Missing Clear Cut Chances/One on Ones

[chvrches]

I am missing what seems like an insane amount of CCC's and 1v1's. I'm managing Hamburg in the Bundesliga and my strikers' finishing ability is around 13, but it feels like they miss an insane amount of 1v1's. I always seem to have at least two clear cut chances a game where the striker gets in behind the defenders and has a clear as day 1v1 oppurtunity, but 90% of the time they miss, it seems absurd. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

[vara]

I can’t say that it is a bug or not. But multiple people have had similar problems, whether or not they’ve raised it as a bug concern, I’m not sure.

 

ive found my return in 1v1’s with a lone striker is significantly poorer than when I have 2 up top. 
In fact I’d say my conversion rate with 2 up front is great!

[ravalamol]

Ill be honest, I  was looking for this issue. I opt for Key Highlights or Extended only during games.
In each case, I'll see players dribbling the 'ENTIRE' length of the field to be 1v1 and get the shot 'ALWAYS' saved. Not a single time in 3 seasons (100+ games) have I  seen a conversion even with world class strikers or players

So whenever the highlights come, if I see a player dribbling long lengths, I KNOW it is never gonna be a goal. 
It's insanely predictable and really poor.

[Dagenham_Dave]

3 hours ago, chvrches said:

I am missing what seems like an insane amount of CCC's and 1v1's. I'm managing Hamburg in the Bundesliga and my strikers' finishing ability is around 13, but it feels like they miss an insane amount of 1v1's. I always seem to have at least two clear cut chances a game where the striker gets in behind the defenders and has a clear as day 1v1 oppurtunity, but 90% of the time they miss, it seems absurd. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

Coversion rates with 1v1s is being looked at just now. It's not just a case of making some of them go in though. You'd end up with 5-5 scorelines all over the place. They need to balance it with better AI defending to perhaps cut down the amount of 1v1s in the game, but then you also don't want loads of 0-0 draws or all goals coming from set pieces or crosses, so it's a really precarious balancing act. 

Personally, I can put up with 1 v 1s being missed (I still see a few going in) if the rest of the engine is balanced properly, which it seems to be. The butterfly effect of the match engine code must be brutal to deal with for the devs. 

[Tiger666]

3 hours ago, chvrches said:

I am missing what seems like an insane amount of CCC's and 1v1's. I'm managing Hamburg in the Bundesliga and my strikers' finishing ability is around 13, but it feels like they miss an insane amount of 1v1's. I always seem to have at least two clear cut chances a game where the striker gets in behind the defenders and has a clear as day 1v1 oppurtunity, but 90% of the time they miss, it seems absurd. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

It's a known issue. Hopefully it gets sorted soon cos it's very frustrating to watch.

[sporadicsmiles]

Bare in mind that a lot of the 1v1 chances I have seen when people have posted pkms of their matches have either been under pressure from a defender, or from pretty wide (giving the 'keeper a better angle to make the save). Not all chances are equal. A 1v1 where the player has time to take on the 'keeper - ie no pressure from a defender, from directly in front of the goal, ball under good control - is vastly different to a player running out wide, with a defender close behind, and no time to settle for a shot. I would expect to miss a lot of the latter. For the former, it will depend on how good your striker is, compared to the goalkeeper. If you want an example, think how many times Liverpool or Salzburg were through on goal yesterday in the UCL match. Both goalkeepers defended those chances very well, and most of the time the player was under pressure from a defender close to them. I'd keep a critical eye on exactly how good these chances are, especially those that are missed. Also the composure and finishing of a striker will significantly affect their ability to take 1v1 chances. And Goialkeepers have a 1v1 attribute which determines if they are good in these situations or not. This is also something that has to be kept in mind. You could give me 100 1v1 chances with no defenders against David de Gea and I would probably miss them all. This is an extreme example, but similar logic must be applied. It is not as simple as "x number of chances should always be converted".

That is not to say this is not an issue, because it is being looked at, so it is. To me the problem is the fact so many chances are generated. The defenders do not seem to react well enough to strikers. I have particularly seen strikers being able to pull long balls down without any pressure to be a little overpowered. I do not generate that many 1v1 chances, and the ones I have made, I think the conversion rate is pretty normal. So to me it is making so many of them that gives the problem. It feels like you should be scoring loads because of how many chances of this type are created.

[roykela]

1 hour ago, ravalamol said:

Ill be honest, I  was looking for this issue. I opt for Key Highlights or Extended only during games.
In each case, I'll see players dribbling the 'ENTIRE' length of the field to be 1v1 and get the shot 'ALWAYS' saved. Not a single time in 3 seasons (100+ games) have I  seen a conversion even with world class strikers or players

So whenever the highlights come, if I see a player dribbling long lengths, I KNOW it is never gonna be a goal. 
It's insanely predictable and really poor.

You mean, kind of like this?
 

 

[Glen_Runciter]

4 hours ago, roykela said:

You mean, kind of like this?
 

 

Oh, wow! It's not a problem for you! That clearly means it's not a problem for anybody else either!

Problem solved! Thank you so much!

[herne79]

8 hours ago, chvrches said:

I am missing what seems like an insane amount of CCC's and 1v1's. I'm managing Hamburg in the Bundesliga and my strikers' finishing ability is around 13, but it feels like they miss an insane amount of 1v1's. I always seem to have at least two clear cut chances a game where the striker gets in behind the defenders and has a clear as day 1v1 oppurtunity, but 90% of the time they miss, it seems absurd. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?

Click Tactics > Analysis > Goals > Clear Cut Chances > Domestic League Matches > Last xx Matches (xx = nearest number below the league matches you've played).

Mine says in my last 25 league matches I've created 58 CCCs and converted 32 of them.  While the opposition have created 31 CCCs and converted 21.

Obviously that doesn't tell you about 1v1s but you mentioned CCCs so take a look and check.

[Welshace]

10 minutes ago, Glen_Runciter said:

Oh, wow! It's not a problem for you! That clearly means it's not a problem for anybody else either!

Problem solved! Thank you so much!

Are you ok?

 

Your whole post and point was that in 100 games you've NEVER seen a goal like that.... the reply was to show you that it does happen... clearly...

 

So the valid response is that just because you aren't seeing ANY of these goals at all, doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone else does it?..

 

This is a feedback thread, you offered yours and the reply came as a counter to yours to show you goals like that do happen, and not NEVER as you stated.

[roykela]

33 minutes ago, Glen_Runciter said:

Oh, wow! It's not a problem for you! That clearly means it's not a problem for anybody else either!

Problem solved! Thank you so much!

As Welshace said, i was merely pointing out that it does happen.
I never said or implied it happened to me so it's not a problem for everyone else.
Just make sure you're not subconciously reverse-projecting your own thoughts into my post, meaning; just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is a problem for everybody.
In the feedback thread i also posted a 2nd one. 
He scored two of those in 5 games.
 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by roykela

[Glen_Runciter]

44 minutes ago, Welshace said:

Are you ok?

 

Your whole post and point was that in 100 games you've NEVER seen a goal like that.... the reply was to show you that it does happen... clearly...

 

So the valid response is that just because you aren't seeing ANY of these goals at all, doesn't mean it's a problem for everyone else does it?..

 

This is a feedback thread, you offered yours and the reply came as a counter to yours to show you goals like that do happen, and not NEVER as you stated.

Oh my god, at least read the comments before you pretend to be a somebody...

[Glen_Runciter]

27 minutes ago, roykela said:

Just make sure you're not subconciously reverse-projecting your own thoughts into my post, meaning; just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is a problem for everybody.

 

so, basically: "NO U"

 

thank you guys, you 2 just proved it again that people who are still defending the game are usually doing it out of reflex, without anything resembling an actual counter-argument

[themadsheep2001]

Cut the digs out or people will be getting bans

[roykela]

2 hours ago, Glen_Runciter said:

so, basically: "NO U"

 

thank you guys, you 2 just proved it again that people who are still defending the game are usually doing it out of reflex, without anything resembling an actual counter-argument

No, far away from it. That's exactly what it isn't. When it's taken out of context it can be interpreted that way, sure.
One side says 'it never happens'. The other side shows that it does happen.
The point isn't that it's one thing or the other. It is more complicated than that.

Me showing that i have a player who managed to do it twice in 5 games doesn't mean that it happens all the time, nor that my players aren't missing those chances.
They do miss those chances but they also do score.
Those 2 goals he scored are the only 2 goals i've seen scored like that, over the course of 4 1/2 seasons.
I haven't had any players nor the chances to even have someone attempt something like that before i got that player to the club. And i mean in the context of a player dribbling the entire length.

It's nothing to do with defending the game. It's to show the NEVER isn't a never just because it hasn't been seen in a person's game.

Edited December 11, 2019 by roykela

[chvrches]

8 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Coversion rates with 1v1s is being looked at just now. It's not just a case of making some of them go in though. You'd end up with 5-5 scorelines all over the place. They need to balance it with better AI defending to perhaps cut down the amount of 1v1s in the game, but then you also don't want loads of 0-0 draws or all goals coming from set pieces or crosses, so it's a really precarious balancing act. 

Personally, I can put up with 1 v 1s being missed (I still see a few going in) if the rest of the engine is balanced properly, which it seems to be. The butterfly effect of the match engine code must be brutal to deal with for the devs. 

I understand and when thinking about this issue I knew it wouldn't be as simple as simply allowing more 1v1's to be scored. Hopefully they can find a balance. It must be very difficult to find a balance in the match engine and I can appreciate that.

[chvrches]

2 hours ago, herne79 said:

Click Tactics > Analysis > Goals > Clear Cut Chances > Domestic League Matches > Last xx Matches (xx = nearest number below the league matches you've played).

Mine says in my last 25 league matches I've created 58 CCCs and converted 32 of them.  While the opposition have created 31 CCCs and converted 21.

Obviously that doesn't tell you about 1v1s but you mentioned CCCs so take a look and check.

Okay I just did this and it says I've converted 65 out of my last 100 ccc's, so obviously 65% which does seem reasonable. Not sure about my 1v1 conversion rate though.

[jere_d]

On 11/12/2019 at 15:37, herne79 said:

Click Tactics > Analysis > Goals > Clear Cut Chances > Domestic League Matches > Last xx Matches (xx = nearest number below the league matches you've played).

Mine says in my last 25 league matches I've created 58 CCCs and converted 32 of them.  While the opposition have created 31 CCCs and converted 21.

Obviously that doesn't tell you about 1v1s but you mentioned CCCs so take a look and check.

In my last 27 league games 

My converted ccc is 36 out of 64 so 56%

Converted ccc against me is 20 out of 27 so 74%

I attack alot find I make many chances and many are missed

Seems like the attacking team struggles to convert cccs

 

 

[herne79]

4 minutes ago, jere_d said:

Seems like the attacking team struggles to convert cccs

A 56% conversion rate isn't struggling .

[themadsheep2001]

56% is huge, if we're comparing to the real life stat, which is OPTA's Big chances, average Premier League conversion is 19%. 

[hh123]

iv never seen anything like 56%. 10-20% at best

[themadsheep2001]

Just now, hh123 said:

iv never seen anything like 56%. 10-20% at best

So within the averages of real life then

[hh123]

8 minutes ago, herne79 said:

A 56% conversion rate isn't struggling .

iv never seen anything like 56%. 10-20% at best. However, i am sure there are tactics that increase the % conversion but that still doesent mean the ME works... It means its broken but there are ways to exploit it

[hh123]

Just now, themadsheep2001 said:

So within the averages of real life then

i dont think any stirkers would last long if they converted 1 or 2 out of 10 clear cut chances including 1 on 1s and penalties! 

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, hh123 said:

i dont think any stirkers would last long if they converted 1 or 2 out of 10 clear cut chances including 1 on 1s and penalties! 

The real life big chance conversion average in the premier league is 19%

Man City were converting 38%, Man United 9% just to give you a idea of the variation (not saying these were the top and bottom, just two varying options)

There's definitely things to look at (starting with FM's definition of clear cut chances vs OPTAs big chance), but the perception of what should be getting finished vs the reality are some way apart.

[jere_d]

Just checked on https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/big_chance_created?se=274

And apparently this season chelsea missed 33 out of 33 big chances. But they've scored a penalty this season so I don't understand what this stat represents I've also seen abraham score a couple when through on goal. 

In contrast I know cccs are usually a player through on goal.

[themadsheep2001]

6 minutes ago, jere_d said:

Just checked on https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/big_chance_created?se=274

And apparently this season chelsea missed 33 out of 33 big chances. But they've scored a penalty this season so I don't understand what this stat represents I've also seen abraham score a couple when through on goal. 

In contrast I know cccs are usually a player through on goal.

They have missed the penalty I suspect. Penalties are always considered big chances by OPTA

[jere_d]

20 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

They have missed the penalty I suspect. Penalties are always considered big chances by OPTA

They scored it. I'm just going to assume that big chances created don't include big chances that aren't from a team mate. 

 

[themadsheep2001]

5 minutes ago, jere_d said:

They scored it. I'm just going to assume that big chances created don't include big chances that aren't from a team mate. 

 

No, I mean they missed it on the stats

[Bothan Spy]

Crikey I thought this was just me! Checked mine and the opposition have scored 63% of them against me!

[jere_d]

5 minutes ago, Bothan Spy said:

Crikey I thought this was just me! Checked mine and the opposition have scored 63% of them against me!

That's just league games though, all is a little lower (68%) but I just started 2nd season so friendlies would be included. 

[herne79]

1 hour ago, hh123 said:

iv never seen anything like 56%. 10-20% at best. However, i am sure there are tactics that increase the % conversion but that still doesent mean the ME works... It means its broken but there are ways to exploit it

Going by the above stats it would seem the AI managers are using exploit tactics as well then.  And thanks for telling me I'm using an exploit tactic, I hadn't realised.

Anyway 10%-20% is quite a spread (even though as TMS points out above that's within real life averages) when you have the exact information at hand in your own games - what is it?

[Svenc]

Was just going to say: Even the AI assistant when going on Holiday and you letting him do eveything easily breaches the 50%. tldr; git gudd.

That said, the reason why there's a reasonably big gap in conversion obviously ain't the players. It's that not all CCC is equal opportunity. The stat is so flawed as serious feedback from the get-go, it should be ditched ASAP. And this from the Ground-up. It's been a debate what consistutes a CCC for a while, which is why the Cutback oft doesn't qualify. This should be based on actual ME calculations made, not on a week-long debate whether a Header should or shouldn't ever count as a CCC on any annual release.

The current defensive "flaws" as to the ME highlight this spectacularly. Anything half-way played behind the lines, which happens quite a few times in a match, is flagged a clear-cut. Even if the guy is approaching goalmouth from ridiculously tight angles, and the keeper just has his arm to stick out to stop the resulting shot being on the ridiculously small target to hit. And even if he's crowded by a pack of defenders, which makes the shot not being blocked a challenge to boot.

Speaking of which, the game really should teach players how to read shot maps. There is so much stuff uploaded in the bug forums that Show despite all the amount of shots and 1vs1, there is preciously Little created in premium zones of the box ; and from actual play in actual space to boot. This will not ease the frustrations of the 1vs1, only fixing the defending (and perhaps coversion some) would.

This is your average shot map FM 2020 in every other "lots of SOT with Little return" match (blue dots perennial headers under added presssure etc from the set piece; red dots one on onish. What's new as to FM20 is the one on ones. The set pieces have been going on for quite a while). See where all those shots from tight angles bunch in the 2nd? That's the result of the widish guys in particular being through on Goal so often. The set piece percentages are this highly because the AI Plays defensive Football and the user tactic isn't the best for Breaking packed defenses down from any actual Play. So despite the shot Counts it can't be dominating that overly much, even though the Claim is typically they'd be "destroying" Opposition --- just not scoring.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Svenc

[Chus]

The goalkeepers throw themselves before the anyone shoots  so they guess the shots ?!

[Etebaer]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Chus:

The goalkeepers throw themselves before the anyone shoots  so they guess the shots ?!

In fact they do - but i guess it is an animation sequence issue...

[Quadrophenia88]

So is there anything you can do to improve the conversation rate?

[Dagenham_Dave]

1 hour ago, Quadrophenia88 said:

So is there anything you can do to improve the conversation rate?

Talk quicker? 

[davedavedavedave89]

This is definitely an issue in my game, my strikers must have had 100 1v1's with the Gk and scored at most 6! Do we know if the developers are looking into this and rectify it on the next update as its really spoiling the game for me.

[Quadrophenia88]

2 hours ago, Dagenham_Dave said:

Talk quicker? 

Kudos.

[Serptimo]

15 hours ago, Svenc said:

Was just going to say: Even the AI assistant when going on Holiday and you letting him do eveything easily breaches the 50%. tldr; git gudd.

That said, the reason why there's a reasonably big gap in conversion obviously ain't the players. It's that not all CCC is equal opportunity. The stat is so flawed as serious feedback from the get-go, it should be ditched ASAP. And this from the Ground-up. It's been a debate what consistutes a CCC for a while, which is why the Cutback oft doesn't qualify. This should be based on actual ME calculations made, not on a week-long debate whether a Header should or shouldn't ever count as a CCC on any annual release.

The current defensive "flaws" as to the ME highlight this spectacularly. Anything half-way played behind the lines, which happens quite a few times in a match, is flagged a clear-cut. Even if the guy is approaching goalmouth from ridiculously tight angles, and the keeper just has his arm to stick out to stop the resulting shot being on the ridiculously small target to hit. And even if he's crowded by a pack of defenders, which makes the shot not being blocked a challenge to boot.

Speaking of which, the game really should teach players how to read shot maps. There is so much stuff uploaded in the bug forums that Show despite all the amount of shots and 1vs1, there is preciously Little created in premium zones of the box ; and from actual play in actual space to boot. This will not ease the frustrations of the 1vs1, only fixing the defending (and perhaps coversion some) would.

This is your average shot map FM 2020 in every other "lots of SOT with Little return" match (blue dots perennial headers under added presssure etc from the set piece; red dots one on onish. What's new as to FM20 is the one on ones. The set pieces have been going on for quite a while). See where all those shots from tight angles bunch in the 2nd? That's the result of the widish guys in particular being through on Goal so often. The set piece percentages are this highly because the AI Plays defensive Football and the user tactic isn't the best for Breaking packed defenses down from any actual Play. So despite the shot Counts it can't be dominating that overly much, even though the Claim is typically they'd be "destroying" Opposition --- just not scoring.

so, as you point out, lots of shots on goal doesn't necessarily mean lots of good chances. But, my issue is, why are these shots being tried. at the top end of the game, players with high stats shoudn't be trying all sorts of nonsense shots from any angle with no chance of scoring when there are better options available. especially when you have PI's and TI's that contravene this behanviour. People are rightly frustrated at the fact that the game isn't playing out like a normal game of football, there are many instances that have silly gamey occurrences , which , of course is expected occasionally, but seems over the top on this ME 

Edited December 13, 2019 by Serptimo

[kiwityke1983]

On 11/12/2019 at 22:37, herne79 said:

Click Tactics > Analysis > Goals > Clear Cut Chances > Domestic League Matches > Last xx Matches (xx = nearest number below the league matches you've played).

Mine says in my last 25 league matches I've created 58 CCCs and converted 32 of them.  While the opposition have created 31 CCCs and converted 21.

Obviously that doesn't tell you about 1v1s but you mentioned CCCs so take a look and check.

Those stats are inaccurate on my save. Says the AI has scored 5 goals fromm CCC's in the last 5 games. We've won every game 1-0!

[kiwityke1983]

I actually went back and manually checked my CCCs as I had the perception that we didn't create many against bottom 6 sides but did against top 6 sides. 

What I found was mildly surprising. Against top 6 and bottom 6 sides we created CCC's at roughly the same rate, around 2.5 per match. 

The major difference was the conversion rate. Against top 6 sides it was 46% against bottom 6 sides it was just 12%!

There wasn't much if any difference between the chances either. A lot of straight down the middle chances were missed against bottom 6 sides even. 

Edited December 14, 2019 by kiwityke1983

[kiwityke1983]

Two things I did notice whilst doing this. 

Firstly players seem to be "under pressure" even if a defender is remotely anywhere near them. Even if IRL you'd expect a professional footballer to not be under pressure from a defender that far away. So even when my players went through on goal against bottom 6 sides a player was within 1 to 2 metres behind them, against top 6 sides this is usually 3-4 metres. 

Two defenders are far too proficient at blocking shots. They are essentially an inpenetrable wall. So shots that you'd expect to at least hit the target 7 out of 10 times IRL are in fact blocked 10/10.

I think that's why so many people have this issue with 1 on 1s where as others don't. 

It's really only an issue against sides that defend deep and refuse to attack. It's still possible to get the 1 on 1 but for whatever reason the chances of actually scoring said 1 on 1 are about 4 times less than if you are playing a side that doesn't defend deep (as most top 6 sides don't). 

So if you are a top team most sides in FM just attempt to not get beaten badly. A 1 - 0 loss is fine to them. Where as if you are a middling or lower rated team, sides will attack and not defend as deep. 

[Svenc]

9 hours ago, Serptimo said:

so, as you point out, lots of shots on goal doesn't necessarily mean lots of good chances. But, my issue is, why are these shots being tried. at the top end of the game, players with high stats shoudn't be trying all sorts of nonsense shots from any angle with no chance of scoring when there are better options available. 

This is something I fully agree with. I've also Always made the Point that it were too easy to spam shots (even on target), that from playing as well as watching experience simply are not that often converted into Goals in the game*. FM 20 had "introduced" the widish 1vs1s due to its long ball defending flaws taken at difficult angles (not every time there is an option to square it though). There are too many 1vs1 in General. There is another long-term thing going on, and an actual Manager would react to that immediately. It's the headers from the set pieces, equally oft on target, but as they're pressured headers, equally not that regularly converted into goals. If a team trying to break a packed defense down in real football, and all it had was stuff from the set piece in virtually zero space, the Manager imo would react immediately. Now FM doesn't even have stats feedback for that. Still  I've done memes in the past to mock that.



Would be interesting if the game were to deal in data such as xG, based on its own calculations, what the suggested expected scorelines was in quite a few of those 30 shots vs zero goal matches. *The game would need better Feedback anyway, as from my experience the aforementioned kind of chance Analysis of FM players oft tends to be abysmal, no matter any release. As another significant consequence, they'd never try to sit Deep and soak up shots themselves, as they'd be afraid to do that. So, every time the AI does that successfully -- the AI doesn't give a hoot About the shots -- it must be the "AI cheating".
 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Svenc

[Mitja]

It seems there is huge differene between SOTs converted into goals in FM vs real life. Not to mention how easy is to achieve 20 shots in fm. Not counting teams like City, who try to walk thq ball into goal, every 3rd sot is a goal. For teams playing on counters even less.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Mitja

[Svenc]

2 hours ago, Mitja said:

It seems there is huge differene between SOTs converted into goals in FM vs real life. Not to mention how easy is to achieve 20 shots in fm. Not counting teams like City, who try to walk thq ball into goal, every 3rd sot is a goal. For teams playing on counters even less.

Which seems weird, considering that shot and SOT to Goal ratios are stats that Si soak test every year. But: With AI tactics, naturally… plus averages over thousands of matches. As to counter attacks, sure it depends on the release and how open the AI are, but since this was adressing "FM in General", you mean like these?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Svenc

[Svenc]

7 hours ago, kiwityke1983 said:

Firstly players seem to be "under pressure" even if a defender is remotely anywhere near them. 

Would be interesting btw. to know what Research SI go by, or try to. The core of it all It's mostly the same, as it's going back decades. But Pollard et all had been quoted as far back as ten years ago on These boards. Naturally, what you describe should generally happen. More Players close to the Forward = more pressure on him. If sides pack their backline, it should be harder to score. Those defenders tend to be professionals also.
 

Quote

A logistic regression analysis shows that three factors each have a highly significant influence (p < .001) on the chances of a shot producing a goal. These factors are: 1. The distance from goal (each extra yard from goal decreases the odds of scoring by 15%); 2. The angle from the goalpost (each extra degree away from the goal decreases the odds of scoring by 2%); 3. Space from the nearest opponent at the time of the shot (if more than one metre of space, the odds of scoring are more than doubled).

 

Whether the game visualizes Things that well is another matter. However I've argued that Prior to the patch the 1vs1 converted Long-term over dozens at 50/50 rates see no Defender near on average. They should be very very rare with reasonable tactics (I forced them with illogical ones). The patch will bring the numbers down anyway if it fixes the defending. But if the CCC is kept (I hope it's not), I'd encourage to only ever flag any shot a CCC for as Long as it taken roughly inside of a line drawn from the posts and extending no further than the Edge of the box at best.  The amount of touches arguably should be taken into account as well, as each touch tends to give the keeper time to anticipate and go off his line. That shots at such tight angles should be ever flagged as "clear cut" should be a No-Go.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Svenc

[jere_d]

49 minutes ago, Svenc said:

Which seems weird, considering that shot and SOT to Goal ratios are stats that Si soak test every year. But: With AI tactics, naturally… plus averages over thousands of matches. As to counter attacks, sure it depends on the release and how open the AI are, but since this was adressing "FM in General", you mean like these?

 

 

 

To me its obvious that the game must favor soaking up pressure, sitting deep then countering. but I find that boring, how can a game only favor 1 tactic? And that's due to decision making of the players being wrong most of the time around the goal.

I see various decisions that decrease the chance of scoring constantly being made; Players through on goal centrally taking early shots from outside the box, players with time and space in the box taking weak shot that the keeper catches , full backs running the hypotenuse to the byline so more defenders can close him down then shooting instead of driving the ball across goal (this kind of stuff should cause havoc with a packed defense but i've never seen an own goal coz they rarely cross from the byline), inside forwards/wingers are mostly shooting with their weaker foot when they cut in (no mahrez finesse shots), headers on goal are just trash since this new update whether thats under-pressure or not, a lot of these headers should be a knock downs, passes and crosses happen a couple seconds after there's a clear chance to put a player in and lastly the wrong players going to the ball ie balls played towards the wide player in space but the, might be, offside striker picks up the ball bringing his marker with him instead of making space for the winger.

All these things dont appear to be rectifiable through tactics which causes even more frustration

[Svenc]

Just now, jere_d said:

To me its obvious that the game must favor soaking up pressure, sitting deep then countering. but I find that boring, how can a game only favor 1 tactic? And that's due to decision making of the players being wrong most of the time around the goal.

Which is weird, considering that quite a few more recent have argued how the game had a huge bias towards attacking Play (and sitting Deep was not viable). To me the ultimate stress test of the Deep block will be once you are able to go what Burnely did in 2017. Sitting Deep, averaging 20 shots against, yet conceding no more than 12 Goals in between August and December.  

[jere_d]

1 minute ago, Svenc said:

Which is weird, considering that quite a few more recent have argued how the game had a huge bias towards attacking Play (and sitting Deep was not viable). To me the ultimate stress test of the Deep block will be once you are able to go what Burnely did in 2017. Sitting Deep, averaging 20 shots against, yet conceding no more than 12 Goals in between August and December.  

in terms of converting chances to goals i've constantly struggled to score with strong teams against these packed defenses however I see plenty chances created I will usually score 1 then they might score from a set piece or long ball.