it's not worthwhile to play this game until next patches (11.2 or 11.3) are released.

At this moment, it is quite possible that FM2011 will be my last football manager game since there is no other competitive foot ball manager game and there is no improvement shown in FM2011 so far in aspect of match engine.

The match engine is still incomplete. Even 10.3 match engine is superior to 11.1 match engine.

There is always a scenario for your match before a match even starts, especially if it is an important match (FA cup, champions league after group tournament, derby)

I am currently managing At. Madrid (fierce rival: Real Madrid, other rivals: Espanyol, Barcelona, Sevilla, Osasuna) I always keep the player's moral at least above very good, almost every player in my squad has me on the favorite personal list. I usually do not join the press conference because it is always same and ****ing boring.

It is true that my team may play in very unfortunately manner as Chelsea just played against Birmingham, but the pattern of these "unfortunate games" are predictable in FM 2011 (yea, this exists in FM 2010 too, but this becomes more serious now). But, now, in addition to a goalkeeper playing like Yashin, you will see your players actually helping the opponent. It usually happens when I play important matches or against rivals in away.

At. Madrid vs. Porto (Euro Cup, 1st knockout round)

Spanish Cup Qtr Final

I also uploaded few split views of rival matches uploaded:

http://ch-kim.blogspot.com/2010/11/fm2011-some-matches.html

What I am sick of having these "unfortunate game" is that my team almost always play like a ****. I also uploaded few videos on Youtube showing that my players play awkwardly:

Surprisingly, defender ratings are not that bad at all.

Is it only me having this kind of awkwardness?

Dunno about others, but for the first time ever, I've shelved the game until it's in a better state.

Thats rubbish. I would be bloody enraged if I were you. It seems like a definate bug/issue with the game/match engine. How else could you explain the above results. I could understand a few hard luck games but not that many.

Your team plays well in good weather and has "wtf" moments in non-ideal conditions. That's the only explenation I could come up with. Though I'm 99.99% sure my reason is not the true reason haha.

Those results don't look like anything to me to be honest. Not to mention there could be any number of reasons why matches are lost that you can't see on the results screen.

That being said FM11 is far worse then 10.3, there are troubles with the ME but most of the issues are outside the ME with various AI's.

Edit: Second thought there is one thing that stands out.. the long shots. Long shots are all but useless since 11, but at least the AI doesn't score 50% of theirs anymore... now no one scores them. Not to mention there is no way to stop them, set my entire team to rarely shoot from distance and they still do it regularly every match.

Looks tactical to me. You are playing a narrow midfield and pushing your FBs high. The opposition are marking the FBs and pressing the midfield. This is reducing the passing options for the DCs and keeper. If either makes a mistake in possession (i.e the keeper passing the ball ahead of the DC, the DC passing the ball ahead of the midfield, or the DC getting caught in possession), you are getting punished.

The two keeper passes look weird, but might be explained by attributes / tactical settings. The keeper could be very bad at passing. The DC could have a poor first touch, composure or concentration. You might have instructed your keeper to play balls into space, but restricted wide options, meaning the DC has to run onto balls. It doesn't matter too much which of these it is. The key issue is your tactics are restricting passing options from the back, meaning players will get caught in possession and will make mistakes.

The two keeper passes look weird, but might be explained by attributes / tactical settings. The keeper could be very bad at passing. The DC could have a poor first touch, composure or concentration. You might have instructed your keeper to play balls into space, but restricted wide options, meaning the DC has to run onto balls. It doesn't matter too much which of these it is. The key issue is your tactics are restricting passing options from the back, meaning players will get caught in possession and will make mistakes.

There's quite a lot of 'could be/might have' here wwfan. You really don't know that the OP has done any of these things or that the players have the poor abilities which you mention. It almost looks as though you're scratching around trying to find any sort of explanation rather than accepting that it is JUST possible that there MIGHT be weaknesses in the ME.......

I remember so many threads with the same basic gripe from previous years. One can understand the occasional match in which one side is very dominant but loses to the odd goal, or a fluke or something. That's football. But it seems to a lot of people that it happens far too often in FM to be realistic. Ingenious explanations of why 'it's your tactics' simply don't cut it for many of us, because we believe that there are just too many of these sorts of games happening to too many people who play very different systems. The conclusion which we draw is that there is something else going on, other than tactical ineptitude on our part, and we're going to take some convincing that our feelings are mistaken.

I have watched the examples. The narrow midfield, the high, marked full backs and the pressing midfield are staring you right in the face. The only whys and wherefores relate to the DC missing the passes, which might be a bug, but might relate to the above. Everything else is completely straightforward.

As I posted, which will be highly relevant, bug or not:

The key issue is your tactics are restricting passing options from the back, meaning players will get caught in possession and will make mistakes.

Ah well, doubtless this will be the first of many similar threads and, as in previous years, both 'sides' will remain in their entrenched positions. One will insist that 'it's your tactics' and the other will scream 'broken ME'. I doubt that there will be much of a meeting of minds.

What I don't understand is why a narrow midfield, high marked fullbacks and pressing midfield should mean that (for example) a team with 12 shots on target and 7 clear cut chances doesn't score from any of them, while one which has only 5 on target and 2 clear cut chances manages to score 2 goals. The fact is that, however much you may criticise the tactics, they have enabled the OP's team to produce more scoring opportunities than the opposition. It's the conversion rate of those chances which is at issue!

Ah well, doubtless this will be the first of many similar threads and, as in previous years, both 'sides' will remain in their entrenched positions. One will insist that 'it's your tactics' and the other will scream 'broken ME'. I doubt that there will be much of a meeting of minds.

What I don't understand is why a narrow midfield, high marked fullbacks and pressing midfield should mean that (for example) a team with 12 shots on target and 7 clear cut chances doesn't score from any of them, while one which has only 5 on target and 2 clear cut chances manages to score 2 goals. The fact is that, however much you may criticise the tactics, they have enabled the OP's team to produce more scoring opportunities than the opposition. It's the conversion rate of those chances which is at issue!

Meeting of the minds... that's about as against human nature as is possible. Fanboys don't want to talk about bugs so they say it's only tactics, haters only point at bugs and has nothing to do with tactics. The reality is it's BOTH.

As for the CCC's who knows, maybe the keeper had a killer day, maybe the strikers had a terrible day, maybe it was just pure dumb luck. Did you not see the thread about the IRL Chelsea match?

But like I said about the bugs vs tactics... I see lots of long shots and they are broken, none of them are going in (unless maybe fore players with like 18-20 long shot, but I know 14-16's aren't even on target). Combine that with the possible tactical issue the other guy mentioned and these matches aren't all that shocking.

As for the CCC's who knows, maybe the keeper had a killer day, maybe the strikers had a terrible day, maybe it was just pure dumb luck. Did you not see the thread about the IRL Chelsea match?

Yes, but the whole point is how often this happens. I said before that, in real life, the odd match will go this way - that's to be expected, that's football. I don't suppose that the OP would have an issue with the occasional game panning out this way. It's the number of times that it happens which annoys him.

These matches just seem to be too frequent and explanations blaming tactics don't really appear to answer the point at issue.

Ah well, doubtless this will be the first of many similar threads and, as in previous years, both 'sides' will remain in their entrenched positions. One will insist that 'it's your tactics' and the other will scream 'broken ME'. I doubt that there will be much of a meeting of minds.

What I don't understand is why a narrow midfield, high marked fullbacks and pressing midfield should mean that (for example) a team with 12 shots on target and 7 clear cut chances doesn't score from any of them, while one which has only 5 on target and 2 clear cut chances manages to score 2 goals. The fact is that, however much you may criticise the tactics, they have enabled the OP's team to produce more scoring opportunities than the opposition. It's the conversion rate of those chances which is at issue!

Check Evertons stats this season and explain away how they've only won three games.

Happens in real life. Yes, this game is plagued with bugs, but if you look carefully at the above screenshots, the OP has a lot of shots blocked and his possession in all of those games is relatively low.

This indicates that he's using a direct passing game hitting the forwards early, but the support from midfield isn't incoming so the strikers are taking on early shots, often from range, which are either going off target or are being blocked by the defender.

Look at the Porto game - 19 shots, only 5 on target, 8 blocked, absolutely no CCC. A staggering FIFTEEN long shots. How is the fact he got beat with those stats surprising?

The OP is having very few CCC's. All of those screenshots except the 2nd leg of the Getafe game are completely realistic results. Even the Getafe game is a case of bad luck playing away to tough opposition.

There is absolutely no issue here I'm afraid - take on board wwfan's tactical advice which is spot on and try again!

Check Evertons stats this season and explain away how they've only won three games.

Happens in real life. Yes, this game is plagued with bugs, but if you look carefully at the above screenshots, the OP has a lot of shots blocked and his possession in all of those games is relatively low.

This indicates that he's using a direct passing game hitting the forwards early, but the support from midfield isn't incoming so the strikers are taking on early shots, often from range, which are either going off target or are being blocked by the defender.

Look at the Porto game - 19 shots, only 5 on target, 8 blocked, absolutely no CCC. A staggering FIFTEEN long shots. How is the fact he got beat with those stats surprising?

The OP is having very few CCC's. All of those screenshots except the 2nd leg of the Getafe game are completely realistic results. Even the Getafe game is a case of bad luck playing away to tough opposition.

There is absolutely no issue here I'm afraid - take on board wwfan's tactical advice which is spot on and try again!

The point at issue is the conversion rate of chances.

The tactics leading up to the shots/chances aren't really relevant to this point. Put simplistically, it takes more chances/shots for the human manager's team to score than it does for the AI manager's team to score. As an occasional phenomenon, that's absolutely fine. The grumble is that this happens too often to be realistic.

I agree that FM 2011 isn't a huge improvement compared to FM 2010.

About the match engine. It's really hard to judge it because sometimes it looks very good, and other times really weird things happen. The match engine gives us an illusion of how the match is played, but personally I don't know if I can trust it (that's why I use Commentary and replay the goals). It takes (many) years to develop the match engine. Look at FIFA 2011, there we have a very good match engine, but sometimes that fails too (missing big chances e.g.).

This leads me to the conclusion. I don't know if it's a "bug" that you didn't score your goals. These kinda matches happen in real life, and to be honest I don't think all of your matches are unrealistic.

The point at issue is the conversion rate of chances.

The tactics leading up to the shots/chances aren't really relevant to this point. Put simplistically, it takes more chances/shots for the human manager's team to score than it does for the AI manager's team to score. As an occasional phenomenon that's fine. The grumble is that this happens too often.

You're not looking at it the right way - it's quality over quantity.

I can guarantee you the quality of the OP's chances were not the same as the AI's. I can tell that by the stats alone.

I'll break it down:

19 Shots - This only refers to any shot on goal, and is no indication of how good the chance was.

5 On Target - Shots that actually threaten the goal in some way and requires 'keeper intervention. This does not show the difference between a 30 yard hopeful effort and a 4 yard sitter, they're treated the same.

6 Off Target - Shots that miss the goal. Again, from any range.

Those three stats you should largely ignore, as they are not useful in analysing quality.

8 Blocked Shots - To have a shot blocked, this means an outfield player has been in the way of the striker and the goal. Meaning that the more blocked shots that occur in a game, the less often the team has got in behind the back line.

0 Clear Cut Chances - This relates to opportunities where the player has been allowed to take a touch, move into space and have a shooting opportunity one on one with the 'keeper. Also, it can refer to a free header in front of a 'keeper. These are the biggest indication of quality chances.

15 Long Shots - This is important. Long Shots are taken on if the manager has instructed the player to do so or, and this is the key point, the player has no viable passing opportunities to continue the attacking phase and the manager is playing a Direct passing game. A high Long Shots statistic is extremely indicative of a tactical error if the manager does not intend his team to shoot from distance.

Basically, Porto soaked up ineffective direct pressure up until their 18 yard box and defended when needed. Additionally, the counter attacked, looked for key opportunities to work the ball into goalscoring positions and were rewarded by crafting out the clear cut chance needed to score.

It's a completely viable scenario and the OP simply needs to mix up his tactics. The ME is probably the "least" broken area of the game in terms of actual gameplay, aside from red cards and the set piece reset.

The ME is probably the "least" broken area of the game in terms of actual gameplay, aside from red cards and the set piece reset.

This is exactly the case... FM11 is terrible compared to where they were with 10.3 imo, a complete and total step backwards over all. But the ME itself is the one area that comparable between them. It's not perfect of course but there are reasons other then just bugs in the case of these matches.

Looks tactical to me. You are playing a narrow midfield and pushing your FBs high. The opposition are marking the FBs and pressing the midfield. This is reducing the passing options for the DCs and keeper. If either makes a mistake in possession (i.e the keeper passing the ball ahead of the DC, the DC passing the ball ahead of the midfield, or the DC getting caught in possession), you are getting punished.

The two keeper passes look weird, but might be explained by attributes / tactical settings. The keeper could be very bad at passing. The DC could have a poor first touch, composure or concentration. You might have instructed your keeper to play balls into space, but restricted wide options, meaning the DC has to run onto balls. It doesn't matter too much which of these it is. The key issue is your tactics are restricting passing options from the back, meaning players will get caught in possession and will make mistakes.

I am using modified Mr. Hough 4-1-2-3. No, I am not pushing my FBs high. I set FB to rarely run from deep. I also set FB, DC (Stopper) mentality 10 while DC (Cover) mentality is set to be 7. I am not pretty sure how my keeper should be that bad at that kind of short passing. Botia and Reinartz have a first touch, composure, and concentration as 11, 13, 17 and 12, 14, 14, respectively, They are not the world class ones, but certainly not the ones so easily beaten by pressure. No, my keeper does not pass into space if he acts normally. I agree that it can be due to tactical issue, but I am still more convinced that ME is the main reason. I also agree that I restrict passing option, but all these mistakes happen so often in those specific situations (rival matches, European league, Cups). These mistakes if caused by tactical issues only should happen in other matches (for example, At. Madrid vs. all other non-rival teams below third place in La Liga). I completely agree with wwfan that my tactics has flaws. But, I am trying to say that it seems that those important games are destined to certain result. I just do not get why there are "CLEAR CUT CHANCES." I don see them as clear cut chances at all in important matches.

Tubey84, I'm sorry, but that explanation simply doesn't convince me. In the first place, Porto's long shot proportion was even worse (6 shots, 5 long shots), which presumably means that we should discount that statistic.

Secondly, as I have been trying to maintain throughout, it's the number of occasions that these matches occur that's at issue. Look at the game away at Getafe. The statistics show that the OP's team had more CCCs, fewer long shots, the same number of blocked shots, more shots on target, etc, etc. How does that square with your argument that it's purely a tactical matter? By your own analysis, At Madrid demonstrated some sort of superiority here.

There may well have been a tactical flaw in the Porto game but there doesn't appear to have been one in the Getafe one. So my point remains, why do these sorts of results appear to happen more in FM than they do in the real world? I appreciate that I don't have figures to prove that this is the case, but I'm pretty sure that it is, based on my own observations and the frequency with which this sort of complaint seems to surface in the forum.

I only posted the Porto home game (0:2 loss, 4/7/10) because how dramatic the Porto away game (1:0 win, 4/14/10) would be. What a game. I had a chance to qualify the semi final until the end of game because my players were so close to score a goal. But, OMG. It's always same. Lost by one. OMG. and it happens again! How about the Spanish Cup qtr final. First leg, 3:2. Second leg, 0:2. Lost by one again. Well, I just played two seasons in 2011, so I have had only 4 tournaments so far (1st season, the European cup and Spanish Cup, 2nd season, the Champions League and Spanish Cup), but already happened twice losing by one point, and they are always so DRAMATIC. I am not a heavy gamer, but spent 1500 hrs playing 2010 watching these dramatic moments over and over. And I could not believe that I would watch these dramas again in 2011.

Tubey84, I'm sorry, but that explanation simply doesn't convince me. In the first place, Porto's long shot proportion was even worse (6 shots, 5 long shots), which presumably means that we should discount that statistic.

Secondly, as I have been trying to maintain throughout, it's the number of occasions that these matches occur that's at issue. Look at the game away at Getafe. The statistics show that the OP's team had more CCCs, fewer long shots, the same number of blocked shots, more shots on target, etc, etc. How does that square with your argument that it's purely a tactical matter? By your own analysis, At Madrid demonstrated some sort of superiority here.

There may well have been a tactical flaw in the Porto game but there doesn't appear to have been one in the Getafe one. So my point remains, why do these sorts of results appear to happen more in FM than they do in the real world? I appreciate that I don't have figures to prove that this is the case, but I'm pretty sure that it is, based on my own observations and the frequency with which this sort of complaint seems to surface in the forum.

I'm saddened that you aren't convinced, but all I can say is that I'm comfortably winning everything and anything remotely possible in my two saves just via tactical observation. I've had two games max where I could say the opposition where unlucky to lose, and one loss for me. It's not because I'm "pro", it's just because I identify problems and confront them instead of screaming at the ME. I went seven games without conceding a goal at one stage.

If the ME was broken, then that simply would not be possible. The game would be so wild that the level of consistency needed for a run like that would be unattainable.

FM is hard-coded with the ME and so is consistent.

The Getafe game was away from home and Getafe are a decent side. As I've explained twice already, the quality of the OP's chances aren't up to scratch so it doesn't matter how many shots he has, or in some cases even how many CCC's (as they can refer to snap shots straight at the 'keeper, or a close header over the bar etc.), all that matters is how the chances are created. He's still using the same tactical system as the other screenshots so although he was significantly unluckier in the Getafe game, it can still be explained with ease. You will get the "odd" game where you're looking on in disbelief as your strikers just have an offday, but that happens.

EDIT: Oh, in response to your Long Shot analysis of Porto, they were clearly playing a counter-attacking style of football and trying to nick a goal. As such, most of the time they would adopt a long shot if the break was ahead of play and no support was oncoming. The goals they score either come from a well executed long shot or, I'm betting, the ball is worked down the flank and a striker has nipped in ahead of his marker to turn in a cross on the break. Or a corner ^^

Look you can't arbitrarily decide to take statistics into account for one of the games and not for the other, which is what you are doing. It's special pleading to suggest, without any real evidence, that somehow or other the OP's CCCs aren't as good as the AI's, which is what you seem to be doing in relation to the Getafe game. That smacks of altering the facts to fit your own theory ('I just KNOW that the quality of his chances isn't so good so he must have had WORSE CCCs than the opposition....').

It's not the fact that he was 'unluckier' in the Getafe game that's at issue. It's how OFTEN he's unluckier.

Look you can't arbitrarily decide to take statistics into account for one of the games and not for the other, which is what you are doing. It's special pleading to suggest, without any real evidence, that somehow or other the OP's CCCs aren't as good as the AI's, which is what you seem to be doing in relation to the Getafe game. That smacks of altering the facts to fit your own theory ('I just KNOW that the quality of his chances isn't so good so he must have had WORSE CCCs than the opposition....').

It's not the fact that he was 'unluckier' in the Getafe game that's at issue. It's how OFTEN he's unluckier.

I'll try to be crystal clear...

The Getafe game resulted in seven CCC's for Atletico, compared to four for Getafe.

Which means that the quality of Getafe's CCC's are superior to that of Atletico, despite Atletico having more quantity.

In another instance (the Porto game), Atletico were unable to create quality chances despite the quantity of opportunities. Porto played on the counter and produced quality opportunities despite a lack of overall quantity.

They are both one and the same thing - the opposition is consistently more incisive in the final third than the OP. It all amounts to one thing - the OP needs to adjust his tactics to either play a less direct passing game to give his team time to get forward in numbers, or he needs to alter elsewhere to ensure when the ball is moved to his forward he has options other than speculative shooting. He also needs to keep an eye on his strikers motivation during the game which also impacts how well he'll move into positions and take his chances.

It's literally ALL tactical. There is nothing wrong with the ME in this instance at all.

How can you say the 10.3 ME is better than the 11.1 ME? You couldn't get a formation with any form of width to be successful and even then the game was ruled by Inside Forwards and CL and CR strikers and attack mids.

People have addressed issues with your team set up and the way the opponent is playing against you and it's to do with a one dimensional tactic with no plan B or second option. I like to have a single tactic, but I do change things about when I see the opposition getting the better of me on attack or defense and adjust to the situation.

I only have stopped playing due to the mass exodus of star players in the transfer window as they throw a fit at the smallest of things and demand a transfer at transfer value price making it all too easy to create a star team at the end of season one.

The match engine is the best so far, if there are any weaknesses or discrepancies with reagrds to your result's, look no further than your tactics.

Who ever is wanting a 100% replica of a real football match, forget it, never happen, if anything the me and a real football match have that unpredictable result as a true match stats result, anything can happen in football.

As far as im concerned the fix's are needed in other area's of the game and not the me.

Derbies

So all these results (happened within 1.5 season) are due to flaws in tactics. I get it. I did not know that I had to change FB setting in order to my mediocre strikers, such as Aguero and Forlan to score 1 on 1, at least scoring half of them.

I'll try to be crystal clear...

The Getafe game resulted in seven CCC's for Atletico, compared to four for Getafe.

Which means that the quality of Getafe's CCC's are superior to that of Atletico, despite Atletico having more quantity.

In another instance (the Porto game), Atletico were unable to create quality chances despite the quantity of opportunities. Porto played on the counter and produced quality opportunities despite a lack of overall quantity.

They are both one and the same thing - the opposition is consistently more incisive in the final third than the OP. It all amounts to one thing - the OP needs to adjust his tactics to either play a less direct passing game to give his team time to get forward in numbers, or he needs to alter elsewhere to ensure when the ball is moved to his forward he has options other than speculative shooting. He also needs to keep an eye on his strikers motivation during the game which also impacts how well he'll move into positions and take his chances.

It's literally ALL tactical. There is nothing wrong with the ME in this instance at all.

Let me, in my turn, be crystal clear. You simply have no evidence at all to say that the quality of Getafe's CCCs was greater than the quality of At Madrid's, unless you are claiming that they must have been because Getafe won. If this is what your argument amounts to, then the whole discussion becomes pointless, because you are, in effect, assuming what is to be proved. It would be an absurd argument, anyway, because it would imply that any team winning any match must always have deserved it and I can't believe that you think that this is so.

My point remains perfectly valid.

The match engine is the best so far, if there are any weaknesses or discrepancies with reagrds to your result's, look no further than your tactics.

Who ever is wanting a 100% replica of a real football match, forget it, never happen, if anything the me and a real football match have that unpredictable result as a true match stats result, anything can happen in football.

As far as im concerned the fix's are needed in other area's of the game and not the me.

I am not asking 100% replica of a real one. However, I love to have those unpredictable result in this predictable game.

How can you say the 10.3 ME is better than the 11.1 ME? You couldn't get a formation with any form of width to be successful and even then the game was ruled by Inside Forwards and CL and CR strikers and attack mids.

People have addressed issues with your team set up and the way the opponent is playing against you and it's to do with a one dimensional tactic with no plan B or second option. I like to have a single tactic, but I do change things about when I see the opposition getting the better of me on attack or defense and adjust to the situation.

I only have stopped playing due to the mass exodus of star players in the transfer window as they throw a fit at the smallest of things and demand a transfer at transfer value price making it all too easy to create a star team at the end of season one.

Of course, there is a plan B. Of course, I agree with the flaws in my tactics. Am I talking about losing games because I have a such horrible game? The recent performance of Man Utd means a horrible performance having no decent game, but my team, at least, have created decent amount of chances. And those chances are not converted into the score sheet proportionally (in logical manner).

My point remains perfectly valid.

Nope, not really...

You have no more proof there wasn't better quality for the winners then the other guy has proof there was. But based on my own matches, including dominating matches and not winning as well I've seen both aspects and know it's not ME bugs.

An ME bug is when your left back is pushed up on the opponents right back with the opponents right winger wide open at a free kick and center backs leaving the striker they are marking to close down that winger after receiving the ball, giving the winger a perfect unmarked target to cross to and create a CCC.

THAT is a bug in the AI decision and positioning. Simply losing and pointing at the stats saying it doesn't make sense is -NOT- proof of a bug because there are any number of aspects to the game that can contribute to that.

Let me, in my turn, be crystal clear. You simply have no evidence at all to say that the quality of Getafe's CCCs was greater than the quality of At Madrid's, unless you are claiming that they must have been because Getafe won. If this is what your argument amounts to, then the whole discussion becomes pointless, because you are, in effect, assuming what is to be proved. It would be an absurd argument, anyway, because it would imply that any team winning any match must always have deserved it and I can't believe that you think that this is so.

My point remains perfectly valid.

Right last try ^^

Can you see that if the OP is creating more chances, applying more pressure yet not converting chances and conceding frequently that it might, just might, be because of a tactical issue regarding his defence and attack?

Or to put it in an equation.

Loads of chance + Few goals + Goals conceded + Few AI opportunities = Tactical problem.

Really isn't rocket science! You come across like some sort of mad conspiracy theorist convinced that because you are having problems then it HAS to be the games fault!

The ME is fine and is definitely the least broken aspect of the game. Once more, if the ME was broken, then this:

- would be completely impossible without some extraordinary good luck.

Oh and OP, latest screenshots, once again pretty much to be expected. Honestly, take on board the tactical advice on this thread and you'll see a difference. That Espanyol result away looks like a kick in the balls though ^^

Loads of chance + Few goals + Goals conceded + Few AI opportunities = Tactical problem.

I am sorry, but I have a question.

Loads of chance + Few goals + Goals conceded + Few AI opportunities = Tactical problem.

How can this be tactical problem when some of these loads of chance are considered to be clear cut and strikers do not just score them 1 on 1?

I would say,

Loads of chances, which are not clear cut + Few goals + Goal conceded + Few AI opportunities = 100% Tactical problem

Furthermore, your fixtures only show non-rival game though including FA 2nd rnd, which is very low round (might be considered as not important match yet by FM).

So all these results (happened within 1.5 season) are due to flaws in tactics. I get it. I did not know that I had to change FB setting in order to my mediocre strikers, such as Aguero and Forlan to score 1 on 1, at least scoring half of them.

A 50% conversion ratio of 1-on-1 chances is a stat attained only by absolutely legendary players, if at all. Whilst Aguero and Forlan are both awesome (I have a man-crush on Forlan :o), they're not in that bracket.

I noticed earlier you mentioned you're using a modified version of downloaded tactics. Why not start again from scratch? The tactics people post up on here often give you false superiority in the stats, when you're not in actual fact creating much. A CCC can be a snap shot 1 yard from the keeper with a defender on your back at a tight angle, or it can be an open goal with nobody in 10 yards from 6 yards out. I'd rather create 1 of the latter than 5 of the former.

How can this be tactical problem when some of these loads of chance are considered to be clear cut and strikers do not just score them 1 on 1?

This is exactly why complaining about stats is a bad way to cry 'BUG'.

CCC are quite often shown in highlights so you should know the details. Keeper standing on his head? Strikers choking under the pressure? What are their stats, for all we know the strikers are only getting like 10-15% of their shots on target through out your matches and consistently have questionable ratings.

I don't know how many times I've seen my star strikers miss easy shots time after time in a match. Guess what I do, I put in the young hungry pup and watch him put away 2 for me, don't come tot he forums and complain that his missing is a bug and unrealistic.

Hell in my main save I play Colorado in the MLS, first season i took the team tot he league finals and lost. Colorado in irl won the league this weekend and they did it with like 20-25 -LESS- goals then my team in FM. The interesting thing is that I had the 2 strikers that lead Colorado and even though they had many bad games and many easy misses they actually scored about the same goals as the real players irl. The difference was replacing them in those bad games and bringing in better talent to surround them so they didn't have to do all the work.

So is the ME bugged when I see these key strikers miss time after time when they actually scored about the same number of goals IRL? You guys are the ones talking stats, so if the game and IRL can be mirrored that well then that says something to me about how well the ME is working in some aspects.

All I am saying is that you are trying to make the facts fit your own theory, Tubey84. I am prepared to look at CCCs for what they are, CCCs. It's not me who is drawing unwarranted conclusions based upon some assumption that one CCC is better than another CCC and that the OP must have had worse ones, which is what you are doing.

The point which I have been making consistently throughout is that there appear to a number of people to be too many matches like the Getafe away one, where, on the basis of the statistics, the human manager was, to use your term, 'unluckier'.

If you believe that the Getafe match and similar ones can be explained by some tactical ineptitude, you are going to have to demonstrate that logically, rather than by making unsubstantiated assumptions.

I am not suggesting any form of 'conspiracy theory'. I wonder, however, if the game has some sort of mechanism which tries to compensate for the fact that, for example, the human manager finds it much easier than the AI manager to assemble a stronger squad and which also tends to work against overperforming sides, or those on a long unbeaten run and that this might account for at least some of the odd results which appear from time to time. I hasten to add that I have no evidence whatsoever for such a theory, but it does appear to me to offer a possible explanation of what seems to happen.

A 50% conversion ratio of 1-on-1 chances is a stat attained only by absolutely legendary players, if at all. Whilst Aguero and Forlan are both awesome (I have a man-crush on Forlan :o), they're not in that bracket.

I noticed earlier you mentioned you're using a modified version of downloaded tactics. Why not start again from scratch? The tactics people post up on here often give you false superiority in the stats, when you're not in actual fact creating much. A CCC can be a snap shot 1 yard from the keeper with a defender on your back at a tight angle, or it can be an open goal with nobody in 10 yards from 6 yards out. I'd rather create 1 of the latter than 5 of the former.

Are you pretty sure about 50% conversion ratio of 1-on-1 chance by absolute legendary players? When I say 1-on-1, I mean 1-on-1 by Higuain, shown in one of videos uploaded by me. No tight angle, no Buffon, no defender tackling from back. I watch every match (in key highlight mode though, but you do not miss most CCCs), and I agree that some CCCs are overrated. However, I also watch every week that decent EPL strikers would certainly convert some CCCs easily that my players miss miserably like passing the ball to the goalkeeper.

I am sorry, but I have a question.

Loads of chance + Few goals + Goals conceded + Few AI opportunities = Tactical problem.

How can this be tactical problem when some of these loads of chance are considered to be clear cut and strikers do not just score them 1 on 1?

I would say,

Loads of chances, which are not clear cut + Few goals + Goal conceded + Few AI opportunities = 100% Tactical problem

Furthermore, your fixtures only show non-rival game though including FA 2nd rnd, which is very low round (might be considered as not important match yet by FM).

Actually, there a few pretty big games in there - Nuneaton and Stafford where my closest rivals in the league, Droylsden were decent too and the FA Trophy game (not the FA Cup) was against a side 3rd in BSS. The game recognises match importance in relation to the league the game is played in But that was just one example of the run I've managed.

That was the league position at the time - I lost five games I think all season, despite a predicted position of 14th. I did it by simply watching the game and adjusting tactics where I saw a problem.

But on to the other point, there's clear cut chances and then there's "Jesus christ how did you miss that?!" clear cut chances, if you follow. If you work the chance via a low ball and the striker reaches it just before the 'keeper, it's a clear cut chance but the 'keeper has a chance to save. Whereas a low cross to a striker six yards out with the goal at his mercy is an easier chance. Similarly, a difficult header three yards out whilst leaning back is still a clear cut chance, but a simple nod in at the back post is also a clear cut chance.

That's what I mean by it's more important how you craft the chances and the positions your players find themselves in rather than the stat itself. If you are having the odd golden opportunity missed, check the "Player Motivation" quickview in the match screen and check your strikers aren't "looking disinterested/complacent" as that plays a role in how sharp they are.

If you believe that the Getafe match and similar ones can be explained by some tactical ineptitude, you are going to have to demonstrate that logically, rather than by making unsubstantiated assumptions.

So tell us.. how is anyone supposed to prove it's tactical without every single little detail?

Players attributes, morale, ratings for both teams. Tactical formations, opposition instructions, individual instructions, team instructions. Player performance trends in past matches, match prep settings... all these things and I'm sure some others I'm not thinking of are things that need to be considered with every match.

The proof you are demanding can't be given in the detail you expect without all the information. But based on common sense and personal experience some of us already know it's tactical based.

I am sorry, but I have a question.

Loads of chance + Few goals + Goals conceded + Few AI opportunities = Tactical problem.

How can this be tactical problem when some of these loads of chance are considered to be clear cut and strikers do not just score them 1 on 1?

I would say,

Loads of chances, which are not clear cut + Few goals + Goal conceded + Few AI opportunities = 100% Tactical problem

Furthermore, your fixtures only show non-rival game though including FA 2nd rnd, which is very low round (might be considered as not important match yet by FM).

One thing I am very happy to criticise is how CCCs are calculated. I've seen shots from outside the area classified as CCCs, when they are quite patently half chances at best. Yes, the player is in a bit of space, but he's over 22 yards out. Keeper's going to be favourite every time. The research I've read suggests that any chance from outside the box is a 1 in 9 shot at best, so if they are being classified as CCCs then there is definitely a cause for concern and complaint.

I believe the Mr Hough tactic generates a lot of centrally generated chances, of which many are of the above type. I tend to use my own personal judgement when looking at CCCs, rather than trusting the game's interpretation, which is far too liberal. If you look back on these matches, how many of your CCCs were very central from circa 20 yards out? IF it is a lot, I'd suggest you try not taking the game stats as gospel and start trusting your own interpretation.

One thing I am very happy to criticise is how CCCs are calculated. I've seen shots from outside the area classified as CCCs, when they are quite patently half chances at best. Yes, the player is in a bit of space, but he's over 22 yards out. Keeper's going to be favourite every time. The research I've read suggests that any chance from outside the box is a 1 in 9 shot at best, so if they are being classified as CCCs then there is definitely a cause for concern and complaint.

I believe the Mr Hough tactic generates a lot of centrally generated chances, of which many are of the above type. I tend to use my own personal judgement when looking at CCCs, rather than trusting the game's interpretation, which is far too liberal. If you look back on these matches, how many of your CCCs were very central from circa 20 yards out? IF it is a lot, I'd suggest you try not taking the game stats as gospel and start trusting your own interpretation.

Exactly ^^ Quality over quantity

This is exactly why complaining about stats is a bad way to cry 'BUG'.

CCC are quite often shown in highlights so you should know the details. Keeper standing on his head? Strikers choking under the pressure? What are their stats, for all we know the strikers are only getting like 10-15% of their shots on target through out your matches and consistently have questionable ratings.

I don't know how many times I've seen my star strikers miss easy shots time after time in a match. Guess what I do, I put in the young hungry pup and watch him put away 2 for me, don't come tot he forums and complain that his missing is a bug and unrealistic.

Hell in my main save I play Colorado in the MLS, first season i took the team tot he league finals and lost. Colorado in irl won the league this weekend and they did it with like 20-25 -LESS- goals then my team in FM. The interesting thing is that I had the 2 strikers that lead Colorado and even though they had many bad games and many easy misses they actually scored about the same goals as the real players irl. The difference was replacing them in those bad games and bringing in better talent to surround them so they didn't have to do all the work.

So is the ME bugged when I see these key strikers miss time after time when they actually scored about the same number of goals IRL? You guys are the ones talking stats, so if the game and IRL can be mirrored that well then that says something to me about how well the ME is working in some aspects.

I am not talking about your superb performance in FM. I watch every game in FM. I also have youngsters scoring around 10 goals as jokers. I am talking about patterns. Why these people relate those awkward patterns to tactical issues? These programmed patterns force the scores to be certain figures. As a result, players miss their chances to score because they are not supposed to score.

I am inclined to agree with Tubey84 that the ME is not as broken as the OP and others make out. If it was then I don't think I could obtain the following results either:

So tell us.. how is anyone supposed to prove it's tactical without every single little detail?

Players attributes, morale, ratings for both teams. Tactical formations, opposition instructions, individual instructions, team instructions. Player performance trends in past matches, match prep settings... all these things and I'm sure some others I'm not thinking of are things that need to be considered with every match.

The proof you are demanding can't be given in the detail you expect without all the information. But based on common sense and personal experience some of us already know it's tactical based.

I'm not disputing that all the things that you mention need to be taken into account. But you are claiming that you KNOW it's tactically based. You don't.

It's not going to comfort the OP if you and Tubey84 keep on telling him that it's his tactics and when he very reasonably asks 'Why so?' all that you can really say is 'Because we know it.' is it?

Tactics could very reasonably explain the Porto game. They don't explain the Getafe one if you adopt the same criteria unless you get involved in convoluted attempts to explain why one CCC is different from another.

The M.E is head and shoulders above previous M.E ok i agree needs a tweak here and there but still far superior

I am not talking about your superb performance in FM. I watch every game in FM. I also have youngsters scoring around 10 goals as jokers. I am talking about patterns. Why these people relate those awkward patterns to tactical issues? These programmed patterns force the scores to be certain figures. As a result, players miss their chances to score because they are not supposed to score.

Try reading everything you twit.. this is why it's not bugs causing all the problems, lack of attention to detail.

my team in-game and the real team irl pretty much mirrored themselves in the 2010 season. Right down to the performance of the key strikers of the team scoring the same number of goals. I'm talking the -EXACT- same players scoring the same goals +/- a couple through a whole season. All this while watching these players miss CCC's and the lack many times in the ME.

So if it mirrors reality so closely then how is the ME bugged in the fashion you claim?

I'm not disputing that all the things that you mention need to be taken into account. But you are claiming that you KNOW it's tactically based. You don't.

It's not going to comfort the OP if you and Tubey84 keep on telling him that it's his tactics and when he very reasonably asks 'Why so?' all that you can really say is 'Because we know it.' is it?

I've stated at least five times what he needs to do! Either adopt a less direct passing game so his team cuts out individual errors trying to get the ball forward at the earliest opportunity and, so when the ball does get forward, he has enough players in support to craft decent opportunities.

Or if he still wants to play a direct game, ensure that enough support is up with the holding striker when he receives the ball to feet by having adequate wing play. The fact he's using a narrow tactic means that everything flows to the edge of the penalty area and breaks down (evidenced by the blocked shots and long shots), so he either needs to adapt his passing style or change his tactic.

I am not talking about your superb performance in FM. I watch every game in FM. I also have youngsters scoring around 10 goals as jokers. I am talking about patterns. Why these people relate those awkward patterns to tactical issues? These programmed patterns force the scores to be certain figures. As a result, players miss their chances to score because they are not supposed to score.

I'm unsure what you mean by patterns. Do you mean individual mistakes in your videos, like the loose pass from the 'keeper or the bad control? Or do you mean the 'keeper saving the shots?

Either way, they're both down to tactics. You're using short distribution from the 'keeper and Madrid in those videos are pressing your centre-halves who aren't as composed on the ball as you need them to be. The shots are being saved because the 'keeper is in a position to reasonably have a chance to save.

I can only go on the information you have posted - if you have a problem you want diagnosed in detail, post your tactic set-up as well and we'll have a better idea. As Martyr1777 said, we can only go on what you're giving us, but I can guarantee you it's tactical.

....but I can guarantee you it's tactical.

You can't guarantee anything of the sort!

I'm not disputing that all the things that you mention need to be taken into account. But you are claiming that you KNOW it's tactically based. You don't.

It's not going to comfort the OP if you and Tubey84 keep on telling him that it's his tactics and when he very reasonably asks 'Why so?' all that you can really say is 'Because we know it.' is it?

Tactics could very reasonably explain the Porto game. They don't explain the Getafe one if you adopt the same criteria unless you get involved in convoluted attempts to explain why one CCC is different from another.

OMG... I do because I've had the experience dominating matches with my team and losing and I know exactly why it happened. it wasn't bugs in the ME it was my teams poor finishing, taking long shots, missing the net, poor crosses, etc. But that doesn't mean the ME broken in those aspects, just that the team had a bad game. Because the next game the team might go with 5 shots on net and 5 goals.

Look, FM11 is crap compared to the state of 10.3. But complaining about the ME being broken and pointing at the stats as proof is just plain uninspired and meaningless. Bugs are when the game does something it flat shouldn't, failing probability in the form of missing CCC's and not making up for it with better team members or tactics is not a bug. It's tactical.

I base that knowledge on the EXACT same thing you are basing your claims on... PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You have no more proof anything is wrong then we have that it's fine. This is where the common sense comes into play and knowing the difference between a bug and luck.

Edit: If the OP wants tactical advise he can ask tactical advice.. but there is no such thing happening here, it's people complaining the ME is broken with no specifics, just pointing at stats.

I am inclined to agree with Tubey84 that the ME is not as broken as the OP and others make out. If it was then I don't think I could obtain the following results either:

How about match results in away game against rivals and advanced stage of Champions Cup game?

Maybe FM needs to go a step further than listing 'Clear Cut Chances'. Maybe it needs a 'Really Should Have Scored' stat as well - something to show when something was even better than a clear cut chance, to help the manager assess the quality of his clear cut chances.

I'm scratching around in my memory for the actual conversion rates for real players in one-on-one situations. I seem to recall even the very best strikers only managing something like 20-35%, at the very best. 50% would be very high. I'm sure wwfan can tell us the right figure in real life.

You can't guarantee anything of the sort!

I can. I really, really can. Because there's realistically nothing else it can be. And I've helped a LOT of people on these boards and others with the exact same concerns.

It's sort of like saying the grass is green, you know?