In a recent post-match interview, Bleed Esports Valorant coach LEGIJA shared that yay has made the decision to not participate in Chamber’s gameplay.
Prior to joining the Pacific League, yay gained recognition as one of the top Chamber players globally. His preference for sniper-focused sentinel gameplay perfectly suited his style, rendering him nearly unbeatable in both long and short-range confrontations.
Despite being known for his aggressive playstyle and earning the nickname El Diablo, yay’s current team Bleed has mostly seen him playing as Raze. This decision has been attributed to yay’s own preferences, according to the head coach.
BLEED Esports coach says that they offered yay to play Chamber, but it’s yay’s decision to play Raze. byu/kirito52999 inValorantCompetitive
According to LEGIJA, Yay declined to play Chamber and instead chose to stick with Raze. Despite offering him the option to change, Yay felt comfortable on Raze and performed well in practice, making LEGIJA believe that he is a strong player on that agent.
Even though LEGIJA has claimed that Raze has been performing strongly as yay, his performances in matches have been disappointing. In the eight matches where yay played as Raze, he only achieved a 0.74 KD with a total of 93 kills and 126 deaths.
Jett, who is his second most-played agent, has been more successful. In six matches, he has achieved 88 kills and only 82 deaths, resulting in a promising 1.07 KD ratio. Although yay is the main duelist for Bleed, he has faced difficulties in consistently getting kills for his team.
Bleed currently holds a 1-4 record in the Alpha group of VCT Pacific, placing them on par with DFM as the league’s lowest-ranked team. The CEO of Bleed recently acknowledged his team’s underwhelming performance and their dashed hopes of making it to the playoffs.
It is currently uncertain whether yay will switch to a different agent in the future or stick with Raze. However, the team is confident that having yay play as Raze is the best course of action for now.
Leave a Reply