Just want to pick out these two bits.
I think these 2 paragraphs best highlight the flaws in your logic and reasoning with this analysis. GoTN are clearly a skilled and capable alliance, but they also have absolutely insane online activity and gold usage. Early game (we're still early game), this can distort the statistics. I'd wager other alliances are more fleshed out, and it would be naive to suggest that low/no gold accounts can't produce fantastic results.
The most recent server I played was UK2. The accounts in my ally that were actually useful did not correlate with pop or raiders - they literally ranged right from rank 1 to rank 55, and it was the accounts with a good plan and dedication that were useful. There were top raiding accounts who were never online to send attacks on ally ops and got 0 use of their hammers. There was top population accounts that had barely any troops made, and a terrible strategy for making them. An account with 42 villages devoted the entire server to making a WWK, and by the end he had 100k clubs. The stats really aren't that important.
This analysis is good for one thing - it points out that Losers have high gold high raiding early game accounts, which have some potential, but it's limited due to the sheer lack of numbers in the ally. Averages literally mean nothing in this game - if you have 5 amazing accounts vs 500 normal accounts, the 500 will win.
I think we all knew Losers had high averages anyways, as it's plainly obvious from their highly selective recruitment or a quick glance of top 10. What's interesting is what they have done (?)/what they will do with these accounts outside of having high ranking statistics. The analysis chastises all other alliances for poor fighting, but I've yet to see a single report from SE - do you have anything to show for your insane stats yet?
). I think he is an English teacher....
