22 CCC's 1 goal

As the title says, I've counted up 22 ccc's in about 5 matches and scored 1 goal. I don't recall this happening as often before the patch, but I think the finishing needed improving but it just seems like it's gone backwards.

Anybody else having this problem?

it's your tactics

it's your tactics

I didn't ask if there was a problem with my tactics, I asked if anybody else was having this problem.

Guess your attacking players have had a bad month at the office. I had a game today where I had about 11 CCCs in 1 game and only won 1-0.

Don't know what you can put it down to.

My last five games have resulted in six CCC's and four goals. I don't tend to pay too much attention to this stat though, I prefer to judge my games by watching the matches.

I remeber in the early CM days my teams were having 40-50 shots on goal per game and you would still win by a normal margin. It was a lot higher than should have been but never affected my enjoyment of the game.

i had 11 ccc's and only scored 1 too.

I didn't ask if there was a problem with my tactics, I asked if anybody else was having this problem.

And I said "it's your tactics"

my last 5 games: 14 goals and 38 cc's

My last five games have resulted in six CCC's and four goals. I don't tend to pay too much attention to this stat though, I prefer to judge my games by watching the matches.

I wish I'd waited a bit now, I just followed that with a match with two CCC's and three goals. Even my opponents scored two from one CCC

And I said "it's your tactics"

Always one in a thread eh.

I wish I'd waited a bit now, I just followed that with a match with two CCC's and three goals. Even my opponents scored two from one CCC

It's driving me up the wall tbh, I'm dropping points like crazy.

I guess I must be getting extremely unlucky if others aren't having any problems. 22ccc's and 1 goal does seem pretty excessive though.

What team are you and who are your strikers?

Always one in a thread eh.

Just because it's a cliché doesn't make it any less true. Actually to make it to cliché status it generall has to hold true far more often than expected.

Just because it's a cliché doesn't make it any less true. Actually to make it to cliché status it generall has to hold true far more often than expected.

And I completely agree, but that's not what I wanted to know. I just wanted to know if other people have been having the same issues which is why I said what I said, so can we please get back onto the question at hand rather than get into a debate about if it is, or isn't my tactics.

Just because it's a cliché doesn't make it any less true. Actually to make it to cliché status it generall has to hold true far more often than expected.

CCC stands for clear cut chance. If the chances that get labeled that aren't 'clear cut' enough then they, well, shouldn't be labeled that. If they are 'clear cut' then it can't be anything to do with tactics, as a chance is a chance. Tactics are in place to create a chance, finishing said chance should have nothing to do with how the team is set up. No player ever thinks about tactical instructions when they're in a position to score a goal. It's all about instincts.

I'd be pretty happy if the CCC stat was removed. It isn't the sort of stat that can be officially recorded and seems to cause an awful lot of confusion. I'd prefer it if just the shots on target were recorded .

Agree with both the last two comments, CCC should not even be registered as a stat, and when a player has a CCC, missing it is sod all to do with tactics, not creating them in the first place would be a problem with tactics.

I'd be pretty happy if the CCC stat was removed. It isn't the sort of stat that can be officially recorded and seems to cause an awful lot of confusion. I'd prefer it if just the shots on target were recorded .

I think the CCC stat provides a useful insight into how successful your tactics are. The 3D/2D display has its limitations and, although it may appear that your team is creating alot of chances from which they should score, if a CCC is not being registered then it is obvious that the engine - the thing actually calculating the match result - does not consider your tactics to be creating clear goal-scoring opportunites.

You know what... I'll take a ten game sample for this and a check the whole season stats for the shots. I'll post the result in a bit:

The CCC is a great stat.

It effectively tells you how good your side is. All you can do as manager is create a formation that creates chances. You can't finish it for them. More CCCs overall = better tactics. As that other guy said, it is officially labelled by the ME as a CCC, so it definitely is a CCC. You can't say that the ME is too generous in its classification of CCCs, as the ME knows best.

And I said "it's your tactics"

Why do users do this? It doesn't help one bit. Answer the question or don't post at all. Simple.

I'd be pretty happy if the CCC stat was removed. It isn't the sort of stat that can be officially recorded and seems to cause an awful lot of confusion. I'd prefer it if just the shots on target were recorded .

Completely agree, the CCC stat doesn't seem to correlate to what you actually see on the 3D either.

As for the "it's your tactics" nonsense, surely creating five CCCs a game would mean your tactics are working? Otherwise, what is the point of even recording good chances? It's basically saying "your tactics are creating excellent chances, but you need to alter your tactics to finish them off".

Over the previous 10 games there were 29 goals scored by my team and 45 clear cut chances meaning a strike rate of 64.4% of CCC being goals. Nothing wrong there, maybe even a tad too many goals if anything.

In terms of shots and such overall this season. My side has taken in 47 games 851 shots, of which 368 were on target scoring 109 goals. So normalising in terms of games gives 18.1 shots per game, with 7.83 on target and 2.32 goals scored. The important statistics here though are that shot accuracy was 43.2%, with 7.81 shots per goal and 3.38 on target per goal. Nothing seems wrong there.

As a matter of comparison I'll have a look at 10th place Blackburn (on the game). In the last ten games they have scored 13 goals from 18 CCC, that is a strike rate of 72.2%. In terms of shots and such they have in 33 games had 342 shots with 137 on target scoring 40 goals. That is 10.4 shots per game with 4.15 on target scoring 1.21 goals. Or as before they had a shot accuracy of 40.1% and scored a goal every 8.55 shots or 3.43 shots on target.

I don't think 5 games is a great sample period. Perhaps do it over 20 games minimum, and then have a look at a run of 20 games pre-patch and compare the results.

The CCC is a great stat.

It effectively tells you how good your side is. All you can do as manager is create a formation that creates chances. You can't finish it for them. More CCCs overall = better tactics. As that other guy said, it is officially labelled by the ME as a CCC, so it definitely is a CCC. You can't say that the ME is too generous in its classification of CCCs, as the ME knows best.

It isn't a bad guide, but the actual goals scored is a much better stat. If someone is creating 22 CCCs and only scoring one goal then they don't really sound that 'clear cut'.

Is it registered as a CCC whenever you get the "he should've scored", "how did he miss that?", "even his manager's got his head in his hands" type of commentary? As I have seen this for direct freekicks missed, headers from near the edge of the box etc.

it's your tactics

How is it his tactics? If he is getting good CCC's that means his tactic is working.

If he isn't converting them that means its his strikers/mids/whoever is missing them or a problem with the game.

To the OP, check the compsure att of the players missing them etc.

It's basically saying "your tactics are creating excellent chances, but you need to alter your tactics to finish them off".

Exactly.

The wrong KIND of CCCs.

I have a theory that half the CCC's are not really as clear cut as we elieve them to be, but maybe thats because i never watch the match only commentary. can anyone who watches the matches shed any light on this ?

I have a theory that half the CCC's are not really as clear cut as we elieve them to be, but maybe thats because i never watch the match only commentary. can anyone who watches the matches shed any light on this ?

I agree. Just watching my match now the CCCs that were counted for me came from headers and volleys from tight angles. Both sides had an unmarked player get a free header from a corner (they scored, we didn't) but neither was counted as a CCC.

I think what we really need is someone from SI to clear up what a CCC actually means on FM. Most people seem agreed it's more than just one-on-one chances, so what does it actually entail? I don't think we can really properly understand the CCC conversion rate until we know what a CCC actually is according to the ME.

I have a theory that half the CCC's are not really as clear cut as we elieve them to be, but maybe thats because i never watch the match only commentary. can anyone who watches the matches shed any light on this ?

Of course they're clear cut. The match engine has determined they're clear cut. You know, the thing that determines the result of every game. If you're saying that it cannot properly classify a clear cut chance then what's the point really?

Whether you're watching the game in 2D, 3D or just listening to commentary makes no difference, the 2D and 3D modes are just eye candy for users who enjoy that kind of thing. I've seen the ball go through the side-netting and a goal being counted, but that's fine because the 3D display isn't the thing calculating match results, it was just - poorly - trying to convey that a goal had been scored.

If you were refering to the statistics I had put up none of it was from 5 or less matches. Also, by your request, goals per CCC for 20 matches pre and post patch:

Pre patch was 40 goals from 58 CCC: 69.0%

Post patch was 58 goals from 88 CCC: 65.9%

Negligible difference in truth.

People just don't understand that a CCC doesn't necessarily mean a player has missed a sitter. It just means he's had an opportunity to score without too much pressure from the opposition defence. There's a big difference between the two.

In fact, it'd probably be better if SI removed the stat for FM12, as it's not important (one of the least important analysis stats in fact) and people place ridiculous amounts of emphasis on it.

People just don't understand that a CCC doesn't necessarily mean a player has missed a sitter. It just means he's had an opportunity to score without too much pressure from the opposition defence. There's a big difference between the two.

In fact, it'd probably be better if SI removed the stat for FM12, as it's not important (one of the least important analysis stats in fact) and people place ridiculous amounts of emphasis on it.

Yup, as seen in the posts by the OP, who said it's basically the be all of all tactics. Clear cut chances are not sitters.

It isn't a bad guide, but the actual goals scored is a much better stat. If someone is creating 22 CCCs and only scoring one goal then they don't really sound that 'clear cut'.

According to the 3d ME, they were mostly clear cut. I had 8 ccc's in one match and most of them were 1v1 with the gk. I lost 1-0. I guess my strikers just cant cut it.

Yup, as seen in the posts by the OP, who said it's basically the be all of all tactics. Clear cut chances are not sitters.

I watch my matches, so I see if a chance really was a ccc or not and I also know that some ccc's aren't always sitters but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ccc's are not sitters" when some blatantly are.

When did I say, at any point in this thread, that ccc's were the be all and end all of tactics? if anything I agreed that tactics could have something to do with the amount of chances missed but thats besides the point, the point of the thread was to see if other people have the problem of missing a lot of ccc's.

I'll just put it out there that I've never really understood what constitutes a clear cup chance and what doesn't. It's particularly hard with headed chances too, in which case it almost seems random whether the chance is judged to be clear cut or not.

Also, with shots with feet, it can be odd too. Although you can usually tell when a chance will be considered clear cut or not, sometimes it surprises you. I tend to make a habit of never reading too much into the clear cut chance count unless one particular player appears to be missing a lot of them. Also, very often the counter attacking team will rack up more clear cut chances, but still lose the game, as the other team is controlling proceedings, and creates many more chances, even if they're not all clear cut.

It also doesn't account for situations in which a shot is not actually made. Like if a player gets put through, but his touch is poor and goes straight to the keeper. Is that too not a clear cut chance?

Some are, some aren't.

Look above, I've posted some statistics and there is nothing seemingly unique about this patch from what I can tell. Your reaction is natural to doing poorly, but calm down, relax and try and figure out why you're not scoring.

The CCC is a great stat.

It effectively tells you how good your side is.

No it doesn't, not by a long way, and this is exactly why it should be removed.

I watch my matches, so I see if a chance really was a ccc or not and I also know that some ccc's aren't always sitters but I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "ccc's are not sitters" when some blatantly are.

When did I say, at any point in this thread, that ccc's were the be all and end all of tactics? if anything I agreed that tactics could have something to do with the amount of chances missed but thats besides the point, the point of the thread was to see if other people have the problem of missing a lot of ccc's.

I'd look more at the attributes of the players who the CCC are falling to, to see if the reason they aren't being taken is to do with the player rather than a match engine problem.

And I said "it's your tactics"

Surely if he's carving out 22 ccc's then his tactics should be spot on tbh.

I'd say you have a look at the other teams in your game. Since the match engine doesn't make a difference between AI and player controlled teams, any such issue would be spread accross the game. If this isn't the case, the problem is with either your tactics or your players.

CCC stands for clear cut chance. If the chances that get labeled that aren't 'clear cut' enough then they, well, shouldn't be labeled that. If they are 'clear cut' then it can't be anything to do with tactics, as a chance is a chance. Tactics are in place to create a chance, finishing said chance should have nothing to do with how the team is set up. No player ever thinks about tactical instructions when they're in a position to score a goal. It's all about instincts.

Not really, it also depends on who gets the opportunity to finish said chance, and that again has to do with your tactics. If your strikers keep creating the chances and your defensively minded midfielders are the ones played through, then you wouldn't expect that many goals, would you?

I agree. Just watching my match now the CCCs that were counted for me came from headers and volleys from tight angles. Both sides had an unmarked player get a free header from a corner (they scored, we didn't) but neither was counted as a CCC.

I've noticed this happen alot. It seems the ME considers any effort at goal where there are no defenders (just the keeper) directly between the ball and the goal at the moment of the shot is considered a CCC. So sometimes an effort could be a one-on-one with the keeper, other times it could be a header or shot from a very tight angle which in real life might not be considered clear cut.

Any time there are defenders between the ball and the goal, it is not considered a CCC, even if it's an effort from the edge of the 6 yard box in the centre of the goal which in real life probably would count as a CCC.

People just don't understand that a CCC doesn't necessarily mean a player has missed a sitter. It just means he's had an opportunity to score without too much pressure from the opposition defence. There's a big difference between the two.

In fact, it'd probably be better if SI removed the stat for FM12, as it's not important (one of the least important analysis stats in fact) and people place ridiculous amounts of emphasis on it.

I'm pretty sure that this stat was added because previously people were placing a ridiculous amount of emphasis on shots and shots on target (the whole I had 30 shots on goal and only scored once argument). We now have clear cut chances, blocked shots, hit woodwork, long shots and so on which at least gives us some kind of breakdown of why some the shots didn't become goals. Remove these stats and we just go back to people complaining about having too many shots and not scoring.

What bugdunk said, bang on. Conspiracy around this every year too.

What bugdunk said, bang on.

Agree 100%

Not really, it also depends on who gets the opportunity to finish said chance, and that again has to do with your tactics. If your strikers keep creating the chances and your defensively minded midfielders are the ones played through, then you wouldn't expect that many goals, would you?

Sincerely doubt that's what the OP is struggling with. I'd like to see someone build a tactic in FM that gets defensive minded midfielders 22 goalscoring chances in 5 games - that would be quite an achievement.

Does anyone's strikers seem to shoot the ball at the ****ing keeper? Each one on ones the balls are shot straight at the keeper in the penalty box. My goals usually involve headers or long shots