How clear-cut are actually CCC's?

[hangin]

This is my first post on these forums but I am a long time fan/player of this game since the earliest versions of old CM. I have found a lot of interesting and helpful articles here which has helped me understand tactics, especially those from THOG and Cleon.

Just lost 7-1 away which is just absurd considering i my defensive record has really been the strength of my team. I accept that freak results like this happen when there are so much variables at play but one thing caught my eye when viewing the match stats.

Dont know how to put out a screenshot here so I am just going to post the overall match stats:

Match result 7-1

Shots 20 vs 23

On target 12 vs 9

Off 2 vs 7

CCC 1 vs 8 !! This.

Possession 65/35

Now, i generally play 4-3-3, but switch to 4-1-4-1 DM if heavy underdog away. 4-3-3 was used this match though.

DLF(a)

W(s) W(s)

CM(a) CM(s)

DM(d)

FB(s) CD(d) CD(d) FB(a)

This i pretty much the standard setup when you choose the 4-1-2-3 DM Wide formation, but i changed the fullbacks and midfielders from (auto) to specific duties

I use no TI's as I think they generally restrict play too much and besides if I dont touch them i cant really screw up that way since I dont consider myself nowhere near a tactical genious.

My club is Bolton and we just got promoted to PL and predicted to finish 20th. Atm we are sitting in 18th 7 games in after this horrible loss against bottom-placed Southampton.

Generally I will use counter 4-3-3 or even defensive/counter strategy in a 4-5-1 away from home but figured this match was an opportunity to get a result and I stuck with 4-3-3 and went for Standard strategy from the start. Tried switching to counter since they heavily dominated possession but they just kept scoring while we burned appearently sitter after sitter.

From what I understand a CCC is a clear, unobstructed shot with a high probability of generating a goal. In the tactics analysis the game use the creation of CCC's to determine the success of tactics, how often you create them and how often the opposition creates them etc and I find it a useful tool. But its not really helpful if you cant rely on the creation of CCC's as an accurate way of measuring the success of a tactic.

This is a recurring pattern I have noticed with my tactic. Even last season in the Championship when we won the league (and the season before that finishing 8th) we had by far the most shots on target and at the same time one of the lowest shots on target ratio, ranked 15-16 or so with a 38% shots on target ratio. There is no team statistics of CCC's created as far as I know so what I got is just my general impression of the matches we play with regard to the conversion of CCC's and chances in general. It just feels like my team has to work twice as hard for a goal as most other teams. I have lost count on how many times the match summary after the game reads "Team x strikes lucky".

Of course, to increase the shots on target ratio, I could instruct every player from the midfield up to "shoot less often" but that just feels wrong. I suspect there is a deeper problem with build-up play that leads to players finding no better option than to shoot from hopeless positions. A classic is my striker getting the ball in a deep position, running 10 feet and blasting the ball away hitting absolutely nothing.

As for CCC's I have really no idea what to do.

I have experimented with 4-2-3-1 which seems to generate better quality chances, analysis shows more chances created per minute and conversion of them also seems better. But in the end I scrapped it because of defensive issues (the space behind my midfield felt too vulnerable even with one of the MC's on defend duty). But its a give and take of course.

So, I am looking for some advice on how to get more of a lethal touch up front with my 4-3-3. Are anyone else having issues like these and have you found a way to improve?

Finally, I havent touched on the subject of individual players. But since this is my 4th season and I have had the relatively better squad while in Championship and now a weak squad in PL the pattern has been the same so I dont really think the skill of individual players is the core of the problem, but I could be wrong.

I am open to any suggestions you might have.

[aderow]

The CCC stat is hit and miss imo. I tend to ignore it.

From the sounds of it, your team sat too deep. Defending deep clearly wasn't working for you for whatever reason that match and by not changing anything, it led to you conceding as many goals as you did mate. I can't speak for your chances but I know from experience what can happen when you afford your opponent too much time on the ball.

[Rhobium]

The problem I've noticed is that any shot at goal from a close enough distance is classified as a CCC.

This includes when players shoot from the byline a few metres from goal - clearly, the chances of scoring from such positions are miniscule, yet players attempt such shots time and time again rather than passing across the face of goal.

I've noticed that my tactics (with wingers and a lone striker) tend to produce a lot more opportunities like this than the AI, which certainly skews the statistics.

A knock-on effect of this is that players who get into this sort of position regularly are registered as having missed a lot of CCCs, which brings down their match ratings considerably. For me this means that fixing CCCs is quite important - SI either need to change what constitutes a CCC, or stop taking them into account when calculating ratings.

[Marassi]

People seem very preoccupied with how many CCCs their tactics create, but I think as you've noticed they're highly overrated. For one thing, not all opportunities that are classed as CCs are really great scoring chances, as Rhobium noted. For another, many shots that aren't classed as CCCs, or even half chances, are really good scoring opportunities. Additionally, the game only logs such chances if the player actuall ygets a chance to shoot. The same sequence of play could easily end with a brilliant last ditch tackle, in which case your team would get no "credit" for the build up, even though the result is essentially the same as a missed chance. Finally, when evaluating tactics or match stats, people like to focus on CCCs as representing how well their tactical plan created chances, but to be honest many CCCs are a result of set piece play, or penalties, or luck, or come in the same stretch, where one save from a clear opportunity turns into another clear chance. In short, I find CCCs to be really misleading. Of course a good performance or tactical set up is unlikely to create no CCCs, and a bad one is unlikely to create very many, but beyond that they totally flatter to deceive in my opinion. I favor using a combination of shots on target ratio, total shots vs long shots, and the chance statistics to evaluate how well we're creating. I generally regard SOTs as the best indicator of "how many we should have scored", as if players are putting the ball on target consistently they must be getting in good positions, but over the course of a single game your strikers could simply be missing from good spots, so its not perfect

[isignedupfornorealreason]

From what I understand a CCC is a clear, unobstructed shot with a high probability of generating a goal. In the tactics analysis the game use the creation of CCC's to determine the success of tactics, how often you create them and how often the opposition creates them etc and I find it a useful tool. But its not really helpful if you cant rely on the creation of CCC's as an accurate way of measuring the success of a tactic.

This is a recurring pattern I have noticed with my tactic. Even last season in the Championship when we won the league (and the season before that finishing 8th) we had by far the most shots on target and at the same time one of the lowest shots on target ratio, ranked 15-16 or so with a 38% shots on target ratio. There is no team statistics of CCC's created as far as I know so what I got is just my general impression of the matches we play with regard to the conversion of CCC's and chances in general. It just feels like my team has to work twice as hard for a goal as most other teams. I have lost count on how many times the match summary after the game reads "Team x strikes lucky".

Of course, to increase the shots on target ratio, I could instruct every player from the midfield up to "shoot less often" but that just feels wrong. I suspect there is a deeper problem with build-up play that leads to players finding no better option than to shoot from hopeless positions. A classic is my striker getting the ball in a deep position, running 10 feet and blasting the ball away hitting absolutely nothing.

As for CCC's I have really no idea what to do.

I've been having similar issues in increasing lethality in attack, so I can't offer much in the way of (good) advice there, but I'll tackle some of your points in the hope it will give you food for thought.

1. I agree with your definition of a CCC, but the game isn't always very accurate in identifying what is and what isn't a CCC.

What I like to do is watch those chances (even ones the game says isn't a CCC) and make my own judgement on it. Sometimes I'll agree with the game, for example a clean through one on one that is central and in the box. That to me is as clear as a chance you'll ever get.

On the other hand, sometimes the game identifies a CCC which is really a half chance. Say your striker breaks through the backline, but the defender catches up to him and is immediately behind or to the side of him. That's not a CCC to me, that's a chance under pressure, and the striker probably rushed it slightly more than he would have if he was miles clean through.

In other words, use your own judgement as you watch the highlights, and always give the graphics some 'leeway', sometimes you'll wonder what the graphics is representing (like a player bouncing away from the ball = he's been pushed off by the opposition). If you think the chances are great and they should be scoring, consider other factors that might be impacting them. For example, pressure? Are they on a goal-less streak? Are they under media scrutiny? Are you piling on the pressure by telling the media you're going to win and telling the players you expect to win in team talks? Maybe it is a tempo issue? Or is it a good chance, a great shot and just a fantastic save?

If on the other hand chances are rushed, or under pressure, try and work out why they're rushing it, and why they're under pressure? Is the opposition sitting back? Is there a lack of passing options?

2. Lots of shots and low % on target.

This usually implies players are taking pot shots or poor quality shots, and it could be linked to anything from a rushed style of play at high tempo, to lots of defenders in the box and a lack of options to pass to for your players. However, like I said, look back through the shots and see. In my game, I hit 45%+ on target, but sometimes it dips and I need to identify why? Sometimes I have a lot of corners and freekicks which get headed over or wide, those type of chances I'm not worried about, as they're usually difficult ones. But if they're the only chances you're getting, why is that? Have the AI parked the bus? Have they locked down the middle with 2DM's? These tactics can often cause people problems on the attack.

You mentioned your forward gets the ball, dribbles and punts it. That suggests he lacks supporting options, either around, behind or beyond him. Looking at your set up, this might be the case, because your wingers stay wide and the only realistic supporting options are the midfielders. But are they getting up to support him quick enough? Is he finding himself crowded out by defenders and this is why he tries his luck from range? Have a look at the supply and the support options around him, you've identified one problem, so now you need to identify the cause of that problem.

Hope this helps somewhat.

[Rashidi]

You should just look through your highlights at scoring chances and determine for yourself whether these were easy or not

[trajano080]

Short answer is, some if not most of them are not clear cut, and usually less than 50% end up in goals, even if it's Messi or Suarez.

[PhroX]

Short answer is, some if not most of them are not clear cut, and usually less than 50% end up in goals, even if it's Messi or Suarez.

Thing is, in real football, the kind of things people would probably consider a clear cut chance - say, 1-on-1 with the keeper, relatively central - don't actually have that great a conversion rate even for the best players so the fact that people like that aren't even getting a 50% scoring rate for CCCs isn't unrealistic.

That said, I certainly don't always agree with the game's definition of CCCs / half chances. It tends to overrate chances from tight angles and/or situations with defenders in positions to block the shots, and possibly underrates headed chances - free headers around the 6 yard box often don't even register as a HC.

I don't think it's a useless stat, just one that shouldn't be taken as the ultimate definition of a good tactic. Even with the sometimes dodgy definition, a tactic that can create a lot of CCCs is probably, other things equal, going to be more successful than one that doesn't create many. If my team are consistently having problems creating CCCs, then it is a indication that either my strikers or creators might be having issues, and it is something I will want to look at in more detail. It might just be that the game is not rating the chances I'm creating properly and everything is fine, but it might be a sign that I need to tweak my offensive setup (likewise, if the opposition are getting a lot, then I will start looking at my defense in more detail).

[Kenco]

I can't speak for FM16 as I haven't played it much, but in previous versions from my observations I believe something was classed a CCC if a player had a shot at goal with no other player (except the GK) between him and the goal at the moment of the strike. Regardless of the distance or angle, meaning some that may not appear that easy to your eye were classed as a CCC by the game.

Ultimately, the calculation is flawed and you should judge for yourself what is a chance or not.