Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics...

I am managing Real Sociedad and have just played an away league game at Valladolid.

Here are some interesting statistics:

Shots - Valladolid 3 R. Sociedad 20

Shots on Target - Valladolid 0 R. Sociedad 11

Possession - Valladolid 46% R. Sociedad 54%

Passes - Valladolid 66% R. Sociedad 78%

Tackles - Valladolid 61% R. Sociedad 66%

Headers - Valladolid 49% R. Sociedad 63%

The score? 2-2 and R, Sociedad didn't score any own goals. And we had to come back from 2-0 down and only got the equalizer in the 95th minute!

This game never ceases to amaze me...

I am managing Real Sociedad and have just played an away league game at Valladolid.

Here are some interesting statistics:

Shots - Valladolid 3 R. Sociedad 20

Shots on Target - Valladolid 0 R. Sociedad 11

Possession - Valladolid 46% R. Sociedad 54%

Passes - Valladolid 66% R. Sociedad 78%

Tackles - Valladolid 61% R. Sociedad 66%

Headers - Valladolid 49% R. Sociedad 63%

The score? 2-2 and R, Sociedad didn't score any own goals. And we had to come back from 2-0 down and only got the equalizer in the 95th minute!

This game never ceases to amaze me...

This has been raised a thousand times.

Sliced crossed, deflections, in off the post, etc.

If you're on 8.0.1 it was your tactics.

If you're on 8.0.2 it was partly your tactics - the AI goes all out attack in the final minutes when it's one goal down and you always concede unless you go to a defensive tactic. Check out the forum. Or search "4 4 2" or similar on this one.

Hope that helps.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Or search "4 4 2" or similar on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's "4-2-4" of course.

Or try "424" without the hyphens. Am sure it'll come up.

Appreciate your comments but this has nothing to do with 4-2-4. At no time did Valladolid play a 4-2-4 and they scored their goals one in each half well within normal time. I was the one who had to make the comeback. I never have a problem with 4-2-4 as I can deal with it effectvely. The goals were two deflections but should still register as either SOT for Valladolid or OGs for me.

Sorry, but I fail to see how conceding deflected shots is down to my tactics!?

05th minute? did you go 424 then

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaw Knee Rot Tin:

Appreciate your comments but this has nothing to do with 4-2-4. At no time did Valladolid play a 4-2-4 and they scored their goals one in each half well within normal time. I was the one who had to make the comeback. I never have a problem with 4-2-4 as I can deal with it effectvely. The goals were two deflections but should still register as either SOT for Valladolid or OGs for me.

Sorry, but I fail to see how conceding deflected shots is down to my tactics!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the shots are deflected they weren't on target. As for the goals conceded, we've all seen real games where teams dominate but the other team wins.

On 801 patch it happened a lot, but there were plenty of tactical workarounds. With 802 it happens less but still happens. In a way it IS tactics because if you are dominating with that many shots, you are probably not having QUALITY shots. Tempo, team talks, all play a part in your example.

You probably did something wrong, but not something as simple as defending 4-2-4 unfortunately.

The SI team have received plenty of uploads in the Bugs Forum and the reply is usually that the shots you had were snatched at or long-shots or some such, so I guess it's just a quirk we have to get round occasionally.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by backpackant:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaw Knee Rot Tin:

Appreciate your comments but this has nothing to do with 4-2-4. At no time did Valladolid play a 4-2-4 and they scored their goals one in each half well within normal time. I was the one who had to make the comeback. I never have a problem with 4-2-4 as I can deal with it effectvely. The goals were two deflections but should still register as either SOT for Valladolid or OGs for me.

Sorry, but I fail to see how conceding deflected shots is down to my tactics!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the shots are deflected they weren't on target. As for the goals conceded, we've all seen real games where teams dominate but the other team wins.

On 801 patch it happened a lot, but there were plenty of tactical workarounds. With 802 it happens less but still happens. In a way it IS tactics because if you are dominating with that many shots, you are probably not having QUALITY shots. Tempo, team talks, all play a part in your example.

You probably did something wrong, but not something as simple as defending 4-2-4 unfortunately.

The SI team have received plenty of uploads in the Bugs Forum and the reply is usually that the shots you had were snatched at or long-shots or some such, so I guess it's just a quirk we have to get round occasionally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This counter-intuitive argument is trotted out all the time, all that happened was that he got screwed (bad luck). Its got literally nothing to do with his tactics being poor for the game. Only if he replayed said game and lost 10+ times whilst dominating would it be a tactical issue (generally the mentality slider two notches wrong either way - FYI I've done reload tests a LOT).

Firstly to deal with the SOT issue. If someone takes a shot and it’s deflected into the net there can be only two outcomes:

If the goal is awarded to the player taking the shot it means their original shot must also have been on target. Ergo a shot on target.

If the goal is not awarded to the player taking the shot their original shot was therefore off target. Ergo an own goal.

These are the official criteria for determining the issue. At least in England, I’ll grant Spain could be different.

Secondly to take up the point about the uploads to the bugs forum. SI would appear to be advancing a somewhat flawed argument in that the human manager’s attempts don’t convert because they are snatched, poor quality, long range, etc but find it perfectly reasonable that the AI can have 3 shots and score with 2 where:

One is a 25 yard hopeful that is aimed at the left-hand corner of the net and deflects into the bottom right-hand corner.

The other is a 25 yard free-kick that deflects off the wall leaving the ‘keeper stranded.

How come I’ve got to produce QUALITY shots but the AI can come up with any old crap and score? Sorry, but that isn’t logical.

BTW Valladolid’s ‘keeper rated 8 and was praised after the match for a fine display so I clearly did produce some worthy attempts.

In this instance I agree I’ve simply ‘been screwed’. Very succinctly put btw. My only argument would be that this scenario happens a little to frequently and has been a ‘feature’ in CM/FM for a long time. And it’s bloody annoying.

if a shot isnt going towards the goal, then it isnt on target.

It is possible that they were both sliced crosses, as someone mentions earlier; I suppose that these wouldn't come up as SOT but would be credited to the attacking player. As others have said, an initial shot has to be on target if it to go down as the attackers goal, so should count as a SOT. I experienced a similar experience on FM07 and uploaded a pkm and it was looked at.

Jaw Knee Rot Tin I'm sure SI would be grateful if you could upload a pkm and post in this thread saying what it is called.

Okay, if you only want to make your point comparing the game to real life, FM will always lose out. It's not real life - it's a computer game. It's restricted in terms of its programming and the level of technology available. If you can't accept the solutions on offer then put the game for sale on Ebay.

Reloading games is a pointless exercise/experiment because of how complex the match engine is. You can't expect the same results every time no matter if you use identical tactics or not. The AI changes, your players may react differently, any number of random events can affect a match.

Bottom line: if you are dominating a match but not scoring, you are doing something wrong on the game. It doesn't make you a bad FM manager, it just means you - or your players - had an off day.

What FM really needs is implementation of the Dubious Goals Committee or whatever name they go by nowadays

I think a good point has been raised here. As Jaw Knee has pointed out, if the shot was not on target but was deflected in then it should have gone down as an own goal. Anything else and it should count as a shot on target.

It isn't always like that in real life though either. If someone hits a piledriver that would otherwise be going slightly wide of the far post and it flies off a defender, diverting it just inside the far post the goal is almost always awarded to the player who struck the shot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

It isn't always like that in real life though either. If someone hits a piledriver that would otherwise be going slightly wide of the far post and it flies off a defender, diverting it just inside the far post the goal is almost always awarded to the player who struck the shot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this case though it would also go down on the match stats as a shot on target. The problem I can see is that Valladolid are listed as having 0 shots on target but scoring 2 goals, and neither of these goals were own goals.

So how could they be classed as having 0 shots on target if two of their players have put the ball in the net?

Well, that's the distinction - the shots weren't on target, but they were awarded to the attacking player anyway.

It is those situations where the dubious goals committee often comes along and takes the goal away from the disappointed forward and awards it to the equally disappointed defending player who has no wish whatsoever to have an own goal to his name so no-one is happy!

Personally I am quite happy with the situation of goals like that being awarded to the attacker, but also being correctly listed as a shot off target. There is an argument to be made though I guess that if the shot was hit with enough venom it was on target simply because it was always going to divert off a player into the net, but it's cosmetic either way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

Personally I am quite happy with the situation of goals like that being awarded to the attacker, but also being correctly listed as a shot off target. There is an argument to be made though I guess that if the shot was hit with enough venom it was on target simply because it was always going to divert off a player into the net, but it's cosmetic either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But those aren't the rules though, glamdring. The rules are that if it isn't headed goalwards, it goes down as an OG. I wish that the match engine was taking things like this into account, but I don't believe it is. I suspect it's just simply a bug.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaw Knee Rot Tin:

I am managing Real Sociedad and have just played an away league game at Valladolid.

Here are some interesting statistics:

Shots - Valladolid 3 R. Sociedad 20

Shots on Target - Valladolid 0 R. Sociedad 11

Possession - Valladolid 46% R. Sociedad 54%

Passes - Valladolid 66% R. Sociedad 78%

Tackles - Valladolid 61% R. Sociedad 66%

Headers - Valladolid 49% R. Sociedad 63%

The score? 2-2 and R, Sociedad didn't score any own goals. And we had to come back from 2-0 down and only got the equalizer in the 95th minute!

This game never ceases to amaze me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Valladolid were the bookies favourites, right? That is why they won.

Since when has a scoreline of 2-2 been a win?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sten_super:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

Personally I am quite happy with the situation of goals like that being awarded to the attacker, but also being correctly listed as a shot off target. There is an argument to be made though I guess that if the shot was hit with enough venom it was on target simply because it was always going to divert off a player into the net, but it's cosmetic either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But those aren't the rules though, glamdring. The rules are that if it isn't headed goalwards, it goes down as an OG. I wish that the match engine was taking things like this into account, but I don't believe it is. I suspect it's just simply a bug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging whether a shot was on target though or not is not always easy. And since I'd be very surprised if the goal was always given as an own goal in real life it shouldn't be in game either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

Judging whether a shot was on target though or not is not always easy. And since I'd be very surprised if the goal was always given as an own goal in real life it shouldn't be in game either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but that point makes no sense; you seem to be saying that it is understandable if shots off target are wrongly attributed to being goals for the attacking team (as preferred to OGs) if the game thinks they are on target; but if the game thinks that the shot is on target (and therefore attributes the goal accordingly) surely it should also attribute the shot as a SOT?

Anyway, really we're arguing semantics. Like I said before, I don't think the game is doing anything clever, it is just doing something wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sten_super:

Anyway, really we're arguing semantics. Like I said before, I don't think the game is doing anything clever, it is just doing something wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily, if the shots went in off the woodwork they would be classed as "off target" but would still be goals for the attacker. This is also the case IRL...

Jaw Knee, did the shots go in off the woodwork? From your descriptions it sounds possible...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nelsonmcjones:

Not necessarily, if the shots went in off the woodwork they would be classed as "off target" but would still be goals for the attacker. This is also the case IRL...

Jaw Knee, did the shots go in off the woodwork? From your descriptions it sounds possible... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it? I'm not saying you're wrong, but where did you get that from? I have always assumed, seeing that shots off the woodwork aren't seperately measured, that it depends whether the shot goes in or not... if it hits the woodwork and goes in, it's a shot on target, and if it bounces out, then it's off target. I'm quite happy to be proven wrong though!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sten_super:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

Judging whether a shot was on target though or not is not always easy. And since I'd be very surprised if the goal was always given as an own goal in real life it shouldn't be in game either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but that point makes no sense; you seem to be saying that it is understandable if shots off target are wrongly attributed to being goals for the attacking team (as preferred to OGs) if the game thinks they are on target; but if the game thinks that the shot is on target (and therefore attributes the goal accordingly) surely it should also attribute the shot as a SOT?

Anyway, really we're arguing semantics. Like I said before, I don't think the game is doing anything clever, it is just doing something wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm saying that Shots on target is an accurate mathematical-based measure, but awarding of goals to one player or another (in real life certainly, if not in game) is down to the whims of whoever it is who decides who actually scored the goal. That is why the Dubious Goals committee that I mentioned earlier are there - they come along after the event and reattribute goals.

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

Jaw Knee, did the shots go in off the woodwork? From your descriptions it sounds possible...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they didn't. As I stated earlier, the first was a hopeful 25 yarder hit from a central position but aimed left. It hit one of my players in the area and diverted into the bottom right-hand corner.

The second was a 25 yard free kick to the left of the goal which clipped the outside of the wall and went in by the near post.

Neither shot hit the woodwork and both shots were initially on target. To my way of thinking the stats should read '3 shots 2 on target'.

I just did a search on the FA's website and in the rules (England), but couldn't see anything about the award of own goals and how it is determined

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by glamdring:

I just did a search on the FA's website and in the rules (England), but couldn't see anything about the award of own goals and how it is determined </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never looked it up in the official rules to be honest, it just seems to be the accepted 'norm'. It is mentioned in the wikipedia entry, although there is no reference cited, so it may well also be just due to it being the 'norm'.

The title of the topic is a copyright by the way

Even with a comma before the "and"?

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

The title of the topic is a copyright by the way

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who copyrighted the quote and when?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaw Knee Rot Tin:

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

The title of the topic is a copyright by the way

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So who copyrighted the quote and when? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Correct if I'm wrong ( which i more than likely will be ) isn't it from the Bourne Supremacy

Seeing as it's been attributed to Mark Twain, Benjamin Disraeli and various others, it's a lot older than any of the Bourne books or movies.

And is out of copyright too.

I did say i was probably wrong

i believe i said it in 1902, i never copyrighted it though, didnt see the point.