Imperial vs RED Canids (IMP-RED) result: IEM Rio: Americas Closed Qualifier 2026, 22 Jan 2026

68.1%Win probability before the match31.9%
Map 1RED CanidsRED CanidswonMap 2ImperialImperialwonMap 3RED CanidsRED Canidswon
Watch back
No VOD found for this match yet. Pick a channel above to look for it there.

Imperial vs RED Canids: what the model expected

Quick read

  • Rating87 Elo points separate Imperial (1761) and RED Canids (1674).
  • Head-to-headImperial 8-4 RED Canids in 12 meetings since 2024. Imperial took the previous meeting 2-1 at Circuito FERJEE 2025 (). More
  • FormImperial won 5 of their last 10; RED Canids won 5 of 10. Neither side has the better run of results. More
  • Bottom lineBefore the start, Eloline gave Imperial a 68% chance. This number was recomputed afterwards from the rating history, not logged before the match.

Imperial vs RED Canids: rosters

ImperialElo: #33VRS: #52
chelo
skullz
tryAWP
VINIIGL
RED CanidsVRS: #243

Settings source: Liquipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Team comparison

ImperialTeamRED Canids
64% (143-79)Map win rate58% (136-100)
20-14Deciding maps won–lost20-18
67%Series wins without dropping a map60%
48 minAverage map length50 min
53%CT-side rounds won48%
43%First half won75%
OpenTeam pageOpen

Source: Liquipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

Imperial vs RED Canids: meetings before this one

12 meetings · Most recent: 2–1 to Imperial ()

All 12 meetings

Imperial and RED Canids: form going into the match

Imperial · 5 of 10 wonRED Canids · 5 of 10 won
LMIBR0–2
WGaimin Gladiators2–0
LSharks0–2
WFake do Biru2–0
LPassion UA0–2
LTeam Falcons0–1
LFURIA0–1
WThe MongolZ1–0
WM802–1
Wfnatic1–0
WSharks2–0
WFOLHA AMARELA2–0
WFour Magic1–0
LFaZe1–2
LLegacy0–1
WGamerLegion1–0
Lfnatic0–1
LYawara Esports0–2
LKeyd1–2
WMIBR Academy2–0

Map pool: how both teams fare on each map

ImperialWin %RED Canids
33%9 mapsWLWLL
Dust II
–
63%8 mapsWWLWL
Mirage
100%1 mapsW
50%6 mapsLLWWW
Nuke
0%2 mapsLL
60%5 mapsWLLWW
Train
100%1 mapsW
33%3 mapsWLL
Inferno
0%1 mapsL
100%3 mapsWWW
Overpass
–
–
Ancient
0%1 mapsL

Liquipedia CC BY-SA