Conversion rates on CCC's (breaking the game?)

I just finished my first season with Wrexham in the Skrill Premier. A good season. Finished 5th, set new record for goals scored and lost the playoff final against Braintree. Also got the top scorer.

But looking at the conversion rates for CCC's, the season was absolutely ridiculous.

My opponents scored 74 goals in 73 CCC's. 101 % conversion rate.

We scored 114 goals in 209 CCC's. 55 % conversion rate.

If we had been playing Real Madrid and Barcelona, I would have no problem with this statistic. But we are playing other rubbish teams, with rubbish players, in the Skrill Premier.

In 2013 Manchester united converted 21 % of their CCC's. So 55 % is actually insane. The lower teams in the premier league converted around 10% of their chances.

So I repeat, my opponents in the Skrill premier converted 101% of their CCC's against us over the season!!!!!!

And no, we don't play a patient possession based style with lots of people forward at all times. In fact, we play a counter attacking style, defending deep with 3 CB's. So the opponents CCC's were absolutely not bigger and better than our CCC's over the season, in fact it was actually the other way around.

And no, my goalkeeper is not rubbish compared to the other teams goalkeepers, in fact he is likely one of the best in the division.

And no, my strikers are not rubbish compared to the other teams strikers, in fact they are likely two of the best in the division.

And how can it possibly be a problem with my tactics when we create 209 CCC's and give away only 73? My tactics makes my players fail to score easy tap ins from crosses and blow one on ones? I dont' think so...

I have had this feeling for a long time, and have seen it when I manage world class teams with world class strikers who can't score sitters to save their lives. Now I have gathered the statistic, and the conclusion is pretty clear. The game absolutely favours the AI in terms of converting chances. So all the people moaning about single results going against them and being shot down (I could mention a 1-1 game with 0-11 in CCC's) are right to be frustrated.

My strong belief is that this is an intentional measure from the developers to avoid cricket scores caused by the AI's absolute inability to defend. If we had the same conversion rate as our opponents we would have scored over 200 goals in a single league season...

If my opponents had had a slightly better conversion rate, say 10% better, I would have said, "ok, unlucky this year". But double? So crazy I am lost for words. And all though I have not bothered to gather the statistics from my Wolves save, I know from the constant frustration at our inability to convert CCC's compared to our opponents, it was the same there. As with my OM save, my Atletico save and my Manchester United save.

Season 3 in game (2015/16) I'm at Liverpool. 6 preseason matches.

39 Goals

41 CCC.

Surely this wouldn't happen in real life.

What is the shots/goal conversion rate? The best teams convert around 20% of their shots, not their CCCs.

What is the shots/goal conversion rate? The best teams convert around 20% of their shots, not their CCCs.

6 pre-season matches

253 shots on goal

39 goals

= 15.42%

What is the shots/goal conversion rate? The best teams convert around 20% of their shots, not their CCCs.

I don't know that statistic, but we're nowhere near 20% conversion on total shots. And according to OPTA, like I said, Manchester United topped the stats while converting 21% of their CCC's in 2013, so that is a valid statistic.

I don't know that statistic, but we're nowhere near 20% conversion on total shots. And according to OPTA, like I said, Manchester United topped the stats while converting 21% of their CCC's in 2013, so that is a valid statistic.

Link please?

A quick google suggests different. http://eplindex.com/27890/how-well-does-your-team-convert-chances-premier-league-stats-comparison.html

Also, I am aware that my "accounting" is off because there were obviously a lot of goals scored that were not from CCC's. But I included all goals in this statistic because I don't know how to find these statistics isolated in game.

But as an example Suarez scored on 53% of his CCC's in 2013, while getting 47% of his goals from CCC's.

When I have world class strikers (I mean absolute top class like CR or Messi) they are nowhere near that percentage (probably closer to 15-20%) from their CCC's, and get only about 20-30% of their goals from CCC's. Meaning when they have a decent season and they score 30 goals, about 20 of those goals are "goal of the season" type goals. Of course I expect these kind of players to pull off these types of goals regularly, I do not expect them to convert only 1 in 5 CCC's.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mmind that FM completely nerfs the top strikers, and that the AI is given a huge advantage in terms of converting chances and shots into goals.

Also, I am aware that my "accounting" is off because there were obviously a lot of goals scored that were not from CCC's. But I included all goals in this statistic because I don't know how to find these statistics isolated in game.

But as an example Suarez scored on 53% of his CCC's in 2013, while getting 47% of his goals from CCC's.

When I have world class strikers (I mean absolute top class like CR or Messi) they are nowhere near that percentage (probably closer to 15-20%) from their CCC's, and get only about 20-30% of their goals from CCC's. Meaning when they have a decent season and they score 30 goals, about 20 of those goals are "goal of the season" type goals. Of course I expect these kind of players to pull off these types of goals regularly, I do not expect them to convert only 1 in 5 CCC's.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mmind that FM completely nerfs the top strikers, and that the AI is given a huge advantage in terms of converting chances and shots into goals.

I don't know about CCCs specifically, but I can easily check shots/goal stats of my players. In their case (and they are top strikers) their shots/goal percentage is around 25-35%, which is higher than real life.

Also, I need to point out that the AI isn't given any advantage in the ME. The ME doesn't know whether it's a human or AI team, so it makes no difference.

Link please?

A quick google suggests different. http://eplindex.com/27890/how-well-does-your-team-convert-chances-premier-league-stats-comparison.html

Ah, my mistake. I looked at the top table in the same link.

But my argument is still solid in terms of chances converted against us. Reading tops the charts with about 55%. And like I said, I am not complaining about our conversion rate, I would have been pleased with it, if our opponents did not consistently outperform us by a huge margin throughout the season.

West Ham is at the bottom with 27% conversion of CCC's. If there was a way to pull out the goals that were not scored from CCC's, I am absolutely confident our conversion rate would be significantly lower than 27% while our opponents would be significantly higher than 55%.

My issue is mainly with the unexplained difference between our finishing, and that of our opponents. We consistently had much more shots, much more CCC's, and from what I could see, much better quality CCC's than our opposition. I am not saying we should have scored more (at least not a lot more) but that our opponents should score significantly less than they did. Also, with the huge amount of CCC's we created, a much larger portion of our goals should arrive from these chances. Because we do not have CR or Messi in our team, nor anyone of such a level that they would be the "Messi" of the Skrill Premier.

I don't know about CCCs specifically, but I can easily check shots/goal stats of my players. In their case (and they are top strikers) their shots/goal percentage is around 25-35%, which is higher than real life.

Also, I need to point out that the AI isn't given any advantage in the ME. The ME doesn't know whether it's a human or AI team, so it makes no difference.

I am in pre season now, and I don't know how to find these stats for last season. But after this season I will check my players stats. But like I said, it is not really an issue of my team scoreing less than we should, we probably score more than we should, but the issue is our opponents scoring much more than they should from their amount of shots and CCC's.

I am in pre season now, and I don't know how to find these stats for last season. But after this season I will check my players stats. But like I said, it is not really an issue of my team scoreing less than we should, we probably score more than we should, but the issue is our opponents scoring much more than they should from their amount of shots and CCC's.

You don't think this could be an issue of your own doing? Too open on the counter, giving them good chances or failing to go more defensive when the opponent is throwing everything at you to try and get back into the game?

You don't think this could be an issue of your own doing? Too open on the counter, giving them good chances or failing to go more defensive when the opponent is throwing everything at you to try and get back into the game?

At first I thought this was the case. But I have watched a lot of games for the full duration, and there is not much suggesting it is my own tactical shortcomings. Certainly my players make a lot of mistakes, as they should at this level. But that is (or at least should be) the case for my opponents too, no? Like I said in my initial post, it is my opponents ability to convert the very few shots and even fewer CCC's into an unbelievable amount of goals.

If we my tactic had poor defensive structure, my opponents would create lots of chances, and have lots of shots. If that was the case, I would not be posting here, but hard at work finding the tactical cure as it were.

I defend deep, with a solid back three helped out by two wingbacks, a b2b and a ball winning midfielder. We allow very few shots and rarely more than 1-2 CCC's against. We control the games by forcing our opponents to play into the middle where I have a solid unit of 5 forcing them to pass outside of the dangerous third. We do not attempt to control possession, and therefore almost never lose the ball while the team is significantly off balance.

Like I said, it is the rate of conversion from my opponents I am complaining about. Not that they score at all, not that we score less than we should, but that they score so much more than the stats suggest they should.

After giving it some more thought, I have concluded that the game does not favour the AI, but rather favours the team creating less chances. This is in my save almost always the AI.

I understand that usually in real life, the team that creates lots of chances and has lots of shots, has the lion share of possession, and pushes forward while leaving lots of space for counters. But as we saw in the world cup, Holland created much more CCC's and out scored Spain in spite of their opponents domination in possession. This is what I do with my Wrexham team. I give the other team possession, and go forward quickly, creating many chances and many shots. The game does not seem to consider this possibility at all, and behaves as if we are Spain and not Holland.

I have also tried many different tactics with many different teams, among them tactics with glowing reviews. Yet the result is always the same, my opponents consistently convert much more of their chances than I do.

And I have been extrememly successful with several teams (but also sacked a few times), but never able to play like Chelsea under Mourinho or Atletico under Simeone. Which is the new challenge for me, but so far, extremely frustrating. Like I said, the game appears to not understand that it is possible to be safe at the back and create chances at the same time. But maybe I will find the key one of these days...

I agree that if your tactic was defensively unsound, you'd concede a lot of shots. This is obviously not the case, which is why I asked a different question.

If your opponents have a conversion rate that high against you, you're giving up extremely good chances. Might not be many, but that's not the point. Defensively you might have a sound tactic in general. It might be the case that you have a weakness on the counter-attack, that could possibly be exploited. It could be that you go 2-0 up and at some point your opponent throws everything at you to try and get back into the game and your tactic can't cope very well in those situations. It may be for a 10-15 minute spell only, keeping their overall shots low but the quality of chances they get in that spell pushes their conversion rate up. Of course, I am just speculating. You're the one watching all these games.

The reason I like to focus more on shots/goal rather than CCCs, is because it's easier to find the stats for it in FM. Some CCCs are also calculated wrong. Too narrow an angle, too many defenders around and even blocked shots can count as CCCs. Many (most?) headed crosses only count as half-chances, when they're really good chances. Half-chances are often disregarded in these conversations, but they're almost as important as CCCs.

From watching the games I have concluded that there is not a significant difference in the quality of the CCC's created by my team and the opposition. I agree that shots from ridiculous angles are counted as CCC's that should not be, and that finishes from crosses should be counted.

If those were counted realistically, the statistic would be even more demonic, as our opponents rarely find an answer to my wing backs, and we have many shots and headers from these crosses. The vast majority going straight onto the goalie, or high and/or wide.

There is certainly something about a lot of the goals against coming in short spans of time. But they are still not "better" chances than the ones we create. This season I will look into further tweaking of my tactics in the times in question (opening 15 and final 15). I have also signed my Terry and Makelele ( in terms of Skrill level at least) and will experiment with a straight back 4 while strengthening my midfield with an additional player. Perhaps a skilled Halfback or Anchor man will prevent some of the ridiculous long shots we have been conceding. I will still be going for a deep defence and counter attacks though, as this is the whole point to the exercise. I know I can dominate possession with a different setup, but this is not what I am trying to accomplish in this save (and I don't have the players for it, as I have gone for different qualities suitable for my tactic). I want my opponents to curse our defensive outlook, not laugh at how easy it is to score despite it...

As an aside, comparing real life CCC stats to FMs is meaningless as theyre not the same thing. Real life CCCs are penalties, open goals or one-on-ones under no pressure, whereas FM can award a CCC when there.s a defender bearhugging the striker from behind and another stood in front of him. A small percentage of FM CCCs are actually CCCs, basically.

As Ackter says the fault is that FM counts too many things as CCCs which really aren't.

I have shared the same pain as the OP where is has felt like my own team could not finish a chance to save their life yet as soon as the opposition got one chance they'd score it. Now stats can only tell one side of the story but still i decided to do some analysis to almost prove to myself that things balanced out over time and i shouldn't be worried so long as things were still going to plan.

If you compare goals and chances then it is pretty similar overall with both my team and the opposition scoring 15% of every shot they had. I guess though from a player point of view if you are having a lot more shots it can come across that the opposition scores far more of it's shots than you do.

In fact i had 694 shots in total in that season which was 433 more shots than the opposition had against me yet only scored from 68 goals more than them. Now bearing in mind the way i play most of the 700 odd shots i have are from within the box so as you can imagine watching that many shots result in misses can lead to serious frustration. The reality is though that i still only score 15% of my chances which is in line with a similar conversion rate in real life.

The current season i'm in it feels like the shooting has got worse but i've still scored 85 from 568 which is the same conversion rate as last season and have conceded less goals.

I think the thing to consider is that no matter how frustrating it may seem your conversion rate at best is not going to get above the 20% mark. I'd be interested to see those that manage to get a conversion rate higher than that.

As Ackter says the fault is that FM counts too many things as CCCs which really aren't.

I agree that Fm counts many things as CCC's that aren't. But that is not the actual issue that I am raising.

My entire point is that my opponents score too many goals in relation to their shots, shots on target, CCC's, half chances, crosses, and what I see happening on the pitch, compared to what my team does.

These goals consist of a ridiculous amount of luke goals from crosses (which we should get even more of since we almost always dominate the cross statistic), long shots (could admittedly be an issue related to defending too deep or not closing down effectively, but still, this is the Skrill Premier...) and goals from 10-12 pass tiki-taka sequences with ridiculous positional errors from my defenders that I can't find a solution for (again, how many goals are scored in the Skrill Premier after that many passes? I am guessing 3...).

I also think that the kind of goals my team scores does not reflect the way we play. We have incredibly effective wingbacks, a great mobile AMC and DLF (again, Skrill Premier level) resulting in a stunnign amount of crosses, and shots and headers from these crosses, but we convert very very few of these huge chances. Instead we score a bunch of "goal of the year" type goals that I really don't see my players being capable of consistently pulling off. It is frustrating to watch my prolific striker miss 5 easy tap ins from crosses, but score a screamer from 30 meters (long shots rating is 5) and losing 2-1. And no, it is not 5 isolated games. More like 40 isolated games out of 54 (no, we did not lose all of them, but the conversion of big chances was extremely consistently low, while we scored a boatload of ridiculous goals).

My opponents scored 74 goals in 73 CCC's. 101 % conversion rate.

It is statistically impossible to convert more than 100% of anything, which leads me to believe that you are not comparing the correct numbers. I guess you are comparing the total goals over a season against the total CCS for and against. The problem here is that not every goal you score or concede is going to come from a CCC, which means that you are over-estimating on both counts. To get an accurate number you would need to look at each CCC individually to see if it is converted. I would imagine that this would reduce both numbers to something similar. Although if you are conceding a high number of goals from CCCs compared to the average I would suggest this is a tactical problem.

Anyway, this whole area is a statistical minefield. To make any meaningful conclusions you have to account for all of the independent variables in the system, and there are so many of them here I am not sure it is possible. You can make a working hypothesis and attempt to support it (as the OP did), but this is always going to be open to alternative interpretation. With CCC you have to remember that the game counts shots from the goal line, which are almost never going to be scored, or situations where the 'keeper has closed a striker down so fast it is at best a half chance. And with number of shots, you have to remember that not all shots are equal. Long shots have a lower conversion rate than ones inside the 6 yard box, and so the proportion of shot types in your total shots can drastically affect conversion rate. I mean this is just a few of the things you must consider.

It is statistically impossible to convert more than 100% of anything, which leads me to believe that you are not comparing the correct numbers. I guess you are comparing the total goals over a season against the total CCS for and against. The problem here is that not every goal you score or concede is going to come from a CCC, which means that you are over-estimating on both counts. To get an accurate number you would need to look at each CCC individually to see if it is converted. I would imagine that this would reduce both numbers to something similar. Although if you are conceding a high number of goals from CCCs compared to the average I would suggest this is a tactical problem.

Anyway, this whole area is a statistical minefield. To make any meaningful conclusions you have to account for all of the independent variables in the system, and there are so many of them here I am not sure it is possible. You can make a working hypothesis and attempt to support it (as the OP did), but this is always going to be open to alternative interpretation. With CCC you have to remember that the game counts shots from the goal line, which are almost never going to be scored, or situations where the 'keeper has closed a striker down so fast it is at best a half chance. And with number of shots, you have to remember that not all shots are equal. Long shots have a lower conversion rate than ones inside the 6 yard box, and so the proportion of shot types in your total shots can drastically affect conversion rate. I mean this is just a few of the things you must consider.

I did state in a previous post that it is indeed the total number of goals compared to the total number of CCC's, and that is obviously not correct. It does however paint a picture.

I also stated that I have watched many games for the full duration. And for this season my opponents needed radically fewer chances, shots, CCC's, what have you to score than we did. We did not concede a high number of goals from CCC's, the whole point is that we allowed very few chances against us, yet conceded an inordinately high number of goals.

When I create many great chances to score, and allow the opponent very few chances to score, I fail to see it as a tactical issue. Especially when their chances are not of a higher quality than ours. Which they were not.

This season I have kept 7 clean sheets in 9 games so far. Scored 19 goals and conceded 5 in two games. Undefeated. So is the issue gone? No. This season this same issue is now benefiting us. Because of some tactical tweaks resulting in us creating far less chances, we are now the "lucky" team, winning games we should not win, and escaping without conceding in games where the opponent clearly had more and better chances. So in my mind this current set of tactics are much less effective than the one I used last season, but now we are reaping the same rewards if you will, as our opponents did last season. Granted only 9 games into the season, so it will be interesting to see how it works over the full season. But the tendency is pretty clear to me. And it irks me that it apparently pays off to create fewer and smaller chances than the other team...

adjust your attitude to the game. Dont look at the statistic in the game. Many problems are not analyzable. If you think this is not tactics problem or over confidence problem or something you can control, I will just click continue to go on the game.

Before you get all het up about anything at all related to a ccc stat, you need to know what SI's definition of a ccc is. Then when you know that, you need to check to ensure that what they are saying it is, and what actually registers as a ccc is the same thing.

That should keep you going until you have lost the will to live.

The ccc stat is just inaccurate. It cannot be relied upon.

Just finish a game. 9CC are createed with 12 key passes from my team, but only 1 goal. about 6 CC are wide open 1 on 1 to gk, the match is draw.

I think if your strikers miss their first few clear chances, they are probably less likely to stick subsequent ones away due to confidence/nerves etc.

My entire point is that my opponents score too many goals in relation to their shots, shots on target, CCC's, half chances, crosses, and what I see happening on the pitch, compared to what my team does.

You could perhaps test this by taking over as manager of the next team you're due to play, and set them up in their usual formation (if you want to go deeper maybe even watch a couple of their previous matches). Now you'll be controlling both sides, there will be no 'AI' team. With your main team, play your normal game, with the other team, try and guess how the AI would play it out, then check the stats at the end of it.

Wouldn't be mega conclusive, but might help.

The ccc stat is just inaccurate. It cannot be relied upon.

And that's even worse than the game having unrealistic conversion ratios for CCCs, shots on goals etc...

What's the point of having a specific stat if the values are inaccurate or misleading?! Aren't those stats in there to help the human player to better understand the game and to give him a chance to improve his side's weaknesses?

If that's not the case, then do away with the "wrong" stats, because it's clear they're doing more harm than good.

Besides, in the past there was official word about "Superkeepers" being implemented to reduce the amount of goals, as a by-product of shambolic defending (ME flaw, not tactical imbalance). So maybe a bit of the conversion % mentioned by the OP is just a way for the game to keep the scorelines to football level instead of waterpolo?

Besides, in the past there was official word about "Superkeepers" being implemented to reduce the amount of goals, as a by-product of shambolic defending (ME flaw, not tactical imbalance). So maybe a bit of the conversion % mentioned by the OP is just a way for the game to keep the scorelines to football level instead of waterpolo?

and I presume you have some evidence to back that up.

As far as I'm aware superkeepers have never, ever been implemented, its a myth that has been around as long as FM.

If I remember rightly there was one patch on one version of FM where GKs were tweaked too much, it was a bug and fixed soon after.

and I presume you have some evidence to back that up.

As far as I'm aware superkeepers have never, ever been implemented, its a myth that has been around as long as FM.

If I remember rightly there was one patch on one version of FM where GKs were tweaked too much, it was a bug and fixed soon after.

I clearly remember SI staff confirming that was the case a couple of iterations ago. Sorry if I don't feel like searching through the board to find the exact quote, but you do seem to remember "superkeepers" were a thing too, although I wouldn't call it a "bug", more like "another case of overmedication" or "a quick-fix gone too far".

Defensive positioning has often been an issue, so if that one was too complicated to solve, the second best thing to do was limiting the strikers' conversion rate. Basically: if you can't stop chances from being created, just stop them being converted...

Superkeepers were never a thing.

It is definitely better to shoot as rarely as possible compared to shooting as much as possible. The conversion rate is quite low as it is in real life, but the ME is a machine.

So the team that has one shot at goal in the entire match has a very good chance scoring on it. This is true up to 5-6 shots - one of them is probably going to be a goal. Conversely, if you have 10 shots odds are you're scoring on maybe two of them. To score four goals you should have 20-25 or so shots. A team scoring four goals in a match happens maybe once in a league round, except when we speak of giants like Real Madrid and Barcelona against the mediocre opposition in Spain. However, even for them, five or more goals in a match are rare occasions. The clue is that when they do win 6-0 for instance this is not because in that match they shot 40 times rather than the usual 20. It is because they convert more of the shots for some reason.

So while the conversion rates on average are maybe 20% of the total amount of shots, in reality the ratio drops the more shots you have. The more you miss, the smaller the chance is that the next shot is going to be a goal. The expectation of scoring two goals every 10 shots that I showed above is simply put incorrect. In FM, at least, it is more like this:

First 10 shots: high chance of 1 goal, medium chance of 2, small chance of 3 or more

The next 10 shots: medium chance of 1 goal, small chance of 2 or more

The next 10 shots: small chance of 1 goal

...and so on...

There is a tactical solution to this; don't try to create as many chances as possible. Try to be the most efficient team, not the best one. You do this by employing more defensive mentalities (I use Control, but in my opinion it is much too frantic most of the time), by not using many attack duties up front, and by adding instructions such as Retain Possession, Lower Tempo, Work Ball into Box etc.

The problem in my mind is that my players opt to shoot in way too many situations where the chances of scoring are marginal, and this problem is scantily patched by using the above tactical options but this is mostly like painting a rusty iron fence - the default "wisdom" of the players in the game is the more shots the better. They live and breathe for the shot. They are devout members of the Desperate Attempt From Idiotic Angle And With No Clear View cult.

What needs to be done by SI is to swap this whole thing completely around. If I really wanted my players to shoot at will, to lunge forward and get those shots in no matter what, then I should work hard for it tactically. It should not be the default. I should not have to add special instructions in order to have my team actually recycle possession when a cross/through ball is not on (i.e Barcelona played Attacking, not Counter thank you). Manchester United under Ferguson moved the ball from side to side to look for that space too (just like Barca and all other huge teams have to do), but they were lightning quick when the opposition was not organized yet. That's because Manu played attacking football -without- any extra order to curb an in-born compulsion to get a shot off asap. In FM that extra order strangles the quick attacks (Retain Possession) too much.

Retain Possession should be an instruction exclusively meant to increase the possession percentage, making it useful for both those minnows who have a problem with clearing the ball away prematurely and for the team that is comfortably in the lead and just need time to pass.

The default behaviour of all tactics regardless of Mentality should be to recycle possession, to start the attack again when the assist is not on. The exception is possibly Defend and Contain, where losing possession when the team has pushed forward into attacking positions during a counter-attack is a big no-no so finishing all attacking attempts is a part of the defensive strategy.

If you really are desperate to get those shots in, you need a goal and can't dawdle on the ball any longer, then you should have to work hard to get the players to do this. Shoot At Will, Route One, Pump Ball into Box, Clear Ball to Flank and all those shouts are then necessary to create the currently default behaviour. (BTW I currently feel these instructions do nothing...)

That has to be one of the biggest pile of bollocks I've read on this forum Biggus

The % chance of a shot going in has no direct relationship with the number of shots you have at all.

That said you can draw a more general indirect comparison between the two. If you have less shots in a match chances are you are being more patient and therefore creating better chances when they do come, better chances = more chance of them going in.

Not read much of his posts before, then?

The superkeepers were in some FM2010 patch IIRC (if you had Casillas you didn't need a defense. He was like Neuer, times 5). And the corner bug. And a completely untested and broken Portuguese league.

Still it was one of the versions I played the most (after 2007).

There were no superkeepers.

There was a problem once where strikers were shooting too weakly/badly which was fixed pretty quickly, but everyone assumed that meant superkeepers.

That has to be one of the biggest pile of bollocks I've read on this forum Biggus

The % chance of a shot going in has no direct relationship with the number of shots you have at all.

That said you can draw a more general indirect comparison between the two. If you have less shots in a match chances are you are being more patient and therefore creating better chances when they do come, better chances = more chance of them going in.

No only a statistical relationship

I did state in a previous post that it is indeed the total number of goals compared to the total number of CCC's, and that is obviously not correct. It does however paint a picture.

No, it does not paint any kind of pictures. I may as well look at number of goals per million pound spent, or number of corners per foul. It is not a valid metric to define anything by, because you are including data that should be excluded. If you want to do something like this, shots/goal or shots/CCC are much better. This way you are not leaving anything out, or including things you should not, and you can actually draw conclusions about how you play.

For example, I keep stats for my current save because I am planning a thread analysing my tactic at the end of the season. In this, I have so far had 76 CCC and scored 69 goals. But this means nothing because I know, for example, in one game I scored 6 goals with 3 CCC, and in another scored 1 with 5 CCC. Comparing these two numbers tells me nothing about how I play. However, comparing the shots/goal stat for both myself and my opposition I have had 421 shots leading to 69 goals, the opposition have had 172 shots leading to 17 goals. That corresponds to 6 shots per goal and 10 shots per goal respectively. This actually does tell me that the chances I am creating are better than the ones the opposition are creating, since I know my players are not that much better than the others in this division.

What you need to remember is that you cannot take stats in isolation, and draw broad conclusions from them. You are making conclusions that are not supported by the statistics you report, and doing this you will not learn anything meaningful about how you are playing.

There were no superkeepers.

There was a problem once where strikers were shooting too weakly/badly which was fixed pretty quickly, but everyone assumed that meant superkeepers.

Dunno about that. >_>

I'm seeing the issue in my latest game as this;

We create wonderful clear chances (unmarked, in the box easy chances, or tap ins, or even one on ones) and they will be saved (fantastically I might add) by the keeper who had a storming game going full stretch to palm each and every shot away or around the post.

In fact, we score usually from a set piece (corner), a fluke (mishit cross), a rebound or one in ten of those clear as day open chances you'd expect to score 9 out of ten times from.

Admittedly I've only played four proper league games so far, but this has been the trend. The opposition meanwhile get 0-1 shots away, such is our dominance and since we usually net two (eventually) I'm a bit more safer from the dreaded 0-1 losses but I have seen it drag to a 1-1 which you just know is going to come eventually because you're doing so damn well but the ball won't get in the net.

Granted, it happens, but it does seem to happen with a bit too much regularity in this game.

Have you ever watched the game and seen what the CCC are? I've had players shoot from ridiculous angles and because it is uncontested, it is classified as a CCC. In reality, I would expect the goalkeeper to commit a howler for a goal to be scored.

I would ignore the CCC statistic and look at the actual shots during the game. It can make the game look dramatically different.