In the BLAST Bounty Spring 2025: Closed Qualifier, we are anticipating a match between Eternal Fire and Falcons. Both teams have already shown good results in the tournament, securing victories in their first matches. In this article, we present a preview, overview, and analysis of the upcoming encounter.
Current Team Form
The average rating for Eternal Fire over the past month is 6.5. The team has played only one match in the BLAST Bounty Spring 2025: Closed Qualifier, where they confidently defeated Fluxo. The match went without serious difficulties, which indicates the team's stable preparation.
The average rating for Falcons over the past month is 6.4. Falcons also played only one game in this tournament, defeating ENCE. For the new lineup, this was a show of strength — despite the short time playing together, the team managed to accomplish the task, securing a victory in a hard-fought battle.
Map Pool
Eternal Fire often bans Ancient (27 times), indicating the team's reluctance to play on this map. Depending on the opponent, they prefer to choose Vertigo (7 times, win rate 71%), Anubis (13 times, win rate 69%), or Inferno (14 times, win rate 64%). The team has the highest win rate on Vertigo (71%), Anubis (69%), and Inferno (64%).
Falcons usually ban Anubis, as they did in their previous match, highlighting their weak preparation on this map. As a choice, the team prefers Dust2, which suits their style of play.
- Vertigo — choice of Eternal Fire
- Dust2 — choice of Falcons
- Inferno — decider
Match Prediction
The game between Eternal Fire and Falcons promises to be intense. Eternal Fire seems more experienced and confident thanks to their statistics and teamwork. Falcons, despite being a new lineup, managed to show a competitive level of play in their match against ENCE.
Eternal Fire 2:1 Falcons
BLAST Bounty Spring 2025: Closed Qualifier is taking place from January 14 to 19, where out of 32 tournament participants, only 8 will advance to the LAN finals. You can follow the tournament in more detail via this link.
Comments