0 Comments
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
Lineups
Lineup
Lineup
Starter
Starter
Starter
Starter
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Nuke
58%
Dust II
56%
Anubis
17%
Mirage
14%
Inferno
12%
Vertigo
10%
Ancient
5%
Last 5 maps
Nuke
0%
0
62
Dust II
44%
16
13
Anubis
61%
54
8
Mirage
60%
58
10
Inferno
44%
36
15
Vertigo
60%
45
7
Ancient
62%
78
4
Last 5 maps
Nuke
58%
19
5
Dust II
100%
1
11
Anubis
44%
18
1
Mirage
46%
28
1
Inferno
56%
9
6
Vertigo
50%
10
2
Ancient
57%
53
0
Last results
Head to head
Past matches
- wwllw
- lwlll
Info
Match analysis of Passion UA vs CPH Wolves by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between Passion UA and CPH Wolves, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 2-1, on the following maps: Mirage, Vertigo, Ancient, and victory was secured by Passion UA. The MVP of this match was Jambo.
Passion UA analytics
The team Passion UA secured 50 out of 92 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Mirage, Ancient. They also successfully set 2 bombs during the match.
The standout players for Passion UA were Jambo contributed 90 kills and fear contributed 81 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 37461 overall damage.
On the defensive side, Passion UA held their ground firmly, successfully defending 30 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
CPH Wolves analytics
The team CPH Wolves managed to secure 42 out of 92 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 CPH Wolves were sense contributed 75 kills and BøghmagiC contributed 63 kills. 33596 of total damage by CPH Wolves could not prevent Passion UA from securing the victory
On the defensive side, CPH Wolves struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 21 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments