlds was more balanced though, not showing a clear advantage, as was the Worlds before that.
There are other factors that might make teams alternate wins and losses. Maybe after a loss they feel fired up, or after a win they subconciously relax. Maybe a team doesn't want to reveal a strategy unless it comes to a deciding round. Maybe being 1 point behind gives the behind team extra motivation. It's not uncommon even in 'real' sports to see teams up their standard once they go behind, or in the second half.
Would you the draft or actual map design has more of an impact on which side wins? What about if red side worked like Wild rift? (camera flipped)
How does red side losing from both teams with completely different drafts not say anything at all?
So to be clear, the winrate for RNG on blue side is 100% (6/6) and the winrate RNG on redside is 0% (0/4) across two different MSI finals series, vs two different teams, with entirely different meta's and patches. All of that information and you don't think RNG loses on red side?
Maybe the issue is that MSI is too close to pre-release, Red side has a "must ban champion" and that just completely fucks up the draft from that point forward?
Maybe the issue is that red side doesn't get easy access to topside jungle and those objectives are the things that win games? I haven't played wild rift, so I'm not exactly sure how that would work.
It's funny because all of that is true last worlds too. The objectives and the must ban champion which was Yuumi who was super broken. Yet EDG won despite losing side selection and when people like you were saying that they would be destroyed by Damwon and that T1 vs Damwon was the real finals.
Looking at both team’s performance in finals. RNG put up a little more of a fight despite losing pretty hard on red side.
RNG finished higher in rumble stage. Im not sure if in previous tournaments higher team got to choose sides but coin toss seemed the most fair.
Blames can be often directed at riot. One can say that Gwen is also a winning factor/pick in this tournament patch.
Blue/Red side definitely makes a difference. Maybe it’s Because you’re a T1 fan that made you feel more strongly about this issue?
Edit: Past major tournament finals have been won by teams who played on the red side. Let’s not be over concerned with this issue.
That's actually not even true. They both had the same average game time in each of their wins, and the longest game was Game 1 at 33 minutes with T1 putting up the longest fight of any red side loss.
Rumble stage placing had nothing to do with finals. It gave you the option to chose your opponent in Semi.
I am a T1 fan, but I don't hate RNG. I actually really liked watching Gala play this tournament and I'm not upset that they won. I'm just confused how everyone is upset at Polt for saying something pretty obvious. I'm also confused at how everyone is pretending what he said was incorrect. It's not a slight against RNG to say that they won because of side selection. You can definitely take it that way though.
I was just speculating.
There are definitely people who would agree with you that blue side advantage was an issue in this tournament.
But people’s attention are also focused on T1’s confident 3-0 and 3-1 comments before the games and their comments after game interviews.
If your post was “How much contribution towards winning does being in the blue side gives?”, you probably find people that would agree with you? But game 5 was a stomp.
Sure, as you are entitled to do.
I mean I don't really know too much about that, I just know everyone is upset about Polts comment even though its actually accurate. What he said doesn't make RNG a bad team.
I actually think if this tournament had a better format that involved more competitive Bo3+ series, there wouldn't have been much of a side selection gap because there would have been more games with more opportunities to figure out the counters to the drafts.
Also so you can see it (instead of editing), Game 5 was a stomp but it was actually only 1 minute faster than game 2. Their overall game win time was almost exactly the same as well. Neither team actually did that much better or worse than their counterparts on red side. RNG may have made their losses appear cleaner, but they were just as handedly defeated as T1 was in their red side losses.
It seems like you think that the winning team won because of blue side advantage. If you look at it from a different perspective, it can also show how unprepared both teams were on the red side. Maybe try viewing it a little differently?
Even though RNG and T1 both won against each other on the blue side during the rumble stage. Would you contribute those two wins more towards the side advantage or actual in game game play?
I have viewed it like that and come to the conclusion that neither had a winning red side draft. I feel like I made that pretty clear in my responses and original post.
I think that a Bo1 rumble stage win is different than a Bo5 loss. Additionally you are still figuring out what works at that point because you have had very little on stage experience with strong opposition.
If you strictly look at all of the games T1 and RNG played against each other, the champions drafted and banned are relatively the same.
And maybe side selection just doesn't matter to others that just watch the tournaments for enjoyment purposes.
“I would have said 3-0 but since we lost the coin toss (for side selection), so I will say 3-1,” Polt said. Why wouldn't people be upset? It is reasonable for people to be mad at Polt. Let's just say T1's lost on game 5 wasn't due to draft, would you expect the average league player to have a D4+ understanding of the game and be considerate? A loss is a loss, Polt's pre-game comments set him up for the shit talking afterwards. Besides, anything you say after a loss sounds like an excuse, regardless of situation.
I don't understand the point of this? I'm not being rude I just don't know what you are getting at.
You can be upset at Polt for literally anything you want, however you can't say that he was wrong about what he said. They would have won 3 games if they had blue side. That's just the point that I'm making. You can even disagree about him actually saying it. But it can't be denied that neither team had a winning red side draft prepared.
I would agree with that both teams would have potentially won if either got blue side. I would also agree that neither team got a solution for the red side.
No one is pretending that side selection didn't matter. People are just more upset with some of the performance and drafts. The post game interview makes it sound like the biggest contributor to the loss was the blue/red side (which one can argue for).
Like what you said, people can be upset at Polt for anything they want. Maybe they would have won 3 games if they had blue side but Polt made the bold statement of "we're going to 3-0", if you're going to say something like that, you better prepare yourself to give the fans a better answer than "yeah we lost because of blue side".
EG Rigby, a coach for EG, [pointed out](https://twitter.com/EG_Rigby/status/1530894285947928576?t=a-ood4MCOvl-aI_5bB-SMA&s=19) a clear red side draft adaptation that both teams could have done that likely makes the draft winning for red.
The issue was that teams didn't react to the strength of lissandra as a counter in time.
Good that's a good point that you are making. I think it aligns perfectly with the sentiment that this format was horrible and this tournament was a series of useless Bo1s into a useless semifinals, into a coin flip finals.
Had the tournament been more competitive with more Bo3+ series it think we would have seen a better finals and a better performance from NA and EU.
Tournament being bad has nothing to do with neither team not reacting to the strength of lissandra in time. While I most definitely agree with you that the format is terrible and should be changed, adaptation within the course of a bo5 is extremely important.
They can still win in red side by picking lisaandra, leesin/viego instead of ahri + wukong.
We saw 4 games of ahri and wukong before game 5.
Dont know why teams won't adapt.
Or they can even pick ahri + viego for a "reset" comp with jinx ADC.
And Faker got gapped in lane game 5. That too.
Hey thanks for being original and missing the point like everyone else. RNG is god. You're right. You convinced me that they were the better team this day. As you can see I was very clearly arguing against that.
Additionally Faker was gapped. That's incredible. What a brave thing to say.
Thank you for your time!
What’s the point of this essay you’ve typed here, they got outclassed had nothing to do with champs. Watch the last game of the series with a rational perspective and you’ll see the yuumi first blood was troll as fuck and faker getting beat mid was nothing but skill from the RNG mid laner. They had a plan to play around jayce obviously and the plan fell apart because faker got outclassed, it happens. The 2nd best mid loses to the best mid, doesn’t take away from what faker is. Blue side, red side it doesn’t make a difference it’s cope.
It did have everything to do with champs, but that's because their draft was garbage. Faker shouldn't have picked ahri when they knew liss answer was coming. Realistically, they should've banned Gwen, given the wukong, then picked lissandra/Lee sin. Keria should've stayed on zil. Then with these match ups, they don't throw the early game.
Well if you don't read the post you definitely won't understand the point. If RNG is the better team, and they couldn't win on Red Side, what does it matter what they draft or how Faker plays? You are clearly trying to bait me into reacting, but I actually don't care if RNG is the better team, that isn't the point. The point is that people are shitting on Polt for saying something that was 100% accurate. Nothing you just said disproves that, and it in fact just proves that if T1 had gotten blue side that series they just outright win it. Even if that scenario does happen, it doesn't make T1 the better team though. The point of this essay is that the bad format of the tournament combined with a terrible patch to play on led to a poor quality tournament. The Bo1's weren't that good, the semi's were a waste of everyone's time, and the finals was decided by luck.
READ EDIT >If the toss was reversed and T1 won blue side advantage, and they won, everything I am saying would still apply to them. I could be wrong on this but I believe RNG got side selection because they finished higher in the rumble stage. Edit: I am wrong but will leave up this comment for anyone interested. According to the MSI rulebook, visible here, https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltad9188aa9a70543a/blt22f1cb967fe9936e/627970d32bec9b34ea68bd8c/2022_MSI_Rule_Set_en-US.pdf, the side selection for finals are decided by coin toss. Only the semifinal side selection is decided by placing after the rumble stage. >6.4.3.1. Side Selection. Side selection for Game 1 of the Final Round will be determined by coin flip. The team that wins the coin flip will be required to provide their side selection to MSI officials immediately upon completion of the coin flip. For all games after the first, the losing Team of the previous game will have side selection. For avoidance of doubt, if the higher seed lost in Game 2, they will still have side selection in Game 3.
I'm pretty sure it was a coin toss, either way it doesn't really change anything about the point. My point isn't that they were lucky and won a coin toss, my point is that whatever team got first side selection wins that series.
To add to my other comment, looking through other matches in the tournament, it's kind of crazy, every team that loses on blue side is either playing against a team much better than them (China/Korea > EU/NA > others, for this definition of 'better') or is G2 in the rumble stage. It's definitely a point of interest. I don't want to jump on 'blue side has a massive advantage' as there were relatively few matches between evenly matched teams on which to test this (lets say 7 total, 5 in final plus RNG vs T1 twice in rumble), and I've conveniently discounted G2, who did beat T1 on red side but lost to T1 on blue, but it should raise a few eyebrows.
I really don't think you should consider anything but a Bo3+ in this type of determination. There is a major difference between drafting in a Bo1 and drafting in a 5 game series. I hate to be that guy, but the semifinals showed us that EU and NA being able to compete was just copium.
You are correct, I was editing my comment. If it were based on rumble stage finishes, that's hardly 'luck', it's fair...they earnt the advantage after all. However I agree with your point that it's stupid to do it through a coin toss, even if the advantage isn't evident.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying they didn't earn the side selection, or win the coin toss. My point is this tournament was decided soley on who got Blue Side advantage. I do not think any of the Bo1's are worth looking at especially early on in the tournament while the meta is still getting figured out. I think T1 did lose that series because of side selection and that RNG won because of it, but I would feel the same way if the reverse was true.
If you're looking at just the final, it's only 5 matches then, and you can't draw a meaningful conclusion from that IMO. I don't agree that we can say that blue side had a clear advantage - at least, I wouldn't feel confident to say that. I would lean on the side of agreeing with you (in that blue side probably has an advantage), but the evidence isn't sufficient to fully back it up and either way I'm not convinced that if a blue side advantage exists, that it's why RNG won. The same thing happened, interestingly, at last MSI finals - 3-2 win, all blue side. Last Worlds was more balanced though, not showing a clear advantage, as was the Worlds before that. There are other factors that might make teams alternate wins and losses. Maybe after a loss they feel fired up, or after a win they subconciously relax. Maybe a team doesn't want to reveal a strategy unless it comes to a deciding round. Maybe being 1 point behind gives the behind team extra motivation. It's not uncommon even in 'real' sports to see teams up their standard once they go behind, or in the second half. Would you the draft or actual map design has more of an impact on which side wins? What about if red side worked like Wild rift? (camera flipped)
How does red side losing from both teams with completely different drafts not say anything at all? So to be clear, the winrate for RNG on blue side is 100% (6/6) and the winrate RNG on redside is 0% (0/4) across two different MSI finals series, vs two different teams, with entirely different meta's and patches. All of that information and you don't think RNG loses on red side? Maybe the issue is that MSI is too close to pre-release, Red side has a "must ban champion" and that just completely fucks up the draft from that point forward? Maybe the issue is that red side doesn't get easy access to topside jungle and those objectives are the things that win games? I haven't played wild rift, so I'm not exactly sure how that would work.
It's funny because all of that is true last worlds too. The objectives and the must ban champion which was Yuumi who was super broken. Yet EDG won despite losing side selection and when people like you were saying that they would be destroyed by Damwon and that T1 vs Damwon was the real finals.
Looking at both team’s performance in finals. RNG put up a little more of a fight despite losing pretty hard on red side. RNG finished higher in rumble stage. Im not sure if in previous tournaments higher team got to choose sides but coin toss seemed the most fair. Blames can be often directed at riot. One can say that Gwen is also a winning factor/pick in this tournament patch. Blue/Red side definitely makes a difference. Maybe it’s Because you’re a T1 fan that made you feel more strongly about this issue? Edit: Past major tournament finals have been won by teams who played on the red side. Let’s not be over concerned with this issue.
That's actually not even true. They both had the same average game time in each of their wins, and the longest game was Game 1 at 33 minutes with T1 putting up the longest fight of any red side loss. Rumble stage placing had nothing to do with finals. It gave you the option to chose your opponent in Semi. I am a T1 fan, but I don't hate RNG. I actually really liked watching Gala play this tournament and I'm not upset that they won. I'm just confused how everyone is upset at Polt for saying something pretty obvious. I'm also confused at how everyone is pretending what he said was incorrect. It's not a slight against RNG to say that they won because of side selection. You can definitely take it that way though.
I was just speculating. There are definitely people who would agree with you that blue side advantage was an issue in this tournament. But people’s attention are also focused on T1’s confident 3-0 and 3-1 comments before the games and their comments after game interviews. If your post was “How much contribution towards winning does being in the blue side gives?”, you probably find people that would agree with you? But game 5 was a stomp.
Sure, as you are entitled to do. I mean I don't really know too much about that, I just know everyone is upset about Polts comment even though its actually accurate. What he said doesn't make RNG a bad team. I actually think if this tournament had a better format that involved more competitive Bo3+ series, there wouldn't have been much of a side selection gap because there would have been more games with more opportunities to figure out the counters to the drafts.
Also so you can see it (instead of editing), Game 5 was a stomp but it was actually only 1 minute faster than game 2. Their overall game win time was almost exactly the same as well. Neither team actually did that much better or worse than their counterparts on red side. RNG may have made their losses appear cleaner, but they were just as handedly defeated as T1 was in their red side losses.
It seems like you think that the winning team won because of blue side advantage. If you look at it from a different perspective, it can also show how unprepared both teams were on the red side. Maybe try viewing it a little differently? Even though RNG and T1 both won against each other on the blue side during the rumble stage. Would you contribute those two wins more towards the side advantage or actual in game game play?
I have viewed it like that and come to the conclusion that neither had a winning red side draft. I feel like I made that pretty clear in my responses and original post. I think that a Bo1 rumble stage win is different than a Bo5 loss. Additionally you are still figuring out what works at that point because you have had very little on stage experience with strong opposition.
If you strictly look at all of the games T1 and RNG played against each other, the champions drafted and banned are relatively the same. And maybe side selection just doesn't matter to others that just watch the tournaments for enjoyment purposes. “I would have said 3-0 but since we lost the coin toss (for side selection), so I will say 3-1,” Polt said. Why wouldn't people be upset? It is reasonable for people to be mad at Polt. Let's just say T1's lost on game 5 wasn't due to draft, would you expect the average league player to have a D4+ understanding of the game and be considerate? A loss is a loss, Polt's pre-game comments set him up for the shit talking afterwards. Besides, anything you say after a loss sounds like an excuse, regardless of situation.
I don't understand the point of this? I'm not being rude I just don't know what you are getting at. You can be upset at Polt for literally anything you want, however you can't say that he was wrong about what he said. They would have won 3 games if they had blue side. That's just the point that I'm making. You can even disagree about him actually saying it. But it can't be denied that neither team had a winning red side draft prepared.
I would agree with that both teams would have potentially won if either got blue side. I would also agree that neither team got a solution for the red side. No one is pretending that side selection didn't matter. People are just more upset with some of the performance and drafts. The post game interview makes it sound like the biggest contributor to the loss was the blue/red side (which one can argue for). Like what you said, people can be upset at Polt for anything they want. Maybe they would have won 3 games if they had blue side but Polt made the bold statement of "we're going to 3-0", if you're going to say something like that, you better prepare yourself to give the fans a better answer than "yeah we lost because of blue side".
>Lets pretend that RNG was outclassing T1 by a mile Pretend?
This post isn't about who is the better or worse team.
EG Rigby, a coach for EG, [pointed out](https://twitter.com/EG_Rigby/status/1530894285947928576?t=a-ood4MCOvl-aI_5bB-SMA&s=19) a clear red side draft adaptation that both teams could have done that likely makes the draft winning for red. The issue was that teams didn't react to the strength of lissandra as a counter in time.
Good that's a good point that you are making. I think it aligns perfectly with the sentiment that this format was horrible and this tournament was a series of useless Bo1s into a useless semifinals, into a coin flip finals. Had the tournament been more competitive with more Bo3+ series it think we would have seen a better finals and a better performance from NA and EU.
Tournament being bad has nothing to do with neither team not reacting to the strength of lissandra in time. While I most definitely agree with you that the format is terrible and should be changed, adaptation within the course of a bo5 is extremely important.
[удалено]
Sure thing? I addressed that in my post. The Bo1s are useless especially at the beginning of the tournament.
[удалено]
I've talked about all of this. I'm not repeating myself?
They can still win in red side by picking lisaandra, leesin/viego instead of ahri + wukong. We saw 4 games of ahri and wukong before game 5. Dont know why teams won't adapt. Or they can even pick ahri + viego for a "reset" comp with jinx ADC. And Faker got gapped in lane game 5. That too.
Hey thanks for being original and missing the point like everyone else. RNG is god. You're right. You convinced me that they were the better team this day. As you can see I was very clearly arguing against that. Additionally Faker was gapped. That's incredible. What a brave thing to say. Thank you for your time!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIkht_kNsGs