0 Comments
Teams advantage
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
Lineups
Lineup
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Lineup
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Vertigo
60%
Inferno
21%
Overpass
21%
Ancient
13%
Nuke
12%
Mirage
10%
Dust II
9%
Last 5 maps
Vertigo
0%
1
52
Inferno
59%
56
2
Overpass
52%
25
19
Ancient
50%
24
17
Nuke
38%
21
17
Mirage
58%
52
3
Dust II
41%
29
8
Last 5 maps
Vertigo
60%
5
12
Inferno
38%
16
1
Overpass
73%
11
4
Ancient
63%
8
11
Nuke
50%
2
18
Mirage
68%
19
2
Dust II
50%
10
4
Last results
Head to head
Past matches
- wwwll
- wwlll
Info
Match analysis of Enterprise vs AVANGAR by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between Enterprise and AVANGAR, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 0-1, on the following maps: Mirage, and victory was secured by AVANGAR. The MVP of this match was icem4N.
AVANGAR analytics
The team AVANGAR secured 0 out of 0 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Mirage. They also successfully set 0 bombs during the match.
The standout players for AVANGAR were icem4N contributed 23 kills and sorrow contributed 19 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 9889 overall damage.
On the defensive side, AVANGAR held their ground firmly, successfully defending 0 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
Enterprise analytics
The team Enterprise managed to secure 0 out of 0 rounds, but faced challenges in adapting to their opponent's strategies. Capturing 0 plants during the match did not lead the team to victory.
The standout players for Enterprise were The eLiVe contributed 24 kills and h4rn contributed 22 kills. 9890 of total damage by Enterprise could not prevent AVANGAR from securing the victory
On the defensive side, Enterprise struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 0 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments