Inferno: NoA vs EYE (CPL Winter 2004)

On the terrorist side it was a tale of two bombsites for NoA. Their aggressive attacks of the main bombsite netted them an 8-2 score while they were only able to manage a 2-3 score when attacking the banana bombsite. This disparity allowed EYE to keep the match as close as it turned out.

The opening round was a perfect example. A fake up the middle with good smoke and flash work then resulted in a great entry into the banana site. Even with the successful plant they were not able to hold the site as EYE retook it and defused the bomb. NoA displayed an inability to hold the site during the match, whereas EYE demonstrated prowess at getting the needed entry frags to neutralize NoA’s initial success. This inability forced them to attack the main site where they enjoyed much more success.

EYE failed to recognize how effectively they were retaking the banana site and continued to protect it as they had to start the half. By not taking any risks to help control the main site they in turn allowed NoA free reign. To NoA’s credit, they did attack the banana site a few times to keep EYE honest, including a very close 9th round. Still, the major flaw on the NoA side was bomb coverage; all five rounds won during the half by EYE were by defuses.

One key theme of the NoA defense on any map was the separation of players. Both North American players never played the same spot together on any map. Inferno was no different, Ola “Element” Moum and Mike “Method” So played the banana bombsite while Benger, Jorgen “XeqtR” Johannessen and Lars “Naikon” Olaisen covered the main bombsite.

Leading all the scores during the CT half was So with 16 frags, but the positioning of the two North American’s optimized their assets to NoA. Both are accomplished AWP players and this was kept in mind. Benger, who largely uses the AWP, would cover the right middle of the main bombsite or rotate to watch halls while playing back. Both spots gave him at least one or two AWP shots before a team could react to his position.

His decision of which spot to watch came from the other two playing the bombsite. Johannessen and Olaisen began every round deciding to play in the bombsite watching left middle and halls or stacking and pushing up to watch middle only. The first situation left right middle to Benger; the second left him watching halls from clear back in the small pit. Moum and So played more of a combination of spots stacking and pushing up aggressively when ever they felt a team was weak.

Just like on the Terrorist side, NoA had a terrible time when the bomb was planted. Initial defense was superb by NoA, often stopping entire rushes, but it was a different story when they couldn’t shutdown a rush. Stupid mistakes with the bomb planted threatened to give EYE a chance at tying up the match. Mistakes like not checking corners while retaking the banana bombsite, costing them two players at least twice. Many of these mistakes were cleared up in the second match on Inferno for the finals, but mistakes like this leave doubts about NoA’s ability to remain consistent since most of them are mental mistakes.

GameSense Match Box Score

ICMATCH=118