He's good ad analysing strategy

I actually don't thunk he is that good at analysing strategy, he looks at the round with tunnel vision of what happened without any real understanding of what's happened to enable these strategies to work

I think his understanding of the game is extremely surface level, he can look at a round and say "they threw this utility & two players went connector while the others prepared for ramp", but he doesn't actually seem to understand why things happen the way they do, what led up to that play in the round, how rotations were manipulated etc.. and regularly makes weird claims about what happened in the round while he's on the desk

Imo he's the worst analyst that does T1 events in the last few years

I'm not saying I'd do a better job on the desk, but I do honestly believe his understanding of the game is average at best.