Why do Chinese CS teams struggle at the top level?

Swipe tables sideways to see all columns.

What makes top-tier CS difficult for TYLOO and Lynn Vision (LV)? I want to look at their overall results, then follow a few parts of their game: how they attack, how the players contribute, and which maps they can rely on.

These results cover selected top-tier events from 2025/01/14 – 2026/10/11, including the early stages. That scope matters when we compare them with results from a different level of competition.

Results and event profiles

Overall results

For a reference point, Vitality won 74.65% of its maps and 57.35% of its rounds across 355 maps in the same period.

Table 1. Team results across the reporting period

2025/01/14 – 2026/10/11 (UTC). Round-weighted Contrib.

The part that caught my eye was TYLOO’s round win rate. It sits within 2.3 percentage points of 3DMAX and GamerLegion, yet its map win rate is about 11–12 percentage points lower. M80 adds another wrinkle: its average Contrib is lower than TYLOO’s, but it wins a slightly larger share of maps. Different schedules and the spread of performances across maps both matter here.

LV sits below all five comparison teams on average Contrib and both win rates. The event profiles below help show which patterns keep returning.

Recurring six-dimensional patterns

The six dimensions give us another view of the same period. Each dot combines standardized components measured against the teams at that event. Multi-Core looks at the depth of individual output; Stability describes variation around a team’s own usual level.

One dot per event; 0σ marks that event's reference. Hover for details.

Only events with 5+ played maps

Firepower

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Entry

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Teamplay

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Resilience

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Stability

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Multi-Core

TYLOO14 events12 events

Lynn Vision10 events8 events

The MongolZ27 events27 events

−2σ −1σ 0σ +1σ +2σ

Event-standardized component positions (σ). Vertical spacing separates overlapping dots.

For TYLOO, Firepower, Entry and Multi-Core mostly sit left of zero. Teamplay is above the event reference in 10 of 14 events, while Stability is more mixed. That gives us a reason to look more closely at how its support connects with the next fight.

LV’s Firepower varies quite a bit. Multi-Core and Stability are below the event reference in 8 of 10 and 7 of 10 events, which puts more attention on how often several players can deliver in the same event.

The broad pattern is still there when we hide events with fewer than five maps: TYLOO’s Entry is below reference in 10 of 12 events, and LV’s Multi-Core and Stability in 6 of 8 each. LV only has two appearances with eight maps or more, so its longer runs remain a small part of this picture.

Attacking play and team support

The two sides tell slightly different stories, so it helps to look at CT and T separately.

CT and T output

0 = each team's event/map-matched non-Chinese mean.

ADR

Team / mean

TYLOO CT74 / 77

≈-2

TYLOO T64 / 67

≈-2

Lynn Vision CT74 / 76

≈-2

Lynn Vision T62 / 66

≈-4

−5Mean (0)+5

KAST

Team / mean

TYLOO CT75% / 75%

<1 pp

TYLOO T66% / 67%

≈-1 pp

Lynn Vision CT71% / 75%

≈-3 pp

Lynn Vision T62% / 67%

≈-4 pp

−5 ppMean (0)+5 pp

External matchups, regulation-only, valid side records: TYLOO 100 maps; LV 65.

TYLOO is close to its matched CT average on KAST, although its ADR is lower on both sides. LV falls further behind on T: 4.07 ADR points and 4.68 KAST percentage points below its matched mean.

On T, opening-duel win rates are 40.7% against 41.4% for TYLOO and 39.3% against 41.4% for LV. Getting through that first fight is only part of the job; the flash, the distance between teammates and the next call all shape how the round continues.

Support around the next fight

Across all covered maps, TYLOO averages 9.22 flash assists per 30 rounds and has a 21.1% traded-death ratio. LV is at 8.55 and 19.2%, while Vitality is at 8.91 and 22.5%. TYLOO’s recorded flash support is already fairly frequent; LV has less trade coverage in this comparison.

The traded-death ratio is the share of all deaths that were traded. These totals show how often support was recorded, but they cannot tell us whether teammates were ready at the right moment.

Then there are the players who have to turn that support into a good round.

Players and the AWP

Lineup output

Here is how the player averages look over the full period:

Table 2. TYLOO player output

Zero replaced Attacker during the reporting period.

JamYoung leads TYLOO here, with Moseyuh next.

Table 3. Lynn Vision player output

For LV, z4KR has the highest Contrib, while Starry deals the most damage per round. Those averages make me wonder how much help each leading player gets on a quieter map. The roles and positions each player has to handle belong in that discussion too.

AWP production and overall output

Table 4. AWP production and overall AWPer performance

AWP rates use all rounds. phzy: 2026/01/13 – 2026/09/10.

z4KR gets more AWP kills per 30 rounds than Jee, but their overall kill rates are close. slaxz- and phzy are close to z4KR on AWP kill rate and higher on average Contrib. The interesting contrast is ZywOo: his AWP rate is lower than z4KR’s, while his overall output is much higher. AWP kills show only one part of the job.

Resources and tactical focus

LV averages 10.54 team AWP kills per 30 rounds, against TYLOO’s 8.19 and MongolZ’s 12.49. Most of the AWP kills come from their main sniper: 94.0% from z4KR for LV and 96.1% from Jee for TYLOO.

How often did they actually have the gun, and what could they do with it? We don’t have purchase records or counts of rounds with an AWP here. The angles, the supporting utility and the rifles around the sniper are all part of that question, across every map in the veto.

Map coverage and the veto

A BO3 asks for two map wins. Both teams have struggled to find them consistently, but their records point to different places to start.

Table 5. Map records for TYLOO and Lynn Vision

The map pool changed during this period; played-map records do not show every option available in each veto.

TYLOO

TYLOO has spent most of this sample on Inferno, Ancient and Mirage: 74 of 117 maps, with win rates of 41.94%, 40.91% and 38.10%. Even its busiest maps have been difficult places to collect wins. Overpass drops to 16.67% across 12 maps.

Across the six maps with at least ten appearances, none reaches a 50% win rate. Train is at 50.00%, but over just six maps. The problem extends beyond one weak map: TYLOO has not built a winning record on any of the maps it plays regularly.

Lynn Vision

LV leans more heavily on Dust2: 26 of 76 maps, with a 42.31% win rate. Nuke is its next-most-played map, but it won only 14.29% across 14 appearances. Inferno and Ancient sit around 30% too. Dust2 has been its busiest route to a win, with less to fall back on elsewhere.

Dust2 also supplies 11 of LV’s 24 map wins. Across Nuke, Inferno and Ancient, LV won 9 of 37 maps (24.32%). The concern is broader than Nuke alone: LV has not found another frequently played map with results close to Dust2.

The veto question is different for each team: can TYLOO get more wins from its regular maps, and can LV build a stronger option alongside Dust2?

Building a stronger CNCS scene

A lot of the work behind those results happens in practice: the opponents a team can find, the feedback it gets, and the way new players learn their roles. A few player and coach interviews give us a closer look.

Training resources

In his 2025/03/09 interview, Jee described TYLOO preparing in China against Asian teams. Different opponents give a team’s defaults different tests. Coaches and analysts help players take those lessons into their next match.

Tactical understanding

In his 2026/10/02 interview, Mercury talked about practicing defaults so players meet unexpected situations and learn to make their own calls. That brings us back to what happens after the first contact: when a player moves, trades, rotates or saves, their teammates need to understand the decision and be ready to act with them.

Talent development

In his 2026/09/12 interview, zhokiNg pointed to a small player pool when explaining TYLOO’s roster choices. For someone trying to join one of these lineups, learning a team role takes practice. Regular matches, coaching and time against stronger opponents give them a chance to build that experience.

---

For CNCS, long-term progress depends on how well the scene learns from competing at the top level. Passing that experience on to more players and coaches gives the next generation a stronger starting point.