Teams advantage
Records Match
Record/Time/Map
Val/Avg
Set by
Rival
M4A4 kills on a map
103.6448
M4A4 damage (avg/round)
4412.7
GLOCK kills on a map
41.4398
GLOCK damage (avg/round)
13.33.8
USP kills on a map
41.616
Damage (total/round)
38773
Multikill x-
4
Multikill x-
4
Multikill x-
4
Clutch (opponents)
2
Historical Maps winrate Last 6 months
Inferno
62%
Dust II
55%
Nuke
40%
Ancient
21%
Mirage
18%
Overpass
17%
Vertigo
14%
Last 5 maps
Inferno
75%
8
5
Dust II
80%
5
3
Nuke
40%
5
3
Ancient
50%
6
4
Mirage
20%
5
9
Overpass
50%
2
16
Vertigo
50%
6
1
Last 5 maps
Inferno
13%
8
16
Dust II
25%
8
5
Nuke
0%
1
25
Ancient
29%
7
2
Mirage
38%
13
1
Overpass
67%
9
8
Vertigo
36%
11
3
Info
Match analysis of Sharks vs MIBR by the Bo3.gg Team
In the CS2 match between Sharks and MIBR, a series of thrilling battles unfolded with a score of 2-1, on the following maps: Dust II, Overpass, Vertigo, and victory was secured by Sharks. The MVP of this match was zevy.
Sharks analytics
The team Sharks secured 0 out of 0 rounds, showcasing their ability to control and adapt to various situations. They won on the maps Dust II, Vertigo. They also successfully set 0 bombs during the match.
The standout players for Sharks were zevy contributed 65 kills and pancc contributed 51 kills. Their exceptional skills played a pivotal role in securing the win. Thanks to coordinated effort, the team inflicted 26888 overall damage.
On the defensive side, Sharks held their ground firmly, successfully defending 0 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination and site control proved to be crucial.
MIBR analytics
The team MIBR managed to secure 0 out of 0 rounds, but faced challenges in adapting to their opponent's strategies. Capturing 0 plants during the match did not lead the team to victory.
The standout players for MIBR were shz contributed 52 kills and chelo contributed 47 kills. 22582 of total damage by MIBR could not prevent Sharks from securing the victory
On the defensive side, MIBR struggled to hold their ground, successfully defending 0 bomb plants. Their defensive coordination faced challenges, making it difficult to maintain site control.
0 Comments