0 Comments
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
Speed Round (sec)
00:23s01:55s
Speed Round (sec)
00:29s01:55s
Damage (total/round)
40073
Damage (total/round)
40073
Player score (round)
38211010
Player score (round)
35901010
Multikill x-
4
Multikill x-
4
Clutch (opponents)
3
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Inferno
50%
Vertigo
38%
Ancient
26%
Mirage
24%
Anubis
12%
Nuke
10%
Dust II
0%
Last 5 maps
Inferno
50%
4
2
Vertigo
38%
8
1
Ancient
30%
10
1
Mirage
67%
9
3
Anubis
33%
3
10
Nuke
50%
2
4
Dust II
0%
0
0
Last 5 maps
Inferno
0%
3
0
Vertigo
0%
1
0
Ancient
56%
16
0
Mirage
43%
7
0
Anubis
45%
11
0
Nuke
60%
10
0
Dust II
0%
1
0
Info
Match analysis of GODSENT vs ARROW by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between GODSENT and ARROW, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 0-1, on the following maps: Mirage, and victory was secured by ARROW. The MVP of this match was Tionix.
ARROW analytics
The team ARROW secured 13 out of 24 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Mirage. They also successfully set 3 bombs during the match.
The standout players for ARROW were Tionix contributed 19 kills and Orbit contributed 15 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 8253 overall damage.
On the defensive side, ARROW held their ground firmly, successfully defending 6 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
GODSENT analytics
The team GODSENT managed to secure 11 out of 24 rounds, but faced challenges in adapting to their opponent's strategies. Capturing 2 plants during the match did not lead the team to victory.
The standout players for GODSENT were MaiL09 contributed 18 kills and Fraaank contributed 16 kills. 8260 of total damage by GODSENT could not prevent ARROW from securing the victory
On the defensive side, GODSENT struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 5 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments