Shots, Goals and "soopa keepaz"

I've just started the new season, and I thought I'd analyse my games so far, in terms of shots, shots on target and result. So, here goes...

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Hum CPU

Opposition Pos Sho Sot Sho Sot Score^

League:

Guigliano (A) 11* 7 3 10 2 3-0

Paganese (H) 8* 13 5 4 2 1-1

V d Sangro (A) 14* 9 5 8 4 3-1

Celano (A) 3* 8 2 7 4 1-2

Rietl (H) 9* 9 3 4 2 1-1

Pro Vasto (H) 7* 15 10 3 2 3-0

Cups

Teramo (H) 9 3 4 3 3-1

Grossetto (A) 10 3 7 2 0-1

Juventus (H) 5 3 10 5 0-2

Samben. (H) 17 5 6 1 0-0

Sangio. (H) 15 4 6 2 1-0

^ - human score first

* - as of last game (current season)

</pre>

As you can see, the games where I have most shots, I seem to score fewest.

But I can tell you exactly why this is. Every time I'm on top I cannot break into the opposition area. I'm on top because the opposition make no attempt to come beyond the half way line. So, my quick tempo, long passing game results in a lot of shots outside the area, poorly timed headers and crap strikers.

Take a look at the stats again. Super keepers? Hardly. As an average of shots on target to goals, everything's pretty much average. No matter how many shots I get, I very rarely get over 5 shots on target. In these circumstances I have failed to score on only ONE occasion.

As for the super strikers of the opposition, how many times do you reckon they hit me on the break and outnumbered me? Lots. I have (excepting Juventus, a Serie A side) conceded at most 4 shots on target. On these occasions, the AI scored.

The amount of games where a team had more shots on target but lost: ONCE, in a cup game where I was unlucky.

The amount of games where a team had more shots on target but didn't win: FIVE (or as I like to look at it, less than half), though in all instances the gap between the teams in terms of SoTs was marginal.

Conclusion: stop whining. When you analyse the final stats, you can usually see a pattern. I lose and draw too many games because my strikers can't/won't hit a barn door. I need to create more quality chances rather than more shots on goal.

I can update this table as I go along, but I see little point. I'm expected to finish 4th this season, and playing like this I should get it, providing I improve my shot conversion.

If anyone else wants to do a similar study, please post it up. It would be very interesting to see what you come up with.

A good post Millie, something that should make a lot of sense when people take a look at their own stats.

Oh my God, thank you, that is exactly what happens to me, except I don't think I use very long passing or quick tempo...

I'm going to change my tactics a bit and see what happens. You might have just put an end to my misery.

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Hum CPU

Opposition Sho Sot Sho Sot Score

1) Gubbio (H) 8 5 6 3 2-1

2) Manfred. (A) 11 5 8 4 1-1

3) Ponfedera (H) 9 4 5 3 1-0

4) Grossetto (A) 6 1 8 2 0-1

5) Lanciano (H) 17 9 4 3 3-0

6) Fano (A) 6 2 10 5 0-5

7) Real Mac. (A) 8 1 7 3 1-2

</pre>

The stats seem to still hold up, though if I were in a conspiracy mood I would obviously say the AI cheated in the Fano (6) match. But having said that, I scored all of my shots on target in the very next game (7). Pity I only had one...

So far (18 games in) I can deduce a few things:

1) Against teams I should beat or who don't attack me I have a major problem getting shots on target. My 4-3-3 is getting chances, but not converting them. Therefore I need a new approach to such games.

2) My away form is dire. My goalkeepers seem to have no confidence, and dito the strikers. Even more worrying (especially after the Fano game) is that I'm not creating anything, shots on target or otherwise.

3) The team that should win usually does. In the Manfredonia (2) match I let in a sloppy goal just into injury time. My full backs were running forward and got caught. Since then I've upped timewasting to high after 88 minutes and stopped them running forward and it seems to work in tighter games (3).

4) Superkeepers are officially dead for me. They weren't really "alive" before, but I feel comforted in the stats. If anything, I suffer from the Superbadkeeper (4, 6, 7), especially on the road!

A more detailed analysis would take into account where the shots were from, who took them, what time they were scored, etc., but I think these basic stats on their own tell a tale.

I've already learned one tactical trick from this (see point 3), and I think others will too.

i'm not ranting as i'm especially enjoying fm2007 thus far, however here's my opinion:

yea super keepers are not an issue in fm2007 (wouldn't take an in depth study to show this) what seems to be the problem with most complaints on this forum is that the ai "cracks" user's tactics with such accuracy that:

a) user's strikers are most times unable to get a good shot off, despite the number of tries

b) ai's seem to know exactly where to be at the right time (not all the time though), usually on the occasions that the user loses.

c) user defenders makes mistakes as opposed to impeccable ai

while these are not a problem realistically speaking, the user is left wanting in setting counter measures for these ploys. with the ai constantly switching formation and (apparently player instructions), how can we compete in order to win every game, especially the ones we WANT to win (cup games etc).

theoretically and realistically, there would exist a change of tactic for any situation that would result in a goal/win, but sometimes the best managers of the world cannot do it (but can we?)

unless we can find a way to tell our strikers to position themselves for opportunistic goals, or proper runs into space similar to the ai we'll just have to face each loss with a smile.

rant..ehm...opinion concludes

Yes Millie well that's all well and good...and I'm not losing mind you...but I would honestly prefer someone of the likes of Luca Toni to have more than 2 goals out of 20 some odd appearances in the league.

This is my main gripe. My strikers are absolute rubbish and seemingly are about as accurate as some drunk trying to put the key in his front door....

I've only lost 3 games for the season but honestly....2 goals from Toni, quite pathetic

Originally posted by Warrenwwr:

a) user's strikers are most times unable to get a good shot off, despite the number of tries

Only occasionally seen this to be a problem, when the AI has succeeded in shutting down my team. In all cases, the front line has either been on a bad day, or my tactics failed to break down the opponents defense. In the latter case, I could clearly see what was happening, but failed to find a solution to the problem.

b) ai's seem to know exactly where to be at the right time (not all the time though), usually on the occasions that the user loses.

I had a season that was completely the opposite - lots of matches where I got behind 1 and even sometimes 2 goals, but where I would end up winning the game 2-1 or 3-2. Lots - and I mean LOTS of times where my team would pull off 1 or 2 goals in the last 10 minutes of the games.

The key? Of 11 players on the pitch, more than half had determination > 14, and none had low determination. Determined players fight harder - and keep fighting the entire game. Even when I lost in the semifinals of the Cup (which I had got to with a team 2 levels below the top division), that team wasn't played off the pitch.

c) user defenders makes mistakes as opposed to impeccable ai

Never seen this to be a problem. My strikers have capitalized on many AI defender mistakes.

while these are not a problem realistically speaking, the user is left wanting in setting counter measures for these ploys. with the ai constantly switching formation and (apparently player instructions), how can we compete in order to win every game, especially the ones we WANT to win (cup games etc).

Much easier in this game than in previous ones; keep a watch on the formations view in between highlights.

unless we can find a way to tell our strikers to position themselves for opportunistic goals, or proper runs into space similar to the ai we'll just have to face each loss with a smile.

If anything, FM2007 is probably still too dependent on the users tactics for the success of its players (but then it probably has to be this way - its a game after all). Hate to put it this way 8so clicheed), but if your strikers are not finding themselves with good opportunities, its probably your tactics that are not suited to those strikers.

there are super keepers! peter cech saved like all 10 of my shots on target and then i lost to a freekick >.<

Originally posted by chongo94:

Yes Millie well that's all well and good...and I'm not losing mind you...but I would honestly prefer someone of the likes of Luca Toni to have more than 2 goals out of 20 some odd appearances in the league.

This is my main gripe. My strikers are absolute rubbish and seemingly are about as accurate as some drunk trying to put the key in his front door....

I've only lost 3 games for the season but honestly....2 goals from Toni, quite pathetic

Id put that down to your set up tbh, its more your tactic than anything else.

Originally posted by chongo94:

Yes Millie well that's all well and good...and I'm not losing mind you...but I would honestly prefer someone of the likes of Luca Toni to have more than 2 goals out of 20 some odd appearances in the league.

This is my main gripe. My strikers are absolute rubbish and seemingly are about as accurate as some drunk trying to put the key in his front door....

I've only lost 3 games for the season but honestly....2 goals from Toni, quite pathetic

I would say you're not using Toni to his strengths then. Peter Crouch was pants at Villa, yet scored for fun at Southampton and for England.

The other point to make would be that you're still winning. In which case I wouldn't worry. In fact, I'd cash in on Toni and buy somebody who fits your system better.

there are super keepers! peter cech saved like all 10 of my shots on target and then i lost to a freekick >.<

Oh, well. QED.

One example of a keeper playing against Chelsea where he'd be more motivated than for any other game all season. And again, one example. I'm not saying you won't play a game where you're unlucky or the keeper plays a blinder, but I think around 20 games is enough to prove that this isn't as regular a problem as people make out.

I will concede my tables are quite flawed, but they do at least show a pattern. This pattern proves, almost conclusively, that when I lose I deserve to. It also proves that I need to improve my away tactics and/or form. That, at the end of the day, is my point. Like I said, include possession stats, times of goals, formation details etc. and I would find a much more sophisticated way of seeing where I need to improve.

But then my main point was to say that the superkeeper is a myth. And I still think I've proved that to a satisfactory level.

You are probably right Millie. I just like scoring more goals. For the season he actually has around a 7.42 rating, just not any goals.

strategy, your response will be taken with a grain of salt as it does appear to be tinged with self righteousness. yea yea, i won the italian cup with napoli while in serie c, so i guess i was doing something right...with fm2007 being a random game i'd expect many different experiences, however, the vast majority on these boards, including myself, do seem to encounter these problems.

indeed as millie had proved and extrapolated, tactics are quite possibly the root of most of the problems people complain of here, whether their strikers require 20+ shots to score, or their defenders are being scrappy, making terrible back passes or are out of position at times.

what needs investigating , however, is whether or not the user has any control of these tactical variables.

i find 3 things are most important to getting good shot and SOTs counts, whilst scoring enough goals: tempo, passing and mentality.

tempo and passing should be at same level, as said by an in game hint. if you have a quick tempo and direct passing, then you're likely to create more chances than playing a slow tempo and short passing, although a slow/short system should create better chances than a quick/direct.

the key is getting the balance right. better teams (in respect to the opponents) should play a more slow/short system, whereas if you're watford away at man utd then you're likely to do better if you play with a quick/direct system and use the counter attack.

the harder the game will be for you to win (from what the odds say), the more the opposition will attack you, therefore making it more effective to use a quick/tempo and counter attacking style. the opposite applies to being a good team, in the respect that if you're favourites to win a game then the opposition will look to defend more and use the counter attack. they will be more organised at the back, so a quick/direct system won't suit you as well because chances are usually easier to defend against and the opposition are more likely to be in position due to being defensive, because a quick tempo is better for when the opposition is out of position.

to be honest, i'd never thought about the use of tempo and passing in so much detail as that, so now i look forward to creating more different tactics based on my assumption just there.

as for mentality, it's important to get this right or else your strikers won't be making the right decisions. have mentality too high and the STs will too often try something that won't pay off e.g. having a speculative shot instead of making a pass backwards to a team-mate. have the mentality too low and STs will be too afraid to go for goal e.g. if they're in the box then they may look for a pass instead of taking on a shot. the mentalities for my STs are 16 and 17, which may be one notch too high come to think of it.

oh, and on the point of super keepers. they don't exist in FM07 and didn't in FM06 either. there were 2 reasons the situation happened in FM06:

1. players had to hit the ball into the corners of the goal to be able to beat the keeper in most situations. on FM07, players score a lot more goals that don't go into the corners, thank fcuk for that!

2. when you became such a good team, every game for the opposition was a massive game so the keeper raised his game, but by an unrealistic amount. (ok, that could be used as an argument for superkeepers)

I agree with You but You should have in mind also one thing. When you play possesion football with slow short system be aware of width as you cant play short passes and play wide. That would result in to a load of lost balls and open oportunities for opposition

Originally posted by Gigson:

I agree with You but You should have in mind also one thing. When you play possesion football with slow short system be aware of width as you cant play short passes and play wide. That would result in to a load of lost balls and open oportunities for opposition

Depends how short.

It's all relative. If I were to play a short, slow game, I would automatically play with a lot of width as I would be trying to work the ball into spaces. As such, I may have to put one or two extra notches of passing that I intended, but playing a tight short, slow game would be incredibly difficult to impliment with anyone but the best teams in the world.

I agree though, a few stray passes and suddenly the opposition can slice straight through you. Perhaps a deep defensive line would combat that, and maybe a barrow on one of the midfielders.

the more direct the passing, the wider the play should be so that players are more spaced out to allow for more direct passing. i've always had width the same level as passing (and therefore tempo).

the more direct the passing, the wider the play should be so that players are more spaced out to allow for more direct passing. i've always had width the same level as passing (and therefore tempo).

Thanks for that. I'm having trouble keeping possession so I'm going to check these 3 slider interactions.

well, like i said in my big post a few posts above, passing and tempo are linked because it says that in an in-game hint. not that i have direct passing for my forward players if the team passing is direct though, but it'll be more direct than a setting for if i was playing a short passing game.

and i've seen that width should be similar to passing, therefore it should be a similar level to tempo too.

Originally posted by Warrenwwr:

strategy, your response will be taken with a grain of salt as it does appear to be tinged with self righteousness. yea yea, i won the italian cup with napoli while in serie c, so i guess i was doing something right...

Well, in that case people should feel free to disregard them and go on complaining.

I haven't seen anything yet in the game that supports the complaints. I have found that tactics has a lot of say in the game - however - with even seemingly small changes making a big difference. The other point I tried to make was the suggestion to look for players with high determination if players are having trouble with losing to late goals (which seems to be what people complain about all the time) - if they did, I suspect they'd find it more often being them who win on late goals. My experiences from the network games I've played is that the importance of Det is quite underestimated by many players.

what needs investigating , however, is whether or not the user has any control of these tactical variables.

It has in every other game of CM/FM... why should this be different in FM2007?

Right, I completed the season and ended up losing the league on goal difference. Quite annoying. However, I went up through the playoffs which was some consolation.

Now. I don't feel the need to actually write up every single shot on and off target here, but suffice to say I kept an eye out for a number of things, and this is what I noticed:

1) Whenever a team had more than 5 shots on target, they scored at least 1. The tactics of both my team and the AI (allowing for the re-ranking of us as one of the top teams) always allowed a team that at least had some pressure to put the ball away.

2) The AI won as many as I did when one team that was obviously on the back foot actually won. One of these was a crucial game in the playoffs, in my favour. So much for AI cheating.

3) It was in games I should have won easily that I created loads of chances, but few goals. And it was obvious from the start why. The opposition flooded their box and meant I couldn't get good shots off. In those games, I rarely made clear cut chances (maybe one or two one-on-ones or free headers), thus I only scored one or two. However, providing I kept an eye out for opposition break-aways I managed to get at least a score draw.

I stand by my original premise - there are no superkeepers.

But what's this? A chance to try it out on a bigger stage?! Well, obviously because I clinched promotion from Serie C2/B I am, as the French say "the sh*t". So, ladies and gentlemen, meet the new England manager. I will, obviously, continue my duties at Foligno while dedicating myself to the national cause.

Seriously, this is a chance to experience the "superkeepers" of Andorra, San Marino, Scotland and other totally worthless European countries. And rest assured if I get more than 5 shots on target and don't score I will be posting here very irate trying to work out why.

Bottom line: blame yourself. That way you'll improve.

Added to the tactics bible

Originally posted by Cleon:

Added to the tactics bible

Thank you very much.

It actually got to the point where I would concede my 4th shot on target against the AI and I would say to my self, "next one's in" and, lo and behold, they scored.

I know people get situations where they think they've had far more than 5 on target and they can't seem to score, and that's one of the reasons I'm glad of this rediculous bug which means I can be England manager as an "unproven" manager.

My hypothesis is that I will get more shots on target because of the better standard of players, but the number of quality chances to goals ratio should remain reletively constant.

If I can keep the job for more than 5 minutes, I hope to work more on the cure rather than the prognosis, as I feel I haven't offered any solutions to the problem of too few quality chances yet.

Well, it would seem relegation candidates and the second best team in the world need slightly different approaches. But, after a few games, something very interesting has reared its head.

Foligno

Two games, both against better opposition. One was a Serie A side in the cup, the other a decent Serie C1 side.

In both I, unsurprisingly, made fewest chances. But what was interesting was that the ones I made tended to go on target. Why was this?

Indeed, the Serie A club took until the closing stages of the match to score, then got a quick double. Yet they hadn't had many of their shots on target. Why was this?

England

Being thrown straight into qualification matches, I didn't have any time to change my setup, so I played my normal 4-2-4 tactic but slowed the passing down. Away to Switzerland we both had 6 shots, both only manage 2 on target. We were pretty evenly matched and cancelled each other out.

I played the same against Albania and only got 9 shots. However, we managed 60%+ possession. 6 of those shots went on target, three of them in the back of the net. Why?

================================================

It seems the fewer chances you make, the better quality they are, and I am still to work out why. Is there something in my tactics which means that my players only shoot when they think they're going to score an easy goal? Is there something about quality opposition which means they have a tendency to rush their shots?

I am actually stumped. In the Switzerland game, neither side got a decent shot off, and most of the game was played in the middle third. Against Albania we made so few chances that the ones we did make had to be quality. And they were (thanks Gerrard!).

Similarly, in the Serie A cup game I made about 4 shots in the entire game. One was a sitter, one forced an excellent save, one was unlucky. One was an empty net as my striker skinned the goal keeper only to miss from 7 yards. Could have forced penalties! Conversely, the opposition made quite a few attempts on goal, many from outside the area, poor headers on long crosses under pressure and general poor finishing. In the league game, exactly the same thing happened. Final SoTs: 2-1 to Cisco Roma. Final score: 1-0 to me. Not bad for a side with 13 first team players injured and/or suspended.

The opposition in my Foligno games seem to suffer from the same malaise that a number of people blame on the "super keeper" the "unrealisitc strikers" and, in general, "Sports Interactive". If this is true, then the contention that the match engine cannot/does not distinguish between AI manager and Human appears to be bang on. A slow tempo, short passing game that only produced 8 shots against a minnow nation from the Balkans won 3-0. A quick, long passing game against my lowly Italian side seems to have failed completely.

It actually seems less is more in terms of shooting. And yet I was laughed at in a similar thread for suggesting such an outrage. I reserve the right to remain smug if this pattern continues.

the key is getting the balance right. better teams (in respect to the opponents) should play a more slow/short system, whereas if you're watford away at man utd then you're likely to do better if you play with a quick/direct system and use the counter attack.

With all due respect but I totally disagree here. The style of play for average sides shouldn't be quick temp and direct passing. I mean really, think about what type of players you need to deploy a successful team based on such system. For direct passing you need razor sharp passers of the ball. For quick temp you need more than good passers, you need pace and positioning attributes. The chances of Watford having more than a couple of players with these attributes is pretty much zilch.

I've tried direct passing/quick tempo with average sides and they generally get murdered by quality sides. What tend to happen is your side giving away the ball 9 times out of ten and the opposition having shot after shot.

My 2 cents....

Originally posted by dreameR.25:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

the key is getting the balance right. better teams (in respect to the opponents) should play a more slow/short system, whereas if you're watford away at man utd then you're likely to do better if you play with a quick/direct system and use the counter attack.

Possibly, but then I never play a short passing game with poorer teams because I beleive it's better to give the ball away to the opposition keeper than get caught in midfield and give their striker a run in on goal.

Direct/long is better, in my opinion, than short passing simply because although it takes more skill to play accurate passes over distance, it takes less skill to bang a ball forward in the rough direction of a striker to jump onto it.

A direct pass doesn't always have to go to feet. Short ones do.

With all due respect but I totally disagree here. The style of play for average sides shouldn't be quick temp and direct passing. I mean really, think about what type of players you need to deploy a successful team based on such system. For direct passing you need razor sharp passers of the ball. For quick temp you need more than good passers, you need pace and positioning attributes. The chances of Watford having more than a couple of players with these attributes is pretty much zilch.

I've tried direct passing/quick tempo with average sides and they generally get murdered by quality sides. What tend to happen is your side giving away the ball 9 times out of ten and the opposition having shot after shot.

My 2 cents.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry all

Originally posted by dreameR.25:

the key is getting the balance right. better teams (in respect to the opponents) should play a more slow/short system, whereas if you're watford away at man utd then you're likely to do better if you play with a quick/direct system and use the counter attack.

With all due respect but I totally disagree here. The style of play for average sides shouldn't be quick temp and direct passing. I mean really, think about what type of players you need to deploy a successful team based on such system. For direct passing you need razor sharp passers of the ball. For quick temp you need more than good passers, you need pace and positioning attributes. The chances of Watford having more than a couple of players with these attributes is pretty much zilch.

I've tried direct passing/quick tempo with average sides and they generally get murdered by quality sides. What tend to happen is your side giving away the ball 9 times out of ten and the opposition having shot after shot.

My 2 cents....

Possibly, but then I never play a short passing game with poorer teams because I beleive it's better to give the ball away to the opposition keeper than get caught in midfield and give their striker a run in on goal.

Direct/long is better, in my opinion, than short passing simply because although it takes more skill to play accurate passes over distance, it takes less skill to bang a ball forward in the rough direction of a striker to jump onto it.

A direct pass doesn't always have to go to feet. Short ones do.

watford play a long direct sytle because they are a big strong physical side, who can win the balls in the air, i think people getting mixed up over short passing and long passing reasons, you dont have to have awsome skills to play short passing, and what else you dont need is hight for short passing, short passing teams are small teams like Newcastle Arsenal yade ya both have mixed skill but both play short passing, for 1 reason, there chances of winning high long or direct balls are a lot less.

Direct/long is better, in my opinion, than short passing simply because although it takes more skill to play accurate passes over distance, it takes less skill to bang a ball forward in the rough direction of a striker to jump onto it.

A direct pass doesn't always have to go to feet. Short ones do.

I hear what you're saying but as I said, direct passing for an average side is asking for trouble. The key to playing against a good side is to not give the ball cheaply and we all know why. Because if you do then they will keep coming back at ya time after time. This is where I disagree with the game hint. Sure, use direct passing for poor sides but why quick tempo?! If you're going to play a 20-30-40 yard pass you had better take your time and play it right otherwise it's another ball given away.

Slower tempo - direct passing for average sides sounds like a much better option IMO.

If your having problems scoring goals, and would like some tip on how to brake up the AI's defending traits then you might be interested in reading my topic called "reading the game" where i ramble on about opening up the AI through ingame tweeks

Thanks to millie for this post, it should help people to understand, there is only 1 winner and its the HUMANS ! good job

So this might be a kinda "cheat" theory im thinking of here but if you are noticing that in most games the people who score the most goals are the ones who are getting the best sot ratio, then at half time you could calculate this and then work out if you stick to this game plan the probability of winning the match seems likly, ill probably get shot for saying that but i do get these mad ideas.

on a side note, most games in real life have 12 shots avarage and about 6-8 on target if your in form, so we should be aiming to make the best possible 12 shots and getting around 8 on target to win games, once we can do this, it wont matter if where playing long short narrow or wide, its about getting the right combination of chances with a good load of sot rather then bombarding the area with half chances.

Back home for Christmas, and so on a different PC. So, for the first time, I decided to manage a very big club and see if I can apply these ideas.

My hypothesis:

If I create few but quality chances I will score more goals.

Therefore I want to play a slow, patient game against weaker opposition, and a quicker counter-attacking game against better opposition (nothing revolutionary there).

Method

Just took over as PSV Eindhoven manager. A club that will expect to win their league, could/should qualify for the knockout stage of the European Cup, and should be looking to dominate domestically.

I will try to keep the shots on target:shots roughly around 2:3. I'll make notes on the SoTs and Shots and see where and why I did/didn't score.

I know this all sounds very anal and you're probably right. But if I can turn round to someone and say I've "proved" (massive inverted commas there ) that if you play a slower style and create fewer chances then the "superkeeper" will miraculously disappear, then I'll rest a bit easier. I think it will also prove to those Thomases out there that it IS possible to do simple things to acheive success rather than just bin the game because it's frustrating.

i havn't found there to be any super keepers in this game at all. Just my awful strikeres!

In a game I might create 7-8 chances and 5-6 of them will be golden but my strikers will try to belt them and sky it completely even with their 18 finishing and the great opportunity!

And then down the other end the opposition will score a 30 yard "piledriver" and win the game due a wonder goal.

i am man utd and I refuse to have long shots on even though i have 2-3 players with long shots at 16-17 as i have tried it before and my players then just squander good opportunities by trying a 40 yard shot. However when I played against chelsea, they based their entire game around long shots and had roughly 10 during the game. ABOUT 8 OF THESE WERE ON TARGET AND 2 OF THEM WENT IN!

What i don't understand is why my players who have only marginally worse stats bend theirs out of the stadium and chelseas players hit 8/10 on target!

Do they have time to compose themselves before hitting long shots?

Are you closing the long shot takers down quick enough?

Are your long shot takers getting enough shooting practice?

Are your strikers hurrying their chances and snatching at them?

Hullo again.

I've spent much of this Christmas eating a lot of cake and various types of poultry, so I only managed a meagre 9 games of Football Manager. I know. I'm not proud of myself either.

However, these games did give me a soupcon of insight into how a bigger team differs to a smaller one.

1) A rarity: a team had five shots on target and didn't score. OK, they scored their sixth, but this was rare. I put this down to the quality of my keeper, but to score 1 in 6 is poor, but not amazingly awful.

2) The shots to goals ratio stayted pretty much static. I deliberately set up my team to create fewer chances in an effort to get better quality attempts on goal. My Foligno and PSV teams performed similarly in front of goal. And believe me, there's a big difference in skill between Cedric Nana and Patrick Kluivert.

3) My tactic seems to work against smaller teams (short passing, slow tempo, 4-3-3) but not in the bigger games (as you can see below). My theory is that if I use my old tactics from the lower leagues (I didn't bring them with me) I should do better.

4) I still haven't come up against a superkeeper.

So, here's the stats to chew over:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">

Human CPU

Sho SoT Sho SoT Pos

Ajax (N) DSC 0-1 13 4 13 7 53-47 Dry

Groningen (A) DPL 3-2 14 11 9 3 53-47 Dry

Roda JC (H) DPL 1-0 14 3 6 1 54-46 Dry

Utrecht (A) DPL 2-0 10 4 7 2 53-47 Dry

Standard (H) ECL 0-0 5 1 2 0 54-46 Dry

Heracles (A) DPL 1-0 5 2 10 0 45-55 Dry

Feyenoord (H) DPL 1-0 6 3 2 1 50-50 Dry

Heerenveen (A) DPL 1-1 6 3 10 6 45-55 Dry

Olympiakos (A) ECL 0-1 5 0 4 3 54-46 Gale</pre>

I am formulating a rough solution to the "superkeeper" syndrome. These need to be better tested, but basically a slower tempo and shorter passing seem to produce fewer chances, but better quality chances. It has been only in games where the opposition have attacked me hard that this hasn't worked, or against higher quality opposition (Standard, Olympiakos, Ajax). In these cases, however, you shouldn't really be in a position to experience the superkeeper as you should be under the kosh.

Either there is something wrong with my copy of the game or superkeepers don't exist. If we define a "superkeeper" as any game where it takes more than 5 shots on target, then this has happened a grand total of... twice. Twice in three or four seasons of paying attention to the shot count. Anybody who's getting more than that needs to take a good hard look at their tactics.

Anybody willing to show me a number of games where this is happening to (or against) them, I'd love to hear about it. Because I've just not seen it.

These need to be better tested, but basically a slower tempo and shorter passing seem to produce fewer chances, but better quality chances.

Its true, its why most of my shots are on target when I play slower.

Not REALLY on topic, but still: the other day I managed 2 goals with only one shot on target! How's that for effective?!

Originally posted by Tricolores:

Not REALLY on topic, but still: the other day I managed 2 goals with only one shot on target! How's that for effective?!

Own goal, deflection, a cross what went wrong etc all not shots on target.

Oh, I understand how this could have happened, but I still always think it's funny. NOT when it happens against me, of course!! I mean, one time I was all over the opponent, but failed to score and yet I score a freaky own goal.

I had something like 10 shots on goal and 4 on target and they had 2 shots on goal and 0 on target and I lost 0 - 1... Don't you just love FM...

Playing with Man Utd, I am consistently frustrated at the amount of chances I miss. In the games in which i have many more chances than the opposition, they score from their few shots on target and I miss most of my numerous shots on target. In matches in which both teams have the same amount of shots on target, I usually lose. When I have fewer shots on target than the opposition, I lose.

However, during my last two games against Arsenal, I have won. In the first one (FA cup 5th round), I was 2-0 down in the 76th minute. In the last 10 minutes, I scored 3 goals (and ronaldo was injured so I only had 10 men). In the next game, I had 6 shots on target and scored 6 goals. The game after that I lost to Wigan 2-0.

There are two things I have noted while playing agaisnt Arsenal. Firstly, my players seem to be playing very well against Arsenal but are completely useless against Chelsea, for example. Secondly, in the first example, I used a 3-5-2 formation with no defensive midfielders, and the team made a magnificent comeback.

I can't make head nor tail of this. It seems so unrealistic that I hardly win a game for about 20 games, and then suddenly the team wins 6-0 against the team who are second (and I am 6th).

I have found that reducing mentality for strikers (can't remember where I read it sorry to whoever suggested it) has really improved my shots to goals ratio. Players seem less rushed and pick the right option. They also appear less selfish, although that could be down to having both strikers on cross ball often (that one I remember, suggested by rashidi1) dunno if this will help

It finally happened. I had 20 shots, 6 shots on target. They had 4 shots, 1 shot on target. And I lost 1-0.

I have, however, made some changes in recent weeks and this sort of thing seems to be a thing of the past.

First, I knocked down the mentality of my strikers (cheers remallahel) which appears to make them play closer to my midfield and also be more patient. Second, I got into the habbit of swapping Henry and van Persie over in games where one or the other was being ineffective. By shifting Henry over to the left the defense seemed more intent on stopping him rather than watching van Persie. Result: more room at the back. Third, I experimented further with changes to width and defensive line, squeezing and relaxing the opposition to confuse them and create some space for my silky passing game.

Still, my SoT% isn't anywhere near what I'd like, but at least nearly every chance is a quality chance. And the goalkeepers aren't saving many of my shots, suggesting that I'm creating quality.

Learning from my mistakes seems to be paying off. If only a few more people would take this approach.

happends every loss and draw for me

Originally posted by pele10:

happends every loss and draw for me

Out of curiosity, what's your width and def. line settings?

I've noticed wide and high formations seem to let in an extraordinary amount of goals considering how few chances they give away.

Oh, and it happened again. More than five shots and no goals. I'm putting it down to the increased skill of goalkeepers in this division (Premier League). However, as far as I can see you should score every 4th shot on target if you're anywhere near decent (ideally every second, or even every shot, but that's just greedy).

tbh mate i've tried everything. everything works at home but away the ai has 75-100% success rate in scoring.

Uhh with arsenal i play a short passing, slow tempo 4-4-2 formation.

Against Chelsea I had around 14 shots, 9 on target. Petr Cech saved all nine. I consider this very illogical cause my strikers are Henry and David Villa... Both have 20 for finishing. By the way, Chelsea scored with thier one shot on target...

I was so frustrated because despite dominating the game (9 shots on target!!!) Arsenal still lost.

millie while i've been testing things the biggest difference from playing home to away is my own gk.

at home his pass comp is 80%-95% but away it's 25%-45%

i will post more findings

I know what you mean. I've just started a new save game and decided to follow Cleon's approach to the game with Aston Villa rather than that piddly northern team.

I've been playing with a low defensive line, close mentalities on the individual settings. In games I expect to win I've gone for a slightly wider width and a team mentality of around 15-17.

In those games where I attack I still get the curse of spurned shots and balls flying all over the place. However, with this tighter setting I appear to be only conceding shots from long range. If you check Cleon's match reports he regularly gets "out shot" by the opposition, yet claims he won comfortably.

I now have a 4-1-2-3 system with passing on the third notch of medium and a matching tempo. I seem to be getting nearly every shot on target. However, my style of play is incredibly dull, something I'm willing to concede at the moment with a poor and unstable squad but will soon be trying to rectify.

As for your goal keeper problem, I completely agree. Sorensen is amazing at home, poor away. Obviously the home fans shout "boo!" every time he goes to kick the ball. I've not found a real solution, save getting him to lump the ball to my target man, and play from there. Sometimes an attack breaks out, sometimes we lose it. However, with counter-attack on we seem to quickly make advantage of any possession.

Playing now with a middling side (Foligno) and good side (Arsenal) and something in between (Aston Villa), I think short-ish, slow-ish, wide-ish, attacking play is needed to create chances. However, I think the key is a low defensive line and close individual mentalities. With this system, and only with this system, have I completely removed the random shots on goal going in syndrome. But, like I say, how this works with a great side I've no idea. Could be counter productive to be so far back down the pitch. Well see if/when I get re-ranked.

I think that's the strategy I've stumbled upon, and it seems to be working for my Souhampton squad. I just wanted to check your tactics against the ones I've been playing, can you clarify what you mean by 'low defensive line' - does that mean 'deep'? And 'close mentalities on the individual settings' - does that mean that you set the mentality setting individually for all players (as opposed to on the team setting) and that you keep the team close together so that they don't get too far away from each other? Thanks! Great discussion.