Filip "NEO" Kubski is amongst the very small handful of players in CS history who can legitimately vie for the title of the game's greatest ever player. From 2006 onwards he has been the shining star of his teams, who despite being from Poland, an area not recognised as a breeding ground for CS talent, have captured as many majors as any individual or group in CS history.

In this interview the magnificient one of Polish CS talks about his time as the teen prodigy of Polish CS, his teams confusing approach to facing other elite teams, matching up vs. Na`Vi and how he sees himself as a player.

---

How old were you when you started playing in clans?

I guess it was around 2000, when the first clans were being created, and people actually started playing clan wars here in Poland. Every game was an official one, with the statement, scores and screenshots on each team's website. When I started playing "clan wars" in CS we played 10 on 10 without voice communication. I was around 13.

So that would have made you around 16 when you won the Polish WCG qualifier in 2003 and went to Korea. Between that initial period (~2000) and winning that national qualifier when was it that you and your peers realised you were very good?

Even in 2000, when we played 10on10, I was the in-game leader (which actually meant writing in console - 4 water 4 bridge 2 doors and spamming), in 2002 I got my first award for "Player of the Year" in Poland, at the LAN finals of the Polish official "counter-strike.pl League". I remember in 2002 when I was staying for the night at my parents internet cafe with some clients (mostly friends who played CS with me) I found a practise game against a Swedish mixteam (with Legenden from matrix clan and SpawN [I had been checking their WON IDs :D) and I owned them so much they called me a cheater and left the server.

Of course at first in around the year 2000 people (especially TaZ, LUq and their team's friends) used to call me an internet player, but that changed pretty quickly soon as I started participating in every Polish LAN event there was. I was the in-game leader from like 1999 until 2003, when we changed the team to Pentagram.CNN.

From 2004 onwards there is a very strong consensus that NEO has been the best Polish player year after year. So prior to 2004 was there a different player who was considered the best amongst his peers and the fans?

I think before 2004 it was mostly a fight between me and TaZ for that title. Probably since 2001 or even 2000. We'd been playing against each other very often before we've created a team together. Sometimes it was him who was winning, and sometimes it was me. So I think things haven't changed that much in the Polish scene.



It's often said about some famously difficult activities (such as tennis or playing the violin) that to be on a world class level a person should begin when they are a young child and put in a lot of hours during that early phase. What role do you think your starting CS at such a young age (relative to old school players who began at 17-20) played in your development? Was playing from a LAN centre a significant factor also?

I guess that opinion about starting at a young age is right. I remember since I was a kid my dad was always buying new hardware that was coming out, AMIGA 500, AMIGA 1200 etc. So I started playing games at very young age. I think what also had a big impact on my career was the fact that we had an internet cafe. There was a time I had to use a different computer everyday, with a different mouse or keyboard, so I was used to changing setups. Of course participating in every LAN in Poland was important too, since I was getting that experience very early. Thanks go out to my parents who have never forbidden me from playing ("as long as you do good at school" they used to say) :D

Describe your playing style over the years of your career. Has the core always remained the same all along? Have you been forced to change things due to the evolving metagame? How does it differ now from the days of your first major titles (2006-2007)?

The style of play in general has changed a lot, so my style of course had to change too. Before, I used to consider myself an aggressive player, trying to peek when the opponent was not expecting and so on. For example, I could be boosted onto catwalk on dust2 with a colt and I would be trying to kill guys who were up at the middle covering things. These days that feels impossible, CS is so old that people are ready for everything, each team has so many strats that you just can't do that kind of thing, because there is always someone waiting for you.

Also, after changing LUq and some changes in my team-mates' playstyles (at least I feel this way) we already had a number of aggressive players. Maybe it's just us who made the game so difficult for ourselves but we are afraid of doing anything on our own, so these days I try relying on my team-mates more than on myself only. I think the biggest difference between now and before is that before, around the first majors, I used to have will, I was able to do whatever I wanted to do.

Or maybe it's just the pressure we've got on the team that, like I said, everyone is afraid of doing something on his own. Becuase of having the same lineup for so many years we've had so many discussions about our playstyle over those years that we are kind of lost and don't really know what is right or wrong. :D



Imagine you were coaching a team facing ESC.pl with NEO in the lineup. What suggestions would you make to allow that team to disrupt/limit/lessen NEO's impact?

I don't think that to win against us you have to limit/lessen my impact. It feels like you underestimate my team-mates. Like I've said before, things have changed and I don't feel like I'm making that much of a impact on our games anymore. I already know what you're thinking right now, I'm not saying that I am completely right, but it just feels this way right now. Maybe thanks to the fact that we are stronger as a team right now, not as crazy as before but more stable? Answering your question: I would just tell them to play aggressive as CT. As T we are lost when someone is pushing us from anywhere.

Before 2010 a lot of people would said LUq was the second or third best player in your team, and yet you were able to replace him with pasha and eventually achieve just as high a level or perhaps even better, with time to adapt. That suggests that it is possible to replace some members of your lineup and potentially still be an elite team. So how would you respond to the theory that if NEO was replaced with anyone else from 2006-2012 that the team couldn't possible have achieved anywhere close to the same level of success, and likely wouldn't even be a top 5-6 team?

First of all saying LUq was the second or third best player in the team is not that correct. I think people overrate "frags" in general. The best examples are those support players, who make it easier for the others, the snipers or "star" players, to kill. They do so much for the team, but you just can't measure that, and since they don't get so many frags people don't give them as much recognition as, for example, snipers.

Now back to the change of LUq - he used to be a sniper in the team, had a certain role, so changing him didn't have that much of an impact on us, since we took in a similar player, or at least we thought that way at the time. I think the biggest difference between me and others is that I can play whatever role you give me and still do it on a ok level. I find myself to be a versatile player, so replacing me might have been harder, because I was always able to fit into the place where I was needed in the team at any moment.

So to clarify: are there any other Polish players from 2006-2012 who could have replaced NEO from 2006-2012 and kept your team as a top five team in the world?

Not that I know of.

Since TaZ is the team-mate you've played alongside for the longest describe for me TaZ the player, his strengths and his weaknesses. In an interview I did with him in 2009 he said that before he teamed up with you he felt like he was at his highest level, motivated to beat you and LUq, but that from Pentagram onwards he felt like he lost some of his skills. What is your perspective on TaZ?

Before we teamed up it felt like he was the star player of his team, the mad fragger that was killing everyone. After we created the CNN lineup everyone had to change his game a little bit since that was a totally new lineup and everyone had to adapt. I think TaZ's explanation about not being motivated isn't exactly right in my opinion, since I remember in 2005 I think he had his final exams and as far as I remember because of that we'd severely decreased the number of our trainings at that time. He hadn't played much during those months and lost a lot of his skills, since he was always a skill-based player.

After that year, as far as I remember, he became a strat caller and led us to our first big victories in 2006. At that time he was kind of Zeus style player (or Zeus is now TaZ's style since TaZ was first :D), calling a strat and being the first one to peek, an IGL mixed with a round opener. Later on, in 2008 or even 2009 I think, because of arguments and fights over our tactical side he created a kind of self-defence system which made him who he is right now - a very self confident person! But let's quit that abstraction, after we'd changed the IGL few years ago, he became a "face" kind of player, very stable and skilled, doing the same things almost every round.

Also, thanks to that self confidence he has right now, after LUq's 'deportation' he took the role of our motivator and of course a joker, cheering us up during our games. A dictator, sometimes more of a Sascha Baron Cohen dictator kind of guy, but still important for the team. As for his weaknesses - as I mentioned, after changing the IGL and him doing the same stuff every round he kind of closed himself of for other options. But on the other hand that might be his strength at the same time, since you just know what to expect from him, which makes it easier for you to cooperate with him.



In your opinion are the players in your team, man-for-man, as individually skilled as the players in the SK lineup of 2011, Na`Vi 2010-2012 or fnatic 2012?

Personally I've never seen us as being as skilled as the other teams. Especially not those teams you've mentioned.

What advantages do you have over any of those teams to allow you to compete with them?

I have no idea, we have always had problems with finding the advantages, we've always seen the weaknesses or the mistakes we have been doing. Maybe it is the experience we've got. No idea to be honest.

How can you overcome a strong opponent when you don't know what your own strengths and weaknesses will be relative to theirs? How do you decide what to do? Do you play intuitively and hope you adapt in-game? Do you have a specific plan which is altered as the game progresses? Do you follow the same plan no matter what? What is the process like?

We have never analysed what our opponents' weak spots, strengths or weaknesses etc., are. If we were preparing for the opponent before tournament matches we've just been watching their demos, thinking what we've got in our repertoire of tactics. If needed then we've just been adapting them a little bit, or sometimes kuben came up with something new. We usually try creating a plan before matches, but mostly we just, as you say, intuitively adapt to the opponent. Maybe that's our strength: maybe we are just unpredictable in our craziness!

When you look at the gap between you and the average CS pro back in 06-08 and compare it to now, does it feel as though the skill cap has been hit? Has the gap closed much from your perspective between a star player and an average pro?

Since CS is a team game, and people after so many years have obviously realised that, those better teams just closed that gap by having good teamplay. These days you barely fight 1on1, they just peek you, then hide and wait for help from their team-mates. It was much different in 06-08. Just look at the eco rounds for example, back in those years you had plenty of frag movies where a guy was just standing out there, spraying and killing 4-5 guys running towards him. These days it is impossible, since the first guy will jump out of the corner, the second will be strafing at the corner and then you will get a nade and finally get killed by the last two. That's why, like I mentioned before, having a risky/aggressive style isn't really worth it these days, since that would just be too random.

I do think the gap has closed :P



With your team and Na`Vi's matchups we have a unique opportunity to see two elite level teams who have kept the exact same lineup for the last two and a half years playing over and over. How does playing Na`Vi differ from other teams? Do you find them more intimidating? Does the number of times you've played change the matchup?

I guess us both having same lineups and facing each other so many times makes our matches more personal. It doesn't mean they are more intimidating, actually it might be the opposite... we just know what to expect from each other, so it depends on the day or who adapts better at the time. It reminds me of some movies where old opponents face each other again and again so they finally become friends, since they know each other so well.

You've played Na`Vi in 11 Bo3 series and they've won 7, with one of your wins being a 3rd place decider. Is Na`Vi the favourite when you two play? What advantages have they had over you during the 2.5 years you've been playing each other?

I think they are more stable than we are. Feels like they know their strengths and stick to them, while we change around too many things randomly. To me they are just more organised, having roles in the team and strats based on those roles. I guess if the statistics say they have won 7 out of 11 series, that must mean they are the favourite then.

If you didn't know that stat how would you feel going into a Bo3 vs. Na`Vi?

I'd feel like it's even. I don't feel much advantage from their side.

train has famously been Na`Vi's home map and has both won them many titles over the years and gotten them out of tricky series too. Yet of the 10 times you've played them on train you've won 6, only lost 3 and 1 was a tie. Na`Vi might be the best train team of all time so why has your team been able to defeat them so many times on their best map?

Like I said, they are well organised and their strats are adapted to their roles. train might be a map where if you let your sniper do his job, he can win games for you. Feels like their strats are perfectly setup for markeloff to make the difference during the round. I am not really sure what our strength is in that case, that makes us stronger, but maybe we are just able to ignore him during rounds, so he is not making that much of a impact on us during the match.

After train and dust2 the map you've played the most against Na`Vi is tuscan. After 6 games you've still yet to win a single instance of tuscan against them, and your average is only 10.6 rounds per game vs. them. What is the thinking behind continually playing tuscan against Na`Vi? Why choose tuscan over say inferno? Are Na`Vi not one of the best tuscan teams?

Like I've said before, we know what to expect from them and since in our opinion we have improved our game on tuscan we always felt confident playing against them on that map. Our inferno is probably the most random map for us, so we just decided that choosing good map of ours over a random map is a good idea. Unfortunately, just like you've said, it is a very strong map for them.

Is that decision a result of online practice against Na`Vi also?

Not really. We are probably the worst team during the practice games. For example, before GameGune we've had 0:15 games against KerchNet or Virtus.Pro. We just know practise is something totally different. That's the reason we are also afraid of our inferno, since we always do "OK" on it in practice games, and when there's someone strong on LAN we tend to lose badly, so we just got confused too many times.

In 2011 there was a set foursome of elite teams: your team, SK Gaming, Na`Vi and mTw. In 2012 though the post-cArn fnatic lineup has risen up to win more tournaments than anyone else. Why have they become the best team in the world?

It's just another story, like when PGS was created or Na`Vi or any other top team. Someone with some understanding of the game (not in our case I guess) took players that perfectly matched each other and created a lineup in which everyone knows his in-game tasks.



You have a facebook fanpage called "The golden five" and have been referring to yourselves as "the golden five" recently. What prompted you to call yourselves that again? Is LUq no longer a member of the golden five? Are there six members in the golden five?

I guess there are six members of the golden "five". I think after so many organisation changes it was easier for people to find a name for us that would stay with us longer than any organisation name.

When top pro athletes who have been playing their sport for a long time finally retire a lot of them find they are restless after a few years, because they don't have anything which can satisfy their competitive drive in the same way. Is that a concern for you when you finish your time as a professional gamer?

I think that is one of the things that frightens me, that when I quit professional gaming I won't have anything to satisfy me in that way. I just hope I will find something that will bring me so much joy after I quit.



There have been great players who have never experienced winning a major title, while you've won the most. Describe the experience of winning a major tournament. How does it differ from winning a medium sized tournament with a comparable field?

It's a satisfaction I can't get anywhere else. It's a relief, the whole pressure after months of trainings is just released and you feel kind of... fulfilled. Winning a major with that big crowd watching your game on the stage is much more satisfying.

Between most of your major titles there was a gap of at most a year, but after winning WCG 2009 and then changing to pasha there was a long period of about two years. Did you ever wonder if you could win get to that level and win a major again? Was there a turning point where you knew you could and/or would do it again?

Of course, that's why the victories after were even more satisfying, because we have proven to ourselves that we are still capable of winning a majors. As far as I remember the first event we won with pasha in the lineup was e-Stars, and that was the point where we started to believe in ourselves again. It took us like over half a year with pasha to adapt and learn the game. That experience gave us lots of knowledge about what our game should look like.



When people list you as the greatest cs player ever, or mention you as one of the top 2-3 players ever in cs history, do you understand why they would pick you? In terms of your achievements or your in-game skills or the actions you've performed, does it make sense as to why they'd pick you?

Well, I'm not really aware of the list of achievements of other top players, but I think my account is one of the most awarded, which eventually leads me to the conclusion that why not. In the case of achievements I might be somewhere at the top list. As for in-game skills there have been many different times, good and bad, but still, in general, I am satisfied and I hope it does make sense to pick me.

How would you like to be remembered by CS fans?

I would like to be remembered as one who has been loyal to his team-mates, despite lots of offers and rough times they've been through! And of course as the FINAL BOSS of the game.

The final words belong to you.

I would like to thank our fans for the support throughout so many years, wish us good luck in the near future, especially the one with CS:GO. Visit our fanpage and follow us, because soon we will be having some projects coming up, so stay tuned. I'd like to thank my family and my girlfriend, mostly for the mental support they've been giving me in those harder times. Thanks.