[Discussion] Goblins, Still Viable?

[Amon Amarth]

After reading Anwar's latest article detailing the decline of Goblins I found myself confused. It wasn't a poorly written article, I just didn't agree with the majority of his conclusions. I think he is underestimating the effects of the new cards being adopted whether they be Warren Weirding, Goblin Chieftain or whatnot.

I also do not believe the deck needs to undergo any drastic changes to remain competitive. Adjusting the last 4 slots in the deck can drastically improve your matchups. For example, if I was expecting to play against multiple Zoo decks in a tournament, which is very likely, I would strongly consider playing 4 Lightning Bolts to make it easier to allow you to play the Control deck in the early/midgame, make your land drops and then crap out a ton of dorks. Extra reach is never a bad thing either.

If you expected Tribal Aggro then Pyrokinesis in the sideboard is a bomb as well as 1/2 Goblin Sharpshooters in the main. I think people have forgotten, understandably, how insane Sharpshooter is against decks filled with small dorks. It makes combat a losing proposition against Goblins and with 2 on the board its GG. Mogg Fanatic is also quite good here and shines against Survival variants, Ichorid and randomness.

Another card that I have recently been very happy with is Mogg War-Marshall. It was suggested in the Goblin thread awhile back and initially I was skeptical. He seemed really bad. But l started to play with him and he rocks. He does what this deck always wants to do, put more goblins into play. I also run 2 goblin Chieftain to really make him shine. 2 mana for 4 power of creatures is pretty solid. The guy chumps really well, Fogging your opponents Tarmogoyf.

When you look at the numbers there is little evidence of Goblins decline. It placed well at the last 2 Large tourneys: GP Chicago and SCG 5K. It has been present at enough smaller events that it remains a DTB/DTW here. Am I missing something?

What do you guys think about this?

Edit: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/17879_Practical_Legacy_Where_Have_All_The_Goblins_Gone.html

[TeenieBopper]

Is it viable? Sure. Goblins can be tuned for pretty much anything but a storm combo metagame.

Best aggro choice? Not even close. If you want to play tribal aggro, play merfolk. If you want to play straight up melt your face aggro (which many people confuse goblins with) play Zoo. Both are better.

[emidln]

Is it viable? Sure. Goblins can be tuned for pretty much anything but a storm combo metagame.

Best aggro choice? Not even close. If you want to play tribal aggro, play merfolk. If you want to play straight up melt your face aggro (which many people confuse goblins with) play Zoo. Both are better.

Says someone who's obviously never lost to crack fetch->plateau, orim's chant. Goblins is a really sketchy matchup for storm combo if Goblins is packing Chants/Chalices. Thankfully, most Goblins players would rather beat matchups that exist at tournaments rather than gun for the small percentage of storm players.

[DragoFireheart]

Goblins will always be viable in some shape or form.

[Mantis]

It largely depends on the metagame. In The Netherlands, the better players mostly run Merfolk, CB Top or Landstill and Goblins (with Ports obv) has a fairly good matchup against those decks.

From what I get, there's a lot more Zoo in the US and a lot less Merfolk so it might be that you'd be better served playing a different deck over there.

Just as with any deck Goblins has good and bad matchups so it's really a matter of what you expect to come across whether Goblins is a good choice or not. Contrary to what everyone has been saying, Goblins has a pretty even Storm combo matchup if you side in 4 REBs and 4 Chalices and aggressively mulligan as Wasteland and Port count as disruption pieces as well. Key to this matchup is really mulliganning hands that don't pressure enough and lack disruption. Sideboarding properly is key to winning this matchup. I actually have a winning record against Storm combo now but it took me some time to figure out how to combat them.

[rockout]

I don't think goblins would still be atleast DTW if it wasn't viable. Its still fairly cheap and can still cheaty face wins with a t1 lackey against an unprepared opponent or a slow hand on the opponent side. Wizards will continue to print goblins, merfolk, zombies, elves, ... so on.

[ScatmanX]

Goblins is back to DTB now, just for the record.

[Skeggi]

It largely depends on the metagame. In The Netherlands, the better players mostly run Merfolk, CB Top or Landstill and Goblins (with Ports obv) has a fairly good matchup against those decks.

From what I get, there's a lot more Zoo in the US and a lot less Merfolk so it might be that you'd be better served playing a different deck over there.
You have a very skiewed vision of the Dutch meta.

Back on topic: yes Goblins is still very viable. I think Zoo isn't more aggressive; it's more consistent. Goblins can explode in your opponent's face and go batshitcrazy on him, or it can totally fizzle and just sit there with a single Piledriver. Any form of Goblins is also more resistant to nonbasic land hate and CB because of Aether Vial. Zoo could play Aether Vial, but would rather play something else most of the cases to maintain tempo.

[GreenOne]

Let's look at the decks that succeded in the last couple months, in order.


DECKS TO BEAT:
CounterTop - 247 points in 34 placements (of which 92 UGBW, 76 UGW, 39 UGR, 38 playing NO/Prog, 28 UGB) - Favourable
Merfolk - 236 points in 30 placements (of which 201 U, 35 UG) - Bye
Tempo Thresh - 219 points in 31 placements (of which 206 UGR) - Fair*
Zoo - 187 points in 25 placements (of which 137 RGW, 28 5C) - Fair*
Goblins - 151 points in 20 placements (of which 51 RGB, 22 R, 39 RG, 32 RW, 7 RB) - 50-50

DECKS TO WATCH:
Landstill - 138 points in 19 placements (of which 90 UWB, 35 UWBG) - Fair*
ANT - 121 points in 16 placements - 10-90


OTHERS:
Ichorid - 88 points in 12 placements - Fair*
Faeries - 85 points in 12 placements (35 points from "pure" Faeries, in the others they are mixed with other archetypes, from Tempo Thresh to Ninjas) - Pure faeries are a bye, others maybe are fair*
AggroLoam - 84 points in 11 placements (33 points from builds splashing White for Knight of the Reliquary) - Fair*
How is this NOT viable? Seems to have decent/good mathups against the field, with the second most successfull deck in the format being a bye!

*Fair = 60/40 to 40/60

[Amon Amarth]

Back on topic: yes Goblins is still very viable. I think Zoo isn't more aggressive; it's more consistent. Goblins can explode in your opponent's face and go batshitcrazy on him, or it can totally fizzle and just sit there with a single Piledriver.

Actually, the inverse is true. Zoo is more aggressive than Goblins. It has better standalone creatures that are cheaper than what Goblins can offer. Zoo also has much more reach as well. How can an Aggro deck that curves out at 2 be less aggressive than Goblins which curves out at 5?

Goblins is the more consistent deck because it has a card advantage engine. The deck runs primarily on red mana with light splashes, usually, and there is little chance of mana screw. Vial and Lackey help here too. Goblins is probably the most consistent deck in Legacy. You are only trying to accomplish one thing- play lots of Goblins and take advantage of their Tribal synergies.

[Mantis]

@Skeggi: Okay, I'll take it from you, I don't play nearly as much tournaments as I'd like due to time constraints. That was a possible explanation. You can not deny however that there is a lot of Faeries and CB Top in the Dutch metagame, but sure Legacy is a format with tons of viable decks which are all being played.

[Skeggi]

What I meant with Goblins being more aggressive is that a connecting Lackey can result in complete and utter brokenness of aggression. If Lackey connects, with a bit of luck Goblins becomes far more aggresive any Zoo deck can be.

And no, the Dutch metagame contains suprisingly few CB Top and even fewer Faeries. Yesterday, at the 26 player tournament in The Joker, there was 0 Faeries, 2 CB Top in the form of Dreadstill, 3 Merfolk, 2 Goblins, 4 Zoo and 4 Combo (and ofcourse a bunch of other decks like Landstill, The Rock, Elves, Tempo Thresh...).

[AnwarA101]

After reading Anwar's latest article detailing the decline of Goblins I found myself confused. It wasn't a poorly written article, I just didn't agree with the majority of his conclusions. I think he is underestimating the effects of the new cards being adopted whether they be Warren Weirding, Goblin Chieftain or whatnot.

I also do not believe the deck needs to undergo any drastic changes to remain competitive. Adjusting the last 4 slots in the deck can drastically improve your matchups. For example, if I was expecting to play against multiple Zoo decks in a tournament, which is very likely, I would strongly consider playing 4 Lightning Bolts to make it easier to allow you to play the Control deck in the early/midgame, make your land drops and then crap out a ton of dorks. Extra reach is never a bad thing either.


This is an interesting way to start discussion of the article. I almost missed this thread because I couldn't tell if it was about the article.

I would love to see what you consider the 56 slots in the deck that are set.


When you look at the numbers there is little evidence of Goblins decline. It placed well at the last 2 Large tourneys: GP Chicago and SCG 5K. It has been present at enough smaller events that it remains a DTB/DTW here. Am I missing something?

What do you guys think about this?

Edit: http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/legacy/17879_Practical_Legacy_Where_Have_All_The_Goblins_Gone.html

With the little metagame information that we have about most tournaments at least in the US its hard to know exactly how many Goblin decks are seeing play, but I think its almost certain that it is substantially lower than it was in the previous years. This is based on the limited metagame information and some anecdotal information where I see the deck less and less at these larger tournaments and its success in America is way down from its historical highs. It almost impossible to argue that Goblins Top 8 performances have not substantially dropped in the past couple of years and again I'm primarily concerned with US East Coast metagame. You look at the fact that Goblins is a DTW/DTB, but you look at the data a bit closer and you will realize that almost none of the tournaments were American which by definition means that most of its Top8s occurred outside the US.

[Mantis]

I meant Merfolk, not Faeries. Sorry for the mixup.

There were exactly 0 Zoo decks in the last two tournaments I participated in (which I both won and split the finals with Goblins) although there was quite a bit of combo as you described. Counter Top, Merfolk, Landstill and combo were the only the only decks I saw competing in both the tournaments, hence my statement. But no tournament is the same and the metagame obviously varies from time to time.

[Omega]

Yesterday at a 33 men time walk tournament, there was 1 goblin that easily cleared his way to the top 4. (Undefeated in the Swiss). I've spoken with the player and he told me he actually beat every merfolks (notice the s) and Zoos (Ibid) that he met in the Swiss rounds. He believe Goblin has a good/fair match against those two archetypes. Against Merfolk, we all know why Piledriver is so good (Protection blue).
We agreed that Goblins isn't a bad deck. It has declined because people (in our metagame at least), moved to blue based aggro-control

By the way, I made top 2 and split the prizes with my opponent :D. And for those who are still bashing Ultimate Walker, that's what he was playing!

Robert

[GreenOne]

I would love to see what you consider the 56 slots in the deck that are set.
Well, looking at the recent Top8s and at the discussion in the Goblins thread, it's quite clear:

Goblins:
18/20 lands
4 Wastelands

4 Aether Vial

4 Lackey
4 Matron
4 Warchief
4 Piledriver
4 Ringleader
2 SGC
6 Creature removal slots (between Gempalm, Weirding, Stingscourger or non-goblins)

4-6 open slots for what you prefer.

There's some people cutting Piledriver or even Warchief, but if you look at the mainstream, here it is.

[AnwarA101]

Well, looking at the recent Top8s and at the discussion in the Goblins thread, it's quite clear:

Goblins:
18/20 lands
4 Wastelands

4 Aether Vial

4 Lackey
4 Matron
4 Warchief
4 Piledriver
4 Ringleader
2 SGC
6 Creature removal slots (between Gempalm, Weirding, Stingscourger or non-goblins)

4-6 open slots for what you prefer.

There's some people cutting Piledriver or even Warchief, but if you look at the mainstream, here it is.

This seems pretty much the deck from like 4 years ago. This was one of my points in the article. Goblins is really tinkering around the edges and that is not really working all that well. A Top 8 without Goblins was pretty surprising in the past, but now it misses Top 8 at many larger tournaments.

[GreenOne]

This seems pretty much the deck from like 4 years ago. This was one of my points in the article. Goblins is really tinkering around the edges and that is not really working all that well. A Top 8 without Goblins was pretty surprising in the past, but now it misses Top 8 at many larger tournaments.
Well, this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=10324) is exactly the same maindeck from what Top8ed at gencon last week, with only 6 slots difference, and that deck was from 2 years ago (actually, EXACTLY 2 years ago, 17th August 2007)

Tinkering around the edges is enough when you already have a good deck, and goblins is indeed a good deck, even if not played in mass like it was.
Do you remember the days when 1/3 of the field was goblins? This is not the case anymore. ANd of course goblin is going to get less Top8s. This doesn't mean it's a bad choice, a tier2 deck, a non-competitive one or an unviable deck.

The rest of the decks gained some powerful tools to work with. Goblins had some new stuff too (Weirding, Wort, Chieftain, Tin Street, Stingscourger, War Marshall, Crafter+kiki combo, etc). People is starting to explore those new deals now, driven by the fact that 4 slots devoted to fanatic are now open for discussion.

I do believe that where you live Goblins might be an awful deck, but this doesn't mean it's lost all that power you're claiming. It just means it's not viable in that meta.

Not being the Top deck in the format also means that people getting into Legacy are more likely to build a blue based aggrocontrol, knowing that they're gonna have the best deck in the format and also a card pool that is going to acquire value and allow to build a huge number of decks in the future. This is one of the reasons goblins is less played than it was, and one of the reasons he's getting less Top8s.

I wonder if someone has some datas about how many goblin decks enter a tournament and how many of those are Top8ing, compared with other decks. Results can be surprising.

[Amon Amarth]

What I meant with Goblins being more aggressive is that a connecting Lackey can result in complete and utter brokenness of aggression. If Lackey connects, with a bit of luck Goblins becomes far more aggresive any Zoo deck can be.

Fair enough. :P



With the little metagame information that we have about most tournaments at least in the US its hard to know exactly how many Goblin decks are seeing play, but I think its almost certain that it is substantially lower than it was in the previous years. This is based on the limited metagame information and some anecdotal information where I see the deck less and less at these larger tournaments and its success in America is way down from its historical highs. It almost impossible to argue that Goblins Top 8 performances have not substantially dropped in the past couple of years and again I'm primarily concerned with US East Coast metagame. You look at the fact that Goblins is a DTW/DTB, but you look at the data a bit closer and you will realize that almost none of the tournaments were American which by definition means that most of its Top8s occurred outside the US.

When Goblins was king there were only a few, acknowledged, decks that were viable. Today there are many more viable decks in Legacy than when Goblins was the best deck. Many of them just as strong as the former juggernaut. Its only natural for people to play different decks after playing Goblins for so long, especially when there are so many viable decks to play these days.

Also where does it matter if a deck T8's at? It's all the same if its here or Europe or Antarctica for all I care.

[beastman]

Also where does it matter if a deck T8's at? It's all the same if its here or Europe or Antarctica for all I care.

The metagame shifts dramatically wherever you go. A deck such as goblins is probably the worst deck to play in a region where zoo and goyf sligh are popular. Also, there are regions where the metagame is much more casual. Look at results throughout the New york area, Virginia area, and Mass-a-chew-sits. Those are probably THE most highly competetive tournaments in the world right now.

[AnwarA101]

Well, this (http://www.deckcheck.net/deck.php?id=10324) is exactly the same maindeck from what Top8ed at gencon last week, with only 6 slots difference, and that deck was from 2 years ago (actually, EXACTLY 2 years ago, 17th August 2007)

Tinkering around the edges is enough when you already have a good deck, and goblins is indeed a good deck, even if not played in mass like it was.
Do you remember the days when 1/3 of the field was goblins? This is not the case anymore. ANd of course goblin is going to get less Top8s. This doesn't mean it's a bad choice, a tier2 deck, a non-competitive one or an unviable deck.

The rest of the decks gained some powerful tools to work with. Goblins had some new stuff too (Weirding, Wort, Chieftain, Tin Street, Stingscourger, War Marshall, Crafter+kiki combo, etc). People is starting to explore those new deals now, driven by the fact that 4 slots devoted to fanatic are now open for discussion.

I do believe that where you live Goblins might be an awful deck, but this doesn't mean it's lost all that power you're claiming. It just means it's not viable in that meta.

Not being the Top deck in the format also means that people getting into Legacy are more likely to build a blue based aggrocontrol, knowing that they're gonna have the best deck in the format and also a card pool that is going to acquire value and allow to build a huge number of decks in the future. This is one of the reasons goblins is less played than it was, and one of the reasons he's getting less Top8s.

I wonder if someone has some datas about how many goblin decks enter a tournament and how many of those are Top8ing, compared with other decks. Results can be surprising.

In Steven Menedian article about the SCG 5k in Boston (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17678_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Notes_on_NuVintage_and_a_Breakdown_of_the_SCG_Legacy_5K.html), here are the numbers for Goblins:

10/187 = 5.3% of the field
0/8 of the Top 8 = 0% of the Top 8
1/16 of the Top 16 = 6.25% of the Top 16

The numbers for Dreadstill, Canadian Threshold, Tendrils combo, Elves, Goyf Sligh, and others are better than Goblins (I stopped at some point).

For Eli's Lotus Tourney here are the numbers (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=358924&postcount=11)

10/132 = 7.57% of the field
0/8 of the Top 8 = 0% of the Top 8
1/16 of the Top 16 = 6.25% of the Top 16

The numbers for Eva Green and Zoo are better and this is with only limited data.

These are two of the largest events on the East Coast in the last several months.



Also where does it matter if a deck T8's at? It's all the same if its here or Europe or Antarctica for all I care.

I'm not saying it matters where it made Top 8, but my article made a point of making the distinction that I was especially talking about the East Coast of the US (the place where I play Legacy). It matters because my statement was far more limited in scope than I think some people took away from the article.

[ParkerLewis]

This seems pretty much the deck from like 4 years ago. This was one of my points in the article. Goblins is really tinkering around the edges and that is not really working all that well. A Top 8 without Goblins was pretty surprising in the past, but now it misses Top 8 at many larger tournaments.

This is kind of a sidenote, but I tend to find your recent articles a bit disappointing in the sense that they all feel like introductions.

I mean, after reading them, there is the feeling of having read a (nice, and certainly decent / relevant / exhaustive) summary / recap of what is already almost common knowledge on the subject. I'm not claiming it's always simple to be able to go past that, but that's still what a reader would expect from an article, analysis from the writer, solutions. An important of your articles feel like a simple narrative.

( Also, this is less important, but I felt the last ones severly lacked some kind of visual structure. I'm not saying the "I. this" then "II. that" is always good (sadly, it's actually rarely well emplyed / used (speaking in general, not about you in particular)), but it can easily better than the "wasteland" and this one's visual structure (there was none).

But to be fair, it's also linked to the previous more important point : it's probably difficult to see where you're going, not really because of lack of apparent structure (although this could help), but mostly because it's more a recap / narrative than a thought process (ie there is no real progression in the text).

Once again, please keep in mind i'm not claiming it's easy to write a weekly piece of solid analysis (or solid whatever, for that matter). These are just expressions of what I felt the last articles lacked. )

Maybe another way to see the problem is this : at the end of the article, what will the reader have learned or understood ? If you struggle for ideas on how to continue the article or in which direction to take the actual analysis (after the situation recap), maybe just ask yourself the preceding question. What did all of this mean ? What's next ? In the specific case of the Goblins article, and simply to give an example among probably a lot of possibilities that could better suit you, you could have tried to reverse your current conclusion and turn it into a question you'd have tried to solve : what can goblins do to reverse what I have witnessed / explained previously ?

Certainly nobody expects you to unveil The Solution here, but maybe this exhaustive research / reflexion you just did helped you gain a new vantage point. Maybe you're now just more ready to try more radical changes (random example : throwing Tarmogoyf in. yeah, i know, it's already been tried for sure. so what ? maybe people's inertia actually made it feel less recognized than it should have been. or whatever other idea you could have on the subject. of course, the goal probably isn't to stop at that, nor just add 4x Thoughtseize, name it Templar Goblins and call it a day, but i think you see what i mean). In short, let you creativity and Magic spirit loose. Even if in the end, your conclusion on the matter is that your idea didn't work, and as long as you're able to understand and explain why, there will be a valuable experience to learn from, possibly sparking new ideas either for a follow-up in a next article or for one of your readers.

Edit : actually, your last statements in the article really are interesting in this aspect. It really feels like a mine for a possible article (exposing ideas and implementations of such "radical changes"). Sincerely, it could certainly make for an upcoming article if you happen to have some ideas on the subject (and the point is the work you already did probably gave you some). Ideally, it would have all been in only one article (with the last one being a little condensed to make for an introduction), but it can certainly stand up on its legs without this introduction (you can always provide a link to the introductory article).

[GreenOne]

In Steven Menedian article about the SCG 5k in Boston (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/17678_So_Many_Insane_Plays_Notes_on_NuVintage_and_a_Breakdown_of_the_SCG_Legacy_5K.html), here are the numbers for Goblins:

10/187 = 5.3% of the field
0/8 of the Top 8 = 0% of the Top 8
1/16 of the Top 16 = 6.25% of the Top 16

The numbers for Dreadstill, Canadian Threshold, Tendrils combo, Elves, Goyf Sligh, and others are better than Goblins (I stopped at some point).

For Eli's Lotus Tourney here are the numbers (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=358924&postcount=11)

10/132 = 7.57% of the field
0/8 of the Top 8 = 0% of the Top 8
1/16 of the Top 16 = 6.25% of the Top 16

The numbers for Eva Green and Zoo are better and this is with only limited data.

These are two of the largest events on the East Coast in the last several months.
Yeah, I meant something not strictly referring to your east coast meta, but something I might care about. I've already said that goblins might be a bad deck there, but this doesn't mean it's a bad deck all around the globe:
I'd like to see some datas referring to different places. Here's a 116 players tourney (http://www.tipo1.it/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12082) with 3 goblins making top8 (and I heavily doubt there were 30 goblin players in the room).

Maybe I wasn't clear in the last posts: I'm not talking about your article, that might as well be the Holy Bible for Goblins in the East Coast. I just want to know if/how much Goblin is a viable deck, or is just a subpar but heavily played one. If this is somehow true, I'd probably just put it on a shelf and get a bit more of free time to spend on combo decks.

[Nessaja]

These are two of the largest events on the East Coast in the last several months.
These are just plain unfair comparisons, we all know that Goblins is much more likely to be picked up as a first legacy deck then any other deck out there. It appeals to the masses. You're comparing them in a vacuum while there is much more to consider.

[Pulp_Fiction]

Mass results aside, in my local card shop Goblins is still commonly played, but unless they play against only blue decks, they end up getting thrashed.

I think Goblins is viable in the right meta, but that meta needs to consist of a lot of CB Thresh, at least 80% of the meta. Because this is the honest truth, in terms of pure speed and aggression, Zoo is better. In every imaginable way Zoo is better, it has better creatures, burn, and in the late game is has creatures that are big enough to actually matter rather than 1/1s and 2/2s. It has relatively good combo hate in Teeg, Canonist, and Null Rod (Goblins could cut Vial and board in).

Probably most importantly, Zoo does not need more than 2 creatures in play to put the opponent on a savagely fast clock AND not all of the creatures in Zoo die to Pyroclasm, Volcanic Fallout, and Firespout. Zoo is capable of burning the opponent out and does not need to swing for the win. Etc., Zoo simply outclasses Goblins in everyway except for the CB matchup which is where Goblins can be better because they run higher CC creatures.

I think that sums it up, if you want to play an aggro deck Goblins is not a bad choice, but Zoo is simply better.

[Wargoos]

I think the main reason for goblins being viable is that it's an aggro deck with a CA engine.
Good players can convert that into such positive boardpositions that it's very hard to beat, no matter what deck you are playing.
In the hands of an intelligent, good magic player, goblins is just scary.

Zoo does not offer a draw engine and is pretty beatable when in topdeck mode.
Also it's easier to master, although u have to manage your ressources more effectively.

Nevertheless you can't really compare those two decks.
Zoo is obviously more tempo oriented and has the advantage of a (possibly) better early game.
But goblins is still one of the decks with the strongest mid- and lategame of magic with the ability to randomly
jump into the opponents face.

[Nessaja]

I think the main reason for goblins being viable is that it's an aggro deck with a CA engine.
Good players can convert that into such positive boardpositions that it's very hard to beat, no matter what deck you are playing.
In the hands of an intelligent, good magic player, goblins is just scary.

This

I think the main problem with Goblins is that compared to the total amount of people playing the deck, relatively few actually really know how to play it. Especially when dealing with decks that pack mass removal you need to make the right plays and the right mulligans. Note; I'm not one of those players that is truly good with Goblins, even though I have the deck and play it for fun, but I know people that are.

Aside from that, I think Goblins has a better control matchup then Zoo does.