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

[chopper99]

I don't know. If player B either doesn't head the ball or misses the goal entirely does it still count in the game as a CCC? This is a genuine question as I don't know. Do CCC's need to be shots on target, or could you have game where you have no shots on target and 3 CCC's?

[nymanr]

Of course there is a difference in CCC's. There is a huge difference in chance to score in % between a player getting a CCC just outside the box with no traffic infront to goal and a player standing at the far post who only has to tap it in.

Thing is to now where these CCC's have come from you have to watch the games. And even then it isn't always clear.

I once had Rooney beat a DC for a header where the DC fell and Rooney went of alone against the opposition keeper. Now why rooney in this situation decided to blast the ball aiming for the top right corner i dont know as the game was 0-0 at the time. He missed and i was furious. Come half time i started to analyze what was going wrong and what should i change and i noticed that i had 0 CCC in first half????

So Rooney alone agianst opposition keeper was not a CCC.

[Rupal]

I don't know. If player B either doesn't head the ball or misses the goal entirely does it still count in the game as a CCC? This is a genuine question as I don't know. Do CCC's need to be shots on target, or could you have game where you have no shots on target and 3 CCC's?

I'd have thought it was a CCC which was mucked up because player B was useless. And I've have thought that it wouldn't matter if the shot was off target it would still be a CCC. But, like you, I'm only guessing.

[wwfan]

Richie - Its a bit much coming up with stuff like that against Rupal mate, when all your doing is making a mass of assumptions, as well as pulling new excuses out of yer bum when something does'nt fit or your last excuse has proved to hold no water?

Do me a favour, dont get annoyed and close the thread and please have a look back at what your saying, as your starting to clutch at straws and trying to turn your own mistakes into other peoples.

Garry, you know what I do for a living and you know of my relationship with ME development. I have access to the widest research database on football analysis you can imagine and use it all to inform my feedback. My figures are not just uninformed opinion. I can tell you exactly how far a defender has to be away from an attacker for a chance to drop below a 1 in 6 goalscoring opportunity. I can tell you exactly what areas of the pitch a player has a 1 in 2 chance of scoring, a 1 in 5, a 1 in 9, a 1 in 46 and a 1 in 73, based on the analysis of 100s of 1000s of football matches at all levels. I can also assure you that anything at circa 1 in 4 is an excellent chance.

As it stands, I don't think the complainers have made even the semblance of a valid point, other than the inexactness of match stats making it difficult to read the ME. All the assumptions are coming from them, especially the continuous one of 'if it happens to me it must happen to all of you'. It doesn't because we have worked out how to stop it. That is evidence enough.

[nymanr]

that is a good question.

When talking CCC's is the game only looking at the position of the attempt and/or is it taking player attributes in to account when calculating the chance?

there is a big difference if Villa is wide in the box and has to curl a shot on goal against Neville in the same position.

This is a good position to score a goal so can be classed as a CCC but the chance that Neville would score one is very small.

Is it still a CCC?

[Mitja]

I am not saying that every CCC has exactly the same chance as every other CCC. What I am saying is that the only empirical evidence which we have to go on is the overall number of CCCs.

Whether any given chance is easier than any other given chance is a matter of subjective judgement and needs to take a number of variables into account. For example CCC chance A may be far easier for player X (with an acceleration stat of 19) than for player Y (with an acceleration stat of 12) while, vice versa, player Y's strength stat of 18 may make it more likely for him to convert CCC chance B. Without knowing all these variables, it's impossible to determine whether CCC A or CCC B was the easier. Just looking at the play won't give us the information that we need.

defenetly true. i've seen plenty of exellant goal scoring opportunities which weren't categorized as CCCs. what wwfan is doing is accusing him of exploiting ME. what i'd like to ask wwfan is; do TT&F follow the principles of AI tactics? becouse if they don't how can you be sure that's not exploiting?

[Mitja]

Er, really?

er, really. are you suggesting that tempo influnces how soon or rushed shot will be taken irl? tactics create chances, they shouldn't influence what will happen from it.

imagine Rooney in 1/1 situation with keeper and he decides to pass the ball back to his centre back, becouse he was told to play extremly slow tempo.

please back up your ideas!

[RT--]

er, really. are you suggesting that tempo influnces how soon or rushed shot will be taken irl? tactics create chances, they shouldn't influence what will happen from it.

imagine Rooney in 1/1 situation with keeper and he decides to pass the ball back to his centre back, becouse he was told to play extremly slow tempo.

please back up your ideas!

Mitja - what you actually said was:

tatctics shouldn't have any inflence whe it comes to scoring, crossing, passing

So how often a player is set to cross the ball, where he's set to cross it from and who he's set to cross it to shouldn't influence 'crossing'? A player's passing style, the team's tempo and width, and the position of his team-mates shouldn't affect 'passing'?

[Rupal]

My own gut feeling (for which I claim no statistical justification at all) is that the ME produces too many shots and too many crosses. This is due to inadequate defender behaviour. As a result, there are unreasonable numbers of misses from easy positions and too many crosses which are very bad, even from players with good stats in that area in order to avoid too many goals. It's this weakness in the ME which produces a lot of the frustration which people feel. For example, if, in one of Hammer1000's example matches you had halved the number of crosses, and CCCs he probably wouldn't be feeling nearly as annoyed as he does now. This would be more representative of reality, where a side would be pressing for much of the game, failing to carve out clear cut scoring opportunities and the opposition scoring from a breakaway. That would be believable, even though it was annoying.

If (and I very much stress if) the cause is, in fact, tactical, then the way in which the match result is portrayed in the statistics which we have seen and what we see on the pitch is most unhelpful in convincing people that this is, in fact, the case. As it stands, without going into convolutions about the 'right sort of CCCs' and all the subjective assessments which this implies, there's no particular reason to put it down to tactics at all at first glance.

[Mitja]

Mitja - what you actually said was:

So how often a player is set to cross the ball, where he's set to cross it from and who he's set to cross it to shouldn't influence 'crossing'? A player's passing style, the team's tempo and width, and the position of his team-mates shouldn't affect 'passing'?

ok, we misunderstood each other probably there's also a slight language problem for me...

[RT--]

No problem

[Mitja]

So how often a player is set to cross the ball, where he's set to cross it from and who he's set to cross it to shouldn't influence 'crossing'? A player's passing style, the team's tempo and width, and the position of his team-mates shouldn't affect 'passing'?

of course it should

just to clarify what I wanted to say (but you figured it out probably); i think tactics shouldn't affect the final result of that pass, cross or shot. (but again it should if your tactical decisions are bad - instrzcting player with poor long shot skill to shoot from disance - that's another thing i guess)

[Rupal]

Just to clarify the point which I am making about looking at matches and determining the relative difficulty of CCCs, let's consider the case of a ball coming across from the wing and a player in front of an open goal missing the header completely. Is this a CCC? Is it a very easy one?

That depends. How tall is the player? How agile is he? What is his jumping stat? How fatigued is he? Is he carrying a leg injury? Is the ground heavy? What is his anticipation stat? Unless we know these things (I dare say people can think of others), we just can't tell if it was even possible for him to reach the ball at all. If he couldn't reach it then it wasn't a CCC at all and, if we can't even tell that without having this information, how on earth are we supposed to work out whether it's a 1 in 2, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance?

[wwfan]

defenetly true. i've seen plenty of exellant goal scoring opportunities which weren't categorized as CCCs. what wwfan is doing is accusing him of exploiting ME. what i'd like to ask wwfan is; do TT&F follow the principles of AI tactics? becouse if they don't how can you be sure that's not exploiting?

As I stated previously, this is not a debate about the nature of my tactics or whether they are better than Garry's. It is about the statement 'Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)'. I am providing that help.

I have once again explained exactly why Garry sees what he sees, supported by empirical evidence and analysis, both objective and subjective. If he listens to it, he will, in general, stop seeing the type of results that so frustrate him. My advice has been constant over the last 3.5 years. Yet it's never been taken.

All I get in return are poorly thought out arguments on the relevance of in-game stats, the nature of CCCs, the in-built bias of the ME and AI, and the potential exploitable nature of my tactics, all of which are irrelevant to the thread's request. All we have discovered is that relying on stats alone is not enough, CCCs are, shockingly, not all of equal easiness, the bias of the ME and AI are opinions based on personal evidence which can easily be disproved by the contradictory evidence of others and that my tactics might not be perfectly pure. What's any of that got to do with the thread title?

[Rupal]

Pray inform me precisely what is poorly thought out about my last post about the impossibility of assessing the relative difficulty of CCCs without far more information than can be derived simply by looking at the match, wwfan?

I repeat, if you can't even tell whether it's a CCC at all without extra information, how are you supposed to assess its relative difficulty? To labour the point, what may be a very marginal CCC for a short fat FC with speed and acceleration of 8, as he can only barely reach the ball and thus control of his shot will be very iffy, may be dead easy for an athletic, speedy, reasonably tall striker.

[wwfan]

A CCC which is a tap in from three yards with the keeper horribly out of position and no defender near the player taking the shot is easy.

A CCC from 10 yards out with the keeper in an OK position and the defence only slightly wrong footed is less easy.

[Rupal]

And what about the cases which I just quoted wwfan?

You have maintained that all that it is necessary for anyone to do is to look at Hammer1000's CCCs and look at yours and the AI's and that everything is blindingly obvious. I am suggesting that this is a gross oversimplification.

Please give other people credit for a modicum of intelligence. Castigating them for producing ill thought out arguments gets us nowhere.

[wwfan]

If the FC can barely get to the ball to take his shot/header, be it through injury, motivational or attribute failure, then, by definition, it is not easy and won't be displayed as a CCC. If he has a fair bit of time, then it will be.

If his technical/mental ability is not sufficient to take such chances when they arrive, then he'll miss a lot of them. However, I am assuming that Hammer has the required modicum of intelligence to work that out for himself and is able to pick the right kind of player in the right kind of position. If, however, he is picking an FC with heading ability of 2 and aiming crosses at him, he deserves all he gets.

[Rupal]

But wwfan the question is what the position will look like. Just by looking at the match you may not be able to tell if, in a given situation, something was a CCC at all or its relative difficulty if, in fact, it was. In the case of the missed header, for example, it will depend on the stats of the player, which is exactly what I have been saying all along.

Now that we have that sorted out, perhaps we can get back to the vexed question of whether it is really tactical or whether something else is going on......

[wwfan]

I'm sorry, you have sorted out and proven what exactly? A CCC will show when a player is in good position to take a shot, is close enough to the goal for it to have a high likelihood of being on target and is far enough away from a defender to have a degree of time. The closer to goal, the better the angle and the further away from an opponent, the better the chance. Hence, CCCs are relative and require some degree of subjective, but educated, judgement as to their exact worth. They are not all the same.

The more difficult they are then gets furhter affected by the ability of the player. A better quality player is more likley to finish off the more difficult CCC than a worse quality one. However, both should finish off the really easy ones.

Hammer's issue is tactical. The ME is not biased towards the AI to balance out the 'overachievement' of the human. He gets these type of results because of his tactics and management strategy. Nothing else is going on. The fault is all in the user, not the game.

[Arecibo]

sorry, i'm new at this forum, what's a ccc? clear cut chance?

[JimbobWWFC]

sorry, i'm new at this forum, what's a ccc? clear cut chance?

Correct

[Rupal]

wwfan, I didn't say that all CCCs were exactly the same. What I did say was that you can't always tell how difficult a CCC is or even if any given situation is actually a CCC at all just by looking at the match, which is what you were claiming earlier. I think my examples are sufficient to disprove your assertion and don't think there is anything at all to be gained by going over that particular ground again.

Bald statements that 'Hammer's issue is tactical' and that 'The fault is all in the user, not the game' are not going to satisfy him, I strongly suspect. But I'll leave the reaction to him!

[pandemonium]

So I think that the problem is with CCCs, and the fact that apparently they highly vary in their chance of success. My thought is that if a chance of scoring 1 in 4 is a CCC, but a chance of scoring 1 in 2 is also a CCC, then it defeats the purpose of having the CCC as a stat. I always thought that a CCC would be a chance where I would score more often than not. thats 1 in 2 or higher. but 1 in 4? I dont think that qualifies in my book.

Also, Rupal makes a good point - CCCs should be defined by player attributes as well as the type of chance, because a shot inside the penalty area with just the goalie to beat would be easy for someone like Eto'o (CCC), but much harder for Gattuso. Does the ME account for player attributed when calculating a CCC? Can someone answer this?

All in all it seems to me that the CCCs need to be looked at and defined better. maybe thats where most of the issues are coming from?

[r0x0r]

To approach this from a different direction and give advice that could work well for both sides of the debate...

A couple of seasons ago I had a problem with my strikers not scoring enough goals. The team as a whole was flying, but mainly because of wingers and CM's getting in on the action, but it was irritating to see all the same.

What i worked out was that my tactics were very good at getting wingers into clear cut changes cutting in at an angle, and that keepers tended to fare poorly against those sort of opportunities, often due to the fact that strikers were also available in the middle, so they had to cover both shot and cross.

However, my strikers tended to hit the ball straight at the keeper or straight over the bar whenever one on one with the keeper, and as such, didn't score enough.

Now people suggested i change my tactics, and while that may have worked, it would have decreased the productivity of my midfielders and wingers, instead making me reliant on striker goals, which didn't suit how I like to play. I was happy to play with striker settings, but not with the team's method of attack as a whole.

So, an unbeaten season where I picked up 92 points soon followed (after a poorish last season when i finished 3rd but lifted the champions league)... How?

Simple. All of my strikers have now been instructed to either round the keeper, place their shots or chip the keeper. Basically, I decided that my biggest problem was my strikers doing the wrong thing when one on one with the keeper. I don't mean keeper out of position one on one, but the type that should be relatively hard to put away anyway. So, I asked them to change how they view the game and try something different... And it's worked. The wingers and midfielders still have their goals, but the strikers are getting more involved now. it's added the edge to their game that they lacked.

So, perhaps give it a shot? If they are super talents but are throwing away chances, it can't help to ask them to try something a little more technically difficult like chipping the keeper, but more likely to go in if pulled off, can it?

[Leclercq]

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.

Your idea of the word tactic is too "real life", as opposed to implementing it in game terms. Obviously, tactics are set to create chances and stop the opposition doing so. However, we are playing a game, and many things that would make sense in real life, don't in this game. It is not a simple as creating more clear cut chances is because your tactic is so good. It's been clear as day for years that having certain players do certain things, would generate scorlines of 6-0 regularly, and that an AMF could get 100 goals a season. It is laziness, as far as I'm concerned, at the ignoral of such defensive issues and the decision to simply cover it up with making your players miss and making the chance redundant. But this is besides the point. It is in the game and there is nothing we can do about it. We can either keep our AM, use the same old tactics we've been using for 10+ years, expecting them to score 100 goals a season, and then get frustrated when the inevitable, "make chance redundant" feature kicks in and you miss, or you can play the game in the way it was programmed to be played, using tactics, the game recognises, as realistic, lose the AM having 20 shots a game, but maybe win games 3-0 because you've made a tactic and understood the match engine better. Clear cut chances can be artificial, they were in previous games, where you would lose 1-0 after having 25+shots, and they are in this game, where the conversion rate significantly drops, when you don't get the first goal.

Yes, in theory, the chances the user creates should have the same conversation rate as the AI. But, as I've already said, if you've played past games, you'd clearly see that from a certain point, this was changed to prevent silly 10-0 scorelines, and the end was result was that of super keepers. It's seemed to have taken another turn, and now we just get players blasting it over the bar, like they were 3 year olds with no common sense. It's a lazy work around, but it's there. And as a result, to get a more levelled conversion rate with the AI, you have to sacrifice whatever it is you're doing that exploits the match engine (you seriously don't know what that means?), and play something more realistic in the games terms, whatever that may be, but TT&F is more likely to be one, judging by the way it is described.

It doesn't show tactical ineptitude, it shows more artificial chances are being created and are being made redundant, because however these chances are coming about, is through a hole in the match engine, that has been programmed to make the player miss, whatever the attributes, so that we will never end up with the 10-0 scorelines and 100 goal a season AM's. It is not his fault that he has to change his tactics to get a more realistic feel to the game, because the programmers should allow all areas of tactics to be considered without there being a hole that can get a player 100 goals, which is what they tried with the removal of arrows, another quick fix, that in the end has done, quite clearly, little, but it is his fault that he doesn't want to change his tactics and he can't blame anyone but himself when such a game comes along. Like I said before, either keep doing as you are and moan, or change and potentially be happy.

Bald statements that 'Hammer's issue is tactical' and that 'The fault is all in the user, not the game' are not going to satisfy him, I strongly suspect. But I'll leave the reaction to him!

Yeh, it won't satisfy him, because he doesn't want to accept that the problem could actually be his fault.

[Mitja]

i doubt attributes are calculated when it comes to displaying CCCs. i don't agree with Rupal here, it would be impossible for ME to calculate stats in such manner. for Juninho a 40 ya shot is a CCC and for Bramble a tap in isn't?

[r0x0r]

Your idea of the word tactic is too "real life", as opposed to implementing it in game terms. Obviously, tactics are set to create chances and stop the opposition doing so. However, we are playing a game, and many things that would make sense in real life, don't in this game. It is not a simple as creating more clear cut chances is because your tactic is so good. It's been clear as day for years that having certain players do certain things, would generate scorlines of 6-0 regularly, and that an AMF could get 100 goals a season. It is laziness, as far as I'm concerned, at the ignoral of such defensive issues and the decision to simply cover it up with making your players miss and making the chance redundant. But this is besides the point. It is in the game and there is nothing we can do about it. We can either keep our AM, use the same old tactics we've been using for 10+ years, expecting them to score 100 goals a season, and then get frustrated when the inevitable, "make chance redundant" feature kicks in and you miss, or you can play the game in the way it was programmed to be played, using tactics, the game recognises, as realistic, lose the AM having 20 shots a game, but maybe win games 3-0 because you've made a tactic and understood the match engine better. Clear cut chances can be artificial, they were in previous games, where you would lose 1-0 after having 25+shots, and they are in this game, where the conversion rate significantly drops, when you don't get the first goal.

Yes, in theory, the chances the user creates should have the same conversation rate as the AI. But, as I've already said, if you've played past games, you'd clearly see that from a certain point, this was changed to prevent silly 10-0 scorelines, and the end was result was that of super keepers. It's seemed to have taken another turn, and now we just get players blasting it over the bar, like they were 3 year olds with no common sense. It's a lazy work around, but it's there. And as a result, to get a more levelled conversion rate with the AI, you have to sacrifice whatever it is you're doing that exploits the match engine (you seriously don't know what that means?), and play something more realistic in the games terms, whatever that may be, but TT&F is more likely to be one, judging by the way it is described.

It doesn't show tactical ineptitude, it shows more artificial chances are being created and are being made redundant, because however these chances are coming about, is through a hole in the match engine, that has been programmed to make the player miss, whatever the attributes, so that we will never end up with the 10-0 scorelines and 100 goal a season AM's. It is not his fault that he has to change his tactics to get a more realistic feel to the game, because the programmers should allow all areas of tactics to be considered without there being a hole that can get a player 100 goals, which is what they tried with the removal of arrows, another quick fix, that in the end has done, quite clearly, little, but it is his fault that he doesn't want to change his tactics and he can't blame anyone but himself when such a game comes along. Like I said before, either keep doing as you are and moan, or change and potentially be happy.

Yeh, it won't satisfy him, because he doesn't want to accept that the problem could actually be his fault.

Where does this whole artificial chance thing come from? What I understand, the stupid amount of chances from exploits were toned down by fixing the loophole (for instance making players pick up deep runs better) rather than just saying "ooh, that chance was created by an exploit, make him miss".

As far as I understand the game, after years of playing, once a player is in a set position, ready to shoot, then it doesn't really matter how he got there. All that will affect the chances of it going in are luck, his own attributes(including midgame confidence/fustration, condition, etc), the other players attributes, and their positionings relative to each other.

I'd stake my life on the fact the game will never say "he cheated to get this chance, so he's going to miss it".

Good chances and bad chances have nothing to do with if an exploit created it, and all to do with how likely the player is to score from it if we took a freeze frame. when wwfan talks about tactics creating artificial chances, he simply means that some tactics encourage lots of shots of a low quality, while others create fewer shots of a better quality. Some tactics encourage shooting, where others will spread the ball, keep playing it and try to walk it into the net almost, only shooting once a goal is guaranteed.

[pandemonium]

rOxOr i agree that getting your forward players to learn rounding the keeper, placing shots, or lobbing the keeper does improve their scoring ability in 1v1s, but the point is shouldn't they know this already? I would understand if you are in the lower leagues and your players are not very good, but for people like Eto,o and Ibra hitting the keeper constantly it doesn't sound very realistic to me. This is their full time job and they are the best in the world at it. I cant imagine Guardiola telling Eto'o "hey you have to learn to go around the keeper, and stop shooting straight at the keeper but try to shoot at the corner of the net." That's what I would tell a youngster who is just starting to play, not a seasoned professional striker.

So the game could use some improvement in that sense imo.

[pandemonium]

i doubt attributes are calculated when it comes to displaying CCCs. i don't agree with Rupal here, it would be impossible for ME to calculate stats in such manner. for Juninho a 40 ya shot is a CCC and for Bramble a tap in isn't?

Yes, it probably would be difficult, but not impossible. I hear the ME works with the 1-20 range when calculating, so it might be compatible to incorporate the player attributes into the equation since they are 1-20 also.

But that's just my uninformed opinion

[Mitja]

Yeh, it won't satisfy him, because he doesn't want to accept that the problem could actually be his fault.

basiclly your point is that Hammer's right about everything he's saying but he doesn't want to stop using exploits/adopt to 'normal' tactics? i think that's exactly what he wants to prove.

[Rupal]

I'd love to know how to distinguish between an 'artificial' CCC and a 'real' one!

[Mitja]

rOxOr i agree that getting your forward players to learn rounding the keeper, placing shots, or lobbing the keeper does improve their scoring ability in 1v1s, but the point is shouldn't they know this already? I would understand if you are in the lower leagues and your players are not very good, but for people like Eto,o and Ibra hitting the keeper constantly it doesn't sound very realistic to me. This is their full time job and they are the best in the world at it. I cant imagine Guardiola telling Eto'o "hey you have to learn to go around the keeper, and stop shooting straight at the keeper but try to shoot at the corner of the net." That's what I would tell a youngster who is just starting to play, not a seasoned professional striker.

So the game could use some improvement in that sense imo.

agreed but imagine what would the scores be like if those chances were converted in realistic amounts. defending is a key problem here.

[pandemonium]

agreed but imagine what would the scores be like if those chances were converted in realistic amounts. defending is a key problem here.

Absolutely right, and thats what they were trying to prevent by resorting to this. I assume improving defending was harder to implement.

[boywonder9]

The CCC argument holds water only if every CCC has exactly the same percentage chance of being scored, which is clearly a ridiculous statement. Just by observing them it is patently obvious that some are easier than others. Say, for example, the CCC description is given for every shot that has a 1 in 4 chance of being a goal. Some CCCs will therefore have a 1 in 3 chance of being scored, others a 1 in 2. The only way to determine which is which is via observation. Relying purely on stats in such situations is nonsensical.

If Garry's tactic produce a high number of just below borderline CCCs, whereas standard produce a significantly higher number in the 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 range, then Garry's team will score less CCCs than the AI. Giving that his best FC scores at a 1 in 7 ratio, whereas my first and second choices FCs score at 1 in 4 and 1 in 5 respectively, with my occasional reserve at 1 in 7, then I think that questioning the overall nature of the chances created is a perfectly valid argument. His forwards score at a considerably lower rate then the AI's, both in terms of putting away CCCs and in shot per goal ratios. They equally look inept when placed against my FCs. Thus, it must be something that Garry is doing that is causing the issue, not an inherent bias of the ME.

Yes - that is the argument I've been waiting for. My tactics, that dominate possession, rack up shots and CCCs, has good pass and cross percentage numbers, and with more talented players thrown in, produces CCCs that are of lower quality than the AI's? How can you measure that, or come up with any objective way of proving it? How can I tell through the often poor visual representation how good my CCC actually was, or the AI's? I'm sure they do at times, but consistently enough to convert at a much higher percentage in games where I significantly outplay opponents?

All of these things are completely gray areas to me, so I go to statistics, which are still admittedly gray, but not quite as gray. That make sense? Of course, when you add in the team talks, moral, fitness, weather, press conferences and the thousand other factors that seem to have a stupidly strong effect on game performaces, who actually has any idea why this stuff happens?

I'm still hearing people bring up the shots off target argument, so I'll say it again. Look at the foul numbers in games where the AI team packs in their defense. Foul numbers generally shoot through the roof, so you're going to have a good amount of free kicks in and around the goal area. Since our free kick specialist seemingly only have two options - score (maybe once or twice a year for me) or completely miss the net (maybe 1000 times per year) - our shots on target numbers become skewed against this strategy. This is not a tactical issue - this is a ME issue with free kick takers rarely scoring or hitting the net. They simply blaze it over all the time.

Same is true, to a lesser extent, for tactics (mine included) that create a lot one-on-one chances and breakaways. I'm not even going to talk about the low conversion rate of one-on-ones, but they blaze it over or wide at a much higher rate than IRL. So how many shots off target are tied to free kicks and one-on-one opportunities? two types of shots that happen quite often yet aren't accurate to real life in terms of how often they are saved or are on target.

[r0x0r]

Absolutely right, and thats what they were trying to prevent by resorting to this. I assume improving defending was harder to implement.

I disagree.

Firstly, I can't see this being intentional. Their tendancy to hit it straight at the keeper is more likely an oversight than a deliberate tactic to control scores.

Secondly, people like Eto'o don;t have this problem for me, it's the younger strikers. The bojans of the world (or even more importantly, regens) i've had the problem with and had to bring in PPM training, not with the world class strikers. Sure they still do it too often, but not to the extent young inexperienced strikers do.

So try it, it may improve conversion rate. However, it's not like having them place their shots suddenly increases the goal tally to ridiculous heights. I scored 82 and conceded 18 last season, contrasted with 76 and 37 the year before I started retraining them.

37 goals conceeded to 18? Well, I now have the best keeper in the world, and a couple of regen centerbacks around 19-20 years old setting the world alight.

[Hammer1000]

http://files.filefront.com/Chelsea+v+West+Hampkm/;13316291;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Brom+v+West+Hampkm/;13316294;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Ham+v+Arsenalpkm/;13316299;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Ham+v+Liverpoolpkm/;13316302;/fileinfo.html

Now i'm offering these up knowing that i'm going to get mauled by people telling me how bad my tactic is and that its blatantly obvious why i dont win these games, etc, etc.

I'm not actually saying that i should win them all, but after watching them through again myself, i believe i should have gotten between 6 and 10 points from them and not the 2 points i actually got.

If you dont fancy watching all these games, do me a favour and look at a specific chance in the Chelsea game at 14:23 and watch it in the slowest speed possible.

Thanks

(waits for all the barracking to commence)

[Mitja]

As I stated previously, this is not a debate about the nature of my tactics or whether they are better than Garry's. It is about the statement 'Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)'. I am providing that help.

I have once again explained exactly why Garry sees what he sees, supported by empirical evidence and analysis, both objective and subjective. If he listens to it, he will, in general, stop seeing the type of results that so frustrate him. My advice has been constant over the last 3.5 years. Yet it's never been taken.

All I get in return are poorly thought out arguments on the relevance of in-game stats, the nature of CCCs, the in-built bias of the ME and AI, and the potential exploitable nature of my tactics, all of which are irrelevant to the thread's request. All we have discovered is that relying on stats alone is not enough, CCCs are, shockingly, not all of equal easiness, the bias of the ME and AI are opinions based on personal evidence which can easily be disproved by the contradictory evidence of others and that my tactics might not be perfectly pure. What's any of that got to do with the thread title?

so everything we say is poorly thought out, badly backed or made up and everything you say, holds water 100%? there was a lot of talking which didn't have anything to do with thread tittle, i just asked you one simple question, without any intention to offend you or TT&F. you answered my question with your response.

[r0x0r]

http://files.filefront.com/Chelsea+v+West+Hampkm/;13316291;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Brom+v+West+Hampkm/;13316294;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Ham+v+Arsenalpkm/;13316299;/fileinfo.html

http://files.filefront.com/West+Ham+v+Liverpoolpkm/;13316302;/fileinfo.html

Now i'm offering these up knowing that i'm going to get mauled by people telling me how bad my tactic is and that its blatantly obvious why i dont win these games, etc, etc.

I'm not actually saying that i should win them all, but after watching them through again myself, i believe i should have gotten between 6 and 10 points from them and not the 2 points i actually got.

If you dont fancy watching all these games, do me a favour and look at a specific chance in the Chelsea game at 14:23 and watch it in the slowest speed possible.

Thanks

(waits for all the barracking to commence)

The 14:29 "save" was just the match engine not having enough animations for a keeper. So what he's done there is reached out and caught the ball... Only in the ME it looks like it magneticly diverts to his arm by 90 degrees. that was a good chance, but we are talking one of the best keepers in the world, and your striker took it first time. I;'d say that was a 1-4 clear cut. Maybe a 1-3 if you are lucky. With the two defenders, it could be your striker didnt expect to even get the ball, and thus fluffed it by making it easy for cech.

Chelsea totally slaughtered your fullbacks...

your other chances? You could have scored, but nothing I'd have called clear cut against chelsea... Maybe if they were trying to chip or round the keeper A couple might have crept in, but as it was the logical choice is a straightforward boring shot, and that's not enough to beat cech from those angles with that much time to prepare...

Their goal wasn't out of the blue or totally unexpected...

You was pinned back a lot, and your chances tended to consist of through balls to a single striker making a good run. he then had one of the best keepers in the game in front of him, no-one presenting an option to pass to, and a great defence chasing him. This does tend to lead to not very good chances though, as Cech knows his only worry is your player, who himself knows that with terry chasing him down he doesn't have time to waste letting his partner catch up and present a square pass option. so yeah, your strikers tended to get isolated and had no real options.

edit: that said, they have a better team than yours, and you gave them a good game. Some things going differently might have led to a draw or a win.

[Hammer1000]

The 14:29 "save" was just the match engine not having enough animations for a keeper. So what he's done there is reached out and caught the ball... Only in the ME it looks like it magneticly diverts to his arm by 90 degrees. that was a good chance, but we are talking one of the best keepers in the world, and your striker took it first time. I;'d say that was a 1-4 clear cut. Maybe a 1-3 if you are lucky. With the two defenders, it could be your striker didnt expect to even get the ball, and thus fluffed it by making it easy for cech.

Chelsea totally slaughtered your fullbacks...

your other chances? You could have scored, but nothing I'd have called clear cut against chelsea... Maybe if they were trying to chip or round the keeper A couple might have crept in, but as it was the logical choice is a straightforward boring shot, and that's not enough to beat cech from those angles with that much time to prepare...

Their goal wasn't out of the blue or totally unexpected...

You was pinned back a lot, and your chances tended to consist of through balls to a single striker making a good run. he then had one of the best keepers in the game in front of him, no-one presenting an option to pass to, and a great defence chasing him. This does tend to lead to not very good chances though, as Cech knows his only worry is your player, who himself knows that with terry chasing him down he doesn't have time to waste letting his partner catch up and present a square pass option. so yeah, your strikers tended to get isolated and had no real options.

edit: that said, they have a better team than yours, and you gave them a good game. Some things going differently might have led to a draw or a win.

Yeah, cheers, like i did'nt know that was coming(lol)

This is why i am so against uploading PKM's, its pointless.

I'd bet that everyone who thinks i may have a point will see it more my way, whilst those against will side with the game, its almost guaranteed.

I suppose you did'nt notice the amount of 1 on 1's compared to the opposition, who's main chances come courtesy of mostly awful schoolboy defending?

No of course not(lol)

[r0x0r]

Yeah, cheers, like i did'nt know that was coming(lol)

This is why i am so against uploading PKM's, its pointless.

I'd bet that everyone who thinks i may have a point will see it more my way, whilst those against will side with the game, its almost guaranteed.

I suppose you did'nt notice the amount of 1 on 1's compared to the opposition, who's main chances come courtesy of mostly awful schoolboy defending?

No of course not(lol)

Yes, I did. But as I said quite clearly, these "one on ones" weren't clear cut ones... Your players were often in bad positions with a defence chasing them down, no-one to pass to and the best keeper in the league in front of them.

What do you expect us to do, claim your **** smells of roses and you was robbed? You had one chance you should have scored, and even that was after two of their defenders let it past them, and their keeper was well placed to pull off what was admittedly a great save, but not out of character for Cech. They only had a couple of decent chances too, but they took theirs. Their goal was a better chance than any but the one you specifically pointed out. Most of your chances are what I'd call a half chance, one on one or not.

[Mitja]

well '14:29' issue is defently tactical, there's no doubt about it. 1/8 chance maybe 1/6. joking of course (1/1.2 i'd say). very interesting thing, i wonder what would wwfan say. it might be poor representation or 'levelling thing', we'll never know. you deserved at least a point (Olić would feel like he could contributed more ) but that's football (if it wasn't happening too often).

[boywonder9]

I don't know. If player B either doesn't head the ball or misses the goal entirely does it still count in the game as a CCC? This is a genuine question as I don't know. Do CCC's need to be shots on target, or could you have game where you have no shots on target and 3 CCC's?

I've had games when my CCCs where higher than shots on targets. So no, CCCs don't need to be on target.

[Coop]

I would estimate that games such as these can reach up to double figures each season.

In reality you may get one.

Get it sorted SI. It's cheating. Saying it's your tactics is cr*p. Your team are creating far more chances than your opponents but missing great chances despite youe CF's being world class. Unrealistic.

[Mitja]

Most of your chances are what I'd call a half chance, one on one or not.

i'd call them good chances. and ME called them the same - 4 CCCs.

also i didn't see any rushed chances, too many long shots, exploits or anything unusual if there wasn't that '14:29' chance. he has every right to be angry.

[Rupal]

PKMs really aren't relevant to this argument.

People who insist that the problem is tactical are unwilling to accept that creating a greater number of CCCs than the AI but failing to convert a similar proportion to the latter shows that it is the conversion rate which is the problem, not the creation of these chances. They are reduced to asserting that, somehow or other, the CCCs which Hammer1000's or boywonder's tactics produced aren't proper CCCs (let's call them PCCCs) but inferior versions (let's call them ICCCs).

They can't explain how one identifies an ICCC as opposed to a PCCC. They can't say when a CCC ceases to be an ICCC and becomes a PCCC. They can't explain why the AI manages to get a greater proportion of PCCCs than the human manager nor why these PCCCs are as a result of stupidity by the human player's world class defenders while the tactic which by all the measurable parameters (cross completion, passes completed, tackles won, possession, etc, etc) is superior to the AI's results in a plethora of ICCCs instead of PCCCs.

What their argument boils down to is that, BECAUSE it MUST be tactical, it follows that the human manager is creating ICCCs. That's rather like saying that because I can see the clouds moving in the sky there MUST be little invisible angels pushing them along.

There is an alternative explanation, which is that the ME creates too many chances and has to 'artificially' limit their conversion. Rather like postulating that it could be the wind moving the clouds along.

[Hammer1000]

well '14:29' issue is defently tactical, there's no doubt about it. 1/8 chance maybe 1/6. joking of course (1/1.2 i'd say). very interesting thing, i wonder what would wwfan say. it might be poor representation or 'levelling thing', we'll never know. you deserved at least a point (Olić would feel like he could contributed more ) but that's football (if it wasn't happening too often).

If he replies, i'm betting he agree's with roxor, even though this was the specific kind of chance he spoke about, i'll bet all those 1 on 1's should not have been classed as CCC's either?(lol)

Richie's a top bloke and i will always think so, however much we disagree, but he will never admit to being wrong, it just is'nt part of his vocabulary.

Did you check out any of the other games mate?

I actually thought the game against West Brom was the one i deserved to win the least?

[Mitja]

If he replies, i'm betting he agree's with roxor, even though this was the specific kind of chance he spoke about, i'll bet all those 1 on 1's should not have been classed as CCC's either?(lol)

Richie's a top bloke and i will always think so, however much we disagree, but he will never admit to being wrong, it just is'nt part of his vocabulary.

Did you check out any of the other games mate?

I actually thought the game against West Brom was the one i deserved to win the least?

no, not yet but i will probably.

in all honesty i don't mind 'leveling' thing (no metter if it is there or it isn't) as long it is represented well. poor squad atmosphere, complicity, form, injuries, gelling problems, financial...anything could be implemented as far as i'm concerned to make this game harder.

[Rupal]

in all honesty i don't mind 'leveling' thing (no metter if it is there or it isn't) as long it is represented well. poor squad atmosphere, complicity, form, injuries, gelling problems, financial...anything could be implemented as far as i'm concerned to make this game harder.

I think that's how I feel too. If it's done properly the game can be as hard as anyone likes. It would be entertaining, for example, if you were liable to run into match fixing (which might explain these games which annoy Hammer1000 and others of us so much!).

It all needs to be up front, that's all.

[boywonder9]

no, not yet but i will probably.

in all honesty i don't mind 'leveling' thing (no metter if it is there or it isn't) as long it is represented well. poor squad atmosphere, complicity, form, injuries, gelling problems, financial...anything could be implemented as far as i'm concerned to make this game harder.

Same here. My scoring chances appear to be "levelled" in games when there is a high probability that I'll dominate and bag 4-5 goals, and in turn limit me to 1, or 0 goals despite stats that suggest a different result. In games where the odds are closer to even, or against me, I can bag 4-5 goals despite my stats suggest I should have had 1, or 0. They've got it backwards most of the time in my mind.

If they're trying to normalize scoring numbers, have it effect the games that should be tight (1-1, 1-0, 0-0 scorelines) according to stats, player form, and talent. Not the games that look like a walk in the park, or at least not with the frequency it occurs now.