I only have one problem with how SKT v ROX worked out

I don't get why people need to push this notion that X top team banning Y top team's Z pocket pick, you know, because they want to win, makes them cowardly/not pro enough/not cool/not playing to their full potential/not adapting to the situation/whatever other excuse you want to pull, and you literally have to dump them with every possible onus you can think of in some weird attempt to shame them and question whether they're actually a top team.

There was never an attempt to pick MF (and get a chance to see what ROX would to against it). There was never an attempt to change their playstyle to beat MF support (in game 3 SKT went straight back to Zyra support and basically tried the same strategy thinking they could win now that MF wasn't a surprise pick and lost again). They didn't actually solve how to beat the pick, they just dropped one of the power-bans and banned the pick instead.

Why would they pick some champion they've probably barely touched, just because ROX cheesed a few games off them, and expect it to just fit into their comp? Would you say the same on another barely used, even more specialized champion with a different playstyle/mechanic like Yorick or Heimer? They're in a semi-finals match with only 5 games to play. There is literally no reason to waste a game just to download what ROX would pick against support MF, if that's even a matchup they prepared for. Going back on the Zyra pick can easily be confidence on their part that they know what to expect having played Game 2, but when it failed a second time, there's literally no reason to risk a 3rd game. Hence, ban the pick and force ROX into a different strategy and pull them off of their momentum.

It bothers me that the best players in the world have such an easy out. I understand that we also don't want a team to win the world championships simply by cheesing a superior opponent. I understand that the unique pick earned ROX two wins, meaning they only had to win a single of the other three games to acquire a finals berth. I'm just disappointed that SKT, likely the best team in the world, was able to eliminate a winning strategy with a simple ban. We never got to see a pro team beat MF support. Had it gone down as ROX taking MF support in game 1, then SKT trying to replicate in game 2 and ROX showing us how to beat it (then SKT winning the next 3 because they know how to beat it now) then great.

So you understand that worlds shouldn't be about cheesing a superior opponent, yet you literally advocate that these supposed superior opponents potentially continue to get cheesed by some stray, unaccounted for pick, in some of the most important games of the year. Wat?

So we see all these posts on the boards about "X is OP" and the response is "X isn't OP just counterpick Y" or "just play differently against X" and yet the pro players see a pick that was nowhere close to contested, so far from it in fact that the referees had to check that there wasn't some mistake/bug when MF was locked in for game 2, and rather than apply the simple things that people use on the boards to mass downvote posts SKT just "bans X". Is MF support OP? Far from it. There are legions of strategies that wipe the floor with MF support - Zyra just isn't one of them. If anything I felt like Ashe won games 2 and 3, not MF. Ashe lost game 4 because she didn't hit arrows at all like she was hitting in games 2 and 3. I don't think an MF support would have helped them in game 4 tbh, but we didn't get to see it.

Probably because pro players don't scour the boards of largely bronze-silver players trying to make attempts at talking about strategy. If you're going to mention 'legions of strategies', at least bother to point out a few examples, though Wolf's played a total of 4 champions, none of which can reliably outpoke MF with any guarantee. Zyra was the best option they've had given their pool. Again, why risk a semi-finals match over trying to frantically count a pocket pick, and potentially lose the entire series?

You're free to claim the Ashe pick was the deciding factor but put simply, both picks went hand in hand and relied heavily on each other to complement each other's strengths. If Ashe was banned instead of MF, I'd guarantee you that ROX would've picked a different support because there's no other available AD carries that would've enabled MF nearly as well as Ashe's long-range, long duration stun.

I felt the same way when Aurelion Sol was banned against CLG, but much less so because he was already considered a power pick / contested pick and was used by other teams as well. A ban on Sol did not look like an unusual ban. There were other examples as well. I don't think it really makes sense that a pro player can practice a non-meta non-OP pick and bring it out and win with it, only to have it mean nothing more than that - a win where the rest of the series is decided without that strategy in play because of a simple ban.

So why can't they just learn more pocket picks, instead of cheesing a win or two by learning one? I can easily put blame on ROX too for several things with false context. It's really not that difficult.

And players keep asking for more bans. This semifinal showed pretty clearly, there really aren't grossly OP picks in league. Sure, there are annoying picks and lane counters, etc... but when a pro team can sacrifice a ban on a champion that wasn't even expected to show up in that role at any level of play it shows that power picks really aren't a huge deal. Counterplay or solving how to beat a pick isn't a required skill either. All you need to do is ban the pick, and be able to win 3-0 when the strategy isn't active. Which obviously is still hard and shows why SKT is such a great team - but still I would have become an SKT fan if they let MF through again and showed they could adapt and beat it. They didn't - so frankly I'm a ROX fan after that match for being able to pull out the unexpected and make it almost carry them to the finals.

MF occupied one niche that only would've worked with Ashe, so it had nothing to do with how OP the pick was. Aside from that, Worlds has entirely been run by the same group of 20-30 champions, which shows that yes, there actually are simply better picks. Sure, most picks in League can work, but when you've got balanced based on generalists and not enough effort put into accentuating champions strengths and weaknesses, you get 5 champions who do the exact same thing, but only 2 worth playing because they do it more reliably. That's the majority of how Worlds has played out.

You have a point, but I don't believe that the people clamoring for more bans are interested in that sort of thing. Theyre too concerned about champion diversity.