Jump to content

FM2022 - Adding in xG...


Recommended Posts

Adding in xG just underlines the problems that has plagued FM games for years.
AI - Frequently creating poor chances, but scoring goals with poor strikers.
Player - Frequently creating quality chances, and missing - with the best strikers in the game.

It seems that the game actually engineers results to make the league closer every year. 
I'm playing as Man UFC currently. I have Ronaldo, Greenwood and Mbappe. Three extremely high quality strikers. Yet they frequently mess up in one on ones with xG of 0.4-0.5 being wasted.
The AI on the other hand, frequently scores absolute screamers with players with poor long-shot attributes where their xG is 0.05-0.1 (and in some extreme cases 0.00).

Like I get there's an element of luck in football. I get players can have off-days... but the results are actually predictable in some circumstances. If you win too many games in a row, the game engine is like "Hey, lets throw a random spike in there while you fail to score with xG of 2.91, while your opposition scores 3 goals with xG of 0.87".

If I frequently create significantly better chances, I should be scoring significantly more goals. This happens far and few between with the best strikers in world football. It doesn't make sense. On an off-day, yes, strikers should fail to score - that's why they get subbed off. It should not be the frequent norm that the best strikers in the game cannot score sitters (according to game logic).

 

I'm 7 games into a new season, and I've already dropped 8 points because of this. It isn't fun seeing my tactics that are clearly successful, being shot down because "world class" strikers can't finish their tea.

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

@iiMStevoBut what formation and roles are you using? And what instructions. 

Successful tactics in this game are not just about having the best players. In fact, far from it. It's how you use them. So let's see your tactic if you want advice on this part of forum. 

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Case and point:
image.png.57cdd298874384e18e14d587d6d8e12d.png

 

Burnley... BURNLEY... scoring 5 goals from 7 shots on target with only 1.34 xG.
Meanwhile I've got to have 4.81 xG to score 7.

Their average goal per xG in this game is 0.26
My average goal per xG in this game is 0.68

It does not make sense.

 

This isn't a case of my tactics being wasteful. It's a case of something fundamentally wrong with the game engine that repeatedly creates scenarios like this.  (EDIT: This is NOT a new issue either. It's just so apparent now because they've added xG in, you can see how utterly ridiculous it is when you get "FM'd" hard)
Maybe, just maybe, Burnley get 2 goals in this game. Some of the goals they were scoring were 0.04 xG... Absolutely insane. One of the ones they missed was around 0.35 xG. That puts their entire game xG down to 0.99 - of which they scored FIVE GOALS FROM IT.

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 3 Minuten schrieb iiMStevo:

Case and point:
image.png.57cdd298874384e18e14d587d6d8e12d.png

 

Burnley... BURNLEY... scoring 5 goals from 7 shots on target with only 1.34 xG.
Meanwhile I've got to have 4.81 xG to score 7.

Their average goal per xG in this game is 0.26
My average goal per xG in this game is 0.68

It does not make sense.

 

This isn't a case of my tactics being wasteful. It's a case of something fundamentally wrong with the game engine that repeatedly creates scenarios like this. 
Maybe, just maybe, Burnley get 2 goals in this game. Some of the goals they were scoring were 0.04 xG... Absolutely insane. One of the ones they missed was around 0.35 xG. That puts their entire game xG down to 0.99 - of which they scored FIVE GOALS FROM IT.

Why is it so hard for you to post your tactic? I'd bet at least two of these goals is from their 2 strikers just running through against your 2 centrebacks. There's also something called variance, so it's easy to rage when they score 5 from 1.3, but you won't come on the forums when City scores 0 from 2.9.

Edited by FelixCAN
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Case and point:
image.png.57cdd298874384e18e14d587d6d8e12d.png

 

Burnley... BURNLEY... scoring 5 goals from 7 shots on target with only 1.34 xG.
Meanwhile I've got to have 4.81 xG to score 7.

Their average goal per xG in this game is 0.26
My average goal per xG in this game is 0.68

It does not make sense.

 

This isn't a case of my tactics being wasteful. It's a case of something fundamentally wrong with the game engine that repeatedly creates scenarios like this.  (EDIT: This is NOT a new issue either. It's just so apparent now because they've added xG in, you can see how utterly ridiculous it is when you get "FM'd" hard)
Maybe, just maybe, Burnley get 2 goals in this game. Some of the goals they were scoring were 0.04 xG... Absolutely insane. One of the ones they missed was around 0.35 xG. That puts their entire game xG down to 0.99 - of which they scored FIVE GOALS FROM IT.

You still haven't posted a screenshot of your tactic. This doesn't help your issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

scoring 5 goals from 7 shots on target with only 1.34 xG

Those were really good chances. About 0.2 xG per shot compared to your 0.18 per shot on average so technically in that game they created better chances than you on average.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, FelixCAN said:

Why is it so hard for you to post your tactic? I'd bet at least two of these goals is from their 2 strikers just running through against your 2 centrebacks. There's also something called variance, so it's easy to rage when they score 5 from 1.3, but you won't come on the forums when City scores 0 from 2.9.

That's the point.
In all of the games, I've only managed to win a game by having less xG than my opposition three times. Twice vs Liverpool (one of which in the community shield with random youths), and once vs City.
All other games, I have massively out xG'd the opposition, yet its a complete hassle scoring goals - even when goal per xG is significantly higher.

And as for the tactics, it shouldn't matter. Football is not a linear sport with only one correct tactic. The exact same tactic in that match was used all the way throughout, with the exact same players... How is it they weren't able to create consistent chances until randomly in the second half? Whereby all of a sudden, they score goal after goal, forcing me to adjust to "Very defensive", substitute DDG off, and then hope that I don't get even harder FM'd.

However, to appease:
image.png.ae049d2fc9c8691c971520288ff48686.png

This is with the squad rotated as I'm about to play another game.

EDIT: and the entire point of this post is the fact that this happens EXTREMELY REGULARLY... to the point where it's predictable.
How do you think I knew how to screenshot the xG at half-time? I fully expected Burnley to get some utterly BS goals in the second half after seeing their not-even-half-chance, go in straight away.

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, DarJ said:

Those were really good chances. About 0.2 xG per shot compared to your 0.18 per shot on average so technically in that game they created better chances than you on average.

 

Except when you deduct the 0.31 from the first shot they had before half time, which puts them at 0.17 per shot...
...and then deduct the 0.34 shot they missed... which puts them at 0.11 per shot. (I didn't see the other shot they missed, it was probably a 0.03 header).

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

That's the point.
In all of the games, I've only managed to win a game by having less xG than my opposition three times. Twice vs Liverpool (one of which in the community shield with random youths), and once vs City.
All other games, I have massively out xG'd the opposition, yet its a complete hassle scoring goals - even when goal per xG is significantly higher.

And as for the tactics, it shouldn't matter. Football is not a linear sport with only one correct tactic. The exact same tactic in that match was used all the way throughout, with the exact same players... How is it they weren't able to create consistent chances until randomly in the second half? Whereby all of a sudden, they score goal after goal, forcing me to adjust to "Very defensive", substitute DDG off, and then hope that I don't get even harder FM'd.

However, to appease:
image.png.ae049d2fc9c8691c971520288ff48686.png

This is with the squad rotated as I'm about to play another game.

There are numerous problems with this tactic. I don't even know where to begin. 

The main issue is probably the total disconnect between the team instructions and the roles. Your instructions say "short passing, patient build up through the middle" yet your roles (especially the front four attackers, three with attack duties no less) scream direct attacking football. The roles themselves don't make much sense either. Why use IF that cuts inside when none of your strikers are dropping back to give him space or to pull opposition defenders back? Who is supposed to provide support and passes to your ultra aggressive forwards? BBM and BWM are certainly not play-making roles or focus much on support. 

You are also playing on Positive team mentality so you have to factor that in, especially on how it affect the individual mentalities that your attackers will have. 

So that's probably part of the problem and why AI is able break you down so easily. Sorry not to be harsh, but it's just not a good tactic. In all honesty. Even for a club like Man United.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

Adding in xG just underlines the problems that has plagued FM games for years.
AI - Frequently creating poor chances, but scoring goals with poor strikers.
Player - Frequently creating quality chances, and missing - with the best strikers in the game.

If this was true, then a table like this (and mine looks like this every season and did for FM20 and FM21 as well) :

78a2925bd60d25c8dc068f71285b0c3c.png

Defending, I'm conceding fewer goals compared to xG:

ff82e616e666bb61d1b4b0556e33af61.png

Attacking-wise, I'm scoring more than expected:

e3c72cbec1eb5fe82bea6e11776e27b1.png

 

 

13 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

In all of the games, I've only managed to win a game by having less xG than my opposition three times. Twice vs Liverpool (one of which in the community shield with random youths), and once vs City.
All other games, I have massively out xG'd the opposition, yet its a complete hassle scoring goals - even when goal per xG is significantly higher.

This is fairly obvious, because you're a big team with an aggressive tactic, so you're going to dominate most of the matches and so you should have a higher shot count and a higher xG coupled with that. It shows, as the matches you mentioned will be against equal/stronger opposition who can take the game to you as well.

13 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

And as for the tactics, it shouldn't matter. Football is not a linear sport with only one correct tactic. The exact same tactic in that match was used all the way throughout, with the exact same players... 

Tactics DO matter. No one said that there has to be ONE correct tactic, just that a tactic has a big influence on the types of chances you create as well as the quality of those chances and the consistency of creating (good) chances.

----

As far as I'm aware, xG takes into account the distance from goal and the angle. It also distinguishes between a headed chance and a shot. It doesn't factor in the state of your players, where the defence are or how rushed shots are. 

 

13 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

How is it they weren't able to create consistent chances until randomly in the second half? Whereby all of a sudden, they score goal after goal, forcing me to adjust to "Very defensive", substitute DDG off, and then hope that I don't get even harder FM'd.

This is an important point. You say it's 'random'. People often use that word because they can't explain it. It isn't random. What could have happened, was that they decided at 6-1 down (though I wouldn't have done that) to go more attacking in an attempt to get back into the game. If they are able to get the ball forward quickly, they could get goals against that tactic. Once they started scoring, it'll just motivate them more to do the same.

----

Getting back to the tactic and the match context. You should be facing a fairly defensive Burnley here. More difficult to create space in the final third and you're compressing that as well with how aggressive you're defending and all the Attack Duties. I would not have thought that it works, but in terms of xG numbers, in the first half especially - it seems to do.

You did extremely well in the first half. Created great chances, it seems, and converted 5. They also had a fantastic 0.31 chance, which they converted. First half you had 18 shots at a very good 3.5 xG and they had just the 1 shot and a very good 0.31 xG. Both teams creating great chances - you had more and converted them. No issue here, imo.

Now comes the issue - the second half.

Man Utd - 9 shots at 1.31 xG (±14.5% / shot), which is good, but less quality than you created in the first.

Burnley - 6 shots at 1.03 xG (±17% / shot), which is better than what you created in the 2nd half.

So what happened? What changed? At some point in the second half, they started to attack more. They must have. When they did, perhaps your pressing wasn't as effective anymore, with tired players? Perhaps the tactic just isn't as good when both teams are attacking? Were their players as tired? Did your chances fall to tired players? Did theirs?

If you can find answers to what happened, that could help you going forward. At 6-1 up at 60 mins, you could have a plan B tactic which allows you to be more defensively stable, while also conserving energy and seeing out the game safely, just as an example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As @HUNT3R notes, xG reflects shot position and a few other factors but doesn’t reflect defender positioning etc. With this tactic you’ll create a lot of shots in and around a packed box, so will build xG but actual chance quality will more often than not be quite low. Meanwhile when the opposition attacks you have two wing backs, no stable central midfield and a positive mentality, so you’ll lack numbers and get played through - chances for the opposition will be good quality with less pressure applied - they’ll just get less of them because of the quality of players. 

You’re getting the results I’d expect with this tactic to be honest. Putting aside what Crusader noted about instructions, even if only the right back and central midfield roles were tweaked I think you’d see improvements. With an attacking winger on the right you could have the right back being far more conservative, basic full back role or IWB on a cautious setting so they help cover the middle if that was needed. BBM and BWM to two roles who hold position better and provide more of a stable base… BWM goes out of position regularly to close down and BBM roams…so basically no stable base to prevent counter attacks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/01/2022 at 07:21, HUNT3R said:

Man Utd - 9 shots at 1.31 xG (±14.5% / shot), which is good, but less quality than you created in the first.

Burnley - 6 shots at 1.03 xG (±17% / shot), which is better than what you created in the 2nd half.

So what happened? What changed? At some point in the second half, they started to attack more. They must have. When they did, perhaps your pressing wasn't as effective anymore, with tired players? Perhaps the tactic just isn't as good when both teams are attacking? Were their players as tired? Did your chances fall to tired players? Did theirs?

If you can find answers to what happened, that could help you going forward. At 6-1 up at 60 mins, you could have a plan B tactic which allows you to be more defensively stable, while also conserving energy and seeing out the game safely, just as an example.

This is the problem I had. There was no mention of this - no tactical advice saying "Hey, they look like they're going more attacking..."
And to be honest, the football didn't look that way either.

Three of their five goals was a one-on-two dribble from the half way line. Varane and Badiashile defending against Lacazette (for two of the occasions, Basic for the other). Burnley's players were significantly more tired than my players were. They still had all of their players behind the ball save for the one push... and the first two goals of those three (basic and Lacazette), pushed DDG down to a 6.3 rating, so he was substituted. I then went Very Defensive out of sheer shock as to why and how these goals were being conceded, constantly... and I still conceded another goal from Henderson.

All players for MUFTC were playing well, yet Burnley were actually unstoppable.

 

...and yes, while you could find a way to explain the circumstances for this one game (a complete one-in-a-million game in itself), it doesn't explain why and how this happens frequently.
In my first 7 games, I dropped 8 points in total due to similar issues.

Opposition scoring a goal with 0.48 xG total for the game, and beating me 1-0 while I had 2.20 xG - missing several one on ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/01/2022 at 18:13, crusadertsar said:

There are numerous problems with this tactic. I don't even know where to begin. 

The main issue is probably the total disconnect between the team instructions and the roles. Your instructions say "short passing, patient build up through the middle" yet your roles (especially the front four attackers, three with attack duties no less) scream direct attacking football. The roles themselves don't make much sense either. Why use IF that cuts inside when none of your strikers are dropping back to give him space or to pull opposition defenders back? Who is supposed to provide support and passes to your ultra aggressive forwards? BBM and BWM are certainly not play-making roles or focus much on support. 

You are also playing on Positive team mentality so you have to factor that in, especially on how it affect the individual mentalities that your attackers will have. 

So that's probably part of the problem and why AI is able break you down so easily. Sorry not to be harsh, but it's just not a good tactic. In all honesty. Even for a club like Man United.

There are numerous problems with your analysis of the tactic.

Wingback role is set to support, and attack, encouraging them to get forward, providing width. A single IF joins the front two in a front-three, while one of which is a DLF anyway which is slightly deeper than the AF, typically making a V shape inside the box.
The Winger on attack stays wide on the side of the AF which basically creates a 5-man forward to stretch play, joined by three players behind them to link the shorter-passing.

 

There's not only one way to use tactics. This is exactly why I find it pointless posting tactics on forums like these, because everyone wants to just say "You're wrong." because its different to how you'd do it. In the majority of games, this custom tactic works brilliantly. The problem I have is that AI frequently scores low xG chances, where as me, as the player, frequently miss high xG chances - with some of the best forwards in the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're using attacking formation with four attack duties. What's happening to you is game's response to lack of solidity and balance your tactics have. Just use one attack duty less. You also won't see ai using structured shape with higher mentality at least I haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

There are numerous problems with your analysis of the tactic.

Wingback role is set to support, and attack, encouraging them to get forward, providing width. A single IF joins the front two in a front-three, while one of which is a DLF anyway which is slightly deeper than the AF, typically making a V shape inside the box.
The Winger on attack stays wide on the side of the AF which basically creates a 5-man forward to stretch play, joined by three players behind them to link the shorter-passing.

 

There's not only one way to use tactics. This is exactly why I find it pointless posting tactics on forums like these, because everyone wants to just say "You're wrong." because its different to how you'd do it. In the majority of games, this custom tactic works brilliantly. The problem I have is that AI frequently scores low xG chances, where as me, as the player, frequently miss high xG chances - with some of the best forwards in the game.

Of course you have the right to disregard my advice. But at least consider the advice of the guy above me. I still think that your problem is using too many attack duties for the style you are trying to create. It just does not look like a short passing type of tactic with the roles you are using.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You've both disregarded the actual topic, and dove on the "It's your tactics" nonsense.

 

They repeatedly score from LOWER rated xG chances, with poor strikers... while my extremely highly rated strikers repeatedly miss HIGHER rated xG chances - it is completely backwards. Put the tactics aside. This mechanic does not make sense.

image.png.d6e33bd63e82a782461f19d78041f983.png

Ronaldo and Mbappe missed several clear cut chances rated 0.4-0.5 xG per chance. All misses from one-on-ones. Brentford scored their first chance of the game with an xG of 0.06 - a long range effort from outside the box.

Their second goal was a penalty a 0.6xG (not sure why it was 0.6xG when my Penalty that Ronaldo missed was 0.5xG).

At first glance, you can see there I've had a lot of "shots", where as they're actually a lot of headed attempts from the corners and freekicks, which generate next to 0 xG (usually 0.00-0.06 xG per headed attempt). So that inflates the shot count massively over the xG.
The problem I have is that my best forwards are regularly missing 0.4-0.5 xG shots, where as AI regularly score 0.1 or less xG shots which ultimately can cost me points in-game.

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

You've both disregarded the actual topic, and dove on the "It's your tactics" nonsense.

 

They repeatedly score from LOWER rated xG chances, with poor strikers... while my extremely highly rated strikers repeatedly miss HIGHER rated xG chances - it is completely backwards. Put the tactics aside. This mechanic does not make sense.

image.png.d6e33bd63e82a782461f19d78041f983.png

Ronaldo and Mbappe missed several clear cut chances rated 0.4-0.5 xG per chance. All misses from one-on-ones. Brentford scored their first chance of the game with an xG of 0.06 - a long range effort from outside the box.

Their second goal was a penalty a 0.6xG (not sure why it was 0.6xG when my Penalty that Ronaldo missed was 0.5xG).

At first glance, you can see there I've had a lot of "shots", where as they're actually a lot of headed attempts from the corners and freekicks, which generate next to 0 xG (usually 0.00-0.06 xG per headed attempt). So that inflates the shot count massively over the xG.
The problem I have is that my best forwards are regularly missing 0.4-0.5 xG shots, where as AI regularly score 0.1 or less xG shots which ultimately can cost me points in-game.

Ok. At least we are offering you some tactical solutions. This is a Tactical section of the forum afterall. What else do you want me or the others to propose to you? Other than maybe getting some better strikers haha. But you already pretty much have the best strikers in the world. So what's left to tweek, other than your tactics. 

Or wait, I think I get it now! You dont want to hear our advise. You started this thread with your mind made up already and just to complain about the game match engine? Isn't that right ;)

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

You've both disregarded the actual topic, and dove on the "It's your tactics" nonsense.

 

They repeatedly score from LOWER rated xG chances, with poor strikers... while my extremely highly rated strikers repeatedly miss HIGHER rated xG chances - it is completely backwards. Put the tactics aside. This mechanic does not make sense.

image.png.d6e33bd63e82a782461f19d78041f983.png

Ronaldo and Mbappe missed several clear cut chances rated 0.4-0.5 xG per chance. All misses from one-on-ones. Brentford scored their first chance of the game with an xG of 0.06 - a long range effort from outside the box.

Their second goal was a penalty a 0.6xG (not sure why it was 0.6xG when my Penalty that Ronaldo missed was 0.5xG).

At first glance, you can see there I've had a lot of "shots", where as they're actually a lot of headed attempts from the corners and freekicks, which generate next to 0 xG (usually 0.00-0.06 xG per headed attempt). So that inflates the shot count massively over the xG.
The problem I have is that my best forwards are regularly missing 0.4-0.5 xG shots, where as AI regularly score 0.1 or less xG shots which ultimately can cost me points in-game.

The guys have tried to help telling you the issues, it is a tactical problem. You need to remember as the better team, you'll most likely control the game more. So more shots, means more chances to miss compared to a team like Brentford.

The poor forwards are maybe missing less, because tactically their team is set up better to provide them with easier chances.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@iiMStevo Let me use an analogy that hopefully you will understand better. Besides Football Manager, I am also a big fan of billiard, or snooker if you will. I am not some big pro although I try to play regularly. One think I learned is that winning consistently in billiard is not so much about how good you are at sinking tough balls or if you have the best technique but more about ball positioning. Meaning, predicting and planning how best to sink the balls in the series and better clear the table. You could be the greatest billiard player in the world but you could still lose if every shot you have to make is a tough shot. But if you have good positioning and easy shots for the most part then you will have an easier time overall even if you are not as good as a pro.

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

So as @toon army 06 said above me, football is similar to billiard in that respect. Some less elite forwards might be scoring more against you because their team is set up better to provide them with easier chances. It's pretty simple and most likely a tactical issue but you just don't want to admit it. Which is okay. It's your choice. You can just continue doing whatever you are doing and hope for better results :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Lol... you're still all completely skipping over the point to get to "Hey, its your tactics."

Lets use some numbers to actually show you what I mean:

#1 0.06 xG - Scored
#2 0.31 xG - Missed
#2 0.41 xG - Missed
#2 0.11 xG - Missed
#2 0.18 xG - Scored

#1 1 - 1 #2

Do you see the problem now?

EDIT:
@crusadertsar Yes, I have skipped over the tactics, because its not a tactical issue.
I'm telling you outright that there are several games (one in three matches roughly) where poor quality strikers, with poor quality chances are scoring goals, meanwhile the world's best strikers are frequently missing one-on-one's with no angles, and penalties etc... It isn't a case of "change your tactics" - If I'm creating high quality chances for them to score, and they're not scoring them, then there's not much else I can do when I've already got the best strikers as well.

I saved a replay (I have no idea how to play it back in FM22 tbh) where Ronaldo missed an open goal from 7 yards out by blasting it over the bar, AND missed a penalty, in the same game. I mean tactically, I can't actually give him any better chances to score than that! It's simply that he isn't scoring them. (Double EDIT: Oh and he was pulling a 7,6 rating game that game due to already scoring twice - significantly harder shots but the point is why is he missing absolute sitters so frequently meanwhile AI strikers score insane odds goals regularly)

Edited by iiMStevo
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Lol... you're still all completely skipping over the point to get to "Hey, its your tactics."

Lets use some numbers to actually show you what I mean:

#1 0.06 xG - Scored
#2 0.31 xG - Missed
#2 0.41 xG - Missed
#2 0.11 xG - Missed
#2 0.18 xG - Scored

#1 1 - 1 #2

Do you see the problem now?

EDIT:
@crusadertsar Yes, I have skipped over the tactics, because its not a tactical issue.
I'm telling you outright that there are several games (one in three matches roughly) where poor quality strikers, with poor quality chances are scoring goals, meanwhile the world's best strikers are frequently missing one-on-one's with no angles, and penalties etc... It isn't a case of "change your tactics" - If I'm creating high quality chances for them to score, and they're not scoring them, then there's not much else I can do when I've already got the best strikers as well.

I saved a replay (I have no idea how to play it back in FM22 tbh) where Ronaldo missed an open goal from 7 yards out by blasting it over the bar, AND missed a penalty, in the same game. I mean tactically, I can't actually give him any better chances to score than that! It's simply that he isn't scoring them. (Double EDIT: Oh and he was pulling a 7,6 rating game that game due to already scoring twice - significantly harder shots but the point is why is he missing absolute sitters so frequently meanwhile AI strikers score insane odds goals regularly)

Well if you think it's bug or problem with how Xg is calculated in the game then you should be posting this in the Bug section of the forum. If this is not a tactical issue then this thread has no point here. 

Edited by crusadertsar
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

#1 0.06 xG - Scored
#2 0.31 xG - Missed
#2 0.41 xG - Missed
#2 0.11 xG - Missed
#2 0.18 xG - Scored

What was the defensive situation surrounding each of these shots? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/01/2022 at 08:21, HUNT3R said:

As far as I'm aware, xG takes into account the distance from goal and the angle. It also distinguishes between a headed chance and a shot. It doesn't factor in the state of your players, where the defence are or how rushed shots are. 

@iiMStevo this might be the answer to your question and can result in higher xG shots miss as well as lower xG shots from AI go in.

While xG doesn’t factor in the pressure that’s provided by the defense and the resulting rushed shot, the game does.

As a dominant team you will most likely never be in a pressureless situation to score, while a worse striker on the counter could be relatively free to score us lower xG chance. 

and if I remember correctly that’s what you described in one of your posts with lacazette.

And yes, there is no problem with your tactic, as you obviously still do well. But you can’t denie that a 4-2-4 with many attack duties is a very attacking playstyle.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CARRERA said:

@iiMStevo this might be the answer to your question and can result in higher xG shots miss as well as lower xG shots from AI go in.

While xG doesn’t factor in the pressure that’s provided by the defense and the resulting rushed shot, the game does.

As a dominant team you will most likely never be in a pressureless situation to score, while a worse striker on the counter could be relatively free to score us lower xG chance. 

and if I remember correctly that’s what you described in one of your posts with lacazette.

And yes, there is no problem with your tactic, as you obviously still do well. But you can’t denie that a 4-2-4 with many attack duties is a very attacking playstyle.

 

First parts here are bang on and exactly what everyone has been trying to get across without success.

However I think the point myself and others have tried to raise is that the chance creation stuff is mostly down to tactics, so there is an issue there which is where I disagree. A United team with Ronaldo, Mbappe, Bellingham etc will do well in any formation that basically. Obviously the other factor being that as man United with a clearly exceptional team, other teams will park the bus and make it harder for his team to convert chances anyway. That should be counter acted to some degree by the raw quality of the forwards. In my opinion looking at all the screenshots, the issue isn’t really scoring goals it’s more conceding - on each screenshot the opponent is out scoring their xG, whereas on quite a few the OP is also out scoring his xG, so converting chances isn’t the only issue. OP is creating plenty of chances. If your opponent is consistently out scoring xG either your goalkeeper is horrific or you’re giving up easy chances in the box to forwards under very little pressure. There’s no tricks within the game to shaft the human player. 

@iiMStevo it’s probably not worth your time coming on to the tactical forum and getting upset about xG and conversion. If you feel it’s an issue then that’s for the bug forum. However you’ve got multiple people saying there’s some clear issues with your system that are directly contributing to the issues you are seeing. FM as a game is largely about data analysis, and understanding how the data you are seeing is the result of what your inputs are. If you want to understand why you are conceding more than you should, the answer is within your tactics. I’ll talk about this and won’t worry too heavily about your own teams conversion first and foremost, looking solely at your formation and player roles in defensive situations only

- BBM and BWM as a midfield pairing is risky, the former roams and will support the attackers in the box, while the latter will leave his position and close down opponents when out of possession to reduce space, so both are going to make movements that create gaps at various times within the match. Those movements will cause the two central defenders to also move to try to cover off whatever threat has occurred. As soon as your central defenders are trying to cover in that way you’re in big trouble as they’re your last line of defence. Your system is somewhat functional for relying solely on an aggressive high press, but terrible for defending in a structured shape, so once that press gets beaten there’s massive deficiencies at the moment, this will lead to attackers getting chances in the box with limited pressure on them, creating a high conversion rate, especially later in games when the BBM is tiring.

- Combined with this, wing backs on each side will be pushing high to support the attack, so you’re largely going to be relying on your BWM alone with the two central defenders to curtail counter attacks. It wouldn’t be difficult for a team who can either physically combat your cb’s, or with pacy wide players on the counter to exploit that.

- Positive mentality will make the above players more attacking anyway, more likely to take risks and get caught out, so you’re doubling down.

Solutions:

if you made the right back much more conservative, either a FB(s), or an IWB(d), that would mean your BBM would have better defensive cover when they roamed forward, and you’d have an additional player covering the counter attack threat. There would also be an extra body in there if the BWM pressed and got caught out of position. I notice you have Kimmich, who is a superb IWB, so that’s a feasible option. You could even run him with a support duty if it looked good when trialling it, especially as Kimmich is probably too good to limit too heavily.

if you made the midfield pairing more conservative and less roamy, for example a DLP(s) combined with a CM(D). They would hold position much more a provide a more stable base. You could also drop the CM’s to DM strata and play a combination there as they’d sit deeper and potentially provide a better option for ball recycling when in attack anyway. That may negatively impact your high press, so perhaps more conservative roles in the CM strata will give you more balance.

Perhaps one central midfielder who provides more of an anchor role in place of the BWM, alongside an IWB would allow you to retain the BBM also. One to try.
 

TLDR: a 4-2-4 is naturally an aggressive formation, especially with a positive mentality, and right now with wing backs and two midfielders who don’t hold position you’re asking too much of your team. It’s ok if you’re pressing high and winning the ball, but everytime they break through your press you’re at significant risk, will give up chances in the box with low pressure on the ball and the opposition will regularly out score their xG as a consequence.

 

Edited by bowieinspace
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/01/2022 at 18:44, iiMStevo said:

Burnley... BURNLEY... scoring 5 goals from 7 shots on target with only 1.34 xG.

Bas Dost and Alexandre Lacazette, two players more than capable of converting from low-quality chances.

Bas Dost has 18 composure, 18 anticipation, 16 finishing, 16 off the ball and 16 heading, if there is any striker capable of out-scoring his xG in any particular match, it is him. If he didn't have the mobility of a snail he'd genuinely be world class. Lacazette on the other hand has 16 off the ball and then 15 or 14 across the board for just about every attribute relevant for a striker, he's a fantastic striker for just about any Premier League club outside the top six and most importantly pairs really well with Dost since he can both pass and move. Combined they are an absolutely lethal strike partnership and you are letting them take shots with little or no pressure, of course they are going to score goals.

You severely underestimate the ability of your opponents, you chose to stick to a very attacking tactic that leaves your defence vulnerable when you are up by five goals at half time, you then insist it is the game and not your own choices that are wrong when you inevitably concede goals and to top it all of you are complaining about matches that you are winning. Hilarious thread. Truly. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I played yesterday, my opponents had a shot (at a slight angle) close to the edge of the 6 yard area, let's say about 7-8 yards out. 0.22xG. Problem was that I had two defenders (and of course the keeper) between the shot and the goal and it was easily blocked. I immediately remembered this thread.

This may be something that's happening to you (I don't know) and inflating the xG numbers, so something to watch out for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

Lol... you're still all completely skipping over the point to get to "Hey, its your tactics."

Lets use some numbers to actually show you what I mean:

#1 0.06 xG - Scored
#2 0.31 xG - Missed
#2 0.41 xG - Missed
#2 0.11 xG - Missed
#2 0.18 xG - Scored

#1 1 - 1 #2

Do you see the problem now?

EDIT:
@crusadertsar Yes, I have skipped over the tactics, because its not a tactical issue.
I'm telling you outright that there are several games (one in three matches roughly) where poor quality strikers, with poor quality chances are scoring goals, meanwhile the world's best strikers are frequently missing one-on-one's with no angles, and penalties etc... It isn't a case of "change your tactics" - If I'm creating high quality chances for them to score, and they're not scoring them, then there's not much else I can do when I've already got the best strikers as well.

I saved a replay (I have no idea how to play it back in FM22 tbh) where Ronaldo missed an open goal from 7 yards out by blasting it over the bar, AND missed a penalty, in the same game. I mean tactically, I can't actually give him any better chances to score than that! It's simply that he isn't scoring them. (Double EDIT: Oh and he was pulling a 7,6 rating game that game due to already scoring twice - significantly harder shots but the point is why is he missing absolute sitters so frequently meanwhile AI strikers score insane odds goals regularly)

Do You understand the concept of Random Seed Generator or RGN? 

If not, manager games are not for You.

No shame on that, Just get FIFA, play in rookie difficulty and fill your Ego with joy. Games are supposed to distract us for the life routine and make us enjoy, if You don't enjoy how FM is coded just go somewhere else, plenty to choose from man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just coming back to this thread, can someone clear up a misconception I had:

 

Lets say you take two chances.......

1) Striker has a shot from 12 yards from the middle of the goal (its not a penalty) with only the goalkeeper to beat

2) Striker has a shot from 12 yards from the middle of the goal (its not a penalty) but two defenders are rushing out to block the shot.

 

Would both of these chances, given that its a shot from 12 yards, record the SAME Xg as each other?

 

Because its far more likely that shot 1) will be scored than shot 2).

Id imagine as Man Utd, there are far more situations where shot 2) happens than shot 1).

As a low ranked team, far more of the goals will be shot 1) rather than shot 2).

 

Does this make sense? I had thought (and maybe it does), that Xg also takes into account the defenders too, whereas MAYBE its just about the location of the shot, in which case i can totally see why Xg doesnt tell the whole story.

 

To give an extreme example, an indirect free kick inside the box from 6 yards away.....every player on the line.....the ball aint going in. Yet a shot from 6 yards away THEORETICALLY is a high Xg shot?

 

Or maybe not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lesterfan_Cambiasso said:

Would both of these chances, given that its a shot from 12 yards, record the SAME Xg as each other?

No

 

10 minutes ago, Lesterfan_Cambiasso said:

Does this make sense? I had thought (and maybe it does), that Xg also takes into account the defenders too

yes it makes sense and it does take into account the position of the definers as far as I'm aware, I don't know why some people say otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DarJ said:

yes it makes sense and it does take into account the position of the definers as far as I'm aware, I don't know why some people say otherwise

Because it varies depending on which model of xG that is used. Much like there is no universal definition of what counts as an assist, there is no universal model of xG. Some models take the location of defenders into account, more basic models do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, zZzZzZzZzZzZzZz said:

Because it varies depending on which model of xG that is used. Much like there is no universal definition of what counts as an assist, there is no universal model of xG. Some models take the location of defenders into account, more basic models do not.

I'm aware of that and I'm pretty sure SI's model takes that into account, I've heard one of the developers say that themselves or Miles unless I heard it in a dream 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

A typical xG model takes into account the following event-based variables when assessing the quality of a chance:

  • Distance to the goal
  • Angle to the goal
  • Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header?
  • In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack)
  • Has the player just beaten an opponent?

As an example, a close-range shot from a central position will have a higher xG value than a header from an acute angle, assuming all other factors remain the same.

The above is a model broadly adopted by xG providers worldwide, but match data and technology firm Sportec Solutions (STS) – a joint venture between the DFL group and Deltatre - is taking the predictive power of xG to another level.

Using their unique algorithm to combine event and tracking data, STS is able to add brand new variables to existing xG models to improve its predictive power. These new variables include, for example, goalkeeper positioning or the pressure on the player attempting the effort on goal.

Source: https://www.bundesliga.com/en/bundesliga/news/expected-goals-xg-model-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-useful-sportec-solutions-3177

Just to add something up to the xG debate.

The question is though, what does FM actually factor into their xG Model. I've found an interesting article on a community site about the implementation of xG in FM2021.

Quote

Expected Goals in Football Manager 2021

In Football Manager 2021 the expected goals model is included thanks to the services and partnership of SciSports. The British-based company provides performance analysis and tactical data insight, as well as providing recruitment solutions ahead of the transfer window.

Their ground-breaking football metrics not only relating to player roles, skill index aka SciSkill and assessing players potential are just a few other things they offer additional to their Expected goals metric, which Football Manager 2021 will feature.

Sports Interactive has for FM21 created their own xG system. It’s tailor-made to work with the Football Manager match engine which allows us to go beyond what current expected goals models are capable of in real life.

Source: https://www.passion4fm.com/expected-goals-xg-in-football-manager-2021/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just chiming in that the xG model on FM is pretty rubbish- it regularly (but not always, frustratingly) will include shots that are deemed offside, or follow up shots that are saved. 

So a penalty saved, then follow up shot saved, could be like 0.78 plus 0.5 xG, so 1.28 xG. Obviously this is impossible- you can't have more than 1 xG from a single play...

Real stats providers (the good ones at least) have a variety of ways of solving both these problems (don't count offside shots is a good place to start...).

Just to say that using the FM xG data to try and glean properly useful information can often be barking up the wrong tree unless you're cleaning the data manually!

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Flußkrebs said:

you can't have more than 1 xG from a single play..

I think this is wrong it's not from a single play but shot. For argument sake, let's say you are right then my question will be what would you define as  single play? is it defined by a specific time frame or until the ball goes out of play?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DarJ said:

I think this is wrong it's not from a single play but shot. For argument sake, let's say you are right then my question will be what would you define as  single play? is it defined by a specific time frame or until the ball goes out of play?

It's because certain shots are contingent on other shots. If a shot earlier in a posession goes in, then there is no more shot (there is a goal).

I'll let FBRef explain for me:

https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/

How we calculate xG totals for a single offensive possession

In some cases, a player or team's xG totals do not equal the sum of their shots. For instance, a team may attempt multiple shots in a single possession, but it is likely that these shots are contingent upon the outcome of the previous shot(s).

Take for example, this match between Schalke 04 and Nürnberg:

[VIDEO WAS HERE]

In the 78th minute, Nürnberg attempted three shots which ultimately led to a goal. Hanno Behrens attempts a shot that is saved, but he is able to take a second shot as the ball is deflected off the defender. The second shot goes off the woodwork, which allows Adam Zreľák to easily tap it in. According to StatsBomb's expected goals model:

  • Behrens' first shot with the goalkeeper in his way = .37 xG
  • Behrens' second shot with the goalkeeper out of position but a defender in the way = .68 xG
  • Zreľák's shot with an open net = .81 xG

The sum of these three shots is 1.86 expected goals, even though it is impossible to score more than one goal in a single move. To solve this problem, we find the probability that the defending team does not allow a goal in this possession. In this case, the calculation is:

(1 - .37) x (1 - .68) x (1 - .81) = .0383 or a 3.83% probability that Schalke does not allow a goal.

To find Nürnberg's xG, we simply subtract that probability from 1:

1 - .0383 = .9617 xG

In other words, we estimate that an average team in a similar situation would be expected to score a goal 96.17% of the time.

We use a similar method when calculating xG for individual players. Adam Zreľák receives .81 xG from his single shot while Hanno Behrens receives:

1 - (1 - .37) x (1 - .68) = .7984 xG

This shows why a team or player's total xG may not equal the sum of the xG from their shots and why a team's total xG may not equal the sum of the xG from their players.

Possessions that include a penalty kick

Similarly, we include shots taken from a rebound after a penalty kick with xG from penalty kicks. Take this Alexis Sanchez penalty kick for example:

[VIDEO OF SANCHEZ SHOOTING AFTER A PEN]

  • As mentioned above, the penalty kick attempt = .76 xG
  • The second shot after the rebound, from 6 yards and with the goalkeeper unrecovered from the save = .72 xG

Since the second shot is a result of the first, we use the same probabilistic method in the previous example. Rather than a total 1.48 xG (.76 + .72), the calculation is:

1 - (1 - .76) * (1 - .72) = .9328 expected goals

However, since the second shot is also considered to be a part of the penalty kick xG, Sanchez gets 0 npxG (non-penalty expected goals) on this play.

Note: We treat corner kicks and free kicks as a new possession, not a continuation of the previous possession, but are continuing to study the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/01/2022 at 05:30, CARRERA said:

@iiMStevo this might be the answer to your question and can result in higher xG shots miss as well as lower xG shots from AI go in.

While xG doesn’t factor in the pressure that’s provided by the defense and the resulting rushed shot, the game does.

As a dominant team you will most likely never be in a pressureless situation to score, while a worse striker on the counter could be relatively free to score us lower xG chance. 

and if I remember correctly that’s what you described in one of your posts with lacazette.

And yes, there is no problem with your tactic, as you obviously still do well. But you can’t denie that a 4-2-4 with many attack duties is a very attacking playstyle.

 

 

On 10/01/2022 at 06:41, bowieinspace said:

First parts here are bang on and exactly what everyone has been trying to get across without success.

However I think the point myself and others have tried to raise is that the chance creation stuff is mostly down to tactics, so there is an issue there which is where I disagree. A United team with Ronaldo, Mbappe, Bellingham etc will do well in any formation that basically. Obviously the other factor being that as man United with a clearly exceptional team, other teams will park the bus and make it harder for his team to convert chances anyway. That should be counter acted to some degree by the raw quality of the forwards. In my opinion looking at all the screenshots, the issue isn’t really scoring goals it’s more conceding - on each screenshot the opponent is out scoring their xG, whereas on quite a few the OP is also out scoring his xG, so converting chances isn’t the only issue. OP is creating plenty of chances. If your opponent is consistently out scoring xG either your goalkeeper is horrific or you’re giving up easy chances in the box to forwards under very little pressure. There’s no tricks within the game to shaft the human player. 

@iiMStevo it’s probably not worth your time coming on to the tactical forum and getting upset about xG and conversion. If you feel it’s an issue then that’s for the bug forum. However you’ve got multiple people saying there’s some clear issues with your system that are directly contributing to the issues you are seeing. FM as a game is largely about data analysis, and understanding how the data you are seeing is the result of what your inputs are. If you want to understand why you are conceding more than you should, the answer is within your tactics. I’ll talk about this and won’t worry too heavily about your own teams conversion first and foremost, looking solely at your formation and player roles in defensive situations only

- BBM and BWM as a midfield pairing is risky, the former roams and will support the attackers in the box, while the latter will leave his position and close down opponents when out of possession to reduce space, so both are going to make movements that create gaps at various times within the match. Those movements will cause the two central defenders to also move to try to cover off whatever threat has occurred. As soon as your central defenders are trying to cover in that way you’re in big trouble as they’re your last line of defence. Your system is somewhat functional for relying solely on an aggressive high press, but terrible for defending in a structured shape, so once that press gets beaten there’s massive deficiencies at the moment, this will lead to attackers getting chances in the box with limited pressure on them, creating a high conversion rate, especially later in games when the BBM is tiring.

- Combined with this, wing backs on each side will be pushing high to support the attack, so you’re largely going to be relying on your BWM alone with the two central defenders to curtail counter attacks. It wouldn’t be difficult for a team who can either physically combat your cb’s, or with pacy wide players on the counter to exploit that.

- Positive mentality will make the above players more attacking anyway, more likely to take risks and get caught out, so you’re doubling down.

Solutions:

if you made the right back much more conservative, either a FB(s), or an IWB(d), that would mean your BBM would have better defensive cover when they roamed forward, and you’d have an additional player covering the counter attack threat. There would also be an extra body in there if the BWM pressed and got caught out of position. I notice you have Kimmich, who is a superb IWB, so that’s a feasible option. You could even run him with a support duty if it looked good when trialling it, especially as Kimmich is probably too good to limit too heavily.

if you made the midfield pairing more conservative and less roamy, for example a DLP(s) combined with a CM(D). They would hold position much more a provide a more stable base. You could also drop the CM’s to DM strata and play a combination there as they’d sit deeper and potentially provide a better option for ball recycling when in attack anyway. That may negatively impact your high press, so perhaps more conservative roles in the CM strata will give you more balance.

Perhaps one central midfielder who provides more of an anchor role in place of the BWM, alongside an IWB would allow you to retain the BBM also. One to try.
 

TLDR: a 4-2-4 is naturally an aggressive formation, especially with a positive mentality, and right now with wing backs and two midfielders who don’t hold position you’re asking too much of your team. It’s ok if you’re pressing high and winning the ball, but everytime they break through your press you’re at significant risk, will give up chances in the box with low pressure on the ball and the opposition will regularly out score their xG as a consequence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate tactical advice where necessary - but it isn't necessary in this specific post.

Perhaps I've been completely misleading the point here in my frustration with the game costing me points, but it is that the best forwards in the game - for my team - repeatedly miss huge chances.
A game I have saved where Ronaldo has an open goal, and skies the ball over the bar from 7-8 yards out. No defenders, completely unmarked, and the goalkeeper isolated beyond the near post from where the cross came in.
Now this specific scenario hasn't happened repeatedly enough to complain about it - but scenarios extremely similar, happen nearly every game, or every other game.
In the exact same game as the above, Ronaldo also missed a penalty, and then stood still, the ball rebounded back to him (to his feet basically), and one of the defenders ran from the edge of the box, and reached the ball before him because he literally didn't move to have another go at it.

This is not something new in FM games for me - I've always struggled with this aspect, because yes, I do play very attacking tactics. It more often than not succeeds, but every so often the game engine appears to throw a spanner in the works.
The reason I brought up xG is because you can see as a clear measurement of how good the chance was to score in FM22.

A 0.30 chance is a very good chance for a striker to score, and you can expect them to score one in three of these chances. When they have 5+ chances like this per game, and score zero of them - its an issue that doesn't make sense. When you have three strikers that repeatedly should be able to capitalise off of 0.20 xG chances in one-on-ones, yet they score very, very few of them, yet teams with poorer strikers score a goal nearly every attempt at 0.10-0.15 xG, this is where my confusion and frustration comes in. As per the xG analysis from someone in the screenshots I provided. Burnley actually had scored all five of their goals from chances 0.15-0.20 (roughly). While I had a lot of shots (headers), the majority of my frustration came from having several 0.30-0.40 chances missed by world-class strikers that game. It easily should have been 15+ goals scored - but I was restricted to 7, whereas Burnley were gifted 5 with some ridiculous shots forcing me to change tactics to Very Defensive, subbing the goalkeeper - and then still conceding their last goal after the tactical change (which by your tactical analysis, should've made their chances significantly harder since my game mentality at that point was pretty much "Contain" having all my players back defensively) - but they still managed to get another goal from another 0.15-0.20xG chance.

To be honest, I posted here because the forum homepage only had like three options to pick from. I didn't want to raise a support ticket, I just wanted to confirm if anyone else sees their strikers frequently miss clear-cut chances. If anything, I'd assume that my man management is causing this somehow - but I don't know what I need to do to get three world-class strikers to stop missing clear cut chances when it seemingly gifts the AI goals from significantly harder chances.

(Equally the 3D Match engine could be absolutely terrible at representing what's going on in the match)

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Ronaldo also missed a penalty, and then stood still, the ball rebounded back to him (to his feet basically), and one of the defenders ran from the edge of the box, and reached the ball before him because he literally didn't move to have another go at it.

Sounds exactly like what a player with 7 work rate would do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, after all its still a game that just trys to replicate football as good as possible. I guess only SI could figure out why exactly the striker wasnt able to score in that particular situation by taking a deep look into the game file. However, just one thing to add. 30% chance of scoring doesnt nessecarily lead to 1 goal out of three chances. I could be very well not scoring 6 of them with some bad luck or maybe score 3/3. Make a coinflip and you will see that not every 2nd throw head will be top eventhough it has a 50% chance.

by the way, does your seasons xG match your actual goals?

Edited by CARRERA
Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

In the exact same game as the above, Ronaldo also missed a penalty, and then stood still, the ball rebounded back to him (to his feet basically), and one of the defenders ran from the edge of the box, and reached the ball before him because he literally didn't move to have another go at it.

When you say Ronaldo missed the penalty, how do you mean he missed it? Did the keeper save it? Did the shot come off the woodwork and rebound back to him?

If the shot hit the woodwork and wasn't saved, then the reason Ronaldo wouldn't touch the ball was because he wasn't allowed to. A player taking a penalty cannot touch the ball again until it has touched another player first (or gone out of play).

But if the keeper saved the penalty, then Ronaldo's low work rate - as suggested - might explain why he didn't go after the rebound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, CFuller said:

When you say Ronaldo missed the penalty, how do you mean he missed it? Did the keeper save it? Did the shot come off the woodwork and rebound back to him?

If the shot hit the woodwork and wasn't saved, then the reason Ronaldo wouldn't touch the ball was because he wasn't allowed to. A player taking a penalty cannot touch the ball again until it has touched another player first (or gone out of play).

But if the keeper saved the penalty, then Ronaldo's low work rate - as suggested - might explain why he didn't go after the rebound.

From what I can recall, it looked to be saved as the keeper dove the same way, but it could be a 3D match engine misrepresentation where it intended to be the post which would explain why he stood there waiting for the opposition player to touch the ball. I dove back through his form chart to take a look, and his xG from 5 shots that game was 1.28, and he scored 0 goals with only 1 shot on target.
On the flipside, he is regularly out-performing his xG, but he does score a lot of headed goals (which the most I've ever seen generated from a header was 0.15) so this would skew in the favour of him always outscoring his xG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 09/01/2022 at 11:15, Mitja said:

You're using attacking formation with four attack duties. What's happening to you is game's response to lack of solidity and balance your tactics have. Just use one attack duty less. You also won't see ai using structured shape with higher mentality at least I haven't.

That's quite interesting @Mitja.  Are you basically saying that the tactics which the A.I. uses don't use structured when playing Positive/Atk/v.Atk i.e. more support roles noticed making them flexible or fluid?  And have you noticed whether that similar - on the flipside of the coin - may also be true?  For example, no v.fluid or fluid if they use v.Def/Def/Cautious?  Presumably this would be in part to manage creative freedom?

Are you able to expand your views on these findings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robson 07 said:

That's quite interesting @Mitja.  Are you basically saying that the tactics which the A.I. uses don't use structured when playing Positive/Atk/v.Atk i.e. more support roles noticed making them flexible or fluid?  And have you noticed whether that similar - on the flipside of the coin - may also be true?  For example, no v.fluid or fluid if they use v.Def/Def/Cautious?  Presumably this would be in part to manage creative freedom?

Are you able to expand your views on these findings?

Never seen structured shape (4 attack duties) on balanced or positive mentality. I'm not saying it couldn't happen in other saves. I've seen fluid on lower mentalities though. But it definitely seems structured is used on lower mentalities by ai and it also makes sense since duty distribution is different than on higher mentalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/01/2022 at 15:51, iiMStevo said:

In the exact same game as the above, Ronaldo also missed a penalty, and then stood still, the ball rebounded back to him (to his feet basically), and one of the defenders ran from the edge of the box, and reached the ball before him because he literally didn't move to have another go at it.

GK save or rebound off of the post?

 Edit: Apologies, just saw @CFuller's reply. 

Edited by Prolix
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.