Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)

[nymanr]

This is what PaulC posted in 2008 about FM and in a discussion about balancing match scores and such in the very big "shots to goals ratio 8.01?? discussion.

"The match results are not pre-determined.

And we have no artificial limits on any scoreline.

All we have done is tune things so that the stats over 100's of game match up as close as possible to the stats we have for real life football.

As said elsewhere, there will be a match engine update after the transfer window. All constructive feedback we recieved on these and other forums has been very helpful in making the improvements within that update.

Cheers,

Paul "

Thats the only mention of "balancing" i have seen.

[chopper99]

To suggest that giving players excellent attributes and this not having an effect on how the team performs is ludicrous to say the least and i'm astonished that it is YOU that has actually posted it?????

The simple point that I'm trying to make is that over-achieving teams are not simply punished for the sake of it. This can most easily be demonstrated by using edited players. The reputation of the team will not change initially, and they will still be vastly over-achieving.

The same to a lesser extent with your last post regarding PaulC, surely if you are agreeing that this is actually the case, then you have to accept that this would apply somewhat to Human users also?

I read these posts by Paul and it was quite clear to me that he was referring to AI vs AI games only, which is how much of the testing is done in house. Games are run using no human managers and league tables are checked to ensure realistic results.

It's possible that this effect has carried over to human teams, but I don't believe that to be the case, particularly when you use my example above.

[mlp071]

@ Chopper99 and Backpants:

OP's intention was not to ask for advice, but to create yet another sensationalistic tread , since his previous one died out day or two ago.He hopped that someone would jump in and you did .

No matter what you say will not change his view, because for some reason ,as it appears from his post history over lats 2-3 years he deeply believes that AI is cheating on him( that was last year ) or game is broken (this year).If you check his posts here and on FM Britain(very lenghty one last year), he pretty much regularly is using tactics that are trying to exploit ME flaws and as such he ends up with weird things. Hopefully one day he will make his own tactics.

While i can say , from their previous posts , that Mitja and Rupal gave 9.2 benefit of doubt in upon release and tried to make it work for awhile, i can't say same for OP.At least they have tried their best and they don't like it , so kudos to them.

This post should be let to die down , only because OP is trying to create yet another sensation , not because game is good or bad.

[Hammer1000]

Hammer - why not try a bit of trial and error? save before a game you think may throw up a result like above, and try different things. There's a lot of variables, from team talk, morale, formation, individual tactically instructions, player selection and so on.

I don't know enough about the workings of tactics or the game in general to know the outcome of all these things combined, a lot of it may be luck. All I can suggest is to try different things, see what happens. change one thing at a time. Yes, it may be a long and dull thing to do, but you may find what you are looking for?

Good idea mate, but i've done it to death tbh with you.

Before i start playing FM for real, or any subsequent patch, i do this kind of thing relentlessly, often for weeks, i'm not just coming on here and posting stuff i have just come across.

[Mitja]

He's been trolling the negatives on every thread for over a year now, just ignore it.

I've no idea why he's still here, obviously hates the game and has done for a while.

Just another drama queen injecting cynicism into every conversation and reducing to his gutteresque levels of debate.

what's your problem? there are very few threads i write in, i'm not suggesting to people not to play this game and i don't hate this game.

and i've never been banned. i've contributed to many good discussions and i try to be as constructive as i can. but i'm moaning and being negative becouse i believe this game has lots of potential and becouse many basic features of this game are constantly ignored.

it's obvious that there's not much you can contribute to such threads, maybe you could check out 'funniest names in FM thread' or 'you know you're adicted to FM when...thread', i'm sure you'll find plenty of fun and positive things threre

[chopper99]

I'll back Mitja on that one. Although we rarely agree we've had some very good and constructive debates over the years. I still think PA should stay

[Hammer1000]

The simple point that I'm trying to make is that over-achieving teams are not simply punished for the sake of it. This can most easily be demonstrated by using edited players. The reputation of the team will not change initially, and they will still be vastly over-achieving.

I read these posts by Paul and it was quite clear to me that he was referring to AI vs AI games only, which is how much of the testing is done in house. Games are run using no human managers and league tables are checked to ensure realistic results.

It's possible that this effect has carried over to human teams, but I don't believe that to be the case, particularly when you use my example above.

As i tend to overachieve myself, i'm not really sure the point you make is significant, but i do think its out of context in this situation.

As for the AI and ME, surely it would not be to much of a strain especially with all the obvious issues the game still has, that this area of the game has also been coded/implemented incorrectly?

If this was the first release of its kind, i'd tend to suggest this was in fact the case, but taking everything else into consideration, it would tend to suggest something else, maybe even what i and others have suggested, no?

[doc_]

One thing is certain in all of this: there is a problem.

I really don't think that it's a normal tactical problem (wich is limited in many ways and won't give you that many ways of telling your players what to do), nor it is a users problem (many of us might know a lot of football but have, nontheless, limited tactical knowledge), or even the odd computer glitch problem, where it looks like the computer is out to get you (the big 4 all playing against you in succession, with an european giant in the middle and an away cup fixture against your biggest rival...).

The problem lies in the amount of information that we don't receive.

If i'm playing a game in key highlights, I understand that what appears is usually an important part of the game, summarized. But if the computer's team (and for that matter, my team) has a corner, or a direct free kick out of the blue, I would like to know HOW that happened! It's very, very frustrating seeing your team conceeding this kind of goals and not knowing why it happened - was it a long ball my team couldn't handle? A stupid fool 20 yards out because we couldn't clear the ball?...

Another problem is the lack of interaction with your assistant manager.

Yes, you can see what he tells you mid-match and react accordingly, you receive monthly reports on training and the fixtures for the month and a lot of small things that are very helpfull, but there is more to it than that.

I would love to hear from the assistant manager "player x trained well this week, I think he should play" or " player y plays better with player z by his side", with the possibility of having a button to confirm what he said - in-game too. If he says that the other teams forwards are tearing us to pieces and he thinks that he has solution, I would like to have a chance of clicking the "do-what-he-said" button.

So, what is my advice for you right now? You should create at least one tactic for every formation there is - believe me, it will take time, but in the end it will pay. I have 3 or 4 different 4-4-2 (attacking, counter, all-out-defence, diamond...), a 4-5-1 (adaptable to a 4-2-3-1), 4-3-3 (3 central midfielders, 3 strikers), 5-3-2 (adaptable to 3-5-2) and a 3-3-4. Flexibility is one of the keys to winning games. Besides, every team has a tactic that they can't cope with...

Sorry for another big post... Looks like a trademark for me.

Cheers!

[Mitja]

This is what PaulC posted in 2008 about FM and in a discussion about balancing match scores and such in the very big "shots to goals ratio 8.01?? discussion.

"The match results are not pre-determined.

And we have no artificial limits on any scoreline.

All we have done is tune things so that the stats over 100's of game match up as close as possible to the stats we have for real life football.

As said elsewhere, there will be a match engine update after the transfer window. All constructive feedback we recieved on these and other forums has been very helpful in making the improvements within that update.

Cheers,

Paul "

Thats the only mention of "balancing" i have seen.

that's the post. of course they won't say 'well it could happen from time to time you end loosing some matches you should have won, especially if you're overachieving'.

this balancing thing is the smallest problem to me.

[Hammer1000]

@ Chopper99 and Backpants:

OP's intention was not to ask for advice, but to create yet another sensationalistic tread , since his previous one died out day or two ago.He hopped that someone would jump in and you did .

No matter what you say will not change his view, because for some reason ,as it appears from his post history over lats 2-3 years he deeply believes that AI is cheating on him( that was last year ) or game is broken (this year).If you check his posts here and on FM Britain(very lenghty one last year), he pretty much regularly is using tactics that are trying to exploit ME flaws and as such he ends up with weird things. Hopefully one day he will make his own tactics.

While i can say , from their previous posts , that Mitja and Rupal gave 9.2 benefit of doubt in upon release and tried to make it work for awhile, i can't say same for OP.At least they have tried their best and they don't like it , so kudos to them.

This post should be let to die down , only because OP is trying to create yet another sensation , not because game is good or bad.

The only person trying to sensationalise anything is you!

I'm simply trying to find an answer to a problem that could save this game for me?

[chopper99]

this balancing thing is the smallest problem to me.

As it is for me. There are many problems in the game currently, many genuine issues.

What I'm arguing against here is the notion that the game suddenly decides that you won't win a particular game simply because you are over-achieving, which is what Hammer is again suggesting.

This is simply not true, and I've provided many reasons why in this thread. From the fact that plenty of people manage to over-achieve without coming up against these type of events an unrealistic number of times, to the fact that people can take low reputation teams, edit the players in those teams, and win leagues with little effort (which is of course relavent as the teams reputation means they are over-achieving and you claim that, regardless of tactics or anything else, you will be punished).

I feel that the real issues that are present in the game should not be lost under notions of cheating AI.

[Mitja]

I'll back Mitja on that one. Although we rarely agree we've had some very good and constructive debates over the years. I still think PA should stay

well i still think PA should go

when someone's tries to be constructive and proove his points, i respect him (and respond in such manner) eventhough he's wrong

i know my posting style can be negative and a bit aggresive but to suggest all i'm doing is trolling and what i'm doing here is even worse... especially when that's all that person has to say.

[chopper99]

I certainly have never seen you trolling Mitja, as I said we've had some good debates over the years, we're just both very stubborn

But at least we try and be constructive. It's just a shame that you can't see when you're wrong

[RT--]

The match results are not pre-determined.

And we have no artificial limits on any scoreline.

All we have done is tune things so that the stats over 100's of game match up as close as possible to the stats we have for real life football.

As said elsewhere, there will be a match engine update after the transfer window. All constructive feedback we recieved on these and other forums has been very helpful in making the improvements within that update.

Cheers,

Paul

You see, that's not really anything along the lines of what some are suggesting, here.

Tuning things just probably means tuning how often players take long shots, cross the ball, how often they miss or score one-on-ones, etc. That's not surprising at all.

But they would be 'tuned' across the board, for every team and would still be subject to various player attributes.

That sort of tuning would *not* create a situation where teams who have fewer shots/less possession are more likely to score from their chances.

Again, if anyone can point us towards posts from wwfan or anyone else involved in the ME where they suggest that some sort of 'balancing' is going on, please do....

[Mitja]

As it is for me. There are many problems in the game currently, many genuine issues.

What I'm arguing against here is the notion that the game suddenly decides that you won't win a particular game simply because you are over-achieving, which is what Hammer is again suggesting.

I feel that the real issues that are present in the game should not be lost under notions of cheating AI.

these things are impossible to prove. my opinoum is somewhere between your's and Hammer's.

i don't want to repeat my self but personally i'm not convinced by ME display of matches (that's what this game is about). in combination with other features mentioned in this thread (Rupal) creating 'butterfly effect' i think it's a shame that nothing major was done for this game to move forward. also i think planty of fun is missing just becouise of that.

finally - i think we all agree what's the biggest problem right now.

[wwfan]

We've had this debate a thousand times and the answer is the same as it was three years ago. Hammer always leans towards tactics that are statistically good. He eventually finds a tactic that performs statistically well against most formations. However, such tactics are always lacking when it comes to breaking down stubborn defences as they always play too tight. The very tightness that allows them to dominate possession against more aggressive tactics works against them when playing massed defences. They never get the ball wide enough to break them down. In such types of match, Hammer either does manage to sneak a goal, which can open the floodgates as the weaker team is forced to push forward, or fails to, which leads to the team getting frustrated (which is coded into the game) and conceding a soft goal. Thus, the results in these matches seem random and unfair, with a repeated match against the same team having a potential wide scope of results. He either wins heavily, loses narrowly or has a dour draw. Hammer's tactics are battering rams when all he needs is a key. As this has been the case since FM06, I assume it is still the case now, despite Rupal's horror of assertion.

Hammer has sent me pkms and his tactics on numerous occasions and I have been explicit about the failings of each tactic and the reason for him conceding goals. Sometimes it has been an over aggressive midfield with low pressing that retreated too fast when losing the ball leading to easy through balls over the top from completely unchallenged mifielders. Other times it has been his isolation of his full backs, leading to them having no easy out balls and having to run up and down the flank all match, ultimately leaving them gibbering wrecks for the last 20 mins as they simply ran out of energy. I even ran a comparison test with TT&F which proved TT&F tactics scored considerably more goals (something like 50-60% more from memory) in open play against defensive formations (Hammer's tactics have always taken advantage of the corner cheat) simply because the Control/Attack variations could open up the mass defences in a manner his tactical was totally incapable of managing.

However, despite this argument and evidence, Hammer prefers to support a theory of 'coded levellers' and 'terrible, unrealistic ME'. My argument that TT&F stops this from happening is always rebuffed by the counter of 'I've tried TT&F and see the same things'. I have always replied that this would be expected until you work out the decision patterns of TT&F and learn when to do what, which I don't think Hammer has even had the patience to really try. Whilst I can accept that the ME is flawed, in some areas quite significantly, in general, good tactical decisions win you matches. Blaming bad results on the ME is abdicating responsibility for the paucity of one's decision making. I win many matches I shouldn't win according to the stats and rarely lose matches when the stats are in my favour. I count on the fingers of one hand the matches I 've lost since FM06 in which I have had huge statistical advantage. I have never lost a match in the manner of the one supplied in the OP. It is, always has been, and always will be, tactical. Unfortunatly, as I have been debating this with him for close to 40 months and his position hasn't changed, I can't see it ever doing so.

Despite our occupying enemy camps, and my stronger than usual criticism, I still wish you all the best, Hammer, and hope life is treating you well.

[chopper99]

Which all basically means that I was right

(only joking)

[Hammer1000]

We've had this debate a thousand times and the answer is the same as it was three years ago. Hammer always leans towards tactics that are statistically good. He eventually finds a tactic that performs statistically well against most formations. However, such tactics are always lacking when it comes to breaking down stubborn defences as they always play too tight. The very tightness that allows them to dominate possession against more aggressive tactics works against them when playing massed defences. They never get the ball wide enough to break them down. In such types of match, Hammer either does manage to sneak a goal, which can open the floodgates as the weaker team is forced to push forward, or fails to, which leads to the team getting frustrated (which is coded into the game) and conceding a soft goal. Thus, the results in these matches seem random and unfair, with a repeated match against the same team having a potential wide scope of results. He either wins heavily, loses narrowly or has a dour draw. Hammer's tactics are battering rams when all he needs is a key. As this has been the case since FM06, I assume it is still the case now, despite Rupal's horror of assertion.

Hammer has sent me pkms and his tactics on numerous occasions and I have been explicit about the failings of each tactic and the reason for him conceding goals. Sometimes it has been an over aggressive midfield with low pressing that retreated too fast when losing the ball leading to easy through balls over the top from completely unchallenged mifielders. Other times it has been his isolation of his full backs, leading to them having no easy out balls and having to run up and down the flank all match, ultimately leaving them gibbering wrecks for the last 20 mins as they simply ran out of energy. I even ran a comparison test with TT&F which proved TT&F tactics scored considerably more goals (something like 50-60% more from memory) in open play against defensive formations (Hammer's tactics have always taken advantage of the corner cheat) simply because the Control/Attack variations could open up the mass defences in a manner his tactical was totally incapable of managing.

However, despite this argument and evidence, Hammer prefers to support a theory of 'coded levellers' and 'terrible, unrealistic ME'. My argument that TT&F stops this from happening is always rebuffed by the counter of 'I've tried TT&F and see the same things'. I have always replied that this would be expected until you work out the decision patterns of TT&F and learn when to do what, which I don't think Hammer has even had the patience to really try. Whilst I can accept that the ME is flawed, in some areas quite significantly, in general, good tactical decisions win you matches. Blaming bad results on the ME is abdicating responsibility for the paucity of one's decision making. I win many matches I shouldn't win according to the stats and rarely lose matches when the stats are in my favour. I count on the fingers of one hand the matches I 've lost since FM06 in which I have had huge statistical advantage. I have never lost a match in the manner of the one supplied in the OP. It is, always has been, and always will be, tactical. Unfortunatly, as I have been debating this with him for close to 40 months and his position hasn't changed, I can't see it ever doing so.

Despite our occupying enemy camps, and my stronger than usual criticism, I still wish you all the best, Hammer, and hope life is treating you well.

Hello Rich, i love you mate, your a top bloke and i have the utmost respect for you, BUT....as far as this issue goes i believe you to be way off the mark.

The only thing i can bring to attention to support this, is that in 08 you insisted it was an issue regarding farrows and barrows and you informed us that the removal of these in 09 would sufficiently reduce the amount of games in which this phenomenon would occur.

Sadly it has'nt worked and so now God love ya, you have to find a way to palm this off as something I'M doing wrong. Lets face it, who's going to believe me over you? so its a simple way of dealing with the problem, blame Gaz, nobody will take his word over mine.

You know yourself that i have asked you many times to teach me "The Force" i have wondered if your refusal had anything to do with the fact that by doing so i may actually be able to prove that i am right?

We're mates right? i'll always think your a top bloke whatever you say to me, but if i'm wrong, prove it to me by taking me through it all step by step(if and when you have the time?) and i'll post a complete retraction of everything i have suggested in the past, how's that?

Remember, i'm NOT claiming cheat like some are suggesting, i simply believe its an outstanding issue with a very weak ME that needs certain gaps in the code filling.

Love Gaz(wink)

[Rupal]

I certainly have never seen you trolling Mitja, as I said we've had some good debates over the years, we're just both very stubborn

But at least we try and be constructive. It's just a shame that you can't see when you're wrong

Pots and kettles?

[Rupal]

Blaming bad results on the ME is abdicating responsibility for the paucity of one's decision making.

Or blaming bad results on Hammer1000's tactics is making an excuse for an inadequate ME....??

I've got a feeling that both sides here could argue round and round for hours without any meeting of minds.

[Hammer1000]

Or blaming bad results on Hammer1000's tactics is making an excuse for an inadequate ME....??

I've got a feeling that both sides here could argue round and round for hours without any meeting of minds.

I was thinking myself and wwfan could start a thread with him taking me step by step through a few games which i'd be playing in windowed mode, telling me what to look out for and how to make the required changes, etc, etc?

We could arrange an hour here or there via PM's or whatever, i'm sure the community would find it very interesting and it would dispel the notion that i'm unwilling to change the way i play the game and may even prove me wrong in the process.

If i was subsequently proved wrong, i could spend the rest of my day's making up for it by helping out those on the Forums still struggling.

Any good? (lol)

EDIT - Dagnammit, Richies gone, what time is it over in Australia?

[Rupal]

A thought - the next time this happens why not save and then replay until you win and save again under a different title, thus allowing 2 different 'strings' from the same point? Then continue and compare the results after a number of matches using identical tactics/team talks.

If anything, logically your results should be better in the second string because morale would be a bit better at the start. If, however, some 'levelling out' is going on then one would expect the second string's results to be worse. Of course, the wretched random factor would rear its ugly head again but it might be interesting to see what happened.

[bRAzIL]

Its either time to ask for help, or after playing FM in all its guises since first release, its time to hang up my boots.

Its not tactical help that i require(well, if it is, i'm definitely calling it a day?) its help that will stop me losing/drawing games like this on a regular basis.

I'd say probably a good 90% of games i draw/lose have match stats practically identical to the one above and its finally gotten to the point where if i cannot prevent this happening sometimes game after game, then i really have to walk away.

If this was happening just two or three times a season, i would'nt even worry about it, but this can happen game after game and i have finally had enough.

Its not like we concede an early goal all the time and the opposition shut up shop, this would at least be understandable if not still majorly frustrating and we are not regularly conceding late goals either, when the AI goes 4-2-4.

I might now have to accept though that it may well be something i'm doing/not doing, otherwise where do i go from here?

I admit to leaving team talks to my Ass Man, but after regularly checking on the response from these, he does tend to get a good reaction, which he also gets perfomance wise during matches.

So if anyone has any notions or pearls of wisdom, i'd be more than happy to hear them? i have tried to pre-empt a few obvious responses, but am pretty much open to discussion on anything at this time?

I have posted this in the General Discussion Forum, because i dont believe this to be a Tactics and Training issue, thanks.

It's more than likely to do with:-

a) Your training.

b) You inability to breakdown the opposition.

c) You may have a poor captain/determination in your squad.

d) Poor Substitutions?

e) Are you making most of set pieces?

f) Are you listening to your scouts assessment of the opposition and tweaking to suit?

g) Your reputation? Maybe teams come and park the bus over the goal line and are hard to breakdown, a bit like what happens to Chelsea IRL.

h) Fitness – are you giving players sufficient rest after 10-15games to keep them sharp?

There’s no way to win every game, sometimes this is what happens but if it happens a lot it’s more than likely something to do with the above. Maybe

[chopper99]

Pots and kettles?

I don't know what you mean

[Rupal]

I don't know what you mean

Of COURSE not!!

[BWSBethal]

Whenever i find myself in one of these slumps where i carnt even grind out a result i usually find iv got to much goin on.I find with 09 that setting all my tactics to basic 4-4-2 (or whatever u prefer) and not tellin players to do anything(run with ball, hold up ball) sometimes works, for a game or 2 and then go back to my old tactics

[jase19]

sounds like the problem liverpool have tbh.. =/

[boywonder9]

It's more than likely to do with:-

a) Your training.

b) You inability to breakdown the opposition.

c) You may have a poor captain/determination in your squad.

d) Poor Substitutions?

e) Are you making most of set pieces?

f) Are you listening to your scouts assessment of the opposition and tweaking to suit?

g) Your reputation? Maybe teams come and park the bus over the goal line and are hard to breakdown, a bit like what happens to Chelsea IRL.

h) Fitness – are you giving players sufficient rest after 10-15games to keep them sharp?

There’s no way to win every game, sometimes this is what happens but if it happens a lot it’s more than likely something to do with the above. Maybe

I have the same issues as Hammer's with my team - putting up dominant performances statistically, yet struggling to get results that reflect it. Despite everyone suggesting it is a tactical issue, I've never heard a valid (in my mind) explanation of how getting 5-10 CCCs and only coverting one, or none, of them means that I'm struggling to break down a defense. I am struggling to convert, which could be tied to any number of things. But is it a coincidence that my conversion rate of CCC's feels "right" during games that are roughly even statistically, drops steeply during games when I significantly outplay the AI opponent, and goes through the roof when I'm a big underdog and I get outplayed significantly?

And as to e.) No, of course I'm not making the most of set pieces (with the exception of corner kicks), because my free kick specialists bag a goal about once a year. So a team can pack in their defense, foul me 20-30 times, and I'll never make anything out of it despite tons of free kicks in and around the 18 yard box. That, I can say for sure, is not a tactical issue. That is a ME issue which needs to be fixed, or else the packed defense and hard fouling will always work as a way to keep game tights, since we can never reliably convert the free kick chances.

[Loversleaper]

How can Hammer1000 overachieve and at the same time say that the AI pre-sets results to even things out, is this not contradictory in itself? There has never been one piece of tactical proof that will cast any light on what is happening, and he always talks around this subject by just saying it should be apparent for all. The ammount of proof given that can make tactics work out-weighs any of these types of arguments presented in this post, and wwfan is right when he says it will probably always be so.

Hammer1000, eveyone has been hearing that you are "leaving for ever" and "time to hang your boots up", but I am telling you : no-one believes you any more. If you ever really wanted to do any "good" for this game (that you apparently love) then you should be tackling the situation differently instead of seeking confrontations. I, too, hope all the best for you in the future...

[bRAzIL]

I have the same issues as Hammer's with my team - putting up dominant performances statistically, yet struggling to get results that reflect it. Despite everyone suggesting it is a tactical issue, I've never heard a valid (in my mind) explanation of how getting 5-10 CCCs and only coverting one, or none, of them means that I'm struggling to break down a defense. I am struggling to convert, which could be tied to any number of things. But is it a coincidence that my conversion rate of CCC's feels "right" during games that are roughly even statistically, drops steeply during games when I significant outplay the AI opponent, and goes through the roof when I'm a big underdog and I get outplayed significantly?

And as to e.) No, of course I'm not making the most of set pieces (with the exception of corner kicks), because my free kick specialists bag a goal about once a year. So a team can pack in their defense, foul me 20-30 times, and I'll never make anything out of it despite tons of free kicks in and around the 18 yard box. That, I can say for sure, is not a tactical issue. That is a ME issue which needs to be fixed, or else the packed defense and hard fouling will always work as a way to keep game tights, since we can never reliably convert the free kick chances.

Oh I'm not saying the ME is perfect by any means.

I'm only suggesting things that have worked for me, but you still get the odd game.

to Hammer; why not upload your game somewhere so we could maybe download and try and see what the problem is?

I do sympathise, as it is very difficult identifying problems when a tactic is not performing to the level of the players you have in the team.

[Mitja]

sounds like the problem liverpool have tbh.. =/

maybe you're right but at least Rafa might know why it's happening. i'm saying this by heart but i doubt L'pool were dominating matches and had 15+ shots in almost every match recently. i know these things are happening in football but not as random as in FM. therea re too many chances and shots. for example Hammer constantly has 15+ matches with more CCCs, dominating possesion and everything else. that are the statistics-facts. maybe wwfan is right about that he's not able to brake down tight defences but facts confirm what Hammer is talking.

i've won plenty of matches where opponents were better and they desrve to win. the game defenetly doesn't favour AI. i'm not that sure about 'balancing thing'. but it does feel too random for me. no one would be moaning if matches were more tight, with less shots and chances, solid defending, cautious attacking. 930 feels like hockey to me for example in my recent save there were 156 shots (on and off target), me and AI combined in last 5 matches. that makes 31.2 shots per match! (i can post screanies if you don't believe)

[Rupal]

Despite everyone suggesting it is a tactical issue, I've never heard a valid (in my mind) explanation of how getting 5-10 CCCs and only coverting one, or none, of them means that I'm struggling to break down a defense. I am struggling to convert, which could be tied to any number of things.

Now that is a very good point. If you are creating that number of CCCs it certainly doesn't look as though you aren't breaking defences down. This is a far more persuasive statistic than the number of shots.

'Something' is making your players miss these chances. Assuming that they aren't really bad strikers, it's that 'something' which needs to be determined and, as you say, it shouldn't be tactics that are at the root of it.

[boywonder9]

Oh I'm not saying the ME is perfect by any means.

I'm only suggesting things that have worked for me, but you still get the odd game.

to Hammer; why not upload your game somewhere so we could maybe download and try and see what the problem is?

I do sympathise, as it is very difficult identifying problems when a tactic is not performing to the level of the players you have in the team.

Wasn't trying to jump on you. Just very tired of watching games that finish 1-0, or 1-1, feel like they were meant to go 3-0 or 4-0 in my favor. And watching games that finish 3-0, or 3-1 that felt like they should be 1-0 (to either team) or 1-1 games. Basically, what I'm able to watch and see statistically is rarely reflected in the results. I'm often able to run away with the win in evenly played matches, yet games that felt and looked like "easy" matches are monumental struggle way too often.

[pandemonium]

Hammer - here's my 2 cents:

The only thing that I can think of that might be wrong with your approach is your shots on goal ratio. It looks like you dominate possession and have plenty of shots, but most of them are off target. I'm guessing that's because your players are taking their shots from difficult positions. Are your shots mostly from distance? If your attacking players have high creativite freedom try lowering it a bit and lower your long shots to mixed/none, especially if they are prone to shooting on sight and/or have low decisions.

Hope that helps.

That said I agree that sometimes the AI finds it easy to disregard your good tactics and the fact that you're dominating for the sake of having realistic stats. I guess we are gonna have to live w/ that...

[boywonder9]

Now that is a very good point. If you are creating that number of CCCs it certainly doesn't look as though you aren't breaking defences down. This is a far more persuasive statistic than the number of shots.

'Something' is making your players miss these chances. Assuming that they aren't really bad strikers, it's that 'something' which needs to be determined and, as you say, it shouldn't be tactics that are at the root of it.

No, they're definitely not bad strikers. I took over Blackpool as they dropped from the Championship to League 1, with a "Sugar Daddy" owner. Through the absurd transfer system and a huge warchest of transfer funds, picked up a team of players that belonged in the Premier League, or any other top league. So talent, or finishing ability, is definitely not the problem.

The shots on goal is a whole other issue. For teams that pack it in and foul very often, the result is many free kicks in and around the AI goal. When our players decide to shoot, way too often they simply blaze it over the bar, or into the wall. So when you look back at your game stats, see 20 shots on goal, but only 4 on target, you assume it is a tactical issue. The reality is that 10 of those shots could have been your "free kick specialist" not putting the ball on target like a real life player would with some amount of consistency. I've seen a clear connection between the amount of fouls and the amount of shots off target and blocked shots.

[Mitja]

maybe you're right but at least Rafa might know why it's happening. i'm saying this by heart but i doubt L'pool were dominating matches and had 15+ shots in almost every match recently. i know these things are happening in football but not as random as in FM. therea re too many chances and shots. for example Hammer constantly has 15+ matches with more CCCs, dominating possesion and everything else. that are the statistics-facts. maybe wwfan is right about that he's not able to brake down tight defences but facts confirm what Hammer is talking.

i've won plenty of matches where opponents were better and they desrve to win. the game defenetly doesn't favour AI. i'm not that sure about 'balancing thing'. but it does feel too random for me. no one would be moaning if matches were more tight, with less shots and chances, solid defending, cautious attacking. 930 feels like hockey to me for example in my recent save there were 156 shots (on and off target), me and AI combined in last 5 matches. that makes 31.2 shots per match! (i can post screanies if you don't believe)

just to add, you should see goals in those 5 matches. i don't know whether to laugh or cry. all kinds of keeper mistakes (standing still or lying down, don't know whether to go after ball or stay on line (moving up, back, up, back again)), defenders mistakes, goals after clearances... ME bugs or bad representation, i really don't care.

[Hammer1000]

Had to go and have a couple of Paracetamol and lay down(lol) so have missed a few posts.

Instead of commenting on each one, can i just sound my appreciatiation to Mitja, Rupal, Brazil, Pandemonium and Boywonder who have tried to be helpful(sorry if i missed anyone?)

Whilst i dont appreciate some of the comments from others, i have to admit that if they dont suffer from a similar problem, i can understand them getting a little miffed, but i did say from the start it could well be something I'M doing wrong? although i'm still far from convinced that its tactical.

Looking back at my last two saves, i noticed that actually i was struggling second season in similar fashion with both?(West Ham + Villa) after overachieving in the first season with both.

In all other 9.2 saves, i've always improved 2nd season(winning the EPL with Newcastle, 2nd with Everton and so on) but these last two saves have proven much more difficult.

I started to wonder about what i may have done differently in my last two saves that may have caused this effect on results(not performances) and so far, i have come up with only one small difference and that is leaving Bonus's on normal, whereas i always used to set them to High.

Sounds stupid, yes i know, i fully agree and its probably rubbish, but like i say, in my preperations its the only thing i have changed or done differently, which is why i'm even mentioning it.

As it was, i only changed it from high to normal because i ended up paying out more in bonuses than we got for winning/playing in, competitions.

Anyway, thanks if you have tried to help so far and keep posting any more ideas please.

Thanks

[swash]

I still think team talks are at least part of the problem. As I don't claim to have mastered them I leave them to the ass man, who I have chosen predominantly for his high motivation stat, however at the moment in my game he seems to be saying "you can win this" for 90% of the pre-match team talks.

I have read on the forums in a thread by wolfsong who seems to have written the only decent guide on team talks that whilst he used to use this team talk, he has now scrapped using it altogether as it always seems to result in a sub standard performance.

I have also read that if you use the same team talk more than 3 times in a row, that you should expect disaster.

Personally I wish you could disable the damn things altogether!

[boywonder9]

I still think team talks are at least part of the problem. As I don't claim to have mastered them I leave them to the ass man, who I have chosen predominantly for his high motivation stat, however at the moment in my game he seems to be saying "you can win this" for 90% of the pre-match team talks.

I have read on the forums in a thread by wolfsong who seems to have written the only decent guide on team talks that whilst he used to use this team talk, he has now scrapped using it altogether as it always seems to result in a sub standard performance.

I have also read that if you use the same team talk more than 3 times in a row, that you should expect disaster.

Personally I wish you could disable the damn things altogether!

You can. Just don't say anything. I've done this quite often for half time talks, as I got sick of screwing up the talk when leading. I didn't track it too closely, so I can't definitively say it was better for the team, but the results felt more natural (none of the lovely AI goals in 46th minute) I'm guessing you could do the same for pre-game talks without dire results.

[Hammer1000]

I still think team talks are at least part of the problem. As I don't claim to have mastered them I leave them to the ass man, who I have chosen predominantly for his high motivation stat, however at the moment in my game he seems to be saying "you can win this" for 90% of the pre-match team talks.

I have read on the forums in a thread by wolfsong who seems to have written the only decent guide on team talks that whilst he used to use this team talk, he has now scrapped using it altogether as it always seems to result in a sub standard performance.

I have also read that if you use the same team talk more than 3 times in a row, that you should expect disaster.

Personally I wish you could disable the damn things altogether!

I agree mate, you should just be able to turn them off completely.

Thing is, even if there was a definitive way to use them to your advantage, i would'nt want to, it would be like using a Diablo like cheat tactic, which i would not do however much i was struggling.

I keep reading posts like "The game is more realistic now, you cannot just use a good tactic and assemble a team full of top players and expect to win" and i think, "Are you insane?".

My problem may be teamtalk related? or it may be that my Captain only has a influence of 16? or that i only offered normal bonuses?

Somebody mentioned Determination, it could be that? even though my squad personality is "very determined", who knows?

At the end of the day, i want to win most of the games i dominate, draw a lot of the games that are close and lose most of the games i get outplayed in, if FM worked like that i'd adore the game, even if i was getting outplayed game after game and constantly losing, at least it would make sense, be realistic and i would always know that if i could improve as a Manager i would start to get the results i deserve.

This is how i used to feel when i played the game, but this has been missing from recent releases for what seems like a realism that is'nt actually there?

[jase19]

maybe you're right but at least Rafa might know why it's happening. i'm saying this by heart but i doubt L'pool were dominating matches and had 15+ shots in almost every match recently. i know these things are happening in football but not as random as in FM. therea re too many chances and shots. for example Hammer constantly has 15+ matches with more CCCs, dominating possesion and everything else. that are the statistics-facts. maybe wwfan is right about that he's not able to brake down tight defences but facts confirm what Hammer is talking.

i've won plenty of matches where opponents were better and they desrve to win. the game defenetly doesn't favour AI. i'm not that sure about 'balancing thing'. but it does feel too random for me. no one would be moaning if matches were more tight, with less shots and chances, solid defending, cautious attacking. 930 feels like hockey to me for example in my recent save there were 156 shots (on and off target), me and AI combined in last 5 matches. that makes 31.2 shots per match! (i can post screanies if you don't believe)

Sunday the 25th:

Liverpool 1-1 Everton

Shots 12-1

Fouls 5-15

Corners 7-2

Offside 0-1

Posession 56%-44%

Saves 0-8

so yeah.

[wwfan]

Hello Rich, i love you mate, your a top bloke and i have the utmost respect for you, BUT....as far as this issue goes i believe you to be way off the mark.

The only thing i can bring to attention to support this, is that in 08 you insisted it was an issue regarding farrows and barrows and you informed us that the removal of these in 09 would sufficiently reduce the amount of games in which this phenomenon would occur.

Sadly it has'nt worked and so now God love ya, you have to find a way to palm this off as something I'M doing wrong. Lets face it, who's going to believe me over you? so its a simple way of dealing with the problem, blame Gaz, nobody will take his word over mine.

You know yourself that i have asked you many times to teach me "The Force" i have wondered if your refusal had anything to do with the fact that by doing so i may actually be able to prove that i am right?

We're mates right? i'll always think your a top bloke whatever you say to me, but if i'm wrong, prove it to me by taking me through it all step by step(if and when you have the time?) and i'll post a complete retraction of everything i have suggested in the past, how's that?

Remember, i'm NOT claiming cheat like some are suggesting, i simply believe its an outstanding issue with a very weak ME that needs certain gaps in the code filling.

Love Gaz(wink)

We have two areas of debate that seemed to have slipped your mind.

Firstly, I have never changed my argument with regards to your tendency towards a certain type of tactic (specifically a no-tweak plug'n'play variety) that consistently generates a high shot count. I've even pointed out how you could change it in certain areas to stop defensive holes you you could shore up against the inevitable late match onslaught if you were holding a narrow lead. When you did as suggested, it worked. However, the suggestion could never change what would happen if you conceded first. If that happened you would invariably rack up the shot count whilst always giving the opposition keeper a good chance of saving the ball. I even did a direct compasison between the type of chances I was creating (totally unmissable) versus the ones you were missing (generally half or hurried chances). I tended to have fewer shots (mainly because my system encoruages the team to spread it wide rather than shoot because passing options have dried up) but a much higher ratio of totally unmissable tap ins (not difficult when your tactic barely created a single one over the ten match test I ran compared to my one to three a game). Against massed defences, my came on top by a significant margin in both statistics that really matter (goals from open play, shots on target).

You have never played over an extended length of time with my system, as you simply give up on it the moment you have a few matches in which the team plays badly. You never give yourself enough time to work out when and why you need to make certain tactical changes. Learning what you are doing wrong in these situations is just as valuable as learning what you are doing right. However, you just give up in frustration, stating 'my tactic plays better than this'. Of course it will do if you have picked the wrong strategy for the situation. You use a generic, no-tweak plug'n'play style tactic which is optimised to get pretty good match stats no matter what. It always looks like it is playing OK. When using my system, getting it wrong means getting spanked. With my system, you can learn what to do and what not to do and thus improve performance over time (I have always suggested three seasons were required before anyone could become proficient). With you tactic you learn nothing, as the same scenario repeats and repeats with you making no effort to change it. You admit to not even watching the matches anymore. This is because, using your system, they teach you nothing, and simply highlight inadequecies in your tactic and occasional flaws in the ME (both of which you attribute to the 'bad' ME, even after I explicitly point out where and how the tactic is flawed).

Secondly, the removal of arrows has made the match stats come down considerably. I haven't seen the rash of 25 shot to 1 screenshots that so dominated your posts of last year. I've seen matches in which you had more shots and lost, but very few in which you were by far and away the dominant side statistically. Thus, it seeems the removal of arrows has significantly reduced the statistical differential you used to experience in FM08, although not totally eliminated it. As you focus on stats rather than reading the match and always move towards a atactical style that produces good stats no matter what, you will continue to see the same thing. Hopefully, future MEs will improve the defending to the extent that good shot and possession counts cannot be guaranteed by a certain type of tactic and the moves break down much earlier. If such a tactic produced virtually zero decent shots against the massed defence, you'd begin to see the light.

The only way you can help yourself is to understand the very strength of your tactical approach (i.e. its ability to generate good match stats) is equally its weakness (in doing so it falls down against tactics that compress it). It means appreciating a paradox, wrestling through its complexities, seeing how you own experiences could be illusory, and coming out the other side with a fresh perspective. Unfortunately, I think you are too far gone to do that, meaning your only other hope is a perfect ME. As for me 'showing' you 'The Force', that's pretty much the point of TT&F. It explains in some detail how I play the game, while offering a lot of room for different interpretations. I've never refused you anything. I do, however, question the logistic demands of me teaching you how to play when I live in Sydney and you the NE of England.

[This field intentionally l]

For me the defending I see in the ME bears almost no resemblance to what I see in the 3 EPL games I watch/weekend (sad bugger that I am). For example its a cardinal sin IRL for defenders to let the ball bounce; yet in the ME not only do they let it bounce they stand back and watch it bounce a few times and wait for it to roll to them. The shot blocking is also pitiful compare to RL. As is the "interception"s. The positioning on defensive set pieces makes me weep (scream actually) i.e., you outnumber the attacking players and yet one or more is left unmarked despite my entire team set to man mark. Its nigh on impossible to find the right slider setting to get defender closing down to work. Either both DCs close down the same striker or they hand him a "please score ticket" as he waltzes by. Don't get me started on GK distribution. Actually I will start. IRL Reina completes 69% of his passes (got stats from a UK newspaper). In my current save its 38%. If only he didn't blatantly ignore my defender collect instruction...

Of course the user benefits just as much (perhaps more?) than the AI due to this poor defending. But that's not relevant. Whats relevant is the nerfing that happens in order to keep the scores statistically correct in the presence of such poor defending. But even more relevant is that ITS BEEN LIKE THIS FOR YEARS!!!!!! (Where is that bang head against wall icon?)

[mlp071]

Here is some statistical stuff that can show you how statistics do not always reflect what happened in match. In both games i am heavy outsider with no chance to win , and that's really realistic since my team is awful.

1) This should have been at least much closer game, even though i should have lose anyways? Wrong, i got outplayed early on and my stats came after i was already down 3:0:

2) Now this one i should have lose by far more then previous, just take a look at my awful stats? Well, in truth i did have luck, but i also manage in forcing AI to shot from unfavorable situations, even though i made lot of tactical mistakes during the match:

3) Then most of the games are pretty simple to read like this one :

I am adding pkm's , so anyone can check and see where exactly is AI making all those weird and awful things that people are complaining about(bad backpasses , etc..).If you find anything really unrealistic in huge numbers, i am willing to discuss it ( i am not saying that ME is not flawed and that things don't happen ).Also , feel free to check my players attributes to see how most of them are really bad.

http://rapidshare.com/files/199442083/M1.pkm

http://rapidshare.com/files/199454691/M4.pkm

http://rapidshare.com/files/199442115/M3.pkm

Sorry , but your conclusions are based on stats of matches that you :

- Didn't watch the match at all, so how do you really know what exactly happened in them.

- Used tactics(admittedly) that someone else made for some other team, most likely don't know what exactly every player is suppose to be doing and which are trying to "crack' ME by using tactics that possibly can exploit flaws in ME.When that didn't work, in every case, you started screaming "bloody murder".

Also:

- You are just repeating same things from last year that were posted(again by you) in lengthy threads here for FM '08:

http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=8656

http://www.fm-britain.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=7738

- I guess you got banned on that forum for arguing with anyone and everyone that didn't agree with you in the end, as it looks like.Then you came to do the same here.What is not sensationalistic in that , now ?

That is why i have an issue with your presentation of problems, and not because game is flawed or not(i respect Mitja's opinion in that regard, for example).It is based on your personal beliefs about some "conspiracy theory" that goes back to FM '08 and probably even further, not on complete facts.In this case, it is your fault in the end.

[Donners]

It is most certainly an issue in FM07. Nice skin, BTW.

[Leclercq]

Gotta say, the more or less one man tirade from Chopper was impressive. Far more pleasing to see than most of the other idiots who post one liners on here and get backed up by their clique, when in fact, they do nothing but spam.

Whilst i dont appreciate some of the comments from others, i have to admit that if they dont suffer from a similar problem, i can understand them getting a little miffed, but i did say from the start it could well be something I'M doing wrong? although i'm still far from convinced that its tactical.

First off, I haven't played this version of FM for more than 5 games in a season, because I believe the game is so poor. The match engine is awful and this, coupled with many things, kill the enjoyment of the game, but the match engine is the main culprit. Many things you see and can instantly say that it would rarely happen in a real match. Hope it is a lot better in 9.0.3, cause I do actually want to play it. However, it's absolutely astounding how you completely disregard that the issue you are presenting can actually be due to your tactics. From what I have read, your tactics are ones that create a high shot count. This high shot count is created, for whatever reason, most likely exploitation in the match engine, and with the fact that match-day games have been tuned to prevent high, unrealistic scorelines, we end up with scenarios like the ones you constantly post. As we all know before, a big hole in the match engine, like the CM running to FC and scoring like 300 goals, was a pretty big flaw. The easiest way to solve this was to simply make that type of chance redundant. As the game developed, more holes were found as more were plugged. In the last version, we had the stupid arrows problem, where tactics could create 25+ shots and lose. I believe it's because the game wouldn't "technically" register this as a proper chance and so the stats of your players would bare no meaning and your player would miss the chance. This is the hole being exploited in action. The removal of arrows was that hole and exploitation being plugged, but it seems another hole has appeared, or it could well be that it wasn't plugged very well. What I see is that your lack of understanding, or refusal to understand that continuing with the same tactic, which is quite obviously attacking a hole in the match engine and creating artificial chances as opposed to legitimate ones, is clouding your judgement of what the match engine is actually doing. Your chances created are going through the "illegal" route and the game makes the chances worthless.

So as a result, we have ourselves a problem. When I create a tactic, dominate, then lose, is it because my tactic creates artifical chances through holes, because my team had an off day or both? It's hard to pinpoint where the problem is, because of this "making certain types of chances redundant" cop out. The difficulty of understanding the tacitcal sliders is way to hard because it is too hard to read, but I'm sure I read this will be improved, which is a start I guess. However, after the amount of times you've complained about this, it's clearly pointing towards the exploitation of the match engine. I rarely agree on the "if it works for me, it must be your fault" camp, but this one, is pointing towards you more than the game. Your tactic, whatever it is, seems to be attacking gaps in the match engine and you refuse to do anything about it. It isn't a match engine realistic tactic. But this is what you get when you neglect the defensive side of the game for years on end and try and cover over the holes with sand. People will fall down eventually. It results in a frustrating experience and I've been, where you are, before. It's ridiculous that the game has had to limit tactical options to make it more realistic, and even that has failed, as proved here, but I digress.

Your view on the word 'tactical' seems to not be one that is as broad as it needs to be. When it has been said your problem is tactical, you immediately bring out that you beat the same team 4-0. It is not necessarily the tactics you created, but more the tactic is simply exploiting holes and the match engine doesn't know how to portray that, and just makes you miss countless chances, whereas your defensive tactics would be problematic, and you then get the, one shot, one goal scenario. Like has been said, you restarted the same game and won, I'm sure if you restarted a game with Man Utd beating Arsenal and played the same tactics, you could well lose. It's the random element thrown into the game, otherwise we'd win all the time. But from here, it's not that you'd get punished later on, it's that the team is more than likely using the same tactic the team that beat you is, and so you'd lose. I'm sure if you restarted after every match, you could win every game. So what I'm saying is here, don't get too annoyed or offended when someone says it's your tactics, it's not a sleight on you, but on your tactics exploiting the engine.

From here though, there is only two ways you can go. You can keep complaining after this game throws up yet another stupid, unrealistic result, come on here and moan about the match engine, that really should never be creating such a scenario, which results in literally nothing but moaning and an increase in rage at the game. Or you can try and play the game in a way it is comfortable with. Like I said, I don't know what formation you play, but take a default, in-game tactic and work from there. It helped me on previous games, where super keepers were abundant because of the options you could do with tactics, but using default tactics lowered the amount of super keeper appearances there were. It might not be as glamorous as having 15 shots a game, but if it's more realistic to have 5 shots and win 0-1 than 15 and lose 1-0, then what tactic will you choose? Surely it is better to go with the more realistic one, where the created tactic has been made through understanding of the match engne and as a result is dominating legitimately rather than illegally? We know what the logical choice would be, but just try it, for more than one season and who knows, you might actually enjoy the game as much as I enjoy previous titles.

[Kewell08]

I haven't read the thread but looking at the match stats in the OP... you have only 4 shots on target out of 14. To me that suggests that your attackers are either way too rushed or are being affected by some other setting you have which is making them spray their shots about wildly. I would think that when your shots are going everywhere, your on target ones aren't likely to be lethal finishes so you are less likely to score.

[Rupal]

I would really love to see those who are so insistent that this phenomenon is down to tactics address boywonder9's point that he is having the same experience whilst creating more CCCs than the AI. Posts like Leclerq's which address the number of shots, very interesting though they are, are not dealing with the same thing.

If you are creating a substantial number of CCCs, it can't follow that you are failing to open up the opposition tactically, surely? Similarly, CCCs can't be 'artificial' chances created by exploiting the match engine (whatever that means exactly). There's no ambiguity about a CCC.

Providing that his players are as good as the AI's (and he says that they are better), they should have an equal conversion rate of CCCs over time (I'm not talking about a single match here for obvious reasons). So while the odd match or two could be explained by bad luck, if this is happening frequently it suggests that something else is going on.

If anybody can provide an explanation of why a lower conversion rate of CCCs shows tactical ineptitude I'd be very interested to read it.

Just as a matter of interest, I'd be intrigued to know how Hammer1000's and wwfan's overall results pan out. According to Hammer he regularly overachieves while wwfan has been critical of his tactics. Does Hammer1000 overall get results which are noticeably worse than wwfan's? If he does, then the criticisms would appear to have substance. Of course, if he doesn't, then he would be perfectly justified in claiming that his tactics are as good as wwfan's and that the latter should stop criticising them.

[Kewell08]

And FFS guys.

Everyone seems to be under the huge misapprehension that the game is programmed not to let you overachieve. I think it's based on some comment from PaulC somewhere or other to do with realistic league tables.

Realistic league tables are desirable of course, because the game wants to be realistic. But there is no built-in check to stop the user from overachieving. There never will be. Game developers would not develop a game where it is made impossible for the user to achieve anything, if we consider that winning the title with Man U isn't really an achievement but winning it with say Portsmouth is - if you could never achieve anything real, why would anyone play the game? Who would buy the game once it became known that this was impossible? No-one, so why would you make a game like that?

Besides, people do achieve these things. If there was a built-in mechanism to stop people from overachieving, it would not kick in only for Hammer-1000, or for the handful of people who have posted agreeing with him in this thread. It may not happen to everyone who overachieves since there might be a random seed, but with the number of people who play this game... it would happen a hell of a lot more, and still for no reason as I explained in the other paragraph.

[Kewell08]

I don't think CCCs should have been added as a stat. What is a "clear-cut chance"? A clear-cut chance for Zinedine Zidane could be a bloody difficult one for Titus Bramble. What about the keeper, and how much time you have? I simply don't believe the ME takes everything that could be relevant into account when it is determining what a "clear-cut chance" is.