Quality of chances v. quantity of chances

I am a high school soccer coach and I coach this game WITH THE SAME EXACT TACTIC I EMPLOY IRL. We use a defensive counter-attack mindset, typically operated out of the 4-4-2 with a wide diamond midfield. IRL and on this game, I routinely get outshot and outpossessed. However, I still win because the quality of my chances exceeds that of my opponents. Many, many games on here, I have five or fewer shots. My opponents will have anywhere from fifteen to twenty shots for the same game yet I still win because of the quality of my chances. My tactics do not offer too many rebound opportunities nor do they allow the CPU to have too many breakaways. The game I play is not technically beautiful but it is functionally proficient. I want to go on record here and say that FOR SOME TACTICAL MODELS, time of possession and shots is OVERRATED. I read thread after thread about how folks win those two categories, come away with a loss and blame the game. My high school team was outshot 24 - 2 two season ago and we won 2 - 0. We allowed their eleven to ALL cross into our half of play and we ran a dump-and-run counter-attack and beat them. This was not against a nobody team from our conference; it was from a perennial conference power (Evergreen, for anyone who knows Colorado high school soccer). What I want to know is how many of you out there do not outshoot or outpossess your opponents but still win? Post your experiences here. For the players who DO outshoot/outpossess and, therefore, think victory is deserved, feel free to post but please understand your tactical model might not be as good as you think.

Regardless of how many post here, I will post the results of my next three games to demonstrate that this tactic CAN work effectively, if implemented comprehensively. Also, I want to reiterate that shots/possession are overrated. Here is my first reporting.

Just played the L.A. Galaxy at their home. I am the Kansas City Wizards. Year is 2011. They outshot me 22 - 6. Shots-on-target, 4 - 4. Clear-cut-chances, 1 - 3. Long-shots, 8 - 1. Corners, 12 - 3. Possession, 52 - 48. Tackles won by percentage, 66 - 69. The only stat I expect and demand to win is tackles won by percentage. This is because of the style of defense I play. BTW, the game ended in a 1 - 1 tie. They were the favorite going in...

A decent team who know what they are doing will destroy you.

For instance, if you lose a goal what are you going to do when the opposition sits back? your whole game plan is out the window. what's your plan B?

A decent team who know what they are doing will destroy you.

For instance, if you lose a goal what are you going to do when the opposition sits back? your whole game plan is out the window. what's your plan B?

Obviously, as with any time a team goes down in a game you have to decide if your general tactic will allow you to get back into the game. If not, you always have to press more. I'm not stupid, man. BTW, I play teams consistently at my level of talent in MLS. They only occasionally destroy me; and me sometimes them. In summary, my game plan is not out the window because the game has an ebb-and-flow to it. This is where touchline shouts come into play. The original point still remains that it doesn't matter being outshot...

Please respond with other specific examples so we can discuss these; thanks in advance.

I won 3-1 against AC Milan, constatly battering their goal.

17 SoT, 2 off target, 2 blocked, 9 CCC, 3 long shots.

They had 1 shot on target, 5 off and no clear cut chances.

Hammered Parma 5-1 with 10 SoT (they had just the one again)

I'd say that's not bad. I play 3-4-3 control/attacking. I like outshooting/dominating the opponent. Occasionally we'll have an off-day and lose, but with 3 up front there's bound to be a goal.

"We allowed their eleven to ALL cross into our half of play and we ran a dump-and-run counter-attack and beat them."

You must be playing against completely clueless opposition for this to happen. No team who has any idea would ever do this.

So as I said, what's the plan B? You're a goal down and the opposition are sitting back. Obviously you can't play your "dump-and-run counter-attack" anymore because the other side aren't committing players forward.

very good post. its all about the style of a team and at the end of it the result you receive. if you are good enough defensively to sit back and counter attakc then so be it

The problem with a diamond midfield imo, is that its too easy to get dominated. All the opposing team has to do is flood the middle of the park and your immediately outnumbered.

In terms of FM, you probably benefit from the "superkeeper" effect. With the wide players in a diamond, and lack of players in CM, im guessing a lot of your play would come down the flanks? This makes the quality of your chances better as it over-rides the "superkeeper" thing.

Tomer, I think your tactic allows you to simply overwhelm the opposition. I would say good show to you for it. My tactic, on the other hand, relies on the other team pushing too far up.

Tomer, I think your tactic allows you to simply overwhelm the opposition. I would say good show to you for it. My tactic, on the other hand, relies on the other team pushing too far up.

Yup, and I like it that way

Tomer, I think your tactic allows you to simply overwhelm the opposition. I would say good show to you for it. My tactic, on the other hand, relies on the other team pushing too far up.

Is this in FM or real life? That bold statement above, is flawed. As Kickballz said, it wouldn't take a world class manager to work out how to stifle your team.

very good post. its all about the style of a team and at the end of it the result you receive. if you are good enough defensively to sit back and counter attakc then so be it

Appreciate it. I tend to agree that if I a team will let me sit back and clear balls all day then I will just wait for them to push up so I can get my chances.

The problem with a diamond midfield imo, is that its too easy to get dominated. All the opposing team has to do is flood the middle of the park and your immediately outnumbered.

In terms of FM, you probably benefit from the "superkeeper" effect. With the wide players in a diamond, and lack of players in CM, im guessing a lot of your play would come down the flanks? This makes the quality of your chances better as it over-rides the "superkeeper" thing.

I actually prefer a team to push into the middle of the pitch. The diamond allows me to use a collapsing trap on the opposition and slow down their attack. When they bring it into my defensive-third, the field is so clogged with my men that their shots tend to be long or weak. I stagger the two center-backs, one-up and one-back with their mentality. The overwhelming majority of shots taken on me, both in the game and IRL, are from outside the box. I will let them do this ALL DAY. As to my own attacking, I do bring it down the wing unless the opposition gives me the middle, which is equally effective because of rebounded shots. I would challenge that the superkeeper effect is not in play here because this is the same tactic I have used the last few versions of FM. The only difference is the introduction of touchline shouts.

Is this in FM or real life? That bold statement above, is flawed. As Kickballz said, it wouldn't take a world class manager to work out how to stifle your team.

It has worked for me both IRL and on FM. I assure you it can work. It takes a systems approach by changing EVERY aspect of how you coach/manage on FM.

The systems change involves picking the type of players who will fit into my tactic; changing the training to the specific needs I have for each position; the specific touchline shouts given in a game to match the situation; the team talks (both team and individual); who plays based on the "hot hand;" finally, it is about knowing when to TEMPORARILY switch to a different in-game mentality to disrupt the flow of the game.

With all due respect, I personally believe the success of ANY tactic relies heavily on how well a person understands what they see happening on the pitch. If my tactic would not work for you, then so be it. I would be happy to share more details with you if you would like...

Being honest, despite the obvious tactical naivety of the initial post (hopefully you do have different tactics depending on your teams opposition IRL!!!), it is 100% refreshing to see a post detailing EXACTLY why the Clear Cut Chance stat on FM10 is not the be all, end all in terms of your ability to score goals.

You are basically just advocating a defensive counter attacking style of football. You haven't informed us of your tactics if you have to chase the game and I really can't see anything remotely innovative in anything you have said.

You are basically just advocating a defensive counter attacking style of football. You haven't informed us of your tactics if you have to chase the game and I really can't see anything remotely innovative in anything you have said.

I didn't suggest that my system offered something new or different. I am suggesting that quantity of shots/possession is not necessary. The only innovation I use (IRL) is not new to me but is not often found in modern soccer; it is the notion of using the Dutch system of Total Football with overlapping except doing it in reverse for defense. Unfortunately, I have not found a way to do this on FM. Basically, IRL, I have the outside-mid slide back in between the outside and center back on his side; then the mid assumes a defensive position behind the now-attacking outside defender on the ball side; the defender and mid now represent a staggered defensive line ball-side; roughly seven to ten yards apart; if the opposition gets past the attacking outside defender, the outside midfielder who was waiting behind him steps up to attack the play as the beaten defender runs back to the inside to assume the defensive position given up by the now attacking outside midfielder. Basically, what is created is a ball-side backward rotation where a player is always between the ball and the goal. On the back side, we protect against the drop-in cross and everyone else plays zone defense. This is basically a zone-man defense that uses the Brazilian flat-back four, the Dutch total defense and American football's zone-man defense where everyone plays zone except the man on the ball. Like I said, this portion is something I have not been able to duplicate in FM as I fear it might be too complicated to implement into the AI. As it is, I am still successful on FM deflecting the attack to the sides by simply dropping down and filling the box with five or six men to clear the ball.

Being honest, despite the obvious tactical naivety of the initial post (hopefully you do have different tactics depending on your teams opposition IRL!!!), it is 100% refreshing to see a post detailing EXACTLY why the Clear Cut Chance stat on FM10 is not the be all, end all in terms of your ability to score goals.

Truth be told, I don't like or agree with the notion of changing formations to suit an opponent. We prepare for opponents and make adjustments to what we have to defend and what the opposition will give us in the attack. This is also similar to the American football model where a team will keep their same formations but attack and defend according to the oppostion's strengths and weaknesses.

It sounds to me like you are getting a bit too over analytical.

I don't doubt that you may be having success but if I were a player in your team I think I'd be quite confused, but that might just because of your US terminology. I prefer to keep it simple. The players should have enough common sense to do their jobs without being micro managed tactically to the extent you seem to prefer.

For instance, trying to play a total football style defense just sounds too much. I don't want my defenders chasing around out of position in a complex system. I want my full backs to play as full backs, my CBs to play as CBs and DMs to play as DMs etc. It's simple and it works.

It sounds to me like you are getting a bit too over analytical.

I don't doubt that you may be having success but if I were a player in your team I think I'd be quite confused, but that might just because of your US terminology. I prefer to keep it simple. The players should have enough common sense to do their jobs without being micro managed tactically to the extent you seem to prefer.

For instance, trying to play a total football style defense just sounds too much. I don't want my defenders chasing around out of position in a complex system. I want my full backs to play as full backs, my CBs to play as CBs and DMs to play as DMs etc. It's simple and it works.

I think you bring up an excellent argument! It is a complex system and we are often met with resistance. However, in two years (roughly 30 games) we have recorded 12 clean sheets. For American high school, that is impressive; especially when you consider that I have been with this program for two years now and we made the playoffs last year for the first time in eight seasons.

As to the specific argument you bring up; I personally believe this is why other countries do not enjoy seeing American soccer/football. We do not play a beautiful game. We play a game of being "assignment sound" and efficient. Basically, we wear a team down, look for the sloppy opportunity and eke out a victory. This is a tried-and-true formula for our American athletes who lack the technical proficiency of other countries.

Next result. Played at home against New York Red Bulls. Tied 2 - 2. Feel a mid-table finish coming on. I will probably squeeze into the playoffs, but that's it. Anyway shots, 19 - 9 them. On target, 9 - 5, them. Clear-cut-chances, 5 - 3, them. Long shots, 7 - 5, them. Possession, 59 - 41, them. Once again the only stat I care about, tackles won by percentage, 69 - 67, them. Boo on this last one.

The match engine isnt anywhere near decent enough for anything you say to be anything more than self self aggrandising speculation Im afraid.

You will win or draw games in which you get mauled by the opposition by sheer luck, you need to remember. The game is at its most basic level a bunch of random numbers and based largely on chance. Any kind of tactic imaginable could lead to similar results you are having.

i can dominate normally, but in specific matches i allow myself to be dominated and play on the counter instead - all from an identical tactic, just a control or counter style - and it yielded me wins over liverpool away, chelsea home, man utd away - having an adaptable tactic is critical to a team being successful

i can dominate normally, but in specific matches i allow myself to be dominated and play on the counter instead - all from an identical tactic, just a control or counter style - and it yielded me wins over liverpool away, chelsea home, man utd away - having an adaptable tactic is critical to a team being successful

I wanted to think about this overnight before I responded; Having said that, I would like to answer this in two ways. First, most of what everyone writes here is self-aggrandizement. We are likely fairly-good to probably quite-good at this game, which is why we keep playing and posting here. Second, in several places throughout my posts I alluded to the belief that many different tactical models properly and comprehensively implemented will produce quality results. My original point remains the same; one does not need to win the shots/possession battle to win at the game or IRL.

i am not disputing that my friend, quite the contrary - showing that having a tactic capable of either is great to win games, as you can choose to play in either format - but dominating and going for quantity, or absorbing pressure and relying on the quality chance

If im honest, i don't want to insult you or discredit your credentials, and you have a very well thougth out tactic etc and know what your talking about.

But come up against a decent team (not from the US) and you would get mauled. Your whole tactic relies on the counter attack, thats too say you actually get a chance. If you played a team that could finish their chances, i dont think you'd have a leg to stand on. Alternatively, all it takes is for the opponents to have 1 players with a little bit of flair and you'd probably be beaten by one man.

I think if you played a half decent team from england - even another high school team, you wouldnt scrape a draw, it would be relentless pressure i doubt you'd be able to get out of your own half, as in many of the teams i play, the defence only ever push up over the halfway-line for set plays. A fairly rigid system in terms of defensive ideals you could say.

I don't mean to come across as attempting to be harsh or nasty, but when i was last in the US, i played in a football match, at the time i was 15, it was an adults game, and i scored a hat trick, and my team won about 9-0. The difference was there were 2 english players on our team (including me) and the othe rteam couldnt cope. I dont mean to sound cocky either, but in england i play in a mens team, and im a very good player, but i can tell you now im never going to be professiona, but it illustrates the gap between in abilityl. Basically, i just feel if you came up against good foreign opposition, your tactic wouldnt work.

If im honest, i don't want to insult you or discredit your credentials, and you have a very well thougth out tactic etc and know what your talking about.

But come up against a decent team (not from the US) and you would get mauled. Your whole tactic relies on the counter attack, thats too say you actually get a chance. If you played a team that could finish their chances, i dont think you'd have a leg to stand on. Alternatively, all it takes is for the opponents to have 1 players with a little bit of flair and you'd probably be beaten by one man.

I think if you played a half decent team from england - even another high school team, you wouldnt scrape a draw, it would be relentless pressure i doubt you'd be able to get out of your own half, as in many of the teams i play, the defence only ever push up over the halfway-line for set plays. A fairly rigid system in terms of defensive ideals you could say.

I don't mean to come across as attempting to be harsh or nasty, but when i was last in the US, i played in a football match, at the time i was 15, it was an adults game, and i scored a hat trick, and my team won about 9-0. The difference was there were 2 english players on our team (including me) and the othe rteam couldnt cope. I dont mean to sound cocky either, but in england i play in a mens team, and im a very good player, but i can tell you now im never going to be professiona, but it illustrates the gap between in abilityl. Basically, i just feel if you came up against good foreign opposition, your tactic wouldnt work.

No offense taken. I am confident that if I was coaching in a different country and had players even remotely of the quality of the other teams in the league that we would fair just fine for ourselves. This is because this system is perfect for underskilled, yet hard-working players. As to the ability level piece; you are right to say that Americans, in general, lack the technical ability of players from other countries. However, we are used to growing up with our brothers, cousins, etc. who play American football and basketball and these make us more used to a rough contact game. All things being equal, I would take a physical player over a technically talented player any day for my system because the physical player will just knock the other guy off the ball. Soccer/football is NOT a non-contact sport, regardless of how many finess players there are in the world. I know the English and the Germans (sorry to have to refer to you both in the same sentence given the long international footballing history between your two nations) are known for rough, physical play. I would like to think when Americans don't have a wimp for a coach (Bob Bradley), we can field a pretty physical squad ourselves. The prime example is Uguchi Onyewu. That guy is 6'3", 215 lbs and benches well over 300 lbs. What a stud!

Anyway, no offense taken on my part. Please don't take offense at anything I said either.

None taken, always good reading a well thought out reply!

If im honest with you, a lot of the time i agree with choosing a physical player over a technically gifted player, of course you'd always want a good balance. But i agree, personally when i play the one thing that annoys me more than anything are opponents afraid to go into contact, or when you see a silly free kick given. The game is meant to be played physcially and there is nothing i despise than playing against someone who goes down after the slightest feeling of contact. I personally always play better when the other team is willing to be physical because then it just changes the way the whole game is played, and you can go into a tackle hard knowing they wont moan, as they'll do the same back to you. It just makes it more fun!

If im honest, i feel recently the english game has become a little too soft. I mean sometime you see Gerrard, whos pretty strong, win a great tackle, but just fall over when the opportunity presents itself. Its so pathetic and frustrating!