Please please show me a real life result...

like this one...

I am talking about the amount of chances/ shots and the scoreline...

I will be really glad to see one in real life...

As dissapointing as it must be for you I cant really complain about results like this having seen one go in my favour just the other day. (Will dig out a screenshot in a min)

As fr in real life, I think it was Spurs v Hull (ironically) where Spurs absolutly BATTERED Hull, but got a 0-0 draw for all thier efforts.

http://img532.imageshack.us/i/buryvafctelford.png/

These results happen, look ahead to the next game

yes but in my game i battered them and i WISH i had gotten away with the draw.

8 clear cut chances, unlucky dan, and this result was realistac, its a classic case of a team having an off day and no matter what they did could not score

8 clear cut chances, unlucky dan

I'm playing as Telford

Well, I would refer to the old John Motson phrase, which suggests your strikers couldn't hit a cow's backside with a banjo.

Looking at the stats though, it seems to me like the United forwards were more clinical with their attempts on goal than your forwards. I'm also wondering if Goldstien and Gignac were two of the main culprits when it came to missed opportunities.

You might want to look at the roles you've assigned your forwards. They might not be best suited to the roles you've given them, in relation to their attributes. Likewise, is this a tactic you've created yourself, using TC or classic sliders, or one you've downloaded?

Interestingly though, I've seen plenty of examples from Man Utd this season IRL, where they've dominated possession, crafted plenty of chances, yet failed to take them. So mightily frustrating though it is, it happens.

Anyway...i am putting that result behind me and fighting about the second place in the league and beat Milan in the Europa league cup...

I hope this time my team wins with the less chances

lol that is nice!

like this one...

I am talking about the amount of chances/ shots and the scoreline...

I will be really glad to see one in real life...

Worth pointing out is your average rating versus United. Although you had more shots, hit the woodwork twice and missed 3 CCC's while slightly shading the possession, you got battered in terms of actual match performance. The Manchester United average rating is almost a point and a half higher than yours, and the Manchester United players were on average at 7.58 level.

Looking at those stats I would be inclined to think you fluked a few chances trying to claw yourself back into the game, and could have pulled off a completely undeserved result through sheer gung-ho attacking football and good fortune.

Though you can be disappointed that none of your chances went in, you got totally outclassed and didn't really deserve anything from the game. Look at the state of Akinfeev and Cristian Zapata, two top defensive players at their peak playing at home and coming away with 6.7 and 6.5 ratings. Gignac is one of the better all round forwards in the game and he comes away with a 5.2 rating.

Look at this picture. Newcastle United shaded possession, had more corners, hit the post twice, missed a CCC, had only 6 less shots than me, completed more of their passes. Did they deserve anything out of the game? Not a chance. My average rating was 8.03, theirs was 5.46. They got absolutely hammered, no two ways about it. I only scored two of my six CCC's, it should have been 9-0.

This one for example http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_2/8583522.stm

25 shots to 5, 13 corners to 2, 1-1 the result.

anyway but this is not what i am looking for. If one team is attacking all game and the other is back, then with some luck the score can remain tied. What amazed me is that i made a total of 21 shots and scored 0 whereas they made 8 and scored 3. any of the two can happen in real life, but both in the same game is too much!

I cant see the point here. Is it the fact that it was Man Utd and you didnt win thats making the difference?

Ok you had 21 shots but 6 of them were blocked, you had 3 more shots off target and only 4 more on target which may well have been from long range. As for hitting the woodwork twice well thats just unlucky

The key stat for me is the CCC's both with 3 and you didnt score but Man Utd did 3 times. Its probably down to Man Utd having better strikers and taking their chances. I notice you had 6 offsides aswell compared to Man Utd's 0. What else does that tell you? Maybe Man Utd have better defenders and can step up or your strikers dont know how to time a run. Either way its in Man Utd's favour.

These results happen. Ive lost count the amount of times Man Utd have battered teams only to draw or maybe win 1-0 but score in the dying minutes. They say its not how much posession you have but what you do with it that counts, thats the lesson here. you're players had the chances and fluffed them. Not a lot more can be said.

This issue was discussed a lot in respect of FM09. I remember many lengthy disagreements between Hammer1000 and wwfan about it.

It's perfectly true that 'these things happen' in real life football. The question arises, though, as to whether they happen as OFTEN as they do in FM. It's extremely easy to dismissively suggest that it's down to people's tactics but I feel that's something of a cop out. It's not all that often that a dominant team loses by 2 or 3 goals in reality (I am NOT saying it can never happen) and it does seem sometimes that it happens more frequently in FM than would be expected.

The problem is that if you are bombarding the opposition goal with shots and having the better of the possession, you have the feeling that you are bound to score at any moment and have no particular reason to change your strategy.

A minor point about what SFraser said. Players' ratings are affected by scoring and providing assists and so on. So really, isn't it the case that Man U's players were much better rated because they won rather than that they won because their ratings were higher? And because the game made Hull miss a load of chances, their players were rated much lower. Chicken and egg!

The same sort of issue applies with opposition midfielders with long shot stats of 4 scoring 30 yard screamers against you. I'm not saying that it should NEVER happen. But it seems to me that it happens rather too OFTEN in FM.

http://soccernet-akamai.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=287654&league=ENG.5&cc=5739

There you go - 17 shots (7 on target) vs 5 shots (1 on target) and lose 2-0. That was last week.

http://soccernet-akamai.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=287654&league=ENG.5&cc=5739

There you go - 17 shots (7 on target) vs 5 shots (1 on target) and lose 2-0. That was last week.

I must be being really thick here, but how can they score twice if there's only one shot on target? :confused:

I must be being really thick here, but how can they score twice if there's only one shot on target? :confused:

Have you clicked the link and looked. 1 was a penalty

Have you clicked the link and looked. 1 was a penalty

Yea I saw that - am just surprised that a penalty doesn't count as a shot on target is all.

anyway but this is not what i am looking for. If one team is attacking all game and the other is back, then with some luck the score can remain tied. What amazed me is that i made a total of 21 shots and scored 0 whereas they made 8 and scored 3. any of the two can happen in real life, but both in the same game is too much!

Im sorry i dont see what your getting at.By these statistics is that your strikers are terrible but your defense is good.It also proves man utd have good strikers and a great goalie

Yea I saw that - am just surprised that a penalty doesn't count as a shot on target is all.

They don't count goals as shots on target.

http://soccernet-akamai.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=289046&league=ENG.2&cc=5739#

anyway but this is not what i am looking for. If one team is attacking all game and the other is back, then with some luck the score can remain tied. What amazed me is that i made a total of 21 shots and scored 0 whereas they made 8 and scored 3. any of the two can happen in real life, but both in the same game is too much!

Seriously, you need to understand that you played absolutely terrible no matter how many hopeless shots you hit, or how many CCC's you fluked and fluffed.

If your team gets absolutely battered, humiliated, dominated, demoralised and terrified then when you do manage to fluke a CCC it's going into the crowd.

.A minor point about what SFraser said. Players' ratings are affected by scoring and providing assists and so on. So really, isn't it the case that Man U's players were much better rated because they won rather than that they won because their ratings were higher? And because the game made Hull miss a load of chances, their players were rated much lower. Chicken and egg!

Did you not see how absolutely dire his entire side was? The average rating for the opponent side was 7.58. If three different goalscorers in the United side scored a perfect 10, the rest of the team would still be at 6.5 which is still better than almost the entire Hull side.

I thrashed Bristol City 7-0 at home and my average rating was only 8.6, an average of one point higher per player than the game above. I thrashed Newcastle 5-0 away and my average rating was 8.06, half a point per player better on average than the game above.

Whether the OP is willing to admit it or not, he got slaughtered. You don't play well by winning and play badly by losing. You win by playing well and lose by playing badly. Hull City played terrible and the opponent played very well. Fluking enough chances to potentially earn a draw from a thrashing doesn't change that.

This is the problem with statistics - they can often be very misleading. You could have got loads of rubbish chances whereas Utd got a lot less, but more "finishable" chances.

I remember a Man Utd game Vs Everton IRL. Utd pummelled the Everton goal for 90mins and had about 11 shots at goal. Almost all were on target; Everton on the other hand had one shot at goal, one shot on target and went on to win 1-0

This is the problem with statistics - they can often be very misleading. You could have got loads of rubbish chances whereas Utd got a lot less, but more "finishable" chances.

Seconded. An absolute rocket in the top corner by Rooney or a weak tap at the keeper by Gignac are both shots on target, but obviously one will go in and one won't. It's about quality, not quantity, which your game shows (no offense), Vangelis21.

Wolves v Sunderland earlier this season, Wolves battered Sunderland the entire game but lost 5-2, these things happen.

Charlton beat Arsenal 5-3 a few years ago from about 5 shots all game.

you want a real life result like it?

Manchester United 0-1 Aston Villa, Premier League 09-10 season

Arsenal 0-1 West Ham, Premier League 06-07 season

It looks like the result of some good counter attacking from United. Hull obviously were more attacking and having more shots, but there were a lot of long and blocked shots, so it looks like United sat back, soaked up the pressure and hit Hull on the counter to nick a goal. Then Hull would have to chase the game, meaning United can sit back more and counter again.

This sort of scoreline has happened plenty of times in real life, you probably just haven't looked at the stats of every game.

Whether the OP is willing to admit it or not, he got slaughtered. You don't play well by winning and play badly by losing. You win by playing well and lose by playing badly. Hull City played terrible and the opponent played very well. Fluking enough chances to potentially earn a draw from a thrashing doesn't change that.

This

This paragraph summed it up pretty nicely.

Here is one from Saturday afternoon. I wonder if Charlton's manager complained that the result was unrealistic and would never happen in FM...

Charlton 0 - 1 Norwich

Possession

• Charlton 68%
  
• Norwich 32%
  

Attempts on target

• Charlton 9
  
• Norwich 2
  

Attempts off target

• Charlton 7
  
• Norwich 1
  

Corners

• Charlton 9
  
• Norwich 1
  

Wolves v Sunderland earlier this season, Wolves battered Sunderland the entire game but lost 5-2, these things happen.

Well that's pure lies for a start. Wolves had about 10 shots in the space of 5 minutes, about five in three seconds before Doyle managed to tap one in. And hardly battered us, Wolves were the better team for about 10 minutes.

You want a result like this, only need to look back to last Wednesday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_3/8606134.stm

Rochdale 0-1 Darlington

Shots on target;

Rochdale 11

Darlo 2

Shots off target

Rochdale 6

Darlo 1

Rochdale also had 14 corners in the second half.

I once had 23 shots, 9 on goal and the opponent had 1 shot. I lost 0-1 and since it was the last game of the season and I needed a draw, I lost the title as well.

Same happened with my juventus side v fiorentina recently,even though we had scored 6 goals in the last two games, against fiorentina i had 15 chances, they had 3 and guess who won 1-0?

They don't count goals as shots on target.

http://soccernet-akamai.espn.go.com/gamecast?id=289046&league=ENG.2&cc=5739#

Seems a cockeyed way of counting things up to me! Still, not exactly the most vital thing really .

And Sfraser - yes, I saw that his side had bad ratings. I never said anything else.

For me, as I said earlier, the point at issue really is how often games occur in which a side is genuinely dominant and loses. Yes, it happens - I expect that most of us have been to real games and seen it and it can be very frustrating to watch. I'm not convinced that it happens as often in reality as it does in FM, all the same.

Seems a cockeyed way of counting things up to me! Still, not exactly the most vital thing really .

And Sfraser - yes, I saw that his side had bad ratings. I never said anything else.

For me, as I said earlier, the point at issue really is how often games occur in which a side is genuinely dominant and loses. Yes, it happens - I expect that most of us have been to real games and seen it and it can be very frustrating to watch. I'm not convinced that it happens as often in reality as it does in FM, all the same.

I think it does happen as often in real life, you just notice more in FM because you might play 20 games in one session and notice it happens a couple of times, but a real life team takes at least 3 months to play that many games and if it happens a couple of times to them you would struggle to remember the outcomes of the rest of the games over that period of time.

Pompey v Spurs in the FA Cup just there?

Sunderland had 2 pens and 2 wondergoals, Wolves were the better side for most of the game but ended up losing it.

Pompey v Spurs in the FA Cup just there?

31 shots to 12

How "real" such results can be has been debated to death on these forums as long as I can remember...

Jimmy Greaves saying "It's a funny old game" anyone?

Stoke v Bolton yesterday, we battered them yesterday, had numerous clear cut chances, and then lost 2-1 to a deflection from a cross and a wrongly given freekick. It's a lot more irritating when it happens in real life too lol. The only saving grace is after a loss in real life you go into the pub and have at least a week usually before it can happen again, in FM you have 10 minutes before it can happen again lol.

I might be have not understood the topic but in the 06/07 season, I believe, Johan Elmander scored in the 90th minute to win the game at home for Toulouse against Lyon.

In FM, managing Toulouse, I won against Lyon 1-0. Who scored the winner? Johan Elmander When was it? 90th minute. I took a picture of it - so I'll try and find it.

EDIT: Found the image.

I think it does happen as often in real life, you just notice more in FM because you might play 20 games in one session and notice it happens a couple of times, but a real life team takes at least 3 months to play that many games and if it happens a couple of times to them you would struggle to remember the outcomes of the rest of the games over that period of time.

Well, you may be right. We're all only really going by impressions.