0 Comments
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
USP kills on a map
41.6027
USP damage (avg/round)
14.94.8
Player score (round)
52291010
Player score (round)
39561010
Player score (round)
37171010
Player's aces
1
Multikill x-
4
Multikill x-
4
Multikill x-
4
Clutch (opponents)
3
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Nuke
62%
Anubis
20%
Vertigo
18%
Ancient
13%
Inferno
11%
Dust II
9%
Mirage
3%
Last 5 maps
Nuke
62%
29
28
Anubis
70%
37
7
Vertigo
71%
38
1
Ancient
63%
27
9
Inferno
64%
14
21
Dust II
50%
2
27
Mirage
45%
20
35
Last 5 maps
Nuke
0%
0
49
Anubis
50%
38
7
Vertigo
53%
19
8
Ancient
50%
36
10
Inferno
53%
30
11
Dust II
41%
17
16
Mirage
48%
25
12
Last results
Head to head
Info
Match analysis of MIBR vs Solid by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between MIBR and Solid, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 0-1, on the following maps: Mirage, and victory was secured by Solid. The MVP of this match was saffee.
Solid analytics
The team Solid secured 13 out of 23 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Mirage. They also successfully set 1 bombs during the match.
The standout players for Solid were gbb contributed 20 kills and misfit contributed 18 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 8450 overall damage.
On the defensive side, Solid held their ground firmly, successfully defending 9 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
MIBR analytics
The team MIBR managed to secure 10 out of 23 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 MIBR were saffee contributed 21 kills and exit contributed 21 kills. 8348 of total damage by MIBR could not prevent Solid from securing the victory
On the defensive side, MIBR struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 7 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments