Jump to content

Why is this happening again?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

there isnt one. to be honest the stats dont tell us too much. But I will refer you to every game that arsenal have lost against the big sides in the Premier League in real life. More possession, carved out slight better chances, still losing comfortably

I put this to you as a great example:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/31/arsenal-1-3-manchester-united-wayne-rooney-brilliantly-demonstrates-the-value-of-a-false-nine/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is I was the better side.

I think it's just called bad luck. At least you played well!

(The player ratings are a different matter though. I don't really like it much that if I lose my defenders automatically get a crap rating while any player that scores seems to get a 7. I just had a player who was 'having a bad game' and below 6, was about to take him off when he scored and was suddenly 'having a good game' and getting a rating above 7. But that's a different issue)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous claim, that it is unrealistic for the better side to lose a game...have you ever watched football? Especially when playing a team like Chelsea who have the quality to hurt you at any moment.

There are some problems with this game but to claim the better side losing is one of them is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is I was the better side.

I had more possesion, more CCCs, more passes completed, more crosses completed, more headers won, more tackles won.

Yet I get battered 3-1. Not even a draw. Not even an unlucky 1-0. I score 33% of my CCCs. They Scored 133%. Outrageous.

Sorry to point out this but they scored 150% of their CCCs not 133%, so you can throw a bigger paddy now....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it again mate your tacking the michael by moaning about this. Its actually an unbelievably EVEN game and Chelseas strikers were on form, where yours were not. You had the exact same amount of shots on target and overall. The possession is extremely even. Chelsea also had far more free kicks which may have been the cause of a goal which wouldnt have counted as a CCC.

And Chelsea have Petr Cech in goal, that makes a bit of a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is I was the better side.

I had more possesion, more CCCs, more passes completed, more crosses completed, more headers won, more tackles won.

Yet I get battered 3-1. Not even a draw. Not even an unlucky 1-0. I score 33% of my CCCs. They Scored 133%. Outrageous.

How were you the better side FFS?

It was a fairly even game, both sides had the same number of shots, the same number on target. They had more off-target, you had more blocked.

You only just edged possession & CCCs while you committed twice as many fouls resulting in more yellow cards.

Overall a draw would have been the fair result but Chelsea had the lead and I suspect you conceded a late third while trying to salvage a draw.

The overall key stat though is the average ratings which shows that the Chelsea side played fairly well (7.11) while your side was distinctly average (6.43) partially caused by you conceding 3 goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My players are better in every position. By quite a bit in some cases.

Was all fun and games in the next one anyway... First I was greeted with this.

capturesgb.jpg

Then I had 10 CCCs, and 4 HCs.

captureae.jpg

Guess how many goals? Just the 3. Obviously I mind less cos I still won. But still. Come on lads. 7 missed CCCs in one game. Tragic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to point out this but they scored 150% of their CCCs not 133%, so you can throw a bigger paddy now....
To get even more pedantic they actually scored 100% of their CCCs :-D
Like it haha. To add something from another angle, they scored 50% more than their CCC's where as arsenal scored 66% Less than their CCC's :)

Actually you don't know that.

They could have missed both their CCCs and scored from three long shots :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

West Brom scored 5 with 3 CCCs also. I'm destined for the drop (Unless I sign Ismail Miller)

So what?

You don't always score on your CCC's. And there are other ways to score than on CCC's. Free kicks, long shots, corner kicks etc.

I really don't see the problem here

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your back four all got a horrible rating.

And:

You gave away 26 free kicks, committing 22 fouls.

My guess is as following: your back four consistantly gave away idiotic free kicks in good positions, giving Chelseas set piece specialists an early christmas present. Also, Chelsea isn't a side that requires a lot of possession to win, while Arsenal is a team which usually have more possession when they lose.

Also, set pieces neveer seem to count as CCC's, even though a free kick just outside the penalty area is a massive opportunity....

Link to post
Share on other sites

More possesion, More passes completed, more tackles done, more crosses completed, more headers won. More CCCs crafted.

We lost cos we bottled our chances (for some reason), and because they managed to score theirs plus an extra one.

That in no way, shape or form makes you the better side.

More possession - If the opposition sit back and let your defenders have the ball in their own half then its not hard to have more possession. Its what you do with it that counts!

More passes completed - Urm no the stats say a higher % of passes completed which again isn't hard when your back four are passing it between them and trying less killer balls.

More tackles - No a higher % of tackles won, Chelsea could easily have won a higher number of tackles. Anyway tackles don't win games!

More crosses completed - Again its a higher % of crosses completed which again doesn't show who had more crosses or what happened to those crosses.

More headers won - Yet again a higher % of headers won. Not quite sure what this shows as it should add up to 100% as someone must have won each header. Maybe its defensive headers which would make sense and suggests you defended Chelsea's crosses well.

More CCCs crafted - Urm 3-2 isn't exactly a massive difference while CCCs don't win games goals do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess what? 3/10 scored CCCs is about the same figure as you would get in real life!
No. Youve made that up off the top of your head.

Urm no pelican is right and hasn't made up the figures.

The very best strikers score close to 4/10 in RL while 3/10 is the average.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There really is no problem here, you had marginally more possession and CCC's, but lost. Look at pretty much every Arsenal v Chelsea game, and that's usually the way it goes anyway! Seems a very realistic result to me.

Very true. :D

Most threads like this have something remotely resembling a problem... But not this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify these stats are for one-on-ones, FM recognises chances other than one-on-ones as CCCs as well so you would expect a lower conversion figure.

Average percentage of total shots scored should come out at a touch over 10% for the EPL. I don't think this includes blocked shots, from the data I'm looking at.

Shots on target should be average near enough 50% once you take out blocked shots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't see a problem.

So what if you lost?

Train you players better, buy better strikers, perhaps change your tactics, better coaches etc.

Why don't you try something like that, instead of whining about it, and make it sounds like there's a bug in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just conceded a goal to Liverpool. Guess how?

My goalkeeper throws it onto the back of Sergio Ramos' heel. It bounces off. He stands still, watches a striker run in and boot it in the net. fun fun funj

Seems to me your tactics need tweaking and that your tolerance level is very low.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me your tactics need tweaking and that your tolerance level is very low.

Nah. I've gone 3 successful season with my keeper distributing to full backs.

I've heard other people say that this new 11.2 patch causes your defence to make a lot more silly errors. This one was honestly ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get that from? You've made it up. There are no stats on these things.

But do you thinK David Villa misses 6/10 CCCs? Behave.

He's hit the woodwork so many times this season, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get that from? You've made it up. There are no stats on these things.

But do you thinK David Villa misses 6/10 CCCs? Behave.

Depends what you consider a CCC. The game probably thinks of CCC differently to you, as someone said it's just more than 1 on 1's. Every striker has their off days and great days. I think you just need to accept the fact that you lost and move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get that from? You've made it up. There are no stats on these things.

But do you thinK David Villa misses 6/10 CCCs? Behave.

Of course there are stats on these things.

Companies make a living in RL from collating them and providing them to interested parties.

Your biggest problem is not FM but football in general - you have selective vision as to what happens in RL which causes you to expect too much when you play FM.

TBH Judging by your many threads I would suggest that FM is simply not the game for you and perhaps you find a more "hands on" game more enjoyable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this sort of threads it's really how CCC's are classified in game.

There are free-kicks on the edge of the area that are counted as CCC's, shots from a terrible angle with the weaker foot that count as CCC, headers from far away that count as CCC.. and on.

And strikers miss a lot of sitters IRL.. even Messi missed one yesterday.

Though as i've said before.. i think that the One-on-ones completly on the clear with a LOT of time and space to pick a finish go straight to the keeper a little too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...