Fair play?

[Roflcopter]

And your comment is just glib assertion with a single anecdote. And you don't even try to prove your claim in that single case. Here are a few factors off the top of my head that are not map imbalance:
- The psychological benefit of being on what you perceive to be the 'better' side of a map.
- Since the map has a 'good' side, both teams probably have more practice playing that side of the map.
- The order of the games leads to:
- Perhaps the team that won first became complacent in the second match.
- Perhaps the team that won first became (more) tired in the second match.

We have nothing better than anecdote although I have seen this more than a few times.

Your examples also don't strike me as very compelling.

If there's even a tiny difference in advantage because of sides there is bound to be two teams close enough in skill such that it would make enough difference. It's really a very moderate claim.

Also, if the map and side don't matter, why did practically every game between MyS and legacy end 2-1 to one of the teams instead of 2-0? If the map and side don't matter, then the better team should win 2-0 most matches.

Nightmare was stating his opinion and not attempting to prove anything. But if you're going to try to disprove what he says and argue for your opinion, try to be more thorough than

It's obviously false

if you want to be taken seriously.

It's clearly not an opinion. Either the better side can make a bigger difference than the difference in some teams' skills, or not. The matter is factual.

No, no. You deserved this.

And here's another glib comment. You didn't even try to rebut my justification.

[Nightmare]

[ElCrema]

Fine, fine you were right RonRea!