Illustrative examples

Review scenarios, not testimonials

These scenarios show how a CS2 stack can turn a vague review into one or two concrete changes. They are illustrative examples, not customer case studies, and they do not claim measured outcomes or improvements.

How to read this page

Team names, situations and decisions below are hypothetical. Use them as prompts for your own review process. Real progress depends on your roster, practice time, opponents and how consistently you apply changes.

A default that keeps collapsing in mid

Situation: A five-player stack can win opening duels but loses structure when the opponent takes mid control. Every review turns into a debate about individual aim.
Review focus: Map the first 20 seconds of each attack: who takes mid, who supports the entry, and which utility is available when contact happens.
Decision: Write one mid-round reset rule and one late-round branch. Assign a single player to call the reset so the team does not improvise with five different voices.
What the team tracks: Whether the team resets together, not whether every duel is won.

Utility that looks correct but arrives late

Situation: The stack knows several executes, yet entries repeatedly walk into untouched angles. Players disagree about whether the problem is aim or timing.
Review focus: Review utility as a sequence tied to movement: which smoke enables the first step, which flash supports the trade, and when the entry commits.
Decision: Document a short checklist for one execute per map and rehearse the timing before the next scrim block.
What the team tracks: Whether the entry and the supporting utility leave together.

Roles blur after a roster change

Situation: A new player joins and two existing players start covering the same space. Communication becomes louder, but the team receives less useful information.
Review focus: List primary and secondary responsibilities for each map phase, then compare them with what actually happened in recent rounds.
Decision: Give each player one clear default responsibility and one fallback responsibility. Review only those two items for the next two sessions.
What the team tracks: How often players can predict who is covering each angle.