Superkeeper is really disrespectful to FM players

[Themistofelis]

AI goalies do save a lot but look where the ball goes after they save , it doesn't get any easier.

[CPS]

I've just started a new game on 10.2 at a really low level. From the first five games I've played my team has totalled 25 shots on target, had 14 clear cut chances and scored 14 goals. The opposition has had 25 shots on target also, 5 clear cut chances and scored 8 goals.

Early days admittedly but is anyone else noticing that this 'bug' isn't affecting their game at a really low standard? Or are superkeepers just not being tempted by the less than lucrative contracts on offer in the Swedish 2nd division?

[pewa2303]

I've just started a new game on 10.2 at a really low level. From the first five games I've played my team has totalled 25 shots on target, had 14 clear cut chances and scored 14 goals. The opposition has had 25 shots on target also, 5 clear cut chances and scored 8 goals.

Early days admittedly but is anyone else noticing that this 'bug' isn't affecting their game at a really low standard? Or are superkeepers just not being tempted by the less than lucrative contracts on offer in the Swedish 2nd division?

have you scored your goals from an angle?

i am sure you are coming over the wingers and your tactic is down the flanks.

nearly never you will score a goal in a one on one situation when your striker is coming through the middle.

choose a striker f.e. david villa and let him come through the middle of the pitch then choose a goalkeeper (maybe your youthest keeper which is 11 years old) the keeper will save nearly every time. the striker shoots and hits the keeper. every time in 10.2.

choose a winger like ribery and let him come down the flanks in a one on one. he will score more often than your striker.

thats it and that was posted by user user.

P

[muncherdave]

Detailed =

4: Destructive claims such as 'superkeepers' or extravagant claims such as 66% scoring ratios should be avoided.

But all the same it is fine for you to bleat on about whatever ratios you (subjectively) find acceptable with no evidence to back it up? Extravagant claim could mean one thing to you and another thing entirely to someone else.

[Steve Cox]

Maybe I'm missing something in the context of your post, but that comes across as rather dismissive of the issue. It may well only be a minor issue and I admit it hasn't had a major impact on my teams ability to score goals but I can assure you however that it is enormously frustrating watching your team squander chances in front of goal. More so when it's very easy to create said chances and it's infuriating if you lose in spite of all the chances. These are emotions that a game, which I'm assuming is designed to provide entertainment, should not be eliciting in the end user.

For me this thread is an indication that a lot of work needs to go into the tactical feedback side of the game. There are an awful lot of people that appear to be banging their head against the wall match after match due to missed CCCs.

That's not a very nice accusation there.

If Paul didn't care about the match engine why would he be on here talking about it? Surely he'd be too busy enjoying the holiday period with his family?

What people don't seem to realise is that the match engine is such a fine balancing act, if the keepers were made less efficient we'd have people complaining that strikers were too good, scorelines were unrealistic, too many chances were created/scored and it would be the worst match engine ever for some, the best for others, if we kept it how it is the complainers on here would go crazy and say it was the worst match engine ever while others (as they are now) are saying it's the best, if it is tweaked it could make other things go wrong as well, say the defence and keeper were tweaked up, midfielders might start hitting all their passes to defenders, defenders might become super defenders.... I'm guessing we'll get at least one person picking up on that last bit for 10.3

It's all a very tight balancing act. Which Paul and the test team does a fantastic job of keeping straight.

I can assure you the ME will be looked at and tweaked for 10.3, it will happen, there's no sense in hiding it. What we need to do is try to make sure the fixes don't 'break' the match engine elsewhere. Just like the Transfer system, just like the Media system and every other part of the game. We strive to be better.

We'd rather be 'almost' perfect' with a few things not quite there than have a completely broken game that annoys everyone.

For now, as I keep saying, if you really think you have a problem with the ME then get together a good number of PKM's for us to take a look at (not 2 oe 3 weeks worth, I'm talking a whole or most of a season) and highlight the issues to us, upload them to the FTP and they will be looked at.

[zebanumut]

Superkeepers lol

Moaners are disrespectful to FM players."7 ccc's and scored 2 oh my GOD this game sucks i want to win every match 10-0"

"have you scored like this,have you scored from there,can he save like this",what the hell!?just shut up

[Just-Wool]

OMG Chelsea had 28 shots and about 7 CCCs against Birmingham and didn't score, not one chance. Birmingham even got screwed out of a win. Joe Hart is now signing up for a multi million pound movie deal to be super keeper in Marvel's latest film.

[muncherdave]

Superkeepers lol

Moaners are disrespectful to FM players."7 ccc's and scored 2 oh my GOD this game sucks i want to win every match 10-0"

"have you scored like this,have you scored from there,can he save like this",what the hell!?just shut up

your post here is just as helpful as the quotes within it

[Los_Culés]

I went back to 10.1. There is really something wrong with the one on ones, but the most annoying, unacceptable thing for me is that even some obscure club can hit incredible through balls behind my defence several times in a match. Of course the opposition striker then shoot it directly into my gk because of the bug. The central defence splitting is horrible. It seems like everybody on the pitch is Riquelme.

[golfpunk]

OMG Chelsea had 28 shots and about 7 CCCs against Birmingham and didn't score, not one chance. Birmingham even got screwed out of a win. Joe Hart is now signing up for a multi million pound movie deal to be super keeper in Marvel's latest film.

I wonder who the super villian will be? Steve Coppell with his powers of supreme boringness?

[Just-Wool]

I wonder who the super villian will be? Steve Coppell with his powers of supreme boringness?

Nah, it'll be Fergie - like a kingpin type figure, an evil mastermind who the FA are puppets for. Wenger with his uncanny ability to not see things will be the Super Keeper sidekick.

It will be an amazing movie tbh.

[wwfan]

But all the same it is fine for you to bleat on about whatever ratios you (subjectively) find acceptable with no evidence to back it up? Extravagant claim could mean one thing to you and another thing entirely to someone else.

I have a large number of statistical studies I refer to and have referred to over the years. I forward many to Paul. Just because I am unwilling to search through 1000s of pages of data to find this particular statistic doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means I don't think I should have to defend myself against unfounded accusations of the evidence not existing. There are reams and reams of statistical and scientific studies on football, most of which I've read and use as a backdrop to helping out with the ME. This data is somewhere amongst all those figures.

For what it is worth, it is probably in the works of R Pollard, more specifically his doctoral thesis. But it could be M Franks. I have neither of their work saved on my home computer and I'm damned if I'm going to traipse all the way to work during the holidays, or at all to be honest, to satisfy people who accuse me of lying.

I choose to "subjectively" believe the publications of those who make their career studying football statistics over those who simply watch the game for enjoyment. Given that I have no intention of producing this type of research myself, as stats bore me to tears, I don't see how I could find more objectively relevant material. At the very least, you have to take it with a far smaller pinch of salt than the claims produced by armchair pundits.

Even without the evidence I've read, it's patently obvious scoring ratios are nowhere near as high as people spout on about. For a one on one, to score the attacker has to do four things well, usually at high speed and under pressure:

1: Control the ball

2: Take the shot

3: Hit the target

4: Miss the keeper

The keeper only has to do one thing well, which is get in the way of the ball if it happens to be on target. Unless the relative abilities of the two players are miles apart (which, given they are both top flight pro-footballers, they quite patently are not) there is no way any forward, ever, has a 66% advantage over a keeper across all the one on ones in a career/season. It's a laughable claim. 40-60 would be a major claim, let alone figures in the 60% bracket.

This type of analysis can be spread across any sport. Tiger Woods is not 40% better than his competitors. He is regularly 2-10% better, but even then, he has off days. Roger Federer doesn't put away 66% of his forehand winners. Some are put away, some are missed, many more are returned. When he wins matches, he rarely blows the opposition away, just does the important things well more often.

All top flight sport is measured in fine margins, not huge gaps. Ask any sports scientist. Given that there is a serious study on one on one conversion suggesting that top class forwards convert 1 in 3 chances, I find it incredulous that anybody would even try to challenge this by a 30%+ margin based almost exclusively on TV evidence. Yes, there may be the odd player who stretches these figures towards the 40% mark, but to be that much better!!! Doesn't happen in modern sport.

[Themistofelis]

The problem is not keepers, it is strikers shooting in the middle of the post .

If you ask me on what shall be corrected is to hammer long shot efficiency and leave goalies as they are.

[muncherdave]

I never accused you of lying, all I meant was you haven't provided any evidence yourself. Not the same thing. Get as defensive as you like but remember it's human nature to question things and not just take everything you say as gospel because you are the FM tactical guru.

To be rather blunt, I'm not really interested in the other 7 paragraphs of your post because I'm not particularly wanting to get drawn into the argument you are having with akkm. To me, a lot of it is irrelevant to the issue this thread is about anyway. The point is there are problems with the match engine to do with the defence being split far too easily and either the goalkeepers being too good or the strikers being too poor at finishing from a straight-on one-on-one situation. Yourself and PaulC have agreed to this, in part or all. This I am happy with, because it probably means it's going to be fixed with the next patch (I hope anyway). I don't understand however how you can't seem to just leave it at that and end up arguing until you are blue in the face about scoring ratios in this situation or that with users. I'm not saying it's your fault that it starts in the first place but you never can seem to let an argument lie, to the point where you are arguing about something that has very little to do with the OP. So you can't agree with someone as to how good a particular chance is, does it really matter at the end of the day? The match engine problem(s) that many people in this thread are taking issue with is what is important, and I don't think you do yourself any favours by just brushing it off and moving on to talking about scoring ratios from situations. Look at how much time and effort you have put into discussing the actual problem with the ME and then how much you have put into arguments with other users about percentages.

[tak]

Well I am delighted that a high ranked official from the manufacturer has verified that the match engine is all about getting the right balance. "if the keepers were made less efficient we'd have people complaining that strikers were too good". This statement is trully amazing and it confirms the existence of superkeepers. It has been my argument during the last two decades that features like superkeepers, amazing long range efforts, injuries in the first 10 minutes etc. are fine tools for balancing a game.

I completely sympathise with the above official. Getting consistently "realistic" results from a match engine is a very tricky act. I applaud the continuous effort to improve the said engine and I wish that eventualy balancing tools will not be necessary.

As for my frustrated friend wwfan, I need to say some words of understanding: It is always difficult to spend years researching various doctoral theses and kilometers of spreadsheets only for someone to shatter your study in a couple of sentences as usually happens in these forums and in real life. You shouldn't be dishearted by that. Stiffen your lip and start again!

[robbert_o154]

I don't understand however how you can't seem to just leave it at that and end up arguing until you are blue in the face

Because (some) people don't listen, because they don't want to listen. Wwfan has explained it numerous times in this thread now, but still this page of the thread contains 2 or 3 comments of people simply saying "super keepers bug, SI fix it" even though he's said there aren't any and explained why there aren't any. I surely can understand his frustration, and his need to get the point across.

[robbert_o154]

Well I am delighted that a high ranked official from the manufacturer has verified that the match engine is all about getting the right balance. "if the keepers were made less efficient we'd have people complaining that strikers were too good". This statement is trully amazing and it confirms the existence of superkeepers.

I don't think it does that, tbh. What I think this statement says is "the keeper responds as efficiently in this specific situation as a RL keeper would, and lowering his efficiency to a point below RL values would a) not be realistic and b) be a bad solution when the real problem lies elsewhere".

[Liam-Shannon]

wwfan, you truly have the patience of a saint to try and keep reasoning with some of the clowns posting in this thread.

I have played 22 seasons of FM10 thus far, and I have no issues with the ME that make the game unplayable, as many of you in this thread seem to think. You need to make a fundamental shift in your approach to the game, instead of thinking "Boo-hoo my strikers should score more of this type of goals, I'm running to the SI Community board to moan about it", why not look at what chances you are scoring, and try and make more of those?

If a top side were creating lots of a certain kind of a chance, and the keeper was saving every one of them, they wouldn't think "Well clearly we should keep doing this as it's working great", they'd try and do something different to test him in a different way. If he was saving from through-balls all the time, they'd crack a couple of 25 yarders off, or swing some crosses in.

Honest to God, it's like some of you don't want to enjoy the game.

What a joke if a team makes alot of chances you think their gona say noooo we need to change our tactics because we cant score them they would get a better striker you ******

[robbert_o154]

So United never change their tactic then?

[TuncEris]

Well at the end , as an experienced FM user , last 5 games got into a good state after x.3 patch , whatever the problem , whatever the "bug fix it you noobs" complains ; always ended up on third patch. I'm confident we will be all good after 10.3.

A very small advice ; why we cant get hot fixes for ME only? When we read patch notes after every release , there are too many ME upgrades since last patch. With an optional way , we can be testers too , and we can enjoy our game (if we want) with the WIP match engine. The other patches like competition and finances etc. can wait until next patch but things like CB splits and no rouding/lobbing keepers can go away as soon as they are tweaked/trying to be tweaked.

[PaulC]

Well at the end , as an experienced FM user , last 5 games got into a good state after x.3 patch , whatever the problem , whatever the "bug fix it you noobs" complains ; always ended up on third patch. I'm confident we will be all good after 10.3.

A very small advice ; why we cant get hot fixes for ME only? When we read patch notes after every release , there are too many ME upgrades since last patch. With an optional way , we can be testers too , and we can enjoy our game (if we want) with the WIP match engine. The other patches like competition and finances etc. can wait until next patch but things like CB splits and no rouding/lobbing keepers can go away as soon as they are tweaked/trying to be tweaked.

That's pretty much what the beta testers do. There was a sticky thread a year or so ago inviting applications. Anyone interested who has time on their hands as well as the ability to be constructive is welcome to apply and be added to a waiting list.

[tak]

I think the way SI is attempting to fix this problem will create a new type of superman. OK, it will take the special abilities away from superkeepers but it will create superdefenders.

See, there is a belief at the moment that too many chances are created with through balls. They call this type of chance "spliting the CBs". There is a lso a belief that this will be solved by making CBs that mark more tightly.

Please do not create supercenterbacks. it is not the problem. Anyone who knows the tiniest thing about football knows that in order to avoid defence spliting throughs you have to throw men on the creative midfielders.

Please SI fo not create superdefenders. Just teach SI to close down the creative playmakers better. Realistic realism.

[cf]

That's not a very nice accusation there.

My comment was meant to be neither nasty nor accusatory (I apologise for any offense), simply to point out that I felt saying ‘the majority are enjoying it’ comes across as dismissive for those that aren’t.

[crouchaldinho]

Well I am delighted that a high ranked official from the manufacturer has verified that the match engine is all about getting the right balance. "if the keepers were made less efficient we'd have people complaining that strikers were too good". This statement is trully amazing and it confirms the existence of superkeepers. It has been my argument during the last two decades that features like superkeepers, amazing long range efforts, injuries in the first 10 minutes etc. are fine tools for balancing a game.

You added up 2+2 and came out with 9,999,999!

[tak]

It's not difficult. Scores need to be realistic. If a factor of the match engine tends to create unrealistic scores, other factors jump in to rescue. We are told that unfortunately too many CCCs (as they call them) are created. What balances that? A superkeeper (or a dumb striker for that matter).

But let me repeat my petition. Please do not create superdefenders. If you want to limit "CCCs" from through balls work in midfield closing down and offside traps. Please SI...

[wwfan]

The match engine problem(s) that many people in this thread are taking issue with is what is important, and I don't think you do yourself any favours by just brushing it off and moving on to talking about scoring ratios from situations. Look at how much time and effort you have put into discussing the actual problem with the ME and then how much you have put into arguments with other users about percentages.

Two reasons for that.

1: The DC split is being looked at in Beta testing. I tend to save discussions on that for those forums. They are pretty irrelevant here as they hardly help people play 10.2.

2: In this forum I try to help people enjoy the game they are currently playing. The best way to do that is to understand the real nature of one on one chances and thus realise that they aren't as great a chance as people believe, especially when they are hit from 18 yards out plus. It's hard to impart this knowledge when everything is challenged by people who have never read a scientific study on football in their lives. A huge part of the frustration is in false expectations rather than down to any bug. False expectations cannot be dealt with properly if nobody accepts any serious studies on the issue.

In order to enjoy 10.2, you need to stop thinking central one on ones are great chances and look at scoring in other ways. If you think they are good chances, you will get frustrated. I've tried to explain why they aren't as good as people think to help reduce frustration. The only way to do that is to refer to figures on one on one chances (which I can't reference) and figures about scoring ratios in general (which I have referenced). Accepting this makes the game far more enjoyable.

In Beta testing, I can then focus on the main technical issue, which is defensive positioning.

As for my frustrated friend wwfan, I need to say some words of understanding: It is always difficult to spend years researching various doctoral theses and kilometers of spreadsheets only for someone to shatter your study in a couple of sentences as usually happens in these forums and in real life. You shouldn't be dishearted by that. Stiffen your lip and start again!

I'm not sure if you believe these studies have been disproved because a few forum members have 'better' evidence from their TV watching experience or that I should expect for research to be treated with cynicism and skepticism. The former is an extremely weird stance in which ignorance can be regarded as a point of view, whereas the latter I'm used to.

I also don't spend years researching this stuff. I just read them in support of my input to the tactical system and ME. I generally find it is better to know what you are talking about when giving technical and conceptual input, but maybe that's just me.

[tak]

I think I know what the problem is, dear wwfan. Football statistics were created as a way to measure, to quantify how a team has performed. Definitions and methodologies borrowed heavily from other sports that used statistics for many years before, especialy basketball.

Problem is, many of them weren't as applicable to football. Take shots for example. In basketball it is a very easily measurable quantity: The player shot 20, scored 15, had a 75% success percentage, brilliant. But in football? Very very difficult to apply the same logic. The variety of shots is greater, there is a keeper, the circumstances are more complex etc. Weird concepts came into place to try and establish some sort of the player's shooting performance: shots on target for example.

Everybody knows that when a good striker is through against the goalie there is a fat chance he will score. You can take the spreadsheets created by strange looking mathematicians and tell us that, you know what?, he has 9% chance of scoring. Horse manure. The definitions are wrong, the measurements are wrong, the logic is flawed.

When a good striker is through there is a FAT chance that he will score. To put this into numbers: he has a FAT chance.

Everything else is just a play with numbers that comes from basketball and does not apply to football.

[JockStein1967]

What do you mean"Straight Angle"? The keeper will move when one on one chance is formed, every angle has a pretty low rate.

that is where you are wrong, a keeper is at his opyimum position when he is 1on1 with a player in th centre of his goal, in any other 1on1 the player has increased vision and the option of seeing a player run in to the box.

[wwfan]

Prove it, then. Prove that when a good striker is one on one with a keeper he is more likely to score than not.

Remember, the striker must:

1: Make a good first touch so he's in a position to score

2: Get a shot off before the keeper closes him down or a defender gets back to cover

3: Hit the target

4: Miss the goalkeeper

That's four things he has to do well to score. As stated before, the keeper only has to do one thing well, which is get in the way of the ball. Like it or not, the advantage is still with the keeper. Not understanding that stopping something from happening is easier than making it happen is not understanding any sport, let alone football.

I'm enjoying your assumption that statistical research on football borrowed from basketball methodology. Care to provide evidence for this claim or has it come from the top of your head? A bit like your claim of the FAT chance of him scoring? I'm also enjoying your opinion that pressuring the midfielders and having better offside traps will solve the defensive problem. There are no major issues with the former in the ME and the offside trap has become almost a relic in football since the liberalisation of the offside law. Seems that you don't read theoretical discussions of football alongside your disdain for stats.

For what it is worth, much of the statistical research on football I take with a pinch of salt, as I agree that it fails to take context into consideration. I further agree that a one on one chance becomes easier if the forward makes a great first touch or is sufficiently far ahead of the defenders to have more time to control his actions. However, in general terms, I see no reason to disagree with the claim that one on ones do not have a massively successful conversion rate, especially when, as in 10.2, they are invariably hit from 18 yards or so out when under pressure. I have even less reason to accept that any player is 40% better than anyone else in any given situation. Modern sport just doesn't work that way.

[tak]

In the given situation the keeper must:

- estimate the distance between him and the player as well as the players pace and accelaration (not the game attributes with the same names) and from that conclude how quick he will reach him.

- predict from the player's movement, and footwork what way he is going to take the shot. Other factors are the player's usual approach, the current circumstances etc.

- estimate, according to his current position and movement data as well as his abilities what would be the best way to throw himself at the situation.

- form a plan b in case the player chooses a different course of actions than the forecasted one.

- At the exactly right moment, assume the position he calculated as adequate to deal with the most possible action by the striker, bearing in mind that he might need to go into plan b within a split of a second

- Avoid to give a way a penalty

- Avoid to give the striker any excuse for diving

- Avoid stepping outside the box

- If he has to step outside, avoid touching the ball with his hands

As we all know, all the striker has to do is place the ball into the net. The advantage is with the striker.

Measuring a strikers performance by the ratio of shots "on target" over "total shots" stems from the similar basketball methodology.

Next subject: A striker without the ball is running towards the opposite goal when the defender has his back on it. A midfielder unleashes a through ball. The defender has to turn and instantly accelerates to the same speed as the striker and then mark him. Not humanly possible. If you leave midfielders free to pass through balls, no method of marking will allow the defender to stop the attacker from getting there first. Stop thr through balls and use offside traps. Elementary really.

[wwfan]

I thought I'd got past the stage of being monumentally surprised about how little people understand sport, but this is flabbergasting.

[tak]

of course it is, dear...

[wwfan]

Any more twisted logic or are you finished for the decade?

[tak]

I think you're in a tight spot and reacting badly really. Why don't you counter my "twisted" logic?

[JockStein1967]

Prove it, then. Prove that when a good striker is one on one with a keeper he is more likely to score than not.

Remember, the striker must:

1: Make a good first touch so he's in a position to score

2: Get a shot off before the keeper closes him down or a defender gets back to cover

3: Hit the target

4: Miss the goalkeeper

.

That is what I said although not in as many words.

Sometimes, a Goalkeeper will be better than a Striker.

Not rocket science

If the Striker was always better, it wouldn't be a real game.

[ObaMartins09]

Darren Bent's goal this afternoon such a perfect example of a player being put through between the two centre halfs, staying composed when faced with the keeper, and sliding it into the corner. I've not seen anything close to that on FM, and that kind of chance is presented every single game 3 or 4 times. In real life it happens fewer times and the striker scores.

[cf]

Tak may have embellished a little in his description of what the keeper has to do but I think he has a point in that saying the keeper only needs to ‘get in the way of the ball' is an over simplification, equally I could say all the striker needs to do is put the ball in the back of the net. I'm still not convinced the keeper has the advantage either, a goalkeeper is largely in a reactionary position in a one on one, though admittedly there are things you can do to force the strikers hand.

[ObaMartins09]

I could understand a save if the keeper had a good one on one attribute, and reflexes. However, it seems that any old keeper can make a great save when faced with a striker running straight at him.

[Rista]

wwfan, so in order to enjoy 10.2, we should stop thinking central one on ones are good chances. That's fine, but does that mean that along with improved defences which will lead to less of those chances being created, the conversion rate of strikers should also be higher in 10.3 or you believe we should stop thinking those are good chances in general and it's only the amount of one on ones that is the issue? The exact percentage doesn't matter, but you do believe strikers should do better in those situations than they do in 10.2?

[Woodmansee]

Only problem I see is players getting to many one on ones. Any player is lucky to get one in a game, I would say three is the max, I've ever seen, with the striker, scoring one. There is always a defender to dive in, or put the striker off.

[JockStein1967]

It is only a Clear Cut Chance if the striker in question can take it.

If not then the keeper who saves it, is entitled to feel "super",

[Dave.C43]

What really hacks me off is the same keepers(thats all keepers,regardless of ability) who consistantly make saves in the 1 on 1 situation are worse than useless when it comes to saving penalties! How can that be? (Cue more stats attempting to convince you that what you are seeing is not really what you are seeing!)

[JockStein1967]

What really hacks me off is the same keepers(thats all keepers,regardless of ability) who consistantly make saves in the 1 on 1 situation are worse than useless when it comes to saving penalties! How can that be? (Cue more stats attempting to convince you that what you are seeing is not really what you are seeing!)

In penalties, they do not have the option to come off the line.

On 1-2-1 situ, the can chase the ball down, thus narrowing shot scope.

[tak]

Well just think of all the things the penalty taker has to do:

- Place the ball

- Take many steps back

- Run

- Shoot

All the keeper has to do is fall on one side. The advantage is with the keeper and he should have been saving at least 85% of penalties according to a doctoral thesis by Dariusz Biberowski, which is about 3,000 pages long. I will inform the SI people immediately so that they can implement that in 10.8

[wwfan]

I think you're in a tight spot and reacting badly really. Why don't you counter my "twisted" logic?

How can I counter it if you have no evidence and just rely on personal opinion presented as truth to justify your claims. You haven't produced a semblance of evidence.

Defending the goal is far easier in football than scoring, yet you are consistently arguing there is a mythical chance in which the attacking player has an advantage without a jot of evidence. All statistical analysis supports that defending is easier. If it weren't, we'd get 10-9 score lines as a commonplace occurrence. Given that we don't, it is completely unjustifiable to argue that forwards score certain types of chances more regularly than they miss them. The only way this can happen is if one on ones are unbelievably rare, which goes against other arguments you have made. Your logic about goalkeeper decision making is just hilarious. If you've played any ball sport to any level, you'll know how easy it is to adjust defensively over getting everything right in an attacking sense.

If you want to read a history of the statistical methodology of football analysis, I suggest Franks et al 1983, Franks 1988, Church & Hughes 1987, Paukku, 1994, Reilly et al 1988, 1993, Ali 1988, Pollard 1997. These papers explain how the statistical evidence is gathered and measured. Basketball isn't mentioned.

If you want to read an analysis of chance conversion, then Pollard et al 2004 is a good place to start. Although they do not specifically mention one on ones, they do quantify how often chances are converted within certain ranges of the goal when a player is at an angle or not and when he is in at least a metre of space, drawn from a sample of 1096 attempts at goal. One on ones fall into this category. You might be surprised at the conclusions. NB, they do state the following on page 54: For a particularly good striker, this figure might be higher; for a less skillful player the figure would be lower, which I've been accepting all along.

If you want to read a discussion on the death of the offside trap due to the liberalisation of the offside law, Jonathan Wilson is a good starting point. You can then use his references to find further debate on the subject. He also has some interesting theory on the problems of the modern day playmaker and the lack of space they have to operate in.

However, if you want to continue pulling theory and evidence out of the top of your head and expect to be treated seriously, you'll be disappointed.

Darren Bent's goal this afternoon such a perfect example of a player being put through between the two centre halfs, staying composed when faced with the keeper, and sliding it into the corner. I've not seen anything close to that on FM, and that kind of chance is presented every single game 3 or 4 times. In real life it happens fewer times and the striker scores.

I'd agree, but if you watch the Bent goal carefully, you'll notice the following.

1: He angles into the centre from a very wide position, using his speed to outpace the defence. He wasn't simply waiting unmarked in the centre, which is what happens in FM.

2: He creates an angle with his run, thus making the chance easier for himself. He doesn't just turn and force of a hurried shot from a central position, which is what the 10.2 issue is. I'd expect a good number of chances to go in from that sort of angle in 10.2. I score a lot from those areas myself.

wwfan, so in order to enjoy 10.2, we should stop thinking central one on ones are good chances. That's fine, but does that mean that along with improved defences which will lead to less of those chances being created, the conversion rate of strikers should also be higher in 10.3 or you believe we should stop thinking those are good chances in general and it's only the amount of one on ones that is the issue? The exact percentage doesn't matter, but you do believe strikers should do better in those situations than they do in 10.2?

See the above. Is, as with the Bent chance, the chance is created by good movement and running angles, I'd expect a fairly high goal per shot ratio. However, a straight angled shot with both DCs pincering in and the GK advancing will produce a lower goal per shot ratio, as it should. That this type of chance exists on a regular basis is a bug in 10.2. That it isn't often converted is not necessarily unrealistic.

[wwfan]

Well just think of all the things the penalty taker has to do:

- Place the ball

- Take many steps back

- Run

- Shoot

All the keeper has to do is fall on one side. The advantage is with the keeper and he should have been saving at least 85% of penalties according to a doctoral thesis by Dariusz Biberowski, which is about 3,000 pages long. I will inform the SI people immediately so that they can implement that in 10.8

The reason the penalty taker has the advantage over the keeper is because the ball is stationary, thus making it easier to control (duh) and the keeper isn't allowed to move forward.

Are you going to continue with this vein of idiocy as it is getting increasingly tiresome.

[cf]

Defending the goal is far easier in football than scoring, yet you are consistently arguing there is a mythical chance in which the attacking player has an advantage without a jot of evidence. All statistical analysis supports that defending is easier. If it weren't, we'd get 10-9 score lines as a commonplace occurrence. Given that we don't, it is completely unjustifiable to argue that forwards score certain types of chances more regularly than they miss them. The only way this can happen is if one on ones are unbelievably rare, which goes against other arguments you have made. Your logic about goalkeeper decision making is just hilarious. If you've played any ball sport to any level, you'll know how easy it is to adjust defensively over getting everything right in an attacking sense.

With all due respect, I believe it to be a poor use of statistics to suggest that defending is easier than attacking due to a lack of high scoring games. I think there are far too many factors involved to make any kind of accurate interpretation from statistics other than there is a low conversion rate, which I agree, is the case.

I apologise if I’m taking this out of context given you’re not arguing the point with me.

[wwfan]

With all due respect, I believe it to be a poor use of statistics to suggest that defending is easier than attacking due to a lack of high scoring games. I think there are far too many factors involved to make any kind of accurate interpretation from statistics other than there is a low conversion rate, which I agree, is the case.

I apologise if I’m taking this out of context given you’re not arguing the point with me.

I agree that you can't use statistics in isolation, only in support. However, I don't think it is a contestable observation that it is easier to stop goals from being scored than it is to score them.

[Rista]

See the above. Is, as with the Bent chance, the chance is created by good movement and running angles, I'd expect a fairly high goal per shot ratio. However, a straight angled shot with both DCs pincering in and the GK advancing will produce a lower goal per shot ratio, as it should. That this type of chance exists on a regular basis is a bug in 10.2. That it isn't often converted is not necessarily unrealistic.

Does it really matter though how a striker gets into those positions as long as he does? I mean, whether it's the clever movement of the player or a bug in ME, strikers who find themselves one on one with the keeper with NO pressure from defenders still just shoot straight at the keeper most of the time. If what you're saying is true, then we will see less of those chances in 10.3 however when they do happen they will still be classified as CCCs AND we will still have to think of them as not so good chances.

If one on ones were so easy for goalkeepers to save, would Solskjaer ever have done this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBrFlDpQudY Not exactly a rare thing in football either.

I'm really having a hard time believing it's only the amount of one on ones that is wrong with the current ME.

[Shadowleech]

I agree that you can't use statistics in isolation, only in support. However, I don't think it is a contestable observation that it is easier to stop goals from being scored than it is to score them.

Well, I want to know: will SI release a hotfix for this superkeeper or through ball one on one problem or whatever you want to call?