Evaluate a composition: the 4-step method
Evaluating a draft is not judging each pick in isolation. It is answering four questions in a precise order, and that order matters: starting with the details before having identified how the team wins leads to false conclusions.
| Step | The question to ask |
|---|---|
| 1 | How does my team win? |
| 2 | Am I able to apply it? |
| 3 | Can I prevent the one opposite? |
| 4 | At what point in the game does it play out? |
Step 1 — Identify your win conditions
This is what has to be checked first. Not the matchups, not the power levels: the way the game is won.
The minimum is to have at least one. A composition where nobody on the team can say how it closes the game has nothing to convert an advantage with, even one already acquired.
Three paths exist — siege, teamfight, splitpush — and they are not mutually exclusive. Stacking several of them is comfortable, provided you can play them.
→ Win conditions details the three and what each one demands.
Step 2 — Check that you can apply it
This is the step teams skip most often. Identifying an intention is not enough: the composition still has to have the means for it.
The check is concrete, position by position.
| If your win condition is… | Check that you have… |
|---|---|
| The siege | Damage to take objectives down fast, zone control, enough to absorb the engage |
| The splitpush | A mobile team, winnable duels, map pressure, depush |
| The teamfight | Coherence between the archetypes you have gathered |
An intention without the means is not a win condition. A siege plan without zone control, or a splitpusher whose team cannot follow the tempo, describe a team that hopes to win a certain way, not one that can.
Step 3 — Check that you prevent the one opposite
A composition is never judged alone. The whole third step consists of reading both drafts together.
Win conditions work against each other in known ways:
| What beats… | How |
|---|---|
| The siege | Too much engage compared to what you can absorb; or a splitpush you cannot defend without breaking up the block |
| A fighting comp | A flank that prevents free movement; a splitpush that creates numerical superiorities |
This is where "on paper" evaluations fall apart. A coherent composition can be entirely invalidated by what the opponent, for their part, knows how to do.
Step 4 — Place the evaluation on the phases
A balance of power is not the same at every minute. The same evaluation has to be made three times.
| Phase | What you look at |
|---|---|
| Laning | The direct matchups: everyone is on their lane, the game is fairly static |
| Economic | Who gets their resources — the champions that need to scale do not recover if they go without |
| End | The win condition is executed or it fails |
The link between the first two is direct: the balance of power in the economic phase follows from the results of the lane phase, and the team that comes out of it ahead holds the initiative.
A composition that has nothing to do during the economic phase gives that initiative away without fighting.
The two traps of evaluation
Treating a win condition as a label. It stays theoretical: it is a potential, not a nature. A splitpush-oriented team can win a well-taken teamfight, or get far enough ahead to end up being considered good at grouped fighting.
To which must be added that the evaluation has an expiry date: strengths and weaknesses evolve with how the game unfolds and with the state of the champions that carry them. A draft evaluation is therefore only valid for the moment at which it is made.
Judging in the absolute. A weakness is always put in perspective. Damage concentrated on a single carry does not pose the same problem depending on whether or not the opponent has what it takes to bring them down.
FAQ
Where do you start when analysing a draft?
With the win conditions: how each team wins the game. Matchups and power levels can only be read correctly once that question is settled.
Can you evaluate a composition without seeing the one opposite?
No, not completely. Steps 1 and 2 are possible on their own, but step 3 requires both drafts: a composition is never judged in isolation.
What do you do if a team has no clear win condition?
That is the most serious diagnosis. A team that is far enough ahead wins in many ways, but without a win condition it has nothing to convert an advantage into a victory.
How long does a good evaluation take?
The four steps are made in a few minutes once the method is acquired. The difficulty is not the duration, it is respecting the order.
Should you try to stack several win conditions?
Having several is comfortable, but it is only of interest if the team can actually apply them. Two intentions of which neither has its means are worth less than a single fully playable one.
Going further
- Win conditions — the three ways of winning, and what each one demands.
- Front to back or flank — the two fighting archetypes, and what breaks them.
- How a draft works from start to finish — the full step by step.
- The draft glossary — all the vocabulary, by family.
- Champion profiles in draft — what each champion brings to a composition.
- All our draft guides — the cluster's pillar page.
Apply the method to a real draft. Replay a full game and ask the four questions on uDrafter — it is free and no account is needed.