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

[sirgiorgio]

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.

It's not stupid at all, but it's wrong for two reasons:

1. Managers don't score goals, players do. The game is called Football Manager, not Footballer of the Year (for those who remember it);

2. If only goals matter, then exploitative tactics (tactics which exploit the flaws in the ME) are better than "sound and logic" ones. After all these years, after all the twelve steps guides... I thought the game was a bit more complicated than that.

If stats aren't reliable (except goals scored/conceded) then we have a problem. A huge one.

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.

AI managers (all of them) are much more stupid than real managers. Which is the not so small and definitely crucial detail that’s missed when people compare Football Manager to real football.

A lot of people here are complaining because they see AI teams underperforming and/or because the teams they control play much better than AI teams and yet they fail to win matches.

So, yes, you kind of prove my point, even if you just wanted to sound witty.

[Svenc]

A lot of people here are complaining because they see AI teams underperforming and/or because the teams they control play much better than AI teams and yet they fail to win matches.

So, yes, you kind of prove my point, even if you just wanted to sound witty.

They play better statistically, which doesn't necessarily mean they are as dominating as the numbers make it appear (this is true in real football as well), especially not looking at statistics this simplistically: You could get twenty shots going vs the opposition 7, but strangely those 7, that is a 100% percentage could have been all on target because you were hit on the break each time when going forward (all can be caused or made more prone to happen by either tactics or player selection). Take a look at all the CCCs and shots you get going rather than merely looking at and amassing huge numbers of possession and shots (which mean little in and on itself in real football as well, and then imagine a real football manager instructing his team to "attempt at least 15 shots on goal" -- that sounds awkwardly Charles Reep actually, both in terms of stat obsession and playing the numbers game, if that name rings familiar).

Some statistics aren't 100% reliable, however, that has nothing to do with the match play and action not being reliable. Rather that some match actions are being counted as something they often aren't (most obviously, a good number of CCCs, but there is also bad shooting decisions which immediately increase the shot count - but then in real football classifying chances is also highly subjective). And probably some AI teams on average are dropping off too deep by default, I don't know (as I brought up Celtic-Barca as an example, it's not only Celtic who beat Barca that way.. except for Bayern and a few other teams plenty of teams just let Barca pass it around all park and sat back and soak up the pressure, for a while everyone appeared to adopt this from Mourinho's Inter who probably successfully did it first on CL levels). Then there's also bad shooting decisions which immediately ups the shot count by one, and then another.

This all goes both ways, this is a human player doing likewise and still almost getting a result:

I agree that these matches appear to readily. What SI should proactively dzill do something against themselves is the culture of player that overly obsesses over possession statistics and shot counts without giving each statistic any kind of context. Statistics are counted (sometimes in fishy ways) based on match play the ME produces based on the input given (player attributes, tactics, morale, etc.etc.). As in "real football", it is the play that produces statistics, not the other way around. Exploit tactics didn't/don't succeed by producing some better "statistics" in their often crap football and disjointed team shapes on display. They exploited loop holes in the AI or engine, such as movement patterns, attackers being previously able to run straight through markers off the ball or that AI default tactics in FM 2012 never reacted if you had 7 players on "defend" duty with 3 DM's frustrating the hell out of it (this is no magic, it is just that no AI tactics ever pushed enough men forward to effeciently break this down). I'm convinced in most case the creators don't even recognize why something works, they just trial&error until they hit onto something. If it was the other way 'round, the ME would arbitrarily create sequences of play that would suit a statistics or outcome calculated beforehand. Which is really the only viable way in which anyone could value those few statistics in isolation this highly, if you ask me.

[Erith22]

First, I want to point out something in the original post. Those stats don't tell us how many of those goals were actually made off of the CCCs vs regular shots.

In fact, most of them were not. So the idea that its showing some kind of conversion rate is inaccurate. We can only know the conversion rate of shots on target to goals (minus the random own goal), by looking at the stats.

My point being that the AI is not converting a higher percentage of CCC than I am (thus, it's not my 'tactics'). The AI is just converting roughly the same number of shots on target, and CCC have no correlation to the actual scoring at all.

I am doing a match now where the typical scenario that I think everyone sees happened again. Through ball has my striker clean through about 40 yards from goal. He dribbles DIRECTLY at the opposition goalie with no variation until he's about 12 yards away from goal, and shoots it directly at the goalie. He makes no attempt at a move or try to shoot around the keeper.

It sounds like from links to the bug forum that SI already knows that one on ones are converted at too poor a rate. But that goes back to my other point, they can't tweak that up without disrupting the total number of goals scored and creating unrealistic stats. The poster who said that it 'doesn't work that way', well I am not sure how they can justify that. If the game is currently generating a roughly realistic amount of goals, but some chances are not being converted at a realistically high rate, then that means some other chance is being converted at too high a rate and would need to be corrected (in this case, I'm pretty sure its corner kicks).

[dafuge]

If stats aren't reliable (except goals scored/conceded) then we have a problem. A huge one.

That was the point I was making. CCCs are not reliable enough to build tactics from (and they should be). Tactics need to be designed to maximise the number of goals, not the number of CCCs.

[themadsheep2001]

First, I want to point out something in the original post. Those stats don't tell us how many of those goals were actually made off of the CCCs vs regular shots.

In fact, most of them were not. So the idea that its showing some kind of conversion rate is inaccurate. We can only know the conversion rate of shots on target to goals (minus the random own goal), by looking at the stats.

My point being that the AI is not converting a higher percentage of CCC than I am (thus, it's not my 'tactics'). The AI is just converting roughly the same number of shots on target, and CCC have no correlation to the actual scoring at all.

I am doing a match now where the typical scenario that I think everyone sees happened again. Through ball has my striker clean through about 40 yards from goal. He dribbles DIRECTLY at the opposition goalie with no variation until he's about 12 yards away from goal, and shoots it directly at the goalie. He makes no attempt at a move or try to shoot around the keeper.

It sounds like from links to the bug forum that SI already knows that one on ones are converted at too poor a rate. But that goes back to my other point, they can't tweak that up without disrupting the total number of goals scored and creating unrealistic stats. The poster who said that it 'doesn't work that way', well I am not sure how they can justify that. If the game is currently generating a roughly realistic amount of goals, but some chances are not being converted at a realistically high rate, then that means some other chance is being converted at too high a rate and would need to be corrected (in this case, I'm pretty sure its corner kicks).

I can quite easily, because you have made the assumption that's the only area that can be improved. For example wide defence and covering/shifting can be improved, which would cut down such chances. For example they are/would be dealing with the corners regardless of one on ones, then looking probably looking at overall wide play ( I hope so anyway). If there were too many goals, they would look at why.

[themadsheep2001]

That was the point I was making. CCCs are not reliable enough to build tactics from (and they should be). Tactics need to be designed to maximise the number of goals, not the number of CCCs.

Yep and my point was that the subjective nature of CCCs mean I'm not convinced they will ever be reliable enough (hence why I say players should look at the chances themselves).

[sirgiorgio]

Then there's also bad shooting decisions which immediately ups the shot count by one, and then another.

That's THE problem, if you ask me.

No player shoots unless he's certain to score. Or at least almost certain. Bad tactics = no shots. Or maybe two or three long shots very late in the game, taken out of frustration or desperation...

20 shots = great tactics. 30+ shots = incredibly good tactics + a non-existent opponent.

If the ME doesn't work this way, let's hope the new update will be better than this one.

That's not a simplistic way to look at things, it's the only way, as far as I'm concerned.

[Dagenham_Dave]

No player shoots unless he's certain to score. Or at least almost certain.

This has to be a wind up.

[themadsheep2001]

That's THE problem, if you ask me.

No player shoots unless he's certain to score. Or at least almost certain. Bad tactics = no shots. Or maybe two or three long shots very late in the game, taken out of frustration or desperation...

20 shots = great tactics. 30+ shots = incredibly good tactics + a non-existent opponent.

If the ME doesn't work this way, let's hope the new update will be better than this one.

That's not a simplistic way to look at things, it's the only way, as far as I'm concerned.

That is completely wrong, sorry. Just watching the first 15 minutes of the West ham game kills that stance. Watching any 90 minutes of football will prove that wrong.

[Harmonica]

Unfortunately the team with the most posession, shots, corners, or even the team that is considered the downright favourite on paper, does not really have that much of an advantage in football. SI try to get as close to emulating the game's production of statistics as it can, but they have also (correctly) moved the game away from directly divining results in line with those stats (or at least, far enough away to again resemble reality).

If anyone really wants to get into football/sports statistics in a big way, they should read The Numbers Game, it pretty much puts to bed a lot of myths about conversion rates from certain stats, such as those talked about in this thread.

Tactics need to be designed to maximise the number of goals, not the number of CCCs.

Not conceding is worth more than scoring, statistically. It boils down to manager philosophy as to how much emphasis they place on playing attacking football versus defending their own goal, but a good team (and tactic) is built on a good defence.

I think the issue is being correctly interpreted by posters who say that too many CCCs are being generated. The stat has been in the game for a long time, but it has been more accurate and reliable. Of course, this mostly affects those players who like to sim through seasons very quickly. For those who watch the matches in whatever detail this is less of an issue; you can see how you team is playing, whether they are really generating chances, and the quality of those chances.

Something I'd note is that the ME does seem to consider a lot of frivolous (non-) chances highlight worthy, and it also likes to say chances 'would have been a great goal' WAY more this version, usually for ridiculous punts from 30 yards which go out for a throw in.

[BiggusD]

I think you are all forgetting one key point:

How easy is it to create chances in modern, professional football?

The answer is, of course; not easy at all! It is the hardest thing of them all.

Looking at the statistics in this thread and in the feedback thread, how easy is it to create chances in FM14? The answer is, of course; very easy! It is the easiest thing of them all! Just about any "noob" manage to set up a tactic, push "Play" and end up creating 20-30 shots and half of them on target and then come on here ranting about bugs or unfairness.

Edit: a more pointed question; where is the "resistance" in the midfield in FM14? 14.2 is about two sides camping in front of both goals. Of course there are many shots!

[sirgiorgio]

That is completely wrong, sorry. Just watching the first 15 minutes of the West ham game kills that stance. Watching any 90 minutes of football will prove that wrong.

Sorry, but you are very wrong.

http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/29/Statistics/England-West-Ham

Shots per game 12. Which is consistent with the stats I posted about Serie A.

[themadsheep2001]

Sorry, but you are very wrong.

http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/29/Statistics/England-West-Ham

Shots per game 12. Which is consistent with the stats I posted about Serie A.

What are you talking about? That hasn't got anything to do with what you said. You said no player shoots unless he is certain to score. That is 100% wrong. I said nothing about Serie A. It's nothing to with how many shots they take. The idea that a player only shots when they are certain to score is wrong.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Edit: a more pointed question; where is the "resistance" in the midfield in FM14? 14.2 is about two sides camping in front of both goals. Of course there are many shots!

And yet, if you look at your tackles won analysis in any given game, the amount of tackles won in midfield dwarfs the real life amount more often than not. You get some midfielders winning 10+ tackles in a game, where in real life, seven in one game would be considered high.

[Svenc]

Edit: a more pointed question; where is the "resistance" in the midfield in FM14? 14.2 is about two sides camping in front of both goals. Of course there are many shots!

Compared to real football earlier somebody made a great post, I think. FM hasn't found a way to truly model defending as a unit yet, it is too often isolated players stepping up and closing down. However, I disagree that there is no resistance and that teams would just back off. Even in the matches a side gets hammered "statistically", there can be (and often are) loads of interceptions much higher up the pitch, which everybody can check out. This isn't just tackles, though FM has always relied of them heavily, there's also moves being anticipated and intercepted etc.

That was one of the early FM 2013 ME versions was actually really like: Teams would just really back off by default upon loosing the ball. Sadly the screenshots I uploaded back then are off, but for a while it didn't matter what you or the AI did. I had frequent pre-season friendlies in which amateur teams kept statistics even or had 85%+ in pass success ratio simply because every team when in possession could pass it about unchallenged right into the opposition's third. It was like matches of handball being played out. Wouldn't say that this is the reason for some of the shooting stats in FM 2014 though, in particular as defending has always been kind of isolated in FM so far, and the play is nothing what early FM 2013 used to be like.

[BiggusD]

Compared to real football earlier somebody made a great post, I think. FM hasn't found a way to truly model defending as a unit yet, it is too often isolated players stepping up and closing down. However, I disagree that there is no resistance and that teams would just back off. Even in the matches a side gets hammered "statistically", there can be (and often are) loads of interceptions much higher up the pitch, which everybody can check out. This isn't just tackles, though FM has always relied of them heavily, there's also moves being anticipated and intercepted etc.

That was one of the early FM 2013 ME versions was actually really like: Teams would just really back off by default upon loosing the ball. Sadly the screenshots I uploaded back then are off, but for a while it didn't matter what you or the AI did. I had frequent pre-season friendlies in which amateur teams kept statistics even or had 85%+ in pass success ratio simply because every team when in possession could pass it about unchallenged right into the opposition's third. It was like matches of handball being played out. Wouldn't say that this is the reason for some of the shooting stats in FM 2014 though, in particular as defending has always been kind of isolated in FM so far, and the play is nothing what early FM 2013 used to be like.

I didn't mean backing off. That is actually quite okay in 14.2 - the teams will close down and stuff like that. However, watching highlights, long passing sequences often leads to chances and it is only when the attacking team is straight in front of the goal or in the box that it becomes too tight to do anything useful, leading to many pointless shots and blocked crosses. In real life, passing through the centre of the pitch is risky and difficult to pull off without extremely technical players. In FM, that is not a requirement - "any team" can do that against "anyone" as long as their tactic is correctly set up. This also leads to many shots and the rhetorical question "well, if the AI could do that (refering to sudden excellent attacking football) whenever they wanted to, why didn't they do so the entire match and win 14-0?" And "why bother paying millions for star players when you can do the same thing with anyone?"

On a more serious note: FM needs a carefully crafted balance between the three core gameplay modes Tactics, Team Building and Man Management. A customer should achieve moderate success "mastering" one of the three, good success mastering two and great success mastering all three.

As it is now, and I think many would agree with me on this; Tactics play too big a part.

While it is a given that it should be possible to figure out exactly the right approach to a certain match, and to adjust things in-match to gain an even bigger advantage, that "detailed game-plan management" where the players carry out orders to the letter and the game thus ends up being a battle-of-wits between the user and the AI managers, this kind of gameplay should be reserved for the Very Rigid and Rigid philosophies specifically. When you select Fluid and Very Fluid, you are telling SI that you more or less want to leave that kind of adaptation up to your players, taking the gameplay (on matchday) out of the chalked squares on the sidelines and out on the pitch.

I don't feel that the latter approach is as well-supported in FM14 as in earlier iterations.

[Svenc]

On a more serious note: FM needs a carefully crafted balance between the three core gameplay modes Tactics, Team Building and Man Management. A customer should achieve moderate success "mastering" one of the three, good success mastering two and great success mastering all three.

As it is now, and I think many would agree with me on this; Tactics play too big a part.

I don't know. I did test what would happen if a team of great players was hampered by really horrible tactics (8 players sitting back and pumping balls in the direction of 3 completels isolated forwards) for instance, but due to the quality of the forwards and their ability to cause trouble without much support that still didn't hurt as much as I'd think it would. Naturally the team did underperform a good deal, but then nobody is setting up tactics like that, do they? I think you can still do good simply by fielding valid tactics, but the way the game sets up tactics, that must have a halfway solid set-up of roles and duties, as those determine team shape.

But that's just my experience, and whilst I like to micro battle or specifically try to infuse a side with a certain style (buying players for it , settign up training regimes and then tailoring instructions to suit), it's far from that I'm doing that all game. That is just my personal experience though, and as we know, in a game as open ended as this those can wildly differ.

[sporadicsmiles]

On a more serious note: FM needs a carefully crafted balance between the three core gameplay modes Tactics, Team Building and Man Management. A customer should achieve moderate success "mastering" one of the three, good success mastering two and great success mastering all three.

As it is now, and I think many would agree with me on this; Tactics play too big a part.

I am not sure I agree with you there. You are suggesting that if you can build a good team and motivate them you shouldn't have to care about the tactics at all to win games and trophies. I mean to some extent that is already true - if you take over as, say, Man City, and can build and motivate a good team you will do well regardless of how you play (in general). But football is not won by buying players, or making them happy. It is won by scoring more goals and beating other teams. You beat them on the pitch - with a combination of having better players and exploiting weaknesses in your opponents. You are suggesting that each of the three elements can be decoupled for the other, and this is really not the case. Long term success requires being able to do all three of the things you mention.

At least, this is my opinion on it. I also feel with CCCs, it is very easy to just look at the stat, and not the chance. I realise this has been mentioned before, but there is a world of difference between a player getting the ball at his feet in the box, with time to compose himself and shoot, and a player running through on goal being chased by a defender who is just behind him, and facing an out-rushing 'keeper. Both would be classed as CCC, but the former is much more likely to result in a goal than the latter. There are so many reasons for a player to fail to convert a CCC that unless you actually look at each of them and try to understand why they missed (and why they scored), you cannot really make broad generalisations about the game.

And at the end of the day, you do not read people complaining when they win a game that was reasonably even (statistically speaking and whilst watching) 2-0 whilst both teams have, say, 10 shots, 1 CCC, 50% possession. You get games like this, some which you win and some which you lose. You get games you dominate and win comfortably. Some games you cannot score because either you play badly or the opposition plays well in defence. Sometimes you get a 0-0 or 1-0 with only 1 or 2 shots all match. I mean this is what happens - no player scores every 1 on 1, and no team wins 100% of the games they dominate.

[sirgiorgio]

What are you talking about? That hasn't got anything to do with what you said. You said no player shoots unless he is certain to score. That is 100% wrong. I said nothing about Serie A. It's nothing to with how many shots they take. The idea that a player only shots when they are certain to score is wrong.

I thought you were referring to the number of shots teams take. 12 is the magic number; of course it depends on teams, players, football culture and, to some extent, tactics, but they sure need to be reduced in the game. Starting from the next update, I hope.

So you say the idea that a player only shots when they are certain to score is wrong. Reasons why a player takes a long shot when he's not certain to score:

1. hears voices in his head telling him to shoot;

2. likes to waste possession;

3. was bribed;

4. hates his teammates, doesn't want to pass the ball;

5. on some rare occasions, he's just frustrated and wants to send a message: "Come on guys, we need to score but we're not trying hard enough!"

I can't think of anything else.

And why should a player shoot when he's inside the box? Because that's the first (and sometimes only) option they have. Maybe better players find better options, but you can't blame them for trying. Inside the box: where 75% of goals are scored. When they are inside the box and take a shot, they must know they're having a great chance to score. If they're not certain to score, then they have huge self-esteem issues.

[themadsheep2001]

Players shoot from range a fair bit in real life too, varies on the side obviously, but its about 25% now? I have no idea why they do, because the conversion rate for shots outside the box is 1 in 30. To put that into context, the conversion rate for free kicks is 1 in 15.

And why should a player shoot when he's inside the box? Because that's the first (and sometimes only) option they have. Maybe better players find better options, but you can't blame them for trying. Inside the box: where 75% of goals are scored. When they are inside the box and take a shot, they must know they're having a great chance to score

They shoot because they think they can score, not because they are almost certain of scoring. It's semantics but its an important point to distinguish.

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/10/premier-league-shot-benchmarks/

[BiggusD]

I am not sure I agree with you there. You are suggesting that if you can build a good team and motivate them you shouldn't have to care about the tactics at all to win games and trophies. I mean to some extent that is already true - if you take over as, say, Man City, and can build and motivate a good team you will do well regardless of how you play (in general). But football is not won by buying players, or making them happy. It is won by scoring more goals and beating other teams. You beat them on the pitch - with a combination of having better players and exploiting weaknesses in your opponents. You are suggesting that each of the three elements can be decoupled for the other, and this is really not the case. Long term success requires being able to do all three of the things you mention.

At least, this is my opinion on it. I also feel with CCCs, it is very easy to just look at the stat, and not the chance. I realise this has been mentioned before, but there is a world of difference between a player getting the ball at his feet in the box, with time to compose himself and shoot, and a player running through on goal being chased by a defender who is just behind him, and facing an out-rushing 'keeper. Both would be classed as CCC, but the former is much more likely to result in a goal than the latter. There are so many reasons for a player to fail to convert a CCC that unless you actually look at each of them and try to understand why they missed (and why they scored), you cannot really make broad generalisations about the game.

And at the end of the day, you do not read people complaining when they win a game that was reasonably even (statistically speaking and whilst watching) 2-0 whilst both teams have, say, 10 shots, 1 CCC, 50% possession. You get games like this, some which you win and some which you lose. You get games you dominate and win comfortably. Some games you cannot score because either you play badly or the opposition plays well in defence. Sometimes you get a 0-0 or 1-0 with only 1 or 2 shots all match. I mean this is what happens - no player scores every 1 on 1, and no team wins 100% of the games they dominate.

I'd say that the difference between "moderate success" and "great success" is precisely that of getting to the top and staying there. Re-creating success is more challenging than creating it in the first place. That was one of the best improvements from pre-FM12 to FM13; the AI had more tools to deal with teams in form. It is even stronger in FM14 but I think each tactic I have tried so far is too specialized for my tastes.

I also used the word "mastering" about each of those three aspects of the game. When you have mastered tactics in FM this means that you are better at it than the AI. I didn't mean to say that it should be possible to set up a mess of a tactic and be completely fine (and I didn't say that).

[Erith22]

I can quite easily, because you have made the assumption that's the only area that can be improved. For example wide defence and covering/shifting can be improved, which would cut down such chances. For example they are/would be dealing with the corners regardless of one on ones, then looking probably looking at overall wide play ( I hope so anyway). If there were too many goals, they would look at why.

I don't think you are interpreting what I said properly.

Some things in the match engine are easier to fix than others.

It's likely relatively easily to increase the conversion rate of one-on-ones because there are less factors involved.

Tweaking wide play, overall defensive quality, etc, involves MANY complex factors.

They can't make a relatively simple fix on one-on-ones because then it would require a relatively complex fix in wide play to compensate. So the result is we get stuck with bad one-on-ones because they can't fix other issues that let in too many goals.

[themadsheep2001]

I don't think you are interpreting what I said properly.

Some things in the match engine are easier to fix than others.

It's likely relatively easily to increase the conversion rate of one-on-ones because there are less factors involved.

Tweaking wide play, overall defensive quality, etc, involves MANY complex factors.

They can't make a relatively simple fix on one-on-ones because then it would require a relatively complex fix in wide play to compensate. So the result is we get stuck with bad one-on-ones because they can't fix other issues that let in too many goals.

I interpreted it correctly. It's actually not that simple, because you have to balance players cutting through the middle too easily, and of course, improve goal keepers, among others.

Of course its complex, but that is still how they work. They don't take the shortcuts. And now you begin to appreciate the complexity actually improving any one aspect of the ME. They will sort the one on ones out because they want/need to. At the same time they must deal with the chances that shouldn't be occurring through issues defensively. At the same time they will look to sort out wide play because they need to. Take a look at any ME update list and you'll appreciate this. There are reasons why updates come together in bundles, because they balance together.

And that's not why you are left with that, you are left with that because they feel its a good place to cut off before the next round of fixes.

[sirgiorgio]

Players shoot from range a fair bit in real life too, varies on the side obviously, but its about 25% now? I have no idea why they do, because the conversion rate for shots outside the box is 1 in 30. To put that into context, the conversion rate for free kicks is 1 in 15.

They shoot because they think they can score, not because they are almost certain of scoring. It's semantics but its an important point to distinguish.

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/10/premier-league-shot-benchmarks/

Yep, I meant 85%.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382111-CCC-don-t-matter-this-year-only-Shots-on-Target?p=9372038&viewfull=1#post9372038

And yes, we may say "they think they can score" and not "they are almost certain to score" (although I think you are confusing what you perceive from the outside as a viewer and what a player perceives on the pitch).

If you're genuinely wondering why they keep taking long shots (just like I do whenever I play FM ) a possible explanation is here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382111-CCC-don-t-matter-this-year-only-Shots-on-Target?p=9370780&viewfull=1#post9370780 (second part of the post).

Also bear in mind that a fair amount of goals nowadays come from situations where a long shot is taken, the keeper decides to punch the ball away or just can't to control it and the striker scores on the rebound. Something I never saw in FM, btw; in fact, I sometimes stare in shock as a keeper blocks a shot inside a crowded area as if it was the easiest thing to do.

[Erith22]

Yep, I meant 85%.

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382111-CCC-don-t-matter-this-year-only-Shots-on-Target?p=9372038&viewfull=1#post9372038

And yes, we may say "they think they can score" and not "they are almost certain to score" (although I think you are confusing what you perceive from the outside as a viewer and what a player perceives on the pitch).

If you're genuinely wondering why they keep taking long shots (just like I do whenever I play FM ) a possible explanation is here:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/382111-CCC-don-t-matter-this-year-only-Shots-on-Target?p=9370780&viewfull=1#post9370780 (second part of the post).

Also bear in mind that a fair amount of goals nowadays come from situations where a long shot is taken, the keeper decides to punch the ball away or just can't to control it and the striker scores on the rebound. Something I never saw in FM, btw; in fact, I sometimes stare in shock as a keeper blocks a shot inside a crowded area as if it was the easiest thing to do.

It's true that which shots the keeper holds and which they deflect seem totally random. Often they botch lightly hit chances and cling onto rockets at point blank range.

[Harmonica]

Yeah, the best conversion rate for game events (in real life) is when a shot or delivery is defended in the box, but the clearance does not remove the ball from the box (ie, ball is knocked down into the box by whatever means: deflection, woodwork, keeper parry, defender block, etc). If you were designing a superior tactic you would try to generate as much of these events as possible.

Shooting from range often produces such events. The attacking side banks on their ability to react quicker (and generally, they can, unless against the very best of defenders). This is probably why managers do not ever (or very rarely) instruct players to never shoot from range.

In my experience with this FM, though, I have seen plenty of these fumbles inside the box, so I'm not sure I'd agree they are missing from the game (though perhaps they were more common in recent previous years).

[themadsheep2001]

Yeah, the best conversion rate for game events (in real life) is when a shot or delivery is defended in the box, but the clearance does not remove the ball from the box (ie, ball is knocked down into the box by whatever means: deflection, woodwork, keeper parry, defender block, etc). If you were designing a superior tactic you would try to generate as much of these events as possible.

Shooting from range often produces such events. The attacking side banks on their ability to react quicker (and generally, they can, unless against the very best of defenders). This is probably why managers do not ever (or very rarely) instruct players to never shoot from range.

In my experience with this FM, though, I have seen plenty of these fumbles inside the box, so I'm not sure I'd agree they are missing from the game (though perhaps they were more common in recent previous years).

Makes sense, because the primary product (the original long shot) has such a poor direct return I wonder why they bother, that said, the number of long shots ( in the Prem anyway ) has fallen year on year for the last 5

[El Presidente]

Statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything.

That's there strength AND weakness.

[eple]

Jumping in here without having read most of the thread, sorry. Just wanted to show this as I just experienced a very entertaining game. Not many CCC but lots of goals. 3 of the 10 goals were from set pieces(Two indirect freekicks and a penalty) and the rest a good mix from open play.

[Flohrinho]

What really annoys me is that my players seem to be incapable of even getting shots from inside the box on target. Let alone long shots, Pogba for example has a long shot rating of 18 but I can't remember him ever scoring a long range shot in this game.