Conclusion

I know that I didn’t cover every possible setup, and I know 100% of the experienced members of our community knows each one of these setups - but I also know that each and every one of you can take each and every one of these setups and say, “Well, my team likes to do this, instead,” or, “We play using aggressive setups that are a lot better than the example that you just gave us.” Those are exactly the kinds of thoughts that I want each and every one of you to have in your heads. I want everyone to see how easy it is to think up these different CT-side setups and realize that each team has its own versions of these setups that are unique.

Could you imagine seeing a match where the first two rounds were played defensively, but then in the next round, the same team - the one that you thought was simply giving up bombsites for the taking - was, all of a sudden, playing with an extremely aggressive style, blinding their opponents and pushing up on them? That kind of diversity of strategy would make matches much more exciting.

Teams spend entirely too much time making their offenses as creative as possible. If the top teams in the world continue to be as predictable on defense as we know they are, and if other teams finally wise up and begin analyze their opponents using playbooks and the "predictable defense" theory, we're going to see a lot more upsets than we have recently.

I wrote this article to prove that, although the main competitive maps are as old as they are, there are enough untested, unpracticed styles of play to make even the most experienced of teams more unpredictable than ever. Now, the only question that remains is which teams will be willing to put in the extra effort.