N.Y.S.E. VIII - 5/29 Black Lotus Tournament

[JR]

Austin Pollack and Raf Forino were in top 8 as well, and Forino made top 4. I can't remember the rest. The event was a blast! I'm glad I could finally make one of these.

JR.

[Sporkcore]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

[Smmenen]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

MUD finally comes to america.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March. 

[Phele]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage? 

No, there is no doubt that MUD is the deck to beat. At least it is challenged by Noble Fish, Dredge and Tez-Oath. Other Drain- or Rituals-based strategies have serious problems beating it without bastardizing their main game plan.

[Therubecube]

Austin Pollack and Raf Forino were in top 8 as well, and Forino made top 4. I can't remember the rest. The event was a blast! I'm glad I could finally make one of these.

JR.

You couldn't remember the rest? I was playing cats!!! I made top 64 with what should be the deck to beat.

[Iron_Chef]

While MUD is definitely a good deck, I'm not convinced that it's "the best deck".  I think a lot of decks have the tools to beat it, and I don't think it dominates any one match specifically.

That being said, it was a great tournament, a lot of fun, and I was really happy to be playing Vintage again.

[Prospero]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

MUD finally comes to America.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

I have a tough time believing you here Steve.  A week ago you were on the record that TPS was your deck of choice.  Given your past history of "playing the best deck available" why should I believe that you have switched opinions so quickly?  

After all, as you have said that you would play the best deck, this would mean that you would play Workshops, and yet a week ago you said you were running Rituals.  If MUD has been the deck to beat since March, wouldn't that lead the objective viewer to believe that you'd been on the bandwagon since then? 

[internalrust]

had a great time, look forward to your next event and hopefully more of us make it next time around

[Rico Suave]

MUD finally comes to america.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

Actually, this is the first time in a while that Workshops have won anything in the mid-Atlantic region.  And it's not because the Workshops are under-represented or just showed up.

[Smmenen]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

MUD finally comes to America.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

I have a tough time believing you here Steve.  A week ago you were on the record that TPS was your deck of choice.  Given your past history of "playing the best deck available"

I've never proclaimed such an ideology.    Sometimes I play the best deck (Tezzeret, Grow).  Sometimes I play a metagame deck (Mono Blue in 2004, Beats last year).  Sometimes I play a deck designed to beat the best deck, and well positioned in the field (TPS).   

Also, this isn't something new.    In my metagame report: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/19278_So_Many_Insane_Plays_The_Q1_2010_Vintage_Earnings_and_Market_Report.html

I wrote:

Since Worldwake only became legal in February, the quarterly statistics understate MUD’s success. or example, just looking at March, MUD decks make up 33% of Top 8s, by far the most successful archetype in March. Tezzeret has never even had a quarterly performance that strong in its entire existence. Perhaps even more stunning, MUD won a shocking 66% of tournaments in March, four of the six reported Vintage tournaments. It also won the largest tournament of the year so far, an Italian tournament with nearly 200 players, guaranteeing an appearance in the annual Vintage Year in Review.

In short, in my last metagame report, I asserted that MUD was the best performing deck at the end of the quarter, and I predicted that it would be the best performing deck in the 2Q 2010.   So, what I said was nothing new.

why should I believe that you have switched opinions so quickly?  

Again, just because I say that I'd play something other than MUD doesn't mean that I don't think MUD is the best deck.  It clearly is, imo.   

[voltron00x]

MUD finally comes to america.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

Actually, this is the first time in a while that Workshops have won anything in the mid-Atlantic region.  And it's not because the Workshops are under-represented or just showed up.

You missed the "major event" clause that Stephen will use to eliminate events counter to his theory.   

[Smmenen]

MUD finally comes to america.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

Actually, this is the first time in a while that Workshops have won anything in the mid-Atlantic region.  And it's not because the Workshops are under-represented or just showed up.

You missed the "major event" clause that Stephen will use to eliminate events counter to his theory.   

Heh.  It's not a theory -- just an observation: that since March, Workshop decks have made up 33% of Top 8s -- far more than any other pillar.  And won 66% of 33 or more player tournaments in March.    That's astounding.  I haven't yet aggregated April or May data, but I'm guessing it will look similar. 

[Rico Suave]

I find it a little disturbing that you're going to claim MUD has won every major event since March without looking at April or May...

Nevertheless this is nothing new to this area.  People are well aware of Workshops around here.  We also prepare for them.  Workshops are very popular in this area, but they have struggled to do well for a while now because people are prepared to beat them.

I'm not going to make any claims regarding MUD's status in the Vintage hierarchy.  Workshops, like any other archetype, are respected around here.  But there is only so much room, and one can only prepare for so many decks (especially with Dredge taking up a lot of SB slots).

The true test will be whether those Workshops can put up results at the next tournament after people restock on their anti-Workshop technology.  And whether or not I show up to the next tournament of course. 

[Smmenen]

I find it a little disturbing that you're going to claim MUD has won every major event since March without looking at April or May...

I haven't aggregated April or May data yet, but that doesn't mean I haven't looked at it.

The largest two tournaments of the year thus far are the Bazaar of Moxen and the the Dday.  MUD won both:

170 players: http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1237

Then, much more recently:

347 players: http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1276

4 of the top 8 decks were MUD, at the largest tournament of the year (and likely will remain so).

[Rico Suave]

OK let me put this in simple language.  Here are the winners of the major events in the mid-Atlantic area going through March:

-MUD (the event in this thread)
-Drain Tendrils
-Dredge
-Fish
-Bob Tendrils
-Fish
-TPS
-MUD

If you are here to tell us MUD is a good deck, you will get no objection from me.

If you are here to tell us MUD is the best deck, and there should be no doubt about this, you are clearly mistaken. 

[voltron00x]

It's an interpretation issue.  When we're not careful, we see whatever we want to see in the data.

Stephen adds weight to events based on size, which I agree with, however he struggles to understand regional influence; in recent years, MUD has almost always been a better performer in Europe than it has in the States.  Both of these events are in Europe, therefore MUD's performance is not surprising.  Further, unless I missed it, there was no meta breakdown for BOM.  What if there were 250 MUD decks in the field of 347 - would it still be the best deck then?

I'll give you another example - I can go back and pull results from the majority of large European Legacy events over the past 18 months, including a GP, that suggest ANT is the best deck in Legacy; however, Stephen would pull excel graphs of SCG $5K data over the same time period to refute me.  I could claim that the Euro tournaments were larger and therefore, more significant.  Does that make me correct?  Or would both be wrong in ignoring obvious regional differences in the metagame that allow a deck to flourish in one place but not in another?

Saying MUD is the best deck is fine, but its an opinion that you're not going to be able to back up with results from the US.  Choosing only large European events reflects selection bias.

[v4ino]

One of my all time favorite short reads, I suggest anyone who will be going on a short plane ride pick it up.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275400586&sr=1-1

[Smmenen]

It's an interpretation issue.  When we're not careful, we see whatever we want to see in the data.

Stephen adds weight to events based on size, which I agree with, however he struggles to understand regional influence; in recent years, MUD has almost always been a better performer in Europe than it has in the States.  Both of these events are in Europe, therefore MUD's performance is not surprising.  Further, unless I missed it, there was no meta breakdown for BOM.  What if there were 250 MUD decks in the field of 347 - would it still be the best deck then?

I'll give you another example - I can go back and pull results from the majority of large European Legacy events over the past 18 months, including a GP, that suggest ANT is the best deck in Legacy; however, Stephen would pull excel graphs of SCG $5K data over the same time period to refute me.  I could claim that the Euro tournaments were larger and therefore, more significant.  Does that make me correct?  Or would both be wrong in ignoring obvious regional differences in the metagame that allow a deck to flourish in one place but not in another?

Saying MUD is the best deck is fine, but its an opinion that you're not going to be able to back up with results from the US.  Choosing only large European events reflects selection bias.

I don't think you understand my methodology.  I don't weight larger tournaments; I exclude small tournaments.

If a tournament is less than 33 players, it's excluded.   That's because you can win three matches and draw into top 8 in small tournaments.  Requiring 6 rounds of swiss ensures that every Top 8 statistic has to go through.

Your analogy also doesn't hold up.   there weren't any large european events to compare to the SCG circuit, aside from a single GP.   If we had SCG like data in Europe, then there would have been a real question.  There wasn't.   In any case, the only major data source from Europe, the GP data, was data *I* compiled, since Wizards sent me the lists.  

One of my all time favorite short reads, I suggest anyone who will be going on a short plane ride pick it up.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275400586&sr=1-1

There is a famous phrase, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics,"

Yes, everyone knows that Statistics can mislead.   Saying Statistics lie isn't a license to dismiss or ignore them.  

There is such an anti-empirical attitude among so many Eternal players, it's a little bit shocking.   It goes back to the whole theory thing I wrote about a few weeks ago.

[voltron00x]

It's an interpretation issue.  When we're not careful, we see whatever we want to see in the data.

Stephen adds weight to events based on size, which I agree with, however he struggles to understand regional influence; in recent years, MUD has almost always been a better performer in Europe than it has in the States.  Both of these events are in Europe, therefore MUD's performance is not surprising.  Further, unless I missed it, there was no meta breakdown for BOM.  What if there were 250 MUD decks in the field of 347 - would it still be the best deck then?

I'll give you another example - I can go back and pull results from the majority of large European Legacy events over the past 18 months, including a GP, that suggest ANT is the best deck in Legacy; however, Stephen would pull excel graphs of SCG $5K data over the same time period to refute me.  I could claim that the Euro tournaments were larger and therefore, more significant.  Does that make me correct?  Or would both be wrong in ignoring obvious regional differences in the metagame that allow a deck to flourish in one place but not in another?

Saying MUD is the best deck is fine, but its an opinion that you're not going to be able to back up with results from the US.  Choosing only large European events reflects selection bias.

I don't think you understand my methodology.  I don't weight larger tournaments; I exclude small tournaments.

If a tournament is less than 33 players, it's excluded.   That's because you can win three matches and draw into top 8 in small tournaments.  Requiring 6 rounds of swiss ensures that every Top 8 statistic has to go through.

Your analogy also doesn't hold up.   there weren't any large european events to compare to the SCG circuit, aside from a single GP.   If we had SCG like data in Europe, then there would have been a real question.  There wasn't.   In any case, the only major data source from Europe, the GP data, was data *I* compiled, since Wizards sent me the lists.  

One of my all time favorite short reads, I suggest anyone who will be going on a short plane ride pick it up.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275400586&sr=1-1

There is a famous phrase, "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics,"

Yes, everyone knows that Statistics can mislead.   Saying Statistics lie isn't a license to dismiss or ignore them.  

There is such an anti-empirical attitude among so many Eternal players, it's a little bit shocking.   It goes back to the whole theory thing I wrote about a few weeks ago.

There have been a multitude of Legacy events in Europe that exceed the size of most of the $5Ks.  Where are you getting your data from?  It isn't correct.  

Deckcheck.net is blocked at work but I'll provide you links tonight.

[Prospero]

Peter Ingram took down Raf Forino in the finals in the Mud mirror.

The event was awesome and extremely well run. It makes me happy to live on Long Island so I can head down to these events. Looking forward to the next one.

MUD finally comes to America.

Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage?  It's won almost every major event this year since March.  

I have a tough time believing you here Steve.  A week ago you were on the record that TPS was your deck of choice.  Given your past history of "playing the best deck available"

I've never proclaimed such an ideology.    Sometimes I play the best deck (Tezzeret, Grow).  Sometimes I play a metagame deck (Mono Blue in 2004, Beats last year).  Sometimes I play a deck designed to beat the best deck, and well positioned in the field (TPS).

 
In our back and forth last summer, you maintained that you played decks that you held to be the best in the format.  Over the course of several threads, you mentioned that you abhorred "niche" pilots, and felt that a player should be well versed in multiple pillars.  Your evidence of your willingness to play the best decks in the format, the decks that you believed to be the best, involved you evidencing your playing TPS, Tezzeret, Workshops, Beats, Gro, etc.  

We're not dealing with an objective standard here - what the community believes to be the best decks in the format.  We're addressing your opinions, solely.

So, let's address them.

1.  You maintained that you played the decks that you believed to be the best in the format.

2.  You gave an interview to Brian DeMars in which you said that you would play TPS right now.  

3.  You claim that MUD is the best deck in Vintage, and that it has been since March.


So, following only what you have previously said, this means that you have contradicted yourself.  This leads an objective viewer to one of the following conclusions:

1.  You don't play the decks that you believe to be the best in the format (a dubious claim to make - which contradicts your statements over last summer).

2.  You didn't believe that MUD was the best deck in the format a week ago when you spoke to Brian DeMars.  (Though you now claim that it's the best pillar since March).

3.  You have changed your opinion in a weeks time.

4.  You're up to something else entirely.

Brad has given a rundown of the decks that have won in the Mid Atlantic in the last weeks and months.  N.Y.S.E. VI and N.Y.S.E. VII both had more than 33 players, so we're not going to concern ourselves with your cutoffs.  Blue Bell Game Day #3 fell outside your 33 player boundary, so it is excluded.  This, however, means that all the decks that Brad mentioned, save Dredge, have warranted inclusion in the metagame.  

MUD has won one N.Y.S.E. event.  Given that Ashok is a teammate of yours, you would know that he was not playing MUD when he won N.Y.S.E. VI.  This means that MUD has won one event in the Mid Atlantic in the last five months.

Let's take this a step further though.  Let's look at the lists that won.

First up, here's the list that won the BoM 4:

Fabian Moyschewitz - AggroMUD

4 Triskelion
4 Lodestone Golem
4 Metalworker
3 Karn, Silver Golem
4 Tangle Wire
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Sphere of Resistance
4 Thorn of Amethyst
2 Sword of Fire and Ice
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Tolarian Academy
2 Mishra's Factory
2 City of Traitors
4 Wasteland
1 Strip Mine
4 Mishra's Workshop
4 Ancient Tomb

SB:
4 Duplicant
4 Relic of Progenitus
3 Tormod's Crypt
2 Crucible of Worlds
2 Sculpting Steel

Here's the list that won N.Y.S.E. VIII:

1st - Peter Ingram
Espresso Stax

3 Chalice of the Void
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring
3 Powder Keg
4 Sphere of Resistance
1 Thorn of Amethyst
4 Crucible of Worlds
4 Serum Powder
4 Tangle Wire
1 Trinisphere
4 Lodestone Golem
4 Smokestack
3 Karn, Silver Golem
1 Strip Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
3 Rishadan Port
4 Ancient Tomb
4 Mishra’s Workshop
4 Wasteland

SB:
4 Leyline of the Void
3 Tormod’s Crypt
3 Pithing Needle
2 Duplicant
3 Maze of Ith

We can differentiate Oath lists between Dragon Oath and Iona Oath.  We can differentiate Tezz lists between Jace Tezz and Bob or Remora Tezz.  We can differentiate Dredge lists between Turtle Dredge and Icky Sticky.  We can't, apparently, differentiate Shop lists.  You just call them all MUD.  

One of these decks is Shop Aggro.  The other is Shop Prison.  

If you're looking to call attention to the supposed dominance of the deck, I would ask that you at least maintain consistency.  These two decks are nothing alike, whatsoever.  

This then takes me to the next point.  If MUD is so dominant, it would lead one to believe, at least reading what you've written, that we are discussing a MUD variant with a few differences.  When we differentiate between the aforementioned lists of other pillars, we are generally talking about a 5-8 card difference.  You call both these decks MUD, make no further differentiations between the two, and I'm left wondering if you would have done the same if the Tezzeret metagame pre-June 2009 restrictions.

In this instance, we are talking about a maindeck that is 31.67% different.  The sideboard is 67% different.  Yes, both decks run Workshops.  This makes them part of the Workshop pillar.  Can you please tell me why you can call both of these decks MUD, when one is clearly more related to Shop Aggro, and one is more clearly related to a straight Prison build?  Your nomenclature is misleading.  At the very least, I think it warrants an admonishment given the confusion that this creates.  

I do not recall MUD winning any other events in the U.S. in the last five months.  If you have evidence to prove otherwise I would be quite appreciative.  You call MUD the deck to beat in Vintage, since March, and yet I'm left seeing a single victory, a completely different deck that took down a tournament in Europe, and nothing more.  What does all of this mean?  

[Smmenen]

MUD won the Meandeck Open, beating two Oath decks(including Paul M) and my TPS list in the Top 8.   You can find the results in the tournament results forum.  

I would play TPS at a tournament tomorrow (the TPS list that is currently holed up in the adept forum, which will be published as soon as the forum reorg occurs), only because it's tuned to beat MUD, or a Tez list tuned to beat MUd.    

If I said last summer that I only play the best deck, then I created the wrong impression.  I am not a best deck zealot.  I care more about positioning than some conception of the best deck.  

I wrote about MUD in my Worldwake set review (even proposed a list) and observed/helped as Ashok developed a MUD list on our team.  

You're reading too much into this.  I'm simply saying that I think MUD is probably the best deck in Vintage right now.  My support is the fact that it's won 66% of tournaments in March, was 33% of top 8s in march (which is astounding), and has won the two largest tournaments of the year.   I haven't aggregated April and May data yet, but from a quick scan of the four tournaments of 33 or more players, Workshops appear to have won two of them, and MUD won one of those four (not counting this NYSE event).  

MUD has alot of tools to combat each of the metagame threats.   Don't read too much into what I'm saying.   I'm simply observing that -- at this point in time -- MUD appears to be the best deck in the format, at least in terms of tournament data.   Sorry I set off this debate.  

[Iron_Chef]

MUD won the Meandeck Open, beating two Oath decks(including Paul M) and my TPS list in the Top 8.   You can find the results in the tournament results forum.  

We had 23 players from 4 states.  

Results after a top 8 playoff:

1st Place:
Randy Hollis
4 Mishra’s Workshop
4 Ancient Tomb
2 City of Traitors
4 Wasteland
2 Mishra’s Factory
1 Strip Mine
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Metalworker
4 Lodestone Golem
3 Karn, Silver Golem
4 Triskelion
2 Sword of Fire and Ice
4 Chalice of the Void
4 Sphere of Resistance
4 Thorn of Amethyst
4 Tangle Wire
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Jet
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Black Lotus
1 Sol Ring
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault

Sideboard:
2 Razormane Masticore
2 Duplicant
2 Sculting Steel
2 Crucible of Worlds
4 Relic of Progenitus

I lol'ed

[Smmenen]

He asked if MUD has won any Vintage tournaments in the US.   

I do not recall MUD winning any other events in the U.S. in the last five months.  If you have evidence to prove otherwise I would be quite appreciative.

I don't count tournaments with less than 33 players when I aggregate data, but he asked if MUD has won ANY other Vintage tournaments in the US, and I answered his question.   There is no inconsistency there.   

It has won several:

http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1257
http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1256
http://www.morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1233

[voltron00x]

As much as I love "pile on Menendian" day as much as the next guy, I think the point's been made.

The issue isn't what you said, man.  It's perfectly ok to say, "I think MUD might be the best deck in Vintage right now."  A lot of people would agree.

The problem is that you said this: "Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage? "

One can easily infer that you're suggesting it would be ignorant to believe any deck besides MUD is the best in Vintage, as if there is overwhelming evidence to back this up, when in fact there is not.  Some evidence, yes.  Overwhelming to the extent that doubt is erased?  Hardly.

While the opinion is valid, I think there are plenty of people who could rightly claim that, in fact, Drain Tendrils / Beaverstorm OR Elephant Oath are the best decks in American Vintage, based on 2010's performance to date.  So, to literally answer what you said:  yes, there really is doubt, but it is within the realm of reason to suggest MUD is the best deck in Vintage at the moment.

It's just a matter of tone.  Reign it in a little, dude!  Not every opinion needs to be stated in EXTREME INTELLECTUAL HYPERBOLE!!!

[Iron_Chef]

I never said there was an inconsistency, I LOL'ed.

Why, did I LOL?

Over many different arguments you repeatedly defend ONLY using data from tournaments that have 33 or more players in them, since tournaments that are 5 rounds or less don't account for the swingy nature of vintage and decks can get "lucky" more in those tournaments then others.  I think that whatever won the Meandeck Open was irrelevant and should never have been brought up, since it was only 23 players.  MUD doesn't get any more respect from me because someone (could have) got the round 1 bye, lucksacked two matches, and did well in the top 8.  Unless you want to open the floodgates of "a tournament's size doesn't matter when discussing a deck's performance" then I suggest you not use any more examples like the Meandeck Open.  I'm sure it was a well run, and fun event, but in the scheme of things, the results don't mean anything beyond the local group of players.

Also, on a different note, I (and many others) view Europe and America as two distinct metagames.  Frankly, I don't care what won in Europe, and I think the definition of a "best deck" changes tournament to tournament based on the expected field, size of the tournament, your level of skill with a certain deck, etc etc.  (A statement I'm sure you agree with, as evidenced by your choice to play well-positioned metagame hate decks, such as GW Beats).

[voltron00x]

"Metagame hate decks" - man, you might as well just go stab him in the eye with a blade made of salt, lol.

[Smmenen]

Also, on a different note, I (and many others) view Europe and America as two distinct metagames.  

If that were true, then why are the results between American and European tournaments so similar? 

[Iron_Chef]

Also, on a different note, I (and many others) view Europe and America as two distinct metagames.  

If that were true, then why are the results between American and European tournaments so similar?  

I will answer this, but then I'm done.  I refuse to be a part of a 13 page argument where you cross examine single sentences as an attempt to invalidate an entire statement. It does nothing but waste forum-goers' time and eventually the moderators' time.  This is where I see this thread going.

They are so similar because both distinct metagames are playing Magic: The Gathering, using the Vintage banned and restricted list.

[Smmenen]

As much as I love "pile on Menendian" day as much as the next guy, I think the point's been made.

The issue isn't what you said, man.  It's perfectly ok to say, "I think MUD might be the best deck in Vintage right now."  A lot of people would agree.

The problem is that you said this: "Is there really any doubt that MUD is the best deck in Vintage? "

Touche.   Yes, I was being hyperbolic.     I do think that MUD is probably one of, if not the, best deck in Vintage at the moment.

[voltron00x]

Your analogy also doesn't hold up.   there weren't any large european events to compare to the SCG circuit, aside from a single GP.

Time for fact-checking!

100+ player legacy events in Europe since GP Chicago:

http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1277 (498 players); ANT 4th
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1194 (270 players); Zoo and Aggro Loam dominated this one
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1135 (285 players); ANT 1st
http://morphling.de/top8decks.php?id=1054 (474 players); ANT 2nd

I didn't show 3 events with 98 players and 1 with 92.  Interestingly, most of the these tournaments show results that predate similar trends at SCG, including an event dominated by Aggro Loam, one where Enchantress made the finals, as well as consistent placement by Zoo and Merfolk.  Even Enlightened Tutor control broke in Europe before a $5K.

But wait, that's just Morphing!  How about Deckcheck:

http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=The+Reckoning+2010 (104 players)
http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=D-Day+3+-+Firenze+/+Italy (178 players) ANT top 8
http://www.deckcheck.net/event.php?event=GPT+Madrid+2010+-+Bourgoin-Jallieu+%2F+France (133 players) ANT top 8

Etc.  That's just from Deckcheck for 2010!  Plenty of similar events through 2009.  Where on earth you're getting your info on Euro Legacy from is beyond me...