Not a Rant, But....

[PaulC]

Love it!

Indeed. You have to be over a certain age though, and probably grown up in the UK

[Vic Taylor]

Indeed. You have to be over a certain age though, and probably grown up in the UK

Nah, you don't have to be over a certain age. I'm not old enough to have watched it when it originally went on air, but I still love the show. Awesome!... but that's just the geek in me talking.

[Blaupunkt]

op is one of more active and better tactic tweaker in tactics forum.. so clearly ur clueless

what ? are you seriously suggesting the OP creates tactics or downloads someone else tactics then tweaks them to make them better.... or am i not understanding you correctly.

[akkm]

yeah david villa's goals/shots on target ratio is 43% in last 3.5 seasons in la liga, which is a remarkable 72% increase on the 1 in 4 goals/shots on target ratio being touted around on some of these forums as what players 'should' be scoring at or so statistical research indicates players should be scoring at...fascinating that stats some have being quoting as gospel are being exposed

[Almondo]

No you are wrong sorry.

I asked my girlfriend who, when she isn't advising the G7 on economics, is the world's leading expert on football. She says Villa is rubbish football and a cowardly thief with a skill for lock-picking and conjuring. Quite why Blake tolerated him is beyond me. Soolin, on the other hand, she is awesome with 1-on-1s.

Gotta love the reference.

[wwfan]

yeah david villa's goals/shots on target ratio is 43% in last 3.5 seasons in la liga, which is a remarkable 72% increase on the 1 in 4 goals/shots on target ratio being touted around on some of these forums as what players 'should' be scoring at or so statistical research indicates players should be scoring at...fascinating that stats some have being quoting as gospel are being exposed

Or not exposed.

The stat quoted was that goalkeepers saved 3 in 4 shots on target in general, not that any specific player only scored 1 in 4 shots on target. We've already accepted that a great goalscorer will be pushing 1 goal for every 4 shots, although somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 is more likely. Most forwards playing at their level score roughly 1 in 6 shots.

Given that Villa scores once every 4.76 shots on goal, how is this challenging what we already know?

Incidentally, my 1st choice FC has scored 27 goals in 63 shots on target/137 shots, a scoring ratio of 42%/20%, which isn't far off the outstanding Mr Villa.

The FC I bought mid-season to act as a late match goal poacher who uses his fantastic pace to stretch the opposition when they are pushing for a goal has scored 8 in 13/24, which is a 62%/33% ratio, most of which being one on ones. The former is very close to Jermaine Defoe's goals/shot on target career ratio, the latter what I'd expect for a quality player I'm specifically using to break the offside trap against a tired defence.

I score 30% of my shots on target and 13% of overall shots, both of which are a few percentage points above what I'd expect for an average team for the level. I should therefore be doing well. Surprisingly, I am 1st.

[akkm]

Or not exposed.

The stat quoted was that goalkeepers saved 3 in 4 shots on target in general, not that any specific player only scored 1 in 4 shots on target. We've already accepted that a great goalscorer will be pushing 1 goal for every 4 shots, although somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 is more likely. Most forwards playing at their level score roughly 1 in 6 shots.

Given that Villa scores once every 4.76 shots on goal, how is this challenging what we already know?

Incidentally, my 1st choice FC has scored 27 goals in 63 shots on target/137 shots, a scoring ratio of 42%/20%, which isn't far off the outstanding Mr Villa.

The FC I bought mid-season to act as a late match goal poacher who uses his fantastic pace to stretch the opposition when they are pushing for a goal has scored 8 in 13/24, which is a 62%/33% ratio, most of which being one on ones. The former is very close to Jermaine Defoe's goals/shot on target career ratio, the latter what I'd expect for a quality player I'm specifically using to break the offside trap against a tired defence.

I score 30% of my shots on target and 13% of overall shots, both of which are a few percentage points above what I'd expect for an average team for the level. I should therefore be doing well. Surprisingly, I am 1st.

.......or exposed...in another thread you posted

"Does anyone read what I write? Goals per shot on target are not the same as goals per shot. If I'm talking about goals per shot you can't disprove it with goals per shot on target. Of course the latter is going to have a higher conversion ratio.

Basic, pretty much undisputed facts about football scoring ratios.

1 goal per 10 shots

1 goal per 4 shots on target"

in fairness you did say good goalscorers would probably better those but villa's scoring rate of 1 goal for every 2.3 shots on goal is significantly better than your stats and i know you have issues with anything which significantly deviates from the statistical evidence of pollard (i think) which you like to quote so much. real world evidence on david villa is that he significantly differs from your stats...just like people had said he would but you thought it was perception bias on their part...evidently, there was no perception bias on their part as they were right...accept the reality for what it is.

for the purposes of FM and ME, the paper you love so much (and other stats) absolutely has its merits/is very useful in terms of 'ballparking' the stats for FM but you need to think outside the box sometimes as football is not a science...i mean one could have analysed every stat re messi but who would have predicted him scoring the header he did in champs league final approaching from angle he did at his height facing 2 6foot+ defenders...his genius/improvisation/instinct is immeasurable...thankfully.

your work/SI work on ME is truly fantastic in getting it to what it is (or at least was in 10.1 ) - so don't take it personally or get so defensive that it becomes folly on your part - but its current iteration (in 10.2) can be improved upon and sticking steadfastly with almost blind faith to certain parameters as defined in a paper on football won't improve things and that's what everyone ultimately wants to get to...as i said ME from 10.1 didn't need much tweaking but the nature of things is the game will evolve and try to be improved upon...and i have no doubt it will improve and i'm sure you will contribute to this so relax.

good work on topping the league tho...what team are you playing with ?

[The Laughing Man]

There is a slight issue with no-angled one on ones. They are too easy to create and too easily saved. However, working the angles around the box should see a lot of good chances created and taken.

You'll see one on ones saved/missed if the player has no angle for the shot and has the keeper directly in front of him or has run a distance with the ball. Although they may look like good chances, you need to perceive them as being half or normal chances. The one on ones scored will be when the player has a slight angle to the goal and can hit it 1st or 2nd touch.

i have felt post patch that too many chances are getting "passed" to the goal keeper. I have even seen cases where the ball drilled across the box and the striker is left with a theoretical tap in, yet he still pass to keeper.

I am actually doing well, i won the first ten games of the new season after 10.2 was installed. The opposition seem to be scoring less easily so i think the patch cut out some of the silly goals. However despite the positives I am disappointed about what appear to be unrealistic misses from the chances i am creating.

I have seen you referring to working the angles several times in the past. What might one to do to encourage your team to "work the angles"?

[Blaupunkt]

akkm i have edited your post to this bit purely beacuse this is my main focus of this post....

you said..

in fairness you did say good goalscorers would probably better those but villa's scoring rate of 1 goal for every 2.3 shots on goal is significantly better than your stats and i know you have issues with anything which significantly deviates from the statistical evidence of pollard (i think) which you like to quote so much. real world evidence on david villa is that he significantly differs from your stats...just like people had said he would but you thought it was perception bias on their part...evidently, there was no perception bias on their part as they were right...accept the reality for what it is.

how exactly have wwfan's stats been proved wrong ? are you refering to your other post in this thread that which i will also quote for clarification..

Originally Posted by akkm

an independent study by sky sports research department ( i thankfully have a contact there) commissioned to go through david villa la liga matches last 3 full seasons and start of this season has shown david villa has had 15 1on1s and scored 12 in that time...80% conversion rate. He hit the post with one, keeper saved another and keeper stopped villa's attempt to go around him for the other.

This flies in the face of your stats and shows your classification of 'perception bias' of villa scoring 'too high a rate of 1on1' to be pitiful

keeper has always advantage tho...right....: )....perception bias on your part perhaps......no, not perhaps, DEFINITELY perception bias on your part

is this the "report" that you are basing your "facts" from ? if not can you please tell me where you are getting this info from as i seemed to have missed it and would like to see it for my self.

thanks

[akkm]

no worries blaupunkt...the other post was re 1on1s and they are not "facts" but actual facts....the footage is actually there for anyone to see...it happened in real life in la liga not on FM or any virtual world....real life happenings with real life footage to be seen... that usually constitutes something factual...would you not agree

check out the link djwilko6 posted which i have seen before re david villa and shots on target...the 'shots on goal' i refer to re villa at ratio of 1:2.3 is of course 'shots on target'...just so as to be clear. Also only la liga stats for last 3.5 seasons used

big difference between 1:2.3 and 1:4

[Blaupunkt]

hmm ok, but you cannot just dismiss the total shots figure to suit an argument of player X whoever that player maybe to try and make out the scoring ratios in FM are totally wrong, surely you have to take into account how many shots a player has whether he scores, misses the target or it gets saved.

if you look at his current stats for 09/10 he has played he has had a total at 101 shots, hitting the target 51 times and scoring 25 goals, so he is scoring with 24.75% of his total shots.

if you take last season 08/09 he had 221 shots, 116 on target and scored a total of 49 goals, which works out at 22.17% of shots resulting in goals for the season.

and i will do 1 more, 07/08 season, total shots 105, shots on target 56, goals scored 22, which gives 20.95% of total shots being scored.

So these facts that have been posted simply prove the FM scoring ratios are not that far out if at all. wwfan posted some stats from his own current game and are very similar to these so i really dont see what the problem is.

i dont believe you can just cherry pick the stat(s) you (i dont mean you personally) want to try and prove an argument, if you do this it is bound to give a false impression and can make something seem better or worse than than it possibly is, you have to take the stats as a whole which in this case is looking at the total shots and not just the shots on target and the total goals figure.

edited to say i was using the stats provided from >>here<< regarding david villa.

[wwfan]

The same site also indicates that goalkeepers tend to have save ratios between 66 and 81%. And that shots per goal ratios range from 6-14%. Strange that.

[iamjerome]

so much use of statistics poorly in this thread :cry:

i don't really actually disagree with much wwfan's saying in this thread but we (including his opposition) all need to respect that statistics only offer so much evidence when you're in as subjective a field as football is. analysis is very difficult and prone to bias otherwise.

although one thing i will add that the brazilian ronaldo at has no point required more than 2 1on1's (even in his fat stage of recent years) to score. world class is world class.

[lawd]

I think the thing at the moment in my save, which is taking a little of the fun and replacing it with annoyance, is how I tend to concede from the first CCC my opponent makes, and I tend to have to make 3 CCC or above 5 attempts to get my first goal, now this has happened in the last 4 games but I presume its just a phase, still bit annoying.

I think what perhaps one 'problem' is, in regard to the ME and CCC as has been said for a few FM's, the sheer amount of 1 on 1's and CCC we see the ME create for or against us is probably not too realistic.

[Blaupunkt]

so much use of statistics poorly in this thread :cry:

i don't really actually disagree with much wwfan's saying in this thread but we (including his opposition) all need to respect that statistics only offer so much evidence when you're in as subjective a field as football is. analysis is very difficult and prone to bias otherwise.

although one thing i will add that the brazilian ronaldo at has no point required more than 2 1on1's (even in his fat stage of recent years) to score. world class is world class.

so if you don't want to use proven/real statistics to give you a rule/guide to go by what do you suggest is used in its place, at the moment all anyone has come up with is vague guess work.

just like you saying Ronaldo did not require more than 2 1v1 chances to score,which is the same as saying he scored 1 in 2 1v1 chances, this is pure speculation on your part and what you believe to be true. if you can prove this is true then by my guest or if you know of a better way for scoring ratios etc to be worked out then again why not say something?

[djwilko6]

The links to Villa's stats were posted with the intention of showing that even one of the best finishers in the world still doesnt score with 50% of his shots at goal.

Even if he did, that would just be an example of one player out of tens of thousands in the world.

[akkm]

hmm ok, but you cannot just dismiss the total shots figure to suit an argument of player X whoever that player maybe to try and make out the scoring ratios in FM are totally wrong, surely you have to take into account how many shots a player has whether he scores, misses the target or it gets saved.

if you look at his current stats for 09/10 he has played he has had a total at 101 shots, hitting the target 51 times and scoring 25 goals, so he is scoring with 24.75% of his total shots.

if you take last season 08/09 he had 221 shots, 116 on target and scored a total of 49 goals, which works out at 22.17% of shots resulting in goals for the season.

and i will do 1 more, 07/08 season, total shots 105, shots on target 56, goals scored 22, which gives 20.95% of total shots being scored.

So these facts that have been posted simply prove the FM scoring ratios are not that far out if at all. wwfan posted some stats from his own current game and are very similar to these so i really dont see what the problem is.

i dont believe you can just cherry pick the stat(s) you (i dont mean you personally) want to try and prove an argument, if you do this it is bound to give a false impression and can make something seem better or worse than than it possibly is, you have to take the stats as a whole which in this case is looking at the total shots and not just the shots on target and the total goals figure.

edited to say i was using the stats provided from >>here<< regarding david villa.

blaupunkt..you yourself posted attached (in quotes) in the superkeeper thread which was closed as it got outta control...

"I have to LOL at this thread and some of the people posting in it.

wwfan has provided an explanation of what the problem is and why its happening which if fair enough IMO, it might not be ideal and in sure everyone would like it fixing!

He then goes on to provide "real world stats" to back up other parts of his argument which then get thrown back in his face by people with them choosing to believe what they imagine to be true rather than anything that is factual.

People might claim to watching a lot of football but how much of this is live and how much just the highlights, if you watch a lot of highlights then you will not see as many missed chances as there might have been in game XYZ, also just picking out 1 or 2 games where a lot of a certain type of chance was created and/or scored is not conclusive proof, because in the next 10 games player X no matter what level he is playing at might miss all those types of chances IF any where even created and score with a header or 3yrd tap in.

just because YOU believe a player would score X amount of chances does not mean he does or will.

To all those people who keep saying wwfan's stats are wrong, what you need to do is go and find real evidenced of this, real life stats, not ones you imagine to be true because you have seen player X score XYZ on the TV, then come back here with your proof and post your findings, also remember to include any links to any websites you used and any names of books and who wrote them .

IF you can do this then your arguments might hold more weight and people like wwfan and SI will look into these stats and take your arguments more seriously, im also quite sure that SI will take make any changes they need to based on the new evidence you have provided. "

firstly, i agree with you that you cannot make judgement calls from highlights packages only full matches.

secondly, i wasn't trying to prove scoring ratios in FM are totally wrong, far from it... i already said wwfan stats ballparking for FM are eminently useful for the game (and on average i'd have no real problem with them...seem reasonable without compiling strict statistical evidence myself) but it was re real world stats i am on about and in other thread wwfan said he had issues with significant deviations from his stats and villa provides significant improvements on these stats (goals/shots on target of 1:2.3 and overall goals/shots of better than 1:5 - as per your calcs above for shots - is a lot better than the 1:4 and 1:10 respectively that wwfan provides) and your post from other thread asked for proof rather than perspective and the proof is there re villa (and other post was on various stats not purely 1on1s) ...no cherry picking so real world evidence provides significant differences and need to be accepted not rejected cos they do not reconcile with the pollard study. I am not prone to perception bias at all and you asked for stats to back up villa and so i provided them...as i said i watch matches clinically and what happens happens, it it what it is...i agree many people can throw out off the wall figures making assumptions about what they see but i am not one of them...i know what i see.

i have done a thesis myself and used econometric/applied maths so i absolutely appreciate the value of empirical evidence/statistics but i also added in this thread that football is not a science so while stats are very useful they are not the be all and end all

[tingting]

just like you saying Ronaldo did not require more than 2 1v1 chances to score,which is the same as saying he scored 1 in 2 1v1 chances, this is pure speculation on your part and what you believe to be true. if you can prove this is true then by my guest or if you know of a better way for scoring ratios etc to be worked out then again why not say something?

Everything is speculation. Every study (even if it was specifically done for 1v1 which i am yet to see) comes up with a number or a range based on a small sample collected. Saying that a particular player does indeed convert based on that number/range is speculation. If the study in question is done regarding a particular player and that findings are applied to the player in question, in that case it wouldn't be speculation.

so if you don't want to use proven/real statistics to give you a rule/guide to go by what do you suggest is used in its place, at the moment all anyone has come up with is vague guess work.

Then what are the attributes for??? As i said in another thread if you are going to temper the performance of a player in fm based on real life stats then it would be better if real life stats are displayed on the profile screen rather than attributes.

You have a striker whose finishing, composure, anticipation, technique, flair ratings are high (never mind specific PPMs) but if still fails to consistently score against a keeper whose reflexes, 1v1s, anticipation, agility and position are poor then there is something wrong.

You have a player whose positioning, anticipation, pace, determination, aggression, work rate, stamina and marking and tackling ratings are pretty high, but time and again he makes stupid mistakes against an attacker whose strength, off the ball, first touch, technique and anticipation ratings are pretty low...then there is some problem.

If you combine all this and his morale, ability to handle pressure, fatigue, consistency, pitch status, ability to handle himself in a big game....then you might get a more realistic gameplay.

Why should i ditch a player whose most important attributes for that particular position is just two or three points less than another player who will demand more wages and is more expensive to buy if he is going to provide me with just a slight improvement in performance? (People might say they dont care...but that will be a silly reply)

You cannot use real life stats and generalize it for all the players in the game. If you do want to use real life stats, then code in the real life stats of each and every player in the game and then make him perform according to it. Then you might indeed have a more realistic gameplay.

[Blaupunkt]

blaupunkt.. <snip>

firstly, i agree with you that you cannot make judgement calls from highlights packages only full matches.

secondly, i wasn't trying to prove scoring ratios in FM are totally wrong, far from it... i already said wwfan stats ballparking for FM are eminently useful for the game (and on average i'd have no real problem with them...seem reasonable without compiling strict statistical evidence myself) but it was re real world stats i am on about and in other thread wwfan said he had issues with significant deviations from his stats and villa provides significant improvements on these stats (goals/shots on target of 1:2.3 and overall goals/shots of better than 1:5 - as per your calcs above for shots - is a lot better than the 1:4 and 1:10 respectively that wwfan provides) and your post from other thread asked for proof rather than perspective and the proof is there re villa (and other post was on various stats not purely 1on1s) ...no cherry picking so real world evidence provides significant differences and need to be accepted not rejected cos they do not reconcile with the pollard study. I am not prone to perception bias at all and you asked for stats to back up villa and so i provided them...as i said i watch matches clinically and what happens happens, it it what it is...i agree many people can throw out off the wall figures making assumptions about what they see but i am not one of them...i know what i see.

i have done a thesis myself and used econometric/applied maths so i absolutely appreciate the value of empirical evidence/statistics but i also added in this thread that football is not a science so while stats are very useful they are not the be all and end all

you provided stats yes but im sorry to say the stats you provided say David Villa scores between 20.95% and 24.75% of his total shots on target at very very best he is scoring no more than 1 in 4 shots infact it is under this but i cannot be bothered to work it out as people will still argue it is wrong, but seeing as this season still has a long way to go you could argue that this years stat will drop slightly.

i said about cherry picking stats as some people dont seem to want to acknowledge any shots that were blocked or missed the target, they are only interested in shots that were on target and were either scored or saved.

going on the stats you provided if Villa had 100 shots he would score under a quarter of them (less than 25 for the hard of thinking) so i dont know where you are coming from when you say "so real world evidence provides significant differences" the stats wwfan provided in this thread show a similar ratio for some of his players.

tingting i really cannot be bothered, i think you would argue night is day just to "be different" i really dont know if you understand the game and how it works.

Why should i ditch a player whose most important attributes for that particular position is just two or three points less than another player who will demand more wages and is more expensive to buy if he is going to provide me with just a slight improvement in performance?

you dont have to its as simple as that, i have brought in players in this game whos stats were better than the player they were replacing and they played worse, you do not need a team of super starts or the world 11 or whatever to do well and win leagues, champion leagues etc.

[tingting]

tingting i really cannot be bothered, i think you would argue night is day just to "be different" i really dont know if you understand the game and how it works.

Ahh i am not that much of a fool to argue that night is day...i know that sun rises during the night and it gets all dark during the day:rolleyes: Regarding my understanding of the game..do you mean to say that you have doubts whether i can understand the football manager game (I can cheerfully say that i dont because there is something really funny going on in the game) or do you mean to say that you have doubts whether i understand the actual football game (I had thought that the performances of players depend on their ability rather than a study done by some arm chair researcher. I thought a better striker scored more goals that an average or a poor striker. Maybe i really dont understand the game...maybe they do indeed depend on the stats from previous seasons:rolleyes:)

Maybe you need to keep a pen and paper in front of you to keep track of what is being said in the forums. A striker who scores 25 goals from 51 shots on target converts "between 20.95% and 24.75% of his total shots on target"???? Boy...even i am not that poor in math

[Blaupunkt]

Ahh i am not that much of a fool to argue that night is day...i know that sun rises during the night and it gets all dark during the day:rolleyes: Regarding my understanding of the game..do you mean to say that you have doubts whether i can understand the football manager game (I can cheerfully say that i dont because there is something really funny going on in the game) or do you mean to say that you have doubts whether i understand the actual football game (I had thought that the performances of players depend on their ability rather than a study done by some arm chair researcher. I thought a better striker scored more goals that an average or a poor striker. Maybe i really dont understand the game...maybe they do indeed depend on the stats from previous seasons:rolleyes:)

Maybe you need to keep a pen and paper in front of you to keep track of what is being said in the forums. A striker who scores 25 goals from 51 shots on target converts "between 20.95% and 24.75% of his total shots on target"???? Boy...even i am not that poor in math

LOL you clearly cannot read or do not understand what you are reading, the bit you made bold.. that percentage is taken form his TOTAL SHOTS not just shots on target! i think i will leave it there.

[tingting]

LOL you clearly cannot read or do not understand what you are reading, the bit you made bold.. that percentage is taken form his TOTAL SHOTS not just shots on target! i think i will leave it there.

Ok..your math is good but there is some problem with English?? You take the percentage of his total shots and say that its his shot on target??The bold part is i think from you quote above...maybe you need to read harder or understand harder:rolleyes: Let us call it quits...dont want to close another thread on a valid point because of some childishness going on in the forum

[Blaupunkt]

your just being pedantic, as i said you argue for the sake of it.

[tak]

"You have a striker whose finishing, composure, anticipation, technique, flair ratings are high (never mind specific PPMs) but if still fails to consistently score against a keeper whose reflexes, 1v1s, anticipation, agility and position are poor then there is something wrong."

That's a brilliant sentence. Have attributes anything to do with our game?

And because another thread we were reading was brutally closed, I will repeat it here: Those great statisticians that wwfan reads have attempted to do something similar to what is happening to basketball for many years. Only thing is, basketball is a lot simpler to mathematicise. Thus, they created ratios that fail to reflect reality. No wonder then we are forced to accept something that our experience rules out...

[tingting]

your just being pedantic, as i said you argue for the sake of it.

You wrote lot about stats. Someone comes with a stat showing your point to be wrong then you try to put it in your way by bringing up a percentage and say it is his shots on target....someone else points out that your conclusion may be wrong and you call him pedantic??? What should i say...yes you are right even when you are clearly wrong???

And yeah i love to argue...it helps with my digestion:D

[djwilko6]

Lets not get personal or this thread will be closed too.

[wwfan]

To be honest, I've yet to see any evidence at all that undermines the original stats I posted.

Using the ESPN Soccer Stats site as a contemporary reference, we can see:

Keepers save between 4 in 5 to 2 in 3 shots they face (80-66%). My original claim was 3 in 4, which sits nicely in the middle of this range.

Teams score between 6-14% of their total shots at goal. My original claim was 10%, which sits nicely in the middle of this range.

Great forwards score between 1 in 4 to 1 in 5 of their shots (25-20%). Less good forwards score at 1 in 5 to 1 in 6 of their shots (20%-16%). I've never claimed otherwise.

Given that the ESPN site backs up everything I've claimed thus far, and the only claim I've made in which I've posted a statistical range is one on ones, why is it being questioned as being anywhere from 17% to 47% inaccurate? We can already see that a one on one offers any forward a 8-9% better chance of converting than any 'generalised' shot does. The only shot bar a penalty that has a better chance of conversion is the tap in from within 6 yards.

While I'd be happy to accept an error range along the lines of the above in relation to the claim, I cannot accept wild claims based on largely TV limited experiences of certain forwards. Most of the visual evidence posted provides examples of forwards finishing one on ones when they are in yards of space. What about the one on ones when they have much less time, or made a bad first touch? Do they not count? Are one on ones only one on ones when the player has controlled his first touch perfectly and wrong-footed the keeper with it? If so, I'm happy to accept a much higher conversion percentage.

However, if a one on one is any chance in which the forward gets between the defence and the goalkeeper, which is how I believe they are defined, then I still have no doubt that 33% is a good conversion ratio. Given that many of the FM one on ones are from 22 yards out, whereas the ones with visual evidence are usually 6-12 yards out, I posit that the ones in FM are generally harder (1 in 5) whereas the ones posted for illustration easier (1 in 2 or better). Therefore, I'm still waiting for any evidence that 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 are hugely flawed stats when considering the general nature of one on ones. I'd be happy to see the Sky Sports figures on David Villa and accept them as disproving my own, but I'd need to know if every chance in which he got between the defence and keeper over those three seasons was considered, or only the ones in which he was several yards clear.

[Blaupunkt]

You wrote lot about stats. Someone comes with a stat showing your point to be wrong then you try to put it in your way by bringing up a percentage and say it is his shots on target....someone else points out that your conclusion may be wrong and you call him pedantic??? What should i say...yes you are right even when you are clearly wrong???

And yeah i love to argue...it helps with my digestion:D

the point is i used his own stats to prove the goals scored from total shots is not as high as some claim, that david villa is not a goal scoring god that scores every 1 in 2 chances he gets, while i might have missed placed a comer or typed out 1 wrong word if you had read my previous post which i am sure you did, then you can quite clearly see what i am saying and understand the points being made in both posts.

because you choose to totally dismiss everything else i have posted and only focus on that 1 missed placed word, proves to me at least that all you want to do is troll the forums and have nothing constructive to try and say either for or against what the whole thread is about.

if my stats are wrong or my math is wrong and david villa does in fact score more than 20.95% to 24.75% of his total shots then prove it and show me.

[likesiamesefish]

laughing out loud

[tingting]

the point is i used his own stats to prove the goals scored from total shots is not as high as some claim, that david villa is not a goal scoring god that scores every 1 in 2 chances he gets, while i might have missed placed a comer or typed out 1 wrong word if you had read my previous post which i am sure you did, then you can quite clearly see what i am saying and understand the points being made in both posts.

because you choose to totally dismiss everything else i have posted and only focus on that 1 missed placed word, proves to me at least that all you want to do is troll the forums and have nothing constructive to try and say either for or against what the whole thread is about.

if my stats are wrong or my math is wrong and david villa does in fact score more than 20.95% to 24.75% of his total shots then prove it and show me.

Ok...i dont want the mods to close this thread so let me say a couple of things and i will shut up no matter what you say about me. a) Did i ever say that Villa scores more than 20-25% of his total shots? (Even with my "very limited" understanding i know that not all shots are clear of any pressure from the defenders and just 10 yards from the goal) b) In the other thread wwfan said that strikers score 1 goal from every 10 shots and 1 goal from every 4 shots on goal.

c) If you read akkm's post clearly he says "(goals/shots on target of 1:2.3 and overall goals/shots of better than 1:5 - as per your calcs above for shots - is a lot better than the 1:4 and 1:10 respectively that wwfan provides)" So according to his stats...he says that this proves that wwfans stats are wrong.

d) then you went on to say "im sorry to say the stats you provided say David Villa scores between 20.95% and 24.75% of his total shots on target"...i hope that now you have understood enough to work out what went wrong here???it was not just a comma...the whole point of your sentence changes..

You had asked for what else the game should use as a guide and i think i gave a perfectly logical reply. Did it get to you that there was another way other than stats with which the game could be based on???I wouldnt have really bothered with your mistake in the earlier post (since someone else would have pointed it out) if not for you wearing your "holier than thou" coat and giving out that sarcastic reply and then you go on to call me a pedantic and a troll?? Dont let the stats blind you so much that you cannot read what is being written if it went against your viewpoint.

[DamonKillian]

Seems anyone who points out a problem with FM2010 gets hounded out.

Its a great game but there are also problems, im embarassed for the people who seemingly, would rather fall on their own sword than accept this.

[tak]

If the game is going to be based on basketball type stats, I have a very important question:

Will all strikers score 15% of their chances (or whatever the percentage is) or are we going to have, let's say, five categories of strikers

- very poor (scoring 11%)

- poor (scoring 14%)

- OK (16%)

- good (17%)

- very good (17.5%)

Furthermore, will the statistic approach be followed in more positions? Like MCs:

- poor (passing accurately 1 out of 5)

- good...

etc.

What do you think is the best approach?

[cf]

How does the match engine work? Does it try to generate it's own stats that roughly replicate real life or is it driven by stats from real life?

[tingting]

How does the match engine work? Does it try to generate it's own stats that roughly replicate real life or is it driven by stats from real life?

Thats what i had asked earlier and received no reply...how exactly does it work??

[tak]

If it generates its own stats, I would be very curious to find how. I think the way it works now is that they try during testing to replicate real life stats.

However, this method could lead to serious problems, if it is not detailed enough.

Let me give you an example. If some book has shown that all the strikers in the world shoot on average one in seven shots on target and the test produces the same result, the developer will be inclined to conclude it passed. However, the distribution will be completely unkown. Thus you might see good strikers missing good chances, just because their stats have to average certain targets.

There is a sense of predeterminism (if I may) that is not right by any logic.

[CPS]

Just wanted to share some pertinent stats from the first season I've finished in 10.2. Bear in mind this is with a team call Angelholm in the 2nd tier of Swedish football so quite a low standard. My teams figures may look poor but we did finish 2nd and win promotion to the Swedish Premier.

Goals scored

Angelholm - 55 in 31 games for an average of 1.77 goals per game

Opposition - 47 in 31 games for an average of 1.52 goals per game

Clear Cut Chances

Angelholm - 65 in 31 games for an average of 2.10 per game

Opposition - 77 in 31 games for an average of 2.48 per game

Shots on Target

Angelholm - 153 in 31 games for an average of 4.94 per game

Opposition - 138 in 31 games for an average of 4.45 per game

Angelholm's scored a goal every 2.78 shots on target

Opposition scored a goal every 2.94 shots on target

Angelholm striker stats

1st choice (Finishing 15, Composure 15, Off the Ball 12, Anticipation 11) - 21 goals in 31 starts with a 7.25 average rating. He had 70 goal attempts all season of which 44 were on target.

He scored a goal every 3.33 attempts. A goal was scored every 2.095 attempts on target.

2nd choice (Finishing 9, Composure 11, Off the Ball 11, Anticipation 10) - 12 goals in 27 starts and 4 sub appearances with a 7.16 average rating. He had 50 goal attempts all season of which 28 were on target.

He scored a goal every 4.16 attempts. A goal was scored every 2.33 attempts on target.

3rd choice (Finishing 11, Composure 6, Off the Ball 8, Anticipation 8) - 1 goal in 6 starts and 10 sub appearances with a 6.59 average rating. He had 19 goal attempts all season of which 10 were on target.

He scored a goal every 19 attempts. A goal was scored every 10 attempts on target.

Goalkeeper stats

Angelholm - My GK's highest match rating was 7.4. He managed a 7+ rating 5 times in 31 games. He did not get a man of the match award.

Opposition - An opposition's GK's highest match rating was 7.9. They managed a 7+ rating 7 times in 31 games. They got a man of the match award twice.

[djwilko6]

Those stats look ok to me CPS, except maybe the 3rd choice striker. Congrats on finishing second aswell.

[CPS]

Those stats look ok to me CPS, except maybe the 3rd choice striker. Congrats on finishing second aswell.

Thanks, tbf that 3rd choice striker is a very poor player + his morale was never that high as he wasn't getting any kind of run in the team. Just noticed that my box to box midfielder scored 8 goals from 14 shots on target so that's another very decent ratio.

I've noticed that people seem to suggest that GK's make great save after great save no matter how good their stats are - believe me, from the evidence of the season I've just played that is just not the case. I really didn't see too many of these 'no angle' 1 on 1's that people appear to be having trouble with. I can certainly remember at least 5 being scored and maybe 2 or 3 being hit down the keepers throat - the 3rd choice striker also managed to almost hit the corner flag with one, a la Geoff Thomas