Cause and Effect

[Hammer1000]

Foreword

I want to make it perfectly clear from the start that i am not claiming the game cheats or that it is crap, or anything like that, i happily admit that FM is still by far the best game of its genre available and that feedback here in the Forum suggests it is still much loved, even after all the complaints it has received and i am also willing to accept in this case that SI have got it right yet again and i'm sure sales of the game are very close to what was expected.

Basically, this thread is about my personal issue/s and why i no longer find it fun and enjoyable to play any longer. I'm also curious to know if anyone else has the same or similar issues that have cost them their own enjoyment of the game.

Cause and Effect Example - It rains(cause) you get wet(effect) - I will explain its importance later

The Test

I'm finishing tests now which i will post in length when finished, but i wanted some feedback first on what people would expect to see from these tests?

I started games as both Man Utd and Hull City and chose to play 10 EPL games before viewing the test results. After 10 games with Man Utd i was 2nd in the table and with Hull i was 19th(i expected better but it actually helps towards explaining my issue) i used the same tactic for both sides and as you can see, had very different results as expected.

I am now going to ask a couple of questions that i'd appreciate some honest answers to.

1. What difference would you expect to see between DC tackling stats of Man Utd and those of Hull City?(if any)

2. What difference would you expect to see between Strikers finishing stats of Man Utd and those of Hull City?(if any)

I appreciate any feedback and will post my results after the Liverpool v Everton game tonight

FTAO SI and Moderators

I hope you will see that this is not meant as a dig at the game, the game is what it is, i bought it and am still playing it as are many others and i look forward to the next patch to improve it further.

I just thought this was an interesting experiment and i'm just as interested as finding out other FM'ers expectations when answering the questions i have asked.

Thanks

[NepentheZ]

and chose to play 10 EPL games before viewing the test results.

No offense, but any conclusions you come to after 10 games will be washed away. It needs to be 1 season + Minimum.

[TomHAVFC]

This should be in the CSE fourm

[Hammer1000]

and chose to play 10 EPL games before viewing the test results.

No offense, but any conclusions you come to after 10 games will be washed away. It needs to be 1 season + Minimum.

I dont agree, i've ran thousands of tests with FM throughout the years and i have found that 10 games(more than a quarter of the EPL season) is enough(at least for this test)

[ftg87]

TBH, I don't really see what you are trying to achieve with this test :confused:

As far as I can work out, all you are looking to find is what differences you get with playing 2 different teams with the same tactic

[Cavenagh]

1. What difference would you expect to see between DC tackling stats of Man Utd and those of Hull City?(if any)

2. What difference would you expect to see between Strikers finishing stats of Man Utd and those of Hull City?(if any)

On this forum there's a constant use of 'Stats' when 'Attributes' is meant, so I have to ask, do you mean Statistics or Attributes?

[Hammer1000]

On this forum there's a constant use of 'Stats' when 'Attributes' is meant, so I have to ask, do you mean Statistics or Attributes?

I mean stats mate, for instance, would you expect the massive difference of quality between Man Utd DC's and Hull City's DC's to show in the players tackling statistics?

or

Would you expect Man Utd's strikers to score more often than Hulls strikers considering the massive gulf between the players, using the same tactic?

[Crpls]

I dont agree, i've ran thousands of tests with FM throughout the years and i have found that 10 games(more than a quarter of the EPL season) is enough(at least for this test)

Then you have a lot to learn about statistics.

[macca72]

Hammer1000

Did you see my offer or impartial analysis in your previous thread?

I would still be more than happy if you would share one of your saved games with me...

In case you didn't see it, basically I offered to do some in depth statistial analysis (short medium & long term) for people to debate.

[Hammer1000]

Hammer1000

Did you see my offer or impartial analysis in your previous thread?

I would still be more than happy if you would share one of your saved games with me...

In case you didn't see it, basically I offered to do some in depth statistial analysis (short medium & long term) for people to debate.

Sorry macca no i missed it(thread dissapeared)

I thought people would have found this little experiment interesting, but i guess it shows the type of FM'er we have now.

In case anyone WAS wondering?

Man Utd DC's - Ferdinand 2.50 Vidic 2.79

Strikers - Rooney 5 in 38 = 1 in 7.5 Rossi 7 in 46 = 1 in 6.5 Tevez 4 in 25 = 1 in 6

Hull City DC's - Turner 2.65 Zayatte 3.27

Strikers - Fagan 3 in 21 = 1 in 7 Cousin 5 in 27 = 1 in 5.5 King(injured) 2 in 6 = 1 in 3

To quite a few, i know it wont make any sense, but to me anyway, it tells me there are issues with how matches and results are calculated which is a big factor in why i dont find the games believable and why match stats are still a nightmare.

Like i said though, most FM'ers seem happy enough, so the game itself and what people expect from it must still be spot on and theres always the next patch to improve things further.

Personally the game has lost its attraction, but hey, i'm only one person so i dont expect SI to make changes just to appease me.

[Pacman Jones]

Have to take into account fixtures (Man U will also be playing in CL so slightly poorer condition), what about the midfield and the creativity of the player = more or less assists etc, weather for each game, players being better suited to the certain tempo than others. Loadsa factors but everyone plays a different game, has different opinions and fair play for experimenting

However......FM will always be amazing in my heart even if it gets me very angry

[Murchadh]

First of all, I cannot take a stab at the individual player attributes for reasons since I am well into a long term game.

However,

(all things being equal and disregarding the fact that I do not have access to the tactic you used)

I could say that:

TACKLING:

1. Man Utd defenders tackle LESS because they are not called on to tackle a lot since most of the opposition attacks are broken up long before the balls reach the DCs (Man Utd being a good team).

2. Tackling is a poor stat to be using since (a) in good teams DCs usually are troubled by direct/long balls that they defend via aerial ability.

3. If you put your entire team on hard tackling AND high closing down AND you have excellent midfielders, the midfielders will be doing the tackling....DCs won't have to.

4. If you put your DCs on easy tackling, they will RARELY attempt actual tackles and will most of the time try to shadow an opposition attacker running with the ball away from goal.

5. It might be that: Hull DCs are just not good enough to fend off the hordes of attacks aimed at them.

6. It might be that: (Hull being a bad team) Hull are forced (or via design) to play "parking the bus" and as a result their DCs are defending within their own area, which by definition makes them less likely to actually tackle another player for fear of conceding penalties.

7. Very fast teams playing wide (I equate attacking play as high tempo, wide) will be pumping in crosses as their main attacking ploy, the Hull DCs will be defending in the air, not on the ground.

8. Teams with good, pacey attackers hugging the offside line that receive through balls down the center will leave bad DCs in their wake (I suspect Hull have bad defenders), therby never giving the DCs a chance to tackle.

I can go on...

STRIKERS:

1. Your results could be down to a HUGE range of factors.

2. I would expect a World Class team to be faced with "parkers", as a result they would have a LOT of shots that are "difficult".

3. Conversely, I would expect relegation battlers to try to catch out opposition defenses via long balls over the top or some other form of counter attack, thus leading to a relatively "easy" chances.

4. The above happens a lot in my game and is entirely expected. Statistically then, Good strikers in a good teams COULD conceivably have similar statistics (conversion ratio) to bad strikers in bad teams.

5. You failed to mention (1) the shape of the formation you are playing and (2) the total number of goals scored by each team and (3) what percentage of total goals were scored by the strikers. This is as vital if not more so.

6. As for the numbers themselves. Do they seem low or high to you per se?

[Murchadh]

I am not taking a stab at you mate, but DEFENSE is not equal to DC tackling. Likewise, ATTACK is not equal to SC/FC goal scoring ratio. What matters is the end result of a game, and a whole range of factors make up that result. Perhaps if you look again at those ten games for both teams you will find the reasons why the stats are as they are in the performances of the OTHER members of those teams. (That would be my best guess)

[Devilsharck]

DEFENSE is not equal to DC tackling. Likewise, ATTACK is not equal to SC/FC goal scoring ratio. What matters is the end result of a game, and a whole range of factors make up that result.

<Agree>

I believe that when it comes to the top level in any sport, Its more about the mental strengh of the individuals involved that factor more. I would expect little difference in technique and physical attributes from all good players playing in the premiership, but I would expect a bigger difference in mental strengths and intelligence that seperates the great from the good and the good from the flops. When asked by Fergie, "What does it take to make a great footballer?" Eric Cantona replied "Great concentration and great imagination." He never mentioned skills or physical strengths. sometimes along comes a player who has great levels in all three (phys-tech-int) and they can go on to become legends, i.e Pele. but is very very rare. Basicly it's not only about the skills they have but rather how and when they use them.

[Murchadh]

Totally off-point, but in my third season I trained Fabregas to play AMC (I am now trying to train him to play FC!!), not sure whether I got "free" attributes, but...his current attributes are out of this world:

Physical:

Strength: 15

Balance: 17

Agility: 18

Stamina: 18

Workrate: 18

Technical:

Finishing: 16

Dribbling: 17

Long Shots: 17

First Touch: 18

Technique: 19

Passing: 20

Mental:

Concentration: 16

Off the Ball: 17

Positioning: 17

Teamwork: 17

Decisions: 19

Anticipation: 19

Composure: 19

Creativity: 20

[wwfan]

It makes perfect sense to me given your tendency to drift towards a statistically good tactic. Such a tactic will not be wide or creative enough to consistently break down massed defences and allow a top team to run away with the title, so will have a poor shot/goal ratio while not being defensive enough to keep a poorer team up, will lead to their struggling. The top side will make less tackles, simply because their DCs won't have as much work to do. The worse side will score at a higher percentage of chances, because nearly all their attacks will be against a much more open defence.

Given that my FCs are scoring at 1 in 4 (poacher), 1 in 5 (support forward) and 1 in 7 (substitute forward) over a thirty match period, I'd argue that neither team is doing as well as they ought. As always, your refusal to see or understand how changes to match strategy influence the overall stats of the match leads to your flawed conclusions, despite the data you present fitting perfectly with the above hypothesis. Your hypothesis is 'better player must convert chances at a better rate given two teams playing the same tactic' which forgets every team they play against will play different tactics against the side you are testing with. Get the tactics right for each scenario, and you will see the shots/goal ratio coming down for the top side to a level considerably lower than 1 in 5.5 and 1 in 7.

[Hammer1000]

It makes perfect sense to me given your tendency to drift towards a statistically good tactic. Such a tactic will not be wide or creative enough to consistently break down massed defences and allow a top team to run away with the title, so will have a poor shot/goal ratio while not being defensive enough to keep a poorer team up, will lead to their struggling. The top side will make less tackles, simply because their DCs won't have as much work to do. The worse side will score at a higher percentage of chances, because nearly all their attacks will be against a much more open defence.

Given that my FCs are scoring at 1 in 4 (poacher), 1 in 5 (support forward) and 1 in 7 (substitute forward) over a thirty match period, I'd argue that neither team is doing as well as they ought. As always, your refusal to see or understand how changes to match strategy influence the overall stats of the match leads to your flawed conclusions, despite the data you present fitting perfectly with the above hypothesis. Your hypothesis is 'better player must convert chances at a better rate given two teams playing the same tactic' which forgets every team they play against will play different tactics against the side you are testing with. Get the tactics right for each scenario, and you will see the shots/goal ratio coming down for the top side to a level considerably lower than 1 in 5.5 and 1 in 7.

We've been here before mate and my counter argument is simple, but i feel effective and that is that Man Utd will create BETTER chances than Hull because of the quality in their side, whereas you think Hull will get less but BETTER opportunities because of how teams play against them.

As for the way i choose to play the game, i feel this is forced upon me by the lack of depth and realism, so to continue to be able to play, i have to forego certain situations in an attempt to find the game at all playable.

Like i've said though, no matter who's right and who's wrong, SI have obviously released a game that a large majority still enjoy and i cannot expect my personal opinion to change that.

[shanks]

TACKLING:

1. Man Utd defenders tackle LESS because they are not called on to tackle a lot since most of the opposition attacks are broken up long before the balls reach the DCs (Man Utd being a good team).

2. Tackling is a poor stat to be using since (a) in good teams DCs usually are troubled by direct/long balls that they defend via aerial ability.

3. If you put your entire team on hard tackling AND high closing down AND you have excellent midfielders, the midfielders will be doing the tackling....DCs won't have to.

4. If you put your DCs on easy tackling, they will RARELY attempt actual tackles and will most of the time try to shadow an opposition attacker running with the ball away from goal.

5. It might be that: Hull DCs are just not good enough to fend off the hordes of attacks aimed at them.

6. It might be that: (Hull being a bad team) Hull are forced (or via design) to play "parking the bus" and as a result their DCs are defending within their own area, which by definition makes them less likely to actually tackle another player for fear of conceding penalties.

7. Very fast teams playing wide (I equate attacking play as high tempo, wide) will be pumping in crosses as their main attacking ploy, the Hull DCs will be defending in the air, not on the ground.

8. Teams with good, pacey attackers hugging the offside line that receive through balls down the center will leave bad DCs in their wake (I suspect Hull have bad defenders), therby never giving the DCs a chance to tackle.

I can go on...

STRIKERS:

1. Your results could be down to a HUGE range of factors.

2. I would expect a World Class team to be faced with "parkers", as a result they would have a LOT of shots that are "difficult".

3. Conversely, I would expect relegation battlers to try to catch out opposition defenses via long balls over the top or some other form of counter attack, thus leading to a relatively "easy" chances.

4. The above happens a lot in my game and is entirely expected. Statistically then, Good strikers in a good teams COULD conceivably have similar statistics (conversion ratio) to bad strikers in bad teams.

5. You failed to mention (1) the shape of the formation you are playing and (2) the total number of goals scored by each team and (3) what percentage of total goals were scored by the strikers. This is as vital if not more so.

6. As for the numbers themselves. Do they seem low or high to you per se?

This is a bit of a pointless study tbh.

Firstly, 10 games is nothing to run an experiment on. Secondly, as Murchadh mentioned there are a number of factors that could have lead to your results. I dont think it's fair to compare Hull's defenders to Vidic and Ferdinand. And United's midfield, as mentioned, would swallow up most attacks before they get to the back. Similarly, you cannot compare United's strike force to Fagan and King. Their strikers are better so they would finish a higher percentage of theri chances.

I'm still not 100% sure what you are trying to achieve from this study but if I have interpreted correctly then what I said above stands.

[InterWolf]

Better way of doing it, put every stat for every player in team x the same ie 12 with same ca and pa.

Change composure finishing off the ball etc to 20. See how many goals.

Change the same to 5, see how many goals, same team, same tactics.

Do similar with defensive tests, so we have four scenarios: good att, bad att, good def, bad def.

Pass the results onto someone with a knowledge of regression modelling.

[shanks]

Better way of doing it, put every stat for every player in team x the same ie 12 with same ca and pa.

Change composure finishing off the ball etc to 20. See how many goals.

Change the same to 5, see how many goals, same team, same tactics.

Do similar with defensive tests, so we have four scenarios: good att, bad att, good def, bad def.

Pass the results onto someone with a knowledge of regression modelling.

Oh no please dont remind me. I've got an exam in that in 2 days time!

[macca72]

Sorry macca no i missed it(thread dissapeared)

I thought people would have found this little experiment interesting, but i guess it shows the type of FM'er we have now.

In case anyone WAS wondering?

Man Utd DC's - Ferdinand 2.50 Vidic 2.79

Strikers - Rooney 5 in 38 = 1 in 7.5 Rossi 7 in 46 = 1 in 6.5 Tevez 4 in 25 = 1 in 6

Hull City DC's - Turner 2.65 Zayatte 3.27

Strikers - Fagan 3 in 21 = 1 in 7 Cousin 5 in 27 = 1 in 5.5 King(injured) 2 in 6 = 1 in 3

To quite a few, i know it wont make any sense, but to me anyway, it tells me there are issues with how matches and results are calculated which is a big factor in why i dont find the games believable and why match stats are still a nightmare.

Like i said though, most FM'ers seem happy enough, so the game itself and what people expect from it must still be spot on and theres always the next patch to improve things further.

Personally the game has lost its attraction, but hey, i'm only one person so i dont expect SI to make changes just to appease me.

Ok, would you be willing to share a saved game with me. All i really want to do is analyse your game and stats and present them to the forum. I don't intend to prove anything one way or another, but i would really like the opportunity to analyse one of your saves !

Let me know what you think, if you have any concerns, doubts, give me a shout

[Hammer1000]

Ok, would you be willing to share a saved game with me. All i really want to do is analyse your game and stats and present them to the forum. I don't intend to prove anything one way or another, but i would really like the opportunity to analyse one of your saves !

Let me know what you think, if you have any concerns, doubts, give me a shout

I'll send you a link to a save via PM!

[wwfan]

We've been here before mate and my counter argument is simple, but i feel effective and that is that Man Utd will create BETTER chances than Hull because of the quality in their side, whereas you think Hull will get less but BETTER opportunities because of how teams play against them.

As for the way i choose to play the game, i feel this is forced upon me by the lack of depth and realism, so to continue to be able to play, i have to forego certain situations in an attempt to find the game at all playable.

Like i've said though, no matter who's right and who's wrong, SI have obviously released a game that a large majority still enjoy and i cannot expect my personal opinion to change that.

One of the issues that separates us, and will forever stop you enjoying FM, is your over focus on the stats and attributes of your team. You play FM by drifting towards certain types of player and tactics that can guarantee an OK performance. You then get frustrated that, despite the OK-good statistical performance, you lose or draw. Until you take into account how teams will play against you and make decisions that can counter that method of play, you will never see the depth and realism of the ME. Reducing it to 'given the same tactic a good team will out perform a poor team in every statistical area on the pitch, despite what is happening against them' removes every element of depth and management from the game. In order of importance, playing FM comes down to this:

1: Decision making

2: Player quality

3: Solid tactics

You can have good players and a solid tactic set, but you will never 'get' the game unless you work out how to do 1. Your playing method takes 1 out of the game, which is why you see what you see. As we have discussed many times, what you see as bugs, I see as poor tactical choices and reading of the game, despite your side doing well statistically. In simple terms, you need to play a more expansive game against weak opposition and a tight game against strong opposition. In general, that will see you do OK. However, you then have to pick the times your side is just playing badly, and change your strategy to suit. Currently, you do none of the above, which is why we walk such different paths.