Good points, but I think the competitive and non-competitive player issue goes deeper. Perhaps a sports analogy will help to explain what I see to be the reason for the difference in how people play SWM:
I suck at basketball (and golf too, but we'll just stick with one for now). I always will. I could practice and learn and train for hours and hours, and I know I'd improve. But the fact remains that I'm just not a natural basketball player, and so I've never grown to love the game at a deep level. I enjoy shooting some hoops and trying some new moves, and I'll play around with some friends, and even join in an organized game or two. And I might even sign up with my friends for a league, because I enjoy the time with my friends and the exercise. But the more competitive the game gets, the less I want to be part of it. It's no fun getting schooled every time I get the ball.
Now, soccer, on the other hand....
I'm no Lionel Messi by a long shot, but I've been playing all my life and I've gotten to be decently good; I can hold my own on most teams that I play on, and there have even been some teams where I was one of the better players. I'm totally happy when the games move from pick-up soccer to high-intensity competition. (And if I'm honest, I tend to get bored and even irritated when people are only giving a half-@@@-ed effort on the field.) Why? Because I'm good at soccer and I've learned to love the game at a deep level and I tend to do well at it.
Ditto for SWM. Some players are more naturally inclined toward in-depth strategy, the way that Daniel described. As Daniel said, these players tend to put lots of time and/or thought into the development of squads and strategies; this includes analyzing the meta and considering counters to various builds/strategies. Those people tend to do well, week-in and week-out...partially because they are naturally skilled, and partially because they put so much effort into it. They have learned to love the game (ie, the challenge of out-maneuvering your opponent) at a deep level.
Other people tend to not do so well; the kind of strategic thinking that Daniel described is more work for some than for others. So if a strategically-minded player plays in a mirror-match with a not-so-much-strategically-minded player, the former will be more likely to win.
One of the reasons that competitive players enjoy competitive play is--at least partially--because they tend to do well at it. Likewise,
one of the reasons that non-competitive players tend to not enjoy competitive play (ie, "tourney squads" and tactics) very much is at least partially because they tend not to do well at it. Let's face it: it's no fun to lose most of the time. And it's no fun to face an uphill battle every game, no matter how much effort you've put into your squad building. They could put more effort in, but what's the point if they're going to lose anyway?
I think this mindset or perspective is going on behind comments like these:
--
"[I know I'm probably not going to win.] But can't we just play for fun, rather than always having to go for the gold?" ...or...
--
"Can't we just play non-tourney squads [so that I'll at least have a chance to win]?" I don't think it's because the players are lazy or dumb or don't enjoy the game. Rather, I think it's that they aren't
driven to compete in the same way that the top-ranked SWM players are. That drive comes from the success those players have found and the proficiency they've developed in the game. We both enjoy SWM...but some of us enjoy the game at a deeper or more intense level than others.