Clear cut chances

[Karnack]

Hello!

CCCs is a statistic that I find most puzzling in FM and one I look at a lot even though I probably shouldn't. I watch the games and usually when I see a CCC it's a good chance, but sometimes it's just not a good chance or there are 2-3 CCCs from the same moment because the ball hits the woodwork, then it's the goalie and then misses/scores or something like that.

I have some questions regarding this stat, since it's in there and it's hard to completely disregard, especially when it looks like this over a season:

As a top 3 side this is what I created during a season. 67 CCCs in all competitions (Scottish PL, Betfred Cup, Scottish Cup).

I allowed 34 to be created against me.

We scored 31 of those (46%)
They scored 20 (59%)

Is all of this reasonable? Thats basically my question. Since I'm not sure exactly what is a CCC and I can't connect it to the real world I don't know if it's good or bad. Is 46% a low conversion rate? Is 59% too high?

I need some clarity regarding this annoying stat

[Svenc]

11 hours ago, Karnack said:

Is all of this reasonable? Thats basically my question. Since I'm not sure exactly what is a CCC and I can't connect it to the real world I don't know if it's good or bad. Is 46% a low conversion rate?

Excellent question. As it's basically a subjective SI interpretation of a subjective stat that isn't even used anywhere, nobody can tell you exactly (the game outside of scouting other teams to check their rates sure can't). It's also visibly lumping all kinds of stuff together. From one on ones at zero angle that don't much force the keeper to move much to bonafide tap-ins after a counter attack and a defense being overrun and the keeper wrong footed -- it also covers a hugely vast array of chance types. Some of which evidently are scored more regularly, others not much, as some are inherently more difficult and some less so. As you also noted, it often fails to recognize some decent opportunity too.

Based on this, it sounds some reasonable. No less as the assumption that bigger/better teams would inherently convert the most is a fallacy. It's partly in football DNA that sides who create more oft tend to be the ones to miss more too (they have more opportunity to do such). I'd thus be vary of the above screenshot, no less as the opponent simply created much less. Like, half of those. Just a few added misses or chances converted can skew the conversion. With the larger sample size, it wouldn't do that much. Usually, a good sample size may be 100 CCCs for each... As the umbrella of possibly shots is so wide though, it's a fairly meaningless stat anyway, has always been. It's also apparent that at SI internally it's an entirelly semantic debate. As in: Should we allow header finishes to be a clear cut chance at all? The day when they produce a stat here that is actually connected to the scoring probability of each shot individually, which they must calculate somehow, will be the day when the game will provide something useful. Until then...

SI actually providing a benchmark as  to their own subjective interpretations of subjective statistics that aren't used anywhere would be a start though (the half chances sit in there too, and if you would do some manual leg work you would find their overall conversion sits at less than 20% usually).

[Karnack]

13 hours ago, Svenc said:

Excellent question. As it's basically a subjective SI interpretation of a subjective stat that isn't even used anywhere, nobody can tell you exactly (the game outside of scouting other teams to check their rates sure can't). It's also visibly lumping all kinds of stuff together. From one on ones at zero angle that don't much force the keeper to move much to bonafide tap-ins after a counter attack and a defense being overrun and the keeper wrong footed -- it also covers a hugely vast array of chance types. Some of which evidently are scored more regularly, others not much, as some are inherently more difficult and some less so. As you also noted, it often fails to recognize some decent opportunity too.

Based on this, it sounds some reasonable. No less as the assumption that bigger/better teams would inherently convert the most is a fallacy. It's partly in football DNA that sides who create more oft tend to be the ones to miss more too (they have more opportunity to do such). I'd thus be vary of the above screenshot, no less as the opponent simply created much less. Like, half of those. Just a few added misses or chances converted can skew the conversion. With the larger sample size, it wouldn't do that much. Usually, a good sample size may be 100 CCCs for each... As the umbrella of possibly shots is so wide though, it's a fairly meaningless stat anyway, has always been. It's also apparent that at SI internally it's an entirelly semantic debate. As in: Should we allow header finishes to be a clear cut chance at all? The day when they produce a stat here that is actually connected to the scoring probability of each shot individually, which they must calculate somehow, will be the day when the game will provide something useful. Until then...

SI actually providing a benchmark as  to their own subjective interpretations of subjective statistics that aren't used anywhere would be a start though (the half chances sit in there too, and if you would do some manual leg work you would find their overall conversion sits at less than 20% usually).

Thanks for that, Svenc. The only thing to do then is to continue to half ignore, half get really annoyed at the legendary stat that is CCCs  

[tajj7]

A lot of chances the game counts as 'clear cut' when you actually watch them, they are not.

And several that are counted as half chances or not even recorded at all are often more what you might think a 'clear' chance is.

Like I have had players missing passes across the box, along the floor from about 6 yards and often the game only counts that as a half chance, and then had players who dribble through 2/3 players and take a 25 yard shot that goes wide and those are counted as clear cut. In a recent youtubers vid I watched, he conceded a goal where a fullback crosses from very deep right to the far post where the player then scored on the volley from a tight angle. The game registered this as a clear cut chance, whereas I would imagine most human players upon watching it would probably not even class it as a half chance and would not expect their players to score chances like that regularly (and might more chastise the player for not squaring the ball it is such a tight angle).

So personally I would ignore it and just see what chances your players miss, if it looks like they miss goals you think the probably shouldn't and do this often it might highlight a problem.

They seem to be using this 'expected goals' stat in real life now, maybe in future games we will get that.