MBarbaric

i understand where you are coming from and you are right. the principle is right, they are just too narrow in this case. taht's why i said "you don't know if it's a bug or poor performance".

problem with FM is that you never know if something is a bug or just poor performance ;D Look at this defensive positioning. 4-4-2. 1. Those two strikers are two players less to start 2. the second line of defence (4 players) cover the width of 30 meters and they have support of the full back. Still, they just stand and watch 3. Unitll fm 17 (or was it 18?) you couldn't defend the center of the pitch because wingers stood so wid. Now the winger on the weak side is so far inside that he has 0 control of his flank. sexy U8 defending

People on this forum complain about ton of stuff. Most of the time, it is just ranting without any evidence. However, once somebody asks a simple question: "25% of goals scored with this ME are from outside of the box, is this too high?" which means he went through the trouble to check stats across the league, and asked how current game compares to the real stats, he gets: a mod sending him to tactics forum (I understand reasoning, but it doesn't address actual question) and you "don't take much in consideration a statistic based on some feedback dropped by some disappointed user in this forum". Do you actually understand how demeaning this is? There is (rightfully) a mantra on this forum: "Constructive feedback please, SI don't want to hear moans or insults". However, when once in blue moon some constructive feedback to tons of "long shot complaints" actually appears, he gets patronized. These deserve infractions and bans just as much as bashing SI does. It is a genuine question about the state of current ME, it is good somebody rises it and it would be even better if somebody provided some stats from the game that prove or disprove the claim once for all. How can that hurt the game, SI, or ordinary user?

I understand we can reduce the number of long shots, that isn't debatable. The original question was; roughly 25% of goals scored in the current ME are from outside of the box, is this too high? So to get back to your example, I don't think showing a reduction from 24 to 13 demonstrates tactical input in your particular case has done anything. It might have, but those numbers aren't showing it. You might be scoring all the goals from inside the box on set pieces while all of outside the box from open play. That would still mean you've reduced the overall LS goals to 13% while, in open play, you still have 100% of goals from LS. Does that make sense?

but you don't know this until you check how many goals outside and inside the box are from set pieces. 12% is average for long shot goals from open play anything up to 24% for a single team is not out of ordinary (if the league average is 11-13 %) anything above 24% is extremely unlikely (not impossible) IRL

as I understood the original point was about long shots in general after which you derailed it to not AI teams. And we still don't know if you have a long shot issue since you don't say how many goals from set pieces you scored ;D Regarding the long shot goals in real, it is about 12% on average from open play. Up to 24% isn't unheard of for specific teams. Anything above that has less than 1.4% (or was it 1.8?) chance of happening in real. So, if whole league has around 24% long shots from open play, it is way off target.

to stick to context and get a bit clearer picture, you should also check how many goals from inside the box were scored from set pieces.

man, you get 23.8% of goals from long shots. you should visit tactics forum ;D

In last three seasons of the EPL, long shot goals accumulate to about 12% of all goals. This season it is currently 13% The problem is, the stats you get from the game include set pieces goals so not really comparable. I did a research a few pages back and while I can't remember exact numbers, I think the conclusion was that in most extreme circumstances (less than 2% chance) the team could be expected to score up to 24% of their goals from outside the box. so, to have the whole league on 24% would be way off the real stats.

just out of interest, would it then be correct to assume that "no right-mineded person would be happy to pay the full price for something that isn't going to be achieved in the first place"?

I am not arguing the position of players is right. they should cover more space (the black circle in the first screenshot from the game) What I am saying is that they, at least, recognize what is dangerous space in relation to where the ball is and they cover the right corridor compared to FM17 where they weren't. there is absolutely nothing wrong with those red circles and yellow question marks. the atletico screenshot you posted is exactly what I am talking about, look at all the space on the weak flank. whole defensive unit has shifted covering the ball side. There are 20-25 meters of space on the weak side. just like on the screenshots in the game. For me, that is a welcome change compared to previous years.

Bayern beggs to differ. not only they let the full back alone, they even let salah alone. "The issue with defending inside the box no metter where the ball is, is new. In fm17 team pushedup from box when they could. Now the park the bus tactics defend from inside the box like shown in that picture." I can agree with above to an extent.

as far as I am concerned, that is the problem of offensive organization, which we can agree it isn't up to standard. Defence did great to force them to play ineffective football. the last screenshot you posted looks horrible indeed, but I was talking about improvement when the team defends deep in their half, not when they press or whatever they do on that screenshot.

You are so wrong i won't bother thinkig of a response. I'll just quote this: Forcing Inefficient Attacking Strategies Through control of the centre of the pitch, a compact defence can force the opposition into one of the most inefficient attacking strategies – crossing. An analysis by Michael Caley (MC_of_A on twitter) found that headed shots and shots assisted from crosses have a conversion rate much lower than normal shots from the same position (you can find the relevant analysis here). It is a common sight than when the central passing lanes are covered with little usable space within the defensive block, the attacking team will resort to passing to the only free advanced player – the full-back. In a lot of these situations the full-back will then cross from a deep position – the most inefficient position to cross from. and the rest on defensive organization you can read here: https://spielverlagerung.com/2015/05/08/tactical-theory-compactness/ there's nothing apparently wrong from defensive organization point of view on both screenshots.

"How ,with what? With defensive width? With making movement and half of attacking arsenal non existent? With all teams packing 10 men in box? With use of formations that have 6 midfielders? ..." well "improve" might be a strong word as you can still see teams stretched all over the place on higher mentalites. however, at least there was some work done in that regard. Where it really improved is teams sitting deep, parking the bus. that looks tight and with rgiht shape and vertical/horizontal distances. i'd argue all teams should look like that in their own half with differences for D-line height. that is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to break these teams down through possession football. ME simply has no tools to break it down with consistency. @akkm explained that to a great detail in a post above.