criticizing pro players

There are obviously good arguments on both sides (especially when drawing parallels to traditional sports) but I think it comes down to wether or not you agree that there is merit to the opinion of someone who hasn't accomplished anything in CS. As an analyst I personally only care for the in-game analysis of former pros and appreciate other analysts for different reasons. Also I think it's important to note there is more to a desk then just pure in-game analysis.



Even though I only played for a short amount of time in relation to a lot of top players I still always consider that I didn't make invite in that time. I take a "how's your jumpshot" approach to analysis for this reason, and always try to rationalize decisions as well as consider that I might be missing something when I make a critisizm.



The main issue I think for many pros is just "where's the line" and I believe they feel it's being crossed. I don't think they're wrong to feel that way but it's true that a broadcast is not supposed to be completely dry and purely analytical. It's entertainment, and the only reason both ourselves and the pros have a job playing and talking about a video game. I think there are people out there that want to believe that their favourite player would have the ability to have their job without broadcast talent/content creators but they're living in a dream world. If some criticism is allowed then it gets really sketchy trying to argue when people have gone to far. Especially when they take what could be a perfectly valid point and just make it a little more edgy for the audience.



So I 100% agree that it's important to have a thick skin when you're in the public eye, but I -personally- just like to remember that smithzz has a .7 in invite and would trash just about 100% of people that criticize him when it comes to fragging, positioning or game knowledge in and out of the server.

Reply · Report Post