I need an explanation !

[MeesterCat]

My immediate suggestions would be:

1) Think about having three attack roles, two support, three defend and two automatic (the fullbacks). At the moment, coming forward, your entire forward line of four players are playing 'attack' roles and you are therefore lacking in players who link the midfield and the attack. I would suggest having either the AMC or the striker in a 'support' role. Furthermore, with both central midfield players on 'support' you are lacking in a defensive-minded holding midfielder. My suggestion would be to set one MC as 'ball winner' and to have the other on a 'support role' perhaps as a generic central midfielder, or maybe as a deep-lying playmaker (if you have a player who is technically and mentally good enough to run the play). You'll then have a more patient and dangerous build up.

2) Don't always start with control. Sometimes it will be necessary to be more attacking in order to penetrate a stubborn defence. In other games, you may need to head more towards countering or defending against a tough opposition. Control is generally a more patient approach and it wouldn't seem to sit well with the very attacking roles you have selected, which may be why you are having some problems.

At present, the main issue would probably be that when you have the ball, you have four attacking players getting forward and nobody offering themselves up to build an attack. Your two central midfield players are playing ball winning roles and therefore you aren't asking them to play very many through-balls. Furthermore, they are both 'support' players and therefore potentially leaving exploitable gaps. You have nobody in the centre of the park to hold and cover. In simple terms, your attack lacks options and a good build up and you leave yourself exposed on the counter. You create a lot of chances but they are often poorer than the stats indicate, while the opposition is ruthless in punishing you and taking advantage of the space you are leaving them.

I feel confident that you will avoid such situations as in the screenshots above if you take this advice on board. Hope this helps.

I realise this doesn't add to the thread, but you've just encapsulated and possibly solved the problems i've been encountering on my save. Cheers Mr C.

[baker.simon]

Edgar, Vic, Simon. Let me make this as simple as i can for you. Yes we know there is a bug, Yes we know SI know there is a bug. What i hate seeing is someone asking a simple question and being told its his tactics, after that then the next helpful comment is "here we go again" or "try useing the search function" followed by "theres always one". I have never seen a "welcome to the Forum" comment it seems you have to have a huge post-count otherwise the same few people just jump in and shoot you down.

I agree with whats been said (by crouchaldinho, not you other muppets) but lets just answer comments simply without trying to hide the facts in a thousand word essay.

Example.

To the OP, sorry the ME is bugged and very unrealistic. Your tactics are good but you will have to use a tactic that the ME likes otherwise you will continue to see stats like you have been seeing.

Here is a thought to all you "Do a search mate" posters. Instead of SI putting a comment on page 9 of a thread, why dont the put a sticky up saying "sorry folks we dropped a bollock and tried to fix a bug which inturn led to another bug. Also we now also agree that x,y and z need looking at.

You'll also see I've welcomed people to the forums before. I've not said "do a search","here we go again",or "there's always one". I also havn't abused other people by calling them "muppets".

[billy2shots]

Vic what planet are you on??? How has me showin up changed anything? As soon as i posted to the OP you came in with

"Theres always one, just ignore him". Post 42.

Who cares if regular members know SI are looking at it. Its not regular members that are confused. Surely a sticky from SI would be very helpful. I know you and bakersimon have to disagree with everything i say but how can you disagree and say a sticky wouldn't be helpful even if it just saves "regular" members having to answer the same old questions.

[Vic Taylor]

Vic what planet are you on??? How has me showin up changed anything? As soon as i posted to the OP you came in with

"Theres always one, just ignore him". Post 42.

Who cares if regular members know SI are looking at it. Its not regular members that are confused. Surely a sticky from SI would be very helpful. I know you and bekersimon have to disagree with anything i say but how can you disagree and say a sticky wouldn't be helpful even if it just saves "regular" members having to answer the same old questions.

Planet? Mars usually.

Yeah, you turned up and knocked all of Crouch's posts by saying that it couldn't possibly be the OP's tactics.

In the end, we don't mind anwsering questions, as it all comes down to the community and the people we're helping love the game as much as we do.

And we've disagreed with you on 2 threads (including this one). Please grow up.

[baker.simon]

The problem is that those sort of chances shouldn't be created in the game, that is the bug/glitch!

The reason they are all saved is to counteract the fact that these chances shouldn't exist, they shouldn't have been created. If the bug wasn't in the ME then it wouldn't mean more of these chances would be scored, it would mean that these chances wouldn't be created in the first place.

That's why I said it's difficult to accept.

It's to do with the type of chance you are creating. Long story short, try to play from the wings as the problem ony arises with chances that are straight through on goal.

I don't disagree with a sticky, but it's never been done before so why would it get done now? There is already one saying the patch will be out when it's ready but that was done by the mods and NOT SI.

I've also highlighted some helpful posts I made in this thread that you have over-looked billy

[crouchaldinho]

I agree with whats been said (by crouchaldinho, not you other muppets) but lets just answer comments simply without trying to hide the facts in a thousand word essay.

Example.

To the OP, sorry the ME is bugged and very unrealistic. Your tactics are good but you will have to use a tactic that the ME likes otherwise you will continue to see stats like you have been seeing.

The tactic isn't good though billy2shots.

If you want me to avoid an essay, here is the issue in some more direct bullet points:

1) The attacking balance of the tactic is poor because of the following:

a) Two ball-winning support players feed four players on 'attack' duties.

b) There is no supporting/linking player in the forward positions and no creative player in the middle of the park.

2) The defensive stability of the tactic is poor because of the following:

a) In the middle of the park, there are two support players playing as 'ball-winning' midfielders. There is therefore no cover in the shape of a player on a 'defend' duty.

b) In addition, a ball-winning midfielder on a support duty has the job of closing down higher up the pitch. Currently, both players are doing this.

3) We could add that the tactic is being used primarily in a Control strategy rather than reacting to what is happening during the game.

4) To conclude, I give you the picture of a tactic that sees the following occurring on a regular basis:

a) Four attacking players scurrying into the distance on attack duties.

b) Two ball-winning midfielders, essentially defensive players, with very few passing options.

c) Nobody to direct the play in terms of the attack or to act creatively in the middle of the park.

d) Great difficulty in building up an attack and penetrating the opposition as a result of this.

e) Two central players who vacate the centre of midfield to make forward runs and to close down their opponents, therefore leaving the team short in the key position that is the centre-midfield.

So, how to solve this?

1) Think about having three attack roles, two support, three defend and two automatic (the fullbacks).

2) I would suggest having either the AMC or the striker in a 'support' role.

3) Replace one of the central midfield players with a a defensive-minded holding midfielder. My suggestion would be to set one MC as 'ball winner' and to have the other on a 'support role' perhaps as a generic central midfielder, or maybe as a deep-lying playmaker (if you have a player who is technically and mentally good enough to run the play).

The result will be:

1) A more patient and dangerous build up creating better chances.

2) A more stable and solid defensive structure.

Finally, download the T&T '10 for some interesting reading material and also some tips on how to create balanced tactics, which will help you avoid the scenarios in the OP.

[crouchaldinho]

I realise this doesn't add to the thread, but you've just encapsulated and possibly solved the problems i've been encountering on my save. Cheers Mr C.

Excellent news.

Really delighted I have been able to help someone.

[baker.simon]

Excellent news.

Really delighted I have been able to help someone.

That's what we've all been trying to do, just not as eloquently as you crouchy

[edgar555]

Edgar, Vic, Simon. Let me make this as simple as i can for you. Yes we know there is a bug, Yes we know SI know there is a bug. What i hate seeing is someone asking a simple question and being told its his tactics, after that then the next helpful comment is "here we go again" or "try useing the search function" followed by "theres always one". I have never seen a "welcome to the Forum" comment it seems you have to have a huge post-count otherwise the same few people just jump in and shoot you down.

I agree with whats been said (by crouchaldinho, not you other muppets) but lets just answer comments simply without trying to hide the facts in a thousand word essay.

Example.

To the OP, sorry the ME is bugged and very unrealistic. Your tactics are good but you will have to use a tactic that the ME likes otherwise you will continue to see stats like you have been seeing.

Here is a thought to all you "Do a search mate" posters. Instead of SI putting a comment on page 9 of a thread, why dont the put a sticky up saying "sorry folks we dropped a bollock and tried to fix a bug which inturn led to another bug. Also we now also agree that x,y and z need looking at.

1) I have and will continue to welcome people to the forums if they introduce and conduct themselves in the right way.

2) If people are posting nonsense they will be shot down, whether its their first or millionth post.

3) some questions need an answer that is an essay

4) As pointed out by Crouch, it actually is his tactics.

5) If he'd used the search function he'd have found a litany of posts that could help him where all sorts of people, me included have offered friendly helpful advice.

6) As for the sticky idea, thats actually a good one, but something you obviously need explaining is that we don't work for SI so can't make them put any stickies up. Therefore its not my fault.

7) You called me a muppet? You are obviously a big tough man hiding behind that keyboard. Grow up and get a life.

Wonder why you were never welcomed to the forums? Makes you think?

And in answer to baker.simon: oh yes I did!

[PGB_SPURS_FM09]

1) Its your tactics

2) If your tactics is right then the type of chance

3) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, then its your player's morale

4) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, then it is the keeper's morale

5) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, keeper's morale is equal/lower than your player's, then it is the condition of the pitch

6) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, keeper's morale is equal/lower than your player's, the pitch condition is perfect, then it is your player's ability to handle pressure

7) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, keeper's morale is equal/lower than your player's, the pitch condition is perfect, your player can handle pressure, then he is just having a bad day

8) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, keeper's morale is equal/lower than your player's, the pitch condition is perfect, your player can handle pressure and your player has played brilliantly until the moment the chance is created, then you might have exploited the central defense bug

9) If your tactics is right and it is a perfectly logical chance, your player's morale is great, keeper's morale is equal/lower than your player's, the pitch condition is perfect, your player can handle pressure, your player has played brilliantly until the moment the chance is created and you have not exploited the central defense bug, then you are having a bad day. Study proves that only 30% of the chances go in...and it does not matter who the striker is.

You will never ever win the argument. The only way a bug is identified as a bug is when it is too noticeable to ignore or those who matter the most agree that it is a bug.

This post is hilarious lol.

Wait till patch 3 or try something different. Some saves you'll find the tactics your using doesn't get these problems and other times you will. :confused:

[billy2shots]

Baker.simon.

1. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

2.You have highlighted helpful comments but earlier you said "I've not said "do a search"," but you failed to highlight " Do a search for 'superkeepers'

Essentially, and it's difficult to accept, it's your tactics "

3. Dont over estimate your importance, where have i called you a muppet. Not everything is about you.

Vic please show me where i have all of crouches posts. You are the most annoying stiring person i have ever come across. In fact just a couple of posts above i even said a agee with what he said. Having thought about it his answer is a great one however it may be better placed in a thread asking "How do i get round the ME Flaws".

This thread says "I need an explanation". The answer is the op is seeing these stats and highlights in the ME due to bugs in the game. Thats the long and short answer. I detailed post about what to do is great and helpful but so is a straight answer.

[billy2shots]

Crouch thats another very detailed/thought out post however the op has stated his quality forwards missed/are missing 7 one on one ccc's in a single match. His tactics are good enough to create the chance but the bug's are stopping goals being scored. If he wasn't making the chances then yes he would need to re-think his tactics.

[baker.simon]

Edgar, Vic, Simon. Let me make this as simple as i can for you. Yes we know there is a bug, Yes we know SI know there is a bug. What i hate seeing is someone asking a simple question and being told its his tactics, after that then the next helpful comment is "here we go again" or "try useing the search function" followed by "theres always one". I have never seen a "welcome to the Forum" comment it seems you have to have a huge post-count otherwise the same few people just jump in and shoot you down.

I agree with whats been said (by crouchaldinho, not you other muppets) but lets just answer comments simply without trying to hide the facts in a thousand word essay.

Example.

To the OP, sorry the ME is bugged and very unrealistic. Your tactics are good but you will have to use a tactic that the ME likes otherwise you will continue to see stats like you have been seeing.

Here is a thought to all you "Do a search mate" posters. Instead of SI putting a comment on page 9 of a thread, why dont the put a sticky up saying "sorry folks we dropped a bollock and tried to fix a bug which inturn led to another bug. Also we now also agree that x,y and z need looking at.

Muppets, in big bold letters. Read edgar555's a couple above this. He sums it up nicely

Baker.simon.

1. Just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

2.You have highlighted helpful comments but earlier you said "I've not said "do a search"," but you failed to highlight " Do a search for 'superkeepers'

Essentially, and it's difficult to accept, it's your tactics "

3. Dont over estimate your importance, where have i called you a muppet. Not everything is about you.

As Crouchy has proved, basically it was/is the OP's tactics. I merely said a quick search would bring up a lot of threads covering the same thing. Again, edgar555's post sums it up perfectly.

You need to drop the personal vendetta against me. I don't know what it is but you seem infatuated with me? The real fact is others are making the same comments and are not being subjected to being called muppets!

[baker.simon]

Crouch thats another very detailed/thought out post however the op has stated his quality forwards missed/are missing 7 one on one ccc's in a single match. His tactics are good enough to create the chance but the bug's are stopping goals being scored. If he wasn't making the chances then yes he would need to re-think his tactics.

See below.

The problem is that those sort of chances shouldn't be created in the game, that is the bug/glitch!

The reason they are all saved is to counteract the fact that these chances shouldn't exist, they shouldn't have been created. If the bug wasn't in the ME then it wouldn't mean more of these chances would be scored, it would mean that these chances wouldn't be created in the first place.

It;s not that the strikers aren't scoring them chances. It's the fact that those chances are created by the glitch in the ME. No glitch = none of them chances created. Not, no glitch = goals scored.

[SerTkaN]

Crouch thats another very detailed/thought out post however the op has stated his quality forwards missed/are missing 7 one on one ccc's in a single match. His tactics are good enough to create the chance but the bug's are stopping goals being scored. If he wasn't making the chances then yes he would need to re-think his tactics.

this is exactly my problem. After every game the commentor says 'WHAT A GAME' . So the main problem is not tactics. If someone wants, I can upload the save game or a match to see it on your eyes.

[Vic Taylor]

Vic please show me where i have all of crouches posts. You are the most annoying stiring person i have ever come across. In fact just a couple of posts above i even said a agee with what he said. Having thought about it his answer is a great one however it may be better placed in a thread asking "How do i get round the ME Flaws".

You came onto the thread, after Crouchy had tried to help the OP by explaining where he'd gone wrong with his tactics, and started shouting about how it annoyed you that people say "it's your tactics", not bothering to check whether Crouchy had said merely that (which would have been wrong) or explained it in greater detail (which he did).

And you're the most annoying person I've ever come across. Don't you feel special?

[SerTkaN]

It;s not that the strikers aren't scoring them chances. It's the fact that those chances are created by the glitch in the ME. No glitch = none of them chances created. Not, no glitch = goals scored

Then it is the biggest problem on SI ever. How can ME show something is not real. If we don't believe what we saw, how FM could be a logical game ?

[tingting]

this is exactly my problem. After every game the commentor says 'WHAT A GAME' . So the main problem is not tactics. If someone wants, I can upload the save game or a match to see it on your eyes.

SerTkaN: You will once again receive the same reply. Why dont you do one thing. Select a match...watch all the chances and from where the final pass came. If, as the others say, the chances are being created with a throughball played between two central defenders, then the problem is the bug which was used to cover another bug so you can do nothing but change your tactics so that such chances are not created. But if the chances are varied...either upload the game or put up the screenie showing the moment the final pass is played and the moment when the striker hits the shot.

[billy2shots]

See below.

It;s not that the strikers aren't scoring them chances. It's the fact that those chances are created by the glitch in the ME. No glitch = none of them chances created. Not, no glitch = goals scored.

Please mate stop banging on about this nonsense. WE all know there is a bug and thats the answer to the op's post. I know and 99% of others know WHY the 1v1 chance is missed to counter act the defensive bug. In otherwords a bug to stop another bug. The op asked a question and looking at his reply to me i have helped answer his question.

Again you can bold what you like but i never said you were a muppet you just presumed.

Iyi gunler Sertkan

[baker.simon]

Please mate stop banging on about this nonsense. WE all know there is a bug and thats the answer to the op's post. I know and 99% of others know WHY the 1v1 chance is missed to counter act the defensive bug. In otherwords a bug to stop another bug. The op asked a question and looking at his reply to me i have helped answer his question.

Again you can bold what you like but i never said you were a muppet you just presumed.

Iyi gunler Sertkan

"all you other muppets" could be taken that way, especially when your mentioning my name in the same post!

billy mentioning my name again = infatuation

You want a picture?

[Vic Taylor]

Please mate stop banging on about this nonsense. WE all know there is a bug and thats the answer to the op's post. I know and 99% of others know WHY the 1v1 chance is missed to counter act the defensive bug. In otherwords a bug to stop another bug. The op asked a question and looking at his reply to me i have helped answer his question.

Again you can bold what you like but i never said you were a muppet you just presumed.

Iyi gunler Sertkan

Hmm... I don't see any "nonsense". Want to clarify?

And you said "muppets" in a general way, so anyone who read your posts (especially those who had already expressed an opinion that was different to your own) are well within their rights to say you called them a muppet.

Name calling is childish. Once again, you are told to grow up.

[crouchaldinho]

Then it is the biggest problem on SI ever. How can ME show something is not real. If we don't believe what we saw, how FM could be a logical game ?

As WWFan has said on another thread:

It needs to be taken into consideration that the straight one on ones should not be saved as currently, but not actually created very often in the first place.

Baker.simon has summed this up already.

It's an unfortunate issue, which tends to be made more noticeable by certain types of tactic.

To be honest, I seldom really notice it and not to the same level as you are currently experiencing.

If the 'bug' didn't exist, what would happen is that you wouldn't create the chances in the first place.

Your problem is not as a result of this bug but as a result of your tactic failing. Unfortunately, the current issue may lead you to believe that you are creating good chances and I do therefore sympathise with you. However, as someone said in another thread, these central chances must be seen for what they are. They aren't very good chances.

I'm afraid the answer is that you need to balance your tactic. If you do this, then you will experience this issue much less and will, most importantly, score more goals, concede less goals and win more matches of football!

[billy2shots]

Sorry simon you seem to have missquoted me.

Sorry Sertkan i have tried to give you the simple and only reason your clear cut chances are being missed however others in an attempt to one day become testers try to hide simple obvious facts in petty arguments. You will see looking at other threads that Vic and Simon hunt in packs to try and defend the honour of SI, in fact im starting to think they are sat next to each other in a school computer room.

Sertkan if you wish to carry on before patch .3 comes out then follow Crouches helpfull tips or take a look at the tactics forum.

Vic and Simon im sure we will bump into each other again. Can't say im looking forward to it.

[baker.simon]

Sorry simon you seem to have missquoted me.

Sorry Sertkan i have tried to give you the simple and only reason your clear cut chances are being missed however others in an attempt to one day become testers try to hide simple obvious facts in petty arguments. You will see looking at other threads that Vic and Simon hunt in packs to try and defend the honour of SI, in fact im starting to think they are sat next to each other in a school computer room.

Sertkan if you wish to carry on before patch .3 comes out then follow Crouches helpfull tips or take a look at the tactics forum.

Vic and Simon im sure we will bump into each other again. Can't say im looking forward to it.

Mutual feeling

School? I'm the same age as you? Do your research first!

And for the record, I stopped testing after 09 was released

[Vic Taylor]

Sorry simon you seem to have missquoted me.

Sorry Sertkan i have tried to give you the simple and only reason your clear cut chances are being missed however others in an attempt to one day become testers try to hide simple obvious facts in petty arguments. You will see looking at other threads that Vic and Simon hunt in packs to try and defend the honour of SI, in fact im starting to think they are sat next to each other in a school computer room.

Sertkan if you wish to carry on before patch .3 comes out then follow Crouches helpfull tips or take a look at the tactics forum.

Vic and Simon im sure we will bump into each other again. Can't say im looking forward to it.

You're still mentioning his name.

We tell the truth... the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We're trying to help people. You are not.

Packs? Cool.

School? Don't go.

I thought you said it wasn't his tactics? So, according to you, Crouchy's advice is a load of rubbish. Why are you suddenly changing your story and supporting him?

[billy2shots]

Again very very slowly....... If Sertkan wants to enjoy this patch then follow Crouchys and others advice to work around the ME flaws.

I havent changed my mind that the bug/flaw/glitch is stopping the goals. Yes another bug is creating the chance in the first place but what SI and some members need to remember is that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Sorry Vic i forgot you dont attend school.

[Vic Taylor]

Sorry Vic i forgot you dont attend school.

Apology accepted.

Now how about apologising to both me and Baker for being rude and calling us muppets?

[tingting]

Are you two claiming that all of the CCCs that the OP created and missed was because of the bug??? Let us take his blackburn game as example: For example, in blackburn game, tardelli (17 finishing , 15 composure) , vela (14 f , 16 c ) and bernardo (15 f , 14 c) were in 7 chances in total but all of them failed. You mean to say that all of the chances were created because of that flaw?

In all probabilities crouchaldinho is correct in saying that he is conceding his goals because of his tactics. But he created 24 CCCs and managed to score just 7 goals. With the level of strikers that he has, he has to score at least 7 goals in 14-15 chances. So you mean to say that all of the remaining chances were created through the bug?

[Vic Taylor]

Are you two claiming that all of the CCCs that the OP created and missed was because of the bug??? Let us take his blackburn game as example: For example, in blackburn game, tardelli (17 finishing , 15 composure) , vela (14 f , 16 c ) and bernardo (15 f , 14 c) were in 7 chances in total but all of them failed. You mean to say that all of the chances were created because of that flaw?

In all probabilities crouchaldinho is correct in saying that he is conceding his goals because of his tactics. But he created 24 CCCs and managed to score just 7 goals. With the level of strikers that he has, he has to score at least 7 goals in 14-15 chances. So you mean to say that all of the remaining chances were created through the bug?

SI have admitted to a bug that creates CCC that are not as good as they look. The 2 DCs drfit apart, letting the attacking team exploit them with through balls. The striker is then clean through on the goal, at a dead angle, which is when the goalkeeper pulls out his "super" cape and hat, and saves everything thrown at him.

[baker.simon]

Are you two claiming that all of the CCCs that the OP created and missed was because of the bug??? Let us take his blackburn game as example: For example, in blackburn game, tardelli (17 finishing , 15 composure) , vela (14 f , 16 c ) and bernardo (15 f , 14 c) were in 7 chances in total but all of them failed. You mean to say that all of the chances were created because of that flaw?

In all probabilities crouchaldinho is correct in saying that he is conceding his goals because of his tactics. But he created 24 CCCs and managed to score just 7 goals. With the level of strikers that he has, he has to score at least 7 goals in 14-15 chances. So you mean to say that all of the remaining chances were created through the bug?

It's quite possible, yes. We all know the details of the glitch so I wont go through them again, but in answer to your question, it could very well be the glitch.

[tingting]

SI have admitted to a bug that creates CCC that are not as good as they look. The 2 DCs drfit apart, letting the attacking team exploit them with through balls. The striker is then clean through on the goal, at a dead angle, which is when the goalkeeper pulls out his "super" cape and hat, and saves everything thrown at him.

Great...you have done it again. I know what the bug is...what i am asking is..whether you are saying that all of the CCCs created was due to the bug. What crouchaldinho has said might be true with regards to the opposition scoring four goals from six shots. But a very good striker is provided with a clear chance...and he does not score. That does not and should not depend on the link up play, who has attacking, defensive, normal or automatic duties...the other players have done their job...but the striker is not doing the job 17 out of 24 times.

What Billy is saying (if he is not then i am saying) is whether you believe that majority of the 17 missed chances are created because of the flaw (i do know what the flaw is)

[Vic Taylor]

Great...you have done it again. I know what the bug is...what i am asking is..whether you are saying that all of the CCCs created was due to the bug. What crouchaldinho has said might be true with regards to the opposition scoring four goals from six shots. But a very good striker is provided with a clear chance...and he does not score. That does not and should not depend on the link up play, who has attacking, defensive, normal or automatic duties...the other players have done their job...but the striker is not doing the job 17 out of 24 times.

What Billy is saying (if he is not then i am saying) is whether you believe that majority of the 17 missed chances are created because of the flaw (i do know what the flaw is)

I believe that some of them were created because of the bug.

[tingting]

It's quite possible, yes. We all know the details of the glitch so I wont go through them again, but in answer to your question, it could very well be the glitch.

Finally got an answer...thank you baker

I am getting a feeling that a mod will come and close another thread before this matter is resolved. SerTkaN please upload those five games or get the screenies so that the matter will be resolved before the thread gets closed

[tingting]

I believe that some of them were created because of the bug.

How many??? because the whole point of this thread depends on it...if the flawed chances are more, then yes...he will have to change his tactics to suit the ME.

[Vic Taylor]

How many??? because the whole point of this thread depends on it...if the flawed chances are more, then yes...he will have to change his tactics to suit the ME.

That really depends on my opinion, which won't help anyone as it isn't, in this case, fact.

As you've said above, the OP needs to upload the pkms in question.

[billy2shots]

When SI became aware of the bug that allowed to many ccc's they had two choices correct that bug or create another bug to counter the first one. Im not and have never claimed to be a computer whizz and could not post details on how easy or hard it is to fix the first bug, not to mention the time involved. Unfortunately it looked like SI took the second option for patch 10.2 and judging by the about of threads i bet they now wished they didn't.

All over this forum there are posts about the realism of the game but between you and me i dont care where a 2nd division player learnt to walk or what his favourite ice cream flavour is, i would much rather a key component such as the ME looked/worked realisicly. To those that say "without the bug scores would be unrealistic", i say if the ME shows me 9 one on ones from my £50million forward it would be more unrealistic for him to miss all of them.

I have said it once and will do again. Two wrongs dont bake a right SI.

I think you raise a good point tingting, it would be interesting to know how many of sertkans ccc's were as a result of the bug and therefor the % of "bug chances" scored. How though?

[baker.simon]

How many??? because the whole point of this thread depends on it...if the flawed chances are more, then yes...he will have to change his tactics to suit the ME.

As Vic says, pkm's of the matches would be needed, along with a proper expert eye such as crouchy or wwfan.

[Vic Taylor]

When SI became aware of the bug that allowed to many ccc's they had two choices correct that bug or create another bug to counter the first one. Im not and have never claimed to be a computer whizz and could not post details on how easy or hard it is to fix the first bug, not to mention the time involved. Unfortunately it looked like SI took the second option for patch 10.2 and judging by the about of threads i bet they now wished they didn't.

All over this forum there are posts about the realism of the game but between you and me i dont care where a 2nd division player learnt to walk or what his favourite ice cream flavour is, i would much rather a key component such as the ME looked/worked realisicly. To those that say "without the bug scores would be unrealistic", i say if the ME shows me 9 one on ones from my £50million forward it would be more unrealistic for him to miss all of them.

I have said it once and will do again. Two wrongs dont bake a right SI.

They didn't choose to create another bug to counteract the first. They tried to fix the first bug, and there was a knock-on effect. Anyone can see that!

[billy2shots]

Vic the same chance that was being created in 10.1 is still being created in 10.2 therefor the bug has not been fixed. However the % of chances taken has been lowered due to a new glitch/bug.

[tingting]

As Vic says, pkm's of the matches would be needed, along with a proper expert eye such as crouchy or wwfan.

If you want crouchaldinho and wwfan's opinion on whether the chance created was genuine or because of the flaw, then its ok. But if you want there opinion on whether the striker should have had converted that chance, then pick up any one of the reasons from the post that you likened to me urinating against the wind It will be superkeepers thread all over again (Let me make it clear that i have never said that there are superkeepers. I have always maintained that it is stupid strikers. I wont mind if the keeper pulls off a great save because that happens consistently in real life. My point is that the strikers do not try at all...they just shoot in a straight line...that is stupid)

[billy2shots]

As Vic says, pkm's of the matches would be needed, along with a proper expert eye such as crouchy or wwfan.

As tingting says. keep up dear boy.

[Vic Taylor]

Vic the same chance that was being created in 10.1 is still being created in 10.2 therefor the bug has not been fixed. However the % of chances taken has been lowered due to a new glitch/bug.

I never said it was fixed, did I? I say they tried to fix it. There's a difference.

This is being looked at for 10.3, and if it isn't perfect you'll have something more to moan about, won't you?

[baker.simon]

Vic the same chance that was being created in 10.1 is still being created in 10.2 therefor the bug has not been fixed. However the % of chances taken has been lowered due to a new glitch/bug.

Which is the knock on effect.

[Vic Taylor]

If you want crouchaldinho and wwfan's opinion on whether the chance created was genuine or because of the flaw, then its ok. But if you want there opinion on whether the striker should have had converted that chance, then pick up any one of the reasons from the post that you likened to me urinating against the wind It will be superkeepers thread all over again (Let me make it clear that i have never said that there are superkeepers. I have always maintained that it is stupid strikers. I wont mind if the keeper pulls off a great save because that happens consistently in real life. My point is that the strikers do not try at all...they just shoot in a straight line...that is stupid)

Um... I just can't help myself.

The strikers don't shoot in a straight line. The keepers do in fact pull off "super" saves.

[billy2shots]

You see i see it differntly to you guys (no surprise there hey).

I will give you a stupid example of how i see it. There is a knocking noise coming from my cars engine, i take it to the dealers and tell them. Two days later i pick my car up and soon notice my radio is really loud and i cant turn it down or off. Thats annoying but hay i cant hear my engine anymore. When i get out of my car with it still running i can hear the engine still making a noise. My original fault is still there but a new fault has been created to disguise it.

My own opinion, not a knock on effect or same fault but a new one to mask/cover up the first one.

[tingting]

Vic the same chance that was being created in 10.1 is still being created in 10.2 therefor the bug has not been fixed. However the % of chances taken has been lowered due to a new glitch/bug.

I never noticed the CDs drifting in 10.1. In fact i found it more realistic because great strikers converted around half of such chances while poor strikers converted around 25% of such chances. As i had already said in the other threads, that is not the case here.

What i am thinking is (an opinion which was rejected by wwfan) that majority of the casual gamers, creating logical tactics, had realistic success. However some gamers identified ME's quirks and created very good tactics and their goal scored and chances created ratio was unrealistically high. Since those members were respected members in the forum and some were even involved in the game development, SI listened to their points and tightened the screw (the same problem had occurred in 9.2 before SI corrected in 9.3) That is the reason that the large number of "superkeeper" threads are appearing every day

[baker.simon]

I never noticed the CDs drifting in 10.1. In fact i found it more realistic because great strikers converted around half of such chances while poor strikers converted around 25% of such chances. As i had already said in the other threads, that is not the case here.

What i am thinking is (an opinion which was rejected by wwfan) that majority of the casual gamers, creating logical tactics, had realistic success. However some gamers identified ME's quirks and created very good tactics and their goal scored and chances created ratio was unrealistically high. Since those members were respected members in the forum and some were even involved in the game development, SI listened to their points and tightened the screw (the same problem had occurred in 9.2 before SI corrected in 9.3) That is the reason that the large number of "superkeeper" threads are appearing every day

Thing is, wwfan is the guy that helps on the match engine. So if he rejects your opinion then he may have valid reason to, without meaning to sound rude

[tingting]

Um... I just can't help myself.

The strikers don't shoot in a straight line. The keepers do in fact pull off "super" saves.

You have players who are doing all sorts of tricks in front of the goalie??? lobbing the ball, rounding the keeper or maybe feinting before pulling the trigger???Are you playing Football Manager 2010??? As i have said a number of times, i have never seen a player (both mine and opposition) go round the keeper, saw a lobbed attempt just once and very rarely seen strikers place the ball. Maybe i should have rephrased the sentence to inside the box. I have seen players curl the ball into the net, but it was from outside the area.

Let me give you an inside info...SI have admitted that keepers make supersaves but only when the CCCs are created using the bug. Maybe you can find the thread by using the search function above. If a striker and a keeper are not in a straight line or if the striker is approaching at an angle, the ball will indeed go wide of the keeper and his save will look like a super save

[Vic Taylor]

You have players who are doing all sorts of tricks in front of the goalie??? lobbing the ball, rounding the keeper or maybe feinting before pulling the trigger???Are you playing Football Manager 2010??? As i have said a number of times, i have never seen a player (both mine and opposition) go round the keeper, saw a lobbed attempt just once and very rarely seen strikers place the ball. Maybe i should have rephrased the sentence to inside the box. I have seen players curl the ball into the net, but it was from outside the area.

I know exactly what you meant. Apparently you don't like me explaining things. Get over it.

Let me give you an inside info...SI have admitted that keepers make supersaves but only when the CCCs are created using the bug. Maybe you can find the thread by using the search function above. If a striker and a keeper are not in a straight line or if the striker is approaching at an angle' date=' the ball will indeed go wide of the keeper and his save will look like a super save[/quote']

It's been me who's stated this several times. You get no points for copying.

[billy2shots]

No mate ME was exploited in 10.1 with too many throughballs finding forwards runs (defenders splitting) and strikers scoreing for fun. See the Torres 70+ goals a season etc threads. SI new this was a problem hence the second bug. They couldnt/didnt have time to re-code so it LOOKS like the new bug was written in. In another post someone from SI even said it and said they think they whent too far in making the keepers reach/save to many chances.