0 Comments
Teams advantage Inferno (M1)
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Dust II
100%
Anubis
100%
Nuke
60%
Ancient
42%
Overpass
40%
Mirage
37%
Inferno
17%
Vertigo
0%
Last 5 maps
Dust II
100%
1
1
Anubis
100%
1
6
Nuke
40%
5
3
Ancient
25%
4
4
Overpass
40%
10
1
Mirage
63%
8
0
Inferno
50%
10
1
Vertigo
0%
3
6
Last 5 maps
Dust II
0%
0
0
Anubis
0%
0
0
Nuke
100%
1
0
Ancient
67%
3
0
Overpass
0%
0
0
Mirage
100%
1
0
Inferno
33%
3
0
Vertigo
0%
0
0
Last results
Head to head
Past matches
- lwlll
- wwwww
Info
Map Analysis of Eternal Fire Academy vs L&G by the Bo3.gg Team
Eternal Fire Academy on Inferno Analysis
Eternal Fire Academy demonstrated their prowers on Inferno, securing 16 out of 23 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations on this specific map. Victory on this map contributed to their overall success in the match.
The standout players for Eternal Fire Academy on Inferno were jottAAA, who contributed 30 kills, and TR0JN, who added 16 kills to the team's efforts. Their exceptional skills and coordination were instrumental in securing the map win. Throughout the match on Inferno, the team inflicted a total of 9638 overall damage.
On the defensive side of Inferno, Eternal Fire Academy held their ground firmly, successfully defending 6 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control on this map proved to be crucial in their victory.
L&G on Inferno Analysis
Inferno proved to be a challenging battleground for L&G, as they managed to secure 7 out of 23 rounds on this map. Adapting to their opponent's strategies on this particular map presented difficulties for them.
The standout players for L&G on Inferno included muR, who contributed 19 kills, and Merl, who added 16 kills. Despite their individual efforts, inflicting 7371 total damage, L&G couldn't prevent Eternal Fire Academy from securing victory on Inferno
On the defensive side of Inferno, L&G struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 5 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges on this map, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments