AdreN: "We recognise that it is absolutely crucial for us to be a more structured team."
Photo by: StarLadder | Igor Bezborodov

AdreN: "We recognise that it is absolutely crucial for us to be a more structured team."

Tweet Share Submit

Cybersport.com spoke with Dauren "AdreN" Kystaubayev of Gambit Esports following the team's victory over Renegades, where we discussed the series versus TyLoo, outtakes from the loss and how the analysis of the previous series aided the team in securing a W against the Australian reps.

* * * 

The first half of the match against saw Renegades lunge forward, only for you guys to later catch up. This was followed by a solid CT-side performance, which ended up closing the series in your favour. Take us over the dynamic of the match from your own perspective.
In my eyes the following happened - we didn't really prepare for Train. We knew that it would be picked, we knew some basics, which were conveyed to us by B1ad3, but in general, the early-game did not go in our favour at the start. We made a few silly calls and entries which weren't executed by us well at all. Towards the middle of the T half, we decided to play a different style - a style we know how to play and used to play prior. It kind of happened spontaneously. This was what gave us the five consecutive rounds, HObbit gave really good calls and we made good moves. Everyone started feeling the drive.

You mentioned an adjusted style in your previous answer - my understanding of Gambit's natural style is a more aggressive, loose and spontaneous approach to CS. At the same time, my understanding is that B1ad3 has a more structured and calculated approach - how is Andrey able to help you considering these style discrepancies?
Andrey, as soon as he arrived, started pushing this style that involved a lot of structure. Yes, we recognise that it is absolutely crucial for us to be a more structured team, however I know that a 100% structured approach will not win us a tournament - you always have to adjust, you always have to play a little bit looser and give yourself a little bit more leeway. This is required for you to adapt to your opponent, because they will see your structure, and will be able to adjust. You have to bypass this and demonstrate that you are also capable of adaptation, while maintaining a degree of structure. It's a complex issue.

Currently we are at a stage where we are trying to play structured, plus we're trying to employ our natural style - it's difficult, but possible.

When B1ad3 arrived, two styles collided. Currently we are at a stage where we are trying to play structured, plus we're trying to employ our natural style - it's difficult, but possible. Teams nowadays focus up and demonstrate that they're structured, but at the same time they can win tournaments around the world. At some point they played the structured game, they were unable to win tournaments, then they started playing a little looser, which led to success.

I think this hybridised approach is what most top teams employ these days. Take a look at Astralis for example. Gla1ve does a great job of calling and maintaining a structure, but he also trusts his team's adaptive capabilites, and things seem to be working out for them.

If we were to eyeball the percentage of the tactical approach versus loose , what do you think is an optimal distribution?
I would say that it depends on the team you're playing against. There are some teams where if you employ a fully tactical approach, they won't be able to do a single thing, meaning these are teams that find it difficult to adapt to their opponents. Then there are teams that make it difficult to employ a full tactical approach, because they have a comprehensive understanding of what you're going to do, North for example. You have to play mind games with them, you need to push the boundaries a bit. You have to surprise them, so to speak. 

Photo by: DreamHack | Adela Sznajder Flickr.com

It depends on the team, but generally the percentage would be something along the lines of 70-30 or 60-40, with a skew towards the structured playstyle. It's good to have a preliminary understanding of what you want to do in the beginning, but the 30% allows freedom enabling you to stray from the plan a little, making moves that the opponents don't expect.

Let's look at the previous series against TyLoo. From my perspective, it seemed like the main issue that you guys had was conceding little mistakes over the course series which were punished by the Chinese, leading to their subsequent victory in overtime. Firstly,  what did you guys extract from the game? Secondly, how did you use the breakdown from the game against TyLoo in the match versus Renegades?
The first thing to point out about the game versus TyLoo was that we kicked off to a nervous start, everything was jumbled up - we didn't have a clear-cut understand of what we wanted to do at the start. Overall, yes, we ended up making a complete malarkey of it, but after the loss we watched the demo, had a discussion and decided that we made a lot of small mistakes that are just not acceptable for professional players.

We needed to focus more on the game and on the moment, playing every round like it was our last.

We needed to focus more on the game and on the moment, playing every round like it was our last. There were moments in the match against TyLoo, where the underlying idea was great, but the execution was terrible, all because we didn't communicate enough. We came to the conclusion that we need to communicate more and come to a common denominator, in order for our vision to be aligned for everyone. The goal was for everyone to think as a unit, because the start of the match was terrible.

The last question is perhaps more of a philosophical one - some of you guys have played the game for a while now, and, in my eyes, are considered veterans of the title. Despite being seasoned, occasionally small mistakes, like the ones we discussed prior, are made. How do you guys work on these?
First of all you need to make sure to work on yourself - give yourself feedback on whether or not the decision your making is appropriate for the moment. Before committing a slip-up or making a mistake, you have to think it over multiple times: "Should I do this, or not?". Don't commit and then think about the implications of what you've done, asking: "Why did I do that?". You need to keep yourself in check.

We've lost a lot of matches and, recently, tournaments, leading to a lack of confidence in our actions.


There are also moments of nervousness, when the team is a little bit insecure, or there's a touch of nervousness - mistakes are made automatically, because the thought process is cloudy. This is a problem that also needs to be addressed. If you take us for example, we've lost a lot of matches and, recently, tournaments, leading to a lack of confidence in our actions. When you lack confidence you start making little mistakes that you wouldn't make had you been in a good state of mind. These are issues that you primarily have to work on individually, you have to think about whether or not you made the right decision at this specific moment, and whether you even need to make it at this point in time. I think this is the most important part.

Tweet Share Submit

Comments (0)

    C
Thoughts? Comments? Share it now!