|
Honestly my knee-jerk reaction to NaDa's play was to think about matchfixing, but there's no way with his reputation he's going to endanger his career.
Well yea this is 1 point of view, but the matches were just too weird to be totally legit.
Boxer almost beats nada the first game and that was a macro vs macro battle. Nada makes the decision that crap, this guy can beat my macro so I better try something else. He also always stops the banshee and does logical steps to defeat it.
He didnt "almost beat nada", it was pretty one sided game, the illusion of being "close" comes from a base-trade play. Nada almost GG'ed him with his first bioball push and was in a huge lead for the rest of the game supply and economy wise.
Then suddenly he decides to abandon this fast CC build that worked so well? Where is the logic in that?
3rd game looks the most suspicious... He knows Boxers banshee build, he even scouted it and had a pretty big time window to get his viking after his medivac was out.
Even observers said that "Boxer might have to gg", NaDa was in a huge lead after a drop, and banshee wasn't even a surprise, he had like 5+ minutes to make a viking but for some reason fed a ridicilous amount of workers to the banshee and decided to 1base suicide push.
Just remember how he played vs Leenock after losing 1 game and being at risk of elimination - solid, economic style, nothing gimmicky or retarded. A complete and total opposite here, totally out of character
|
I think it was a bit convenient they were both put in the easiest bracket and only had to play each other in the ro8, after they had acquired S-class qualification or w/e.
Though I doubt nada would blatantly throw a match, I could see why some would speculate to that after watching his play. Nada basically played completely out of his element. There was no smooth macro intensive play on his end.
The way this tourney has turned out is odd to me though, with who advanced and who got upset, etc, boxer has a legitimate chance to win the whole thing, which I would not have said at the start of ro64.
Bottom line is that I don't think the match was fixed, I think the brackets were tweaked to give both of these players a strong chance to get to ro8 because getting them both into s-class is good for the popularity of the game.
But just cause I don't think it was fixed doesn't mean it isn't possible. It's far-fetched but the potential gain would be worth it for someone like blizz/gretech to augment their tourneys to a questionable degree.
|
United States7481 Posts
My guess is simply that NaDa was out of practice (note he wasn''t on the KR top 200 this week), and he wasn't very confident in his builds as a result.
|
|
|
On November 03 2010 05:44 Antoine wrote:
My guess is simply that NaDa was out of practice (note he wasn''t on the KR top 200 this week), and he wasn't very confident in his builds as a result.
I doubt NaDa needs to ladder to be able to practice considering he's in the oGs-TL team and most progamers practice custom games against friends and practice partners.
|
Seriously?
Some people want to spit on this battle of legends and tarnish both of their reputations by accusing them of match fixing? REALLY?
Disgusting.
|
On November 03 2010 05:56 nedamise wrote:
Seriously?
Some people want to spit on this battle of legends and tarnish both of their reputations by accusing them of match fixing? REALLY?
Disgusting.
The way I see it, matchfixing or not, having someone like boxer win a GSL would be absolutely huge, and probably help to motivate other BW pros to switch over.
|
You guys should be ashamed for even suggesting that the game was rigged
|
from gomtv.com about GSL (I think it's season 1 and 2)
Today Views: 1,102,642
Views: 34,242,714 cumulative
|
I'm so happy I bought GSL this season, it's really worth it. And I feel really good supporting E-sports n.n
|
Boosting the game's popularity by fixing games in Boxer's favor just after the whole match fixing scandal in Korea would be a pretty stupid idea.
|
On November 03 2010 05:41 ABOOMAN wrote:
Just remember how he played vs Leenock after losing 1 game and being at risk of elimination - solid, economic style, nothing gimmicky or retarded. A complete and total opposite here, totally out of character
Against a bad opponent, it's stupid to take risks.
Against a good opponent, it's stupid to never take risks.
|
On November 03 2010 06:12 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:41 ABOOMAN wrote:
Just remember how he played vs Leenock after losing 1 game and being at risk of elimination - solid, economic style, nothing gimmicky or retarded. A complete and total opposite here, totally out of character
Against a bad opponent, it's stupid to take risks. Against a good opponent, it's stupid to never take risks.
This is a blanket statement that is not necessarily true.
Nada's mechanics are generally much stronger than boxer's mechanics. So it would be smart to play towards that advantage and not expose yourself to losing in any risky way.
|
On November 03 2010 05:58 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:56 nedamise wrote:
Seriously?
Some people want to spit on this battle of legends and tarnish both of their reputations by accusing them of match fixing? REALLY?
Disgusting. The way I see it, matchfixing or not, having someone like boxer win a GSL would be absolutely huge, and probably help to motivate other BW pros to switch over.
doesnt matter if its BoxeR or NaDa who wins, they're both equally legendary
|
On November 03 2010 06:15 Pulimuli wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:58 robertdinh wrote:On November 03 2010 05:56 nedamise wrote:
Seriously?
Some people want to spit on this battle of legends and tarnish both of their reputations by accusing them of match fixing? REALLY?
Disgusting. The way I see it, matchfixing or not, having someone like boxer win a GSL would be absolutely huge, and probably help to motivate other BW pros to switch over. doesnt matter if its BoxeR or NaDa who wins, they're both equally legendary
From my understanding boxer has much more marketing power and name recognition. As well as bringing a stronger sense of nostalgia for people because he is the OG pro.
|
Sc2 is different from bw, you can play it with less apm overall, macro is alot easier, as is microing. 400apm are a result of some spamming, you can do with less, i bet 200-250 is more than enough. Unless you are Foxer and want to win the whole GSL with just marines. That means that age isn't going to hinder Boxer, nada or anyone else unless they really get old like in the deep 40s.
I was also suspicous of matchfixing, but i watched the games again and they are really good legit games. Both Boxer and Nada won alot of money in bw so there's no reason to try and make extra money, they don't need it.
Practicing and laddering are different things, as is laddering and playing tournaments. I left my old clan because they didn't realize that practicing is important, and would just ladder then do tournaments either organized on some forum or vs other clans, and guess what ? lose them all for lack of actual practice.
My bets are placed on Foxer/EllenPage and Boxer.
|
On November 03 2010 06:15 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:12 Typhon wrote:
Against a bad opponent, it's stupid to take risks.
Against a good opponent, it's stupid to never take risks. This is a blanket statement that is not necessarily true. Nada's mechanics are generally much stronger than boxer's mechanics. So it would be smart to play towards that advantage and not expose yourself to losing in any risky way.
Nada's mechanics are generally much strong than Boxer's mechanics in Brood War. In StarCraft II, who knows? There's not enough evidence to make that statement, and the interface is different enough that there won't be any direct correlation between mechanics in the two games. A faster runner isn't always a faster skater, even if both exercises use many of the same muscles. The idea that both players weren't trying their hardest to win is ludicrous.
|
On November 03 2010 06:38 DJEtterStyle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:15 robertdinh wrote:On November 03 2010 06:12 Typhon wrote:
Against a bad opponent, it's stupid to take risks.
Against a good opponent, it's stupid to never take risks. This is a blanket statement that is not necessarily true. Nada's mechanics are generally much stronger than boxer's mechanics. So it would be smart to play towards that advantage and not expose yourself to losing in any risky way. Nada's mechanics are generally much strong than Boxer's mechanics in Brood War. In StarCraft II, who knows? There's not enough evidence to make that statement, and the interface is different enough that there won't be any direct correlation between mechanics in the two games. A faster runner isn't always a faster skater, even if both exercises use many of the same muscles. The idea that both players weren't trying their hardest to win is ludicrous.
Actually there is plenty of evidence that boxer is still focused on micro play and does not have that top caliber macro.
And there is plenty of evidence that nada is a macro beast in sc2.
You simply have to watch the games they play.
|
On November 03 2010 06:40 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:38 DJEtterStyle wrote:On November 03 2010 06:15 robertdinh wrote:On November 03 2010 06:12 Typhon wrote:
Against a bad opponent, it's stupid to take risks.
Against a good opponent, it's stupid to never take risks. This is a blanket statement that is not necessarily true. Nada's mechanics are generally much stronger than boxer's mechanics. So it would be smart to play towards that advantage and not expose yourself to losing in any risky way. Nada's mechanics are generally much strong than Boxer's mechanics in Brood War. In StarCraft II, who knows? There's not enough evidence to make that statement, and the interface is different enough that there won't be any direct correlation between mechanics in the two games. A faster runner isn't always a faster skater, even if both exercises use many of the same muscles. The idea that both players weren't trying their hardest to win is ludicrous. Actually there is plenty of evidence that boxer is still focused on micro play and does not have that top caliber macro. And there is plenty of evidence that nada is a macro beast in sc2. You simply have to watch the games they play.
They've played ten televised games apiece. That's sufficient evidence? Talk about making blanket statements.
*boggles*
|
You do realize that if they really wanted to rig the matches they would make it look like standard play and not some "weird" tactics that could arouse the suspicion of paranoid people? "Hey, let's rig the match." "K, how?" "Well, let's have Nada not play standard and lose on purpose, that will totally fool them." "Hehe, good idea dude."
This so ridiculous and disgusting I won't even bother arguing it further. People who claim this are either trolling or ignorant. In both cases just not worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
