Team Secret Discussion - Page 118

On November 22 2015 09:25 FuzzyJAM wrote:

"Best team in the world" means, to me, that if I had to pick one team to put my life savings on for a tournament next week, it would be Secret. To me, that makes them the best - for a given value of "best", to be sure. Of course, I heavily emphasised how tight it was at the top precisely because it's not a clear cut decision: if someone wants to argue for EG as the better bet (or even OG), then that's fine. Of course there are other meanings of "best team", and if someone wants to say something like "Alliance is the best team in the world" based on their long spell of dominance I'd say "Yeah, that's an argument", but it's not a position that would clash with mine and not really what I was talking about. I thought my position was relatively clear, but if you had some confusion and really cared you were free to ask.

Instead, you insulted me for no reason. "Best team in the world" is a malleable concept, you're right. I think that's kind of obvious, and given that language is inherently contextual I don't know why you think that's a problem or why you feel the need to attack people over it. Maybe you had a rough day or something though, so hopefully you're feeling happy now.

On November 22 2015 09:25 FuzzyJAM wrote:

"Best team in the world" means, to me, that if I had to pick one team to put my life savings on for a tournament next week, it would be Secret. To me, that makes them the best - for a given value of "best", to be sure. Of course, I heavily emphasised how tight it was at the top precisely because it's not a clear cut decision: if someone wants to argue for EG as the better bet (or even OG), then that's fine. Of course there are other meanings of "best team", and if someone wants to say something like "Alliance is the best team in the world" based on their long spell of dominance I'd say "Yeah, that's an argument", but it's not a position that would clash with mine and not really what I was talking about. I thought my position was relatively clear, but if you had some confusion and really cared you were free to ask.

Instead, you insulted me for no reason. "Best team in the world" is a malleable concept, you're right. I think that's kind of obvious, and given that language is inherently contextual I don't know why you think that's a problem or why you feel the need to attack people over it. Maybe you had a rough day or something though, so hopefully you're feeling happy now.

On November 22 2015 13:04 hariooo wrote:
No one is saying OG didn't win legitimately. You don't win a single tournament and become the best team in the world though.

2nd 1st 1st 2nd. That's the record of the best team in the world the last 4 tournaments.

On November 22 2015 14:17 DucK- wrote:
? Why do you extend it to ti5, when teams were so different. A good period to gauge is after ti5 because teams have had the same rosters, and there have been 4 major lans if I'm not wrong. Finishing 2, 1, 1 and 2 qualifies them to be the best team atm, because no other team has come close to the level of accomplishments. Not even og or eg, though og could overtake them should they win further tournaments.

On November 22 2015 14:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Well then, if you're dividing it by the Majors, then why isn't the Major considered the definitive milestone? It certainly has the prize pool that eclipses everything in the in-between, and it's the only tournament that every single team in the scene tries to win.

In Tennis, you can win a ton of the minor tournaments between Grand Slams, but the best players ever are marked by the number of Grand Slams that they won, and not by anything else.

On November 22 2015 16:38 DucK- wrote:


That's because mlg esl and nanyang were not considered minor lans. They were the bigger lans too with multiple international presence. I do agree frankfurt should be given a higher weight, but even then that's just one win.

Just because Greece won euros doesn't mean they were the best team in Europe then. That's because they achieved nothing else before or after the tournament. You can have tonga hypothetically win an Australian open over djorkovic, but he still wouldn't be considered best if he didn't do well for many tournaments prior, and if djorkovic have been winning all the smaller tournaments like atp world tour. Djorkovic would still be considered best, especially since he was also the beaten finalist of the Australian open.

One win doesn't mean much. Winners can simply just have a good run, but will never be considered best (greece). It is the sum of your results that matter. Even with higher weight, it is clear secret has accomplished more than og in this small sample size.

On November 22 2015 17:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Pretty sure the whole Tennis world would consider a Grand Slam winner the better player compared to someone who wasn't. Hell, I think a Grand Slam win even gives you more ATP points than 10 other tournaments would...

But this really just loops back to my original point: this talk of "Best team in the World" is just propping up personal favourite teams. If they'd won, at least it'd be celebratory instead of "oh, you lost a tournament which the whole scene revolves around, but that's okay, best team in the world!"

On November 22 2015 14:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:

Well then, if you're dividing it by the Majors, then why isn't the Major considered the definitive milestone? It certainly has the prize pool that eclipses everything in the in-between, and it's the only tournament that every single team in the scene tries to win.

In Tennis, you can win a ton of the minor tournaments between Grand Slams, but the best players ever are marked by the number of Grand Slams that they won, and not by anything else.