Attacking frustrations

[sultan1991]

I'm a long-time FM fan and love the series but this is the first time I've noticed the match engine be so infuriating.

Strikers are missing 90% of 1 on 1's and attackers continue to shoot from impossible angles when they have a clear option in the centre.

I understand there are a lot of clear cut chances occurring so if this was fixed there would be an extreme amount of goals but I really think SI needs to do something to balance this. It really kills the sense of realism when the attacking players are inept and then midfielders have no issue scoring from 30 yards.

Whats everyone elses thoughts?

 

[Iwabik]

Same. Balancing the game by making striker useless instead of fixing defensive awareness is wrong. Try playing any extreme tactic and all you'll see is hoofball on both ends and many, many missed CCCs. 

[Sharkn20]

I have been tinkering with my tactics to create 1 on 1s myself and my strikers rarely score too. I understand they are lower league players, but so are lower league GKs

[JamieTC13]

5 hours ago, Iwabik said:

Same. Balancing the game by making striker useless instead of fixing defensive awareness is wrong. Try playing any extreme tactic and all you'll see is hoofball on both ends and many, many missed CCCs. 

This is what i'm seeing as well a lot off balls being played over the top

[uriel182]

I think that the missing shoots was for training, but no, that's not the problem. I'm training a lot of "making opportunities" and "convert opportunities" and my strikers (Messi, Suárez, Griezzman) still missing the 90% of the 1 vs 1, when in real life, Messi and Suárez don't give a chances in this oppotunities (I know, they fail some shoots in real life too, but come on, not the 90%)

[iamauser]

Yup. 1v1s are still awful. The AIs strikers seem to have improved, but not the players ones. My strikers are on a run of 36 1v1s without a goal 

[callpress]

Seems like pretty consistently my players only shoot straight at the goalkeeper.
Consistently getting "Frustrated with the team's profligacy in front of goal" from the board.
I don't get how they think the match engine update actually fixed anything, it's an absolute joke.

[FlorianAlbert9]

26 minuti fa, iamauser ha scritto:

Yup. 1v1s are still awful. The AIs strikers seem to have improved, but not the players ones. My strikers are on a run of 36 1v1s without a goal 

AI strikers and your strikers are the same for the ME. No difference. 

[iamauser]

Just now, FlorianAlbert9 said:

AI strikers and your strikers are the same for the ME. No difference. 

I know, but it definitely doesnt feel that way

[FlorianAlbert9]

Said that. 

The SI should make defenders more concentrare and near to attacker to transform some 1v1 in harder chance. 

At the same time there should be a higher % of goals

Strikers should score at least 30% more (with Player like Messi 100% more)

Edited December 7, 2019 by FlorianAlbert9

[Svenc]

1 hour ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Strikers should score at least 30% more (with Player like Messi 100% more)

Depends on the Chance. Some of which are to be regarded as 25% (the extremely tight angles ones from Prior to the patch should be worse), some of which 50/50 ones, such as most of These pre-patch. Whilst tactically forced: Forward most of the time clear on Goal, decent angle, no much Defender nearby. Haven't been able to do a similar Experiment post patch, unfortunately.
 

 

Realistically, Messi wouldn't convert 100% better than the rest though. THat's not Football reality. Messi is actually one of the few Players who consistently outperforms his xG. Thus he may turn a 25% Chance into a ~33% one, perhaps, and a 33% one Closer to the 40%+, which would bag him a significant amount of extra goals over the entire Season, but not like 100% more. Football Clubs spend millions to gain a few extra percentages Advantages over their Competition -- and oft still fail. Additionally, Forwards competing every week against Messi are already Pretty good at what they are doing, even if they are playing for Eibar. Else, they wouldn't last Long at their respective Clubs (or those Clubs would be relegated to lower Tiers).

The main reason why Messi scores consistently isn't that he puts it all away, or else Argentina would have won the World Cup in 2014. But that he consistently has 5 attempts average per match (the average Forward 2). In Terms of FM data that we can manually enter into each Squads screen: He has consistently 5 shots per 90 minutes average. Which naturally is a skill also. You can compare this to the Penalty spot also. The average conversion, Long-term is roughly 76%. Guys like CR7 over well over 100 convert About 83-84%. If the aim is realistic Simulation, then Football should be the benchmark, not Fifa.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Svenc

[cheekyspeedster]

when are you gonna fix this SI, in the next bug fix which will be in 2 months. We cant wait that long to get our game fixed

[leweyt88]

I've just had 5 clear cut chances (supposedly) in my past 2 games. Drew the first 1-1 (they had 1 clear cut chance) and then lost the second 2-0 (they also had 1). I am not okay with this happening all the time, we're clearly creating decent chances but how tf do i get my players to actually score?! What even is a clear cut chance anymore haha

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, Svenc ha scritto:

Depends on the Chance. Some of which are to be regarded as 25% (the extremely tight angles ones from Prior to the patch should be worse), some of which 50/50 ones, such as most of These pre-patch. Whilst tactically forced: Forward most of the time clear on Goal, decent angle, no much Defender nearby. Haven't been able to do a similar Experiment post patch, unfortunately.
 

 

Realistically, Messi wouldn't convert 100% better than the rest though. THat's not Football reality. Messi is actually one of the few Players who consistently outperforms his xG. Thus he may turn a 25% Chance into a ~33% one, perhaps, and a 33% one Closer to the 40%+, which would bag him a significant amount of extra goals over the entire Season, but not like 100% more. Football Clubs spend millions to gain a few extra percentages Advantages over their Competition -- and oft still fail. Additionally, Forwards competing every week against Messi are already Pretty good at what they are doing, even if they are playing for Eibar. Else, they wouldn't last Long at their respective Clubs (or those Clubs would be relegated to lower Tiers).

The main reason why Messi scores consistently isn't that he puts it all away, or else Argentina would have won the World Cup in 2014. But that he consistently has 5 attempts average per match (the average Forward 2). In Terms of FM data that we can manually enter into each Squads screen: He has consistently 5 shots per 90 minutes average. Which naturally is a skill also. You can compare this to the Penalty spot also. The average conversion, Long-term is roughly 76%. Guys like CR7 over well over 100 convert About 83-84%. If the aim is realistic Simulation, then Football should be the benchmark, not Fifa.

Sorry, i mean that in general, strikers should score 30% goals more (not 30% more converting chance). 

Same about Messi, of course, he should score 2x goals. (100% more goals, not 100% converting chance).

 

[sporadicsmiles]

2 hours ago, leweyt88 said:

I've just had 5 clear cut chances (supposedly) in my past 2 games. Drew the first 1-1 (they had 1 clear cut chance) and then lost the second 2-0 (they also had 1). I am not okay with this happening all the time, we're clearly creating decent chances but how tf do i get my players to actually score?! What even is a clear cut chance anymore haha

If the AI is not having issues converting CCCs and you are, then it is something you are doing wrong. The game does not know the difference between the player and the AI. My advice would be to look at what the AI is doing to create those CCCs, and how it differs to the ones you are creating. Also I have found the game classes some things as CCCs that should really not be (and vice versa actually). 

[leweyt88]

7 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

If the AI is not having issues converting CCCs and you are, then it is something you are doing wrong. The game does not know the difference between the player and the AI. My advice would be to look at what the AI is doing to create those CCCs, and how it differs to the ones you are creating. Also I have found the game classes some things as CCCs that should really not be (and vice versa actually). 

Okay but surely its good that we're creating so many CCC's? Most of them appear to be one on one chances, so how do i get them to score that? 

[Svenc]

Let those CCCs goddamnit die already. They're not all equal opportunity in the slightest, therefore it speaks to reason that Long-term conversions of them should differ. If an AI Team Long-term converts more, they create CCCs that are easier to convert, it's as simple as that. Over individual Matches, anything goes anyway, and should, plus you've never needed a single CCC to ship four Goals past an Opponent.

CCC also don't tell much what would be going on in a specific match, at all, unfortunately. Part of the reason is that sometimes stuff is not being flagged as a ccc even though it's easier opportunity than any one on one in the world (Cutbacks from the byline taking the keeper half out of the Picture already, and so on).

Plz, let it die SI. Please, please please.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Svenc

[leweyt88]

At this rate im just going to change to commentary only lol

[Svenc]

17 minutes ago, leweyt88 said:

At this rate im just going to change to commentary only lol

You mean those dozens line of text that (realistically, unfortunately) yell "HOW DID HE MISS THAT" at every 2nd shot? Last time I checked, there were like a dozen of such lines in the file containing the commentary lines.  
https://statsbomb.com/2016/10/xcommentary/

 

PLz, SI, let that die too. (Or make it more obvious that it's simply an attempt at aping all that bad or at the very least sensationalist commentary out there).

Edited December 7, 2019 by Svenc

[kiwityke1983]

On 05/12/2019 at 18:03, sultan1991 said:

I'm a long-time FM fan and love the series but this is the first time I've noticed the match engine be so infuriating.

Strikers are missing 90% of 1 on 1's and attackers continue to shoot from impossible angles when they have a clear option in the centre.

I understand there are a lot of clear cut chances occurring so if this was fixed there would be an extreme amount of goals but I really think SI needs to do something to balance this. It really kills the sense of realism when the attacking players are inept and then midfielders have no issue scoring from 30 yards.

Whats everyone elses thoughts?

 

The match engine this year is the first year I've genuinely struggled to have any fun playing it in probably a decade. 

I see some beautiful build up then the striker gets it and kills someone in row z. Headers comically looping over the bar from 3 inches out etc. Then the goals you do see scored are invariably scrappy scrambles in the box, set pieces or a player with finishing and long shots under 10 getting a 35 yarder laser like into the top corner. All of which you feel as a manager you have almost no say over in the creation of. 

The stated goal of this year's FM is to encourage long saves etc. We are in the first week of December after the game came out 2 weeks later than usual and I'm already bored of the game never mind my longterm save that I usually play for 30+ seasons. Its a chore to get through matches this year. 

(I played FM19 right through from Beta release to FM20s Beta release and never felt much of a need to complain about it either) 

[sporadicsmiles]

12 hours ago, leweyt88 said:

Okay but surely its good that we're creating so many CCC's? Most of them appear to be one on one chances, so how do i get them to score that? 

Typically yes, it is a good sign. However do not just look at the CCC stat and think "I should have won that". It genuinely can help to go back and look at the chances. Are you always missing a particular type of chance from a particular area of the field? Conversely are there certain types of chances you typically score? The game does not count CCCs well, as there appears to be some threshold for it. But not all CCCs are equal. 

In terms of 1v1, I have not had a problem with them. However I believe they are still under investigation as needing to be balanced. So there is that (I actually think it is far too easy to produce 1v1s in this game right now). Other than that, strikers with good composure and finishing are good. The places shots and likes to round keeper are excellent PPMs for a striker to have if they get a lot of 1v1s. Also, 1v1s from wider than the 6 yard box are significantly less dangerous than those in the middle of the goal. It is easier for a good 'keeper to shut down angles for the former. So try to get as many chances in the middle as possible. And remember, you will still miss a lot, because goalkeepers are paid very well to stop you scoring, and are usually pretty good at their job. 

[leweyt88]

5 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

Typically yes, it is a good sign. However do not just look at the CCC stat and think "I should have won that". It genuinely can help to go back and look at the chances. Are you always missing a particular type of chance from a particular area of the field? Conversely are there certain types of chances you typically score? The game does not count CCCs well, as there appears to be some threshold for it. But not all CCCs are equal. 

In terms of 1v1, I have not had a problem with them. However I believe they are still under investigation as needing to be balanced. So there is that (I actually think it is far too easy to produce 1v1s in this game right now). Other than that, strikers with good composure and finishing are good. The places shots and likes to round keeper are excellent PPMs for a striker to have if they get a lot of 1v1s. Also, 1v1s from wider than the 6 yard box are significantly less dangerous than those in the middle of the goal. It is easier for a good 'keeper to shut down angles for the former. So try to get as many chances in the middle as possible. And remember, you will still miss a lot, because goalkeepers are paid very well to stop you scoring, and are usually pretty good at their job. 

I do think the amount of 1v1's that happen every game is a big part of the problem, its far too frequent and honestly most do seem to be through the middle, its probably part bug and part poor player finishing. I've actually resorted to just turning the CCC stat off during the game so i don't see it and rage lol. It's just incredibly frustrating as the chance looks like a good one but because the graphics and animations aren't all that great it doesn't reflect how good the chance actually is (or not as the case may be). So I've again resorted to the 2D engine like i generally do in every instalment of fm.

[Svenc]

34 minutes ago, leweyt88 said:

I do think the amount of 1v1's that happen every game is a big part of the problem, its far too frequent and honestly most do seem to be through the middle, its probably part bug and part poor player finishing. I've actually resorted to just turning the CCC stat off during the game so i don't see it and rage lol. It's just incredibly frustrating as the chance looks like a good one but because the graphics and animations aren't all that great it doesn't reflect how good the chance actually is (or not as the case may be). So I've again resorted to the 2D engine like i generally do in every instalment of fm.

All the most importan factors are visible though (be it in 3d or 2d).

- distance to Goal
- angle to Goal
- keeper Position and thus how much he's tightened the angle / made the target to hit smaller by coming off his line
- pressure on the Forward (distance to the next Defender/s nearby)
- pace of Play
- Whether the ball is on the strong or weak foot
- etc.

In the model below, this would rank in between a 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 Chance, e.g. the model assumes this would be a Goal in between 3 to 4 attempts average longer term. 

That's all fairly Basic things any football engine shoudl consider anyway. It's part of any finishing Research. The nature of finite Motion capturing animations for 3d models naturally means there is a finite amount of finishing moves as such. Same as in tendency all the motion captured keeper saves tend to look quite spectacular so to make Things look "exciting". Agree this all Needs be checked, mind, incluiding the amounts of balls over top / one on oneish scenarios which seem clearly an issue.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Svenc

[Kutis]

9 hours ago, kiwityke1983 said:

The match engine this year is the first year I've genuinely struggled to have any fun playing it in probably a decade. 

I see some beautiful build up then the striker gets it and kills someone in row z. Headers comically looping over the bar from 3 inches out etc. Then the goals you do see scored are invariably scrappy scrambles in the box, set pieces or a player with finishing and long shots under 10 getting a 35 yarder laser like into the top corner. All of which you feel as a manager you have almost no say over in the creation of. 

The stated goal of this year's FM is to encourage long saves etc. We are in the first week of December after the game came out 2 weeks later than usual and I'm already bored of the game never mind my longterm save that I usually play for 30+ seasons. Its a chore to get through matches this year. 

(I played FM19 right through from Beta release to FM20s Beta release and never felt much of a need to complain about it either) 

Very good post and shares my sentiments about FM20. I've played at least last 15 FM versions and apart from one or two bad first release versions this is the worst and made me uninstall the game despite winning PL with Liverpool. 

[Monkey2018]

Looks like nothing has influence on the players.

Have a 4 star player with good finishing , misses almost every one on one. His individual training is stand on "afwerken ( probarly finishing in English version ). 

So i tried to plan 5 extra sessions "finishing" the next week to help the team finish one on one and guess what. 

7  one on one and 7 times he miss. lmao. I miss the FM18 match engine.....

Edited December 8, 2019 by Monkey2018

[callpress]

Got a lovely example here. 
54 shots, 18 on target vs. 4 shots, 2 on target.
Ends 2-1. Sure, I won, but it is no end of frustrating to watch your two strikers have 18 shots between them, only 2 of which are even on target.
And one of the goals I scored was from a set piece.
Given rates of finishing from this season's Champions League, this is laughable. No team has a conversion rate as low as 3.7%, and the vast majority are in the 15-25% range.
If you look at last season (as there is a whole season of data), finishing rates were again in the 10-15% range.
I get that scoring a goal in football isn't easy, as that's the whole point of why it's interesting, but the current version of the match engine is so miserly with conversion rates that it defies any arguments for realism.

Norwich v Celtic.pkm

[Svenc]

48 minutes ago, callpress said:

Got a lovely example here. 
54 shots, 18 on target vs. 4 shots, 2 on target.
Ends 2-1. Sure, I won, but it is no end of frustrating to watch your two strikers have 18 shots between them, only 2 of which are even on target.
And one of the goals I scored was from a set piece.
Given rates of finishing from this season's Champions League, this is laughable. No team has a conversion rate as low as 3.7%, and the vast majority are in the 15-25% range.
If you look at last season (as there is a whole season of data), finishing rates were again in the 10-15% range.
I get that scoring a goal in football isn't easy, as that's the whole point of why it's interesting, but the current version of the match engine is so miserly with conversion rates that it defies any arguments for realism.

Norwich v Celtic.pkm 232.39 kB · 0 downloads

I wish I could watch this, and have suspicious again (spoiler: It's not mainly the 1vs1s but the arguably also flawed set pieces, and how easy it is to rack up SOT with on average a low Chance of conversion, e.g. headers under pressure and similar). Set pieces being the main culprit have been such a sure fire bet for many Releases as to the "loads of SOT for minimal return syndrome", that I'd love to see it otherwise but once. But my release say I can't open any current pkms.

Btw, there is no way an average shot conversion of 15+%, let alone a Fantasy 25% in the CL, but that's another debate entirelly. Taken over multiple Matches, CR7's shot conversion stood at below 2% for months in 2017/2018, and Crystal Palace didn't score at all in their first 90 shots in the 2017/2018 Season though. It was majorly contributing to de Boer's dismissal. 54 shots within a single match is a ton.. and should be harder to come by either way, in particular if it's without extra time. And even if a side is pegged back all match.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Svenc

[callpress]

Data taken from: https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/GB1/saison_id/2018
and: https://www.transfermarkt.us/uefa-champions-league/chancenverwertung/pokalwettbewerb/CL/saison_id/2018

You can argue with the quality of the data, sure, but you cannot argue with the maths.
 

I also tend to produce good chances from set pieces, but the headers skew away at frankly ridiculous angles.
Also the average xG of a shot, even when under pressure, is not 3.7%. Not in any league, anywhere.

[Svenc]

11 minutes ago, callpress said:

Data taken from: https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/GB1/saison_id/2018
and: https://www.transfermarkt.us/uefa-champions-league/chancenverwertung/pokalwettbewerb/CL/saison_id/2018
 

Also the average xG of a shot, even when under pressure, is not 3.7%. Not in any league, anywhere.

Sure, that's why xG is actually the most useful over the longer term. In individual Matches, even over streaks, anything goes. My main Argument was that it's been Always the same for many Releases running. Every time somebody posted a match with lots of SOT and Little return, there were a ton of speculative efforts plus headers etc. from the set piece "inflating" those numbers. This stuff arguably shouldn't be as easy to come by as it is and should be watched by the dev team. All chances with an oft comparably low Chance of conversion. As the game additionally simulates Forwards getting "frustrated", and the keeper growing in confidence from saving it all, that may kill the rest.

Not sure where Transfermarkt got their current CL data, but I've seen it a couple times, and it doesn't add up. Dinamo have recorded a total of About ~45 shots from their Five Matches, so at 9 Goals their conversion couldN't possibly be as high as 50%, as Transfermarkt argues. https://www.transfermarkt.com/uefa-champions-league/chancenverwertung/pokalwettbewerb/CL/saison_id/2019

https://1xbet.whoscored.com/Regions/250/Tournaments/12/Seasons/7804/Stages/17993/TeamStatistics/Europe-UEFA-Champions-League-2019-2020 Even at a Basic glance, that couldn'T possibly be shot data. But even if it were all Shots On Target, it doesn't add up. Strange that.  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Svenc

[callpress]

I strongly disagree with your suggesting that headers from set pieces are inflating the numbers. Both Liverpool and FC Midtjylland showed an xG improvement between .5-1 (varied game-to-game) after hiring dedicated set piece coaches and making sure that they were well-trained. As well, generally speaking when a team produces shot volumes in the 30+ range, they have consistently produced big chances amongst those (approaching .5 xG or more). A lot of this has to do with the fact that when a team is dominant the opposing team tends to set up in a low block or a compact defensive unit. This by nature causes more randomness in the box via ricochets or mistakes, and these often produce some of the best chances. All recent good data from football analytics shows unequivocally that playing a defensively-minded game does not produce success, and that sitting in trying to defend a lead or play for the draw does not work in a statistically advantageous manner.

[Svenc]

24 minutes ago, callpress said:

I strongly disagree with your suggesting that headers from set pieces are inflating the numbers. Both Liverpool and FC Midtjylland showed an xG improvement between .5-1 (varied game-to-game) after hiring dedicated set piece coaches and making sure that they were well-trained. As well, generally speaking when a team produces shot volumes in the 30+ range, they have consistently produced big chances amongst those (approaching .5 xG or more). A lot of this has to do with the fact that when a team is dominant the opposing team tends to set up in a low block or a compact defensive unit. This by nature causes more randomness in the box via ricochets or mistakes, and these often produce some of the best chances. All recent good data from football analytics shows unequivocally that playing a defensively-minded game does not produce success, and that sitting in trying to defend a lead or play for the draw does not work in a statistically advantageous manner.

That's true. However how much of that is to apply in FM? FM doesn't even have a set piece Editor proper (as SI fear it leads to easy exploits, and it would). As a result, my Argument was just that These chances oft have been simply picked up by the keeper. That's been a game reality for at least a couple Releases. Plus I challenge the notion that a side who had a good deal of ist attempts simply from the set piece against a packed defense actually was dominating. Considering that every set piece is the result of a team defending a move, it's a side struggling to break that defense down. Btw, if defensive Football wouldn't provide success, how do you explain Portugal/France in the recent international tournaments, and Leicester Winning the EPL? 

Even if there were enough chances in such Matches to produce 5 Goals, and let's assume in yours it was. Scoring but 2 should be Pretty frequent btw. Doing a Poisson Distribution isn't an ideal Simulation of a Football match. But according to such a Distribution model, if the expectation is 5 Goals, ~8% of the time you should expect to see scored "but" 2. However, that's typically not the case from my experience of FM, which to me is a game flaw: Shots On Target with limited return are too easy to come by and have been for a couple Releases. You may consider reporting this into the bug sections, and try to Count the stuff from the set piece as I did here (blue dots).  

Edited December 8, 2019 by Svenc

[callpress]

Leicester won the EPL playing counter-attacking football, not defensive football. Portugal (in that tournament) got a pretty sizable chunk of luck in a number of matches. And France don't play defensive football, what are you on about?

[Svenc]

30 minutes ago, callpress said:

Leicester won the EPL playing counter-attacking football, not defensive football. Portugal (in that tournament) got a pretty sizable chunk of luck in a number of matches. And France don't play defensive football, what are you on about?

Seems more a Definition Problem. France averaged but 11 shots that Tournament. That#s not quite attacking Football either  -- any of such number is purely a byproduct of any team's tactical style anyway. Germany averaged a ton in the WC, more than twice the amount of France, but very few high Quality, so despite the game flaws I suspect, it's not true that sides who produce lots of shots are always producing quality. 

This goes doubly so for FM, either way, and perhaps shouldn't be that way (see suspicious above and Argument how it's been too easy to get SOT that in-game, as per game reality, don't result in a Goal that oftenly on average). In particular if a regular occurance, that may be great examples to upload and highlight what to fix About it. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by Svenc

[Finners]

On 05/12/2019 at 11:21, Iwabik said:

Same. Balancing the game by making striker useless instead of fixing defensive awareness is wrong. Try playing any extreme tactic and all you'll see is hoofball on both ends and many, many missed CCCs. 

 

I have some sympathies with the devs for both Football Manager and FIFA, to be fair. Or really, any game producer that's expected to knock out a new version of a franchise year after year after year. I don't really like coming on to forums and complaining about the product because I realise how immensely difficult it is to balance and fine tune something as detailed as this at the best of times, let alone when you're under pressure to turn something around so quickly.

That being said, I also really dislike when you get radio silence from developers and / or a refusal to just put a hand up and say "you know what, we agree, X or Y isn't perfect at the moment - we'll try and persist in balancing, please be patient."

One on ones have been consistently, persistently awful for the last few versions of the game. It's obviously difficult, making them a guaranteed goal would not only be untrue to life (some players are flat out awful at them tbf) but it'd also make every game a ten - nine goal fest because it's far too easy to just punt it long to create one currently. But then how do you fix that? Work on defensive positioning, tone down long pass accuracy? Everything has a knock on effect and it hard as hell to balance and tweak and test mid cycle. 

So yeah, I'm sympathetic but I do also agree it needs to be addressed fairly shortly before a whole damn lot of people - myself included really - just walk away from the franchise in frustration beacuse, I've got to be honest, it does pretty much shatter my suspension of disbelief when I'm watching Jamie Vardy, one of the best one on one finishers in world football, butcher chance after chance by just smashing it straight at the keeper from ten yards away from him whilst one on one in acres of space.

 

20 hours ago, callpress said:

Leicester won the EPL playing counter-attacking football, not defensive football. Portugal (in that tournament) got a pretty sizable chunk of luck in a number of matches. And France don't play defensive football, what are you on about?

 

Eh. A lot of people conveniently forget the many drab 1 - 0 wins we slugged out in the second half of the season or the way we parked a fleet of double deckers in many games to get a result. It's a bit of a myth that we played the entire season with complete swashbuckling, manic, counter-punching madness. 

That said, it's not the number of "xG" we created that defined us but the efficiency with which we did then and still do now convert them. Everyone likes to pretend that Jamie Vardy's pace is his greatest weapon but you'll actually find that what makes him both remarkable and the perfect Leicester striker- then and now - is his % conversion. He scores a frankly ludicrous number of the chances that come his way, a tiny, tiny amount of which are anything other than what Football Manager would call a "CCC" (sorry @Svenc )- which is sort of the point really and exactly why he's a great example of  what makes a mockery of the current ME problems.

It's difficult to produce a tactic that relies on counter-punching patiently to create the ideal goal scoring moment when you can have no faith at all in the ME to offer you a viable chance of scoring it.

Edited December 9, 2019 by Finners

[akkm]

22 hours ago, Svenc said:

That's true. However how much of that is to apply in FM? FM doesn't even have a set piece Editor proper (as SI fear it leads to easy exploits, and it would). As a result, my Argument was just that These chances oft have been simply picked up by the keeper. That's been a game reality for at least a couple Releases. Plus I challenge the notion that a side who had a good deal of ist attempts simply from the set piece against a packed defense actually was dominating. Considering that every set piece is the result of a team defending a move, it's a side struggling to break that defense down. Btw, if defensive Football wouldn't provide success, how do you explain Portugal/France in the recent international tournaments, and Leicester Winning the EPL? 

Even if there were enough chances in such Matches to produce 5 Goals, and let's assume in yours it was. Scoring but 2 should be Pretty frequent btw. Doing a Poisson Distribution isn't an ideal Simulation of a Football match. But according to such a Distribution model, if the expectation is 5 Goals, ~8% of the time you should expect to see scored "but" 2. However, that's typically not the case from my experience of FM, which to me is a game flaw: Shots On Target with limited return are too easy to come by and have been for a couple Releases. You may consider reporting this into the bug sections, and try to Count the stuff from the set piece as I did here (blue dots).  

there will always be anomalies in football but pointing out exceptions to prove something is akin to ignoring the majority of information to confirm a bias. i suspect the poster meant sustained success or even judging from football overall and through the years...though absolutely you'll get exceptions especially in knockout tournaments but it's not defensive football that is consistently winning leagues or tournaments so therefore they're the exception so hardly worthwhile championing exceptions to prove something when that really just proves the opposite

[tat501]

It is quite strange.  I've seemingly built my tactics around the weird ME as a result and my leading goalscorers are now ALWAYs my Inside Forwards who score either by cutting onto their strong foot and shooting from outside of the box, or by attacking the back post for crosses made by overlapping fullbacks.  They're my two ways of scoring.  NO chance of scoring one on one (maybe one in 50 in reality), despite loads of balls over the top, and loads of chances for both sides from "ball playing defenders" who find that ball over the top.  Ive actually stopped my striker in a 4-3-3- or 4-2-3-1 from making the run in behind now, training all my strikers to play with back to goal and using them as a DLF or pressing forward on support occasionally, with attacking runs made by inside forwards and SS only.