i dont like team => fluke
you can fluke a major
peaking at 1 event and then back to shit = fluke
save all your strats for one tourney but do nothing before or after results-wise
I don't think you understand what a fluke is.
if u can fluke any lan tournament win then u can fluke a major too
c9 did it
gambit did it
avangar and ence "almost" did it
what more explanation do u need?
No team can fluke 2 swiss stages and play off imo, if someone was able to go through, they were the best team for sure.
everything other than grand slam is fluke now that navi has won it
dont question it
just accept it
You can fluke any tournament but a major win is always a major win even if you lose your form after it.
Explain to me how the phrase "you can fluke a major" is at all related to NAVI and how they won their IGS? Why are you trying to make a connection there?
Answering ONLY your title, "fluking" a major (or any other stacked event) happens when team X wins that event and then disappears right after. There's no consistency involved. I'm not saying it's easy but it's more likely to win one major with insane preparation than winning IGS. I mean, the C9 major, the Gambit major were all quite similar in that regard. For example, if Gambit were to win the upcoming major it wouldn't be looked through the same eyes as the 2017 one because they've had an entire year of consistent placings and event wins. I'm not saying it's "easy" though and I'm certainly not saying an IGS is worth more than a major because it's not.
winning 4 events(2 LAN+2 online) will always be harder than winning any given event(even one as big as a major). Fnatic 2013 was a "fluke", Gambit 2017, C9 2018. Grand Slam teams are consistently the best for a long period of time, while for a major you only have to be the best for a few days
Maybe its not fluke but actually it doesnt metter if its online or LAN (I know Lan is harder) you can prepare for one tournament and it doesnt have to be fluke in case of C9 or Gambit I think not a lot of teams studied them so much and if they prepared properly then they could win.
After major teams started to study their games more and suddenly they didnt win anymore because they arent that good it was just great preparation from them and other teams not prepared for them.
So yes its easier to win one tournament even if its major then 4 tournaments as team everybody is preparing for because you already won 3 before and teams know you have chance to win Grand Slam
If you're trying to say to the NaVi fans that Major > Grand slam. I agree with you, ofc major is more prestiene than a grand slam, but grand slam is the next best thing to a major and you can't take that away from NaVi. Major or no major they are still a great team and now with the fall of Astralis this year you can make a argument that they are most consistent team since 2018, maybe even ever, they were always a top 5 team (maybe except 2017).
flukers will fluke (C9)
you can even fluke major MVP (turok)
or fluke a nobel prize (obama)
I think its true, on the onliner part, people have forgotten we are only playing onliners
u saw the first "lan" IEM Cologne, and teams like gambit just not being the same. When at that time, gambit were supposed to just steamroll every other team.. reality check on lan was obvious.
I think Major, and THIS Major in particular means A LOT more than the usual.. i expect teams to crumble under the pressure, but i dont expect top teams to crumble. If they do, we all know, HLTV and other forums, will be 25/25 threads laughing at na'vi xD. So we will see
Winning one tournament is not as hard as winning multiple tournaments. Winning multiple tournaments in a GS means you not only played peak at each tournament but had to adapt to new metas/playstyles/rosters.
Navi legit had to win across 2 metas, with 2 different rosters, through teams bug abusing, and through a shit online era while they were one of the worst online teams. On top of that, they made a return to lan after a year and won. That's tough.
I actually think what Navi did was harder than most. It was a grind, and in case anyone forgot, Navi at the start of online was absolute shit. They bombed out of road to rio, losing to hard legion, VP, and syman...they fucking sucked.
The thing about winning a Grand Slam is that you need to be on top for a longer period of time in order to win the amount of events a Grand Slam requires. Besides that 1.000.000 dollars is more than you get for winning a Major (exculidng sticker money). While im writing this im starting to disagree with it. To win a Major you don't just have to win 1 tournament, you also have to proof yourself at the RMR events. hmm. I guess it comes down to personal opinion which one is more prestigeful. I guess what the Grand Slam has is that its an even more exclusive club than the Major.
what kind of a backwards idiot do you have to be to take a statement like "you can fluke a major". expected from bosnians i guess.
Majors are important but not like before
gambit one was a fluke, and no one can deny that.. yeah, zeus deserved a major, but it was a fluke nonetheless
if intel grand slam is easier why did only 3 teams win it? anyone can win a major you saw gambit and c9 where are they now? i mean gambit rn is doing good but a year ago? they were nothing and i dont even want to talk about the core gambit player zeus adreN and those guys where tf are they now? wow they won a major and then did nothing how is that harder that IGS ?
Fluke means that they win 1 major then dont even come close to that success after it.
Gambit and C9 fluked in that they weren't the best teams but c9 was top 5 going into it.
Dark horse win for sure you all can argue if it's a fluke or not I don't really care and it's a stupid argument. Even if it was a fluke they still had to play it out on the server so whatever really. Good moment and the beginning of NA's most dominant moment in CS even if it was liquid/nrg that really took their momentum and ran with it.
As far as the argument for IGS or major this is how it goes.
IGS is 100% harder no question.
Major is still more prestigious. Why? Because it's a major. It's really as simple as that it's how humans brains work. I mean Liquid won their GS at Cologne a tournament that has literally been called a major before but it wasn't this time so not quite as prestigious. Why? Because it's not a major.
Major isn't much different from any other tournament. If you have good nerves it's just the same as another tier 1 lan tourneys.
people just love to discredit the C9 major win any way they can because they hate NA CS lmao... even though NA viewership is the only thing keeping pro CS alive. EU loves to cope.
Major is just another tournament. At the moment nothing actually differs a major from any other top event.
If you can fluke a tournament you can fluke a major.
comeback from 0-2
u can fluke major if u were bad before and after this major
Example: gambit, they were tier 2-3 team before Krakow, didnt win any t1 tournaments and after major they didnt win t1 tournament too, so that was fluke major, undeserved
same for c9(they won 1-2 t1 tournaments but still not enough)
OFc u can fluke a major.
Astralis 2019 Katowice
Astralis 2019 Berlin
They played crap teams in groups/playoffs and then beat ENCE/Avangar in the Grand Final. LMAO
Winning a major is more prestigious then winning an IGS.
An IGS requires much more consistency, you can't win an IGS if you weren't at LEAST top 2 for very long, while you can win a major by being a top 1 team for 1.5 months and then declining, like Avangar almost did. It's not a fluke, it's just not as consistent as an IGS, but it's more prestige cause of the history of the scene.