Team UK testing team* recorded a lot of test data in the 3 weeks leading to up to worlds to understand the Escalation meta - I guess now worlds is over we can divulge some of it
As you can see its the CTM matchup which is problematic for Andy, not ETF. If we filter by the two Andy diehards (laurie and I) the numbers become even more representative of Andy’s potential. The final iteration of Andysucker I got to with strikes, medium and all the money had a win rate of 80% vs ETF and 60% vs CTM. I personally went 11-3 with her over the 2 tournaments and felt she was very strong. However to obtain that I had to jam every economy card into my deck possible and still rely on them not getting a nut draw. I also dont know of anyone else on Strikes. My record vs CTM was 3-2, others reported that they crashed and burned to CTM (small sample sizes).
In terms of why did Andy fail it is a bit of a mystery to be honest. Her numbers were neck and neck with whiz overall. When I asked UKs most wanted criminal Dave Hoyland why he was not on Andy his reply was also that the CTM matchup wasn’t good enough. Our data matches this anecdote. I suspect the high showing of CTM at the top tables favoured Whiz (who has better numbers vs CTM) over Andy in the end. I also feel that if I had smashed out another 20-30 games specifically of this matchup I could have equalled Whiz vs CTM, but that probably hints that the deck is weaker overall if the skill level required with it is higher. It could also be that more of the top players opted for Whiz over Andy which skewed the makeup of the top tables somewhat. Finally, the west coast whiz deck came out of left field and was not represented in our testing at all - the performance of that particular deck against CTM and the field was probably the final nail in the coffin for Blue regarding their lack of representation in the cut.
*lpoulter, rojazu, evilgaz, emilyspine, bruno, vinegarymink, beyoken, shanondin, seeheartype, echo, swiftie, rotage