0 Comments
101
96
35
+5
361
15:15
26
2
Inferno6.2
+7%
Teams advantage
Score
6.2
6.1
Inferno-0.2
Win Rounds
14
16
Inferno2
Kills
101
96
Inferno-5
Damage
10.84K
10.84K
Inferno0
Economy
676.4K
641.2K
Inferno-35200
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Mirage
76%
Vertigo
60%
Ancient
M
25%
Inferno
21%
Dust II
20%
Nuke
16%
Anubis
M
8%
Last 5 maps
Mirage
0%
0
11
Vertigo
0%
2
3
Ancient
25%
4
3
Inferno
25%
4
8
Dust II
0%
1
5
Nuke
20%
5
6
Anubis
50%
2
2
Last 5 maps
Mirage
76%
17
5
Vertigo
60%
10
16
Ancient
0%
0
40
Inferno
46%
13
10
Dust II
20%
5
18
Nuke
36%
14
6
Anubis
42%
19
2
Info
Match analysis of MANTRA vs Rooster by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between MANTRA and Rooster, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 0-1, on the following maps: Inferno, and victory was secured by Rooster. The MVP of this match was chelleos.
Rooster analytics
The team Rooster secured 16 out of 30 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Inferno. They also successfully set 5 bombs during the match.
The standout players for Rooster were chelleos contributed 24 kills and asap contributed 21 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 10835 overall damage.
On the defensive side, Rooster held their ground firmly, successfully defending 6 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
MANTRA analytics
The team MANTRA managed to secure 14 out of 30 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 MANTRA were Winnieeeee contributed 26 kills and -Reapz- contributed 19 kills. 10835 of total damage by MANTRA could not prevent Rooster from securing the victory
On the defensive side, MANTRA struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 5 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments