I think there's some misunderstanding here about what is meant when people say that the current meta is so heavily reliant on 'matchup'. See, there's a difference between: 1. Team A has an advantage over Team B. Team B has an advantage over Team C. Etc. Versus: 2. Team A has an insurmountable advantage over Team B. Team B has an insurmountable advantage over Team C. Etc. I agree with the above post IF what you mean is that some team archetypes will always have a certain advantage over others, and that this isn't necessarily bad. However, I do not accept a metagame where the second scenario I outlined is commonplace. This is because entire matches will then be decided simply on the type of team you're running, and that you can play competently. What the concern is, I think, is that the metagame is becoming a glorified 'Rock, paper, scissors' - just as rock beats scissors, so too does sand stall beat rain stall. There's no skill involved in that. I think the ideal way to resolve the question of team matchup would be to take several common team archetypes, and then theorise how each style can combat all other common OU team archetypes. If it's a case of all the teams smashing some team types, while losing horribly to others, then that might be indicative of the meta being overly reliant on team matchup. On the other hand, if all the teams have notable weaknesses (which may be overcome by good play) and key strengths (which may be reasonably overcome by the opponent) in each matchup, then it might not be a problem. I'm not sure how this might be done though. I'm also not sure if what I said made sense but eh.