Lets Assume It's "MY" Fault (time to ask for help?)

[wwfan]

Rupal's example, by the way, falls down at every level. If Ryan Giggs can't reach the cross, it is not a clear cut chance. You have a 0% chance of diverting a ball you can't get to into the net.

I think we can all agree that a 0% scoring chance won't be displayed as a CCC.

[Rupal]

Rupal's example, by the way, falls down at every level. If Ryan Giggs can't reach the cross, it is not a clear cut chance. You have a 0% chance of diverting a ball you can't get to into the net.

I think we can all agree that a 0% scoring chance won't be displayed as a CCC.

But wwfan, how do you know which of the two identical situations with the header is or is not counted as a CCC without looking at the other factors?

Looking at a given situation in the match may lead you to assume that what you are seeing is a CCC when, in fact, it isn't at all. That's the whole point - looking at the match and saying 'there was a dead easy CCC' isn't necessarily going to be right at all. This won't be displayed as a CCC in the match stats in the Giggs/Crouch situation but you won't know that by just looking at it.

Get it now?

[Rupal]

However, if you wish to keep on listening to people who just agree with you and argue against what I know the solution to be, which stands somewhat against your plea for help, then go ahead.

For the umpteenth time, you don't know it at all. You assume it.

[Mitja]

Mitja: just remember that you don't have to use exactly the same settings as the AI to win, because there are actually many AI tactical settings that work. But they do have 'patterns' when implmenting sliders and settings, the combination of sliders create the different things you want to get out of the match (trust me it is not an exact science). The problem with this is that contadictory settings create a form of tactical melt-down which can be misleading. This has been the case for the last versions and I don't know if they have figured the way around it.

You can look at the ME kind of the same way you look at a chess board. Player attributes and tactical settings create 'valuables' which is translated onto the ME and you can move certain aspects around on this chess board. If you get some the settings right the ME still registers this and shows the effects on the match stats, but due to some heavy contradictory setting somewhere the result misfires. How are they going to get around this without causing other problems? Because fixing this could result in teams not getting any shots on goal then at all for example, which will cause the greatest "unrealistic" cry in the forum's history.

I think if we went back to the old days, and as much as people want them back, I still believe it will be too retro for the modern gamer...

without any intention to be rude i really don't know what you're trying to say. i read your post 4 times...

i hope you guys forgive me for going way off topic but tehse 2 things are conected and are the core of the problem. what your post does show me, and we probably agree, is over-complicated nature of tactical interface. there shouldn't be anything like the right settings imo (don't take me literally please). the real problem are incomprehensible effects of sliders in combination with almost each having strange amount of 20 notches. i salute the removal of sliders but that was small (but important) fix, compared to the real problem. we need to know what is the product and difference of mentality at 5th, 8th or 17th notch. is passing at 1st notch a 5 yard pass or amount of short passes the player will try to play? where do players start pressing at 1st notch? we need instructions not 'increasing system of unknown effect', words not numbers.

out of pocket this is how i would change mentality slider:

DEFENSIVE DUTIES: (tendency/instruction to concentrate on defending rather than attacking)

- high - normal - low

PASSING MENTALITY: (works with passing distance instructions)

- play safely - balanced - play risky

VERTICAL MOVEMENT INSTRUCTIONS: (it's a tendency, works when team has possesion)

- come deep - hold position - mixed - move forward

HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT INSTRUCTIONS:

- move inside - hold position - mixed - hug line

[ham_aka_stam]

If the game will punish you one way or the other if you restart, why not restart every game you play until you get what you believe to be the right result. Then, as the season gets later and later, your chances of winning will become ridiculously low if your theory is correct.

For the record, there is no factor in the game which punishes over-achieving teams (imo) to the detriment of the user. What is actually happening is that you are creating many rushed chances which are beyond your player's abilities to put away. This may work fine against teams who attack against you as they will leave holes for your fast tactics to take advantage of. However, against teams who set-up defensively, your team will rush instead of playing the slow build up which is needed against such teams. There is also the factor of morale (including confidence and therefore over-confidence/complacency), the factor of the weather (short passing and dribbling being less effective on wet pitches, and long passes being less effective in wind), and of course luck. This luck is not a programmed luck, but merely the luck of the draw, a roll of the dice or whatever.

If you are losing games in which teams have very few chances against you, but put one away at the end, do not only consider the oppositions composure (as was mentioned earlier) but also your team's concentration. They have not had to face many chances yet, so if they aren't really concentrating or are complacent of your strikers scoring, they may let in chances they should be saving.

[ham_aka_stam]

sorry, the above post was typed having only read the first page, I hope it is still relevant

[Mitja]

Rupal's example, by the way, falls down at every level. If Ryan Giggs can't reach the cross, it is not a clear cut chance. You have a 0% chance of diverting a ball you can't get to into the net.

I think we can all agree that a 0% scoring chance won't be displayed as a CCC.

i agree here with wwfan. a CCC should be a CCC no metter player's skills/strength/speed... like i said, one on one situation is is a CCC for Etoo and a tap in isn't for Bramble. it can't be like that. that's why some players are better at scoring than others. i also belive a CCC is a CCC in newspapers and other media. also agree that there are different types of CCCs but that's a subjective opinum and not relevant over a course of season.

[wwfan]

You may not trust your subjective judgement. I trust mine and have been proved right on enough occasions to stand by it. Judging the relative quality of CCCs is a useful game skill. Learning and applying it helps play the game. Football is subjective, so it stands to reason that reading the ME needs a degree of subjective skill as well. Reducing it to stats, and refusing to look deeper, is self-inflicted blindness. Refusing to believe that others can do it, and do it well, is delusional.

For the umpteenth time, you don't know it at all. You assume it.

I know it. I've made the same argument for 3.5 years and proved it many times in many ways, to the satisaction of others, not just myself. The main evidence is never having matches like Hammer does because I open up against such opposition. However, Hammer never tries my solution, or gives up on it the moment he makes a bad decision and match stats go against him. Stats as blindness once more.

[Mitja]

But wwfan, how do you know which of the two identical situations with the header is or is not counted as a CCC without looking at the other factors?

Looking at a given situation in the match may lead you to assume that what you are seeing is a CCC when, in fact, it isn't at all. That's the whole point - looking at the match and saying 'there was a dead easy CCC' isn't necessarily going to be right at all. This won't be displayed as a CCC in the match stats in the Giggs/Crouch situation but you won't know that by just looking at it.

Get it now?

if both reached the ball it should. if only Crouch reached it and Giggs didn't then it should count only Crouch's.

[Mitja]

For the record, there is no factor in the game which punishes over-achieving teams (imo) to the detriment of the user. What is actually happening is that you are creating many rushed chances which are beyond your player's abilities to put away. This may work fine against teams who attack against you as they will leave holes for your fast tactics to take advantage of. However, against teams who set-up defensively, your team will rush instead of playing the slow build up which is needed against such teams.

this idea is massivly flawed when you compare it to RL football, i hope you're awere of that. i've never seen Man Utd playing slow build up just becouse opponents play defensivly. what is a rushed chance? what can we do aboit it? what does the game tell us about it?

[Rupal]

i agree here with wwfan. a CCC should be a CCC no metter player's skills/strength/speed... like i said, one on one situation is is a CCC for Etoo and a tap in isn't for Bramble. it can't be like that. that's why some players are better at scoring than others. i also belive a CCC is a CCC in newspapers and other media. also agree that there are different types of CCCs but that's a subjective opinum and not relevant over a course of season.

wwfan is right insofar as if a player can't reach a ball it isn't a CCC at all. Yes, we can all agree on that.

The point, however, is that just by looking at a given situation in a match you can't tell how hard or easy a CCC actually is without taking such things as height, speed, etc into account. The ME will show exactly the same situation. Let's take the header. The ball is crossed, the striker jumps and misses the ball. With Crouch, that's an easy missed CCC. With Giggs it's not. But it will look exactly the same in each case.

Exactly the same applies to relative difficulty. A shot from a bit of an angle after a forward has chased a through ball might appear to be (say) a '1 in 3' situation. But if the forward is stretching because he's short and/or slow or is fatigued, or is carrying a knock it may in fact be really a 1 in 4 chance. It won't look any different though.

You can't ignore these factors.

[Hammer1000]

I believe that was Millie. I always had the misapprehension that they would become further arrows for your bow if, as seems to be the case, you aren't scoring as many as you believe you should be.

Rupal's arguments would be fine if you had not forwarded me a plethora of pkms over the years in which I consistently argued that the chances you were creating were not as clear cut as you imagined. I've hardly changed my position on this, have I? I've even tried to prove it you you via forwarding you pkms of my own and uploading screenshots of the type of chance I'm creating.

Given the evidence of the last 4 years plus the reoccuring nature of your tactical problems in this edition, the only possible conclusion is that the chances you are creating are not as good as you claim/believe them to be. They never have been, so there is no reason for them to be so now. The reason for this is you do not spread play enough and overload the flanks when taking on massed defences. It's that simple. All this 'it is impossible to qualify any CCC chance beyond the simplicity of the match statistics' only confuses the matter and takes you further from your goal of enjoying the game. It is not just perfectly possible to qualify certain CCCs as being better than others, its pretty easy to do once you start creating multi-dimensional chances. If you are only creating one dimensional chances, generally via central TBs in your case, then it is justifiably difficult to judge the differences as you aren't creating any of the better ones to measure against.

However, if you wish to keep on listening to people who just agree with you and argue against what I know the solution to be, which stands somewhat against your plea for help, then go ahead.

I do consider and appreciate a lot of what you are saying mate and i certainly appreciate all the help you have given me over the years, as well as some good arguments in which we both sometimes get a little miffed at the other, but remain friends(i hope?)

Thing is, as far as this CCC thing goes, my chances are at least as good if not better than those of the AI and cleaner in their making, as many of the CCC's the AI gets are from individual schoolboy player errors my defenders make, such as missed interceptions, standing still with the ball, crabbing so as not to be in a position to block/catch opponent and not putting in a tackle when the opportunity arises, amongst others.

Meanwhile the majority of my chances come from good play and even more so open play, as opposed to the AI throw in routine, where its flick, flick goal, or even from MY attacking throw ins, where its, flick, flick, FLICK, goal and even my attacking free kicks, many of which are simply and inexplicably passed straight to the opposition???

However they are created, there should be a close finishing rate of goals from CCC's between the Human and AI players, which there is not! i'm averaging close to 1 in 4 scored whilst the AI conversion rate is slightly more than 1 in 2 and until this kind of abnormality is amended, i can only continue to think that this is a massive issue?

[Loversleaper]

Mitja: I keep hearing that phrase : "Is passing 4 or 5 or 10? How will we know?". It has NOTHING to do with that, it has to do with passing 4 with what other slider that helps a shorter passing setting connect. You are summing up the problem of ovecomplicating yourself. Sliders are not science, but more of a "balancing" tool that make the different 'valubles' have values.

For example shorter passing should usually be implemented with narrower width, so to make it work it DOESN'T matter if Passing is 4 or 5, but to make a passing 10 or 11 work you don't want to be too narrow. There are simple rules that make tactics work, so I say again "You do not need to be exact"...

[ham_aka_stam]

this idea is massivly flawed when you compare it to RL football, i hope you're awere of that. i've never seen Man Utd playing slow build up just becouse opponents play defensivly. what is a rushed chance? what can we do aboit it? what does the game tell us about it?

A rushed chance will be a player shooting from miles away or a stupid angle, rather than passing backwards to build again.

Manchester Utd do just this all the time, they quite often play it around the box "arsenal-style", it's just they aren't quite as slow as arsenal. They also have the counter-attackbox ticked however, so get the best of both worlds.

[Rupal]

You may not trust your subjective judgement. I trust mine and have been proved right on enough occasions to stand by it. Judging the relative quality of CCCs is a useful game skill. Learning and applying it helps play the game. Football is subjective, so it stands to reason that reading the ME needs a degree of subjective skill as well. Reducing it to stats, and refusing to look deeper, is self-inflicted blindness. Refusing to believe that others can do it, and do it well, is delusional.

I know it. I've made the same argument for 3.5 years and proved it many times in many ways, to the satisaction of others, not just myself. The main evidence is never having matches like Hammer does because I open up against such opposition. However, Hammer never tries my solution, or gives up on it the moment he makes a bad decision and match stats go against him. Stats as blindness once more.

Refusing to admit that you cannot rely on superficial appearances and being unprepared to accept that you need sufficient information is just foolishness.

Your argument about Crouch and Giggs is based on hindsight; you know that Crouch is tall and so you are not surprised that the game rates this as a chance and vice versa with Giggs. That's precisely the sort of information that you need to classify your apparent CCCs all the time but you simply refuse to admit it.

I think I had better stop now as I don't want this to degenerate into a slanging match.

[Mitja]

wwfan is right insofar as if a player can't reach a ball it isn't a CCC at all. Yes, we can all agree on that.

The point, however, is that just by looking at a given situation in a match you can't tell how hard or easy a CCC actually is without taking such things as height, speed, etc into account. The ME will show exactly the same situation. Let's take the header. The ball is crossed, the striker jumps and misses the ball. With Crouch, that's an easy missed CCC. With Giggs it's not. But it will look exactly the same in each case.

Exactly the same applies to relative difficulty. A shot from a bit of an angle after a forward has chased a through ball might appear to be (say) a '1 in 3' situation. But if the forward is stretching because he's short and/or slow or is fatigued, or is carrying a knock it may in fact be really a 1 in 4 chance. It won't look any different though.

You can't ignore these factors.

of course you can't ignore them but the real question is whether both players came into chance, what happens after is not relevant. some players are better at heading and they will score more headers. but if they both reached it (well) both chances should count as CCC. nice and simple

[Mitja]

Mitja: I keep hearing that phrase : "Is passing 4 or 5 or 10? How will we know?". It has NOTHING to do with that, it has to do with passing 4 with what other slider that helps a shorter passing setting connect. You are summing up the problem of ovecomplicating yourself. Sliders are not science, but more of a "balancing" tool that make the different 'valubles' have values.

For example shorter passing should usually be implemented with narrower width, so to make it work it DOESN'T matter if Passing is 4 or 5, but to make a passing 10 or 11 work you don't want to be too narrow. There are simple rules that make tactics work, so I say again "You do not need to be exact"...

yes i understand all that even how sliders work. but i still think they need to be removed with exect instructions.

two questions; so does a passing slider tell a player what distance the pass should be or the frequency to use such pass? why does short passing need to be linked with narrower play in RL? (i know what you gonna say here)

[Rupal]

of course you can't ignore them but the real question is whether both players came into chance, what happens after is not relevant. some players are better at heading and they will score more headers. but if they both reached it (well) both chances should count as CCC. nice and simple

Sure they should. But you need to know whether they could reach it or not (to see if it was a CCC at all) and whether it was easy for them to reach or very difficult (to determine how hard the chance was). To do that you need information about the players as well as looking at the match, which is what wwfan seems so reluctant to accept.

[ham_aka_stam]

sorry I feel I've stepped into a conversation very late on so will leave you guys to it,

[Mitja]

A rushed chance will be a player shooting from miles away or a stupid angle, rather than passing backwards to build again.

Manchester Utd do just this all the time, they quite often play it around the box "arsenal-style", it's just they aren't quite as slow as arsenal. They also have the counter-attackbox ticked however, so get the best of both worlds.

i thought Brazil in 60's and 70's played slow, not Arsenal. i guess i'll learn something new about football today

[Loversleaper]

yes i understand all that even how sliders work. but i still think they need to be removed with exect instructions.

two questions; so does a passing slider tell a player what distance the pass should be or the frequency to use such pass? why does short passing need to be linked with narrower play in RL? (i know what you gonna say here)

This is a Computer game and like any other game on the planet there are caculations. Having said that there are times when you can break certain rules but you need incredible talent in your squad.

I am confused with the "I know what you gonna say here" part, what was that?

[ham_aka_stam]

i thought Brazil in 60's and 70's played slow, not Arsenal. i guess i'll learn something new about football today

There's no need to be pendantic, slow is relative to the culture of football being played, the premiership is a relatively fast paced league, so slow for the premiership may well only be a couple of notches below the middle

[wwfan]

@ Rupal: I believe you can mkae subjective judgements of this sort and do so when playing and when evaluating Garry's games.

@ Hammer: here you are making the self-same subjective judgements that Rupal is arguing shouldn't be made. My own opinion is that you don't play 'fantastic football' or that the AI gets la its chances against you from schoolboy defensive errors. I've never seen any indication of this in any of the pkms you have ever sent me. My own opinion is that you play one-dimensional football that creates a multitude of similar-style chances, most of which are borderline CCCs compared to the ones I am used to creating. I believe this happens because you don't spread play, are over-reliant on TBs from midfield and don't use your wingers/FBS effectively. I also think your defensive settings are proorly thought out and often heavily flawed. I've taken you through this many times.

The only way you can move forward is by allowing yourself to believe that my subjective reading is a better one than yours and I'm right in my analysis. The abnormalities you report don't happen to me. For example, I generally outperform the AI in forward scoring percentages. If you don't accept that your own subjective reading might be flawed, then you can never change. I wenet throug the same process for FM06. I thought I knew football and how things should work in FM. I wrote posts very similar to yours. I then set about proving myself wrong. An FM shakabuku if you like. You seen incapable, or unwilling, to take that step.

I don't ever get angry or irritated about our debates. I just think you are wrong.

[Mitja]

Sure they should. But you need to know whether they could reach it or not (to see if it was a CCC at all) and whether it was easy for them to reach or very difficult (to determine how hard the chance was). To do that you need information about the players as well as looking at the match, which is what wwfan seems so reluctant to accept.

we're going nowhere with this discussion. it would be hard to convince me there isn't ''levelling'' thing afecting both AI and humans. it needed to be done to prevent spooky scores which would happen if there wasn't. in all honesty i don't care about it as long as it is well represented. but feels awfull when you manage to shoot 20 times match after match and see chance after chance being missed (be it rushed or not). what they need to do is to concentrate on ME being better defensivly (i reckon and hope that's not that easy) and improved AI. also i think tactics have too much influence in FM and club atmosphere factor (imo the most important aspect in any team sport) is almost non existant.

[Mitja]

There's no need to be pendantic, slow is relative to the culture of football being played, the premiership is a relatively fast paced league, so slow for the premiership may well only be a couple of notches below the middle

i put the which meant i'm joking. i apologize if i offended you.

[wwfan]

Your argument about Crouch and Giggs is based on hindsight; you know that Crouch is tall and so you are not surprised that the game rates this as a chance and vice versa with Giggs. That's precisely the sort of information that you need to classify your apparent CCCs all the time but you simply refuse to admit it.

You seem to be missing the overall point. If a player isn't fast enough or tall enough to get to the ball, it will not register as a CCC, so I don't need subjective judgment to analyse how good a CCC it might or might not be.

Given real world knowledge, a one on one CCC, even for world class forwards, has only a 33% chance of being scored. A six yard tap in with a yard of space, even for the most grunting oaf, has a 50% chance of going in. The only relative issue is the ability of said oaf to get him in such a position in the first place. If he does get the ball, in space and time, with the keeper beaten, he should score. Getting into the position to have a 50% chance of scoring is the most difficult thing, not the putting the ball away from the position the player is in.

[RT--]

However they are created, there should be a close finishing rate of goals from CCC's between the Human and AI players

This isn't true, though, Hammer.

If the AI's tactics (or your tactics) lead to them creating qualitatively *different* types of chance to you, then of course there'll be some variation in the CCC/goals ratio, whichever way around it is. Even if both teams have exactly the same players.

The type of chance you create will be heavily influenced by tactics, right? So if you play a narrow formation with lots of through balls and strikers with forward runs, you'll create different chances to a team with lots of width, playing the ball down the flanks for their wingers who cross in for target men to head it, for instance.

I have to say, I think 9.2.0's ME has a couple of defensive flaws which lead to perhaps too many through balls being successful and creating quite a few one-on-one situations. As a result, it's *possible* (and this really is just conjecture) that SI have tuned down finishing from one-on-ones to stop there being too many goals overall. Now if a tactic is biased towards creating lots of these types of chance, then maybe it'll see more missed chances than tactics which create lots of different chances. That way, SI tuning something *across the board* could have an adverse effect on people who rely on creating lots of chances from a certain type of play.

[ham_aka_stam]

i put the which meant i'm joking. i apologize if i offended you.

no worries, I have the amazing ability to take no offence to comments on forums, if only the majority of the internet using public could work that one out! haha.

anyway, i completely understand this stubborness to change your outlook on the game, because you know it should work in real football. The difficulty is realising that this game will never be exactly like real football, so we have to make do with a compromise. I too relish the day that the sliders are abolished, however in the mean time, trying to make sense of them in a way that allows you to play the football you want to play is the challenge.

[Mitja]

@ Rupal:I believe this happens because you don't spread play, are over-reliant on TBs from midfield and don't use your wingers/FBS effectively.

he would be crazy to relly on crossing

i'm glad that ME moved a bit forward with wingers' and especially full backs' movement and play. but it's interesting how you admit there are big problems with ME but than in next sentence you talk about it like there weren't any problems almost like we're chating about RL football.

[Rupal]

I don't want to quarrel with you wwfan. My entire point is that you require information over and above what you can see from simply looking at Garry's games in order to justify your contention that the chances which he produces are worse than those produced by the AI. You don't appear to accept this and I'm pretty sure that nothing that I can say will persuade you differently.

We have already seen in this thread two varying subjective assessments of some of Garry's chances. One person insists that only one of these was a 'real' CCC whilst another says that all four were genuine chances to score. This shows the inadequacy of relying on subjective assessment. I'm sure that both people are perfectly sincere in their opinions but they could argue until they were blue in the face about this without agreeing and there is no proof here.

You have said that you don't get this problem because of the tactics which you use. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that you produce fewer but better chances than Garry. Is this so, or do you simply produce fewer what you might call 'marginal' chances? If Garry produces as many good chances as you do yourself then this might appear to be a lower proportion, but it wouldn't necessarily show that his tactics were any worse, as the number of good chances produced would not be any fewer over a series of matches. It's these sorts of things which we don't know, and without finding out we are floundering around rather blindly. On a very crude measure, how many goals does he score in a season and how many do you? If he scores more goals he must have created more good chances one would have thought assuming that the players were the same standard.

Could it be, for example, that Garry's tactics produce a greater tendency for teams to adopt a shut up shop approach when playing him and that the game (as has been suggested elsewhere) tends to favour such tactics (whether adopted by human or AI players) rather too much? This might explain why this doesn't seem to happen so much to you. In this case, the fault is really with the ME, not with Garry's tactics and could be solved by adjusting this inbuilt bias. It would also go some way towards explaining why boywonder finds that when he is defending or not dominating he tends to score more and why people find that they can win games which according to the stats they really should have lost in the same way as the AI does against Garry.

[Rupal]

You seem to be missing the overall point. If a player isn't fast enough or tall enough to get to the ball, it will not register as a CCC, so I don't need subjective judgment to analyse how good a CCC it might or might not be.

No, it's you who is missing the point here. Looking at the incident by itself won't tell you whether it was a CCC or not. So how can looking at Garry's matches by itself necessarily enable you to say whether any given passage of play contains a CCC at all or how difficult such a CCC was if it existed at all?

You need other information!

[Mitja]

anyway, i completely understand this stubborness to change your outlook on the game, because you know it should work in real football. The difficulty is realising that this game will never be exactly like real football, so we have to make do with a compromise. I too relish the day that the sliders are abolished, however in the mean time, trying to make sense of them in a way that allows you to play the football you want to play is the challenge.

completly agree. it's just that i have one small problem, i can't get into the game for 4 or 5 years now. if only...

[Mitja]

I have to say, I think 9.2.0's ME has a couple of defensive flaws which lead to perhaps too many through balls being successful and creating quite a few one-on-one situations. As a result, it's *possible* (and this really is just conjecture) that SI have tuned down finishing from one-on-ones to stop there being too many goals overall. Now if a tactic is biased towards creating lots of these types of chance, then maybe it'll see more missed chances than tactics which create lots of different chances. That way, SI tuning something *across the board* could have an adverse effect on people who rely on creating lots of chances from a certain type of play.

makes sense, ha?

[JimbobWWFC]

I have not been on these forums long enough to talk in the same details that you experienced people do.

But personally I like the answers given by wwfan; he seems like the only person with strong enough statistical evidence to back up his claims. This is not meant in any offence to any of the other people posting here. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the thread; it has been a while since I have read such a long thread with such interest. I just can’t help but feel like I’m taking sides with wwfan because of the strength of the arguments presented (although some other members will not agree).

Here are my thoughts on recent posts, although not as deep and detailed as some of the others:

That is back to the totally subjective area of deciding what are and aren't "true" CCCs, which is a totally pointless excercise in my opinion. Their is no such things as true CCCs - there are only CCCs. If there was a distinction to be made between types of CCCs, I'm guessing SI would have built that into the game.

I don’t think we should be discussing ‘how clear’ a CCC is, that doesn’t really solve anything. I feel we should be sticking with how clear any chance is, then deciding if it should be classed as a CCC or not.

@ Rupal:I don't ever get angry or irritated about our debates. I just think you are wrong.

This is why I love the confidence of wwfan’s posts. The difference is, wwfan is obviously experienced enough to back up this arrogance

Even a world class FC with a one on one chance will only score 1 in 3 times. The odds always favour the keeper in these situations.

This is one point I struggle to agree with. Do you mean on FM, or in real life, or a combination of both? Because, personally, I would always expect the world class FC to score in a 1-on-1 more often than not :confused:

[Loversleaper]

For gods sake, Rupal. This is a Computer game and what you are asking is for that the computer-game has a mind of it's own. I think all along wwfan has been saying that settings cause certain things in the Match Stats and there is no way around that fact. I simply can't understand when you look at any game on the market this is not apparent. Just because it makes sense to you it won't make sense for the computer program, and how are they going to program around these effects? That is the flaw the wwfan is trying to point out...

[phnompenhandy]

I have not been on these forums long enough to talk in the same details that you experienced people do.

But personally I like the answers given by wwfan; he seems like the only person with strong enough statistical evidence to back up his claims.

I'm with you 100% on that point.

This is one point I struggle to agree with. Do you mean on FM, or in real life, or a combination of both? Because, personally, I would always expect the world class FC to score in a 1-on-1 more often than not :confused:

He means IRL - that's an accurate statistic. SI try to code the ME so that AI v AI matches average out as closely reflecting RL statistics - look closely at Torres' chances, or Rooney over the next few games. However, when the human FM manager enters the fray, his/her tactical decisions and choice of player (and his attributes) alter that.

My only bone of contention is that whilst SI introduced the statistic of CCCs in FM09 it's by no means clear what they mean by 'clear cut'. I'm not sure whether wwfan is in a position to know given his extensive testing of FML and FM09 ;please clarify R], or whether we're all equally guily of subjectivity in our interpretation of SI's definition.

[RT--]

makes sense, ha?

Well, as I say, that's just one possible, more rational explanation of why some teams might miss more chances than others.

If Hammer's point was something like 'Too many one-on-ones are missed and so teams who tend to create most of their chances from through balls have an unfair disadvantage' then it'd be an interesting discussion, though I have no idea whether it's right -- I'm just saying that could be one possible mechanism for his shots/goals ratio. I haven't seen the PKMs though - wwfan has, and seems to think that Hammer's tactics create lots of difficult-to-score chances, compared to the AI.

As it is, Hammer seems to think that the game has been programmed to deliberately punish/bias things against/balance teams who create more chances (whether that's human or AI teams), which is bordering on some sort of conspiracy theory.

[Rupal]

For gods sake, Rupal. This is a Computer game and what you are asking is for that the computer-game has a mind of it's own. I think all along wwfan has been saying that settings cause certain things in the Match Stats and there is no way around that fact. I simply can't understand when you look at any game on the market this is not apparent. Just because it makes sense to you it won't make sense for the computer program, and how are they going to program around these effects? That is the flaw the wwfan is trying to point out...

I'm not asking for anything of the sort. I've made an extraordinarily simple point that you can't necessarily tell how clear cut a CCC is just by looking but that you have to take other things into account as well.

Let's have a look at wwfan's assertion that he doesn't get this problem because of his good tactics. That is quite possibly true. But it might just be that his tactics or teamtalks or press conferences or what have you or a particular combination don't give rise to the situation so often. When it actually happens he may be just as useless as Hammer1000 in sorting it out. If (say) these sorts of games worked out at one third 'you win but not as well as you should have done', one third 'you draw' and one third 'you lose when you didn't deserve to' and both wwfan and Hammer1000 were hopeless at sorting them out, then if wwfan only gets three of these games in a season he will say that he doesn't have a problem, whereas Hammer1000 (whose tactics et al give rise to this sort of game 15 times in a season) will come on moaning that he has lost 5 games which he should have won and this cost him his Champions' League spot or what have you.

We need much more information about things before we can say what is causing this.

[Hammer1000]

I have to say, I think 9.2.0's ME has a couple of defensive flaws which lead to perhaps too many through balls being successful and creating quite a few one-on-one situations. As a result, it's *possible* (and this really is just conjecture) that SI have tuned down finishing from one-on-ones to stop there being too many goals overall. Now if a tactic is biased towards creating lots of these types of chance, then maybe it'll see more missed chances than tactics which create lots of different chances. That way, SI tuning something *across the board* could have an adverse effect on people who rely on creating lots of chances from a certain type of play.

That would make me right then?(wink)

Jimbob - You mean wwfan's "because i said so" proof?(lol)

Rupal - Nobody will admit to your rather "obvious" and well put point of view here, as to do so would admit that they are wrong, or as suggested, merely pulling stats and other info from their butts.

[Loversleaper]

We need much more information about things before we can say what is causing this.

I don't think information is much a problem as the understanding part of it, in this case. As any computer-game in the whole world this is a Calculating Machine. If you don't take this into consideration then this discussion is the biggest misunderstanding in FM history...

[Rupal]

I don't think information is much a problem as the understanding part of it, in this case. As any computer-game in the whole world this is a Calculating Machine. If you don't take this into consideration then this discussion is the biggest misunderstanding in FM history...

Yes, and a load of problems are caused by the poor visual representation of the calculations given in the ME I believe.

[JimbobWWFC]

Jimbob - You mean wwfan's "because i said so" proof?(lol)

Hahaha nooo you know I didn't mean to offend anyone here. And as I stated already, it is a great read, and I wish I could have more of an input here. I have played every version of the game since 97/98, but this discussion is very in-depth, and at times I feel that some people are going too deep into some of the theories here.

I agree, in parts, with what many people are saying, yourself included, but I just feel generally that wwfan seems too experienced with these issues to ever lose an argument here lol. It 'appears' that way anyway, but I'm sure others have their own opinion

[RT--]

That would make me right then?(wink).

See my 11:20

[wwfan]

My hands are tied when discussing my official feedback about the ME. It has to remain confidential I'm afraid.

However, that is not the case with the FML testing of the past in which the nature of CCCs was debated and they were tweaked in accordance with real life stats. Chances which once were regarded as CCCs no longer are and vice versa. I can remember discussing in some detail why close range headers weren't being included, which were later added. So they are a fluid and subjective stat even within the ME.

What I can also do is share real world knowledge with you, which can help explain Hammer's issues.

Firstly, many of Hammer's CCCs are one on ones, often with the FC having a very straight running path. There are two things to take into account here. Firstly, even a world class FC only has a 33% chance of scoring. The less good the FC, the less chance of scoring. The quality of the goalkeeper is obviously a factor, but much less so than the quality of the forward, as all the pressure is on him. Given the players Garry is using, we can posit they have somewhere between a 25% and 20% chance of scoring the one on one, depending on how far out they are when they shoot. If he predominantly creates this type of CCC, which in my experience of watchign his pkms, he does, then he will only convert somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5, unless he has a world class FC.

Secondly, the narrower the nature of the supply ball, the less likely the player will score. To put it simply, players are much more likely to score from the first or second touch from a lateral ball/cross than they are from a through ball. Hitting a lateral ball instantly changes the angle and gives the keeper very little chance of reacting. Moving on to a straight through ball enables the keeper to narrow the angles and reduce the chance of scoring. These are real life analyses which seem to be roughly mirrored in the game, from my experience anyway.

If an FM player reduces the balls from wider positions, he reduces his chances of scoring. For more defensive tactics, that isn't really an issue, as reducing space is the point. For aggressive tactics trying to break down stubborn defences, every tactical reduction of wide balls harms the overall chance of the team scoring. Watching Garry's tactics, his crossing percentage is always high simply becasue he rarely crosses. I'd much rather try 40 crosses and make 8 than try 4 and make 2. That gives me much more chance of getting that all important first goal.

When I judge CCCs I take the above into account. A longer range one on one I regard as marginal at best. A close range header or shot when the defence is wrong footed or beaten by a lateral ball is a chance I feel I should score. Originally, in FML, the one on one would have registered as a CCC but the header wouldn't. That had already changed prior to FM09. However, I don't think it has been refined quite enough as yet.

The problem the ME has, which is what kills Garry, is that it is possible to dominate possession via the 'keep it central' approach. Spreading it wider allows for more chance of the opposition breaking down the move. As soon as Garry sees that happening, he reverts to the 'keep it central' approach, which, although allowing him to have more possession, greatly reduces the quality of his chances. Although I don't think Garry creates a much greater number of chances than I do (I have no patience for the argument that you need to create less chances in order to have better ones: patently ridiculous) I generally create two to three much higher quality ones, via open play, per match (for the massed defence type of game: for others I'd regard us on a par). This is illustrated by my open play scoring ratio when compared with his in the tests I conducted. Same team, same match, no change of instructions during the game. These two to three chances usually unlock the defence and grab me a goal, thus forcing the opposition out, and giving me more opportunity to score. Garry's tactics just don't do that.

[Hammer1000]

My hands are tied when discussing my official feedback about the ME. It has to remain confidential I'm afraid.

However, that is not the case with the FML testing of the past in which the nature of CCCs was debated and they were tweaked in accordance with real life stats. Chances which once were regarded as CCCs no longer are and vice versa. I can remember discussing in some detail why close range headers weren't being included, which were later added. So they are a fluid and subjective stat even within the ME.

What I can also do is share real world knowledge with you, which can help explain Hammer's issues.

Firstly, many of Hammer's CCCs are one on ones, often with the FC having a very straight running path. There are two things to take into account here. Firstly, even a world class FC only has a 33% chance of scoring. The less good the FC, the less chance of scoring. The quality of the goalkeeper is obviously a factor, but much less so than the quality of the forward, as all the pressure is on him. Given the players Garry is using, we can posit they have somewhere between a 25% and 20% chance of scoring the one on one, depending on how far out they are when they shoot. If he predominantly creates this type of CCC, which in my experience of watchign his pkms, he does, then he will only convert somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 5, unless he has a world class FC.

Secondly, the narrower the nature of the supply ball, the less likely the player will score. To put it simply, players are much more likely to score from the first or second touch from a lateral ball/cross than they are from a through ball. Hitting a lateral ball instantly changes the angle and gives the keeper very little chance of reacting. Moving on to a straight through ball enables the keeper to narrow the angles and reduce the chance of scoring. These are real life analyses which seem to be roughly mirrored in the game, from my experience anyway.

If an FM player reduces the balls from wider positions, he reduces his chances of scoring. For more defensive tactics, that isn't really an issue, as reducing space is the point. For aggressive tactics trying to break down stubborn defences, every tactical reduction of wide balls harms the overall chance of the team scoring. Watching Garry's tactics, his crossing percentage is always high simply becasue he rarely crosses. I'd much rather try 40 crosses and make 8 than try 4 and make 2. That gives me much more chance of getting that all important first goal.

When I judge CCCs I take the above into account. A longer range one on one I regard as marginal at best. A close range header or shot when the defence is wrong footed or beaten by a lateral ball is a chance I feel I should score. Originally, in FML, the one on one would have registered as a CCC but the header wouldn't. That had already changed prior to FM09. However, I don't think it has been refined quite enough as yet.

The problem the ME has, which is what kills Garry, is that it is possible to dominate possession via the 'keep it central' approach. Spreading it wider allows for more chance of the opposition breaking down the move. As soon as Garry sees that happening, he reverts to the 'keep it central' approach, which, although allowing him to have more possession, greatly reduces the quality of his chances. Although I don't think Garry creates a much greater number of chances than I do (I have no patience for the argument that you need to create less chances in order to have better ones: patently ridiculous) I generally create two to three much higher quality ones, via open play, per match (for the massed defence type of game: for others I'd regard us on a par). This is illustrated by my open play scoring ratio when compared with his in the tests I conducted. Same team, same match, no change of instructions during the game. These two to three chances usually unlock the defence and grab me a goal, thus forcing the opposition out, and giving me more opportunity to score. Garry's tactics just don't do that.

Quick and simple answer to all that mate.

Width 15

Jankovic my right winger won player of the season thanks to all his assists from getting the ball in from out wide.

Quick mate, make up some more excuses(lol)

[JimbobWWFC]

As soon as Garry sees that happening, he reverts to the 'keep it central' approach, which, although allowing him to have more possession, greatly reduces the quality of his chances.

I thought that more possession and a slower tempo would lead to less chances on goal, but better quality chances :confused:

[Mitja]

I thought that more possession and a slower tempo would lead to less chances on goal, but better quality chances :confused:

i guess this will sound just as flawed (as it is a computor game) but imagine saying that about real life football?!

tactics only lead to a chance and there are thounsands of different tactics and aproaches. tactics should not effect the quality of a chance!!!

[Mitja]

Quick and simple answer to all that mate.

Width 15

Jankovic my right winger won player of the season thanks to all his assists from getting the ball in from out wide.

Quick mate, make up some more excuses(lol)

now you're accused of using and ralying on too many TBs and not spreading passes to flanks.

GUILTY

[wwfan]

Quick and simple answer to all that mate.

Width 15

Jankovic my right winger won player of the season thanks to all his assists from getting the ball in from out wide.

Quick mate, make up some more excuses(lol)

• My width against massed defences: 20
  
• FBs and wingers all set to FWRS Often, RWB Often, Cross Ball Often, Cross from Byline, thus guaranteeing a plethora of crosses
  

It's only a certain type of match we are analysing, Garry. You don't, and never have, spread the ball wide enough against the massed defence, nor pushed your FBs forward enough. A width of 15 would be OK against most forms of AI tactic, especially if you kept players back to cover for the break, as is your wont. It would be wide enough to create chances, but solid enough to mop up pressure at the back. However, it will not unlock the massed defence. It is neither wide enough, nor, based on what I've seen, able to get enough players forward to overpower the defence.

[Mitja]

Given the players Garry is using, we can posit they have somewhere between a 25% and 20% chance of scoring the one on one, depending on how far out they are when they shoot.

what is a chance of scoring 1on1 down in conference football then? -33%?