Why would I say it's bad?
They were running good strategies just not yours (which has been another point I'm making you seem to think your strat and way of doing things is the only "good" one) and just not ones that worked well for what they had available (r6 units or just more of them would've 100% solved the problems in the formations I saw), splitting tanking, using expendable, longer lasting units over still likely to die less expendable ones, in fact, some were similar, understanding Maulers tankiness and using that, etc.
Their strategies would have worked and, if we are going by t10 standards, sometimes did work, in less but still some cases even for t11. (I took the player's targets into account when I said they were struggling)
The problem was they picked a strategy that didn't work for what they had access to... they either didn't have the right units, enough of them, or have them ranked up.
there are three prongs, all are about equally important and dependant on the type of player.
A good strat won't save you from bad rng, just like a lot of units won't save you from a poor strat. Neither works all that well with unranked or under-leveled units.
A combination of the three leads to the mosts success and opens up the most options.
Strategy comes from adapting and figuring out flaws, which many of my players did/do, even accurately.
It all comes back to there being different types of players, which different strategies work better for because they're either more willing to use them or going after different goals.
Not better or worse, but dependant on the person and what they have available.
Ignoring first day momentum is wild... day 1 is when a lot of players make a judgement call and points earned during that day end up being important.
Again, it continues to seem like you are only looking at things from one side and refusing to acknowledge just how much other things played a role.