Which ever way you look at it - its just wrong

One on ones is wrongly tuned in my view. Top top strikers missing (Villa and the likes) 80/90 % or more of the clear cut one on ones.

I have now played 4 seasons. No striker have had a percentage higher than 50 % one clear one on ones. In my new save David Villa converts about 10 % of the real one on ones (only 13 games in but still). Strikers still score a lot of goals, but that just shows that the game in general is not tuned correctly.

In my view a manager can only influence how the game is set up. No manager can influence (except through mental and skills traning) how top strikers finish when they are clean through. If I manage to create a tactic that sets up, lets say 5 clear cut open chances where my top strikers run directly at the keeper with no defenders any where near, I should be able to rely on Dabid villa to put a reasonable amount of goals away. In this game I can´t and that ruins the game experience - and scoring one screamer from 40 yards out after another doesn´t make up for it.

Whats worse - it makes me realise what af waste om time playing a football manager game is!

There are so many more things but rant over for now as I can't be effing bothered.

Agree one on onesare annoying.

One on ones are ridiculous

even poor level strikers find it easy to bury them into the corner in real life. But in FM they think it's a good idea to kick it as hard as possible at the goalkeeper.

This is one of those issues that not everyone experiences, so punting statistics around is pretty pointless.

IRL strikers do miss a lot of one-on-ones. They're not as easy to score as you think. I watched the Leeds vs Kettering match tonight, and believe me, if it was an FM match you'd be screaming it's a bug. An hour of Leeds peppering Kettering and only manage to be 1-0 up after 60 mins. Then Kettering get one back, and it goes to extra time. Okay, Leeds got 4 in ET but still, one on ones get missed. A lot.

Perhaps the real fault is in how many chances are being created. Or maybe it's simply that you are watching so many matches so close together there's a perception of 80-90% of one on ones being missed.

I don't know for sure, I haven't seen your games, but all I can say is my conversion rate with Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle and Man City are all realistic. Except Newcastle. Don't know why, but I just can't make them successful - maybe I'll start a thread about the "Newcastle Bug".

i hope they fix this in the new patch im playin as tottenham right now and jermain defoe just cant score 1 on 1 its so frustrating and makes it a chore to play the game nearley evry time hes through he either shoots wide or str8 at the keeper

I hope they leave it as it is, I've not noticed any problems at all with one on ones in my three seasons so far!

Everyone has to remember that Football manager is a simulation, a human created one. If you look at it from the other perspective, there are far more one on one chances created in football manager than in reality so the conversion % is bound to be lower. Overall its going to give the same result and in my opinion it's just a question of "Do the ends justify the means?"

that's not really good enough.

If there are too many one on one chances being created than it should, then they should work on the game engine's defensive system, not make it more frustrating by lowering the chance of goal conversion through clear cut chances.

this is because sometimes in the game you barely get 1 clear cut chance against a tough opponent, and it often comes down to hitting or missing that one chance in the game.

If then the game has such a low probability of converting clear cut chances, they will almost always miss those chances.

Everyone has to remember that Football manager is a simulation, a human created one. If you look at it from the other perspective, there are far more one on one chances created in football manager than in reality so the conversion % is bound to be lower. Overall its going to give the same result and in my opinion it's just a question of "Do the ends justify the means?"

Exactly what I thought! The match engine just try to stimulate your excitement in the match, so it generates more chances than a match would realistically be. For those (and most of people) who only watch highlight, isn't it more fun to have those missed chances than the match just run with no chance and showing nothing in the match? At least, it gives you some sense of what is going on in the match rather than a no event match.

As far as I am concerned, this moan is better than "match scores are too high"

Last time I saw any real life stats (annoyingly, they're not easily available anymore), conversion rates in the english premier league for one on ones was about 1 in 5.

Not sure about one-on-one stats, but I’ve found some information about conversion %.

Arsenal:

Shots to date: 189

On target: 100 (53%)

Goals scored: 38 (38% of on-target shots, 20% success rate overall)

And that’s a team that is commonly known to try and walk the ball in the back of the net. They are a little shot-shy.

A “mid” team example is Villa with a mere 130 shots, 56 of which were on target, and 25 scored.

A theoretically "smaller" team, Birmingham, is actually the 3rd most accurate at the moment, having 122 shots, 61 on target (50%) but only scoring 15 goals (24% of on-target; 12% overall)

In terms of accuracy, Man U are in the bottom half with 34 goals scored from 197 shots (89 on target = 45%) which is a 17% success rate overall.

Worst is Wolves with 131 shots (48 on target), converting 14 of them into goals (10%).

I don’t know how this compares to FM’s soak tests but this means that in real life, shots-to-goals ratio should equal around 10-20 goals for every 100 attempts (on- OR off-target). To summarise:

Arsenal = 20% of shots scored

Villa = 19% of all shots scored

Man U = 17% of all shots scored

Birmingham = 12% of all shots scored

Wolves = 10% of all shots scored

So the conversion rate seems to vary by up to 100%. But when you look at the on-target % vs goals scored, there is a much bigger variance.

Villa = 44% of on-target shots go in.

Arsenal = 38% of on-target shots go in.

Man U = 38% of on-target shots go in.

Wolves = 29% of on-target shots go in.

Birmingham = 24% of on-target shots go in.

So, in theory, if SI want to be as accurate as possible their soak tests should show between 10% and 20% of all shots should be converted, while anywhere in the region of 24% to 44% of on-target shots should go in.

However, you should also note Wigan:

Shots:180

On-target:84

Goals:17

Overall conversion: 9%

On-target conversion: 20%

Source: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11096_2705370,00.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Just to add, I’m not posting this as any sort of rebuttal since I don’t even have my own game available to compare the figures against at the moment. But if anyone wants to open up theirs and see how it compares (AI and human teams) it may be interesting.

I should also point out, however (before anyone gets angry if there’s a big discrepancy), what constitutes a “shot” in FM may be different to how Sky rates a “shot.” EG, is a scuffed pea-roller considered a shot by both FM and Sky?

Going purely from memory, from my own games having played as big and small teams, the on-target conversion rate is probably a bit low on FM, but the overall attempts feels about right.

____________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: worst is Portsmouth, but they were sitting below my screen - sorry, was rushing, but not editing all the stats here. You still get the idea.

Anyone know how to post a table on these forums?

that's not really good enough.

If there are too many one on one chances being created than it should, then they should work on the game engine's defensive system, not make it more frustrating by lowering the chance of goal conversion through clear cut chances.

this is because sometimes in the game you barely get 1 clear cut chance against a tough opponent, and it often comes down to hitting or missing that one chance in the game.

If then the game has such a low probability of converting clear cut chances, they will almost always miss those chances.

Thats my point. As I said - when you manage a tactic that has David Villa clean through 5 times a game youd expect him to put some of those chances away. Otherwise its just random - not what you want when you waste your time playing this game. All I ask for is a feeling of real football. HArder to play through defence and create one on ones and higher conversion rates (at least for top players).

that's not really good enough.

If there are too many one on one chances being created than it should, then they should work on the game engine's defensive system, not make it more frustrating by lowering the chance of goal conversion through clear cut chances.

this is because sometimes in the game you barely get 1 clear cut chance against a tough opponent, and it often comes down to hitting or missing that one chance in the game.

If then the game has such a low probability of converting clear cut chances, they will almost always miss those chances.

Not sure about one-on-one stats, but I’ve found some information about conversion %.

Arsenal:

Shots to date: 189

On target: 100 (53%)

Goals scored: 38 (38% of on-target shots, 20% success rate overall)

And that’s a team that is commonly known to try and walk the ball in the back of the net. They are a little shot-shy.

A “mid” team example is Villa with a mere 130 shots, 56 of which were on target, and 25 scored.

A theoretically "smaller" team, Birmingham, is actually the 3rd most accurate at the moment, having 122 shots, 61 on target (50%) but only scoring 15 goals (24% of on-target; 12% overall)

In terms of accuracy, Man U are in the bottom half with 34 goals scored from 197 shots (89 on target = 45%) which is a 17% success rate overall.

Worst is Wolves with 131 shots (48 on target), converting 14 of them into goals (10%).

I don’t know how this compares to FM’s soak tests but this means that in real life, shots-to-goals ratio should equal around 10-20 goals for every 100 attempts (on- OR off-target). To summarise:

Arsenal = 20% of shots scored

Villa = 19% of all shots scored

Man U = 17% of all shots scored

Birmingham = 12% of all shots scored

Wolves = 10% of all shots scored

So the conversion rate seems to vary by up to 100%. But when you look at the on-target % vs goals scored, there is a much bigger variance.

Villa = 44% of on-target shots go in.

Arsenal = 38% of on-target shots go in.

Man U = 38% of on-target shots go in.

Wolves = 29% of on-target shots go in.

Birmingham = 24% of on-target shots go in.

So, in theory, if SI want to be as accurate as possible their soak tests should show between 10% and 20% of all shots should be converted, while anywhere in the region of 24% to 44% of on-target shots should go in.

However, you should also note Wigan:

Shots:180

On-target:84

Goals:17

Overall conversion: 9%

On-target conversion: 20%

Source: http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11096_2705370,00.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Just to add, I’m not posting this as any sort of rebuttal since I don’t even have my own game available to compare the figures against at the moment. But if anyone wants to open up theirs and see how it compares (AI and human teams) it may be interesting.

I should also point out, however (before anyone gets angry if there’s a big discrepancy), what constitutes a “shot” in FM may be different to how Sky rates a “shot.” EG, is a scuffed pea-roller considered a shot by both FM and Sky?

Going purely from memory, from my own games having played as big and small teams, the on-target conversion rate is probably a bit low on FM, but the overall attempts feels about right.

____________________________________________________________________________________

EDIT: worst is Portsmouth, but they were sitting below my screen - sorry, was rushing, but not editing all the stats here. You still get the idea.

I actually think this proves my point. Especially if you take into account them my grief is clear cut chances!

Its annoying people just see this as moaning lol. But the real issue your raising is that tactics really shouldn't be a factor when it comes to your strikers missing clear-cut chances... this should be down to the players ability not if your tempo is too high!

If your making them the tactic can't be that bad?!

This is an issue that will never, ever be sorted out within the confines of a computer game, though. How can anyone expect it to be perfect? If too many get scored, people will be complaining that Bobby Zamora got a hattrick against their world class GK, all from one-v-ones.

The margin between too-few and too-many is so tiny it will take a hundred years to code. Add to that the knock-on effect it may have to other aspects of the match engine and you can add another hundred.

Okay, I don't know a heckuva lot about programming games, but here's what I understand about FM:to make players score more one-on-ones you have to either make finishing MORE effective or make goalkeeping LESS effective, or at least tweak the impact of certain attributes. How the ME interprets the GK attribute of "one on ones" for example - is it only when a ST is running at them, or does it include when the ST gets away from his marker in the box? What about headers? So tone down that, and what happens? Something else becomes an issue. Fix that, something else becomes and issue... and so on. In other words, it's finding that correct combination to make every single gamer happy.

So increased finishing or decreased GKs means more goals from all over the ptich. We already have positioning problems with GKs leading to too many long-shots going in. Would improved positioning make one-on-ones even HARDER? Would better finishing leader to MORE long-shots going in?

Yes, if David Villa is regularly getting 5 one-on-one chances in a game he should convert a couple of them. Or perhaps he needs retraining to "place" his shots? More to the point, should the ME be allowing him to get 5 one-on-one chances a game?

I honestly suspect the issue is down to the tweaks needed within defending, meaning the players wouldn't HAVE so many chances. While the overall number of goals scored is probably on the high side, but not by much, it's more of a general issue than a focused problem on one area.

I actually think this proves my point. Especially if you take into account them my grief is clear cut chances!

Is this referring to your CCC stat or just your observation of one-on-ones?

If you see overall (you and the AI teams) that CCC conversion ratio is way less than 25% then you definitely have a point. Sorry, I don't have my game to hand otherwise I'd check my own.

Is this referring to your CCC stat or just your observation of one-on-ones?

If you see overall (you and the AI teams) that CCC conversion ratio is way less than 25% then you definitely have a point. Sorry, I don't have my game to hand otherwise I'd check my own.

Sorry I should have specified. My point is that the numbers quoted frym sky statistics where all shots are counted are higher than david villa'´s convertion rate when clear through and full control of the ball. Real life players right from full backs to defenders have on average with sots from anywhere on the pitch have higher convertion rates than David Villa alone in the penalty area.

Just doesnt make sense.

Oh - and I can now (almost) include penalties to my stats -8 misses in 10 clear cut one on ones...

I agree. I played a two games against a non league team, and Gignac/Gilardino/Villa together missed around 8-10 one on ones with a usless keeper.

Last time I saw any real life stats (annoyingly, they're not easily available anymore), conversion rates in the english premier league for one on ones was about 1 in 5.

Yeah but that includes Roberts and the likes....

And Big Jase shouldn't really out score David Villa...

As someone mentioned above... How am I supposed to do anything but set play up in a manner that gives my forwards clear cut chances. Heck with a convertion rate with 2 for 10 they won't even put pens away while I don't think I seen a missed pen from the CPU in the last 15 pens.

And just to be clear - yes I am moaning, but with good reason I think

Does anyone remember SI saying that the new engine in FM10 was going to more accurately reflect the goals ratio from set pieces?

Has anyone actually seen a goal scored from a crossed free-kick? I must get about 1 per season at the moment.

Does anyone remember SI saying that the new engine in FM10 was going to more accurately reflect the goals ratio from set pieces?

Has anyone actually seen a goal scored from a crossed free-kick? I must get about 1 per season at the moment.

Well I dont like saying it but so far I think that this particular thing has been pretty much OK on my saves... I'd rather they'd tune the engine so the overall game feels realistic instead of F(ifa)M

I hsve seen this as well can not score from 1 on ones.