CCC don't matter this year, only Shots on Target?

[Cougar2010]

But if I am using ALL the tools given to me to restrict the amount of shots being taken, and they are still taking 45 shots in a game, then maybe something needs to get looked at.

If you are having 45 shots a game you ARE NOT using all the tools available to you.

I have never had more than 30 shots in any one match (90 mins). The most I've had is 29 whilst my team generally averages around 12-18.

[milnerpoint]

And 45 shots per game = for me, atleast something in defending is badly lacking.

Or that the attacking players are too willing to shoot, whereas in real life players will more often than not look to pass it. There is not one reason for any of the ME issues, they are always a combination of things.

I play in a league where there are 4 good teams and the rest are cannon fodder, i really dont average 45 shots a game against them.

[sirgiorgio]

[/url]

Thoughts?

Results like these (and matches like these) should happen once in a lifetime.

——————

After 7 matches in the Italian serie A:

Roma (1st, 21 points, 7-0-0): 79 shots, 42 on target, 37 off target. 20 goals scored. Conversion rate: 25,3%

Sassuolo (20th, 2 points, 0-2-5): 76 shots, 35 on target, 41 off target. 5 goals scored. Conversion rate: 6,6%

Lesson nr. 1: Roma didn’t shoot more than Sassuolo. They “just” SCORED more. Was it “their tactics”? Or was it “their players” instead? Before you answer, I give you two hints:

1. Berardi (Sassuolo) had to miss the first three league matches. He has now scored 11 goals. After 19 matches Sassuolo are now 17th (17 points, 21 goals scored, 4-5-10).

2. Totti and Gervinho (Roma) got injured and only recently returned to form. After 19 matches Roma are now 2nd (44 points, 39 goals scored, 13-5-1).

Lesson nr. 2: 79 (or 76) shots in 7 matches = 11 shots per match. It means that a typical Serie A match has an average of 22 shots. A tightly contested game would probably end with a shot count like 13-9, a game where the better team doiminates would probably end 18-4 or something. 34 + 6 = 40. FORTY SHOTS!!!! I know Italian football isn’t British football, but it can’t be that different! Not even with the “shoot on sight” shout.

Lesson nr. 3: Rafael (Verona goalkeeper) saves an average of 6,5 shots per game. He is the leader of the league (Serie A) in this particular statistic. Looking at the screenshot, I should conclude that West Brom goalkeeper must have saved 14 shots. Again, it can happen… once in a lifetime.

Lesson nr. 4 - Attacking: what would you do if you kept shooting and don’t score? I would probably think twice before shooting again.l I’d rather miss a good chance to shoot instead of shooting for the fun of it. I don’t even need “a shout”, it’s just common sense.

Lesson nr. 5 - Defending: what would a manager do when his guys let the opponents shoot 34 times (THIRTY -FOUR!) in 90 minutes? Personally, regardless of the result, I’d resign and apologize to the supporters.

Final thoughts:

If it is a tactical issue, then there’s a problem woth both the human and the AI tactics… West Brom were being hammered at home and did nothing to stop the humiliation. O but they won! I’m sure their manager prepared the match exactly like this… Also, both teams must have had very peculiar tactical setups to produce a result like this. I just think that certain tactics (coupled with certain players) produce unrealistically good performances and, at the same time, more or less realistic results. What you see is not always what you get. So it’s more a “mis-communication between tactics and ME” than a simple “it’s your tactics”.

[Conchis]

If you are having 45 shots a game you ARE NOT using all the tools available to you.

I have never had more than 30 shots in any one match (90 mins). The most I've had is 29 whilst my team generally averages around 12-18.

Well, I have my team playing possession game with short passes, building play from defense. Work into box is checked plus the striker, wingers and the attacking midfielder have shoot less often on player instructions. If there are other tools I'm not aware of, it'd be great to know. Other than playing with no forwards, of course.

Btw, 45 shots was in "a game", not an average. Average is 25-30 for games I'm controlling (not necessarily dominating). I only go to 15 range when it's a 50-50 game. If my chances are low, then I start removing the "walk into box" and "shoot less often" options.

I guess my biggest annoyance with the whole thing is that no matter what I tell him to do, the moment my player has the ball with only the keeper to go, he will try to score. I've never had a single goal where my player with ball lays another player for a tap in, even when they are two on one. Tap-ins happen for me when the ball bounces back or the player with the ball has defenders to go past. Even in the latter, they try to shoot more often than not.

In any case. I'm not trying to prove anything here. If it works out for you then that's great. There are people having problems here, and I am having similar problems as well. Don't take it as a complaint because I am not complaining. I've already won the league 5 years back to back, played 2 semis, 2 finals in CL, won the last final. I am enjoying my game. I just don't see success as a reason to not contribute in a discussion that could provide some feedback.

[Cougar2010]

Well, I have my team playing possession game with short passes, building play from defense. Work into box is checked plus the striker, wingers and the attacking midfielder have shoot less often on player instructions. If there are other tools I'm not aware of, it'd be great to know. Other than playing with no forwards, of course.

Btw, 45 shots was in "a game", not an average. Average is 25-30 for games I'm controlling (not necessarily dominating). I only go to 15 range when it's a 50-50 game. If my chances are low, then I start removing the "walk into box" and "shoot less often" options.

I guess my biggest annoyance with the whole thing is that no matter what I tell him to do, the moment my player has the ball with only the keeper to go, he will try to score. I've never had a single goal where my player with ball lays another player for a tap in, even when they are two on one. Tap-ins happen for me when the ball bounces back or the player with the ball has defenders to go past. Even in the latter, they try to shoot more often than not.

In any case. I'm not trying to prove anything here. If it works out for you then that's great. There are people having problems here, and I am having similar problems as well. Don't take it as a complaint because I am not complaining. I've already won the league 5 years back to back, played 2 semis, 2 finals in CL, won the last final. I am enjoying my game. I just don't see success as a reason to not contribute in a discussion that could provide some feedback.

It sounds very much like a tactical issue tbh.

Post up screenshots of your formation/roles/duties etc but I would guess it stems from attacking team orders, attacking individual orders and in some cases a lack of passing options for the player on the ball.

[Erith22]

I'll repeat, one on ones happen way too often due to other issues in the ME, so SI tuned one on one conversion rate down to keep from getting really high unrealistic goal totals. Same reason why long shots are so ineffective.

It's not just human players though. Managing Tenerife, I have frequently been up against dominant sides like Madrid and Barca and I played super-defensive tactics and eeked out the occasional result where they outshot me by a factor of 10.

[themadsheep2001]

I'll repeat, one on ones happen way too often due to other issues in the ME, so SI tuned one on one conversion rate down to keep from getting really high unrealistic goal totals. Same reason why long shots are so ineffective.

It's not just human players though. Managing Tenerife, I have frequently been up against dominant sides like Madrid and Barca and I played super-defensive tactics and eeked out the occasional result where they outshot me by a factor of 10.

They didnt, thats not how it works at all. You can repeat it but it doesn't make it true.

[themadsheep2001]

Or that the attacking players are too willing to shoot, whereas in real life players will more often than not look to pass it. There is not one reason for any of the ME issues, they are always a combination of things.

I play in a league where there are 4 good teams and the rest are cannon fodder, i really dont average 45 shots a game against them.

I'd argue its a number of things, some tactical, some things that need to be tweaked in the ME, such as the very tight andlged shots that really should be cut back.

The ingame definition of a CCC it self is woolly ( not really helped by the fact the real life definition itself is subjective). And then you have the fact that one good chance isnt necessarily the same as another, and the impact of approaches on the nature of such chances. Think there are certainly cases where strikers are shooting too early, and hopefully these are being looked at. But it really isnt a simple or even straightforward thing; needs to be looked at by a mixture of stats, and a qualitative view of the chances themselves, and as its a friday night, I'm certainly not staying here to get into it

[nozshand]

I think its more of because the current ME can not simulate modern football defence where you have number of player working in dynamic formation and intercepting the ball resulting in players get too much space to shoot.

Current ME is pretty primitive compare to football IRL, the defenders don't work as an unit, they chase and they tackle the ball while his team-mate stand still and watch. So with the high shooting count they have to turn down the conversion rate, otherwise the score will be totally unrealistic.

[kiwityke]

I play as KR in Iceland. I am the only professional team in the league, I haven't lost a game in 2 domestic seasons in any competition and I have never ever gotten 30 shots in one game against any teams I play and they all park the god damned bus.

I would say 20-25 would be top end for me. I regularly win 3-0 to 6-0, I beat one team in the champions league quals 17-1 over two legs. My players also regularly score one on ones and miss them regularly. I often substitute a player who has missed more than two one on ones in one game, I know he just isn't going to score that day. Usually the sub comes on and scores as he hasn't gotten the nervous disposition of missing several easy chances!

[Dagenham_Dave]

I play as KR in Iceland. I am the only professional team in the league, I haven't lost a game in 2 domestic seasons in any competition and I have never ever gotten 30 shots in one game against any teams I play and they all park the god damned bus.

I would say 20-25 would be top end for me. I regularly win 3-0 to 6-0, I beat one team in the champions league quals 17-1 over two legs. My players also regularly score one on ones and miss them regularly. I often substitute a player who has missed more than two one on ones in one game, I know he just isn't going to score that day. Usually the sub comes on and scores as he hasn't gotten the nervous disposition of missing several easy chances!

^ ^ ^ Doing it right.

[kiwityke]

^ ^ ^ Doing it right.

Thing is I was quite vocal as to how much I hated this patch thought it was the worst ME ever released as I was suffering the same problems for a long time. I got help from the tactics forum and sat thought what I was trying to achieve and it has so far worked, to the point I think the ME is great.

[juventinu]

Yes m8. Ccc's don't matter anymore(at least not for me). Had a lot of prob's with this year's game(still have). What matters are the shots on target, and strange enough(or not) the more YOU have the less YOU score. Had dozens of clearly ccc's that the ME doesn't take into consideration, strikers hitting the goalie 5 times out of 7 and so on. The only thing that worked for me was trying to atack from the sides. Ex, left footed striker on the left and right footed from the right. Retaining my striker in the am position helped(this seems to be the trend). A lonely striker seems to get lot's of chances(not ccc's) but doesn't score because of his central position. Also, the cm's seem to have a big role in scoring goals, they either create space being marked by a DM or a defender or scoring themselves from a missed oportunity from the striker.

[Cougar2010]

On the subject of one on ones and CCCs I'm just watching the Sunderland/Southampton match.

Twice in the last 10 mins Southampton have missed two CCCs/One on ones - Lambert wide past the far post & Rodriguez straight at the GK.

[kiwityke]

On the subject of one on ones and CCCs I'm just watching the Sunderland/Southampton match.

Twice in the last 10 mins Southampton have missed two CCCs/One on ones - Lambert wide past the far post & Rodriguez straight at the GK.

It happens a lot. I watched Match of the Day the other week and was shocked at how many golden opportunities to score are spurned by players. In fact makes FM seem overly generous in comparison.

[sirgiorgio]

On the subject of one on ones and CCCs I'm just watching the Sunderland/Southampton match.

Twice in the last 10 mins Southampton have missed two CCCs/One on ones - Lambert wide past the far post & Rodriguez straight at the GK.

Would you blame Pochettino for that? Would you say Poyet's guys are doing a good job at defending?

Here's where opinions differ.

[Cougar2010]

Would you blame Pochettino for that? Would you say Poyet's guys are doing a good job at defending?

Here's where opinions differ.

I was more pointing out that players miss more chances than a lot of users seem to think and a lot of the perceived issues are down to perception.

I think it was another thread were a user claimed that players score 90% of CCCs IRL which is far from the truth.

[Guest El Payaso]

I was more pointing out that players miss more chances than a lot of users seem to think and a lot of the perceived issues are down to perception.

I think it was another thread were a user claimed that players score 90% of CCCs IRL which is far from the truth.

This Southampton example is once again these "happens once in 50 games so it's okay to happen regularly in the game" things? If you really want to compare today's games to FM's match engine then fine. Silva's assist to Dzeko's goal = would have bought a corner from byline in the game. Cabaye scored from a half chance and joined the attack from CM's place in 4-2-3-1 formation I think. Adam Johnson scored from a half chance with his weaker foot, the list is endless...

[themadsheep2001]

This Southampton example is once again these "happens once in 50 games so it's okay to happen regularly in the game" things? If you really want to compare today's games to FM's match engine then fine. Silva's assist to Dzeko's goal = would have bought a corner from byline in the game. Cabaye scored from a half chance and joined the attack from CM's place in 4-2-3-1 formation I think. Adam Johnson scored from a half chance with his weaker foot, the list is endless...

Except it doesnt happen once in 50 games... you've just made that up. I mean there isn't much point in discussing incorrect figures, by using made up figures.

[themadsheep2001]

people have strange habit to remember things they do not like and easily forget those they do. you convert more than you think but it is stll low percentage. those who think 90 or 60 should land on earth and check their facts.

why? because the best premiership strikers convert less than 30 per cent of CCC's in real. For example van persie last year converted only 23 percent.

http://eplindex.com/27890/how-well-does-your-team-convert-chances-premier-league-stats-comparison.html

Intriguingly RVP converted 45% of his CCCs in 2012/13, and still ended up with a similar goal tally.

[Guest El Payaso]

Except it doesnt happen once in 50 games... you've just made that up. I mean there isn't much point in discussing incorrect figures, by using made up figures.

That was a question. I think that it is quite obvious that quality of shooting is a problem in the game but there is also a problem with the high amount of good chances that teams get in most of the games. I think that it needs a much better balance in the future so that we see less chances and better finishing especially from longer range. Wouldn't it be just refreshing to see more goals scored from different kind of situations like from long range and generally see better defending and harder to get to those easy chances from long range?

[dafuge]

I've been frustrated this last season of FM so I went back through my last 13 matches and did a little math.

Over that stretch my side generated:

35 Clear Cut Chances

67 Shots on Target

16 goals

My opponents generated

9 Clear Cut Chances

46 Shots on Target

12 Goals

Notice that the conversion rate of SoT to Goals has a pretty high correlation, about % for both sides. But for CCC there is no correlation at all.

For years the mantra has been 'quality not quantity' for shooting and I have stressed that with my tactics. But the results have not corresponded at all.

A few notes. I am playing a mid-table side in La Liga. My top striker is above average for the league but hardly Ronaldo.

Has anyone else observed this?

I thought I'd have a look at my last 13 games (I know this is a small sample) to compare them. For information - I'm a Welsh club dominating the league, so I'm scoring lots without conceding many.

Being a bit of a maths geek, I've also worked out the correlation coefficient ® between CCCs/SOT and goals.

Us:

CCCs - 46 (r = 0.638) (0.697 CCCs per goal)

SOT - 122 (r = 0.944) (1.85 SOT per goal)

Goals - 66

Opponents:

CCCs - 5 (r = 0.606) (1 CCC per goal)

SOT - 21 (r = 0.836) (4.2 SOT per goal)

Goals - 5

You are absolutely right about the correlation being much stronger for SOT (which seems unusual), but the conversion rate of CCCs to goals is much better than SOT, that's also the case with your figures.

What is interesting in your figures though is that your conversion rate for CCCs is a lot worse than the opponents (and mine).

Can I say 'it's your tactics' after all of that?

[markantony]

[/url]

Thoughts?

This seems to happen a hell of a lot in this version. I just lost 3-2 against Man City. Man City dominated the game and I only had two shots on target. The problem seems to lay with strikers not scoring often enough 1v1. Bigger teams lose out because they attack the weaker team, can't score then leave themselves exposed. The answer would appear to be, be less attacking against weaker teams, which is a bit odd.

[greco]

I thought I'd have a look at my last 13 games (I know this is a small sample) to compare them. For information - I'm a Welsh club dominating the league, so I'm scoring lots without conceding many.Being a bit of a maths geek, I've also worked out the correlation coefficient ® between CCCs/SOT and goals.Us:CCCs - 46 (r = 0.638) (0.697 CCCs per goal)SOT - 122 (r = 0.944) (1.85 SOT per goal)Goals - 66Opponents:CCCs - 5 (r = 0.606) (1 CCC per goal)SOT - 21 (r = 0.836) (4.2 SOT per goal)Goals - 5You are absolutely right about the correlation being much stronger for SOT (which seems unusual), but the conversion rate of CCCs to goals is much better than SOT, that's also the case with your figures.What is interesting in your figures though is that your conversion rate for CCCs is a lot worse than the opponents (and mine). Can I say 'it's your tactics' after all of that?

wont get involved in al the numbers, but what i will say is this:

Converting a ccc or chances in general should not have any relation to tactics. Only the build up play and as a result getting good chances, should be related to your tactical set up.

There are no strikersor any other players for that matter - when getting ready to shot - with only the keeper infront of them, who would be thinking about "Are we playing attacking today and therefore playing in a higher tempo. Then I better shoot fast"

That does not make any sense what so ever. Everyone who has ever played the football would know that.

[themadsheep2001]

wont get involved in al the numbers, but what i will say is this:

Converting a ccc or chances in general should not have any relation to tactics. Only the build up play and as a result getting good chances, should be related to your tactical set up.

There are no strikersor any other players for that matter - when getting ready to shot - with only the keeper infront of them, who would be thinking about "Are we playing attacking today and therefore playing in a higher tempo. I better shoot fast"

That does not make any sense what so ever. Everyone who has ever played the football would know that.

Converting CCC does though, because one CCC isn't the same as another, nor is the quality of the player the same. The entire definition is subjective. Which is why you see players have varying conversion rates.

[dafuge]

Converting a ccc or chances in general should not have any relation to tactics.

Agreed, but the tactics will play a part in the types of chances that are created.

If your tactics are creating lot of chances that the game is incorrectly interpreting as CCCs, then the conversion rate won't be as good (like in the OP).

[themadsheep2001]

This is the conversion rate for 2012/13 for the Premier League, haven't found figures elsewhere yet, as I'm at work.

[Cougar2010]

This Southampton example is once again these "happens once in 50 games so it's okay to happen regularly in the game" things? If you really want to compare today's games to FM's match engine then fine. Silva's assist to Dzeko's goal = would have bought a corner from byline in the game. Cabaye scored from a half chance and joined the attack from CM's place in 4-2-3-1 formation I think. Adam Johnson scored from a half chance with his weaker foot, the list is endless...

Seriously its a waste of time trying to have a discussion if you can't accept that you are wrong.

"Happens once in 50 games"? No there were other examples in the game today and it happens in every single real life match.

[Guest El Payaso]

"Happens once in 50 games"? No there were other examples in the game today and it happens in every single real life match.

Why do you have to take that sentence so literally? It was mainly a joke not a statistics. I remember the Lambert one it wasn't like a chance where he had all the time in the world and he didn't just hit it straight at the keeper he tried to place it to the bottom corner. Yes there are bad misses in the real life like the one that Bent had today... But still, there are issues with finishing and the amount of those easy chances and how those chances are often built. There's not much point for me to repeat this and no-one actually commenting about my opinion but instead clinging into one sentence.

[Cougar2010]

Why do you have to take that sentence so literally? It was mainly a joke not a statistics. I remember the Lambert one it wasn't like a chance where he had all the time in the world and he didn't just hit it straight at the keeper he tried to place it to the bottom corner. Yes there are bad misses in the real life like the one that Bent had today... But still, there are issues with finishing and the amount of those easy chances and how those chances are often built. There's not much point for me to repeat this and no-one actually commenting about my opinion but instead clinging into one sentence.

You are right that the Lambert one wasn't a great chance, the ball was almost past him, he was slightly off balance and he tried for the far corner, putting it past the post. That said within the FM 3d several users would be tearing their hair out that he hadn't scored because he had a clear chance. This is why you need to put FM chances into context.

Your comment about "he didn't just hit it straight at the keeper" is also relevant as this is partly, I believe, down to the animations available within the 3d. When a player takes a shot it can be either scored, missed, saveed and held or saved and pushed away/tipped passed the woodwork. Thats four outcomes and there are animations for each one. So if the ME calculates that a shot is saved and held how many animations are there showing that? Its not that he hit it straight at the keeper IMO just that the shot was saved.

[Guest El Payaso]

Your comment about "he didn't just hit it straight at the keeper" is also relevant as this is partly, I believe, down to the animations available within the 3d. When a player takes a shot it can be either scored, missed, saveed and held or saved and pushed away/tipped passed the woodwork. Thats four outcomes and there are animations for each one. So if the ME calculates that a shot is saved and held how many animations are there showing that? Its not that he hit it straight at the keeper IMO just that the shot was saved.

Does this also apply with 2D classic as I'm only using it?

[sirgiorgio]

wont get involved in al the numbers, but what i will say is this:

Converting a ccc or chances in general should not have any relation to tactics. Only the build up play and as a result getting good chances, should be related to your tactical set up.

There are no strikersor any other players for that matter - when getting ready to shot - with only the keeper infront of them, who would be thinking about "Are we playing attacking today and therefore playing in a higher tempo. Then I better shoot fast"

That does not make any sense what so ever. Everyone who has ever played the football would know that.

Totally agree.

They way I see it, your job as a "tactician" is to create more chances than your opponents. Clear cut chances, half chances, set pieces, even long shots... It depends on a number of factors. There's no way you should blame your tactics when you lose a game and your team shot 30+ times. You can blame your players or your team selection, but tactically you just humiliated your colleague. And in the long run, you should win much more matches than your colleague.

[dafuge]

But if, like in the OP, your conversion rate for CCCs to goals is a lot worse than the AI and other human managers you have to start asking questions why.

Either his striker is struggling to finish the chances or his tactics are creating CCCs that perhaps aren't as clear cut as the game is suggesting.

[Svenc]

They way I see it, your job as a "tactician" is to create more chances than your opponents.

That is a very simplistic outlook on things. Firstly it doesn't take into account what a "chance" is - which coincidentally relates to the entire topic of this thread: the ME and its very very liberal definition of a CCC, and then people interpreting CCCs occasionally as "the goal that should have been", when not even Opta and other statistic outlets define them as such. Secondly the goal is not to create more chances by encouraging a ******** of shots, which no question is easy to do in FM currently as arguably a) underdogs push very deep and back off entirelly by default and b) shot decision making can be poorer than it probably should be. The goal is to score more goals than the opposition, in general terms. Whilst statistically in real football the team who gets more shots goingn wins a match (but far from always), to amass more shots/chances is not a requirement, it is the quality you should be looking at. And sometimes the goal can be to just not concede, and grind out a nill nill draw at all costs. On the grand stages think of the Argentina side in the final of the 1990 WC, which had but one plan: to take the game to penalties so that their specialist keeper Goycochea could lift them the cup and make up for an out of form Maradona and an unavailable Caniggia not being able to turn a rather mediocre Argentina side into a serious contender in open play.

As for CCCs, stuff like this gets regularly flagged as a CCC in-game, often with the prime reason that a through ball went past the last defender and was picked up by an attacker (angels, spaces, etc. are rarely ever considered):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmj6thag7qI

There are things inherent to the ME that need adjusting (and probably interrelate to AI manager decision making, see underdogs perhaps dropping very deep too often and concentrating on denying spaces so that statistics too often resemble clashes of Celtic against Barca calibre, with even the supposedly resourceful and very patient Barca having accumulated 25 shots per tie each). But they can also be highlighted by tactics, and those naturally have a huge influence on the type of chances that are actually being created on average. Which also what this topic should be all about, as it's all about classifying those chances. And the statistics part of the game evidently not doing a very good job of that.

So if the ME calculates that a shot is saved and held how many animations are there showing that?

Don't confuse a limited number of 3d animations (player shoots with his left foot, player shoots with his right foot, players gets a header going, player dribbles, etc.) with the assumption the ME would draw from a limited pool of sequences of play that then is arbitrarily shown to represent an outcome (shot is saved). I doubt that is how it works, and it would be very much useless then to look at pretty much anything.

[sirgiorgio]

But if, like in the OP, your conversion rate for CCCs to goals is a lot worse than the AI and other human managers you have to start asking questions why.

Either his striker is struggling to finish the chances or his tactics are creating CCCs that perhaps aren't as clear cut as the game is suggesting.

IMO, in both cases the ME "fails to communicate" with the manager.

If his CCCs are not as clear cut as the game is suggesting, then the manager has no clue what's going on.

If his striker is struggling to finish the chances... A nervous/demotivated striker would probably have problems finding a chance to score in the first place. If he keeps missing chances, he's not a striker.

In game-terms, he has finishing 5, composure 5, off the ball 18 and determination 19 (because he never gives up)

That is a very simplistic outlook on things. Firstly it doesn't take into account what a "chance" is - which coincidentally relates to the entire topic of this thread: the ME and its very very liberal definition of a CCC, and then people interpreting CCCs occasionally as "the goal that should have been", when not even Opta and other statistic outlets define them as such. Secondly the goal is not to create more chances by encouraging a ******** of shots, which no question is easy to do in FM currently as arguably a) underdogs push very deep and back off entirelly by default and b) shot decision making can be poorer than it probably should be. The goal is to score more goals than the opposition, in general terms. Whilst statistically in real football the team who gets more shots goingn wins a match (but far from always), to amass more shots/chances is not a requirement, it is the quality you should be looking at.

That's the whole point. It's far too easy to create a tactic which "encourage a ******** of shots", much easier than it should be. You feel you're dominating the match even when you aren't. As for the "quality of chances", it's all relative, really. "Shoot on sight" might be a very wise idea if:

1. You're facing an inexperienced/weak/nervous goalkeeper;

2. You have a couple of Pogbas in your team;

3. The opponents are parking the bus;

4. You need to score, but your strikers aren't good enough to "work ball into box".

And in case of 1, 2 or 3, if the opponents don't close down the most dangerous long shot takers, it means they're doing a pretty lousy job at defending.

I wonder how many people use "work ball into box" and how many people use "shoot on sight"...

If your tactic is bad, you shouldn't be able to create chances at all, from long, mid or short range. More often than not if a player doesn't have a clear view of the goal (or at least a part of it) he doesn't even think of shooting.

[themadsheep2001]

If his CCCs are not as clear cut as the game is suggesting, then the manager has no clue what's going on.

This point isnt true at all in truth. You don't need the stat to judge a chance. You can watch it yourself at the time, or later through match analysis. I don't use the CCC stat at all to judge chances and see whats going on.

[sirgiorgio]

This point isnt true at all in truth. You don't need the stat to judge a chance. You can watch it yourself at the time, or later through match analysis. I don't use the CCC stat at all to judge chances and see whats going on.

Still, the stat is there, you prefer to ignore it, other people may think it's important. The game gives you dozens of ways to analyze your performances: contradictory, "useless", "flawed" or subjective stats don't help the user. Also, it might be possible that non-CCCs have an effect on a player's morale, ratings, relationship with his manager, teammates, board, fans... Just like it happened with fullbacks' ratings a couple of updates ago...

Personally, I consider "missed chance" every shot taken (and not scored) from inside the penalty area.

[themadsheep2001]

Still, the stat is there, you prefer to ignore it, other people may think it's important. The game gives you dozens of ways to analyze your performances: contradictory, "useless", "flawed" or subjective stats don't help the user. Also, it might be possible that non-CCCs have an effect on a player's morale, ratings, relationship with his manager, teammates, board, fans... Just like it happened with fullbacks' ratings a couple of updates ago...

Personally, I consider "missed chance" every shot taken (and not scored) from inside the penalty area.

The whole point of this thread is to show what people think and what is actually true are not necessarily the same thing.

The CCC stat IS subjective. That is the whole crux of the issue.

Personally, I consider "missed chance" every shot taken (and not scored) from inside the penalty area.

See that neither takes into account the quality of chance, nor would it match OPTA's definitions. You're over simplifying.

[Svenc]

That's the whole point. It's far too easy to create a tactic which "encourage a ******** of shots", much easier than it should be. You feel you're dominating the match even when you aren't.

Agreed, which is an issue. However, solely focusing all play on a few key statistics has never done much good in FM, and I actually think it should be officially discouraged to view the matches this simplistically. It is done so by community guide lines, but a few more prominent tool tips might go a long way.

The issue with interpreting statistics is that the official documentation hasn't kept up with the development of the game. With very old Champ Man games, statistics was everything you had, and the ME has gradually infused with a bit more real life football logics by making the AI a bit better and closing some holes that were there for the taking. People build teams and tactics solely with the aim of dominating isolated statistics (shots, possession), which doesn't necessarily highlight key issues that remain untackled, such as tactics struggling to break down teams sitting deep and parking the bus; and there have always been some that relied on pushing everyone forward and applying no holding roles which worked in particular with good teams to an extent, but obviously was also very prone to be hit on the break (which 100% showed in match play with each attack if you dared to look at it). Also, with popular AI cracking tactics, the team could in fact play quite horribly and the team position itself horribly disjointed, but the statistics wouldn't necessarily show as they relied on exploiting defensive weakness of the ME or AI. Additionally a few of those tactics were channeling play to a lone forward, and he having an "off-day" similarily doesn't show in the number of shots taken (or a team getting nervous after managing the encouraged attempts).

It just showed in the player's rage that sometimes followed by chances being missed, again and again and again. In the grand scheme of things, there are very very few people who don't build tactics around "dominating" matches statistically, by either going more direcot or by likewise sitting a tad deeper, for instance. I think it is no coincidence that team instructions such as "retain posession" and "play shorter" are this popular regardless of team and context, and that isn't just some players trying to counterbalance what they feel is too direct, urgent and attacking play. Anyway, if they did approach the game very differently, unless they were always facing (inferior) opponents that likewise don't commit much forward, they'd 100% witness the same dilemma, except that it is an AI pushing forward facing it. The theories and conclusions that followed were then that there were super keepers, AI having in-built advantages in terms of conversion rates, or looking at play was useless as everything "would be a mere representation" of what is actually being calculated, which apparently would be something different altogether from what you see in the match viewer (animation glitches aside in the 3d view, that simply cannot be the case).

That is a different issue altogether though, though related: As you say, surely if a side always creates 40 shots it's got to have some control over the matches. Again, arguably these numbers are exaggerated by poor shot decision making and likely AI managers having their side sit deeper on average than real teams would. I'd compare these matches to the ties between Chelsea and Barca/Bayern in the CL season of 2011/2012, or between Celtic and Barca, where both Chelsea and Celtic just backed off and just let Barca/Bayern accumulate their 120% of ball possession and 30+ shots - but won their share of crucial games regardless by denying spaces and (occasionally) also having a bit of luck - Messi and Robben missing penalties, etc. The problem then seems to be that these matches appear to happen too often in FM 2014, which might be related to an AI employing defensive mentalities against better opposition plus additionally applying a "drop far deeper" instruction as the default that is always picked regardless. I don't know though.

[sirgiorgio]

T

See that neither takes into account the quality of chance, nor would it match OPTA's definitions. You're over simplifying.

I think it's you who are over-analyzing

EPL: 864 goals outside the box from 5626 total goals

La Liga: 977 goals outside the box from 5882 total goals

Serie A: 881 goals outside the box from 5590 total goals

MLS: 452 goals outside the box from 2922 total goals.

80-85% of goals come from shots (or headers) from inside the area. Every single time a team has the ball inside the penalty area and they don't score, I consider it a missed chance whatever the outcome (players don’t shoot, players shoot when they should have passed/crossed, poor finishing, great goalkeeping…). That's how I measure the effectiveness of my tactics. If I keep missing this kind of chances, I can blame my players or I can blame the ME, certainly I don't blame my tactics, and why should I?

Svenc, I agree with you. But then again, if the ME allows teams to just sit back and enjoy the missed shots galore, then there’s something very wrong with the ME itself. What Ackter wrote about ChrisLiebing’s screenshot ("Ultra defensive opponents frustrate your players. The more frustrated they get, the more your strikers blow the good chances they get") might have sense in the game, but it has nothing to do with real football.

As for Celtic v Barcelona 2-1, I think it’s a little different from a typical West Brom v Liverpool match, and there’s a reason why everyone remembers that match and nobody remembers Barcelona v Celtic 6-1…

These matches (shots: 24-5, result: 1-2) I would compare them to "The Rumble in the Jungle", the legendary boxing match between Ali and Foreman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rumble_in_the_Jungle

A boxing videogame where you can win matches by doing what Ali did to Foreman in 1974? I would find it boring and unrealistic.

[Cougar2010]

As for Celtic v Barcelona 2-1, I think it’s a little different from a typical West Brom v Liverpool match, and there’s a reason why everyone remembers that match and nobody remembers Barcelona v Celtic 6-1…

These matches (shots: 24-5, result: 1-2) I would compare them to "The Rumble in the Jungle", the legendary boxing match between Ali and Foreman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rumble_in_the_Jungle

A boxing videogame where you can win matches by doing what Ali did to Foreman in 1974? I would find it boring and unrealistic.

You bring up Celtic beating Barcelona as a rare event and yet don't mention all the other games Barcelona fail to win (Somewhere between 25% & 33% each season).

Such as last night when they had 74% possession but drew 1-1 with Levante.

[themadsheep2001]

I think it's you who are over-analyzing

EPL: 864 goals outside the box from 5626 total goals

La Liga: 977 goals outside the box from 5882 total goals

Serie A: 881 goals outside the box from 5590 total goals

MLS: 452 goals outside the box from 2922 total goals.

80-85% of goals come from shots (or headers) from inside the area. Every single time a team has the ball inside the penalty area and they don't score, I consider it a missed chance whatever the outcome (players don’t shoot, players shoot when they should have passed/crossed, poor finishing, great goalkeeping…). That's how I measure the effectiveness of my tactics. If I keep missing this kind of chances, I can blame my players or I can blame the ME, certainly I don't blame my tactics, and why should I?

Svenc, I agree with you. But then again, if the ME allows teams to just sit back and enjoy the missed shots galore, then there’s something very wrong with the ME itself. What Ackter wrote about ChrisLiebing’s screenshot ("Ultra defensive opponents frustrate your players. The more frustrated they get, the more your strikers blow the good chances they get") might have sense in the game, but it has nothing to do with real football.

As for Celtic v Barcelona 2-1, I think it’s a little different from a typical West Brom v Liverpool match, and there’s a reason why everyone remembers that match and nobody remembers Barcelona v Celtic 6-1…

These matches (shots: 24-5, result: 1-2) I would compare them to "The Rumble in the Jungle", the legendary boxing match between Ali and Foreman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rumble_in_the_Jungle

A boxing videogame where you can win matches by doing what Ali did to Foreman in 1974? I would find it boring and unrealistic.

At no point did you take into account the quality of shot. Are the defenders in front of him? does he have a clear unspoiled sight and time on goal. There is a difference between shooting instantly when under pressure from defenders, and shooting when totally unmarked and in space. Its on that on point the definitions of half chances and CCCs in real life exist. If you ignore that you are oversimplifying, because not all chances in the box are equal, and that is a fact.

[sirgiorgio]

You bring up Celtic beating Barcelona as a rare event and yet don't mention all the other games Barcelona fail to win (Somewhere between 25% & 33% each season).

Such as last night when they had 74% possession but drew 1-1 with Levante.

I didn't bring up Celtic Barcelona. Svenc did. In fact I wrote that you can't compare Celtic v Barcelona with West Brom v Liverpool. I didn't even mention ball possession (which, IMO, has very little to do with the topic in question): I mentioned shots, shots on target and shots from inside the area.

http://espnfc.com/uk/en/report/373018/pique-saves-point?campaign=rss&source=soccernet

If these stats are true:

total shots 24 (ChrisLiebing's match 40)

shots on target 10 (ChrisLiebing's match 20).

Can't you really see the difference?

As for "rare events"... Let's say Barcelona win 7 matches out of 10. I don't know if this stat only refers to La Liga, but if you consider that they have to play against Real Madrid and Atletico (or the "third best Spanish team of the moment"), plus they play the Spanish Cup and the CL, and this means travels, fatigue, injuries, squad rotation, fixture congestion... Plus all of their players are selected for their National Teams, so more travels, more fatigue, more injuries...

And if they win 7 games out of 10 in all competitions, that is not only against Celtic and Levante, but also against Man Utd, Bayern, Dortmund, some tricky Italian team, some "nouveaux riches" from France or Russia... Well, then I would say that that to see "the best" Barcelona team losing to "the best" Celtic team is a very very rare event. A story to tell your grandchildren. And you better have proof, because they won't believe you.

At no point did you take into account the quality of shot. Are the defenders in front of him? does he have a clear unspoiled sight and time on goal. There is a difference between shooting instantly when under pressure from defenders, and shooting when totally unmarked and in space. Its on that on point the definitions of half chances and CCCs in real life exist. If you ignore that you are oversimplifying, because not all chances in the box are equal, and that is a fact.

Sure. But every chance is in the box is either a CCCs or a HF. Potentially. Defenders in from of him? How many? Two or more? This means that somewhere one of his teammates is unmarked and waiting to score. If the can't find him and he shoots "because he has nothing else to do" = bad decision making or bad technical and mental attributes or bad interpretation from the ME = missed chance. Does he have a clear unspoiled sight and time on goal? If he doesn't, then why does he shoot? Is he under pressure? I bet he is, if he's inside the penalty area... And that's why Messi in Messi, Ronaldo is Ronaldo and Rob Hulse isn't neither Messi nor Ronaldo... Shooting when totally unmarked and in space is, more often than not, the product of great attacking plays and bad defending: tactics are important, but players are much more important.

You may try and emulate Juventus tactics as long as you want, but if you don't have Pogba and Vidal you'll never score goals like these:

Speaking of facts: No manager is happy when an opposition's striker is in the box with the ball at feet. Even if he's surrounded by five defenders, it means that something hasn't worked before that. And sure as hell no manager is happy when there are 3 or 4 of his guys inside the opposition's box and they manage not to score.

[Dagenham_Dave]

It's a very rare event because they have/had a world class manager in the dugout. Which is the small, but sometimes crucial detail that's missed when people compare it to their own games.

[greco]

while clear cut chances are not exactly the same, they are defined in the same manner. A clear cut chance - defined by the game - is a good or great goal scroing opportunity. There is no need to analyze this further, as the game is telling us, that the tactics which is being used creates good or great goal scoring opportunities.

If i create - on a regular basis - a larger number of these chances, a larger number of regular chances and a larger number of half chances, all of them defined by the game, then i should win more games then i lose. The game is defining these chances in a hierachy and as such they are easy to understand.

If my tactics are proving to create more chances, then my tactics are fine. It is the game that is illogical, if tactics are being blamed for not converting chances.

[milnerpoint]

What if the game is telling you its a good chance, when its not? Which is certainly happening at the moment.

[themadsheep2001]

while clear cut chances are not exactly the same, they are defined in the same manner. A clear cut chance - defined by the game - is a good or great goal scroing opportunity. There is no need to analyze this further, as the game is telling us, that the tactics which is being used creates good or great goal scoring opportunities.

If i create - on a regular basis - a larger number of these chances, a larger number of regular chances and a larger number of half chances, all of them defined by the game, then i should win more games then i lose.

If my tactics are proving to create more chances, then my tactics are fine. It is the game that is illogical, if tactics are being blamed for not converting chances.

If

Again as has been pointed out repeatedly, the game definition is woolly, some chances being marked as CCC are not CCC. This is the basis of the thread, if people are ignoring this key point, I'm not sure its worth actually discussing it, because its pretty fundamental.

More to the point, usually most goals scored for a team as a percentage do not come from clear cut chances. In fact it's only when you include penalties that it becomes a slightly majority in favour of CCC, about 52% I think? Thats not to understate that creating CCCs is a good thing mind,.

So yes there is need to analyse it further, after all such anaylsis actually exists for the real thing.

[greco]

Again as has been pointed out repeatedly, the game definition is woolly, some chances being marked as CCC are not CCC. This is the basis of the thread, if people are ignoring this key point, I'm not sure its worth actually discussing it, because its pretty fundamental.

More to the point, usually most goals scored for a team as a percentage do not come from clear cut chances. In fact it's only when you include penalties that it becomes a slightly majority in favour of CCC, about 52% I think? Thats not to understate that creating CCCs is a good thing mind,.

So yes there is need to analyse it further, after all such anaylsis actually exists for the real thing.

You dont know if its a poor animation - which happens a lot - or a chance that is being exaggerated. whatever it is, then that should be investigated and corrected. Nobody is arguing the contrary.

I dont know what is is you are trying to argue. I clearly stated, if i produce more ccc´s, more regular and more half chances, then i should win more then not.

[dafuge]

I clearly stated, if i produce more ccc´s, more regular and more half chances, then i should win more then not.

More importantly, if you score more goals than your opponents then you will win more games.

It sound stupid, but FM tactics should be designed to score goals, not to create chances. The feedback we get through the stats (especially CCCs) just isn't reliable enough to assume that more chances means more goals.

[bradfish16]

I could just do with a shout for 'stop getting caught offside' or at least 'hold your runs'.