Jump to content

Not many through balls in FM19 beta?


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I'd argue it needs a bit of a tweak, but not by much, because these passes are difficult, and should remain so

Of course not by much, I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise, I just want to see a bit more unpredictability, I think FM19 has massive potential if the known issues are fixed (and I think they will) and some other things (one of them is this one) are tweaked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Curious to see where they get it from, as I'm sitting on my opta login now and cannot find goals from crosses as a statistic. might need more calculating via other stats

Come on dude...you know better than this :).

on whoscored crosses is a specific category with a definition allowing consistent measurement. Other categories like thoughball, corner etc are similar with any non specific measurements lumped into 'other'.

By having a consistent measurement like crosses allows one to take that as a percentage of total goals and have it bear up to scrutiny...excluding some measures because it doesn't suit is an exercise in nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Of course not by much, I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise, I just want to see a bit more unpredictability, I think FM19 has massive potential if the known issues are fixed (and I think they will) and some other things tweaked.

I think you'd be surprised, judging by the reaction in the feedback thread

 

4 minutes ago, akkm said:

Come on dude...you know better than this :).

on whoscored crosses is a specific category with a definition allowing consistent measurement. Other categories like thoughball, corner etc are similar with any non specific measurements lumped into 'other'.

By having a consistent measurement like crosses allows one to take that as a percentage of total goals and have it bear up to scrutiny...excluding some measures because it doesn't suit is an exercise in nonsense.

We don't even know where Whoscored are getting their definitions or stats from, but it doesn't look like Opta based on what Opta are measuring.

Whoscored supposedly have a numbers for amount of through balls played per game for each player (for example KdB plays the most, at 0.5 a game). There is no reason to lump it in with others, which makes me question the concept of others

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, akkm said:

this is drastically misrepresenting the real world situation of assists...why would you exclude the other stats from the category...that's nonsensical. You're basically trying to prove a point by misrepresenting information.

No I didn't I said those were the numbers of KNOWN ASSIST TYPES. Since the others are unknown, those are the number we know. However, the margin of errors are HUGE and thus the source should not be trusted.

15 minutes ago, akkm said:

So taking top 6 teams that year and how many goals were scored from open play crosses then the average goals scored was just 19% of their overall goals total. So THATs the number you should be talking about in relation to numbers of goals from crosses...that exercise you've done above is tremendously misleading and frankly a nothing exercise in trying to identify whats happening from an analytical point of  view...sure the way you do it...why not leave out every other category bar crosses and conclude 100% of goals are from crosses :)

Because I was talking about KNOWN ASSIST TYPES. I don't know why this is so hard to explain. "Other" is not a good enough category for the rest when it includes a significant majority of the data. If anything, I'm trying to discredit whoscored as a good enough source for the proof he was claiming.

16 minutes ago, akkm said:

Wow...just saw this since typing...are you donald trump...rejecting real world information to try and prove a point...so essentially you're rejecting real world information and holding up a computer simulation as what is right...reality issues much !?!?!?!!!! :lol:

What is wrong with that part? The burden of proof lies with the one with the claim. I don't claim it's correct, I've simply stated that own anecdotal evidence seems right, and I've shown the FM statistics that he asked for, then he claims it's wrong, and I ask for evidence. Where have I rejected information? What I do reject though, is you comparing me to that orange clown as that is a more modern version of Godwins law as far as I'm concerned and makes all your points in this case null and void. I'd be more than happy to debate this further, as long as we can base it on normal discussion,common sense and mutual respect. So, please show me any statistic and prove the crossing is too high, if you have any and I'll be happy to give you right in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Mitja said:

are you being serious?

Of course, show me statistics. The only thing I've seen is that it's at whoscored, but those have a way to big margin of error to be of use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

I think you'd be surprised, judging by the reaction in the feedback thread

 

We don't even know where Whoscored are getting their definitions or stats from, but it doesn't look like Opta based on what Opta are measuring.

Whoscored supposedly have a numbers for amount of through balls played per game for each player (for example KdB plays the most, at 0.5 a game). There is no reason to lump it in with others, which makes me question the concept of others

There's a glossary there providing clear definitions of what their measurements are

Through balls IS a specific measurement by them so it's not lumped in with others. In additon to their definition of through ball I suspect the mainstream expectation of what a through ball is is broader...i attached whoscored definition on last post...so other threaded passes wouldn't fall into category of theirs for through ball which says it's 'onrushing teammate (rushing through on goal)'. So by whoscored defintion of through ball wouldn't be classing other threaded/deft/creative passes

 

There definition of crosses is

Cross
- An attempted/accurate pass from a wide position to a central attacking area
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, XaW said:

No I didn't I said those were the numbers of KNOWN ASSIST TYPES. Since the others are unknown, those are the number we know. However, the margin of errors are HUGE and thus the source should not be trusted.

Because I was talking about KNOWN ASSIST TYPES. I don't know why this is so hard to explain. "Other" is not a good enough category for the rest when it includes a significant majority of the data. If anything, I'm trying to discredit whoscored as a good enough source for the proof he was claiming.

What is wrong with that part? The burden of proof lies with the one with the claim. I don't claim it's correct, I've simply stated that own anecdotal evidence seems right, and I've shown the FM statistics that he asked for, then he claims it's wrong, and I ask for evidence. Where have I rejected information? What I do reject though, is you comparing me to that orange clown as that is a more modern version of Godwins law as far as I'm concerned and makes all your points in this case null and void. I'd be more than happy to debate this further, as long as we can base it on normal discussion,common sense and mutual respect. So, please show me any statistic and prove the crossing is too high, if you have any and I'll be happy to give you right in this case.

Firstly...the trump thing was in jest...not a personal attack. As for godwins law...I only was briefly involved in the discussion so not long enough for godwins law to apply lol

 

You're trying to make a point about crosses

So you were presented with real world information about crossing assists

So you want to establish what percentage of goals come from crosses. Whoscored has a definition for what a cross is. So this is consistently applied to their measurement of stats.

So they provide numbers of goals where the assist came from a cross. In order to capture number of goals from crosses all other assists are irrelevant as you actually have a CONSISTENT measurement of what a cross is (at least how they define it). So the 'other' category contains no crosses as we know there's a specific measure for crosses.

So then you actually have a figure in the real world for assists from crosses (at least how whoscored define it)

What you've then done is say...

You're trying to discredit whoscored as a source but you're saying anecdotally evidence seems right...what is the anecdotal evidence you have...surely you can't be claiming FM is right but that real world evidence is incorrect...if not what evidence have you got to suggest FM is on point

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, akkm said:

You're trying to make a point about crosses

So you were presented with real world information about crossing assists

So you want to establish what percentage of goals come from crosses. Whoscored has a definition for what a cross is. So this is consistently applied to their measurement of stats.

So they provide numbers of goals where the assist came from a cross. In order to capture number of goals from crosses all other assists are irrelevant as you actually have a CONSISTENT measurement of what a cross is (at least how they define it). So the 'other' category contains no crosses as we know there's a specific measure for crosses.

So then you actually have a figure in the real world for assists from crosses (at least how whoscored define it)

What you've then done is say...

You're trying to discredit whoscored as a source but you're saying anecdotally evidence seems right...what is the anecdotal evidence you have...surely you can't be claiming FM is right but that real world evidence is incorrect...if not what evidence have you got to suggest FM is on point

Well, not really. The real world data I got were, in my opinion flawed. It contains a huge variable with undefined data, that I would like to see examined further before I accept it. The second point, that @themadsheep2001 stated much clearer than me, is that there is no record of what source whoscored uses. There is also no definition of what a cross it, nor is it possible to go into the data to see how the interpret data. If you had shown me the same from, say OPTA, then I would consider that a much better source than whoscored who show none, nor do they give any definitions. I've tried searching for more credible sources and I've found a couple who sets the real life percentage at around 20-25, but still no good sources there either.

I showed where my assists are from and I play a tactic that focuses out wide, so I see no reason why I shouldn't be above the average. And, yes, that is anecdotal evidence, but the burden of proof don't lie with me here. I'm simply claiming I don't see an issue, and I don't. Now, that doesn't mean there isn't an issue here. There could be, and somehow my tactic is unaffected by it. I don't know, since I haven't made the game. I do wish that when one makes a claim for an error that one have the evidence to back it up.

Right as of now, my assists type in FM is 31/73, so 42%. Since we know that FM thinks that cutbacks and square balls count into this the real percentage is a bit smaller, but I would estimate higher than the average of 20-25 if we accept the general number without seeing the data. Since I'm also focusing on wide play, I would say that is within the plausible normality. And this is my only claim, that my stats are plausible compared to real life. Not that there isn't an issue, not that other don't have too many assists from crosses, simply that I'm not seemingly affected by it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day fm19 beta wing play is overpowered in most tactics along with set pieces. I’m sure it will only take small tweaks to balance. Its to be expected it’s a beta release so the balance at this point of development isn’t fine tuned. 

For example the amc playmakers have a preference to play the ball out wide and not play defence splitting through balls. The amc almost entielry ignores the strikers. SI however have confirmed this has been fixed internally already. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Through balls are hard to make into tactics I think and people see open line for pass and are frustrated that it was not done.  We also dont see this so much the real life, only the top passers to them more often.Also "risky pass" modifier dictates this a lot. I always have one of my main playmakers with this on and try to even train them additional this trait, it is thing of beauty then.

We must check more how we play and what are the players attributes if we are not seeing the tactics we want to see. Also take into account if u example play on key highlights, missed or badly played through palls are not shown to you.

 

For passing i have noticed that too high class players are making brain dead passes into opponents. There was very good video of this showing by real madrid players, dont remember what topic it was, hope some SI people picked it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42% is more than double than any team in PL scored from crosses last year.

after playing few more games i came to the point of this me being barely playable for me. even when goals are not scored directly from crosses in most cases they come from wing play. 

it's a solid ME until the final third. but there's too much space on the wings, i'm sure if i wanted i could get 50 or even 60 crosses per game without problem...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well  i wouldn't be playing that to the AML, for sure, but actually, on the basis that this is only one frame of a move, you can make an argument for both the ball and the shot, if your striker keeps running and takes the defender, it would clear a very good shot on goal for Winks. The aim here should be to move that final defender. If he heads to Winks, you make the pass. If he follows the striker, Winks drive at goal and shoots

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, themadsheep2001 said:

Well  i wouldn't be playing that to the AML, for sure, but actually, on the basis that this is only one frame of a move, you can make an argument for both the ball and the shot, if your striker keeps running and takes the defender, it would clear a very good shot on goal for Winks

sHjImyO.jpg

 

He might have tried to drag the defender but he did not and by the time Winks took the long shot the space was already gone.

 

 

qOu778f.jpg

 

I've got this bit from the same game, it's probably not as clear as the first one but the striker still checks the midfielder's run before he takes the long shot.

 

C0AAxip.jpg

Ends up with a long shot. Could these chances be played differently? I think they could. I am not saying I'm expecting every bit of space to be exploited, but I think that there's a pattern where sometimes the players refuse to make through balls and decide to play sideways, backwards or take a long shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Weller1980 said:

At the end of the day fm19 beta wing play is overpowered in most tactics along with set pieces. I’m sure it will only take small tweaks to balance. Its to be expected it’s a beta release so the balance at this point of development isn’t fine tuned. 

For example the amc playmakers have a preference to play the ball out wide and not play defence splitting through balls. The amc almost entielry ignores the strikers. SI however have confirmed this has been fixed internally already. 

 

Got the link for SI confirming?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Armistice said:

sHjImyO.jpg

 

He might have tried to drag the defender but he did not and by the time Winks took the long shot the space was already gone.

 

 

qOu778f.jpg

 

I've got this bit from the same game, it's probably not as clear as the first one but the striker still checks the midfielder's run before he takes the long shot.

 

C0AAxip.jpg

Ends up with a long shot. Could these chances be played differently? I think they could. I am not saying I'm expecting every bit of space to be exploited, I'm just showing you that there's a general pattern that sometimes the players refuse to make through balls and decide to play sideways, backwards or take a long shot.

Yeah it's a tricky one, because we still need the balance of them not being seen and taken

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/10/2018 at 17:18, XaW said:

Here are some more examples @Armistice

 

(There seems to be something wrong with my uploads, the random players standing still in that video are not in there when I watch it, but you can see the play anyway)

(Aargh, they are multiplying! I'll post this as a bug, but try to see the play in here!)

Those motionless random lads resemble my AFC Wimbledon defence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff

Just to clear some things up here:

  1. Our crossing statistics include set pieces, which many stats suppliers don't.
  2. Our crossing statistics also include a lot of cutbacks, which many stats suppliers don't.

We've made some tweaks to encourage more through balls, but it's worth noting that we were never massively over in terms of cross goals when you take those two points in to account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jack Joyce said:

Just to clear some things up here:

  1. Our crossing statistics include set pieces, which many stats suppliers don't.
  2. Our crossing statistics also include a lot of cutbacks, which many stats suppliers don't.

We've made some tweaks to encourage more through balls, but it's worth noting that we were never massively over in terms of cross goals when you take those two points in to account.

I understand cutbacks and square balls qualify as crosses in stats, but set pieces and corners are accounted for separately in the assist breakdown screen, so how are these included with crosses.

its good news to hear through balls have been tweaked, this was my biggest issue with the current me.

Thanks for the clarification though, esspecially the comment on through balls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
18 minutes ago, Weller1980 said:

I understand cutbacks and square balls qualify as crosses in stats, but set pieces and corners are accounted for separately in the assist breakdown screen, so how are these included with crosses.

its good news to hear through balls have been tweaked, this was my biggest issue with the current me.

Thanks for the clarification though, esspecially the comment on through balls.

We have two separate stats, 'assist types' and then more general things like 'crosses'.

I believe that crosses includes corners, but not free kicks (no idea why, but that's how it is). This combined with the cutbacks means that the cross totals in matches will always look inflated if you're comparing against other stats sites.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jack Joyce said:

We have two separate stats, 'assist types' and then more general things like 'crosses'.

I believe that crosses includes corners, but not free kicks (no idea why, but that's how it is). This combined with the cutbacks means that the cross totals in matches will always look inflated if you're comparing against other stats sites.

Sorry to disagree but the stat screen in game separates corners, free kicks and crosses. 

Anyway with increased through ball assists I’m sure it will be fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
3 minutes ago, Weller1980 said:

Sorry to disagree but the stat screen in game separates corners, free kicks and crosses. 

Anyway with increased through ball assist I’m sure it will be fine.

Yes, they're different stats. But crosses includes corners as well. This is 100% true as Paul C confirmed this to me recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Armistice said:

It is a ball over the top.

2 hours ago, upthetoon said:

erm.. this is not a through ball. -.-"

How about this one then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Joyce said:

Yes, they're different stats. But crosses includes corners as well. This is 100% true as Paul C confirmed this to me recently.

Sorry, I don’t understand, and I hate not understanding things.... 

so every time we score a goal from a corner it adds 1 to the total of corners assists and 1to the total of cross assists in the screen shown below? I’m a bit confused if that’s the case, that wouldn’t make sense.

image.png.62b03a21841a9651acd0e2a6fdac7c

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • SI Staff
2 minutes ago, Weller1980 said:

Sorry, I don’t understand, and I hate not understanding things.... 

so every time we score a goal from a corner it adds 1 to the total of corners assists and 1to the total of cross assists in the screen shown below? 

image.png.62b03a21841a9651acd0e2a6fdac7c

Every corner in game is counted as a cross, so it's possible that it would be counted for both, but worth checking by counting up the goals and comparing with how many your team have actually scored that season.

I was talking about the cross totals, not the assist locations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack Joyce said:

Every corner in game is counted as a cross, so it's possible that it would be counted for both, but worth checking by counting up the goals and comparing with how many your team have actually scored that season.

I was talking about the cross totals, not the assist locations.

I really don’t think they are counted for both, but, I understand now, your measuring cross totals whereas we measure by assist location. As long as you guys who work on the ME are happy with cross assists, that’s gonna be good enough for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it better to not count corners, cutbacks and set-piece deliveries as crosses? Or alternatively, classifying crosses into two separate categories- 'crosses open play' and 'crosses set-piece' and showing them like this on the stats screen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Armistice said:

That looks more like a counter-attack/high line exploit to me.

This is an example of a through ball imo.

Yes, it's a counter, but still a through ball....

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, XaW said:

Yes, it's a counter, but still a through ball....

Well that wasn’t my point since I am not playing as a side that’s got several chances to exploit a high line. I often face very packed sides and a through ball at the right time matters a lot to unlock these sides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Armistice said:

Well that wasn’t my point since I am not playing as a side that’s got several chances to exploit a high line. I often face very packed sides and a through ball at the right time matters a lot to unlock these sides.

I don't play football that do such things, but I'll post it if I do see anything like what you are looking for. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...