What is the CCC conversion rate supposed to be anyway

I reckon for a top striker it should be about 90% for a Clear Cut Chance and 45% for a half chance.

Its getting a bit silly how consistently the likes of Pato and Ibrahimovic miss them on here. Both solid technical players that should be able to score one on ones more often than not.

Back it up with stats please. Just because you reckon something does not make it an absolute. Define a 'clear cut chance' and 'half chance' and then back it up with actual real life stats. I very much doubt that the real life stats would suggest a 90% and 45% conversion rate of either type of chance.

Go watch some Seria A game.

You will see Ibrahimovic missing 2/3 CCC per game.. Same goes for Pato..

Ibrahimovic is famous for his CCC misses and scoring the impossible goals

There are a few other threads on this, and the general consensus is that IRL there is never a stat for CCC, so why does the game have one and how does it calculate what is clear cut and what is a half chance? Best thing is to ignore this stat completely and judge for yourself what you think is clear cut or not.

Obviously the game desginates it a CCC when the ME has made it so the player had a great chance to score.

And Ibrahmovic is not famous for missing CCCs. He is one of the best strikers in the world, has a great scoring record, and has never really missed sitters. Especially not in recent times. His only fault is that he has been known to go missing.

But Neil there's no stat in football about that? What is it? We all know what's a corner, a shot on goal. But ccc, what is it? Si included this in a previous fm because strikers were missing an incredible number of one on ones and as since then remained in the game.

But imo is too subjective to be in the game as a stat, and it causes too many rants.

Top strikers also miss sitters they just don't miss as many, but to be fair, in one on one situations they are very lethal.

don't mind my english.

Zlatan has tried some extravagant things but he has never consistently missed sitters. Especially not in the last 4 years where he has been lethal in front of goal.

His only problems could be Big matches, Work Rate, Determiantion and consistency, but he has improved on all of those a lot recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGJhZqSsGuM

But Neil there's no stat in football about that? What is it? We all know what's a corner, a shot on goal. But ccc, what is it? Si included this in a previous fm because strikers were missing an incredible number of one on ones and as since then remained in the game.

But imo is too subjective to be in the game as a stat, and it causes too many rants.

Top strikers also miss sitters they just don't miss as many, but to be fair, in one on one situations they are very lethal.

don't mind my english.

Agree with this. I feel the game is very woolly on what it designate as a clear cut chance, but then that leads to the question; What is defined as a clear cut chance? I tend to ignore the CCC stat and judge each chance on its own, you often see that some CCC really arent all that clear cut, whereas some will be absolute sitters. Neil, just my opinion, but i think you may have made a rod for your back in including the CCC stat, as people tend to focus on the stat rather the quality of the chance itself.

Its hard to make a comparison with the FM CCC's since the stat itself doesnt exist in real life. As for striker conversion rates i've dug up a few stats on the top finishers from last season (league goals only), these are all comparable to stats that can be found in game:

Edin Dzeko: 22 goals from 153 shots - 14.37% conversion rate; 70 shots on target 31.42% conversion rate

Mamadou Niang: 18 goals from 108 shots - 16.66% conversion rate; 42 shots on target 42.85% conversion rate

Wayne Rooney: 26 goals from 182 shots - 14.28% conversion rate; 58 shots on target 44.83% conversion rate

Didier Drogba: 31 goals from 178 shots - 17.41% conversion rate; 67 shots on target 50.81% conversion rate

Cristiano Ronaldo: 26 goals from 211 shots - 12.32% conversion rate; 94 shots on target 27.66% conversion rate

Gonzalo Higuaín: 27 goals from 198 shots - 13.63% conversion rate; 52 shots on target 51.92% conversion rate

David Villa: 21 goals from 139 shots - 15.10% conversion rate; 61 shots on target 34.43% conversion rate

Lionel Messi: 34 goals from 163 shots - 20.85% conversion rate; 86 shots on target 39.53% conversion rate

Antonio Di Natale: 29 goals from 152 shots - 19.08% conversion rate; 71 shots on target 40.85% conversion rate

Diego Milito: 22 goals from 86 shots - 25.58% conversion rate; 36 shots on target 61.11% conversion rate

Geez people...

Here's a solution, SI just take the CCC stat out of the game.

Who cares about CCC this or that, all I care about is my players getting the ball on net, I don't care from where or how easy/hard it was. If your players get the ball on net then sooner or later you will score goals, CCC or not.

The entire concept of what is or isn't a CCC is completely subjective anyway so it's a pointless argument, drop it already.

I don't know... For real games you have a point, but we're talking about a programmed match engine here; the game knows perfectly well which chances are easy (clear cut) and which are not, so I don't see the harm in providing a statistic for it.

What is defined as a clear cut chance? I tend to ignore the CCC stat and judge each chance on its own, you often see that some CCC really arent all that clear cut, whereas some will be absolute sitters. Neil, just my opinion, but i think you may have made a rod for your back in including the CCC stat, as people tend to focus on the stat rather the quality of the chance itself.

Spot on mate Although I think the stat should be in the game, I think people focus on it in completely the wrong way.

CCC's are a complete fallacy - there's no such thing as a "definition" of a CCC as one could be an awkward header right in front of goal and another could be one on one with the 'keeper 20 yards out. Then again, one could be a tap in two yards out. Because in all instances a clear goalscoring opportunity is presented, they're all CCC's, but some are better than others.

If you want a realistic "ballpark" figure on CCC conversion, I'd say around 10%. But people really do place too much importance on the stat in FM. All it is supposed to be is an indicator as to how often your team creates decent opportunities from open play.

I don't know... For real games you have a point, but we're talking about a programmed match engine here; the game knows perfectly well which chances are easy (clear cut) and which are not, so I don't see the harm in providing a statistic for it.

OK, for a vague definition, consider this:

Clear Cut Chance - Any occasion where a player can take on a shot or header on goal without any significant pressure from the opposition defence. This does not include the Goalkeeper.

You can imagine how wide-ranging that is even for the AI to consider.

If the player is in an awkward position to make the header/shot I wouldn't call it a clear chance, but I suppose that's a matter of interpretation. Mine is that CCC's are simply easy (relatively speaking) chances, and the ME has the numbers to make an objective determination of that.

If the player is in an awkward position to make the header/shot I wouldn't call it a clear chance, but I suppose that's a matter of interpretation. Mine is that CCC's are simply easy (relatively speaking) chances, and the ME has the numbers to make an objective determination of that.

The key word is "chance" though. If every CCC was defined as a tap-in, you may as well use the "goals scored" stat instead.

Clear cut chance basically means the following order on the pitch.

Attacker > Ball > Goalkeeper > Goal.

I said relatively easy chances, not just tap-ins. I don't see why a clear cut chance has to be a one-on-one; depending on the position of the players and the direction the ball is coming from that can be a much more difficult opportunity than say a cross to an unmarked striker on the far post, or an unchallenged header from a corner.

90% and 45%? I'd be very very surprised if it was that high. Also the whole definition of a 'clear cut chance' and 'half chance' is an entirely different discussion. And anyone who says Zlatan 'has never really missed sitters' has surely not watched his entire career. To say he's occasionally tried to over-do the simple would be an understatement.

Can't really argue that one about Zlatan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGJhZqSsGuM

Yeah, OK. He missed an open goal there. Every top striker has done that at least once before. No reason for him to be doing it twice a week. In fact, Zlatan has been scoring nearly every week IRL.

I don't know... For real games you have a point, but we're talking about a programmed match engine here; the game knows perfectly well which chances are easy (clear cut) and which are not, so I don't see the harm in providing a statistic for it.

This is the key which everybody seems to be missing.

The ME creates the CCCs, so it knows what one is. We don't have to define it and rate them ourselves because the ME is the greatest authority and has told us itself. It might not look like one (akward header) but it was as the ME says it was. And another chance might look easier but wasn't actually because the ME didnt think so.

The numbers produced by the ME (i.e. CCC stat) is better than any subjective viewing of the 3d pitch, which is mostly there for eye candy, rather than anything else.

I don't know... For real games you have a point, but we're talking about a programmed match engine here; the game knows perfectly well which chances are easy (clear cut) and which are not, so I don't see the harm in providing a statistic for it.

The game knows what a CCC is based on the devs opinion that wrote the code what a CCC is.

The point is still the same... It does not matter how many CCC's anyone has.

If your players aren't putting the ball in the net but your opponents are I'd be looking at the players and you tactics. Because it's freaking easy to score goals as it is right now... and that's why my strikers make a ton of misses too, but they still get the job done.

Yeah, I agree with that; scoring is the aim and what matters, not the CCC stat -- there are many ways to score goals. Still, creating clear chances should mean good odds to convert, so it isn't a pointless statistic to take into consideration. I assume it's based on some of the same numbers that determine whether the chance is converted or not, so I'm not sure I agree with the "based on the devs opinion" thing, though.

First, the code might say that there are more CCC's then there really are, second you can score without getting CCC's, third the apparent 'easy' plays simply aren't that in any sport.

Players miss plays that might be called CCC's irl.

Hockey has 'Scoring chances' which are the same thing and they don't score more then they do. Since media doesn't really keep CCC stats for football it's hard to say but I'm betting it's the same situation.

There is no problem with the ME in this situation... This is one issue with close scoring chance imo, players using their weaker foot when they have no reason to. That causes a lot of misses and can be annoying. But the entire CCC talk is quite honestly pathetically stupid... mainly because people just won't stop, 3 different new threads on it specifically today.

If people put as much time figuring out why things aren't working for them as they do complaining about it then they might actually solve the issue.

it would be no problem if the AI would miss that much CCCs, too. but the fact that i need 3 times as much CCCs to score (last 10 games average) even if my strikers have the best finishing/composure stats in the leage is idiotic. and don't come with "it's your tactics".. converting CCCs has nothing to do with tactics.

it would be no problem if the AI would miss that much CCCs, too. but the fact that i need 3 times as much CCCs to score (last 10 games average) even if my strikers have the best finishing/composure stats in the leage is idiotic. and don't come with "it's your tactics".. converting CCCs has nothing to do with tactics.

Ever think the problem isn't your offense, but it's your defense conceding too easy?

I'm not going to listen to a single person complaining about their CCC numbers. I look at shots and shot's on target, never once glance at CCC's during a match. Because CCC's don't matter worth a damn if you have 12 shots and 0 on target.

it would be no problem if the AI would miss that much CCCs, too. but the fact that i need 3 times as much CCCs to score (last 10 games average) even if my strikers have the best finishing/composure stats in the leage is idiotic. and don't come with "it's your tactics".. converting CCCs has nothing to do with tactics.

It's been confirmed before that the match engine makes no distinction between a human-controlled team and an AI team when calculating match events, so I'm afraid we can deduct that it is either tactic or player related. Or our selective memory playing tricks on us.

it would be no problem if the AI would miss that much CCCs, too. .

I've seen the AI miss plenty of CCCs

Again, we could go into the topic of quality over quantity

Geez people...

Here's a solution, SI just take the CCC stat out of the game.

Who cares about CCC this or that, all I care about is my players getting the ball on net, I don't care from where or how easy/hard it was. If your players get the ball on net then sooner or later you will score goals, CCC or not.

The entire concept of what is or isn't a CCC is completely subjective anyway so it's a pointless argument, drop it already.

What is the supposed to help again?

The CCC stat is a very valuable information for us. It tells us whether our team can create real chances or if the opponent can. It help analysing tactics and improving them.

Those who just become frustrated if they miss CCCs don't get it.

Shots are target tell you if you have real chances.

Shots are target tell you if you have real chances.

nonsense. do you want to tell me, that missing an empty goal for instance isn't a real chance?

Ever think the problem isn't your offense, but it's your defense conceding too easy?

sure. it's my defence's fault that my strikers can't convert CCCs. you're a real genius mate!

sure. it's my defence's fault that my strikers can't convert CCCs. you're a real genius mate!

it would be no problem if the AI would miss that much CCCs, too. but the fact that i need 3 times as much CCCs to score (last 10 games average) even if my strikers have the best finishing/composure stats in the leage is idiotic. and don't come with "it's your tactics".. converting CCCs has nothing to do with tactics.

He was responding to that bit. Obviously.

He was responding to that bit. Obviously.

then it is my defence's fault that opposition strikers need an average of 0,6 CCCs to score? (although mine in comparison need over 2 CCCs)

still nonsense.

then it is my defence's fault that opposition strikers need an average of 0,6 CCCs to strike, although mine in comparison need over 2 CCCs. still nonsense.

Which, in all probability, means that the opposition are having better CCCs than you, because they are converting them more often. Because all CCCs are different. I believe that the player tactics often rely on swamping the opposition and creating a shed load of chances, whilst the AI relies on working fewer but cleaner chances through steady build up play.

But I'm not getting into this again... ^^

It's been confirmed before that the match engine makes no distinction between a human-controlled team and an AI team when calculating match events, so I'm afraid we can deduct that it is either tactic or player related. Or our selective memory playing tricks on us.

I agree, at times i win games easily despite having 0 ccc against 2 or 3 ccc from the AI. But i can understand why people complain about the stat. It adds to the frustation of losing a game knowing you had more ccc.

sure. it's my defence's fault that my strikers can't convert CCCs. you're a real genius mate!

lol.. talk about dense...

If you defenders and keeper didn't let in those few CCC your opponents get then you wouldn't have to worry about missing yours so much would you.

do you want to tell me, that missing an empty goal for instance isn't a real chance?

Wow you people just don't know anything do you? If you see your striker has an empty net in front of you then why do you need the stat to tell you it was a good chance.

I'll say it one more time... CCC's are a completely and utterly useless stat, you guys aren't whining about CCC's you are whining about your players missing empty nets and other easy shots. IT HAPPENS, deal with it or just shutup.

Start tossing out your players goals/shots and shots on target/shots stats and then we'll talk, but the CCC thing is just pathetically stupid.

lol.. talk about dense...

If you defenders and keeper didn't let in those few CCC your opponents get then you wouldn't have to worry about missing yours so much would you.

Wow you people just don't know anything do you? If you see your striker has an empty net in front of you then why do you need the stat to tell you it was a good chance.

I'll say it one more time... CCC's are a completely and utterly useless stat, you guys aren't whining about CCC's you are whining about your players missing empty nets and other easy shots. IT HAPPENS, deal with it or just shutup.

Start tossing out your players goals/shots and shots on target/shots stats and then we'll talk, but the CCC thing is just pathetically stupid.

Wouldn't say it's a useless stat mate as it indicates how often your striker gets in behind the defence if nothing else. Shots on target refers to every type of shot, whether from range, a header etc.

It's just people place far too much importance on CCCs. There's at least six stats on the match information screen that are more crucial to keep an eye on, yet people by and large don't.

It's been confirmed before that the match engine makes no distinction between a human-controlled team and an AI team when calculating match events, so I'm afraid we can deduct that it is either tactic or player related. Or our selective memory playing tricks on us.

Here's my theory on CCCs.

The human player generally builds tactics that "go for the throat" and dominate attacking games. As such, attacks come in from every angle and the opposition defence defend a lot. Therefore, you create a lot of chances, maybe quite a few CCC's, but my guess is that the chances created are often rushed after one touch football, direct build up play.

The AI, however, play a lot more controlled and try and play steady football more often than not. As such, their build up play often results in trying to find the key pass - no matter how long it takes - to unlock a defence and give the striker a golden opportunity. Therefore, the CCCs created by the AI seem to be a lot more "clean cut" when they're presented.

Might be rubbish but that's what I reckon anyway. I think players feel that if a side absolutely dominates a game with reckless attacking football then they should always score "one more" than the more defensive opposition, and often seem surprised when the AI catch them on the counter.

Wouldn't say it's a useless stat mate as it indicates how often your striker gets in behind the defence if nothing else. Shots on target refers to every type of shot, whether from range, a header etc.

It's just people place far too much importance on CCCs. There's at least six stats on the match information screen that are more crucial to keep an eye on, yet people by and large don't.

Yeah shots on target mean anything... but I don't care where they are coming from as long as they are on target. The key is for people to not look at individual match stats but their players.

Say someone complaining about the CCC's goes and looks at their striker and he only has like a 10% shot on target ratio, well the problem isn't the CCC is it.

But like I said the reality of it is that these people aren't complaining about CCC's, just that missed 'easy' goal, just so happens CCC are those times. They think their opponents score on too few CCC's? Well they need to stop whining about bugs and look at their defense and keeper. Their strikers missing all the close in shots? Maybe there is another reason, but most likely it's just that selective memory.

My first season I got so annoyed with my strikers for the crap finishing because I kept seeing all these missed easy chances the entire season. Guess what, one of them ended up winning the league golden boot. Wow, how can he do that if the game is bugged, if CCC's don't score, etc.

I'm just annoyed at people whining with NOTHING backing it up.

If they had any sense at all they would come in with a constructive argument as to -why- CCC's might be missed. For instance, I still think there is a bug causing players to use their weaker foot far too often, now if people actually payed any attention they might see the same thing I have. Most of those close in easy chances, that probably register as CCC, that miss they are struck by my players weaker foot. But no, none of these guys pays enough attention to really come up with something meaningful, it's just the game flat out saying they have to get 3 times the CCC's per goal compared to the AI. Whatever.

I take CCC to be "if he'd have been fouled then, the defender would have been sent off".

I think SI were right to introduce it, even if it is a bit fluffy. In FM08 (iirc), people were having a lot of "20 shots, 12 on target, 0 goals; 3 shots, 1 on target, 1 goal" matches. SI introduced CCCs and blocked shots (and possibly long range shots?) so that it was more obvious that the first team had simply taken 20 long range shots, 12 of which went straight at the goalkeeper, whereas the second team had worked an easy chance and scored.

Anyone find a link to WWFan's analysis of CCCs from last year? He made some excellent posts with in depth analysis of CCCs in the real football world.

I'll see if I can find it.

Do any of the people complaining about this have hard evidence of this over a period of time, or do you just notice it in the odd match and think it's a problem? I noticed a couple of games where I seemed to be on the wrong end of this, so I decided to go back and look at the whole season so far. Now I'm going to do a Rafa and present the facts. I am 20 games in, and here are my stats:

Stat - My Team - Opposition Team

Total Shots - 292 - 122

Shots on Target - 131 - 42

Clear Cut Chances - 64 - 19

Goals - 43 - 6

CCC conversion rate - 67.18% - 31.57%

This quick analysis proves that my team's CCC conversion rate is more than double that of my opponents. I've only done this on a 20 game sample and the figures might be exaggerated by my brilliant tactics , but if any of you seriously think the AI is doing much better than you at this, I suggest you go back and look over a whole season to see exactly how badly you think the AI is cheating you, and I think you'll be surprised by the results.

Do any of the people complaining about this have hard evidence of this over a period of time, or do you just notice it in the odd match and think it's a problem? I noticed a couple of games where I seemed to be on the wrong end of this, so I decided to go back and look at the whole season so far. Now I'm going to do a Rafa and present the facts. I am 20 games in, and here are my stats:

Stat - My Team - Opposition Team

Total Shots - 292 - 122

Shots on Target - 131 - 42

Clear Cut Chances - 64 - 19

Goals - 43 - 6

CCC conversion rate - 67.18% - 31.57%

This quick analysis proves that my team's CCC conversion rate is more than double that of my opponents. I've only done this on a 20 game sample and the figures might be exaggerated by my brilliant tactics , but if any of you seriously think the AI is doing much better than you at this, I suggest you go back and look over a whole season to see exactly how badly you think the AI is cheating you, and I think you'll be surprised by the results.

Whoa hang on a sec - how many of those goals actually came from CCCs as that is ridiculously high!

Whoa hang on a sec - how many of those goals actually came from CCCs as that is ridiculously high!

These are the facts, and they don't lie. I had some games where I had more goals than CCCs, so there was the odd 30 yard screamer.

These are the facts, and they don't lie. I had some games where I had more goals than CCCs, so there was the odd 30 yard screamer.

Yeah but that's what I mean - so the CCC conversion rate isn't 67%, it's an overall conversion rate. Shots on target don't necessarily mean it was a CCC.

So the conversion rate (43 out of 131 total shots) is about 33%. You'd have to take a very minute analysis of per goals from a registered CCC in particular to have an accurate figure for those alone.

Yeah but that's what I mean - so the CCC conversion rate isn't 67%, it's an overall conversion rate. Shots on target don't necessarily mean it was a CCC.

So the conversion rate (43 out of 131 total shots) is about 33%. You'd have to take a very minute analysis of per goals from a registered CCC in particular to have an accurate figure for those alone.

Okay it's not technically the conversion rate, but it's a ratio of goals to CCCs which is still much higher than my opponents.

But the difference IMO between real life and FM is that in FM in just about every game there is at least one chance usually 2 for me where the ball is played through and the striker breaks the offside trap has 30/40 yards to goal, with no defender within 20 yards and only the keeper to beat. For me this happens in FM far too often - and as a result we expect the player to finish this type of chance more often than not - and when we see the striker fluff his lines time and time again we say what's going on here, this is just not realistic. Then people will use the real life statistics, but for me the majority of those stats cannot be compared to the example that I used above as for me unlike FM the likelihood of that happening in a game is quite rare - and only reallt happens when one team is pushing in the latter stages of a match - presses/pushes up the pitch and consequently the defence leaves alot of spcae behinf them which can be exploited very easily.

So those situations happen IRL (most of the time) when the game is stretched - unlike in FM when it is just as likely to happen in the first minute as the last if you get what I am saying.

So for me, SI/FM needs to increase the completion rate of the chances that I believe the striker has more of an advantage than the goalkeeper like I described in the first chunk of writing. At the same time make these CCC or the easiest ones less common than they are, as they are too common in FM, as they do not happen as often IRL and also minimise the amount of long range goals. So me a few tweakss here and there is the way forward.

I cannot remember what they were called was it an American penalty is something - where the player instead of having to take a spot kick had to dribble the ball from the half way line and then beat the keeper. So when the player is say 40 yards from goal that is the easy CCC that happens in FM - but often are missed.

But the difference IMO between real life and FM is that in FM in just about every game there is at least one chance usually 2 for me where the ball is played through and the striker breaks the offside trap has 30/40 yards to goal, with no defender within 20 yards and only the keeper to beat. For me this happens in FM far too often - and as a result we expect the player to finish this type of chance more often than not - and when we see the striker fluff his lines time and time again we say what's going on here, this is just not realistic. Then people will use the real life statistics, but for me the majority of those stats cannot be compared to the example that I used above as for me unlike FM the likelihood of that happening in a game is quite rare - and only reallt happens when one team is pushing in the latter stages of a match - presses/pushes up the pitch and consequently the defence leaves alot of spcae behinf them which can be exploited very easily.

So those situations happen IRL (most of the time) when the game is stretched - unlike in FM when it is just as likely to happen in the first minute as the last if you get what I am saying.

So for me, SI/FM needs to increase the completion rate of the chances that I believe the striker has more of an advantage than the goalkeeper like I described in the first chunk of writing. At the same time make these CCC or the easiest ones less common than they are, as they are too common in FM, as they do not happen as often IRL and also minimise the amount of long range goals. So me a few tweakss here and there is the way forward.

I cannot remember what they were called was it an American penalty is something - where the player instead of having to take a spot kick had to dribble the ball from the half way line and then beat the keeper. So when the player is say 40 yards from goal that is the easy CCC that happens in FM - but often are missed.

It must be a tactical thing. You may be playing a defensive, counter-attacking system which invites the opposition onto you before you nick the ball and launch a quick attack.

I rarely get chances like this.

I've just been conspired against again.

Playing Barcelona in the CL Semi Final. I pass them off the park and restrict them to 3 off target shots. We have 15 shots, only 5 long shots. Miss a pen. Miss loads of great chances. 0-0. Now I am inevitably going to get smashed at the Nou Camp.

Ibrahimovic has missed 4 pens on the bounce now. IRL he always scores them.