Too many shots / Goals to shots ratio problems - is it just a myth? Stats inside...

I was thinking about this earlier on. I never have any of the reported problems with too many shots, but maybe that's because I actually read IRL match stats and know that there are plenty of games where there are a lot of shots and not many goals. To test my theory (and I would have posted whether I was right or wrong), I decided to look at the last 5 Gills games IRL and the last 5 Gills games in my FM08 game. I'm playing the patched version, by the way, and I'm managing Gillingham.

I'll take the last 5 Gills games, both IRL and in FM08. The numbers in the brackets are the total shots and the shots on target; the score is then displayed after:

IRL

<LI> Leyton [15/8] vs Gills [13/5] - 0-0

<LI> Gills [16/9] vs Nottm F [20/6] - 3-0

<LI> Gills [5/1] vs Southend [15/7] - 1-1

<LI> Bournemouth [20/2] vs Gills [19/1] - 1-0

<LI> Gills [14/4] vs Port Vale [13/2] - 1-2

FM08

<LI> Gills [16/10] vs Swindon [10/9] - 2-0

<LI> Leeds [18/10] vs Gills [17/12] - 1-3

<LI> Gills [10/6] vs Hartlepool [2/1] - 1-1

<LI> Wycombe [6/1] vs Gills [9/2] - 0-1

<LI> Gills [13/7] vs Walsall [3/1] - 1-0

I thought I'd also test this with a team I'm not managing on FM (and have no input in that league) - I've chosen West Ham, only because I've been to all their home games recently.

IRL

<LI> West Ham [16/7] vs Man City [8/4] - 0-0

<LI> Arsenal [21/13] vs West Ham [15/7] - 2-0

<LI> West Ham [11/5] vs Man United [7/3] - 2-1

<LI> West Ham [18/11] vs Reading [13/10] - 1-1

<LI> Middlesboro [7/2] vs West Ham [8/4] - 1-2

FM08

<LI> Blackburn [9/5] vs West Ham [8/5] - 3-1

<LI> West Ham [18/8] vs Newcastle [6/5] - 2-0

<LI> Tottenham [8/3] vs West Ham [5/4] - 1-1

<LI> West Ham [7/3] vs Man United [10/6] - 1-3

<LI> Chelsea [13/4] vs West Ham [9/7] - 1-1

By no means do I cite this as undeniable evidence of any kind, but given the results I wonder: is there really a problem with the number of shots in a game? I posted the stats the other day for the England vs Portugal quarter final in Euro 2004 - here they are - and I wonder if the real problem is that there are more shots in a game then we truely remember. Remember, all shots are counted IRL and in FM, including the ones where it's never in danger of going in the goal.

Just thought I'd chuck this into the air.

I was thinking about this earlier on. I never have any of the reported problems with too many shots, but maybe that's because I actually read IRL match stats and know that there are plenty of games where there are a lot of shots and not many goals. To test my theory (and I would have posted whether I was right or wrong), I decided to look at the last 5 Gills games IRL and the last 5 Gills games in my FM08 game. I'm playing the patched version, by the way, and I'm managing Gillingham.

I'll take the last 5 Gills games, both IRL and in FM08. The numbers in the brackets are the total shots and the shots on target; the score is then displayed after:

IRL

<LI> Leyton [15/8] vs Gills [13/5] - 0-0

<LI> Gills [16/9] vs Nottm F [20/6] - 3-0

<LI> Gills [5/1] vs Southend [15/7] - 1-1

<LI> Bournemouth [20/2] vs Gills [19/1] - 1-0

<LI> Gills [14/4] vs Port Vale [13/2] - 1-2

FM08

<LI> Gills [16/10] vs Swindon [10/9] - 2-0

<LI> Leeds [18/10] vs Gills [17/12] - 1-3

<LI> Gills [10/6] vs Hartlepool [2/1] - 1-1

<LI> Wycombe [6/1] vs Gills [9/2] - 0-1

<LI> Gills [13/7] vs Walsall [3/1] - 1-0

I thought I'd also test this with a team I'm not managing on FM (and have no input in that league) - I've chosen West Ham, only because I've been to all their home games recently.

IRL

<LI> West Ham [16/7] vs Man City [8/4] - 0-0

<LI> Arsenal [21/13] vs West Ham [15/7] - 2-0

<LI> West Ham [11/5] vs Man United [7/3] - 2-1

<LI> West Ham [18/11] vs Reading [13/10] - 1-1

<LI> Middlesboro [7/2] vs West Ham [8/4] - 1-2

FM08

<LI> Blackburn [9/5] vs West Ham [8/5] - 3-1

<LI> West Ham [18/8] vs Newcastle [6/5] - 2-0

<LI> Tottenham [8/3] vs West Ham [5/4] - 1-1

<LI> West Ham [7/3] vs Man United [10/6] - 1-3

<LI> Chelsea [13/4] vs West Ham [9/7] - 1-1

By no means do I cite this as undeniable evidence of any kind, but given the results I wonder: is there really a problem with the number of shots in a game? I posted the stats the other day for the England vs Portugal quarter final in Euro 2004 - here they are - and I wonder if the real problem is that there are more shots in a game then we truely remember. Remember, all shots are counted IRL and in FM, including the ones where it's never in danger of going in the goal.

Just thought I'd chuck this into the air.

The conclusion I draw from this is that you haven't created a tactic that creates alot of clear cut chances. Sure, it creates enough for you to do well, but if you use a user-created tactic that creates alot of one-on-ones you will find it a problem.

Gills. I am one of the other few people who have not experienced this, (although I must admit I don't doubt that it does exist).

I think the main reason that I don't see the oroduct of this in my game is that I play with a defensive 41410 formation, which obviously by it's very nature doesn't produce the great many chances that I have heard talk about by others.

Part of the reason may also be that my team isnb't very good and was a small fish in a small pond. After a couple of promotions I should be entering Europe, and this may be about to change as I become the dominant force in domestic football.

That aside, the problem with you comparing your in game Gills results with that of the real-life Gills results is that you are often on the back foot and until recently were leaking goals like a big sieve like thing with holes in.

Maybe what you might consider doing is comparing the results of a team like Arsenal in game, to real life, (a team who create loads of opportunities but have a reputation for not taking them all, and maybe also a team like Aston Villa who are building a reputation for eeking out results.

I do think there is a problem but I am just lucky enough to have stumbled on a short term solution at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by exacerbating:

The conclusion I draw from this is that you haven't created a tactic that creates alot of clear cut chances. Sure, it creates enough for you to do well, but if you use a user-created tactic that creates alot of one-on-ones you will find it a problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair, I haven't alterered the default 4-4-2 tactic too much. And the West Ham results are computer generated.

I think the telling thing is that there are more shots IRL than we really give credit for. Take the Bournemouth vs Gillingham game IRL. Bournemouth had 20 shots, Gillingham had 19, it finished 1-0 and there were only 3 shots on target during the entire game.

Very interesting stats, but there's no mention of how clear cut these chances are. There's a big difference between a 35 yard shot that rolls gently along the ground and a one-on-one chance that a "world class" striker puts stright into the keeper's arms.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, because I've not experienced this problem to the same extent other people have, and I'm doing well, so I'm not going to complain .

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucky Wilbury:

Very interesting stats, but there's no mention of how clear cut these chances are. There's a big difference between a 35 yard shot that rolls gently along the ground and a one-on-one chance that a "world class" striker puts stright into the keeper's arms.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, because I've not experienced this problem to the same extent other people have, and I'm doing well, so I'm not going to complain . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate to a certain extent here, and you're right, no mention of how clear cut these chances are. But I can think of a number of occasions when, say, Torres had had shots on target from promising positions that have resulted in a comfortable save.

Also, taking IRL examples, I don't remember Marcus Hahnemman (sp) having a blinder against West Ham for Reading, despite having 11 shots to "save". Similar for Green or Almunia in the recent game against Arsenal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GillsMan:

No, and I'm playing Devil's Advocate to a certain extent here, and you're right, no mention of how clear cut these chances are. But I can think of a number of occasions when, say, Torres had had shots on target from promising positions that have resulted in a comfortable save.

Also, taking IRL examples, I don't remember Marcus Hahnemman (sp) having a blinder against West Ham for Reading, despite having 11 shots to "save". Similar for Green or Almunia in the recent game against Arsenal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. Hahnemann didn't have a blinder but, according to the stats, he made a lot of saves. These could have been "easy" saves from shots that were basically speculative shots from the West Ham players.

Like I said, I've not been experiencing this problem as much as others have, so I've not been following the various threads about it too closely. But I was under the impression that strikers were missing "easy" chances that you would expect good players to score.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucky Wilbury:

Like I said, I've not been experiencing this problem as much as others have, so I've not been following the various threads about it too closely. But I was under the impression that strikers were missing "easy" chances that you would expect good players to score. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, I suppose. And of course I've only looked at the stats, and not things like the types of chances being missed. But if you were to ask me if games in FM08 have too many shots, I'd say no.

I definitely have some gripes with the match engine, but "too many shots not enough goals" isn't necessarily one of them, or at least it doesn't seem to be. I just checked out the shot stats for my last 10 games and it seems pretty all right to me. Perhaps a few too many chances overall, but nothing bizarre like some people are reporting, i.e. 38 shots/32 on target/ no goals. In 4 out of 10 games the AI has had more attempts than me. In addition, as Hull, I won my last game against Wolves 6-3, so it can't be too difficult to score in this game.

Having said that, I accept that others are having an entirely different experience and I think much of it may come down to tactics – in the sense that the problems are not as apparent depending on the type of system you're playing. As somebody mentioned up thread, if you're generating a large number of 1-on-1's you're bound to see some weird shot stats, as the AI goalkeeper tends to save something like 95% of those chances, which is absurd. Now that is a clear bug and we shouldn't need to rely on one set of tactics over another to keep it under check.

I'm sure by now however SI are well aware about it and it'll be one of the first things addressed next patch. Or I hope so, at least.

I think the real problem is not the number of shots (especially after the patch), but the amount of clear cut chances. What your evidence shows is that FM has the right number of shots, but they do not come from the right places. In real life, you hardly ever get a one-on-one chance but in FM its completely normal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljdzsgffk:

I think the real problem is not the number of shots (especially after the patch), but the amount of clear cut chances. What your evidence shows is that FM has the right number of shots, but they do not come from the right places. In real life, you hardly ever get a one-on-one chance but in FM its completely normal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The computer get a lot of 1-on-1 chances also, because your defenders slow down practically to a standstill for the sole purpose of letting the opposition through on goal. This happens several times a game, I find, and is one of the more pressing issues to need sorting next patch.

GillsMan, your analysis is going to have been very similar to what SI's testing team did - if I were SI, I'd have an automated test bed that runs each build through thousands of simulated matches to check statistics in each key competition.

I think that the "goals to shots ratio problem" amounts to "Certain extreme tactics create more one-on-on chances than is realistic," and that SI's solution is going to be:

a.) Reduce the accuracy of certain passes

b.) Improve defenders' AI, increasing their ability to deal with one-on-one's as RL defenders do.

c.) Improve computer managers' AI, giving them a tactical adjustment to make when seeing too many one-on-one chances due to extreme tactics.

d.) Increase the chances of offsides trap breaking up a one-on-one feed.

What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic".

I would love to see - long-term - an Assistant Manager complex and efficient enough to recognize the problem and give them feedback about what is going wrong, so that the user might realize "its within my control" instead of immediately jumping to "its a bug!"

There isnt really any problem in AI matches, i believe SI has those more or less spot on.

The problem comes when you have a user made tactic that obviously exploits something in the match engine...aka having 30+ shots/game and 5 or 6 of them being very clear 1 vs 1's

Having fast attackers playing counter and loads of throughballs will get many many clear cut chances even against superior teams.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ljdzsgffk:

I think the real problem is not the number of shots (especially after the patch), but the amount of clear cut chances. What your evidence shows is that FM has the right number of shots, but they do not come from the right places. In real life, you hardly ever get a one-on-one chance but in FM its completely normal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, interesting point. I was wondering what the ratio of one-on-ones to goals was IRL, but haven't found anything yet. In the meantime, here's a collection of goals scored by Romario from one-on-ones. Just for info.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

GillsMan, your analysis is going to have been very similar to what SI's testing team did - if I were SI, I'd have an automated test bed that runs each build through thousands of simulated matches to check statistics in each key competition.

I think that the "goals to shots ratio problem" amounts to "Certain extreme tactics create more one-on-on chances than is realistic," and that SI's solution is going to be:

a.) Reduce the accuracy of certain passes

b.) Improve defenders' AI, increasing their ability to deal with one-on-one's as RL defenders do.

c.) Improve computer managers' AI, giving them a tactical adjustment to make when seeing too many one-on-one chances due to extreme tactics.

d.) Increase the chances of offsides trap breaking up a one-on-one feed.

What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic".

I would love to see - long-term - an Assistant Manager complex and efficient enough to recognize the problem and give them feedback about what is going wrong, so that the user might realize "its within my control" instead of immediately jumping to "its a bug!" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im going to take issue with a couple of your comments here:

1) Its nothing to do with extreme tactics, albeit it will happen under certain conditions- Ive encountered this issue playing a variety of formations at differing widths, tempos etc. The common denominator for me is that the one on ones are created with my quicker strikers regardless of my tactics as defenders just cannot cope with fast players either running onto through balls or running with the ball.

Anyway we are back to blaming our tactics created within a framework that SI give us- yeah great blame the player because SI nerfed the finishing instead of fixing the worful defending.

2) Im sorry but what on earth do you mean by saying "What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic"?!!!?

Of course it means your tactic is a successful one (at least in the offensive sense), assuming your not leaking goals that is- how on earth can good chances equal anything but a successful tactic? What would you prefer poor chances- does creating fewer clearcut chances equal a better tactic?

Its thinking like this that I hope SI do not subscribe to, as it is just making excuses for quite obvious flaws in the match engine and if it is accepted as gospel would mean we would forever have to play our way around such flaws.

You normally post a lot of sense but your post here shows no understanding of the issues that are plaguing many because of the 8.01 patch, not because of extreme tactics or us assuming incorrectly that good chances incorrectly equal a successful tactic.

i've a problem with converting shots into goals... but i figure it's a problem with my tactic... i get 15-20 shots quite frequently and still get 0 or 1 goal. but then at the same time i have my share of 4-5 goal matches too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham:

Im going to take issue with a couple of your comments here:

1) Its nothing to do with extreme tactics, albeit it will happen under certain conditions- Ive encountered this issue playing a variety of formations at differing widths, tempos etc. The common denominator for me is that the one on ones are created with my quicker strikers regardless of my tactics as defenders just cannot cope with fast players either running onto through balls or running with the ball.

Anyway we are back to blaming our tactics created within a framework that SI give us- yeah great blame the player because SI nerfed the finishing instead of fixing the worful defending.

2) Im sorry but what on earth do you mean by saying "What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic"?!!!?

Of course it means your tactic is a successful one (at least in the offensive sense), assuming your not leaking goals that is- how on earth can good chances equal anything but a successful tactic? What would you prefer poor chances- does creating fewer clearcut chances equal a better tactic?

Its thinking like this that I hope SI do not subscribe to, as it is just making excuses for quite obvious flaws in the match engine and if it is accepted as gospel would mean we would forever have to play our way around such flaws.

You normally post a lot of sense but your post here shows no understanding of the issues that are plaguing many because of the 8.01 patch, not because of extreme tactics or us assuming incorrectly that good chances incorrectly equal a successful tactic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, George.

Fair enough: I thought I understood the problem, but I haven't actually seen the problem. Like Jimbokav, I tend to play fairly defensively and I'm a long way down the league pyramid yet: I haven't yet played with the sort of team that seems to give the problem.

If you adjust the sentence to "Certain tactics", removing the word "extreme", do you agree with the rest of the statement?

If so, I retract the word "extreme", and apologize.

For number-two, I'm afraid I disagree with you. My definition for a good offensive tactic is one that generates goals. I'll take 3 shots and 2 goals over 30 shots and 1 goal, every day of the week thank you very much.

However, its a really easy metric to look at: I'm getting more shots, so I must be doing better. I'm getting more shots on target, so I must be doing better.

God, for CM01/02, I was running a little Excel spreadsheet and tracking the shots-for, shots-against for my tactics, and treating that as a more reliable indicator than "goals scored", because I figured the latter were more luck-based, and the former more skill-based.

What I was missing, entirely, was the idea that I might be peppering the enemy with "easy to save" shots, misses, long-range blasts, etc.

Now, I judge by results: goals - and what I can personally observe on Extended or Full highlights. (E.g., are my defenders in position? Why are my passes breaking down?)

I think there are plenty of people who are still looking at Shots as a useful metric - or, even in the face of this shots/goals ratio problem, persist looking at a ton of breakaways as "good chances". Instead of trying to find success, they've reached a local maxima for their tactic, one which creates what they perceive to be "good chances", and they stick there .. or, if they fail to score, edge a little further, creating even more "good chances" and less chance of scoring.

If you want to stick with your own definition of "successful tactic", you're welcome to - but the definition you've chosen leaves the user no recourse but to feel victimized by the bug, or by SI, when they evolve a tactic which triggers the problem.

Arguing the "successful tactic" thing, by the way, completely misses the main point of those last two paragraphs:

If the user is stuck in a local maxima which isn't successful, the game isn't giving them any feedback which might help them get out of it.

Even if one wants to say that its the user's fault for creating the tactic, its also the game's fault for not giving the user sufficient feedback that they can see why its going wrong.

Which makes it feel arbitrary, and plays straight into the "feeling victimized by the bug, or by SI" sense, which makes it ten times worse.

Definitly not a myth, certain tactics make this problem far more obvious.

Im not looking at shots as a metric- Im looking at what I see in the match. IF what I see doesnt matter then the 2D engine is useless.

Fact is no matter how anybody wants to dress it up or analyse it the match engine is the issue, as if it worked correctly we wouldnt need an assistant to analyse it for us.

I agree that we could have more feedback- but this feedback would only work if the match engine doesnt throw up things like this issue.

Analysis wouldnt fix the issue, it wouldnt even hide it- but it might help us play around it, and thats not good enough for a "simulation".

Its a known issue and one SI are working on- and no amount of feedback would help in this particular situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by George Graham:

Im going to take issue with a couple of your comments here:

1) Its nothing to do with extreme tactics, albeit it will happen under certain conditions- Ive encountered this issue playing a variety of formations at differing widths, tempos etc. The common denominator for me is that the one on ones are created with my quicker strikers regardless of my tactics as defenders just cannot cope with fast players either running onto through balls or running with the ball.

Anyway we are back to blaming our tactics created within a framework that SI give us- yeah great blame the player because SI nerfed the finishing instead of fixing the worful defending.

2) Im sorry but what on earth do you mean by saying "What I think the problem is, is users assuming that "good chances" equal "successful tactic"?!!!?

Of course it means your tactic is a successful one (at least in the offensive sense), assuming your not leaking goals that is- how on earth can good chances equal anything but a successful tactic? What would you prefer poor chances- does creating fewer clearcut chances equal a better tactic?

Its thinking like this that I hope SI do not subscribe to, as it is just making excuses for quite obvious flaws in the match engine and if it is accepted as gospel would mean we would forever have to play our way around such flaws.

You normally post a lot of sense but your post here shows no understanding of the issues that are plaguing many because of the 8.01 patch, not because of extreme tactics or us assuming incorrectly that good chances incorrectly equal a successful tactic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, George.

Fair enough: I thought I understood the problem, but I haven't actually seen the problem. Like Jimbokav, I tend to play fairly defensively and I'm a long way down the league pyramid yet: I haven't yet played with the sort of team that seems to give the problem.

If you adjust the sentence to "Certain tactics", removing the word "extreme", do you agree with the rest of the statement?

If so, I retract the word "extreme", and apologize.

For number-two, I'm afraid I disagree with you. My definition for a good offensive tactic is one that generates goals. I'll take 3 shots and 2 goals over 30 shots and 1 goal, every day of the week thank you very much.

However, its a really easy metric to look at: I'm getting more shots, so I must be doing better. I'm getting more shots on target, so I must be doing better.

God, for CM01/02, I was running a little Excel spreadsheet and tracking the shots-for, shots-against for my tactics, and treating that as a more reliable indicator than "goals scored", because I figured the latter were more luck-based, and the former more skill-based.

What I was missing, entirely, was the idea that I might be peppering the enemy with "easy to save" shots, misses, long-range blasts, etc.

Now, I judge by results: goals - and what I can personally observe on Extended or Full highlights. (E.g., are my defenders in position? Why are my passes breaking down?)

I think there are plenty of people who are still looking at Shots as a useful metric - or, even in the face of this shots/goals ratio problem, persist looking at a ton of breakaways as "good chances". Instead of trying to find success, they've reached a local maxima for their tactic, one which creates what they perceive to be "good chances", and they stick there .. or, if they fail to score, edge a little further, creating even more "good chances" and less chance of scoring.

If you want to stick with your own definition of "successful tactic", you're welcome to - but the definition you've chosen leaves the user no recourse but to feel victimized by the bug, or by SI, when they evolve a tactic which triggers the problem. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think point 2 could be re-phrased:

Creating good chances, and many of, should be the main control on how many goals are scored, therefore, they should be the measure of how good a tactic is.

E.g. according to amaroq, a tactic that creates 8 chances, but scores 2 is better than a tactic that creates 20 but scores 1. Fair point. I think the differentiation george was making, was that a tactic that creates 20 one-on-one or tap-in chances, that are subsequently missed, is theoretically better than a tactic that creates fewer chances but scores more. After all, a team can do no more than put it on a plate for the striker, hence this should be the aim of any tactic imo.

This shows that the issue lies within the match engine rather than the user - specifically how players respond to different chances. I recently saw a thread where a user created a tactic using solely wide attacking players (it had lots of arrows...) and this yielded a higher goal/shot ratio than a standard 4-4-2 - possibly suggesting that wide player AI was better a deciding when to shoot than CF AI.

As to feedback, i wholeheartedly agree with amroq, a decent ass man feedback mech would save many problems.

Or even, should be better than a tactic that creates fewer chances but scores more .. and if we aspire to be a simulation, we need to correct it so that it is better.

(George, correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth: I'm trying to paraphrase what I hear you saying)

And, yeah, that I have to concede, absolutely.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

Or even, should be better than a tactic that creates fewer chances but scores more .. and if we aspire to be a simulation, we need to correct it so that it is better.

(George, correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth: I'm trying to paraphrase what I hear you saying)

And, yeah, that I have to concede, absolutely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we all agree here, at least in that the attacking or creating chances part of our tactic is working anyway and that quality of chance is important. Although I dont like the way SI seem to have setup FM so that slower buildup tends to create "better" chances when irl (imo) a slow buildup is easier to defend against, and the modern trend of fast counter attacks being very effective appears to have passed by FM.

Although remember a tactic can be effective but fouled up by teamtalks and player performance- just look at Spurs under Ramos, arguably he is better tactically than Jol but we are continually let down by individual errors. Would we then say its his tactics?

Therefore I could effectively have a tactic that works well in one area, but not because its a poor tactic but because teamtalks are wrong or just because players arent up to it.

It could be argued that the tactic isnt designed around your players as a mistake many make is to assume a good tactic that works for one group of players will work for another.

I just think the common misunderstanding with this issue (and possibly why Amaroq is mentioning results) is that people who complain about it are not winning. In my case this is not true- Im in 2017 of a career game which has taken me from successful spells at Billericay and Burnley to Red Bull New York with a 60% win ratio.

The worst thing about this for me is it makes watching the match engine pretty tedious, and whereas once Id be on the edge of my seat if I or the AI was through on goal now I just expect them to miss.

I think George Graham makes a very good point, and it's well worth listening to what he has to say.

I think that too many people are perhaps just looking at the shots stats at the end of their game, realising that they've scored no goals, or only one and saying that's realistic. I think my stats from IRL have proved that it's very realistic to have a lot of shots, not many games, and not necessarily have a super performance from the goalie.

However, maybe there are too many one-on-ones and clear cut chances that are being missed. If I get time, I might start analysing real life matches (only the ones I can watch in full) and comparing the number of clear cut chances IRL to the number of clear cut chances in the game.

I have no idea what this will prove, but it's interesting to see.

I've no doubt that there are probably too many clear cut chances not being converted, but I think that a lot of people complaining are ONLY looking at the match stats and the lack of goals and assuming (incorrectly) that the ratio is unrealistic. The ratio appears realistic. It's the quality of the chances being missed that *might* be the issue.