I talk a lot, but I know Iām not that great of a player, especially as a Runner. (Corp I think Iām perhaps above average, but not necessarily strong.)
Thereāre some folks from Portland that did well there and up in Seattle that I consider to be excellent players, and I know two of them have posted here. (@bluebird503 and @JohnnyCreations unless I am being spectacularly forgetful.) My roommate (who I frequently refer to as a source but who doesnāt post here) came 5th/6th at both those regionals and I consider him to be pretty strong, though our local scene is pretty small and itās hard to tell for sure now, weāre going to be trying to prep for next yearās tournament scene as best we can.
I think part of theā¦ problemās the wrong word, maybe difficulty? Part of the difficulty in telling is also that thereāre differences in being a strong player and a strong deckbuilder. Itās one thing to take a strong deck, make it better/more suited to you, and do well with it ā and it is not a small thing, either. It is, however, different from winning with something entirely new ā which isnāt easy either, but widens the field some.
For instance, my roommate falls within the former category ā heāll see something he likes, like Scorched Imaging, or Supermodernism, or Red Coats, and then tweak it to be better and do very well with it. Undeniably, to me, a strong player. But heās not great at building a deck from the ground up, heās unlikely to try out a new ID or archetype until itās fairly clear that itās strong.
There are others, here and elsewhere, that come up with these decks that end up being archetypes. Many of them are also good players, but I think itās a different sort of skill than just being a strong player ā they influence each other but donāt necessarily come in equal measure, if that makes sense? There are also, after all, a number of players that win entirely on strength of play, and donāt actually build decks that work well for anyone else, so itās worth looking at their lists with a grain of salt.
At least, this is what Iāve theorized, based on how, as Kingsley beat me to saying, there are excellent players out there that make entirely wrongheaded claims here and there that I canāt see any actual basis behind but manage to win anyway, and there are people that seem to be relatively on-the-ball but, to the best of my knowledge, havenāt won much of anything big.