This game is FAR FAR from realistic

Player with finishing 17 misses inside the penalty area when the goalie isn't even in the goal. (happened several times)

Goalie with handling 15 drops the ball when trying to catch it from a weak freekick. (almost never happened in real life)

Defenders make own goals 2 every 5 matches.

Sorry but people have to open there eyes this game is so overrated I thought it would be awesome like people said...

I mean, does it take a lot of brain power to know how unrealistic those things are? Did they not test the game?

I'll give it 30 seconds before the first person says "It's your tactics."

Hahahahahahahahahaha, climb back into your cave. It's not just the base stat that determines whether a player will score or what not. Their mental and hidden attributes play a key role as well.

Upload video please

A 17 finishing attribute is useless if the lad has the composure of a frightened hamster & the decision making ability of a corrupt politician talking to someone claiming to be an Arab Sheik.

Upload video please

I'm sure we can find plenty from the near endless supply of football bloopers programmes.

Incredible goalie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYe2dYweNVc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jb3VZM1nU

Excuse the backing music, it was the first clip I found.

One for the keepers -

I forgot what match was the miss but he has 15 for composure and 12 for decisions.

Anyone remember Mario Gomez missing from 4 yards or less, at the World Cup a couple years back?

I've seen Ray Parlour miss many shots from inside the 6yd box, many of them going straight over the cross bar.

This is difficult. I agree that the game is daft but at the same time its sometimes down to attributes and morale etc. Javier Hernandez once managed to fluff 4 CCC's in 1 match, and I saw Messi miss 2 aswell! And, the CCC part dont include the general misses!!. I've seen alot of this but hey, thats football manager! If every chance was taken then the games would have rugby scores and it would be even more unrealistic. You just gotta accept the game as it is.

A 17 finishing attribute is useless if the lad has the composure of a frightened hamster & the decision making ability of a corrupt politician talking to someone claiming to be an Arab Sheik.

I'm sure we can find plenty from the near endless supply of football bloopers programmes.

But doesnt a low composure/decisions mean that a players finishing will also be poor? It makes a mockery of finishing as a rating.

But doesnt a low composure/decisions mean that a players finishing will also be poor? It makes a mockery of finishing as a rating.

I agree. There is a big argument to reduce the sheer number of stats that don't seem to do much.

It is not as absolute as this, but try to think of the following:

If a player has finishing of 17, then 85% of the time he'll hit the target with a shot of average difficulty. However, a one on one with a keeper requires him to keep his composure prior to shooting. If he keeps his composure, the shot chance will be easier than average and he'll have a high chance of conversion. If he doesn't, then the keeper will be favourite.

For a goal to be scored, you also have to factor in keeper ability, which will determine how likely he is to stop the shot. You also need to take into account that if the keeper is of a similar ability to the forward and between the ball and goal, the keeper is always the favourite. Hence, even though the player might hit the target 85% of the time from average chances, the keeper is likely to save circa 60% plus of those shots. The keeper/defenders can also make the chance more difficult than average through good positioning/anticipation, which will make the forward miss.

It is not as absolute as this, but try to think of the following:

If a player has finishing of 17, then 85% of the time he'll hit the target with a shot of average difficulty. However, a one on one with a keeper requires him to keep his composure prior to shooting. If he keeps his composure, the shot chance will be easier than average and he'll have a high chance of conversion. If he doesn't, then the keeper will be favourite.

For a goal to be scored, you also have to factor in keeper ability, which will determine how likely he is to stop the shot. You also need to take into account that if the keeper is of a similar ability to the forward and between the ball and goal, the keeper is always the favourite. Hence, even though the player might hit the target 85% of the time from average chances, the keeper is likely to save circa 60% plus of those shots. The keeper/defenders can also make the chance more difficult than average through good positioning/anticipation, which will make the forward miss.

No No No...with finishing and composure at least..they must be linked if ratings are to be realistic in any way. Its absurd to have a player 17 in finishing and less than 10 in composure. Its contradictory. Its time that SI introduce parameters so that linked ratings categories match.

Under the current system finishing is a pure technique attribute & represents a persons ability to knock the ball in the net when all other outside pressures & influences (fatigue, balance, agility, pressure, etc) are removed, think of a one-two shooting drill in training where a player might be lethal yet if you ask him to slot the ball home in exactly the same way after 85 minutes of a goalless cup final his chances of scoring are diminished due to all the additional factors that come into play.

I don't have a problem with this method, I just wish that the mental attributes were more accurate & had much more influence on the ME.

Real life is FAR FAR from realistic

Well dude, this is a GAME.

No No No...with finishing and composure at least..they must be linked if ratings are to be realistic in any way. Its absurd to have a player 17 in finishing and less than 10 in composure. Its contradictory. Its time that SI introduce parameters so that linked ratings categories match.

It's not even slightly contradictory. I've worked with loads of technically accomplished players who break down under the slightest pressure, and many technically flawed players who eke the most out of their game when the pressure is at its most telling. Look at Torres for example. He's still technically a good finisher, but his confidence has been so low he was missing sitters. His recent improvement has nothing to do with technical ability, but all to do with composure in the moment.

That & the fact that Barcelona decided not to defend & QPR cannot defend.

All this talk of Torres being back on form is damn premature.

/back on topic.

Interesting developments in my game, we've become so dominant that in some games I'm having to use defensive team instructions to be anywhere near effective enough when attacking.

I find this game (sorry, simulation!!!!) is pretty realistic. Sure the stuff the OP mentions happens; plus goals from corners, defenders finishing top scorer, etc. but probably not with the regularity OP experiences and, considering it's a game, the engine does a damn realistic job.

No No No...with finishing and composure at least..they must be linked if ratings are to be realistic in any way. Its absurd to have a player 17 in finishing and less than 10 in composure. Its contradictory. Its time that SI introduce parameters so that linked ratings categories match.

It's not contradictory. Example: Fernando Torres and Didier Drogba. Both lethal - one cracks, the other doesn't. Finishing is about the ability to find the net, composure about the amount of pressure he's under at the time. An open net provides more pressure because you "shouldn't" miss.

Players do tend to miss even open goals from time to time (eg Torres above). That is football no player is perfect. One game the player may stick the ball away then next time they are in the same situation they will miss that is the beauty of football........it's unpredictable.

Plus I wanted to share this as to me a far worse miss that Torres as Rosenthal is fully in control of the ball at the time.

[video=youtube_share;kiVq5-u7MH0]

Still the best ever miss.

How did we get to post #24 before someone mentioned Ronnie Rosenthal?

Take your pick, some fantastic misses here:

Also see how your average football fan might watch a 1-2 games per week. Something like maybe 100 a year.

Your average FM player will get through a season in much much less time, i can do a season in about 1-2 days if i really get stuck in. This means that all those 1 in 1,000 oddities like keepers messing up and scoring an OG or players missing spectacular chances will happen a hell of a lot more frequently to the person playing the game by sheer virtue of them spending far more time watching a greater number of games.

This covers everything from little teams destroying bigger teams, having 10 times more chances to score and still getting beat, someone getting injured over and over again, players taking stupid transfers and making stupid wage demands etc.

The game is by no means perfect but a lot of people forget that because they are viewing far more games than they would in real life they are going to see a lot of these odd occasions become rather common (even if the rate per game that they occur stays the same as reality).

For instance i used to think that my team getting 70 bookings was ridiculous but i looked up the stats for my team in reality and over the last few seasons it was almost exactly right for what you should be expecting, but because it hits you all at once instead of being drawn out from August to May you get it into your head that the game is out to cheat you.

It's not even slightly contradictory. I've worked with loads of technically accomplished players who break down under the slightest pressure, and many technically flawed players who eke the most out of their game when the pressure is at its most telling. Look at Torres for example. He's still technically a good finisher, but his confidence has been so low he was missing sitters. His recent improvement has nothing to do with technical ability, but all to do with composure in the moment.

The problem with this is that what you are describing seems not to be "finishing", but "technique", or at the very least "shooting". Why not use technique as a basis for the control of ball placement and then use mental and physical stats as a modifier instead?

The problem with this is that what you are describing seems not to be "finishing", but "technique", or at the very least "shooting". Why not use technique as a basis for the control of ball placement and then use mental and physical stats as a modifier instead?

Because great technical players are not necessarily good finishers and visa versa. Michael Owen is a case in point. Average technician, great finisher. Dennis Bergkamp was an amazing technical player, but I know which of Owen and Bergkamp I'd most trust to put the ball in the back of the net.

Because great technical players are not necessarily good finishers and visa versa. Michael Owen is a case in point. Average technician, great finisher. Dennis Bergkamp was an amazing technical player, but I know which of Owen and Bergkamp I'd most trust to put the ball in the back of the net.

Wouldn't that be where composure and decision making etc come into play? What you are saying would make more sense if finishing was instead "shooting" or something like that, but it's not. It's just "finishing", which doesn't really mean anything if the player doesn't "finish". Isn't the reason that Anderson's finishing attribute has been continuously lowered because he hasn't scored goals, though when you consider your viewpoint, technically there really is nothing wrong with his "finishing" since he can shoot, take penalties, and regularly scores during training? Plus, Bergkamp and Owen had very similar goals/games ratios at international level around 0.45 (better to judge individual performance), while Bergkamp had 0.36 and Owen 0.45 at club level (better to judge how they played for the club team).

The shooting v. technique thing is just an example, I think there are worse combinations, such as for a quick example: it might be interesting to have penalties, corners and free kicks combined into a "dead ball" stat and then have other stats as modifiers such as passing, shooting, power, composure, creativity, decision making, etc.

Reducing the number of variables and combining them will make everything more efficient. We don't want to have two variables that look like they do similar things to the output and accidentally think that they covary when in fact they might be the same thing.

Having less stats to look at will also force the gamer to recognize which stats relate and make it less possible to tell how good a player is and what they are good at without looking at their playing stats. And it makes players and player positions less static than it is now.

SI in the future should redo player attributes again. High finishing but low composure and decisions is contradictory.

it happens in RL.

SI in the future should redo player attributes again. High finishing but low composure and decisions is contradictory.

No it isn't.

Finishing is how good a player is at hitting the target when shooting.

Composure is how well they keep their nerve under pressure. For example, a player may score 30 goals a season, but spoons it over the bar in the last minute of the FA Cup final.

Decision Making is the player's ability to make the correct decision, for example whether to shoot or pass or where to aim in the goal compared to where defenders and goalkeepers are positioned.

Wouldn't that be where composure and decision making etc come into play? What you are saying would make more sense if finishing was instead "shooting" or something like that, but it's not. It's just "finishing", which doesn't really mean anything if the player doesn't "finish". Isn't the reason that Anderson's finishing attribute has been continuously lowered because he hasn't scored goals, though when you consider your viewpoint, technically there really is nothing wrong with his "finishing" since he can shoot, take penalties, and regularly scores during training? Plus, Bergkamp and Owen had very similar goals/games ratios at international level around 0.45 (better to judge individual performance), while Bergkamp had 0.36 and Owen 0.45 at club level (better to judge how they played for the club team).

The shooting v. technique thing is just an example, I think there are worse combinations, such as for a quick example: it might be interesting to have penalties, corners and free kicks combined into a "dead ball" stat and then have other stats as modifiers such as passing, shooting, power, composure, creativity, decision making, etc.

Reducing the number of variables and combining them will make everything more efficient. We don't want to have two variables that look like they do similar things to the output and accidentally think that they covary when in fact they might be the same thing.

Having less stats to look at will also force the gamer to recognize which stats relate and make it less possible to tell how good a player is and what they are good at without looking at their playing stats. And it makes players and player positions less static than it is now.

Finishing and shooting is just semantics. The reason it is called finishing is to distinguish it better from long shots.

What a player does in training is totally irrelevant. Anderson is not a good finisher, hence has a low finishing attribute. He might well be quite composed, though. Composure doesn't only relate to finishing.

I'll try to, again, break it down.

A player is tightly marked 15 yards out from goal. The technically good player is able to create space for himself, whereas a technically poor player is more likely to mess it up and lose the ball. If the poor technical player has a good decision attribute, he'll be more likely to play a simple pass than try the likely to fail difficult technical movement.

Once / if the player is in enough space to shoot, the finishing stat comes into play. In general, the composure modifier will not come into effect and the accuracy of the shot will simply be down to the finishing attribute. However, if the move is late in the match and the team really needs the goal, the composure modifier is more likely to kick in. In such a scenario, the poor but composed technician is more likely to hit the target than the good but less composed technician. Remember, however, that the poor technician is far less likely to have worked the space for the shot in the first place.

The same thing happens for one on ones, which are always modified by composure. A low composure player is likely to blow one on ones by shooting too early, too late, too wildly or too conservatively.

No it isn't.

Finishing is how good a player is at hitting the target when shooting.

Composure is how well they keep their nerve under pressure. For example, a player may score 30 goals a season, but spoons it over the bar in the last minute of the FA Cup final.

Decision Making is the player's ability to make the correct decision, for example whether to shoot or pass or where to aim in the goal compared to where defenders and goalkeepers are positioned.

No

Finishing is putting the ball in the back of the net

The same thing happens for one on ones, which are always modified by composure. A low composure player is likely to blow one on ones by shooting too early, too late, too wildly or too conservatively.

So then it would be ridiculous for a low composure player to have a high finishing rating.

So then it would be ridiculous for a low composure player to have a high finishing rating.

No. Because when the pressure is off, he'll finish comfortably. However, when it is on, he'll panic. For example, a low composure finisher might be a flat track bully, banging in the goals against minor opposition, but regularly failing in the big matches.

So what does the Important Matches attribute do?

So what does the Important Matches attribute do?

It modifies the player's overall ability for big matches. Will he play above himself or fail to reach the minimum expected standards. This can, of course, affect finishing and composure, improving or worsening them for big matches.

This is equally modified by morale levels and team talks, which can make big match successes / failures more or less likely. As can squad discipline and team gelling.

So, for example, you could have a big match player who you can trust to slot away decisive goals at key moments against big teams, but who might lose composure when he gets an end of match chance against minor opposition. The difference would be that he's so pumped up against the big sides, he doesn't get as nervous as he does when the team should be winning comfortably but isn't.

I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever played sport at any sort of level can fully identify with the above.

No

Finishing is putting the ball in the back of the net

hmmm i have always been of the understanding that the Finishing attribute means how good a player is at shooting from inside the box not necessarily how good he is at "finishing" and hitting the back of the net, where as long shots is anything out side the box, neither mean how good a player is at actually finishing/scoring just how likely the player is to hit the target, make the keeper make a save from where they are shooting from.

No. Because when the pressure is off, he'll finish comfortably. However, when it is on, he'll panic. For example, a low composure finisher might be a flat track bully, banging in the goals against minor opposition, but regularly failing in the big matches.

But when is the pressure really off for a professional?

Finishing has a specific and precise meaning. Scoring the goal. There is no ambiguity in the meaning of this word.

One player with 16 finishing and 7 composure will score fewer goals than a player with 16 finishing and 16 composure. This makes the finishing rating ludicrous. Finishing should be the combined ratings of the various attributes already mentioned in this thread; like the PK rating should be the combined rating of the various factors that go into being a successful PK taker.

Words must have a specific and clear meaning if we are to understand what they really mean. It is up to SI to clearly define the words they use for ratings and to make sure that the rating categories are unambiguous IMO.

No

Finishing is putting the ball in the back of the net

Which is pretty much what I said.

But when is the pressure really off for a professional?

Finishing has a specific and precise meaning. Scoring the goal. There is no ambiguity in the meaning of this word.

One player with 16 finishing and 7 composure will score fewer goals than a player with 16 finishing and 16 composure. This makes the finishing rating ludicrous. Finishing should be the combined ratings of the various attributes already mentioned in this thread; like the PK rating should be the combined rating of the various factors that go into being a successful PK taker.

Words must have a specific and clear meaning if we are to understand what they really mean. It is up to SI to clearly define the words they use for ratings and to make sure that the rating categories are unambiguous IMO.

I understand what you are saying, but somewhere along the way you still need a rating that says how good the player is at shooting that will be used to calculate how good he is at scoring.

You have given the example of how more composed players will score more, but don't forget that one player with 16 finishing and 16 composure will score more than one with 7 finishing and 16 composure. They are related but need to be treated sperately.

Take another example, in a situation where there is no pressure at all. A player is 12 yards from goal, no pressure on him as his team are winning 6-0, the goalkeeper is at the other end of the pitch and there are no defenders around him. It's a friendly against the reserves with no fans. The player has 10 in composure but 20 in finishing. He is likely to score. Take the same situation but where the player has 20 composure but 10 finishing. The player is less likely to score. This is simply because the underlying attribute of how well a player can shoot from inside the box is the one that is taken into account. Composure doesn't matter, as there is no pressure on him. Technique doesn't matter as he just has to 'pass' it to the goal.

Player with high finishing and average composure can score lots of goals. This is normally due to high scores in other areas - pace to get through on goal, technique to find the space, decision making to know when to shoot.

Similarly a player with average finishing and high composure can score a lot of goals. This is due to being ice cold in front of goal.

Player with finishing 17 misses inside the penalty area when the goalie isn't even in the goal. (happened several times)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vdlwlUosHI

Same player who did this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3JUdryT9zI

Goalie with handling 15 drops the ball when trying to catch it from a weak freekick. (almost never happened in real life)

Best keeper the premiership has seen in the last 50 years made some horrible errors

Defenders make own goals 2 every 5 matches.

Complete nonsense statement pulled out of the air. But for giggles:

Sorry but people have to open there eyes this game is so overrated I thought it would be awesome like people said...

I mean, does it take a lot of brain power to know how unrealistic those things are? Did they not test the game?

Anything can happen in football!

Finishing and shooting is just semantics. The reason it is called finishing is to distinguish it better from long shots.

What a player does in training is totally irrelevant. Anderson is not a good finisher, hence has a low finishing attribute. He might well be quite composed, though. Composure doesn't only relate to finishing.

I'll try to, again, break it down.

A player is tightly marked 15 yards out from goal. The technically good player is able to create space for himself, whereas a technically poor player is more likely to mess it up and lose the ball. If the poor technical player has a good decision attribute, he'll be more likely to play a simple pass than try the likely to fail difficult technical movement.

Once / if the player is in enough space to shoot, the finishing stat comes into play. In general, the composure modifier will not come into effect and the accuracy of the shot will simply be down to the finishing attribute. However, if the move is late in the match and the team really needs the goal, the composure modifier is more likely to kick in. In such a scenario, the poor but composed technician is more likely to hit the target than the good but less composed technician. Remember, however, that the poor technician is far less likely to have worked the space for the shot in the first place.

The same thing happens for one on ones, which are always modified by composure. A low composure player is likely to blow one on ones by shooting too early, too late, too wildly or too conservatively.

It does make sense to me and I do understand how it works in the game, but I still don't see how any researcher can break down and tease apart those factors, especially not when they are watching a proper game, and you are saying that training performance doesn't count.

How do you tell whether someone scored a goal because they had high composure or high finishing (and really think about this because I know what examples people are going to give, and they do not work, because you can argue all of them both ways)? In your examples, the first one sounded fine and reasonable, until I thought "why technique and not passing?" "why decision making and not creativity?" When is a player with good technique ever bad at passing?

In the second example, things get even muddier. Accuracy of the shot is only down to the finishing attribute, right? I don't see how the researcher can ever get a good estimate of this, without being affected by composure, decision making etc. If training performance is not looked at, then when do you ever see a player shooting at an empty goal with no one marking him, which is what you seem to be suggesting is what the finishing stat describes. Once again, you mention technique. I can't tell whether you are referring to technique or finishing. If it is finishing, then what does finishing have to do with working for space with the ball, if it is the same thing as shooting? If it is technique, then why does technique allow a player to aim for a target better? And on another note, why is long shot different from finishing, rather than having a shooting stat and using creativity, composure, power and decision making as modifiers?

The way that it is possible to explain away everything makes it a perfect theory, and this is why it is flawed. It sounds scientific and logical but when you realize that this whole argument cannot be disproved, it gets really frustrating.

The examples given do make sense, but not if you look at it from a practical point of view. I get that this is just the way it works, but that's not the point. The point is that we have to look at the types of stats we have and really think about what they each mean. And what I see when I see a lot of the stats is "wow, these two attributes are not mutually exclusive, they can't predict anything with sufficient efficiency and accuracy". And this is why I question the way we look at the data we do now, though I realize that this is how the coding works.

there is a lot of O.G's in the game.

but for unrealistic, i just had hernandez chip the keeper from outside the area.

Finishing only comes into the picture in that fraction of a second it takes for the foot to travel from a lifted up position to the ball. Everything up until that moment is affected by all the other attributes; acceleration, pace, off the ball, anticipation, team work, dribbling before the ball is about to be received. Technique, first touch, agility, strength, balance to trap the ball. Then technique, composure, balance, agility, decisions to place the ball in a spot where it is possible to shoot. Then finishing.

This is how it must be, according to what SI has said on the matter.

A world-class striker I have who has 18 in Finishing surprised me when he curled the ball into the far upper corner from 20 yards. Some of the shots he fires off are special, difficult to pull-off moves. So I think this means that players with very high finishing have some "perks" like this; a larger selection of "trick-shots" to choose from. However, the other strikers in my squad have finishing 15 or less but are very good at creating chances for themselves and others, and I very rarely regret the decision to go that route.

I see the "Finishing" attribute as "Accuracy" with shots inside the box. "Long shots" to me means "Accuracy" from outside the box. Of course a player still needs the technique, composure etc depending on the match and situation.