In the lower bracket of Group A at IEM Cologne 2025, G2 defeated 3DMAX 2–0. The scoreline suggests control, but deeper analysis reveals persistent structural limitations within G2’s system. Their progress was built on favorable map conditions rather than expanded tactical capability.
Map 1 — Mirage (13:7)
CT Side:
- G2 avoided mid-aggression entirely across all rounds.
- Utility deployment was predictable: standard top-mid smoke with jungle flash support.
- NiKo anchored A-site with no positional adaptation post-contact; reliance on raw aim from ticket position.
T Side:
- No mid control. Attacks were executed via dry walks to A-site or short splits without connector presence.
- Delayed decision-making after losing entry: average 6–7 seconds without a timeout.
- m0NESY was relegated to cleanup AWP role with minimal impact in man-down situations.
Map 2 — Ancient (13:5)
CT Side:
- Cave control passive; no deep holds before 25s.
- B-site anchor (jks) received contact without rotation support for multiple rounds.
T Side:
- 3-1-1 default with full reliance on delayed mid-split; no fast execs until after 50s.
- Hunter baited B rotations with dry mid pressure; NiKo executed entry without lurk support.
- No adaptive pivot when denied donut control; repetition of same execution sequence across multiple rounds.
3DMAX Behavior Overview
- No retake geometry: five 3v3 retakes failed due to absence of late utility.
- Timeouts produced no structural adjustments; executed identical rounds post-pause.
- Mid-round reactions were limited to individual repositioning without coordinated support.
G2 Tactical Profile Summary
| Component | Observation |
|---|---|
| Map Control | Passive A-site bias; no mid expansion |
| Rotation Timing | Delayed by 1.8s on average post-entry |
| Mid-Round Adjustment | Absent; no call shift post-deficit |
| AWP Behavior | Reactive only; zero entry presence |
Betting Implications for Next Match
- Pre-match risk is elevated on maps without A-site anchor strength (e.g., Vertigo, Anubis).
- Live entries should favor G2 only post economy recovery; model breaks on early loss.
- AWP underperformance in post-plant phases limits closing efficiency.
Conclusion
G2 advanced without map loss but did so within a narrow tactical band. Their execution works when opponents do not challenge mid-control or delay site entries. Against structured Tier‑1 rosters with layered defense, G2 remains exposed. The core model has not evolved, and the result offers positional stability, not strategic confirmation.
|
Mary S Colbert is a Chief Content Editor at csgobettings.gg, specializing in CS2 with over 8 years of experience as an e-sports analyst. Her informative articles on the game have made her a go-to resource for fans and her expertise is widely respected within the industry.
|
Used 169 times in the past 24 hours
