Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
A 12-0 attacking half on Mirage is brutal. NAVI completely dismantled Falcons on their way to a 13-3 victory, knocking them out of IEM Beijing and securing a playoff place.
What surprised me wasn't just the score. It was how little Falcons seemed able to do about it. NAVI's players were winning duels, finding openings and punishing defensive mistakes. Once a team gets that comfortable, stopping the bleeding becomes incredibly difficult.
I'd have considered contesting middle much earlier rather than allowing NAVI to dictate the pace. Mix up the defensive setups, take some calculated risks and force their attackers to reconsider their approach. Sitting back and hoping they make mistakes clearly wasn't working.
Of course, NAVI deserve enormous credit. You don't win 12 consecutive attacking rounds against a team like Falcons through luck alone.
If you were Falcons' in-game leader, what would you change first? More aggression around middle, different defensive rotations, or a completely different approach to holding the bombsites?
What surprised me wasn't just the score. It was how little Falcons seemed able to do about it. NAVI's players were winning duels, finding openings and punishing defensive mistakes. Once a team gets that comfortable, stopping the bleeding becomes incredibly difficult.
I'd have considered contesting middle much earlier rather than allowing NAVI to dictate the pace. Mix up the defensive setups, take some calculated risks and force their attackers to reconsider their approach. Sitting back and hoping they make mistakes clearly wasn't working.
Of course, NAVI deserve enormous credit. You don't win 12 consecutive attacking rounds against a team like Falcons through luck alone.
If you were Falcons' in-game leader, what would you change first? More aggression around middle, different defensive rotations, or a completely different approach to holding the bombsites?
