Are Some Games Simply Unwinnable?

[catafan]

Why not save it under a different name and 'retire' the manager so he is no longer in the game.

I've thinked about that. But are you sure a boss replacement will not affect the player performance in the first match for their new manager? If you play this game by watching the full match-process for every matche, I am sure you will find some which look unreasonable and unexplainable.

The game doesn't cheat!

I cannot believe that there are limits in the game. Otherwise there wouldn't be people posting up screenshots of their team unbeaten for whole seasons etc.!

C.

Everyone has his/her belief and I'm not going to persuade you to give it up. I only talk about my feelings.

I have unbeaten seasons also. But that is nothing to do with the unreasonable matches. The one I posted above is unwinnable for me but my team was aslo unbeaten in most cases, isn't it?

[crouchaldinho]

I've thinked about that. But are you sure a boss replacement will not affect the player performance in the first match for their new manager? If you play this game by watching the full match-process for every matche, I am sure you will find some which look unreasonable and unexplainable.

It may have an effect on performance, yes, but it would also provide a chance for someone else to have a look at that game and see if they can win it.

I would like to have a shot at this to see if I can help with your enjoyment of the game at all. PM me if you are interested.

C.

[kolobok]

It's a pity that you cannot upload the pkm indeed. Because screenshots you posted don't tell anything specific.

Tell me please what you make out of these stats.

Shots (on Goal) 17(3) 9(5)

Fouls 14 16

Corner Kicks 10 3

Offsides 3 2

Time of Possession 55% 45%

Saves 1 2

(saves here are equivalent of clear cut chances for opposition)

I am sure you would easily guess that these stats are from ManUtd - Liverpool (1-4) match, and Liverpool's stats are listed second. Wait a minute, ManUtd dominated the game... How come they lost so heavily? Someone must be cheating here I guess...

[catafan]

I am sure you would easily guess that these stats are from ManUtd - Liverpool (1-4) match, and Liverpool's stats are listed second. Wait a minute, ManUtd dominated the game... How come they lost so heavily? Someone must be cheating here I guess...

Unless you have a time machine to repeat that match for 20 times, you don't know that is because of luck or destiny, do you?

I will never say AI cheats if the above situation only happens a few times in 20 replays. I thinks AI cheats because that situation is reproducable in those repeats (In every post I emphasize the "repeat", but unfortunately some people keep ignoring this important factor).

[crouchaldinho]

I will never say AI cheats if the above situation only happens a few times in 20 replays. I thinks AI cheats because that situation is reproducable in those repeats (In every post I emphasize the "repeat", but unfortunately some people keep ignoring this important factor).

Yes, but potentially you are repeating the game with a flawed tactic.

It doesn't matter if you play the game 100 times. If your tactic is flawed in some way, then you are going to lose more often than not.

This is why I am asking you to upload the game.

C.

[haza555]

Surely if you've played them 11 or however many times it is and not won you would be able to have time to pick out the opposition weakness. Hell if i watched the same team play 11 times in a row im pretty sure i could make a pretty unstoppable tactic against them.

[catafan]

Yes, but potentially you are repeating the game with a flawed tactic.

It doesn't matter if you play the game 100 times. If your tactic is flawed in some way, then you are going to lose more often than not.

This is why I am asking you to upload the game.

C.

I don't know why you are so sure my tactic is flawed even if you have never seen it. With the same tactic and similar start-up I beat Everton by 7-0 at home 4 months later.

It seems taht you already bear your solid faith that AI won't cheat in the first place, and consequently you will find a plausible excuse for anything against your faith. Therefore I don't think it is necessary to talk about this with you. Let people do their own judgement on this issue ok?

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

It seems taht you already bear your solid faith that AI won't cheat in the first place, and consequently you will find a plausible excuse for anything against your faith.

You seem to have an equal faith that the AI does cheat.

It just seems totally ridiculous that you won't accept any tactical help (or otherwise) but still keep talking about the AI cheating.

Catafan, I'm just trying to help. I give up now.

C.

[catafan]

You seem to have an equal faith that the AI does cheat.

Yes I do. But I am not trying to persudae other people to believe what I believe. I only gave some information and statistics. Let people do their own judgement on that.

It just seems totally ridiculous that you won't accept any tactical help (or otherwise) but still keep talking about the AI cheating.

That's simply because I don't think that's necessary as IMO you are no better than me in tactic (sorry no offence).

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

That's simply because I don't think that's necessary as IMO you are no better than me in tactic (sorry no offence).

You struggle to beat Everton away despite reloading again and again.

You get only 30% of your shots on target compared to Everton's 60% on target.

Both of these things never happen to me in my game.

Is there a reason for this that can be explained? Or does the AI cheat only for you.

C.

[catafan]

You struggle to beat Everton away despite reloading again and again.

You get only 30% of your shots on target compared to Everton's 60% on target.

Both of these things never happen to me in my game.

Is there a reason for this that can be explained? Or does the AI cheat only for you.

C.

Reloading that match is not for winning one game agaist Everton, as drawing a league match does not mar my achievement at all. The 20 screenshots are only part of the results of reload and I posted them not for seeking tactic help (manybe the OP does). In fact I did make tactic changes without replace any player to achieve a better result. But that's not my point.

I only wonder why my team statistically (in that 20 results) scores less in more SoT with better strikers (please note it is 'statistically', dont say there could be such A match in real life). And the shooting chances were not bad ones as some people have guessed (e.g. longshots). Besides, do you think it is realistic for a team to maintain a SoT/Shooting ratio as high as that of Everton? Please check your best striker for his Goal/SoT/Shoots ratio and you will have the answer.

[catafan]

You get only 30% of your shots on target compared to Everton's 60% on target.

To be exact I got 38% SoT/Shots and Everton got 50%. And I got the SoT (116) more than twice of that of Everton (56).

[crouchaldinho]

I only wonder why my team statistically (in that 20 results) scores less in more SoT with better strikers (please note it is 'statistically', dont say there could be such A match in real life). And the shooting chances were not bad ones as some people have guessed (e.g. longshots). Besides, do you think it is realistic for a team to maintain a SoT/Shooting ratio as high as that of Everton? Please check your best striker for his Goal/SoT/Shoots ratio and you will have the answer.

As I said before, I'm not here to argue about the rights and wrongs of the way the match engine works.

All I'm saying is that I believe your problem is tactical. The shots on target statistics are never like that on my game.

You can go on saying that the AI cheats but it's just silly really.

You spoil the game for yourself.

To be exact I got 38% SoT/Shots and Everton got 50%. And I got the SoT (116) more than twice of that of Everton (56).

It's late at night and I've had a few glasses of wine, so I apologise for what I am about to say. You can paint a turd gold, but it’s still a turd.

When I look back through my last 5 games, I find the following results:

I'm ranging 40% - 60% of my shots on target.

My opposition are ranging 20%-40% of their shots on target.

That's a very effective attack and a really miserly defence.

Even when I lose, I don't see stats as bad as yours.

Now, I can't argue about this anymore. Please remain blind and believe in your AI cheating if it makes you happy.

Maybe you have faulty copy of FM because mine never cheats.

C.

[catafan]

Even when I lose, I don't see stats as bad as yours.

If you still lose games, that ratio may be not a standard to judge a tactic is good or bad.

I personally don't think a SoT/Shots=3/6 tactic is better than a 10/25 one, because for me more SoT mean more goals statistically and I don't care how many shots it will cost.

[crouchaldinho]

If you still lose games, that ratio may be not a standard to judge a tactic is good or bad.

Don't be ridiculous!

I'm not playing with Chelsea for a start.

I'm playing with a non-league team expected to finish in second to last place in the division. Of course I lose games occasionally.

Anyway, clearly your ratio is not to a good standard at all. More of this coming up.

I personally don't think a SoT/Shots=3/6 tactic is better than a 10/25 one, because for me more SoT mean more goals statistically and I don't care how many shots it will cost.

But you aren't getting 10/25 for most of your games! That would indicate 40% of shots on target.

In your last three screenshots you are getting:

16/5

13/4

All around 30% and the other games where you lose or draw are exactly the same for the most part.

Everton's ratios for these games are:

6/4

6/3

That's between 50%-66% of their shots on target.

And here we reach the main point - you aren't having many more shots on target than Everton (5v4, 4v3). And this is purely statistical. Everton's shots might be really good chances, while yours are easy saves for the keeper.

Even in the game you win 2-1, your shots on target average is poor and Everton's is good.

Yours: 17/8 - 47%.

Everton's: 5/5 - 100%.

You are fortunate to win that game in the end. That's one of your very rare games where you are approaching a higher range of shots of target. But defensively I would be really worried if I had given Everton 5/5 shots on target. 3 clear cut chances as well. No wonder Everton score. You make life too easy for them.

That's your problem in a nutshell. You make life too easy for Everton.

Anyway, this is my last post now. If you can't see the problem, you must be blind.

Cheating AI indeed.

C.

[catafan]

But you aren't getting 10/25 for most of your games! That would indicate 40% of shots on target.

In your last three screenshots you are getting:

16/5

13/4

All around 30% and the other games where you lose or draw are exactly the same for the most part.

Everton's ratios for these games are:

6/4

6/3

That's between 50%-66% of their shots on target.

That's your problem in a nutshell. You make life too easy for Everton.

C.

For all the 20 matches, Everton has SoT/Shots=56/112=50%. My Team has SoT/Shots=116/302=38.4%.

It not appropriate to say that is 50%-66% vs 30%.

And I have 116 SoT, more than twice of Everton's 56, plus better strikers but I scored less goals. I also have 49 ClearCuts, 19 more than Everton's 30. Oh maybe I made life easy for Everton, but I made myself much easier, didn't I?

Whatever these mean they are of a statistic say, rather than a biased emphasis.

You just picked up a few individual games favouring what you want to say, advoiding using the whole statistic data. Right on spot for what I have said: you will find an excuse for anything against your pre-possessed solid faith.

Well done for your faith.

[Garate]

It's a question of faith indeed

As somebody pointed out, repeating the game without changing anything will most likely give you similar results. Tactics apart, there are pre-conditions to the game that aren't changing, maybe overconfidence on some of your players, since you are in an excellent run, and probably some Everton players in a very inspired day. How you step into the game doesn't change, so those pre-conditions are always there, no matter how many times you play it. The few times I repeated games, I always found there was a similar pattern, unless I made dramatic tactical or player changes. What I learned is that there's no point repeating games. Faith doesn't need evidence, after all, that's what is made of.

There are some games I think real life cheats... If I could repeat them you'd believe me.

[crouchaldinho]

For all the 20 matches, Everton has SoT/Shots=56/112=50%. My Team has SoT/Shots=116/302=38.4%.

Get this into your head. Every other time Everton shoot, they get a shot on target. That is simply down to a poor defence.

Your shots rain down on the Everton goal. You have hundreds more shots than them but your conversion rate is poor. 38.4% is POOR (and that's being generous to you because you have included games that you have actually managed to win in that). This is down to a poor attack.

It not appropriate to say that is 50%-66% vs 30%.

When you lose against Everton in the screenshots above, the stats are around this number. That is the truth.

Here are some of the stats for your losing matches:

Everton 1 Chelsea 0

6/4 = 67%

16/5 = 31%

Everton 2 Chelsea 1

6/3 = 50%

13/4 = 31%

Everton 1 Chelsea 0

6/3 = 50%

13/4 = 31%

Everton 1 Chelsea 0

3/1 = 33%

13/4 = 31%

Everton 3 Chelsea 2

7/4= 57%

19/8 = 42%

Everton 2 Chelsea 1

6/4 = 67%

19/9 = 47%

Everton 2 Chelsea 1

5/5 = 100%!!!!!!!

13/5 = 38%

It is hard to imagine Guus Hiddink in that last game turning to his coaching staff and saying, 'well, every single time Everton have a shot they are testing our goalkeeper. But it doesn't matter! Let's not worry about our defence. Everything is ok because we are shooting a lot of the time so we should win.'

His assistant would turn to him and say, 'but Guus, we aren't testing their goalkeeper very often with our shots'.

Perhaps Guus would reply, 'no matter. More shots is better!'

I have put the important bits in italics. The message is clear: Quality not quantity is best. In fact, quality and quantity together is the very best!

And I have 116 SoT, more than twice of Everton's 56, plus better strikers but I scored less goals.

Doesn't matter. Your shots are of low quality. Your team struggles to make good chances. I'm willing to bet that the shots rain in on Everton from a distance. Less than 40% are hitting the target (sometimes a lot less than this).

Whatever these mean they are of a statistic say, rather than a biased emphasis.

We can talk about statistics all day long.

Like Rafa Benitez, I only want to talk about facts.

1) You have unusual statistics where you are getting a lower average of shots on target than the opposition over 20 matches.

2) In your games, the opposition has a higher average of shots on target than nearly all of the time.

3) You try the same tactical choice each time and generally fail with it.

4) This problem does not happen to me!

As so many people have pointed out already, playing the same game 20 times with the same tactic is STUPID. If you had come in here and said, 'Crouchy, I played this game with attacking, balanced and defensive systems and I lose every time, then I would really be made to think.

Anyway, there is a way that you can prove to me that I am wrong.

Upload your save game and I will play this Everton v Chelsea match with my tactics instead of yours.

If I do not get on better than you in this game (with a better shots on target percentage in my favour) then I will come back in here and say, 'catafan, I am totally and utterly wrong, the AI cheats'!

You just picked up a few individual games favouring what you want to say, advoiding using the whole statistic data. Right on spot for what I have said: you will find an excuse for anything against your pre-possessed solid faith.

Well done for your faith.

I simply picked the last two games Catafan. I don't have the time to add up all the numbers. Something is wrong with your statistics regardless of how you or I make them look.

I don't argue about real life and FM because FM is a computer game. But I can tell you where I think you are going wrong.

I'm so sad for you because you are letting this spoil the game for you. It's such a shame.

The power is with you to prove me wrong. You upload the game and if it is impossible for me to win then I will admit that you are right about this. I will have to make a big climb down but I am willing to risk it. Are you?

So yes, we can say that this is faith, but I am willing to prove my faith.

Will you prove your faith in a cheating AI?

C.

[catafan]

Get this into your head. Every other time Everton shoot, they get a shot on target. That is simply down to a poor defence.

Your shots rain down on the Everton goal. You have hundreds more shots than them but your conversion rate is poor. 38.4% is POOR (and that's being generous to you because you have included games that you have actually managed to win in that). This is down to a poor attack.

I have said that don't think a low SoT/Shots ratio is poor, which means nothing to me. I just want high number of SoT and I did that in my tactic. I believe a SoT/Shots of 10/25, 9/23, 8/20 (or whatever) is better than 3/6, 2/4, or even 1/1 (100% but if not scored there is nothing in hope). And how could you know my SoT are bad chances without seeing my game/matches? I can tell you they are not bad chances which can be backed up by the statistic ClearCuts, 49:30.

When you lose against Everton in the screenshots above, the stats are around this number. That is the truth.

Here are some of the stats for your losing matches:

Again you picked up a few matches favouring your opinion, that is not statistics. I could also do this----look at Everton's 90+6 penalty----but that's meaningless.

As so many people have pointed out already, playing the same game 20 times with the same tactic is STUPID. If you had come in here and said, 'Crouchy, I played this game with attacking, balanced and defensive systems and I lose every time, then I would really be made to think.

I also have pointed that I repeat that match for 20 times without changing tactic IS NOT FOR WINNING THAT MATCH. I did it for providing evidence backing up my opinion. Reading other people's words carefully before replying is a good quality of manner in the forum because there are not only you and me here.

Anyway, there is a way that you can prove to me that I am wrong.

Upload your save game and I will play this Everton v Chelsea match with my tactics instead of yours.

If I do not get on better than you in this game (with a better shots on target percentage in my favour) then I will come back in here and say, 'catafan, I am totally and utterly wrong, the AI cheats'!

Why do I have to repeat my words again and again? I do not want to prove you are wrong at all because (again) you have been possessed by a faith that AI does not cheats and all your will do is to find anything to guard your faith. I've said that I have no interest to talk about this issue with you and let people do their own judgement. I also have said beside these 20 matches I did achieve a better result after tactic adjustment. Unfortunately you kept doing your stubborn things without reading what other people have said.

I'm so sad for you because you are letting this spoil the game for you. It's such a shame.

Don't worry about me. I play this game for my type of fun----finding out the underlying truth of this man-made game. There is no surprising it is flawed somewhere because it is made by a group of human-beings. I respect other people's way of enjoying this game, although they may be fooled in their imagination.

So yes, we can say that this is faith, but I am willing to prove my faith.

Will you prove your faith in a cheating AI?

I just provided some statistics for people to make their own judgement.

You made biased analysis and some unprovable guesses (in fact unture) on that.

The last time I repeat this (hopefully) so please read carefully: Let people do their own judgement on this issue.

If my posts spoiled your faith I am sorry.

[crouchaldinho]

Catafan - ok, I see this is the end for our conversation.

You say a few unfair things though, so I must just answer them.

Again you picked up a few matches favouring your opinion, that is not statistics. I could also do this----look at Everton's 90+6 penalty----but that's meaningless.

I didn't pick matches favouring my opinion. I picked the matches that you lost!

I also have pointed that I repeat that match for 20 times without changing tactic IS NOT FOR WINNING THAT MATCH. I did it for providing evidence backing up my opinion.

What are you driveling on about?

You do not provide any evidence whatsoever for your opinion.

Why do I have to repeat my words again and again? I do not want to prove you are wrong at all because (again) you have been possessed by a faith that AI does not cheats and all your will do is to find anything to guard your faith.

That's a cop out. Absolute cop out.

I will not be able to guard my faith if I cannot succeed. That's the point!

I also have said beside these 20 matches I did achieve a better result after tactic adjustment. Unfortunately you kept doing your stubborn things without reading what other people have said.

So now you admit that I am correct!

You had to change your tactic to win the match.

This makes me happy. You have proved me right that it was a tactical issue all along.

Don't worry about me. I play this game for my type of fun----finding out the underlying truth of this man-made game. There is no surprising it is flawed somewhere because it is made by a group of human-beings. I respect other people's way of enjoying this game, although they may be fooled in their imagination.

We leave it there then Catafan.

Enjoy your game and I wish you success.

C.

[Zulu316]

[Crouchaldinho I was wondering if you could please offer me some tactical advise. I seem to be having the same problems, sorry to re-open a closed debate! I have many shots off target whereas my 'inferior' opponent will nearly always have a better shots on target ration and pretty much every game beat me on CCC's. Can you offer any advice on how to solve this both defensively and offensively. Unfortuantely I am unable to upload my saves but if it helps it happens ebery time I start a game and usually occurs after me going a winning run. So I think it is something I am missing in general and not a problem in a percific game.

[crouchaldinho]

Zulu316 - I would direct you towards my SIMPLICITY thread. I fundamentally believe in reading scout reports and reacting to the information. These problems are usually due to teams becoming more defensive against you (after you have had a good run) and your team not attacking enough.

C.

[catafan]

So now you admit that I am correct!

You had to change your tactic to win the match.

This makes me happy. You have proved me right that it was a tactical issue all along.

C.

I think you have kept misinterpreting my points.

I was not moaning about I cannot beat a team in one match, I just wonder what is the reasonable explanation for the situation that I have 116 SoT (2.1 times of Everton), 49 Clear Cut Chances (1.6 times of Everton), better strikers and scored less than my opponent (15 vs 19). You are welcome to make direct reasoning for that situation but you just kept doing something else which has nothing to do with my points. You seemd to bear a stubborn idea that I said AI cheated just because I could not win AI team in 20 repeats----totally wrong. Please do not extend my opinion to a ridiculous statement and then beat that statement to make yourself happy, that's stupid. As I said you should read other people's words carefully to catch what they exactly mean before you reply, which is a good trait.

Repeat again in case you did not read the above carefully: My purpose is not to win that match, my purpose is to raise an unreasonable situation for people to discuss or explain. Clear now?

Cheers

[kolobok]

Repeat again in case you did not read the above carefully: My purpose is not to win that match, my purpose is to raise an unreasonable situation for people to discuss or explain. Clear now?

Pretty clear. Answer: you don't change your tactic -> Everton don't change their -> their strategy to park a bus in front of their goals and hit you on counter. Result: their strategy works. They outplayed you tactically in this particular match. Period.

[Smoothiebaloo]

But before a game would you change your tactic to a tactic that is not creating chances (ie. more chances that the opposition?).

Are we back to a discussion about real football and the world of 111001001001001000001010010100010101010.

[crouchaldinho]

I think you have kept misinterpreting my points ...

No, I haven't. I read what you say and I respond logically to it.

You keep changing your argument.

You seemd to bear a stubborn idea that I said AI cheated just because I could not win AI team in 20 repeats----totally wrong. Please do not extend my opinion to a ridiculous statement and then beat that statement to make yourself happy, that's stupid.

I will tell you what is stupid. Saying that you didn't say something when you did.

Here are the quotations from your posts:

AI is just unreasonably favoured before the match actually begins, which I would like to say AI is cheating.

I don't think SI will let AI cheat too blatantly (i.e. to make the user have 100% unwinnable matches), that will screw up the sales of this game.

It's not unreasonable to say that SI has done something to prevent the final results looking unrealistic, is it?

The one I posted above is unwinnable for me

Each time you are talking about the AI cheating!

As I said you should read other people's words carefully to catch what they exactly mean before you reply, which is a good trait.

You should read your own posts carefully so that you understand what it is you are posting in the first place!

My purpose is not to win that match, my purpose is to raise an unreasonable situation for people to discuss or explain. Clear now?

And I give you an explanation regarding your tactics that you refuse even though you admit that you can win that game if you change the tactic.

It's starting to get embarrassing for you Catafan. :o

You seem to be arguing against yourself!

I tell you its a tactical issue and you seem to agree with me and yet argue anyway.

It's getting on my nerves a bit but I will try my best to see the funny side.

C.

[crouchaldinho]

Pretty clear. Answer: you don't change your tactic -> Everton don't change their -> their strategy to park a bus in front of their goals and hit you on counter. Result: their strategy works. They outplayed you tactically in this particular match. Period.

I praise the lord. There is someone with a brain in this thread!

Hallelujah!

[catafan]

Pretty clear. Answer: you don't change your tactic -> Everton don't change their -> their strategy to park a bus in front of their goals and hit you on counter. Result: their strategy works. They outplayed you tactically in this particular match. Period.

I like your style mate, right on where it should be.

About your explanation, I would like to ask in further: if there is a clear cut chance for my striker, does it matter what their overall startegy is? IMO to score or not in a clear cut chance only depends on three factors (1) how good the striker is (2) how good the Goalkeeper is (3) Luck of both the striker and goalkeeper which can be eliminated by repeating the situation. From your point of view, is there any other factor(s)?

Cheers

[catafan]

Each time you are talking about the AI cheating!

Yes I did, I never deny that.

I think AI cheats because the particular situation I raised is unreasonable and unexplainable for me, not because I cannot win that match in 20 repeats. Your tactic issue is about how to win, which is the latter. My point is the former. Clear now?

Check your logic textbook mate.

[jaycar]

Teams are not unbeatable, however they can be much better than you, and in real life will win the majority of the time.

Saying that...

Trying to win the midfield battle with a 442 is driving me nuts, even with a MCd/MCa the AI just throws both MC's forward swamping me, I try making them both box to box..same thing. Both MCd's? Yep, tried that, still fails.

In fact most formations i've tried still lose out to the AI's midfield all streaming forward.

Gah, close to giving this game up.

[crouchaldinho]

Yes I did, I never deny that.

I think AI cheats because the particular situation I raised is unreasonable and unexplainable for me, not because I cannot win that match in 20 repeats. Your tactic issue is about how to win, which is the latter. My point is the former. Clear now?

Check your logic textbook mate.

Catafan - I open my logic textbook one last time for you.

The tactic issue I am raising is not only about how to win, it is also explaining the 'unreasonable and unexplainable' for you.

I tell you 100 times that your tactical choice is not the right one for this game. The paucity of your attacks and the inability to prevent Everton from getting shots on target is the problem. I say this all along.

It both explains why you can't win consistently, why you are getting these statistics and why you are getting these results against certain teams.

Now I close my logic textbook and go to bed!

Good luck with your FM save Catafan.

It's been fun. Well, maybe not fun, but...

Next time we talk, we must work on the same wavelength, ok?

C.

[catafan]

Catafan - I open my logic textbook one last time for you.

The tactic issue I am raising is not only about how to win, it is also explaining the 'unreasonable and unexplainable' for you.

I tell you 100 times that your tactical choice is not the right one for this game. The paucity of your attacks and the inability to prevent Everton from getting shots on target is the problem. I say this all along.

It both explains why you can't win consistently, why you are getting these statistics and why you are getting these results against certain teams.

Now I close my logic textbook and go to bed!

You opened the textbook, but you didn't read a single word in it.

I cannot finding anything more than "how to win" in your tactic saying. What you have done is all about changing a tactic to make a better result, not a single piece regarding the issue I raised.

Read it mate.

[Smoothiebaloo]

>>Crouchaldinho

You are not impressing anyone with your arrogance/"you-don't-have-a-brain"-tecnique.

[Zulu316]

Zulu316 - I would direct you towards my SIMPLICITY thread. I fundamentally believe in reading scout reports and reacting to the information. These problems are usually due to teams becoming more defensive against you (after you have had a good run) and your team not attacking enough.

C.

Cheers Crouchie I will have a look.

[catafan]

crouchaldinho, and also other guys who kept talking about tactics regarding winning the match and improving the result, thanks for your attention but it is not really what I am concerned with. I feel we are just wasting time and energy on two different issues. Therefore I am clairfying my points here again in a hopefully clearer way. Please read with patience.

The final results for us (human teams) are calculated by the M.E. based on the following factors (as I talk about these statistically, the factor like Luck is omitted):

Human_team_results (HTR) = Advantage of Player-quality(ΔP) + Advantage of Tactic (ΔT) - Power of AI-cheating (PAC)

Advantage of Player-quality(ΔP) is how better your players are than your opponents, if ΔP<0, it means the opponents are better. Please note that player morale and other mental factors are included in this.

Advantage of Tactic(ΔT) is how better your tactic is than your opponents. If ΔT<0, it means your team is outplayed by AI tactically.

Power of AI-cheating(PAC), could be Zero of course, or not. PAC means AI is unfairly favoured in the M.E. before the match starts.

Therefore whether PAC is 0 or not does not determine the HTR is win or not, and vice versa. Logically speaking, (1) you cannot say a win (positive HTR) necessarily means AI does not cheat (PAC=0), alternatively a win could be because your ΔP+ΔT overcomes PAC, or (2) you cannot say a lose (negative HTR) necessarily means AI does cheat (PAC>0), althernatively a lose could be because your ΔT is so negtive to let your team down. Now I hope it is clear for you why I am not talking about HTR, I am talking about something specifically related to PAC.

I think AI cheats, but it is not because of the bad HTRs I've posted, it is because of some more detailed statistic facts:

Chelsea: 116 SoT, 49 ClearCuts, Good Striker vs Mediocre Goalkeeper ----> 15 goals

Everton: 56 SoT, 30 ClearCuts, Mediocre Striker vs Good Goalkeeper ----> 19 goals

IMHO the above situation is an indication of PAC>0. I raise this issue is for explanation and discussion in term of M.E. calculation.

I accept reasoning logically related to this particular issue, not general talking like "it is all because of the tactic, changing tactic will do" which does not make real sence. For example, someone said my SoT/Shots is too low, it does not make sence if the quality of SoT is good, as we all know that ambitious shots have low on-target rate but if on-target it is difficult to stop. It is reasonable to say "SoT are not from ambitious shots but are all under heavy pressure of defenders"----I want discussion like that.

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

You opened the textbook, but you didn't read a single word in it.

I cannot finding anything more than "how to win" in your tactic saying. What you have done is all about changing a tactic to make a better result, not a single piece regarding the issue I raised.

Read it mate.

Catafan - I have talked to you about your match statistics for this whole conversation.

What I am saying to you is that if you want to get better statistics and/or win the game, then you need to change things tactically.

I'll make this clear, just in case I wasn't clear enough before - your Chelsea team have performed in this way due to tactical reasons. You do not create good enough chances and you do not defend well enough. If you don't want this kind of thing to happen again then you will need to alter your tactics.

I imagine that you need to be more attacking against Everton. In general, FM rewards attacking football, especially if you are a big team. You may win lots of matches with Chelsea playing your current tactic but when you come up against a decent side away from home, the deficiencies in your tactic show up. It is my belief this is what is happening here and why you have so many shots and so much possession but end up conceding goals despite Everton appearing to have fewer chances.

I tell you what I believe happens in this match. Everton play defensively, sit behind the ball and try to frustrate Chelsea. However, Chelsea do not play with enough attacking mentality and so they are not able to break down Everton. They take shots from range and/or have some chances but they are not really good chances.

Everton, on the other hand, are able to break into the midfield. I imagine that Chelsea are not pushed up to deny them space, so Everton end up having a little time in the Chelsea half. They have time and space to carve out one or two excellent chances and they score.

In some of the games, Chelsea manage to score first with a long range shot or a difficult chance. Sometimes they are able to go on and win the game due to Everton losing confidence.

Most of the time, Everton are able to take one of their really good chances and then they end up winning. Chelsea control the game in possession but do not create good enough chances and allow Everton too much space in their half.

What you see is Chelsea 'dominating' and Everton being very lucky. What is actually happening is that Everton create superior chances to Chelsea.

This is what I believe is happening in your statistics. That's why I talk about tactics as a way of changing this.

C.

[crouchaldinho]

>>Crouchaldinho

You are not impressing anyone with your arrogance/"you-don't-have-a-brain"-tecnique.

Smoothiebaloo - First of all, I am not trying to impress anyone. I just can't help it.

Secondly, I don't know why you want to get involved? Catafan and I are having some fun banter on here. Nobody should be offended.

He keeps telling me to get my textbook out, so I tell him to get his brain out. Just a bit of fun.

It's all a joke and nobody needs to get upset. I don't like to offend anyone if I can help it.

C.

[catafan]

Catafan - I have talked to you about your match statistics for this whole conversation.

What I am saying to you is that if you want to get better statistics and/or win the game, then you need to change things tactically.

I'll make this clear, just in case I wasn't clear enough before - your Chelsea team have performed in this way due to tactical reasons. You do not create good enough chances and you do not defend well enough. If you don't want this kind of thing to happen again then you will need to alter your tactics.

See? You are still talking about "chaning tactic to make better results", which I have repeatedly tell you that it is not my point. Why can't you just take a deep breath, calm down and use your brain instead of emotion. That's getting tedious indeed.

Please go back to read what I have said(#73,#79,#82,#85). Maybe you are not good at logic, but I don't think you have problem in verbal ability. I am not making fun or bickering here, what I want is sensible discuss.

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

Catafan - I have read your idea of how results are calculated and I can tell you that it isn't like that.

There is no 'PAC' as you call it. There are several random factors, which account for 'luck' and whether or not your players will have an 'off day' or a good day at the office.

Whether or not your players will reach there ability during a match is a matter of their consistency and their other hidden stats.

For a player on match day, his actual ability and level of performance is a result of his consistency, his important matches rating, your team talk and his reaction to it, your team gelling rating (and probably several other factors that I don't know about). All of this is then given a very slight random element.

If you play a match, you may be fielding a team of players who are inconsistent, have reacted badly to a team talk and are not gelling well. Therefore, these players are unlikely to perform as well as they can on the day.

On top of all of this, is your tactical decisions of course.

Chelsea: 116 SoT, 49 ClearCuts, Good Striker vs Mediocre Goalkeeper ----> 15 goals

Everton: 56 SoT, 30 ClearCuts, Mediocre Striker vs Good Goalkeeper ----> 19 goals

I think you are a little unfair on Everton to say they have 'mediocre' players.

I accept reasoning logically related to this particular issue, not general talking like "it is all because of the tactic, changing tactic will do" which does not make real sence.

I think it does make sense though, if you have ruled out the other factors.

Chelsea have higher average CA than Everton and better players.

I imagine Chelsea have players who are consistent and have good hidden stats.

I assume you have decent team gelling.

You say that there is no bad reaction to your team talk or your press conference.

So we have ruled out most factors.

I also say that it is tactical because of the strange statistics.

When a team players poorly for any of the above reasons, normally the possession

suffers, the chances suffer, players make mistakes and things like that.

This is why I say that I think it is tactics that are causing this.

For example, someone said my SoT/Shots is too low, it does not make sence if the quality of SoT is good, as we all know that ambitious shots have low on-target rate but if on-target it is difficult to stop. It is reasonable to say "SoT are not from ambitious shots but are all under heavy pressure of defenders"----I want discussion like that.

What I am concerned about is that your Chelsea team do not prevent Everton from making lots of their shots on target.

A good defensive performance by Chelsea would see Everton having shots from distance because they can't get near to your goal. The stats would be more like 5 shots, 0 on target, for instance. That would be a really good defensive performance.

Also, a good attacking performance would see Chelsea having something like 10 shots, 6 on target.

Instead, what we see is that Everton make, for instance, 6 shots and hit the target with 4. While Chelsea sometimes make 16 shots and only hit the target with 6.

It is only statistics but the alarm bells are ringing for me.

The question I immediately ask myself is why do Everton manage to hit the target so many times with their shots? Why do Chelsea not manage to hit the target so often with their shots?

You say Chelsea, over all of the games, have 116 shots on target and Everton have 56. (Some of these are in game that you have won as well, where Everton's drop in morale may account for a greater success rate).

But what if Chelsea's shots only have a 25% chance of going in due to them being from difficult angles, from outside the box and things like this?

What if Everton's shots have a 75% chance of going in due to them being from really good positions and from them having time and space to make a good shot.

If this is the case, then we can say that Everton have more good chances than Chelsea.

I hope this explains what I am trying to say clearly.

Your strikers might be better than the Everton strikers but if they have more difficult chances they will struggle to score. Equally, Everton might not have strikers that are as good as yours, but if they have easy chances, they will score goals.

This is all about quality of chances compared to quantity of chances.

C.

[crouchaldinho]

See? You are still talking about "chaning tactic to make better results", which I have repeatedly tell you that it is not my point. Why can't you just take a deep breath, calm down and use your brain instead of emotion. That's getting tedious indeed.

Catafan - read the post! I may have said better results but I also said about getting better statistics!

It is not me who is struggling with reading!

It is getting tedious because I can't think of a simpler way of explain this to you.

Forget results. OK. I never say the word 'results' to you again.

If you want to score more goals with your shots and improve the statistics then you need to change things tactically. If you want to concede less goals and make it so that Everton score less times then you need to change things tactically.

Maybe you are not good at logic, but I don't think you have problem in verbal ability. I am not making fun or bickering here, what I want is sensible discuss.

I think that you are not good at logic and have a problem with verbal ability. Just teasing.

C.

[catafan]

There are several random factors, which account for 'luck' and whether or not your players will have an 'off day' or a good day at the office.

Whether or not your players will reach there ability during a match is a matter of their consistency and their other hidden stats.

For a player on match day, his actual ability and level of performance is a result of his consistency, his important matches rating, your team talk and his reaction to it, your team gelling rating (and probably several other factors that I don't know about). All of this is then given a very slight random element.

If you play a match, you may be fielding a team of players who are inconsistent, have reacted badly to a team talk and are not gelling well. Therefore, these players are unlikely to perform as well as they can on the day.

But random factors like Luck or Consistency could be ruled out if we consider the whole result of 20 repeats in total, right?

I think you are a little unfair on Everton to say they have 'mediocre' players.

That's compared to my players.

What I am concerned about is that your Chelsea team do not prevent Everton from making lots of their shots on target.

The question I immediately ask myself is why do Everton manage to hit the target so many times with their shots? Why do Chelsea not manage to hit the target so often with their shots?

You say Chelsea, over all of the games, have 116 shots on target and Everton have 56. (Some of these are in game that you have won as well, where Everton's drop in morale may account for a greater success rate).

But what if Chelsea's shots only have a 25% chance of going in due to them being from difficult angles, from outside the box and things like this?

What if Everton's shots have a 75% chance of going in due to them being from really good positions and from them having time and space to make a good shot.

If this is the case, then we can say that Everton have more good chances than Chelsea.

I hope this explains what I am trying to say clearly.

Your strikers might be better than the Everton strikers but if they have more difficult chances they will struggle to score. Equally, Everton might not have strikers that are as good as yours, but if they have easy chances, they will score goals.

This is all about quality of chances compared to quantity of chances.

I have to say that is a clear and logical argument about the situation I have raised. Well done. Please continue in this direction and avoid those childish bickering things, which amuse nobody indeed.

Back to this point. I didn't save those pkm files for the 20 matches but I did observe them all for the whole process. Everton's SoT chances are as good as mine in general, sometimes from a good angle, and sometimes a bad angle. And the ClearCuts which you have never made a comment, both teams have nearly no difference in the quality of their ClearCut chances. When there is a ClearCut, it mostly is the situation that the Striker faces the Goalkeeper. However my striker, although better, failed to score, while the opponent striker scored more in less such chances. That confuses me a lot. What kind of tactic can make sure the striker to score more in a one-on-one chance?

Cheers

[Lerho]

Im with Catafan on this one. With better players and consistently more scoring opportunities, result from those 20 matches should have been completely opposite. But its that damn "home boost" AGAIN. Im almost end of my second season with Espanyol and Barcelona (great team of course) has played now 37 home matches in La Liga in these two seasons and won them ALL!! Not even a single draw in there...

[crouchaldinho]

But random factors like Luck or Consistency could be ruled out if we consider the whole result of 20 repeats in total, right?

Consistency can't exactly be ruled out as that is a permanent factor. A player with low consistency is not going to reach his ability on the pitch as often as a player with high consistency. How often and how much this has an effect on him is slightly randomised. This is my understanding.

But, I suppose you are correct in a way. If you repeat it 20 times, you should get different levels of randomisation/luck/your player being able to play to his best. So I think we don't need to talk about the random factor too much. However, this adds more weight to the idea of it being tactical.

Back to this point. I didn't save those pkm files for the 20 matches but I did observe them all for the whole process. Everton's SoT chances are as good as mine in general, sometimes from a good angle, and sometimes a bad angle.

But they score more often than you with fewer shots so it stand as a good argument that they must have better chances.

And the ClearCuts which you have never made a comment, both teams have nearly no difference in the quality of their ClearCut chances.

I haven't made any comment on 'clear cuts' because I don't really understand how the game decides what is clear cut and what is not clear cut.

Every clear cut chance will be the product of a different situation. Some clear cuts are going to be easier than other clear cuts. So it stands to reason that some clear cut chances are more likely to be scored. A player who is through one-on-one with the goalkeeper might find it easier to score from certain angles. I saw a 'clear cut chance' yesterday at a football match where a player was through one-one-one in a central position. It was difficult for him because he had to take the ball past the 'keeper into a wide position to score and he failed to take the chance. However, this season, I have seen a player through one-on-one slightly from the right side and it was easier for him as the 'keeper could not reduce the space as efficiently. Do you see what I mean? Perhaps both were 'clear cut' but one was difficult to score and the other was easier. Because I don't really understand how they are calculated in the game, I don't really want to comment on them.

But it is certainly a problem that Everton have as many clear cut chances as you. If you are dominating this game, Everton should have low shots on target and very low clear cut chances.

When there is a ClearCut, it mostly is the situation that the Striker faces the Goalkeeper. However my striker, although better, failed to score, while the opponent striker scored more in less such chances. That confuses me a lot. What kind of tactic can make sure the striker to score more in a one-on-one chance?

I fundamentally believe in reacting to scout reports and watching the match representation carefully when I create my tactics.

I could recreate your problem with shots on target etc. on my game. This is why I keep talking about tactics because I believe I understand what is happening.

I believe that you need to play with more attacking mentality, width, high defensive line and be more adventurous against Everton. You will then break them down more and create better chances.

C.

[catafan]

But they score more often than you with fewer shots so it stands to reason that they must have better chances.

It could be the reason of course.

But I've told you they do not have better chances than mine. If you don't believe me there is no necessity to talk anymore.

But it is certainly a problem that Everton have as many clear cut chances as you. If you are dominating this game, Everton should have low shots on target and very low clear cut chances.

Hmm I don't think 30vs49 could be any kind of "as many as", that's a 63% difference for Everton.

Eveton did have low SoT(56) and low ClearCuts(30) compared to mine (116 and 49, respectively), didn't they?

I fundamentally believe in reacting to scout reports and watching the match representation carefully when I create my tactics.

I could recreate your problem with shots on target etc. on my game. This is why I keep talking about tactics because I believe I understand what is happening.

I believe that you need to play with more attacking mentality, width, high defensive line and be more adventurous against Everton. You will then break them down more and create better chances.

These general ideas seem not to answer my question. I asked what kind of tactic can make sure the striker score more in one-on-ones.

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

Here is some stats from the last game I played away from home against opposition who are defending in my save game.

2-1 win:

My team = 10 shots, 8 shots on target, 1 clear cut chance.

The home team = 9 shots, 2 on target, 1 clear cut chance.

I am very happy indeed with this. 80% of shots on target. The opposition restricted to having just two on target. I probably should have won by more goals in this match but my team is a young and inconsistent team. I am also playing one of the good sides in my division.

Do you see how the statistics are different to yours? This is domination. I have quality chances and get shots on their goal. At the other end, I prevent a good team from having shots on my goal.

C.

[crouchaldinho]

It could be the reason of course.

The only other reason could be if Everton are superhuman and your team are a bunch of donkeys.

Or AI cheats to make your team into donkeys and Everton into superhumans.

But the AI never turns my team into donkeys so I would say there are three choices:

1) You have a faulty copy of FM.

2) I have a special one with no AI cheating.

3) Your tactics are causing a problem with the statistics.

But I've told you they do not have better chances than mine. If you don't believe me there is no necessity to talk anymore.

All the evidence points towards them having better chances than your players.

If you cannot see this in the match representation, then I do not know what to say.

Perhaps this is where the conversation ends.

Eveton did have low SoT(56) and low ClearCuts(30) compared to mine (116 and 49, respectively), didn't they?

The thing is that you and I have both shown that we can prove anything with the statistics.

We can agree that there are different qualities of shots. There are even different qualities of shots on target.

I put forward the idea that Everton's shots are of better quality because:

1) They score more often with fewer shots.

2) They have a better ratio of shots to shots on target.

3) You say they have worse strikers but score more than you, so this is almost certainly something to do with the quality of the chances.

What we can do to see if my hypothesis is correct is for you to find another game where you have the same problem. Upload it and I will download it. Then I will see what happens when I play the match. We can then compare statistics and goals scored/conceded.

These general ideas seem not to answer my question. I asked what kind of tactic can make sure the striker score more in one-on-ones.

Maybe try reading my SIMPLICITY thread and applying some of the ideas to your game to see if it helps? Most of my ideas about making a good attacking tactic are in there.

C.

[catafan]

Here is some stats from the last game I played away from home against opposition who are defending in my save game.

2-1 win:

My team = 10 shots, 8 shots on target, 1 clear cut chance.

The home team = 9 shots, 2 on target, 1 clear cut chance.

I am very happy indeed with this. 80% of shots on target. The opposition restricted to having just two on target. I probably should have won by more goals in this match but my team is a young and inconsistent team. I am also playing one of the good sides in my division.

Do you see how the statistics are different to yours? This is domination. I have quality chances and get shots on their goal. At the other end, I prevent a good team from having shots on my goal.

C.

Please, one single match does not indicate anything. I have better looking statistic to show if I would like to. I persue 4 goals per match, so I am afraid your style of playing does not fit for me. (a little bit off topic again).

[crouchaldinho]

Please, one single match does not indicate anything. I have better looking statistic to show if I would like to. I persue 4 goals per match, so I am afraid your style of playing does not fit for me. (a little bit off topic again).

I don't understand what you are saying about my 'style of play'. Many times I have scored 4 or 5 goals. Maybe not so much this season because I am not the best in my division. But last season, I got promoted and did so by playing attacking nearly every game and winning by dominating. I believe in making a lot of quality chances for my strikers, whereas you just believe in having as many shots as possible regardless of their quality and how many miss the target. That's the only difference.

C.

[catafan]

1) You have a faulty copy of FM.

2) I have a special one with no AI cheating.

3) Your tactics are causing a problem with the statistics.

(1) and (2) are not true. And (3) is arguable which needs furthur prove.

There could be also:

(4) You have not been meticulous enough to find out AI cheats.

I suggest you pay attention to the matches where too much unreasonable situations arise.

All the evidence points towards them having better chances than your players.

Yes, if excluding AI-cheating.

I put forward the idea that Everton's shots are of better quality because:

1) They score more often with fewer shots.

2) They have a better ratio of shots to shots on target.

3) You say they have worse strikers but score more than you, so this is almost certainly something to do with the quality of the chances.

What we can do to see if my hypothesis is correct is for you to find another game where you have the same problem. Upload it and I will download it. Then I will see what happens when I play the match. We can then compare statistics and goals scored/conceded.

(1) is true.

(2) This ratio doesn't matter. If one team has enough amount of SoT chances with very good quality, it does not matter how many times they shoot off the target. It is the quality of SoT chance that matters. As I said before, I prefer a 10/25 tactic to 3/6. If I failed to score more with more SoT, it could be because my SoTs are in poor quality chances or because AI cheats if the chances are really god, but it is not because the SoT/Shots ratio is low.

(3) As mentioned in (2), it could be the quality of the chacnes, or something to do with AI-cheating.

I will upload if I meet another one. But I do suggest you do not change the tactic or player and see the match process, to make sure my chances are poor or not. Changing tactic to make better results is another issue.

Maybe try reading my SIMPLICITY thread and applying some of the ideas to your game to see if it helps? Most of my ideas about making a good attacking tactic are in there.

Why couldn't just give me some possible answers specific to my question? It is a micro situation, not a macro stratgy. What kind of instruction you could give a strike to make sure he score more in one-on-ones?

Cheers

[crouchaldinho]

(1) and (2) are not true. And (3) is arguable which needs furthur prove.

There could be also:

(4) You have not been meticulous enough to find out AI cheats.

I suggest you pay attention to the matches where too much unreasonable situations arise.

But I've never seen statistics like yours using my tactics.

I have recreated a similar scenario to the one that I am proposing to you in a test game.

I play against a defensive team (according to scout report) away from home.

First time, I play conservatively: Lose 3-2.

Shots for the opposition are low. They have 7 shots of which 3 shots are on target and score three goals.

Shots for me are high. I shoot 15 times and I even have 7 shots on target and score only 2 goals.

So this is unreasonable. Would you agree?

I should win this match by your logic because I have had 7 shots on target, the opposition only 3. I had all of the possession. Stats favour me.

Second time, I play attacking: win 2-0.

Shots for the opposition are very low. They shoot 6 times, 1 on target.

Shots for me are high. I shoot 10 times and have 7 shots on target.

Do you see now what I am saying?

(2) This ratio doesn't matter.

YES IT DOES!

If a manager sees his team shooting a lot but often missing the target, then he would be livid and change things. It is an indication that your players are not able to create consistently good chances for the team.

If a manager sees the opposition team hitting the target every time they shoot, then he would know something was wrong and he would change things. It is an indication that your defenders are not able to defend well against the opposition.

As I said before, I prefer a 10/25 tactic to 3/6.

Where are you getting 3/6 from? You drive me crazy!

I am not proposing that you swap your 10/25 for 3/6!

I propose that you change your tactics and create better chances. I didn't say anything about reducing the quantity of them.

I prefer to get more shots on target. I want quality and quantity. I want to shoot a lot of times and get them on target.

I prefer to put the ball in the back of the net not keep missing the goal!

I will upload if I meet another one. But I do suggest you do not change the tactic or player and see the match process, to make sure my chances are poor or not. Changing tactic to make better results is another issue.

Will you send me the tactic you played that game against Everton with? I would like to see it.

Why couldn't just give me some possible answers specific to my question? It is a micro situation, not a macro stratgy.

Of course it is a macro situation! Provide better chances for your strikers in better positions by being more attacking, playing with more width &etc., and you will see your striker score more goals!

C.