Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
USP damage (avg/round)
13.54.8
USP kills on a map
41.6027
USP damage (avg/round)
20.74.8
HE damage (avg/round)
11.93.4
Smoke thrown on a map
2014.5022
Smoke thrown on a map
2014.5022
Player score (round)
35091010
Shots (total/round)
9416
Multikill x-
4
HE damage (total/round)
14626.2
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Vertigo
53%
Mirage
13%
Anubis
13%
Inferno
12%
Ancient
10%
Nuke
3%
Dust II
0%
Last 5 maps
Vertigo
73%
37
3
Mirage
50%
18
35
Anubis
69%
35
9
Inferno
67%
15
21
Ancient
64%
28
8
Nuke
66%
29
28
Dust II
50%
2
25
Last 5 maps
Vertigo
20%
5
20
Mirage
63%
8
24
Anubis
56%
18
8
Inferno
79%
24
3
Ancient
74%
19
12
Nuke
63%
19
5
Dust II
50%
8
2
Info
Match analysis of MIBR vs G2 by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between MIBR and G2, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 0-2, on the following maps: Inferno, Anubis, and victory was secured by G2. The MVP of this match was NiKo.
G2 analytics
The team G2 secured 26 out of 42 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Inferno, Anubis. They also successfully set 6 bombs during the match.
The standout players for G2 were NiKo contributed 37 kills and malbsMd contributed 35 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 15705 overall damage.
On the defensive side, G2 held their ground firmly, successfully defending 12 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
MIBR analytics
The team MIBR managed to secure 16 out of 42 rounds, but faced challenges in adapting to their opponent's strategies. Capturing 4 plants during the match did not lead the team to victory.
The standout players for MIBR were saffee contributed 23 kills and exit contributed 21 kills. 12757 of total damage by MIBR could not prevent G2 from securing the victory
On the defensive side, MIBR struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 10 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments