Superkeeper is really disrespectful to FM players

[anagain]

Just let me state this is an honest question and not meant as antagonistic or me looking for an argument. Another user posted a pkm where he created 12 clear cut chances. 9 of them involved a player getting in behind the defense with a full view of the goal that looked like this

Seeing this do you understand where those who experience it are coming from? Saying it's your tactics without knowing what the user is actually seeing is the worst response on these forums. How can someone look at this and figure out what they are doing wrong? Can you honestly say that a real life team who created these scenarios would be viewed as doing something wrong?

Basically if the above screenshots represent what the average 'superkeeper' complainant is seeing then from a real world perspective they aren't the ones doing something wrong. Have your tactics ever created 9 chances like this in a single match?

If a user creates 9 chances like this across say 3 or 4 matches and sees a higher conversion rate, then I can fully understand why he would instinctively dismiss the complaints as rants. But that doesn't necessarily mean he is 'doing something right' and the complainant is 'doing something wrong'.

I never said it's your tactics. I agree that there are too many instances of people saying that, but if it has got to the stage where we can't suggest that people need to look at what they are doing wrong (which could be classed as a roundabout way of saying 'it's your tactics), then there's something else that is wrong.

As for your examples, though I don't think 4 is an adequate sample number to ascertain that there is a keeper problem, well then I think wwfan has provided the answers before:

1. Almost straight on to keeper, which wwfan has said may be a slight problem in this patch.

2. Not straight on to keeper, but the player just messed up and, thus, didn't score. It happens.

3. Player scores from nearly straight on with keeper. There is a chance to score and the player has done so. Wwfan mentioned the chance in another thread. I think he said as little as 20%, calculated after extensive studies.

4. A perfectly straight 1 on 1 that the keeper saved. May have been influenced by a slight bug, but may just be an effect of the chance the keeper has to score.

If you can provide more examples of misses then I might think there's a serious problem, but judging by wwfans stats in another thread 25% success is about right. Next time he may score 50%. If he hadn't dribbled too far round the keeper in 2 then he may have made that 50%.

Okay you provided more, but I thought they were just the locations for the screens shown so I neglected to include them. The miss percentage goes up with them included but so do does the chance of a miss if there are players near the shooter or as the angle narrows. I still don't think this is enough examples to show a problem.

[mdbussen]

I don't think the issue is so much "superkeepers" as it is strikers hitting the ball right at the keeper on 3 out of every 4 chances. It really is getting fairly ridiculous.

[anagain]

I would just like to spell out the alternative.

If all these CCCs should be scored then we would have rugby scores in every game. I think I'd prefer a slightly harder chance to score...should that be the case. Nothing has been proven.

[headhunter_uni23]

Just lost an away game 3-1 with their keeper having a rating of 9.1. We shot 11 times, 9 times on target, 2 off target (we had a wonderful attack, maginicent strikes but their keeper saved crazy stuff), they've shot 11 times as well but only 5 on target, so they have above 50% of success. The superkeeper happens every 2 or 3 games. STOP THAT NOW!!!!

[isuckatfm]

I never said it's your tactics. I agree that there are too many instances of people saying that, but if it has got to the stage where we can't suggest that people need to look at what they are doing wrong (which could be classed as a roundabout way of saying 'it's your tactics), then there's something else that is wrong.

As for your examples, though I don't think 4 is an adequate sample number to ascertain that there is a keeper problem, well then I think wwfan has provided the answers before:

1. Almost straight on to keeper, which wwfan has said may be a slight problem in this patch.

2. Not straight on to keeper, but the player just messed up and, thus, didn't score. It happens.

3. Player scores from nearly straight on with keeper. There is a chance to score and the player has done so. Wwfan mentioned the chance in another thread. I think he said as little as 20%, calculated after extensive studies.

4. A perfectly straight 1 on 1 that the keeper saved. May have been influenced by a slight bug, but may just be an effect of the chance the keeper has to score.

If you can provide more examples of misses then I'll think there's a serious problem, but judging by wwfans stats in another thread 25% success is about right. Next time he may score 50%. If he hadn't dribbled too far round the keeper in 2 then he may have made that 50%.

You seem to have missed my point completely.

I wasn't just talking about these examples in of themselves. I wasn't looking for the individual moments being refuted with the 'it happens' statement. What I am asking is that if these are the types of chances users are creating consistently then can you understand why they would complain about superkeepers? Can you understand why it causes frustration for them when someone posts

If you are having trouble scoring then you need to look at what you are doing wrong.

I'm not saying that every user who complains about this is seeing exactly the type of chances shown, but far too many assumptions are made by posters on both sides of this argument (although I do subscribe to the concept that the onus is on the complainant). Again I don't disagree with the opening part of your post about suggesting the user input variables may be part of the problem, but this seems to be the inherent assumption without ever actually seeing what the user is seeing. The underlying premise is always 'it's not happening to me so it must be the user's fault' without any true knowledge of what happens in the user in question's matches.

And this leads us to the second level of frustration. If it is indeed the user's fault because of subtle elements of the match engine with respect to all of the variables involved, how exactly is he supposed to determine this based on seeing his attackers fluff chances like these on a regular basis? Surely the point of tactics is to create good chances and deny the opposition?

---------

If the bolded part in your quote is referring to the last part of my post, I wasn't getting at statistical significance. I was highlighting the difference on viewpoints and how it can occur based conversion rates relative to frequency of chance creation. If it relates to the shown 4 images, then click on the links underneath as there were 5 others in the same match that would be considered pretty good chances in real life terms.

In relation to wwfan (not him personally but you referencing his previous posts) I will decline to comment as the argument that would follow would be pointless.

EDIT: just saw your edit. There is no way to put this without sounding like a dick, but if we were face to face having this argument you would see that my next sentence is not meant in a confrontational manner I honestly don't know how anyone can look at those 9 chances and think 1/9 resulting in a goal would not make you want to investigate the potential for an issue further. As I said above most of those would be considered pretty good chances at a high level.

Saying that the odds of missing goes up as the angles change and opposition pressure increases is generally true. If you are in fact basing that judgement on wwfan's posts about probabilities and the paper it is based on, the angle used in the model is defined by a line drawn from the nearest point in the goal to the player.

From an attacking perspective there was more wrong with the above than just the finish, but the emphasis is on there being too many CCCs so highlighting attacking deficiencies won't be any use.

[Troneas]

players who have above 15 or 16 finishing and composure shouldn't really be shooting directly at the keeper, imo - thats why you pay them more than 100k a month.

if the keeper is good and on ocassion manages to stop a one-on-one with these strikers is another issue.

[wwfan]

As isuckatfm points out, I am not arguing that these chances aren't occurring too regularly. They are and it is frustrating. My main point was that people need to stop perceiving them as great chances or trying to create them as the main source of goals, as how they are created is bugged, which knocks on to the keeper being able to save them with great regularity. Not an ideal solution, but one that would stop much frustration.

The 25% ratio is a different argument.

[cf]

And this leads us to the second level of frustration. If it is indeed the user's fault because of subtle elements of the match engine with respect to all of the variables involved, how exactly is he supposed to determine this based on seeing his attackers fluff chances like these on a regular basis? Surely the point of tactics is to create good chances and deny the opposition?

Indeed. I don't subscribe to the 'superkeeper' theory and am fully prepared to accept it's far too easy to create 1v1s, but how on earth is the average user supposed to figure out that the great chances they think they are creating aren't viewed as such by the game? As has already been seen - great chances + no goals = 'superkeepers'.

[headhunter_uni23]

Next game, an away game lost 1-0 on an own goal from my MC playmaker that for no reason at all decided to take position where my CB was! And guess who was "man of the match", yep, their goalkeeper, well done, 2 in a row, must be my tactics. Anyway....

[ObaMartins09]

Running one on one with a GK and slotting it past him shouldn't be as hard as it is on this game. Most strikers at the top levels have the technique to lob, go round the keeper, curl it round him, slide it under him, play it through his legs. BUT on this game in my experience every single one on one from my strikers (Vaughan, Yakubu, Jo) is smashed as hard as possible, and the keeper somehow gets a touch on it. This is from all angles, not just square on.

Of course in some games I score these, but very few are scored like this. Most of my goals come from crosses, or tap ins from a yard.

I'm not usually one to come on here and complain, but it is annoying. It ruins FM for me.

[ObaMartins09]

If you are having trouble scoring then you need to look at what you are doing wrong..

Creating several guilt edge chances each game isn't doing something wrong. Strikers lack of finishing ability is, even if it is high (15+) Strikers should be scoring at least 1 in 5 of these chances, if not more depending on quality. Yet, I've had 4 or 5 games this season where we've had 5 CCC's and scored 0, many of which are 1 on 1's.

[mdbussen]

As isuckatfm points out, I am not arguing that these chances aren't occurring too regularly. They are and it is frustrating. My main point was that people need to stop perceiving them as great chances or trying to create them as the main source of goals, as how they are created is bugged, which knocks on to the keeper being able to save them with great regularity. Not an ideal solution, but one that would stop much frustration.

The 25% ratio is a different argument.

First of all, this is probably the laziest 'solution' that SI could have opted for. If there is a problem with DC marking, they should adjust the marking itself. Instead (from what you are saying) they appear to have decided to allow the bad marking to continue but made the keepers better/strikers worse so that strikers get tons of chances - but they miss the majority of them?

Second of all, I would argue that this 'solution' (and I am using that word very loosely) is actually MORE frustrating than having ridiculous scorelines every game! I would rather be leaking goals due to bad (buggy) defending than not scoring clear chances because of bad (buggy) finishing. But perhaps that is just me...

Either way, this was clearly a band-aid fix by SI. 10.2 is beginning to lose some of its luster

[wwfan]

Assuming it was intentional doesn't make it so. Sheesh!!

[mdbussen]

Assuming it was intentional doesn't make it so. Sheesh!!

point taken - this is merely what I inferred from what you had written

doesn't make it any less frustrating

[wwfan]

The main problem is that there are very few people who can spot the real reasons behind this type of thing happening, which makes finding and fixing them very difficult. 99.9% of people only see the keeper saving things and cry 'superkeeper', which is not helpful when trying to fix bugs.

The real reason is a slight drift out of central positions by the DCs. If users are employing a tactic that takes advantage of this, then they will naturally create lots of one on ones. That the keeper is saving them is not a bug, because they are such unrealistic chances, it is impossible to measure whether they would be scored in real life or not. My own feeling is that hurried chances on the turn or sprints down the centre would be saved more often than not, but we'll never really know. As I said before, the only current solution is to ignore such chances as 'good' ones and be happy when they do go in.

[ObaMartins09]

But how do you explain the AI scoring these chances, but the human not? Cos that's what is happening to me.

[wwfan]

Perception bias.

[ObaMartins09]

Yeah, thought as much.

[megafan2005]

Superkeepers arent the issue with 10.2 its bloody injuries.

[Almondo]

I would just like to spell out the alternative.

If all these CCCs should be scored then we would have rugby scores in every game. I think I'd prefer a slightly harder chance to score...should that be the case. Nothing has been proven.

This is the best post on here (Bar wwfans). I don't want to see games where the score end's up 15 - 14 every week. that would take away all the realism from the game.

It just seems that everyone who is complaining about the "Superkeepers" is only taking into account CCC's and 1 on 1's. I believe that the more potent stats to look at are total shots, Shot's on target, Shot's off target and blocked shot's. In my mind a CCC could be a blocked shot or even one off target. I mean IRL how many times have you seen a top striker have a shot that would have gone in blocked at the last minute or even power a shot they should have buried over the bar.

[isuckatfm]

Creating several guilt edge chances each game isn't doing something wrong. Strikers lack of finishing ability is, even if it is high (15+) Strikers should be scoring at least 1 in 5 of these chances, if not more depending on quality. Yet, I've had 4 or 5 games this season where we've had 5 CCC's and scored 0, many of which are 1 on 1's.

The power of bolding on internet forums

If you read the post, I was actually quoting someone else and said pretty much the same thing as the first sentence of your post re chances.

[Shadowleech]

This "two central defenders too easily split" cost me my season in multiplay! Went from rock solid defensively and top of the league to 6 poor results in a row post patch. Also lost Van Der Vaart for 9 months first game of 10.2! lovely!

How can "a build" need you to "attempt not to create direct 1v1's with their keeper" as a strategy. I don't know if i'm alone in feeling that this just doesn't feel like football anymore, it's more a tweak this touch that find something that works... but none of the actual settings seem to relate to reality. The general logic has gone out of the game.

This is the best post on here (Bar wwfans). I don't want to see games where the score end's up 15 - 14 every week. that would take away all the realism from the game.

It just seems that everyone who is complaining about the "Superkeepers" is only taking into account CCC's and 1 on 1's. I believe that the more potent stats to look at are total shots, Shot's on target, Shot's off target and blocked shot's. In my mind a CCC could be a blocked shot or even one off target. I mean IRL how many times have you seen a top striker have a shot that would have gone in blocked at the last minute or even power a shot they should have buried over the bar.

Lol

We all agree the score should be normal, but NOT simply set superkeepers or make the strikers stupid, because this means, you are creating chances, your tactic SHOULD BE right, but the ME just don't let you score. If my striker was not David Villa, I will lose half of the matches. If SI thinks through balls are too effective, they should correct the defense tactic, not set superkeepers.

Also, in important matches against strong teams, it's a huge issue since AI's CCC was not that ineffective, and their keeper usually become superman.

Many teams play, especially teams like Valencia, with good pace, dribbling skills, and a super striker. What's the reason to deny their tactics?

[Shadowleech]

If SI make the defense stronger, then players will try to find a more acute way to through that defense. Just like the managers did in real life. But now, we have lots of chances, and superkeepers... What shall we do? Create less one on one chances? Is that football?

[SiN8]

The main problem is that there are very few people who can spot the real reasons behind this type of thing happening, which makes finding and fixing them very difficult. 99.9% of people only see the keeper saving things and cry 'superkeeper', which is not helpful when trying to fix bugs.

The real reason is a slight drift out of central positions by the DCs. If users are employing a tactic that takes advantage of this, then they will naturally create lots of one on ones. That the keeper is saving them is not a bug, because they are such unrealistic chances, it is impossible to measure whether they would be scored in real life or not. My own feeling is that hurried chances on the turn or sprints down the centre would be saved more often than not, but we'll never really know. As I said before, the only current solution is to ignore such chances as 'good' ones and be happy when they do go in.

I don't get the logic here since I see two different and separate items here. First, there's a DC marking bug that allowed too many chances to be created. Ok I get that. Now when these 1 on 1s get created, are you saying that they are not real clear cut chances despite the match engine showing it as so?

If yes, then you can't blame the fans by crying superkeeper because we use the match engine as feedback. If the ME is displaying something false, there's no way for us to release this.

If no and the 1 on 1s are real CCC, then they should be converted with a higher percentage. The fact that they are not converted would point to a superkeeper which is a separate bug.

What it sounds like is that there are two bugs, DC marking and superkeeper, which just happens to cancel each other out, although it ruins somewhat the experience of the game.

[olegend]

This is the first CM/FM that I don't want to get one on one chances, as I know there is only about 10% chance that it will go in.

Keepers are saving ridiculous 10 yards bullets flying towards the bottom corner. If the keepers rush out and blocked large part of angle, that's reasonable. However the keepers are standing on the goal line and somehow save those shots aiming at the corner, ahh.......so frustrating!

[lance101]

I don't understand how chances being unrealistic/bug makes it less of a bug for them to be missed at an unrealistic rate... The screenshots presented above all look like pretty good chances. I also do not agree that chances with no angle are "bad" because any good striker can move the ball just a little to have an angle at goal.. coming 1-1 with keeper at the middle of the field is pretty much the best chance you can have in football, as long as you don't let the keeper close you down too much. If marking is at fault here, marking should be modified, not finishing!

[wwfan]

I'll go through the logic again:

1: One on ones are not being missed per se. Any one on one that is at a slight angle to the keeper is being converted at a respectable rate.

2: A certain type of one on one is being created overly easily because of slightly faulty defensive tracking in the central areas.

3: This tracking tends to produce one on ones that have no angle to the goal with the keeper standing directly between the player and goal.

4: In conjunction, many of this type of one on ones require the player to turn sharply and shoot or sprint towards goal.

5: The result is that the player has a tendency to hit the shot straight at the keeper or scuff it.

6: Perhaps as much as 80% of these shots are hit straight at the keeper, which gives the illusion of a super keeper. In fact, the saves are pretty easy.

7: Because these types of chances are extremely unusual in real life (as central defenders in real life don't drift) it is impossible to ascertain how unrealistic it is that forwards are missing them at this rate.

8: However, if such chances are akin to the most difficult CCC percentages (rather than the 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 for other one on ones), only scoring 1 in 5 is within the realms of possibility. There has been no deliberate attempt to 'nuke' these type of chances. They just happen that way. Whether that is realistic or not is impossible to ascertain (see point 7).

9: If you try to take advantage of this defensive gap, you need to realise that the chances you create through it are borderline CCCs at best.

10: Other methods of creating chances will have a higher scoring ratio. Concentrating on creating these chances will see you performing more effectively.

11: Any argument that such chances should be converted at a better than 1 in 5 ratio is pure conjecture, because such chances don't occur often in real life (see point 7).

12: Although it is a bug and frustrating, the type of chance created not the superkeeper is the bug and recognising that will keep your game playing more enjoyable.

[Almondo]

I'll go through the logic again:

1: One on ones are not being missed per se. Any one on one that is at a slight angle to the keeper is being converted at a respectable rate.

2: A certain type of one on one is being created overly easily because of slightly faulty defensive tracking in the central areas.

3: This tracking tends to produce one on ones that have no angle to the goal with the keeper standing directly between the player and goal.

4: In conjunction, many of this type of one on ones require the player to turn sharply and shoot or sprint towards goal.

5: The result is that the player has a tendency to hit the shot straight at the keeper or scuff it.

6: Perhaps as much as 80% of these shots are hit straight at the keeper, which gives the illusion of a super keeper. In fact, the saves are pretty easy.

7: Because these types of chances are extremely unusual in real life (as central defenders in real life don't drift) it is impossible to ascertain how unrealistic it is that forwards are missing them at this rate.

8: However, if such chances are akin to the most difficult CCC percentages (rather than the 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 for other one on ones), only scoring 1 in 5 is within the realms of possibility. There has been no deliberate attempt to 'nuke' these type of chances. They just happen that way. Whether that is realistic or not is impossible to ascertain (see point 7).

9: If you try to take advantage of this defensive gap, you need to realise that the chances you create through it are borderline CCCs at best.

10: Other methods of creating chances will have a higher scoring ratio. Concentrating on creating these chances will see you performing more effectively.

11: Any argument that such chances should be converted at a better than 1 in 5 ratio is pure conjecture, because such chances don't occur often in real life (see point 7).

12: Although it is a bug and frustrating, the type of chance created not the superkeeper is the bug and recognising that will keep your game playing more enjoyable.

Think you missed the sigh out at the beginning of this wwfan. Then again you can explain it as much as you like and people still wont or don't want to get what you are telling them. Thus they say that keepers are now "superkeepers".

[Shadowleech]

I'll go through the logic again:

1: One on ones are not being missed per se. Any one on one that is at a slight angle to the keeper is being converted at a respectable rate.

2: A certain type of one on one is being created overly easily because of slightly faulty defensive tracking in the central areas.

3: This tracking tends to produce one on ones that have no angle to the goal with the keeper standing directly between the player and goal.

4: In conjunction, many of this type of one on ones require the player to turn sharply and shoot or sprint towards goal.

5: The result is that the player has a tendency to hit the shot straight at the keeper or scuff it.

6: Perhaps as much as 80% of these shots are hit straight at the keeper, which gives the illusion of a super keeper. In fact, the saves are pretty easy.

7: Because these types of chances are extremely unusual in real life (as central defenders in real life don't drift) it is impossible to ascertain how unrealistic it is that forwards are missing them at this rate.

8: However, if such chances are akin to the most difficult CCC percentages (rather than the 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 for other one on ones), only scoring 1 in 5 is within the realms of possibility. There has been no deliberate attempt to 'nuke' these type of chances. They just happen that way. Whether that is realistic or not is impossible to ascertain (see point 7).

9: If you try to take advantage of this defensive gap, you need to realise that the chances you create through it are borderline CCCs at best.

10: Other methods of creating chances will have a higher scoring ratio. Concentrating on creating these chances will see you performing more effectively.

11: Any argument that such chances should be converted at a better than 1 in 5 ratio is pure conjecture, because such chances don't occur often in real life (see point 7).

12: Although it is a bug and frustrating, the type of chance created not the superkeeper is the bug and recognising that will keep your game playing more enjoyable.

My experience is: Angled through balls create 1 on 1 chance also get owned by the keepers, no big difference.

We all accept low level strikers miss chances a lot. But you think top strikers like David Villa will MISS 4 out of 5 in 1 ON 1 chance? LOL

In real life, teams who focus in the middle all tried to get the defenders out, create space then send through balls to the striker, if send through balls is bad idea. Then what should be the way of attacking through the middle?

[SiN8]

I'll go through the logic again:

3: This tracking tends to produce one on ones that have no angle to the goal with the keeper standing directly between the player and goal.

4: In conjunction, many of this type of one on ones require the player to turn sharply and shoot or sprint towards goal.

Thanks wwfan for the explanation. Step 4 is somewhat fuzzy to me. If a striker is facing the goal with the GK directly in between, how can this be a difficult shot? You can either chip if the keeper is rushing out or place the shot towards the posts if the keeper stays back. Isn't a penalty shot the same situation?

[wwfan]

Thanks wwfan for the explanation. Step 4 is somewhat fuzzy to me. If a striker is facing the goal with the GK directly in between, how can this be a difficult shot? You can either chip if the keeper is rushing out or place the shot towards the posts if the keeper stays back. Isn't a penalty shot the same situation?

I'd say that 90% of the time the player is rushed. It's also different than a penalty as the keeper is allowed to be off his line.

[Krondor]

The main problem is that there are very few people who can spot the real reasons behind this type of thing happening, which makes finding and fixing them very difficult. 99.9% of people only see the keeper saving things and cry 'superkeeper', which is not helpful when trying to fix bugs.

Should a loyal customer (who bought practically the same game year after year since FM 2005) be helping with "fixing bugs"? Every season, over and over again?

Is it possible to enjoy the game and not worry about activation, crash dumps, bugs, patches, pathetic explanations re these "little tiny flaws that are actually game features" and "properly angled attack" tactics for ME v 822?

Such nonsense! Such a waste of time! FM is turning into a farce.

P.S: Bad for business

[wwfan]

Don't play it if it's such a farce. Nobody's tying your hands behind your back.

I'm not asking you to help fix bugs. I'm just explaining how people might enjoy the game better. Realising it is how they are creating chances rather than there being unfair superkeepers should help.

[Chochip]

lol it's pretty funny that people talk so badly about FM but they don't go away because there's nothing better in terms of football management.

[mdbussen]

I'll go through the logic again:

7: Because these types of chances are extremely unusual in real life (as central defenders in real life don't drift) it is impossible to ascertain how unrealistic it is that forwards are missing them at this rate.

This is where your argument falls apart. I'll grant you that these sorts of chances are unusual in real life but to say that it is impossible to determine what % are converted and then further state that 1 in 5 could be a realistic conversion rate given that we have no real-life knowledge of the situation is disingenuous.

In fact, of all the 1-on-1 situations, straight towards the goalie should probably have the highest percentage of being scored. The player has the most space to aim for (as the player gets further to either side the target becomes smaller) and can go to either side of the goalie to slot it home, or chip or dribble past the keeper as further options. I'd wager that some of the best finishers in the world (Ronaldo, Messi, Henry, etc.) would finish at least 60% of these chances. The conversion rate for world-class players in FM 10.2 is closer to 20%.

I'll accept that we have to change our tactics to suit the bugs of the match engine, but these chances should be scored far more often than they are currently.

[wwfan]

We already know that one on ones in real world terms are scored about 1 in 4 times, with great finishers scoring 1 in 3. We also know that 1 in 5 is the ratio for what would be considered a good chance (i.e. 12 yards out, unmarked, decent angle to the goal).

My suggestion that such chances would be scored 1 in 5 times has a 13% error rate for world class players and a 5% for everyone else if these one on ones were standard chances. Your suggestion of 60% has a 27-35% error rate. I'm just calling them as borderline good chances, which means 1 in 5 is a realistic figure. I'm not just picking numbers out of thin air, which you have certainly done with your 60%.

[Mitja]

1 in 5 is a goal/shots ratio for all kind of shots this season for Messi in La Liga. 9 goals from 46 shots.

Ibrahimovic scored 11 goals from 42 shots (26%). Higuain 10/27 (37%).

1on1 is a top quality chance. especially the one coming centrally.

[SiN8]

I'd say that 90% of the time the player is rushed. It's also different than a penalty as the keeper is allowed to be off his line.

Wouldn't being rushed be true for 1 on 1s coming at an angle as well? I still don't see why direct/no angle 1 on 1s are considered lower quality chances.

In fact, of all the 1-on-1 situations, straight towards the goalie should probably have the highest percentage of being scored. The player has the most space to aim for (as the player gets further to either side the target becomes smaller) and can go to either side of the goalie to slot it home, or chip or dribble past the keeper as further options. I'd wager that some of the best finishers in the world (Ronaldo, Messi, Henry, etc.) would finish at least 60% of these chances. The conversion rate for world-class players in FM 10.2 is closer to 20%.

Not sure about the %, but agree about direct 1 on 1s being the best chances. They should certainly be better than ones from an angle.

[Mitja]

Ronaldo 07/08 season: 31/131 (23,7%)

[wwfan]

So, the best players in the world playing for the best teams in their leagues score at about 25%. Isn't that roughly what we'd expect, given the general expectations of scoring ratios and the relative ability of the player and his teammates?

As for direct one on ones being better chances than ones at an angle, I don't think that holds true. I've read two things that contradict this.

One states that the best angle for chance finishing is when the player is coming off one of the posts moving towards the centre. The second states that a player finds it more easy to convert a ball moving laterally across him that one coming from behind him. In both these instances, it is possible to draw the keeper before finishing. In a straight one on one, that is impossible, as the keeper will just rush down the shot.

[Mitja]

I would say clean 1on1 is a 50-50 chance if both the keeper and the players are of 'equal' ability. better the player better the chance and vice versa.

[wwfan]

I would say clean 1on1 is a 50-50 chance if both the keeper and the players are of 'equal' ability. better the player better the chance and vice versa.

It's not. This is not my opinion. It is a researched fact. 25%-33% depending on the ability of the relative players. The keeper always has the advantage.

[Mitja]

that's a statistical average for hundreds of players in all levels. top players score more, 23,7% of all shots Ronaldo scored in 07/08. there were probably much more long shots than easy tap ins, or 1on1s. this season Higuain scored 37% of all his shots, I'd guess that not all of them were easier chances than it is a 1on1..

clean 1on1 is the chance.

[Mitja]

I'm not arguing that every 1on1 has 50-50 chances, only the clean ones (but probably even more if we're talking about Messis and Ronaldos). there should be diference between clean and not clean 1on1.

[bleventozturk]

In real life in a direct 1on1, before shooting the striker typically dribbles the ball towards either side, just enough to create a good angle for himself. In FM the direct 1on1's are rushed. The players shoot the ball before allowing themselves to create the necessary/good angle to shoot.

[Mitja]

..true and never go round the keeper or try to lob him.

[Brian Shanahan]

I will post my experiences of "super-keeper" post patch, only have 6 compeditive games since then so not a representative sample:

Team Wolfsburg; Bundesliga (scores are me-them)

Game Team Venue Score (thoughts)

1) Hertha H. 4-0 (10 sots 5 CCCs)

2) Bayern A. 1-0 (9 sots 4CCCs, although they had 8 sots and 5 CCCs 2 superkeepers)

3) Hannover A. 1-0 (originally 3-0 to me but forgot to save before updating computer d'oh)

4) Furth H. 4-2 (both keepers not very super)

5) Dortmund A. 1-2 (after going down to 10 on 15mins)

6) Bielefeld H. 3-1 (only other place where I would consider superkeeper 14 sots 7 CCCs)

I've scored every game and concede 5/6 of a goal a game (slightly lower than expected). I am quite happy with the amount of goals in the game, and would say there are no super-keepers. If someone wants to add to this and make a full picture, please do.

[Rista]

So we need to stop perceiving one on ones as good chances even though they are basically the best chance you can have in football? And that's supposed to be a 'slight' bug? :confused: Also, if it's only the central defenders being too easily split that is the issue with 10.2, then how come those kind of chances were a lot easier to convert into goals in 10.1?

[mdbussen]

It's not. This is not my opinion. It is a researched fact. 25%-33% depending on the ability of the relative players. The keeper always has the advantage.

The statistics you have been showing thus far all relate to goals per shot for all type of shots (long range/off target/etc.). If you have actual hard data for 1-on-1s/clear cut chances it would be much more helpful.

Consider: Jermaine Defoe has 13 goals in 27 shots on goal so far this season - a little under 50%. Zamora has 6 from 13 while Saha has 10 from 17! I think these numbers are a bit more representative of what kind of conversion rate you can expect from 1-on-1 situations.

Graham Alexander has 5 goals from 6 shots on target - Nearly all of them being penalties of course

[Chochip]

We all complain about missing all the CCCs, but if you actually sit down and think about it, what if then all those chances were converted more to goals?

Then you will often end up with ridiculously high scores. Then more people will complain that the game is broken.

Sure it upsets you when you see a good chance not being rewarded, but think about the other side of the picture.

my strikers are missing a lot of chances but they are also scoring a lot. Any more goals and it will be stupidly too high.

atm I'm on like a 11 game streak of scoring 3 goals or more.