Two Pools civ stats (Unofficial)

[PipesMble]

Hey there! I compiled a list of results from the Two Pools 2 tournament which show some interesting facts in my opinion. Before sharing and discussing them I just want to mention some things. The idea behind this was to find what the top players consider as the most mediocre civ, i.e. the civ that gets drafted the least in both pools. After finding out that I figured we have the data lets see what else we can look into like win rates map statistics etc. Because the main thing was to address the 1st question I didn't put much care in the way of presenting the results so it a bit messy, in hindsight I would have approached the data gathering and processing in a different way but I figured it was fine enough. Keep in mind that there might be some errors in the results as I just transfers the data by looking at the civ drafts and he results. So I would read the final numbers with a ±1.
Having said that here are the results.

Now, to answer the main question: What is the most mediocre civ?
It turns out there are a few ways to approach it. If we look for the civ that was drafted the least (not picked or given to the opponent) there is a 3-way tie with 6 drafts each between Magyars, Slavs ad Tatars. If we look for the civ that was split between being picked or given the most the answer would be Indians, drafted 14 times, 7 in each pool. If we look for the civ that was played the least, the answer would be Tatars which only featured in one game. And the last way we can look into it is to check which civ was the only one not to be drafted in the Bo9 finals (36 of 37 civs drafted). The answer for that one is Khmer.

As for the civs regarded as the strongest and weakest we have Chinese, Lithuanians and Franks with 24, 22 and 21 picks and Burmese, Turks, Burgundians and Sicilians that were given 23, 23, 23,and 22 times respectively. And despite Chinese do dominate with a 74% win rate the results for the rest might force us to change our viewpoint for the rest. Franks and Vikings underperformed in this tournament with 41% and 37.5% WR. The most astounding fact is that this WR happened mostly on maps that each civ specialized, Arabia for Franks (5 wins in 13 games) and Team Islands for Vikings (3 wins in 8 games). The given civs performed around the 50% line excepts from Burgundians who a went a bit bellow that (42%).

In general picked civilizations that performed very well were Japanese (69%), Mongols (64%), Mayans (69%) and Italians (60%). The results that caught my eye though came from civs that were mostly given to the opponents. Spanish and Incas showed they had a lot of potential and ended the tournament with a 71% and 67% WR respectively. On the other side of the board the worst performing civilization was Bulgarians by far with a measly 20% WR (only 3 wins in 15 games), with Vietnamese and Malians following with 30%.

Lastly I will just turn the spotlight on civs that performed amazingly on the group stage only to fall short from the quarter-finals onwards and vise versa. Probably you already know the answer for this one, Its Goths. On the group stage Goths won 9 out of 13 matches they featured in. The number of games they won after that was zero. 0 out of 4 games. You could say the same story about Indians and Portuguese but the sample size is quite small there to make similar claims. If we switch the table there are more civs to have turned it around form the group stage onwards, Burmese had a 33% WR in the group stage but a 87.5% one from QF and on, Vikings 27% and 60%, Sicilians 36% and 80% and finally, Vietnamese needed to be played in the QFs to get their first win, losing all 6 matched in the group stage.

Anyways take a look for yourself and see if there is anything else noteworthy you can find. Loved the tournament and waiting for the next one with a twist like that one.