Yes, the classification of a CCC is very misleading

He started the run from the red line. Way faster than the defenders, so he was about that same 10-20 yards in front of them the whole time. He was on as a sub just before and 'playing with confidence'. One of the easiest chances you can get. Like one of those things in Ice Hockey where you get a free shot.

Anyway, he missed but it only went down as a half chance. I think because he messed it up by trying to go round him. So I think they classify the chance from the moment they shoot. So the player could maybe in theory dribble it along the goal line, but it doesn't count as a chance unless they shoot.

O look its sheva with his 1000 post of the week

Lucky I ddont make a topic about this.

Happens again... Absolute joke. Some of the chances we mised here was outrageous, as was their goal.

My game: 5-1 on CCCs, 1-1 scoreline.

Man U's game: 3-1 on CCCs, 4-0 to them scoreline.

Thats why I am not going to win the league. My strikers are much better than theirs.

You never seen matches like this in real life?? Some people just expect to win all the time. If you look at the average ratings Arsenal's players were really not much better than Fulham's. No argument in my opinion though I do feel sorry for you for the miss above..it would make me shout also but then footy is a funny old game

My game: 5-1 on CCCs, 1-1 scoreline.

Man U's game: 3-1 on CCCs, 4-0 to them scoreline.

Thats why I am not going to win the league. My strikers are much better than theirs.

Really? Then clearly you're awful at tactics and/or motivating.

Are you picking the strikers that are on form? Are you guarding against complacency in your strikers with your press conferences? If you're going into every press conference saying how you're going to win every game with ease then your strikers aren't going to be focused. If you're letting your assistant take the press conferences then make sure he's got a great motivating stat. Even then it's no guarantee.

Think United's strikers are overperfoming? Use the media to shake their confidence or distract them or build up the defenders or 'keeper they're going to face in their next game.

This game stopped being about simply buying the best players a long time ago.

If you look at the average ratings Arsenal's players were really not much better than Fulham's.

Yeah, but thats because the rating system is quite poor.

If one of my shots had crept inside the post instead of going wide, then my teams average rating would have gone up, and theirs down. The ratings are quite heavily based on what happens rather than the actual performance of the players.

Do you really need to start another thread on this? It's been discussed to death in all the other threads you have started and you are not listening to what anyone says.

Instead of posting match stats from the odd game, please post your match stats from 20 consecutive matches, and then we'll see how much the game is 'cheating' you.

A tactical suggestion but maybe it is your tempo, too high a tempo and your players will snatch at chances or maybe your time wasting being too low.

Please, post your table.

Do you watch football? Games like that Fulham Arsenal one happen all the time.

This is not a maths game. You had more chances than Fulham, but they won more tackles and headers. Does your team maybe lack passion?

Sheva....

If you analyse these games, your players are clearly becoming too complacent and/or not finishing their chances well.

See team-talk guides or grab a tactic off the Tactic board, and see how your results do from there.

Do you watch football? Games like that Fulham Arsenal one happen all the time.

This is not a maths game. You had more chances than Fulham, but they won more tackles and headers. Does your team maybe lack passion?

I think this is spot on, and coincidently sounds like quite a number of the real Arsenal's matches. Boo hoo, we play pretty tappy tappy football. We should win every game cos were pretty to watch. Doesn't work that way

I think this is spot on, and coincidently sounds like quite a number of the real Arsenal's matches. Boo hoo, we play pretty tappy tappy football. We should win every game cos were pretty to watch. Doesn't work that way

I actually think Sheva is Wenger in disguise.

He's been given so much help and information yet continually ignores it and chooses to make up his own definitions to suit the situation, even calling in to question the ratings system now. Guess what Sheva, the ratings work the same for both teams, doesn't matter how good or bad they are, both teams are rated using the same 'rules'.

Anyway as Sheva chooses to ignore all the valid advice and comments, there is only one thing left to do and thats put him on ignore.

We do have passion. Fulham obviously won more headers and tackles because they had 11 men behind the ball and were making most of them in the penalty box. I won more headers and tackles against Terry and Essien's Chelsea who are about the toughest challenge we could face in that respect.

The only problem is we miss CCCs too much. That is it. All I can do is hope we dont get too complacent too often. This topic wasnt even a whing anyway. I was just talking about CCC classification then some guy made a saracstic remark...

Please, post your table.

I can't even stress how many times we've asked for this in your rants and you've ignored us

Remember Thierry Henry?

He used to score 1 for every 4 sitters he missed.

He created the chances himself but he used to miss a lot of clear cut chances.

People are expecting teams to score 100% of CCC and 100% of penalties. I watch real football (sport, can be seen live or on the tele) and these kind of expectations are ridiculous.

League Table!!!!

Match stats from more than one game!

League table!

Yes, the table and your results from the last 20 games would be nice aswell s'il vous plait.

Looouuuuudd noises!

I guess I am missing something here.

The OP described how the match engine recorded something as a CCC. What he's clearly indicating here is that a CCC as defined by the ME is very different than how we think of it. For most of us, a clear one on one is a CCC, but for the ME, it only is if the player executes well on the one on one and gets off a shot with a decent probability of going in. This probably works in the converse, that many situations we would not deem CCCs, the ME does, meaning that getting all frustrated about 'missing' CCCs in the match report is even more pointless, since many of those might not be nearly as good as we are led to believe.

The conclusion, as always, is you probably have to watch the whole match to truly understand what is going on.

People still biting ffs

People still biting ffs

i know.

Mods can we have this closed? its yet another largely pointless thread from sheva

i know.

Mods can we have this closed? its yet another largely pointless thread from sheva

Some boy is't he

The point I'm missing is why it should matter about the number of "CCCs" you have, surely what matters is if they actually score or not. Perhaps people want CCCs to be more easily recognised so they can moan about how many they have had without scoring......

i know.

Mods can we have this closed? its yet another largely pointless thread from sheva

Or perhaps Sheva can have his own forum, then the rest of us can avoid it.

Closed .