Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

2,837 profile views
  1. Defensive style conceptually is better with the nominal appearance of narrow width and defending by numbers depth wise...but the reality is it's almost a reverse exploit in that as central attacking play isn't simulated to degree reflecting anywhere even remotely close to real world then of course defending will appear solid...but what's actually at play is that enables the user the perception it's their tactical setup/nous doing it allowing them to 'set up' a solid tactic but the reality is it's exploiting the weak attacking patterns of the match engine...or put another way just masks the issues of undersimulation of penetrative passes combined with far from dynamic/fluid movement and therefore defending is actually solid by default. We absolutely have cycles but the problem is bar FM17 since rewrite it's wide play which dominates and even in fm17 there was plenty of goals coming from out wide as well. Last year if you check tactical downloads sections wing backs also dominated with plenty getting double digit assists and taking it back to real world football...that's just not a thing with wing backs and wide play is not how teams overachieve (or at least rarely)...particularly at the top end of the game. So really by having such a bias towards width in FM we end up having circular knock ons and balancing issues...the core elements of the engine need to be simulated better to reflect higher quality football we see in the real world and wean FM off the effectiveness of width/crossing to create chances/goals year in year out. Until that happens we will continue to have these feedback threads where people (correctly) complain about excessive long shots/excessive crosses/excessive goals from crosses/set pieces/lack of through balls and attacking movement. Really FM shouldn't allow overachievement from crosses (open play particularly) as a thing in the first place as it's an outlier in the real world...or at least a rarity and certainly more rare as a prolonged way teams will overachieve. Layer on top of that again the way top teams play...the reason they overachieve is they have better players and again put a group of quality player together...they're not overachieving from crossing it...even instinctively put a group of quality players together and their default action is not get it down, get it out wide and get it in box with crosses to create goals. I get that users will want crossing and like playing that way and if FM allows overachievement that way...firstly that's not reflective of real world football and if it's to the detriment of quality incisive passing and movements attacking play centrally in the top third then that is moving things even further away from how football is played in the real world. So you essentially have a match engine which isn't reflective of real world football and continually 'propping up' this wing play is detrimental to the overall development of the match engine as it's propping up something which shouldn't be happening with the ease that it happens in FM. It's reasonable to have overachievement with width/crossing if similar levels of overachievement is possible by other means...say through the middle with passing incisiveness combined with more fluid movement of attackers and creativity of playmakers but again the balance generally falls in favour of width/crossing. I know this is a little off thread here but a little perspective given some of the 'heat' this thread is generating is no harm in terms of the state of the match engine and a more helicopter view of things and take a step back pondering where the match engine is currently at and where SI wants to take it in terms of how it wants to reflect football What you're seeing in premiership is continental managers such as guardiola/klopp/silva/pochettino/emery/sarri introduce a whole different dynamic to what has traditionally been seen in England with vibrant front foot football with more sophistication than has been seen in years...some of the game's this year have been tremendous...the arsenal liverpool, arsenal spurs game really stand out. But the trend has been to a better quality of football attempted at least than in the past...even teams like bournemouth/leicester/wolves are playing some really good stuff. I think some of the feedback maybe 5 years or more back began to direct FM more towards a Jose type reactive approach whereby people wanted a micro level ability to tweak small details and have strong ability to nullify opposition and overall if you compare FM to the past defensively despite what one may perceive certain (valid) defensive weaknesses it has improved quite a lot...but maybe to enable micro level reactive tweaks and with player roles defining a lot of behaviour attacking patterns/pass decision making suffered a little. There was also a phenomenon where people complained that every team played tiki taka like barca football so that was changed lol Anyway...the way football has gone in recent years is more of a front foot approach and jose's limited approach is getting left behind but I'm not sure this has been reflected in FM...I think when people watch these games in the real world with these teams and watching any guardiola teams people (not everyone of course) want emulate this within FM and where people are getting frustrated is they're not currently seeing it. I do think SI made strides this year to lay the groundwork with this with a lot of work behind the scenes to increase simulation of pressing/gegenpressing/more dynamism in that sense but pressing in the real world requires a tremendous amount of work on the training ground to get right so it's harder again to simulate this for a computer game so it's reasonable to expect this took up a lot of the development cycle with changes to tactical templates and whatever else. Where this leaves things is pass decision making/attacking fluidity movement wise/creativity/flair/guile/dribbling etc all require enhancement to enable the type of football we see the likes of City/Liverpool/Barca/Madrid/PSG and the likes play being simulated within FM. Doing this and weaning FM off it's dependence on width/crossing/set pieces to create goals and chances is a more realistic reflection of how higher quality football is played in the real world and the way football is trending. The other benefit of this is the balancing exercise within FM will actually be easier once the fundamentals of football are more accurately reflected as in...less dependence on crosses mean spikes in goals from crosses/long shots/number of crosses won't keep cropping up causing knock ons elsewhere and the from this stronger base starting point further development of attacking patterns can be worked on and indeed defending can be ramped up even further Anyway back to the immediacy of central play via through balls and attacking movement. As the SI team are saying...it's clearly not an easy fix so let's all keep our fingers crossed they can go full Santa and deliver that wonderful present for us all
  2. Where are you getting your one on one scoring probability from attached is a counterpoint to above (big chances). Last season of premiership with big chances detailed for certain players...for 20 players attached...the average conversion rate of big chances is 51%...ranging from 70% to 37%...even the much maligned morata converted 37% of his big chances The average of the top 5 is 63pc I know you will say big chances can include tap ins but the vardy is top at 70%...impression wise at least he gets a fair amount of chances from balls over the top and running into space for one on ones rather than excess amounts of tap ins...other players on that list are not all about tap ins either and anyway average for 20 players over the course of the season is actually over 51% conversion rate of big chances is significantly higher than the base of 20% which I've seen in one calc for Xg layered on for a big chance. In essence...big chances conversion rates can and do vary individual to individual...that's just simple math as well https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11479251/premier-league-forwards-romelu-lukaku-harry-kane-mohamed-salah-and-more-compared
  3. yes I think you've got the wrong impression here dude...I complimented you and the others contributions ye have made and all you've said is valid...which I stated...I'm not invaldiating anything you or the others have said here or in other threads...they've been spot on and it's great you have all seen these issues and posted pkms and commentary on same. I think you're just getting frustrated with the lack of progress on this issue which I completely share with you and all the others. Ye have covered most of the issues here. The only reason I've added above was as you'll have seen from the pkm I posted the underlying/core issue is currently there is a severe restriction on these balls being played despite ample opportunities to play them is actually there. Unless you do that exercise there of putting all the players on the wing all the other reasons like attacking movement/low blocks/agility etc will only mask the fundamental aspect that will alleviate this. Once the trigger for through balls to be played is on point then we can enhance all the other things which need to be addressed...they are complementary really Otherwise its almost an obfuscation of the issue and fixing all the others bits will for sure help but really it's a band aid solution and will only mean continuous circular balancing exercises with knock ons causing knocks causing knock ons. But by addressing the core issue of through ball and passing decision making to identify and execute these passes when there then enhancing attacking movement/agility and all other things will mean the fundamentals will be better from a footballing perspective and then further developments to enhance attacking patterns can be made. Of course another benefit of this is that if attacking decision making from a passing choice/player movement is correct then further improvement to defensive fundamentals can be made Just to say on this I agree with you the match engine for all it's areas to improve is a masterpiece...the complexity within the coding to produce the dynamism that unfolds in front of our eyes to what has so many variables in the real world let alone capturing all this in a computer simulation is remarkable. By all accounts the code itself is a beast so clearly not easy to get everything in balance. Have a look at pkm I attached if you get a chance...it's alarming to see it but it gives a good feel/insight into what should be addressed
  4. not sure why you seem to have been put out by this but anyway Central play has actually been undersimulated every year bar FM17 since the rewrite to varying degrees you just didn't notice it to the same extent. it's come in various guises - Too many shots – as a result of underdeveloped ball circulation passing options/movement lack of through ball tendencies when there means when central players shoot meaning shot counts see serious spikes - Too many crosses – as a result of propensity to use players out wide several iterations have seen numbers of crosses per game significantly exceeding real world. Mitigation of this may have taken form of improved defending positionally/restricting forays of full backs/wingers but the long term solution is to programme decision making to see recycling the ball of circulating inside as the better option/decision - Poor finishing/lack of variation in finishing...generally in play through the middle. over the years some of the finishing from crosses/diagonal passes from out to win has been remarkably good - Poor ‘one on ones’ - Play blocked through the middle - offside frequency high most often preventing players slotted in through the middle - If you consider the options for wide players cross from x2, cross frequency x2, aim crosses at x4 it offers an ability to have a more concentrated and specified means to attack and as a result may imply an increased frequency by which this will be utilised - Crossing overpowered effectiveness wise...FM18 check out tactics uploaded on forums...many favoured wing backs some getting double digit assists which isn't a thing in the real world. Did last year have better through ball depiction than this year...yes...did it depict attacking patterns like in real world...no...did it stand up on its own and have sufficient level of through balls set by quality attacking movement and ball circulation...no. Comparing last year to a virtually non existent through ball scenario this year isn't going to hide that last year or previous year's central play and through ball propensity could have been improved upon. Is it worse this year...yes it is...do things such as movement/low blocks/narrow defending/agilty contribute to this...yes absolutely. Movement can be improved out of sight to enhance depiction of attacking play and it needs to be...there's no denying that but there's more to it than you think. I'll post below so you can see it Also players agility has also been an issue since rewrite you just didn't notice that either as in an effort to explain the lack of central play this year you've noticed it more. Can agility issues help out...enormously...it will enable players to turn and receive the ball and operate in tighter spaces meaning attacking play can be improved upon. anyway set up a team in a liverpool madrid match where madrid had outfield players on the wings and two up front. Liverpool did score a massive amount of goals which is fine but the way they scored them and the through ball opportunities they spurned along with lack of support movement means that in a normal defensive/tactical set up there is much less probability that these passes and way of playing can happen See attached akkm_Liverpool v R. Madrid_1919 0.09 Robertson runs with the ball…simple pass to firmino…stays running with it 1.04 pass by firmino into salah 2.38 salah runs…simple pass into firmino…stays running 3.11 keita simple pass there 6.55 isco simple pass to slot firmino straight through on goal but plays it inside FB to IF to score….crazy to see that 9.50 isco simple pass there…nope…he shoots 10.03 lots of options inside…delays…poor pass choice into Henderson 10.14 keita simple pass into firmino…keita runs with it and shoots 11.00 henderson gets it…simple pass to firmino…but could drive with it…drives…firmino stops running with it….henderson takes a shot 14.46 isco gets it…simple slot into firmino 17.32 isco gets it 17.51 isco again 19.32 gomez gets it 25.56 salah gets it…firmino stops running 26.47 henderson stays running and bizarrely plays it out wide 28.12 keita has pass inside to firmino…shoots from distance 28.48 isco gets it drives and slots firmino in…so one third into then game we’ve seen pass decision making which is as it should be 29.42 isco gets it…drives and shoots and firmino stops running 31.07 isco tries and fails to connect 31.20 hendo through the middle passes it into outside option of salah despite obvious, simpler and better option beside him 36.43 hendo drives…no connection with pass 36.55 robertson drives then gets to pen area passes it out wide 42.43 hendo gets it…drives and passes in to firmino to score…correct decision making 43.48 gomez bypasses midfield to hit firmino long…bad decision making 45.57 firmino gets it drives and passes it out to salah Thats just one half but more than enough examples akkm_Liverpool v R. Madrid_1919.pkm
  5. I have !!! I did it a few years back...more people need to be aware of it...I think this thread is getting traction within SI so if you and the others see this it will get even more
  6. @pauly15 It will actually reveal a lot more than a pkm with normal set ups can ever reveal what you'll find by using an exaggerated set up is that the pass decision making/movement/attacking patterns are heavily biased towards use of width and that attacking play down the middle is even more stunted than is even perceived to be. You and the others have done some great postings and uploads and I share your frustration with it but whilst its fair to assume that low blocks/narrow width defensive set ups are preventative impediments to better central play/through balls etc you'll actually see the core issue runs deeper than that and even more than just poor attacking movement/rotation...certainly attacking movement will enhance things significantly in terms of giving options inside for one twos/through balls in the short/medium/long term development of a better and more realistic way of playing and a more dynamic way of attacking but by doing as described above you'll see passing decision making isn't simulated to see through the middle as the best way to attack and it's severely undersimulated and there's actually a repellent to the passes we all want to see being played to open up defences. Just try above and watch a few mins of a match...you'll see umpteen through ball opportunities being spurned...players generally drive with the ball and shoot or pass out wide despite glaringly obvious and very simple passes which would slot players in....essentially there's a block on these passes from being played....so whilst identification of all the things you, @Mitja, @Mensell76 have been posting on like defensive width/low blocks/poor movement/poor simulation of players agility are all valid that the underlying and overwhelming restriction on the play through the middle with threaded passes/through balls is beyond all of those things...the pass decision making to play these simply isn't being simulated to play them...you'll see in a few minutes what the situation with it is On your example above...you're spot on...that lukaku isn't moving is an irritant...the pass out wide is infuriating...other movements could be from your IF on left is also an option there short or IF should be moving more aggressively into channel outside RB or inside RB and CB...or at least making a run to drag the right Cb out of position outside to give lukaku a lane to run into anyway...do yourself a favour and try what I mention above...all will be revealed Unless you do it you'll continue to be frustrated by things you have posted on which are really just masking the core issues at play...by that I mean by playing against normal/legit set ups you won't actually see that it's beyond all these things as they will seem somewhat normal that 'oh defense is tight there' 'oh movement could be better' but when there none of that restricting things there it's laid bare that these passes just aren't simulated to be played appropriately and they are all incidental.
  7. so the two yellow ones are the key passes..is that correct...which are out wide...go figure Even try a more exaggerated one with no CB or DM...I suspect they won't inundate the middle there either with passes/movement etc which you'd expect
  8. here's one for you to try...set your team up with all players out wide ie no central defenders and no central midfielders or something close to this or take control of two teams and set one up as per above...the other to attack through the middle see what happens there
  9. thats a great post with it well explained. I think an important point by @MBarbaricis the shape city keep despite being fluid in terms of individuals moving in and out of different pockets of space...off topic but still interesting I've posted before the any manager can coach a team to set up attack (brendan rodgers) or defend (jose)...it's not rocket launching by either of those the ultimate test of a coach lies in their ability to set a team up to attack, defend and transition as a cohesive unit whilst being able to move players interchangibly and fluidly in pockets of space whilst attacking yet contemporaneously remain solid shape wise to manage transitions on turnovers and be able to be in a shape to deal with situations defensively and that's touched on above. Lippis juve were maybe the best team Ive seen do that in terms of maintaining its shape whilst being able to attack fluidly at the same time...they were very impressive. Van Gaals Ajax was similarly excellent and the great Milan sides were just awesome in most if not all aspects of the game. That's one aspect of guardiola sides which gets missed though in terms of their structure. Yes they press on turnovers but the closeness of players in possession allows them that luxury to quickly recover the ball after they lose it so they're not exposed as easily as is perceived despite their expansiveness as they try to maintain their shape as best as possible so they can deal with it on losing possession. This is one aspect which city struggled with in guardiola first season at city...there was too much separation distance wise between players and they were ragged on turnovers...that combined with playing more directly than is guardiolas norm meant their levels were lower than should have been. At barca their proximity in possession was even more in evidence than at city. How impressive it is you just have to picture a team city fielded there earlier managed by jose...they'd be a mess as jose has no idea of the intricacies of what guardiola is doing to develop city's structure/shape and movement with the players and how far advanced it is compared to the sterility of a mourinho coached team.
  10. Yes...when I saw the word 'often' describing city/liverpool attacking from wide areas just wanted to clear it up. I know one of your points was they cross more than people may think which the data suggests so just wanted to contextualise it as well. So I think we're broadly speaking saying the same thing. Agree on the delph/mendy impact but again as you say delph played narrow/inverted but really the broader point is even though they hadn't the attacking element of a full back crossing or bombing on it didn't have much of an adverse impact on their ability to break down low lying defensive blocks with heavily congested central areas as they very successfully opened up those defences creating and scoring in abundance...so even without the option of the bombing full backs they were more than capable of unlocking congested low central defensive blocks with the way they work the ball. So again the perception of width to cross to break down these defences (not your perception) is misplaced as it can and is done by other means...crossing can throw another option into the mix for sure. I would also say that crossing/cut backs are different nuance wise in terms of how the ball gets worked into these positions...the position on the pitch and the way the ball gets moved around to get the ball and the players into the positions can be different for cut backs and more sophisticated than just move the ball out wide to cross it from there. city are constantly moving to work the ball into good positions even when they cross from wide they have moved it around the pitch with players in close proximity to give options having kept trying to probe for openings and the opportunity for a cross will have been worked into the most advantageous situation positionally on the pitch with a higher probability of connecting with the recipient agree with attacking full backs providing width but again teams use that nominally to stretch opponents. Take chelsea title winning year...where they used wing backs but again that occupied players to allow gaps and space for pedro and hazard inside Chelsea title winning year under conte's wing back system saw only 6% of their goals come from open play crosses. Marcos alonso had only 3 assists (none from crosses), azpi tho he played in back three had 4 (none from crosses), moses 2 (1 from a cross)...fabregas had 12, pedro 9, matic 7, hazard 5. So this indicates that despite what may have been a perceived wisdom that Chelsea used wing backs to get it wide and that's what was effective real world evidence suggests otherwise...they used wing backs to recycle it inside to create and be more effective centrally...not exclusively of course as no team attacks one dimensionally. Also only three teams had less crosses per game than Chelsea so again we need to get away from any expectation that width is using for crossing and goals and its simply not that linear I'm not saying that's your contention at all but any impression that wing backs => crosses => goals isn't something that translates well into real world football especially when playing against deep lying defences with loads of defenders in the middle. Another thing as you say playing against 8/9 bodies defending central areas...crossing into that traffic is actually very easily defended and hard to connect with intended target...of course it can be a get it into the mixer and see what happens sometimes as well. I agree as well re reliance on crosses can be mitigated by having technical players but one could make a very sound case that the real game changer of a coach like guardiola is how he imparts his vision of the game onto players and the primary difference maker is how he shows players the importance of movement off the ball and in support of players on the ball and even further into the progression of a move ie players positioning and rotation is with a view to receiving the ball 2/3 passes ahead having pulled opponents out of position or moved into pockets of space to receive the ball and it's all premised on constant, almost symphonic, movement of having players moving into positions to receive the ball and move it into more advantageous positions moving it all the while with the intention to get a player into a situation which essentially increases the probability of them scoring. A lot of the time even less technical players don't have that awareness of effect of movement to allow a better way to play in terms of offering more options to mean a team of less technical players than eg city can with better off the ball movement shuttle the ball into better positions to mean they are less reliant on crossing to create...and that applies when they play against equal or lesser teams where they don't face deep/high numbers bodies defending even. Of course the relative success is more often than not dependent of the quality of the player at one's disposal but certainly the team of less technical players won't face the challenge city do as regularly.
  11. In context though City and Liverpool have more possession than most so really proportionately as a way to attack they'd be lower down the rankings in their utilisation of crossing to break down defences. City were 15th last year albeit 5th the year before crosses attempted. So year before last they really didn't play at the same level of last year...mendy back this year probably ramps up their number of crosses last year Vs this. Also in 2016/17 man city had 60.9% of possession and in 2017/18 city had 66.4% of possession...with 63.9% this year...so interestingly the more possession they have had the less they cross it !!! So last year saw a reduction in number of crosses of 14% on previous year yet at the same time they played better and scored 33% more goals. Also city's proportion of goals (assists wise) is in the lowest 5 teams the last 2 full seasons come from crosses. So they're attacking/creating/scoring from much varied means than crossing If they're only 6th and 10th in absolute numbers of crosses but if crossing was their means to break down teams defending centrally attacking from the wide areas to play around the central congestion you'd actually expect them to be HIGHER on the crosses attempts table...as in because they have so much possession and if they attack from wide areas to try and play around central congestion to cross it to create goals then by simply having more instances of attacks then their crossing stats should be higher than other teams...that they're not higher on the table suggests that they actually utilise a cross as a means to attack/create disproportionately less than other teams. Yes they do use it to vary their attack but they use width more as a nominal means to drag players out of position to slot players in elsewhere...not exclusively of course as one dimensional attacking is easily defended. City do tend to slot players into inside channels on side edges of penalty area for cut backs/short low crosses/pullbacks that you see sane/sterling et al do but again the means by which they work the ball into those inside channels is a lot more sophisticated than attacking from wide areas...they keep the likes of sane/sterling wide to leave room inside for operators like david silva/bernardo silva/de bruyne who work the ball into positions to get aguero in or sane and/or sterling or whomever in the inside channels but they can be slotted into those from central positions into those inside channels So whilst yes in absolute numbers City have a relatively high number of crosses putting in the context of them having most possession and facing more deep lying defences than most other teams (if not all) then those numbers aren't that high and if one posits that they attack often from wide areas to try and play around the central congestion would imply they should be higher/highest end of the scale. That they're not would indicate that they actually utilise crossing less proportionately than other teams to attack and create and score goals. Of course, yes they will use it but the numbers suggest City means of attacking and creating to open up deep lying defences who flood the central zones with a lot of bodies in actual fact doesn't mean they are highly reliant on crosses because the central areas are blocked. They actually move the ball quite successfully in those positions and use width nominally to drag players out of positions to allow central positions more space and operate in to play one twos/dribbles/deft threaded passes to either put players straight in on goal from central hub or slot players into inside channels. I'm not saying this is exclusively the case obviously as varied attack is crucial and space can be very tight inside so they will always try something different but their primary target is not to go wide and cross so we should move away from the assumption that because the space centrally is tight teams will attack often from wide areas and cross it...as it's just not the case. They will still be able to attack and manoeuvre the ball through the central positions creating from those areas in addition to using width sometimes for crossing but less proportionately than other teams. Regularly City will switch the ball outside but to switch it back inside again...they're just not moving it outside to cross it and attack from the wide areas...they will look to get it outside pass/move and probe trying to drag defenders out of position or force a mistake and go back inside to take advantage of a positional error or whatever. They are far more inclined to move it inside to get a player on inside channel for cut back than an outside channel for a cross even and the way the attacks are formed and unfold are very different between how the ball is moved from out wide and then directly inside from wide with crossing rather than a more nuanced way of moving it into the inside channels so those two shouldn't be conflated and think they're the same thing in terms of wide play...the passes slotting players into these inside channels on either edge of penalty can be played from central positions even against a clogged up central area and require more aggressive off the ball movement of their players and more subtle passing inside. Where attacking from outside from crossing requires a lot more blunt and basic movement and passing...as in you can position players out wide and move it there relatively directly and then cross it. Another consideration is that playing against deep lying defences with central players blocking areas there...when the ball is moved outside to cross it gives players inside sufficient reaction time to adjust and drop to cope with cross and the ball effectively travels a longer distance (many times through the air) meaning it's into many bodies there as well so it's a less percentage play of having to connect with a cross All in all whilst City/Liverpool are not the lowest of the teams in terms of numbers of crosses, with the way they play in terms of possession and territorial superiority and playing against low lying defences really if they moved play out wide to attack from there with crosses was a as prevalent as people perceive then you'd actually see much higher crossing numbers than they currently exhibit...that they don't means that despite these teams playing more low lying 'by numbers' defences width to cross isn't the factor people think and the ability to play in congested areas centrally whilst difficult isn't as difficult as people may believe it to be...and it certainly doesn't have the effect of forcing play out wide for crossing to be the primary way to break down these defences so it shouldn't be in FM either.
  12. Thing is you're entering the realm of gaming the engine to make stuff work...it shouldn't have to be that way. I'm not saying you are...just trying to get the team to play the way you want...few years back I was using contain to counter the directness which the match engine was producing lol. But basically you're doing things to 'stop' the engine from producing certain predetermined actions rather than doing things to 'make' your team play the way you want it do by tapping into fundamentally sound basic decision making being simulated properly Conceptually those roles shouldn't be producing free flowing football...a Box to box mid is more of an off the ball impact midfielder getting on the end of things up in top third and up and down the pitch. DM is just that...a defensive midfielder more in an off the ball positional screen and water carrier to provide short passes to the more creative and break up play. A CM can conceivably do additional things being a generic role in a sense IFs can do things themselves but are also reliant on being slotted in etc and be provided with the ammunition to do so WBs are more reliant on ball being channeled out wide. Are you seeing through balls being played in the top third from central positions along the ground and if so what is the frequency of them. These are what is missing from the match engine and essentially is what makes the AP role in the attacking midfield strata redundant from a creative point of view...which ties back into @fidelitywarspost from earlier that this is key to changing the 'feel' of the engine and indeed adding to the actual realism of matching closer back to creative and a more sophisticated way of playing football The bottom line is the decision making triggers in the match engine are currently producing too much direct football...there will always be ways to mitigate this given the levers SI allows but the underlying decision making isn't simulating high level and even at times base decision making you see in the real world. Players in the real world don't have a trigger point of space = pass over the top...or anywhere close to that. Stiker/IF off the ball movement isn't dynamic enough or even active laterally, vertically and diagonally to provide options for the more creative players to slot in and even to drag defenders out of position to open up passing lanes for others to be slotted in Basically the match engine is not simulating pass decision making to move the ball more efficiently into central areas in the top third to have creative players utilise their skillset from those positions to slot players in with threaded passes along the ground...that is the starting point. The trigger point is too early and too deep on the pitch. This prevents quality play from unfolding as it should The off the ball movement isn't helping that either. Layer on top of correction of pass decision making better movement in the top third by strikers, IFs and AMs to offer passing lanes and passing options more dynamically and not just immediate passing options but consideration of passes after initial passes. One of the premises of Guardiolas methods is a constant flow of movement to create openings by dragging players/defenders out of position to get players in...the immediate pass is seldom the intent of the ball carrier. CIty/Barca are essentially trying to work the ball into the most advantageous position to slot a player into a scoring position with the highest scoring probability. No matter how many ball players or skilled players they have most moves will break down without much defensive effort unless there's a steady stream of fluid movement off the ball Both of these being addressed should create the best match engine we've seen giving a more balanced and realistic representation of how football can be played in terms of a slicker fluid flow. It feels close but a million miles away at the same time in terms of the long/deep over the top balls needing to be replaced by the more appropriately played along the ground thread the needle/slide rule passes in the top third dependent on settings of course...but the long deep passes are ok with more direct approach and more direct passing etc but not on other settings...before anyone mentions that lol As with all things in changing stuff in the engine, it's a behemoth but the team at SI will figure it out. Once they do I think everyone will enjoy the game at a level not seen before in terms of what type of football the engine can produce and enable users to see their teams play the way they want them to but until we're there, we're not there lol
  13. I hear you on the proving a negative thing However, whoscored has an actual definition of how they define a cross. I've just checked their crosses per game for this season against premierleague.com website and by team they correspond with every team bar everton and brighton which are just out by 1 each. So 18 of the 20 teams it is precisely the same crosses/game for whoscored and the premierleague.com website So that suggests whoscored definition of a 'cross' is consistent with the official premier leagues. One can therefore conclude that with a consistent definition of what a cross is their assists from crossing will stack up as its an assist from how they define a cross. By having a clear and consistent definition of a cross whoscored data relating to number of crosses and assists from crosses can be accepted. That they have a large number of assists bunged in to an 'other' category is academic to the exercise of establishing assists from crosses...and we know that because there is a very CLEAR definition of a cross by whoscored
  14. I've actually looked at whoscored match report and under chalkboard and any 'indicent' within a match of cross/pass/key pass/shot etc corresponded precisely with any match I've watched in real world. So how they capture the data was very accurate. What are you saying you can't verify where whoscored are getting their metrics from...is the assists thing...is that what you're saying you can't build a credible picture from and is it in relation to the crossing thing
  15. Firstly...the trump thing was in jest...not a personal attack. As for godwins law...I only was briefly involved in the discussion so not long enough for godwins law to apply lol You're trying to make a point about crosses So you were presented with real world information about crossing assists So you want to establish what percentage of goals come from crosses. Whoscored has a definition for what a cross is. So this is consistently applied to their measurement of stats. So they provide numbers of goals where the assist came from a cross. In order to capture number of goals from crosses all other assists are irrelevant as you actually have a CONSISTENT measurement of what a cross is (at least how they define it). So the 'other' category contains no crosses as we know there's a specific measure for crosses. So then you actually have a figure in the real world for assists from crosses (at least how whoscored define it) What you've then done is say... You're trying to discredit whoscored as a source but you're saying anecdotally evidence seems right...what is the anecdotal evidence you have...surely you can't be claiming FM is right but that real world evidence is incorrect...if not what evidence have you got to suggest FM is on point