CCC's and Conversion Rates

[matty2323]

Im just seeking some advice on converting CCC's. I feel like tactically the team is playing really well, and we're created 2-4 CCCs per game, and 4-6 half chances per game for very little reward.

Below are my stats for the last 50 games. As a team, we're going at a 62% conversion rate of our CCC's. The opposition at 81%. That's a pretty significant difference in my opinion. 

Im dominating against opposition that i feel i should be dominating against and creating scoring opportunities despite them playing deeper, yet i'm experiencing mediocre results (opposition snatching draws with <3 goal scoring opportunities, or scraping 1-0 wins with 10+ quality efforts). See below vs Burnley.

Against quality opposition im competing well. I've gone for a more expansive approach where i want to play attacking football, so i accept they are creating chances as well.. but their conversion rate vs mine are extraordinary. I get they have quality players, but this is my third season and i have premier league quality players. See below vs Arsenal & PSG.

Given i view CCC's as "should score", and half chances as "chances to score", against Arsenal i created 9 (converted 3), they created 4 (converted 3). Against PSG i created 10 (converted 3), they created 5 (scored 4). It just seems to be quite a re-occuring theme in my all 3 of my seasons so far. Is it simply a lack of quality in my players? or am i mis-interpreting what CCC's / half chances are? 

[JEinchy]

I've always found the CCC stat to be one of the most deceptive available. Very few of the CCC's present in-match are what I'd call high quality chances i.e. shots taken from the centre of the penalty area <15 yards out. A lot of time, one of players might have a chance on the right or left side of the box, which IRL isn't considered a clear-cut opportunity, but in-game almost always is. I've lost count of the amount of times my player misses from there, with the commentary telling me "it was easier to score than miss". There's a clear disconnect between what the game interprets as a good chance and what I interpret as a good chance. I've seen so-called half-chances that are better chances than some CCCs.

So, you're probably better off ignoring the numbers are looking at the chances individually. Firstly, are players with high composure, finishing, etc. getting those chances? Are they taking shots with the right foot? Are they under pressure from the opposition, taking the shot from a tight angle, etc.? Are they rushing their decisions in front of goal? There are lots of things to consider when examining why you don't score as much.

If you're making a lot of good chances but aren't scoring, it's likely a personnel issue rather than a tactical one. 

[Mitja]

it's perfectly normal in fm for lesser sides not to overachieve. I don't think you can do too much about it..

[matty2323]

17 minutes ago, JEinchy said:

I've always found the CCC stat to be one of the most deceptive available. Very few of the CCC's present in-match are what I'd call high quality chances i.e. shots taken from the centre of the penalty area <15 yards out. A lot of time, one of players might have a chance on the right or left side of the box, which IRL isn't considered a clear-cut opportunity, but in-game almost always is. I've lost count of the amount of times my player misses from there, with the commentary telling me "it was easier to score than miss". There's a clear disconnect between what the game interprets as a good chance and what I interpret as a good chance. I've seen so-called half-chances that are better chances than some CCCs.

So, you're probably better off ignoring the numbers are looking at the chances individually. Firstly, are players with high composure, finishing, etc. getting those chances? Are they taking shots with the right foot? Are they under pressure from the opposition, taking the shot from a tight angle, etc.? Are they rushing their decisions in front of goal? There are lots of things to consider when examining why you don't score as much.

If you're making a lot of good chances but aren't scoring, it's likely a personnel issue rather than a tactical one. 

Fair points, and i know the chances you're talking off. I watch the game on highlights, so i see all of the half chances and clear cuts, and i'll concede some are more angled shots, but most are very central. My strikers are solid, but players like Berahino (16 in finishing, composure & technique) are converting what feels like 1 shot in 5-6 (probably an accurate real life statistic).. but then i'll play some pub team with a striker who's stats are much worse who can convert 3 in 3. Going into games i scout teams and they have strikers who haven't scored in last 5 matches who then convert off their first half chance while i've created 3-4 clear cuts (i was thinking maybe its a moral thing).

I had similar results last release with a real madrid save, where one season i will converting <50& of my CCC's (which world class strikers) while the opposition where converting around 85%. Is there a way to see what the opposition are converting over their last 50 games etc for analysis purposes to provide comparisons? 

[Dr. Hook]

2 hours ago, matty2323 said:

Fair points, and i know the chances you're talking off. I watch the game on highlights, so i see all of the half chances and clear cuts, and i'll concede some are more angled shots, but most are very central. My strikers are solid, but players like Berahino (16 in finishing, composure & technique) are converting what feels like 1 shot in 5-6 (probably an accurate real life statistic).. but then i'll play some pub team with a striker who's stats are much worse who can convert 3 in 3. Going into games i scout teams and they have strikers who haven't scored in last 5 matches who then convert off their first half chance while i've created 3-4 clear cuts (i was thinking maybe its a moral thing).

I had similar results last release with a real madrid save, where one season i will converting <50& of my CCC's (which world class strikers) while the opposition where converting around 85%. Is there a way to see what the opposition are converting over their last 50 games etc for analysis purposes to provide comparisons? 

when you get down to the real lower leagues you have to remember that the defending and goalkeeping is as rubbish as the striker. It's a complicated simulation and the 3d representation doesn't show us all the things that are ticking over under the hood at the moment the shot is taken. This has come up many times over the years and the conversion rates are right in line with real-life stats overall, but there in any given situation there are a lot of things that are happening that could make an apparently easy CCC go bad. Not to mention the times that we've all seen IRL where a striker shoots straight at the keeper 

[Svenc]

It's a stupid stat that shouldn't be in for four main reasons anyway.

- It's become painfully obvious that at SI towers it's a purely semantic debate (should a header be a CCC?)
- It's lumping all kinds of attempts together. No matter how you twist it, a reasonably difficult one on one from a no angled ball that is not handicapping the keeper any and played into the forwards back is never going to be the same as from an angled assist played in to the forwards running path rather than in his back -- and one on ones, whilst decent chances, are oft overrated either way due to their dramatic nature. This is so much better of a chance never picked up by any stat, as it's handicapping the keeper in a multitude of ways no one on one ever can

- It's all over the shop --- how is the above not a clear cut, but far more difficult stuff regularly is?

- It's never used anywhere. As such, the assumption is better teams/players would straight forward score more, when that isn't the case. In fact, teams/players that tend to have the most "big chances" tend to ones who miss the most too (ask any City/Arsenal fan, perfectly natural).
- There is no stats of "should have scored". Such scenarios are extremely rare in football, and the half chances on this are actually long-term fewer converted than "on target shots". They rank somewhere in between general shot conversion (about 10%) and on target shot conversioin (about 25%).