Superkeeper is really disrespectful to FM players

[Rista]

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.

Surely the solution is to sort out the defending issues then rather than make it ridiculously hard to score what IRL should be an easy chance? These kind of chances need to be much harder to create but also much easier to convert into goals.

[The Sean]

To all who think there is a superkeeper bug; how objective do you think it sounds to come here and say (in a Will Ferrellesque voice), 'I am awesome at FM! Never been ANYONE better. Before 10.2, I won EVERYTHING! I have Player X and he could beat your mom so bad she never would have made you!'

The point is that it is hard to take seriously anyone who comes here and says that this current version has a bug that keeps them from scoring "as much as they want" OR "as much as they used to." There should be a new "learning curve" with each patched version of the game because it changes the ME logic. Having played 7 games since 10.2, I have found the game to be full of 'goal gluttony.' I have yet to have a scoreless match nor have I scored fewer than 2 goals in any of those game. I have not lost over that stretch either. I am not playing as anyone special; just my typical MLS save with Kansas City. My quality is consistent with my competition. As to the through ball being placed behind the defensive line; these are scored what I would consider to be an appropriate amount of time. I have seen nothing that causes me to think, 'Oh great, the game is so bugged that I cannot enjoy playing it.' From day one of the lastest patch, many have simply complained about it. Why not try coming here with an objective statement saying something to the effect of, 'Are you seeing the same thing I am here?' There was one poster who did that here by posting his screenshots with what his strikers did. His was a quality post because he tried to arrive at a solution rather than shout down SI for an inferior product. In sum, superkeepers is not only NOT disrespectful to FMers because it does NOT exist, anyone that thinks they speak for ALL FMers is disrespectful to the many different voices heard here.

[bean824]

A bit on my situation with it:

- Firstly, the amount of 1-on-1 chances seems to be crazily high. I have way too many of these for and against my team, imo.

- The amount of these actually converted seems way too low. My strikers have finishing stats of 14 and 15 (which for the Austrian league is pretty darn high) and I would expect them to put away more than they miss with those stats.

- However, they actually never miss the target. The keeper seems to make instant reaction saves, which I doubt Peter Schmiechel on ecstasy couldn't dream of pulling off, let alone Mr. Jansen Kuner from Vienna.

- Of these 1-on-1 chances, I don't recall ever scoring one when my striker was running head on towards goal (I may have missed one, but either way its still stupidly low). A few more are scored when my striker is running in from an angle, but even then, its still too much of a low percentage.

I doubt this'll help anyone, but it's here regardless. Hopefully someone'll take notice!

[Tomer]

That's not what I said. TBs creating one on ones straight down the middle are incredibly rare in real life, but due to an issue with DC marking are much more common in FM than they should be. Trying to create them is taking advantage of a slight ME flaw. Because they are unusual in real life, there is no method of judging how good a chance they actually are. In the FM ME, they tend to be hit straight at the keeper, usually because the player is travelling full pelt or has turn quickly turn and shoot.

Given that they are unusual in real life, we cannot be sure they wouldn't also be saved regularly in real life. It seems to me that such chances should be quite difficult, as the player has no angle to work with nor time to create one. That they are being created too often is an issue. That they are being saved a lot arguably isn't. IF you try to take advantage of the ME flaw and design tactics that create an awful lot of those, you also need to accept that many will be saved. However, if you create a tactic that generates more realistic chances, scoring ratios will be fine. That's not about beating the ME, it is about understanding football.

Just quoting this for the people on the second page who haven't read the first page

[wwfan]

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

Actual stats for one on ones are 25-33%, depending on the relative player quality. I thought I had already made that clear.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the EPL stats for shots per goal ratio are as follows (Current ratio/career ratio):

Defoe 22%/15%

Drogba 15%/16%

Rooney 15%/11%

Torres 28%/23%

Bent 21%/22%

Saha 20%/16%

[JimmyLad]

While I admit that the number of attempts at lobbing the keeper is certainly rare (That I've seen, I only recall ever seeing lobs that result in goals, rather than failed attempts) in my opinion it certainly isn't as easy to do as some of you seem to be suggesting for a player through on goal and running at (probably full) pace to lob the keeper like it's nothing, especially in relatively close proximity. Short of the keeper being completely in no-mans land and/or going to ground slightly too early/easily you're asking a lot, with a bouncing ball its considerably easier (but still a pretty exact science), but straight from the ground not quite*.

Perhaps there could be a slight failing of the forward in these direct 1on1s in regards to a player trying to make an angle for himself, or take these close-proximity shots rather than attempt to round the keeper, but this is probably more to do with pressure from both sides from the retreating defenders they just split. But on the other, I also agree with the fact that direct 1-on-1s in this manner are somewhat unrealistic and so make of that what you will.

*Of course this is just my opinion, and unfortunately I wasn't blessed with Messi's talent to talk about relative difficulties at professional levels.

[wwfan]

Actual stats for one on ones are 25-33%, depending on the relative player quality. I thought I had already made that clear.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the EPL stats for shots per goal ratio are as follows (Current ratio/career ratio):

Defoe 22%/15%

Drogba 15%/16%

Rooney 15%/11%

Torres 28%/23%

Bent 21%/22%

Saha 20%/16%

To put this into perspective, these are the scoring ratios for my four most attacking minded players in my current save.

1: FCC: 21.7%

2: AMR: 16.6%

3: AML: 22%

4: MCa: 33%

This would suggest it is slightly too easy to score in FM, not too difficult. However, this is early in the season, so the stats won't have shaped themselves properly. I"d suspect they'd be a little closer to real life stats when the season finishes.

[el_magico89]

well the problem is, as some members wrote above, that really and i mean really toooooo much 1on1 chances are created now.

i tried everything really everything, set my defenders on man markin, zonal markin, on high pressing, low pressing or keep distance (no pressing) but these through balls do always reach the strikers.

i dont know why, i play very deep, but still just a long ball and the strikers no matter how quick theyre, they stay alone in front of my keeper and just nick in.

does it really sound realistic? i mean my defence line reacts and stays like a keeper very very deep but they can still get caught with a long ball or a through ball.

i do also have these situations with my own strikers too, computer has almost all his defenders and middfielders 5-6 metres in front of his keeper, but i still can play a through ball, but my strikers fail to score.

i dont know what you think, but i guess the reacting of the defence has been much worse now.

in patch 10.1 there werent so many through balls arriving the strikers, and i can also remember, when i changed almost every season my playmaker, because they failed to play just one deadly pass.

but now, i can put up there someone like fletcher and he could made passes like ronaldinho xD

[Shadowleech]

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.

Then they should fix the DEFENSE, not simply set superkeepers.

We all know superkeeper is to make sure the score won't go wild. But when SI must use it to keep the score, that means their ME is totally a failure.

[wwfan]

There are no superkeepers!!! Are you reading the thread?

[Shadowleech]

I really think some of you guys were misunderstanding.

You all argue about set superkeeper to KEEP THE SCORE ok, then doesn't that means 10.2's ME is A BIG FAILURE because they must use childish trick like superkeeper to keep score rather than set some better defense?

[Shadowleech]

There are no superkeepers!!! Are you reading the thread?

Well if you want to call this problem "Crazy keeper and Stupid striker" I don't care, we all know the actual problem: too many 1 on 1 chance created and very low rate to score, especially player's team.

[mdbussen]

Actual stats for one on ones are 25-33%, depending on the relative player quality. I thought I had already made that clear.

yes you made this clear, what you did NOT make clear is where exactly you are getting these figures from.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but the EPL stats for shots per goal ratio are as follows (Current ratio/career ratio):

Defoe 22%/15%

Drogba 15%/16%

Rooney 15%/11%

Torres 28%/23%

Bent 21%/22%

Saha 20%/16%

If you would re-read my post you would see that I was posting data showing GOALS per SHOT ON GOAL (i.e. on target). I feel this is somewhat closer to representing goal conversion rate from CCC than goals per shot, which includes long range shots and half-chances.

[wwfan]

That assumes that a player rarely if ever misses the target when within 12 yards, which is a major assumption to make and undoubtedly flawed.

As for the one on ones statistic, it was part of some research I read on scoring ratios. I'm not sure if it was from the article I referenced earlier, but it is an uncontroversial figure in research into football.

[lyw_85]

To make the scores realistic, the conversion of 1 on 1s has been decreased to much much lower.

However, to see a striker miss 9 CCC chances in a match - Is this realistic either?

The match engine on 10.1 was much better.

I rarely come online to rant, but after applying the 10.2 patch, I have only played 10+ matches, and have lost the interest to play

wwfan, am I right to say that, in your opinion, that the problem is there are too many successful throughballs, resulting in alot of 1 on 1 chances?

If that is so, I dread for this problem to be solve, as this means I will get lesser 1 on 1 chances, resulting in lesser goals scored!

[wwfan]

Yes, but only for a particular type of chance. As my scoring percentages indicate, it is perfectly possible to score at realistic, or perhaps better than realistic, levels.

[tingting]

Yes, but only for a particular type of chance. As my scoring percentages indicate, it is perfectly possible to score at realistic, or perhaps better than realistic, levels.

Please dont take this as a rant...but was the patch not tested before being released? Or did the testers check the stats and said, "Torres scored 3 goals from 10 chances...30% conversion ratio...within real life stats...game alright"?

Many of you are having no problems with the game. After changing the tactics a bit to try and force my players to shoot from an angle, i too am not having many problems...however when i play big teams i tend to leave just one striker upfront and opt to play longball tactics...that would mean my striker latching on to through balls/long balls behind the central defenders and missing majority of his chances.

Played a 451 formation against Chelsea, Liverpool, Real Madrid and Arsenal...created 5-6 clear chances but the striker hit his shots straight to the keeper (i was saved against Chelsea and Arsenal by the same "problem") drew matches against arsenal and liverpool but lost out against chelsea and madrid (who managed to convert 1 and 2 chances from 4 and 3 respectively...maybe they were more clinical because they were playing at home???)

Some of the problems i have noticed with the ME is that sometimes players fail/are slow to close down loose balls, while the opposition players (including my players) rush forward to take control of the ball and more often than not...this results in a chance. Also the central defenders do not mark the strikers..either they are static or they close down the ball (this happens when the central midfielders are static..am yet to see a game where the central defenders fail to close down a player when he is inside the 1/3 of your area).

[7zige]

Keepers are harder to beat, does not mean that they are superkeepers...Okay to all those who are dissatisfied with the 1-on-1 chances and not scoring, kindly provide the statistics of the player who missed in that game and the number of times this happen in one season...

[supersaint]

Here is some 1 on 1 situations from my last match, West Ham - Southampton (me)

Black lines indicates how the GK should (in theory) position themselves related to the shooter, to narrow the goal to make it harder for the shooter.

Number 1

My player has run through the defence and is going for goal. He shoots relatively straight related to where his feet is pointing.

If you look at GK position, he is almost dead center between the two black lines - this means he has almost same distance to each post, and its hard for my player to get the ball past him.

Add that he is being tracked down fast by the defender and has to shoot quickly, under pressure - the shot goes straigth on the goalie.

Number 2

This one doesnt look that obvious, but my player was apx 5 metres ahead of the defenders when on the edge of the box. He has trouble getting control of the ball, which means the defenders are pretty close to him.

Again the shot is going relatively straigth forward related to the feet.

If you look at the GK position, he is slightly off the ultimate position, which means that a shot to the left could have ended in a goal. BUT, my attacker is right-footed, so when he tries to put to the left, he hit the goalie instead.

Number 3

This time my striker has more time to place his shot, because he isnt being closed down as fast as in the other 2. He ran with the ball from the left side of the pitch, in to the box and turned a little bit. This made the GK coming slightly off his ultimate position, and leaving the left corner a bit more open (he came from the right, since that was where my striker was heading) - so that when my striker shoots straight forward, related to the feet again, the shot goes straight into the net.

Number 4

This might not seem to be a 1 on 1 for many - but in my book it is. Why? because he has a free shot on goal, no defenders to cover.

Here it seems that the GK has a good position. BUT, the ball came with extreme pace from the right side of the pitch and he is actually moving towards the middle when the shot is coming. This is a situation that is extremely hard for a GK, since you have to side-step fast, then throw yourself in almost one moment.

This means that it was quite easy for the striker to score. BUT, look - again the shot is going straigth forward from his feet.

(to be continued...)

[supersaint]

(continued...)

Number 5

Again my striker is clear of the defence, but is tracked down fast, and have to make a quick attempt on goal. With the GK slightly off the ultimate position he shoots to the left (which also happens to be almost straigth forward, related to the feet)

Since the shot is coming straight forward, it almost hits the GK - he have to dive 1 meter to get the ball.

Number 6

Here you can see that the GK is slightly to the left and leaves a hole to the right. But again, striker under pressure and shooting straight forward - easy for the goalie.

So - superkeepers? Nah. In these examples from this match, you can see that the GK's are almost perfectly placed to cover most of the goal. This leaves little room for the shooter to place the ball.

The two goals scored in this match is scored when 1) the striker moves in from the side, turns and shoots straight forward. This makes the GK a bit out of position, since his position is relative to where he thinks the striker is going - and 2) the ball is travelling fast to a player on the other side of the box, and the GK has to move fast to get into the new position, which he is - just a bit too late.

Speaking as a former GK, and now GK coach - I would say that GK positioning is acceptable on this level. Positioning like this is trained from 13 years and onwards, and is one of the fundaments for a GK. One problem though, is that I see little or no difference in whether a GK has 10 or 20 in positioning - they almost place themselves correctly in all 1 on 1 situation.

Even though positioning is a fundamental skill, there is differences between PL goalies and Level 10 goalies.

That almost all 1 on 1 situations I have seen, is where the shooter is being tracked down by defenders and closed down by GK means that it is hard to score in these situations. High pressure and rushed shots after a long run makes it hard to place the shot where you want it.

BUT one thing that I dont understand is why almost every player shoots in a straight line when in a 1 on 1 situation? Surely some player should be able to place it, or at least trying not to shoot in a straight line. Thing is that when they are outside the box or under more pressure, they often get more curve on the shot - or places it a bit on the side...

Especially when they have PPMs that suggest this (not the ones I have - they refuse to learn it...)

So, IMHO, the reason that one might see goalies as superheroes is:

1. GK has an exceptional tendency of placing himself correctly, even with low positioning attributes and therefore is making the goal as small as possible.
   
2. World Class strikers/players are a bit too nervous in goal scoring situations where they are under pressure.
   
3. Too many shots are going in a straight line - even when the player have time and place to place the shot, and the GK is out of position.
   
4. The slight drifting bug that WWFan talks about. This creates many 1 on 1 situations where the striker is coming straight at the goalie - who of course have a great position - and they just dont want to place the shot.
   And like WWFan said, these situations are rare IRL - they do happen on the level I ref and coach (lower league and women), but I would say that its not common to score in these situations. Its about speed, tiredness, control and pressure when it comes to the shooter - and GK positioning, bravery, anticipation, movement(sideways) speed and diving.
   

Only my worthless thoughts on the supermen in goal

[tingting]

(continued...)

[*]World Class strikers/players are a bit too nervous in goal scoring situations where they are under pressure.

[*]Too many shots are going in a straight line - even when the player have time and place to place the shot, and the GK is out of position.

[*]The slight drifting bug that WWFan talks about. This creates many 1 on 1 situations where the striker is coming straight at the goalie - who of course have a great position - and they just dont want to place the shot.

This is the main problem...strikers followed their ppms in 10.1 and placed their shots...however that is not the case here. No matter who the striker is...he will hit it straight to the keeper. I have found that the conversion ratio when shooting at an angle is slightly better...but now i realize that even in those cases, the striker is shooting in a straight line...the only reason for better finishing is that the ball goes away from the keeper. Rooney's ppm is likes to lob the keeper but never once have i seen him even attempt it...let alone score.

To make a test i bought Kevin Davies whose finishing, composure and technique ratings are 14, 13 and 11. Compare it with Rooney (15, 13 and 17) or Berbatov (16, 17 and 19) or Welbeck (13, 12 and 13) and i have not found any difference. Davies has scored 13 goals in 20 games, Rooney 17 in 25, Berbatov 10 in 19 and Welbeck 6 in 11.

Another thing i have found is that teams who are same or better than you are very clinical in their home games..so it doesnt matter even if you create 5-6 chances...their conversion ratio will always be better than your in those games

I had really thought to give a go...try to complete at least a season with the new patch...but am losing key games because of this problem..will be switching back to 10.1 and hope that this is fixed in the new patch

[pewa2303]

This is the main problem...strikers followed their ppms in 10.1 and placed their shots...however that is not the case here. No matter who the striker is...he will hit it straight to the keeper. I have found that the conversion ratio when shooting at an angle is slightly better...but now i realize that even in those cases, the striker is shooting in a straight line...the only reason for better finishing is that the ball goes away from the keeper. Rooney's ppm is likes to lob the keeper but never once have i seen him even attempt it...let alone score.

To make a test i bought Kevin Davies whose finishing, composure and technique ratings are 14, 13 and 11. Compare it with Rooney (15, 13 and 17) or Berbatov (16, 17 and 19) or Welbeck (13, 12 and 13) and i have not found any difference. Davies has scored 13 goals in 20 games, Rooney 17 in 25, Berbatov 10 in 19 and Welbeck 6 in 11.

agree with this.

i will go back to 1.01 too.

i am coming from the match engine from EA and i am excited with FootMan 1.01.

but after patch 1.02 the game has lost realism, cause of the many one on ones which are not scored by world class players.

i totally agree that striker hit the keeper too often when coming from the middle of the pitch.

however: footman 1.01 is the game manager game i have ever seen.

[akkm]

wwfan - you are all over the shop in this thread...

in one post you say "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" yet in another you are quoting empirical evidence suggesting that which is impossible to measure actually has a conversion rate of 25%-33%

Then you say

"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? " yet this was based on a post about goals/shots rather than one on ones

Then

"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. "

of course it's possible to draw the keeper on a straight 1on1...you draw the keeper out and take it around him...i watch loads of football and have seen it happen lots of times. the lateral V behind ball is a momentum thing and is easier but doesn't make it as difficult as currently in 10.2...essentially i agree with you there are too many 1on1s, straight on angle is more difficult to score as keeper covers more of the goal and you have less to aim for and defenders in game are somewhat culpable but at the point in time when the player has 1on1 the relative abilities of finisher and goalkeeper have no discernible difference on the outcome of the chance...which of course it should...ie positioning of keeper, finishing ability and composure of attacker...these are academic in deciding the outcome yet they are key factors in 1on1s...top players and far from top players pretty much do the same thing which is totally unrealistic and keepers of all levels do the same which again does not reflect real life

as i said, one thing you have got right is the chances are occuring too frequently but the likes of david villa and other top strikers convert more of these in real life than in FM...if villa got 4/5 chances IRL every game he has composure and finishing ability to convert 2/3...at least. The real Ronaldo (Brazilian one) had loads of 1on1s throughout his career and it was a rarity for him not to convert so your stats may be skewed by lesser player's conversion rates...it's hard to believe that there is only an 8% difference in 1on1 conversion rates between your average finisher and the best finishers in world...the is more of a disparity than that in reality.....you are basically saying on average if a player like david villa gets 100 1on1s and emile heskey gets 100 1on1s villa would only convert 33 to heskey's 25...please...that's not realistic i'm afraid. i'd be interested in reading where you get your evidence to see how it was compiled

[Chochip]

It would make a lot more sense if the striker actually tried to run side ways past the goalkeeper even a little bit, rather than just handing it to the keeper almost all the time when the range is too close.

[FM1000]

(continued...)

Number 5

Again my striker is clear of the defence, but is tracked down fast, and have to make a quick attempt on goal. With the GK slightly off the ultimate position he shoots to the left (which also happens to be almost straigth forward, related to the feet)

Since the shot is coming straight forward, it almost hits the GK - he have to dive 1 meter to get the ball.

Number 6

Here you can see that the GK is slightly to the left and leaves a hole to the right. But again, striker under pressure and shooting straight forward - easy for the goalie.

So - superkeepers? Nah. In these examples from this match, you can see that the GK's are almost perfectly placed to cover most of the goal. This leaves little room for the shooter to place the ball.

The two goals scored in this match is scored when 1) the striker moves in from the side, turns and shoots straight forward. This makes the GK a bit out of position, since his position is relative to where he thinks the striker is going - and 2) the ball is travelling fast to a player on the other side of the box, and the GK has to move fast to get into the new position, which he is - just a bit too late.

Speaking as a former GK, and now GK coach - I would say that GK positioning is acceptable on this level. Positioning like this is trained from 13 years and onwards, and is one of the fundaments for a GK. One problem though, is that I see little or no difference in whether a GK has 10 or 20 in positioning - they almost place themselves correctly in all 1 on 1 situation.

Even though positioning is a fundamental skill, there is differences between PL goalies and Level 10 goalies.

That almost all 1 on 1 situations I have seen, is where the shooter is being tracked down by defenders and closed down by GK means that it is hard to score in these situations. High pressure and rushed shots after a long run makes it hard to place the shot where you want it.

BUT one thing that I dont understand is why almost every player shoots in a straight line when in a 1 on 1 situation? Surely some player should be able to place it, or at least trying not to shoot in a straight line. Thing is that when they are outside the box or under more pressure, they often get more curve on the shot - or places it a bit on the side...

Especially when they have PPMs that suggest this (not the ones I have - they refuse to learn it...)

So, IMHO, the reason that one might see goalies as superheroes is:

1. GK has an exceptional tendency of placing himself correctly, even with low positioning attributes and therefore is making the goal as small as possible.
   
2. World Class strikers/players are a bit too nervous in goal scoring situations where they are under pressure.
   
3. Too many shots are going in a straight line - even when the player have time and place to place the shot, and the GK is out of position.
   
4. The slight drifting bug that WWFan talks about. This creates many 1 on 1 situations where the striker is coming straight at the goalie - who of course have a great position - and they just dont want to place the shot.
   And like WWFan said, these situations are rare IRL - they do happen on the level I ref and coach (lower league and women), but I would say that its not common to score in these situations. Its about speed, tiredness, control and pressure when it comes to the shooter - and GK positioning, bravery, anticipation, movement(sideways) speed and diving.
   

Only my worthless thoughts on the supermen in goal

Excellent work.

[mrmeee17]

Only my worthless thoughts on the supermen in goal

I know it looks very easy for a well-positioned goalkeeper to save one-on-ones from your screen captures, but it really isn't so in real life.

Goalkeepers in real life are not the solid blocks they look like on FM's match engine.

It just isn't possible for all goalkeepers to consistently react and get down in time to save one-on-ones like they do in FM.

I agree that the creation of one-on-ones is much too easy, but by making goalkeepers as good as they are now to artificially resolve the issue, SI have actually made the game far less enjoyable (IMO).

Much of the reason why I love watching football is the thrill I get from seeing clear cut chances being created. I am sure many here would agree that few things beat watching your team's striker clear on goal.

However, SI have now made it such that the creation of one-on-ones means little if anything. There would be no sense of excitement when seeing my star striker through on goal as he would as much chance of scoring from that as he would a long shot.

[wwfan]

wwfan - you are all over the shop in this thread...

in one post you say "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" yet in another you are quoting empirical evidence suggesting that which is impossible to measure actually has a conversion rate of 25%-33%

Then you say

"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? " yet this was based on a post about goals/shots rather than one on ones

Then

"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. "

of course it's possible to draw the keeper on a straight 1on1...you draw the keeper out and take it around him...i watch loads of football and have seen it happen lots of times. the lateral V behind ball is a momentum thing and is easier but doesn't make it as difficult as currently in 10.2...essentially i agree with you there are too many 1on1s, straight on angle is more difficult to score as keeper covers more of the goal and you have less to aim for and defenders in game are somewhat culpable but at the point in time when the player has 1on1 the relative abilities of finisher and goalkeeper have no discernible difference on the outcome of the chance...which of course it should...ie positioning of keeper, finishing ability and composure of attacker...these are academic in deciding the outcome yet they are key factors in 1on1s...top players and far from top players pretty much do the same thing which is totally unrealistic and keepers of all levels do the same which again does not reflect real life

as i said, one thing you have got right is the chances are occuring too frequently but the likes of david villa and other top strikers convert more of these in real life than in FM...if villa got 4/5 chances IRL every game he has composure and finishing ability to convert 2/3...at least. The real Ronaldo (Brazilian one) had loads of 1on1s throughout his career and it was a rarity for him not to convert so your stats may be skewed by lesser player's conversion rates...it's hard to believe that there is only an 8% difference in 1on1 conversion rates between your average finisher and the best finishers in world...the is more of a disparity than that in reality.....you are basically saying on average if a player like david villa gets 100 1on1s and emile heskey gets 100 1on1s villa would only convert 33 to heskey's 25...please...that's not realistic i'm afraid. i'd be interested in reading where you get your evidence to see how it was compiled

I'm afraid you are looking at three different arguments against three different points and conflating them into one element.

The first quote simply illustrates that one on ones are not as easy as everyone states that they are, using real world stats as evidence. I then argued that the chances everyone is complaining about are unrealistic one on ones and wouldn't often happen in real life, so you can't necessarily use those figures to qualify them. I suggested that 1 in 5 (which is a borderline 'good' chance) would be a possible qualifier for such chances. This is a suggestion not hard facts.

The 2nd quote is simply talking about the scoring rates of top class players, which is about one goal in every four shots. It was nothing to do with one on ones, but a response to somebody's suggestion that top players scored 1 in 2 of their shots. All I was doing was putting things into perspective, so figures like 60 or 70% weren't being flung around as realistic scoring ratios.

It is possible to draw a keeper on a straight one on one, but as Supersaint's illustrations indicate, it is not as easy as when you are at an angle to him. It is especially difficult if you have defenders breathing down your neck and no time to fake. The 2nd part of your statement suggests that ever FC is scoring such chances at the same rate, which given the comments about Villa earlier in the thread, is unlikely to be the case. Once more, such one on ones are rare in real life football, so we are not sure how often they would be converted. If my 1 in 5 suggestion is feasible, Villa might score 1 in 5, but a less good FC 1 in 8.

Using opinions about how often a certain player would convert a certain type of chance has no value. However many times you state David Villa would convert 66% of his one on ones, it still flies in the face of real world evidence that suggests this would make him twice as good as any striker that ever lived. Which I don't think is the case. Maybe at the outside he'd convert at 40% and Heskey 20%, but anything outside those numbers just aren't feasible figures. This still makes him twice as good as Heskey as a finisher, which is probably a realistic comparison.

As I stated earlier, I'm not sure if these figures come from the research journal I referenced or another one, but, once more, they are uncontroversial figures when talking about scoring ratios. I am not making them up. It is a fully researched phenomenon of football. Unless someone can produce similar research with different figures, I cannot take opinions about how often player y or player z would score seriously. They are just opinions with a strong perspective bias. If people expect that their FC should score 2 in 3 one on ones, they will always be disappointed, because he shouldn't, whoever he is. For this certain type of one on one, I have consistently suggested being happy with one in five, and that people shouldn't regard them as 'unmissable' in the real world, as they quite patently aren't.

[RT--]

I appreciate what you've said in the thread wwfan, but one thing to pick up on:

I do think even a 'balanced' tactical setup tends to create a glut of these (missed) one-on-ones. I'll upload a few PKMs when I get the chance, but I've just started a season in the MLS with an untweaked 4-4-2, (full-backs (auto), center-backs (def), wide midfielders (att), ball-winner (def), adv playmaker (sup), deep-lying forward (sup), adv forward (att)) and I've seen my playmaker hitting up to 7 or 8 key passes, and the highlights reel packed full of players missing seemingly gilt-edged chances.

So I'm not sure this is simply restricted to players who are using unbalanced tactics.

[wwfan]

I'm not arguing that they aren;t too easy to create. They are and then some. I'm just arguing they are not as good chances as some people seem to believe (Supersaint's illustrations being the best example of this) and that trying to create these types of chances at the expense of others will lead to even greater levels of frustration.

People need to do three things:

1: Realise that such chances are the result of a marking bug rather than their great play

2: Recognise these chances aren;t as good as they think they are

3: Rather than creating a tactic that accentuates such chances, work on creating different types of chance that are slotted home far more regularly

[RT--]

Here we are, four PKMs from my opening eight games:

http://www.filefront.com/15204293/mls_game1.pkm

http://www.filefront.com/15204313/mls_game2.pkm

http://www.filefront.com/15204315/mls_game3.pkm

http://www.filefront.com/15204319/mls_game4.pkm

[RT--]

No, I appreciate that you've said they're too easy to create, and I agree that they shouldn't be scored to the extent that some people think they should be.

I'm just saying that a lot of people will experience the issue with a fairly standard setup, not one that they've created in order to 'accentuate such chances'. Just having a central midfielder set to try through balls often (which most supporting mids are, by default) seems to be enough.

[Greasy Chip Butty]

I haven't got FM10 yet (it's on my CHristmas list so the missus banned me - grrr) but from reading this thread, there is one conclusion that I can draw with confidence.

Some people need to read more carefully and appreciate what others write.

The complaints about a so-called superkeeper are valid at first: however, they have been explained by wwfan and others but people keep posting comments about superkeepers. I read the first thirty comments and could see the annoying part of missing these chances but one post from wwfan was all it took for me to understand it. Is FM a perfect representation of football? No, it isn't. Would I like it to be? Hell, yeah. Is it the best that there is? Of course.

Some of you should go back and read your comments and see what you sound like. Just read the explanation and accept it instead of making the same comments over and over and sounding like a complete moron!

[Mitja]

now we need to belive that 1on1 is a half decent chance?

[wwfan]

You need to believe it is what it is in reality, a chance that has a one in four to one in three chance of being converted.

The very straight angled one on ones that are rushed (as in Supersaint's examples) are probably not as easy as that, so I'd suggest using one in five as a qualifier, based on statistical analysis of what makes a borderline good chance.

[Mitja]

can't we just accept something might be wrong with 1on1 efficiancy and just move on, as we all know things will change in next patch, and in patch after that and in patch after that...

[Mitja]

You need to believe it is what it is in reality, a chance that has a one in four to one in three chance of being converted.

for hundreds of players in all possible levels, not for David Villa.

The very straight angled one on ones that are rushed (as in Supersaint's examples) are probably not as easy as that, so I'd suggest using one in five as a qualifier, based on statistical analysis of what makes a borderline good chance.

Davis Villa won't shoot straight at GK all the time.

[RT--]

The top-line stats are presumably still pretty close to RL.

I think most people agree that one-on-ones occur far more frequently in the game than they do in RL.

So I think it's also safe to infer that they're also not converted as often as they are in RL.

[Rista]

I've changed my tactics to a regular 4-4-2, only made a couple of tweaks here and there, didn't touch TTB instructions and it still happens far, far too often. Just won a game 6-1 and didn't enjoy it at all. Tons of one on ones and it seems almost as if it's easier to score from anywhere else than what IRL should be THE chance in football. If they at least TRIED to round the keeper every now and then perhaps it wouldn't be as frustrating as it is now watching them shoot straight at the keeper all the time.

[akkm]

I'm afraid you are looking at three different arguments against three different points and conflating them into one element.

The first quote simply illustrates that one on ones are not as easy as everyone states that they are, using real world stats as evidence. I then argued that the chances everyone is complaining about are unrealistic one on ones and wouldn't often happen in real life, so you can't necessarily use those figures to qualify them. I suggested that 1 in 5 (which is a borderline 'good' chance) would be a possible qualifier for such chances. This is a suggestion not hard facts.

The 2nd quote is simply talking about the scoring rates of top class players, which is about one goal in every four shots. It was nothing to do with one on ones, but a response to somebody's suggestion that top players scored 1 in 2 of their shots. All I was doing was putting things into perspective, so figures like 60 or 70% weren't being flung around as realistic scoring ratios.

It is possible to draw a keeper on a straight one on one, but as Supersaint's illustrations indicate, it is not as easy as when you are at an angle to him. It is especially difficult if you have defenders breathing down your neck and no time to fake. The 2nd part of your statement suggests that ever FC is scoring such chances at the same rate, which given the comments about Villa earlier in the thread, is unlikely to be the case. Once more, such one on ones are rare in real life football, so we are not sure how often they would be converted. If my 1 in 5 suggestion is feasible, Villa might score 1 in 5, but a less good FC 1 in 8.

Using opinions about how often a certain player would convert a certain type of chance has no value. However many times you state David Villa would convert 66% of his one on ones, it still flies in the face of real world evidence that suggests this would make him twice as good as any striker that ever lived. Which I don't think is the case. Maybe at the outside he'd convert at 40% and Heskey 20%, but anything outside those numbers just aren't feasible figures. This still makes him twice as good as Heskey as a finisher, which is probably a realistic comparison.

As I stated earlier, I'm not sure if these figures come from the research journal I referenced or another one, but, once more, they are uncontroversial figures when talking about scoring ratios. I am not making them up. It is a fully researched phenomenon of football. Unless someone can produce similar research with different figures, I cannot take opinions about how often player y or player z would score seriously. They are just opinions with a strong perspective bias. If people expect that their FC should score 2 in 3 one on ones, they will always be disappointed, because he shouldn't, whoever he is. For this certain type of one on one, I have consistently suggested being happy with one in five, and that people shouldn't regard them as 'unmissable' in the real world, as they quite patently aren't.

wwfan...you are providing endless amusement here...firstly you talk about opinions having no value yet you opine that certain 1`on1s are rare in football without having any facts backing it up...you said yourself "Using opinions about how often a certain player would convert a certain type of chance has no value" yet you did that yourself on several occasions.

the only 'hard fact' you have re chance conversion is the 25%-33% yet when challenged to provide more detail about how the research was compiled you are all of a sudden 'not sure' where the figures come from...if it is there i'd sincerely like to read it because you are showing a remarkable ability to quote stats while lacking the understanding of their application in context. To suggest that 25%-33% should apply...these would be averages with significant deviations either side...my point was the deviations are naturally there (which you conceded eg 40/20 re villa/heskey)...that does not apply in FM...regardless of relative attributes of different players their conversion rates are similar in the game which is nonsensical.

most comical is you citing supersaints examples from a COMPUTER GAME SIMULATION as evidence to back you up...are you for real...firstly try using examples from real life and not video games...secondly what his examples illustrate is the actual 'bug' or whatever you want to call it in that these chances significantly more often than not just get hit at the keeper...this in essence is the problem cos in real life players try different things rather than shoot at keeper each time in 1on1 situations...so you highlighting evidence of the problem in the game to support your argument of what should happen IRL is indeed very perverse logic and bordering on being somewhat at odds with reality...just think about it...does it make sense to try and say something is accurate in real life by citing video game evidence...oh dear !!!

another downfall of using supersaints examples and drawing your own ill conceived opinions/conclusions is the angle of the 1on1s...you stated that its not as easy draw the keeper when at an angle as it is straight on but this is wrong on your part...approaching straight on to a keeper it is much harder to draw him out and go past as momentum change on forwards part to go either side is physically more difficult than it is approaching from an angle to the keeper...wake up...also keeper straight on blocks more of the goal angle wise thus reducing your target than from a forward approaching from side angle...it seems you read stuff but don't really understand it

a one on one anyway is where a player is through on goal with the just goalkeeper to beat...so you seem to be confused as to what actually consititutes a 1on1 seeing you are referencing supersaints illustrations, of which some are clearly not 1on1s as defenders are too close...your opinion on a what 1on1 is does not stack up with what it actually is...your perception is far removed from reality

the david villa example i used only means he would be twice as good at converting 1on1s than others not twice as good a striker overall...and my point was related to chance conversion IN THE GAME..which is too similar despite big differences in players abilities

using your stat of 25-33% to back you up is myopic bordering on obtuse...there would be significant deviations either side and for top strikers like david villa & brazilian ronaldo the stat would be closer to 66% (tho that is prob a little high for everyone, having watched most of ronaldo games i would not be surprised if he achieved or even bettered that...in his heydey i only ever saw him miss one of at least 10-12 1on1 chances...again this is real life not opinion or not something which happened on FM) than your 25%-33%...again i watch lots of football and i see lots of 1on1s converted so this is not opinion it is fact based...real stuff happens outside FM you know : )...and its there for all to see.

As for the research...i genuinely would love to read it and challenge it...i mean who produced it, what was their sample size, who was used in it etc etc...needs to be evidenced before you citing it as your panacea in this context...one might say you have a blind spot in relation to this....it was a useful contribution on your part but quite frankly it is overly simplistic to apply here without proper analysis. What are the competence levels of those who produced these stats, what is the margin for error...lets say 10% which means 25%-33% goes to 35%-43% with deviations either side top players would be well above 50%, how many games were sampled and was it an english based sample...if so then english football is all about crossing and getting the ball into box as early as possible which doesn't lend itself to very many 1on1s...thus not a very representative sample...and before you say i cannot say either way or some conjecture on my part...the same applies to wwfan...most industry research these days is exposed when challenged properly, so until that research is there to see it lacks credibilty...as i say there is a huge margin for error on industry research. Statistics such as 1on1s are rarely captured even with all stats that are captured these days so the 25-33 is open to serious exposure

your opinion of 1 in 5 conversaion rate is ridiculously low...if you think thats real then you either spend too much time watching games on FM/sunday league football or are delusional. I'm sure most managers would like choose a 1on1 as their best opportunity from which to score so for you to argue its not as good a chance as people think based on a capricious stat of 25-33 to defend the FM game is unnecessary. i have watched football for years and i have seen most top strikers convert more 1on1s than they miss...that is not opinion, it is FACT

anyway...i think it would be good if SI sorted the number of instances of these chances for the next patch

[scribs]

yep the first attack they have after i had 7 ccc's they score.... i couldnt believe it

[wwfan]

wwfan...you are providing endless amusement here...firstly you talk about opinions having no value yet you opine that certain 1`on1s are rare in football without having any facts backing it up...you said yourself "Using opinions about how often a certain player would convert a certain type of chance has no value" yet you did that yourself on several occasions.

I have only suggested a possibility based on knowledge of scoring ratios from certain distances and angles from the goal. I made it explicitly clear that this was a subjective position. I just think it is a more accurate position than the 66% one people are claiming.

The actual lack of such chances in real life is something I've been looking at related to ME research. The reason that such straight on one on ones are rare is largely because FCs tend to only attack the channels between the FBs and DCs, as straight balls are easily mopped up by narrowing/pincering DCs. Because of this, FCs tend to drop deeper when they are very central and just provide out ball opportunities. FM fails to recreate this movement well, both for attackers and defenders, which is why these straight angled one on ones are happening overly regularly.

the only 'hard fact' you have re chance conversion is the 25%-33% yet when challenged to provide more detail about how the research was compiled you are all of a sudden 'not sure' where the figures come from...if it is there i'd sincerely like to read it because you are showing a remarkable ability to quote stats while lacking the understanding of their application in context. To suggest that 25%-33% should apply...these would be averages with significant deviations either side...my point was the deviations are naturally there (which you conceded eg 40/20 re villa/heskey)...that does not apply in FM...regardless of relative attributes of different players their conversion rates are similar in the game which is nonsensical.

There are deviations, of course, but not to the extent that people are suggesting. The research paper I referenced argues that even a shot from 6-yards out in open play only has a 50% chance of going in (which is still better than any player's scoring ratio by a considerable margin). To suggest that any type of shot has a 66% percent chance of being scored (bar penalties (82%)) flies in the face of all data. The only real life data I have ever read states 25%-33%, depending on the relative quality of shooter/keeper. If/when I find the article/book that the information comes from, I will reference it. However, I am not about to search through 1000s of words in order to find the reference just because you don't believe me.

I accept there will be biases, but not to the extent that the data is 33% or more out for any given player.

most comical is you citing supersaints examples from a COMPUTER GAME SIMULATION as evidence to back you up...are you for real...firstly try using examples from real life and not video games...secondly what his examples illustrate is the actual 'bug' or whatever you want to call it in that these chances significantly more often than not just get hit at the keeper...this in essence is the problem cos in real life players try different things rather than shoot at keeper each time in 1on1 situations...so you highlighting evidence of the problem in the game to support your argument of what should happen IRL is indeed very perverse logic and bordering on being somewhat at odds with reality...just think about it...does it make sense to try and say something is accurate in real life by citing video game evidence...oh dear !!!

That's not what I was doing and you know it. I was using his examples to illustrate that the type of chances people were claiming were one on ones were not that good and hence having the keeper save them isn't that unrealistic.

another downfall of using supersaints examples and drawing your own ill conceived opinions/conclusions is the angle of the 1on1s...you stated that its not as easy draw the keeper when at an angle as it is straight on but this is wrong on your part...approaching straight on to a keeper it is much harder to draw him out and go past as momentum change on forwards part to go either side is physically more difficult than it is approaching from an angle to the keeper...wake up...also keeper straight on blocks more of the goal angle wise thus reducing your target than from a forward approaching from side angle...it seems you read stuff but don't really understand it

I stated it is easier to draw the keeper at an angle, not more difficult. I suggest you read your last sentence in the quote.

a one on one anyway is where a player is through on goal with the just goalkeeper to beat...so you seem to be confused as to what actually consititutes a 1on1 seeing you are referencing supersaints illustrations, of which some are clearly not 1on1s as defenders are too close...your opinion on a what 1on1 is does not stack up with what it actually is...your perception is far removed from reality

Supersaint's illustrates what people are calling one on ones. I have consistently stated that the chances people are referring to are hurried, either requiring a sprint on goal or a first time shot when under pressure. They are not 'easy' one on ones, and to treat them as such is misleading.

the david villa example i used only means he would be twice as good at converting 1on1s than others not twice as good a striker overall...and my point was related to chance conversion IN THE GAME..which is too similar despite big differences in players abilities

In my game David Villa has a 35% shot/goal ratio, which is pretty damn good. Once more, I don't see any problems here, bar certain perspective biases about quality of chances and real life conversion rates. I still don't see any evidence other than subjective bias that David Villa can/does score 66% of his one on ones.

using your stat of 25-33% to back you up is myopic bordering on obtuse...there would be significant deviations either side and for top strikers like david villa & brazilian ronaldo the stat would be closer to 66% (tho that is prob a little high for everyone, having watched most of ronaldo games i would not be surprised if he achieved or even bettered that...in his heydey i only ever saw him miss one of at least 10-12 1on1 chances...again this is real life not opinion or not something which happened on FM) than your 25%-33%...again i watch lots of football and i see lots of 1on1s converted so this is not opinion it is fact based...real stuff happens outside FM you know : )...and its there for all to see.

If you watch a lot of top flight football, you will see a lot of one on ones converted, because 1 in 3 is a good strike ratio. It's better than any strike ratio of any striker on the planet. They are scored at a better rate than other chances, but not at the 66%+ levels people seem to think they are.

As for the research...i genuinely would love to read it and challenge it...i mean who produced it, what was their sample size, who was used in it etc etc...needs to be evidenced before you citing it as your panacea in this context...one might say you have a blind spot in relation to this....it was a useful contribution on your part but quite frankly it is overly simplistic to apply here without proper analysis. What are the competence levels of those who produced these stats, what is the margin for error...lets say 10% which means 25%-33% goes to 35%-43% with deviations either side top players would be well above 50%, how many games were sampled and was it an english based sample...if so then english football is all about crossing and getting the ball into box as early as possible which doesn't lend itself to very many 1on1s...thus not a very representative sample...and before you say i cannot say either way or some conjecture on my part...the same applies to wwfan...most industry research these days is exposed when challenged properly, so until that research is there to see it lacks credibilty...as i say there is a huge margin for error on industry research. Statistics such as 1on1s are rarely captured even with all stats that are captured these days so the 25-33 is open to serious exposure

I agree that it can be challenged, but not via statements of 'I watch a lot of football and I know this is a false figure'. If you want to challenge it, you need to be a little more rigorous. If you want to argue for a margin of error, it could easily be the other way, with players only scoring 15-23% of one on ones. In the absence of any better data, please tell me what objective figures I can use. I have read a specific set of data, which, although undoubtedly containing flaws, is still a set of objectively researched evidence. Nobody else has. How can their subjective opinions be given equal weight?

your opinion of 1 in 5 conversaion rate is ridiculously low...if you think thats real then you either spend too much time watching games on FM/sunday league football or are delusional. I'm sure most managers would like choose a 1on1 as their best opportunity from which to score so for you to argue its not as good a chance as people think based on a capricious stat of 25-33 to defend the FM game is unnecessary. i have watched football for years and i have seen most top strikers convert more 1on1s than they miss...that is not opinion, it is FACT

1 goal for 5 shots is still better than most top class strikers achieve in their career. Only the very few world class finishers beat this. However weird it may sound, a shot that has a 20% chance of being scored is a pretty good chance. As illustrated above, the one on ones people are complaining about aren't actually that great a chance. 1 in 5 looks about right to me. If anything, it's a little high. Actually, any shot from greater than 12 yards out only has a 1 in 9 chance of going in, which, going by supersaint's illustrations of FM one on ones, might be a better figure to use.

NB: The 1 in 5/1 in 9 conversion rate is discussed in the article I referenced.

anyway...i think it would be good if SI sorted the number of instances of these chances for the next patch

At least we can agree on something.

[Troneas]

yep the first attack they have after i had 7 ccc's they score.... i couldnt believe it

this is evidence enough right there that something is completely out of place.

unless your stiker / AM's are complete rubish on their finishing or their goalie is a "superkeeper" there is no way in reality a team with 20 shots on goal vs. 1 (14 of them on target), and 7 clear cut chances vs. 0 is going to draw 1-1.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

Hillarious thread.

I have come to the conclusion that people will defend their argument just as much as how they would defend their team on the weekend.

No argument or evidence in the World will sway one or the others opinion on their own argument.

Sadly people fail to realise that this one on one issue isn't that huge of a deal and the percentages are negligiable.

Its nearing Christmas, the game is actually very good, no one can even get close to this kind of match engine - not a single company - not FIFA, not PES, not CM - no one even comes close to the complex match engine we have at our disposal.

We need to understand that the match engine is so complex and there is no such thing as true AI. The amount of code and work that goes into this engine, is a work in progress that is ever evolving, is a match engine that is probably evolving for over a decade and can't possibly ever resemble real life football.

It does however, produce a wonderful gaming experience for everyone, even though it is not perfect. At the end of the day, some people are a little too picky, some need to stop getting worked up over some random events that happen in their game, which might not totally be a result of a bug which they think is the case.

There are no super keepers, there is not a huge bug with one on ones - it is not perfect but it is not totally broken to a point where it is not playable or glaringly a game breaker.

If your team has had 10 one on ones and scored none, but the opposition has had 1 and scored, how is this a bug? Every single player, be it AI or Human play with the same match engine, the bugs you experience, the AI will experience as well - the only difference is that the AI (which is coded by the SI programmers - and not actually real artificial intelligence as some might think) faces a set of rules which is less prone to error because human players tend to play with a little more variables and might not understand the concepts as much as the AI (in which I mean SI).

Merry Chrismas everyone, lighten up a little - have a drink (or not if you are an aggressive type when boozed up ) and for one day - PLAY the game and try not to worry too much about trivial things such as a game.

[The Vet]

The main issue is the defensive marking that allows it to happen, not the keeping. If you are creating loads, it is because you are exploiting that flaw, not because you are playing really well. It will have been a knock on from a late ME build that would have missed deadlines.

These types of one on ones are hardly ever created in real life. Just regard them as half chances and be happy when you score one. The rest of the attacking/defensive play is fine.

So why didn't they fix this flaw? It's hurting counter attacking. I also think it's the first time in history I have heard that it is easier to score from an angle than having the whole goal in front of you, like a penalty. And it's not only in these situations, but also when players have like 1- yard from the goal, and they still kick right into the arms of the keeper(happens in rl, but not as frequent(nor does the amount of CCC do)).

But truth be told, it's not superkeepers(on these chances), but incredible poor finishing, because they shot straight at the keeper, each and almost everytime.

I have alot of these chances, but I still don't have scoring issues - as long as I have other kind of chances that in reality shouldn't - on this frequency - score goals.

My recent save with Atl. Madrid had me scoring 106 league goals. Somehow the best chances resulted in nothing, while a lot of no chances did.

I am glad for some of the fixes - like better defending, and more back and forth in pursuit of getting the upper hand, but there is still some way to go, which is odd - considering that in each release, you iron things out, only to start anew with the next. Didn't you like fix the defender problem with one of the FM2009 patches?

[Mitja]

even the word '1on1' suggests that it is a 50-50 chance, for me 1on1 means the player is clean through on goal, coming centraly without any defender obstructing him. maybe definnition of 1on1 was totally differenet in that study? to suggest that best players in the world have only 30% of scoring such chances is dangerus for realism of the game, if this logic is aplyied. everyone who watches football knows that when Messi or Ronaldo are clean on goal, it's unlikely they will score only 3/10 such chances. that's a fact.

so, Messi scores 20% of all his shots this season, Ibrahimovic 26%, Hihgain 37%, Ronaldo 24% in season when he scored 31 goals for United. most of these shots are middle/long range shots, which probability to go in is small. numbers suggest that some of above players have better g/s ratio than it is a probability for 1on1 to go in (which is considered among few best chances there are), which proves that 30% logic is flawed for them.

there's no doubt that wwfan will have an answer for this, which will prove me wrong

[scribs]

this is evidence enough right there that something is completely out of place.

unless your stiker / AM's are complete rubish on their finishing or their goalie is a "superkeeper" there is no way in reality a team with 20 shots on goal vs. 1 (14 of them on target), and 7 clear cut chances vs. 0 is going to draw 1-1.

and to beleive i was the one 1-0 down lol i had to switch to 4 strikers and then i hit the woodwork.... then it takes a 25 yard shot in the 86th min to equalise... needless to say i was not happy

and this isnt a one off, i could get 8 ccc and the computer gets 1 and i end up losing 1-0

im not really ranting im just providing evidence lol

[tingting]

These types of one on ones are hardly ever created in real life. Just regard them as half chances and be happy when you score one. The rest of the attacking/defensive play is fine.

This may come out as a sarcastic post but are you serious??? 1v1 created by a central midfielder playing a throughball behind two central defenders is a rarity in football?? Do you watch the top teams play not just in England but in other countries as well??

Would like to say three things here...first let us get rid of stats...these are the stats of top four goal scorers so far in the major European leagues..first is the name, goal scored, shots on target and conversion percentage:

England:

Jermain Defoe 13 30 (43.3 %)

Didier Drogba 13 39 (33.3%)

Wayne Rooney 12 29(41.3%)

Fernando Torres 11 21(52.3%)

Spain:

David Villa 12 31(35.7%)

Zlatan Ibrahimovic 11 26(42.3%)

Roberto Soldado 10 21(47.6%)

Gonzalo Higuaín 10 16 (62.5%)

Italy:

Antonio Di Natale 11 25(44%)

Alberto Diego Milito 10 16(62.5%)

Francesco Totti 9 16(56.25%)

Samuel Eto'o 8 19 (42.1%)

Germany:

Stefan Kießling 12 26(46.15%)

Lucas Barrios 9 19(47.3%)

Kevin Kuranyi 8 22(36.36%)

Mario Gomez 8 16(50%)

France:

Anderson Luiz de Carvalho Nene 10 33(30.3%)

Gervinho 9 15 (60%)

Pierre-Alain Frau 8 18(44.4%)

Asamoah 8 22(36.36%)

Lisandro López 8 16(50%)

Scotland:

Kris Boyd 13 21(61.9%)

Kenny Miller 10 16(62.5%)

Scott McDonald 8 15(53.3%)

Anthony Stokes 8 20(40%)

Apart from a couple of players...all of them have a higher ratio than then 25%-33% from the study. The shots include headers, long shots and shots under pressure (admitted that some of such shots do finish as goals)

Next up 1v1 chances...had watched three games over the weekend and just to be sure..i searched for MOTD highlights of the matches...here are the stats (again name followed by chance and then goal):

Blackburn 0-2 Tottenham

Peter Crouch 1-1

Arsenal 3-0 Hull

Eduardo 2-1

Diaby 1-1

Walcott 1-0

Man City 4-3 Sunderland

Santa Cruz 2-2

Bellamy 1-1

So in three games you have eight clear chances and 6 goals scored(almost a 75% completion ratio)...i would suggest you watch the Arsenal game and then tell whether a striker running onto a throughball behind a central defender is a rarity or not.

This is not from any study...i watched the match (and then downloaded the highlights) I agree that in the study it might have been given that the conversion ratio is between 25%-33% but there are players who score 6-7 out of 10 clear chances and then there are players who do not score even one of 10 clear chances. A few months ago i had written an article for a site where in a study was made which looked into the possibility of a player converting a penalty shot. The conclusion of the study was that if you hit the lower side of the ball then there is some 30% chance of converting the penalty but if you hit the top portion of the ball the success ratio fell to 23% or so...but we have players whose penalty conversion ratio is pretty high and we have players whose conversion ratio is pretty low. So the number they found out was an average of the whole sample which does fluctuate depending on the quality of the player

As i have already said...i made an experiment by buying Kevin Davies and i found no difference in the conversion ratio between him, Berbatov, Rooney, Owen and Welbeck. Each player was able to convert 1-4 or 1-5 chances...

I had bought Davies for 3.5 million and paying him around 25,000 per week. So what is the use of having a Rooney or a Berbatov who earn 100,000 per week when i could have the same amount of goals from a player who is earning 25,000?

Now for the final point...What is the use of all the attributes when you are going to limit the performance depending on stats??? What is the difference between a player whose finishing, composure and technique stats read 16,17 and 19 and another whose stats read 14, 13 and 11 if the amount of goals to be scored is going to be tempered down because a study has said only 25-33% of the chances will be converted?

There are two options: 1) If you are going to go by stats then make sure that no one has a high finishing attribute 2) If you are going to give different attribute depending on the quality of a player then use common sense. A high quality player converts more chances than a good or poor quality player. That is the reason they are paid more.

There is a problem with the ME. Saying that we should make sure than our players do not create a perfectly logical chance is funny at best. I think people should admit that there is a problem with the ME and say that they are going to fix it rather than coming up with various studies to justify the problem. When 2009 (or 2008) was released...there was a closing down issue which SI admitted and said that they will be working on it...I dont think many gamers who had problems with it complained so much on the forums (at least i did not) and were perfectly willing to wait for the patch. But saying that there is no problem or to ignore it is plain stupidity.

The rest of the attacking play is not fine..because no matter how you create a clear chance...the striker shoots it straight at the keeper rather than try and place it

There are many gamers who have less knowledge about ME than others...but enough so that they can get their players to create good chances. So if some gamers are having no problems with the patch then congrats...but there are some who are having problems with the game...and no..they are not minuscule so that they can be neglected.

[wwfan]

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

Quality forwards unremarkably better both these statistics, as that is what they are paid to do. However, as all your stats relate to goals per shot on target, they are irrelevant to the discussion. As posted earlier, these are the current goals per shots ratios of the top scorers in the UK (Name/Current conversion ratio/career conversion ratio):

Defoe 22%/15%

Drogba 15%/16%

Rooney 15%/11%

Torres 28%/23%

Bent 21%/22%

Saha 20%/16%

I can't access the Spurs/Blackburn match, but you must be joking when you call any of the other goals one on ones. Diaby had a defender on him and Eduardo's was a 3 yard tap in from a cross. Santa Cruz had two tap ins from crosses. Bellamy had loads of players between him and the keeper. None of them are one on ones where the player is alone in front of the defence with the keeper to beat.

As for the through balls in the matches, pretty much every one is into the channels between the DC and FB, which I've already argued is where TBs are played. The problem TB in FM splits the DCs, which hardly ever happens in real life, as these matches patently illustrate.

I'm not sure where you have got your penalty conversion ratios from, but 30% and 23% are horribly low. 82% of penalties are converted. However, the rate of conversion fluctuates during a match, with higher ratios in the first half, falling as low as 70% in the last quarter of a match. You also have player biases, with some players converting 90%+ and others at 75%. However, given that players who miss penalties with any regularity aren't trusted to take them for long, the stats are relatively stable and narrow.

The difference in chances being converted could be quite high. Player A might convert 36% of his one on ones (slightly above the expected high end) whereas player B only converts 20% (slightly below the low end). That 16% difference is what you pay for and what wins football matches. However, most players in a division should fall in the expected 25-33%.

At no point have I said the problem should be ignored and I expect it to be fixed. However, given that the next patch is some time away, in order to appreciate the ME, you need to recognise that this type of one on one is not a good chance or realistic. If you think they are and keep on trying to create them, you will get hugely frustrated. I've written all the above to try and explain that so people might enjoy the game and read the ME better. However, there are so many people trying to score cheap points, not reading what I've written or posting irrelevant, opinionated or made up figures I don't know why I bother.

Merry Christmas anyway.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

You might want to read my post wwfan and make yourself feel better.

As stated before, I understand your frustrations but sometimes you just cannot "win" an argument, even when you are 100% correct.

I have read a lot of posts where you also had some altercations with my brother too about similar issues (My brother and I are two very different people) and sadly he too, just could not see past his point of view as do others in this thread.

All I can say is, you have fought your point, and unfortunately this talk will just go back and forth for an eternity - you just can't sway one's opinions when they are not open to listen to yours.

Merry Christmas mate, and thanks for the cool guides and the hard work you put into the game.

[jameswing]

I think the thing people want to know is when the Centre-Defenders will be fixed, (stopping the drifting), as I have been playing narrow to counter these chances, but at the expense of width attacking. overall I think the keepers are reasonably good on this version, but I hate throughballs between my defenders, as it looks unrealistic. Furthermore I have been trying allsorts of combinations of closing and marking et.c to stop these but now I know why, thanks wwfan.

Merry Christmas.