Fix finishing. its an absolute joke

[p2]

It is actually horrendous this year, players who have brilliant finishing stats still seem to sky or shoot wide 80% of the chances they get, why? whats the point in making it so poor when all it does is ruin the immersion and fun of the game. its a joke having to watch my striker get the ball then run on goal and not even hit the target, and half the time they do its straight at the keeper

[Ignorance]

the 1 vs 1 has bad rates i think and they need to find a solution, very hard to play counter teams atm, u can ofc score but its just 5% of the time on 1 vs 1, you know in matches where they score 1 goal they can have up to 10-15 shots on goal, depends on many factors, i actually like that its not a goal party every match. some of the older FMs you would get way too many goals, very unrealistic. my highest score with liverpool is 6-0 other than that i have had 5-1 and 5-0 and iam almost done with this season, rest of my games of been quite normal from 1 - 3 goals pr match and i only score on aprox 10% of my shots so if your are 20% thats quite good.

[p2]

İlk olarak Ignorance tarafından gönderildi:

the 1 vs 1 has bad rates i think and they need to find a solution, very hard to play counter teams atm, u can ofc score but its just 5% of the time on 1 vs 1, you know in matches where they score 1 goal they can have up to 10-15 shots on goal, depends on many factors, i actually like that its not a goal party every match. some of the older FMs you would get way too many goals, very unrealistic. my highest score with liverpool is 6-0 other than that i have had 5-1 and 5-0 and iam almost done with this season, rest of my games of been quite normal from 1 - 3 goals pr match and i only score on aprox 10% of my shots so if your are 20% thats quite good.

20% is not good, and by 20% i mean 20% of the highlights, not actual shots, thats a lot worse most times. Ive just had a game where it finsihed 8-3 to me, yet the game before where I had 50% more shots on targets i drew 0-0, its inconsistant

[fourfourtwo79]

I'm not sure whether the 1vs1 rate in general is *that* absurdly off. Here is why.

- On average over a variety of them, they are 1 in 3 chances. Streaks of not scoring as such should be really really common place, no matter the forward.

- If you watch, in partly due to bad decisions, the 1vs1s in game are oft/mostly from really tough angles rather than centrally in front of goal. Additionally, the forward is still closed down. It is fair to assume that they are lesser ones than the average 1 goal in 3 long-term average. In parts this is because the wide players/wingers seem to have it too easy

- This is crucial: ****One on one is not one on one***. There seem to be ones where the convesion is actually 1 in 2, or 50% or slightly higher https://community.sigames.com/topic/503206-football-manager-2020-feedback-thread/page/29/?tab=comments#comment-12127541


The most concerning thing is still their frequency. Misses over a couple weeks or months are perceived differently than over but a couple matches. Plus, they are not that common in real football.


Oh, and, whenever I see an FM match with 15 SOT and no goal, I know what to look out for, and it is not the amount of 1vs1. It is a thing the game doesn't have a stats for, which is the attempts from the set piece. Headers under pressure will barely be anything quite near a tap-in, and on top of that are mostly picked up by the keeper. This stat would be crucial, as a side havinng so much purely from the set piece is the telltale sign of it struggling to break a defense down. A lot of download tactics are hugely prone to this, as they push literally everybody up, playing completely into the hands of defensive opposition. The game naturally allows crap like that.

To highlight the above, this is an FM match with a) a lot of one on ones (RED), and b) a lot of attempts from the set piece (BLUE). The one on ones are from difficult angles, and almost all the finishes centrally in front of the box are purely from the set piece. Still 2 goals were scored.

https://i.imgur.com/2HCSDGR.png

[fourfourtwo79]

İlk olarak p2 tarafından gönderildi:

20% is not good, and by 20% i mean 20% of the highlights, not actual shots, thats a lot worse most times. Ive just had a game where it finsihed 8-3 to me, yet the game before where I had 50% more shots on targets i drew 0-0, its inconsistant

That's football. Bayern won 7-2 at Spurs, and every other shot went in.
https://1xbet.whoscored.com/Matches/1426904/MatchReport/Europe-UEFA-Champions-League-2019-2020-Tottenham-Bayern-Munich

Four days after that they lost 1-2 to Hoffenheim, where it didn't. https://1xbet.whoscored.com/Matches/1388231/MatchReport/Germany-Bundesliga-2019-2020-Bayern-Munich-Hoffenheim

In actual football, things tend to be a good deal more severe, as they can last weeks, and months. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/why-cristiano-ronaldo-has-been-real-madrids-major-problem-season-he-can-also-be-their It's fairly obvious why the game doesn't simulate anything like this.

How consistent your management is can only ever be gauged over the longer term.That said, the data FM offers have never been particularly reliable. As argued, a high amount of SOT with little goals is typically caused by most of those SOT being from the set piece (pressured headers, etc.). I've seen it otherwise on the occasion, but it's very very rare.

[Roy Keane]

İlk olarak Ignorance tarafından gönderildi:

the 1 vs 1 has bad rates i think and they need to find a solution, very hard to play counter teams atm, u can ofc score but its just 5% of the time on 1 vs 1, you know in matches where they score 1 goal they can have up to 10-15 shots on goal, depends on many factors, i actually like that its not a goal party every match. some of the older FMs you would get way too many goals, very unrealistic. my highest score with liverpool is 6-0 other than that i have had 5-1 and 5-0 and iam almost done with this season, rest of my games of been quite normal from 1 - 3 goals pr match and i only score on aprox 10% of my shots so if your are 20% thats quite good.

Very true man. Game is shamblic, they did great work with adding things off the field, but when it comes to match engine, they Need to improve and fix it, Cant believe that the match engine gets worse some years rather than build upon the good work.

Its stale,the passing and finishing, I mean, have you seen a player PLACE a shot when close to goal ?? NO. They alwasy blast it straight at the goalkeeper, nor do they ever DINK the shot, its so STALE, and lacks innovation.

[p2]

İlk olarak fourfourtwo79 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak p2 tarafından gönderildi:

20% is not good, and by 20% i mean 20% of the highlights, not actual shots, thats a lot worse most times. Ive just had a game where it finsihed 8-3 to me, yet the game before where I had 50% more shots on targets i drew 0-0, its inconsistant

That's football. Bayern won 7-2 at Spurs, and every other shot went in.
https://1xbet.whoscored.com/Matches/1426904/MatchReport/Europe-UEFA-Champions-League-2019-2020-Tottenham-Bayern-Munich

Four days after that they lost 1-2 to Hoffenheim, where it didn't. https://1xbet.whoscored.com/Matches/1388231/MatchReport/Germany-Bundesliga-2019-2020-Bayern-Munich-Hoffenheim

In actual football, things tend to be a good deal more severe, as they can last weeks, and months. https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/why-cristiano-ronaldo-has-been-real-madrids-major-problem-season-he-can-also-be-their It's fairly obvious why the game doesn't simulate anything like this.

How consistent your management is can only ever be gauged over the longer term.That said, the data FM offers have never been particularly reliable. As argued, a high amount of SOT with little goals is typically caused by most of those SOT being from the set piece (pressured headers, etc.). I've seen it otherwise on the occasion, but it's very very rare.

Im not carrying on arguing over this, this ISNT what im on about - the title is about finising and so is what im saying - players will shoot wide and high at a very unrealistic amount, that is the problem im trying to discuss, im watching footballers with 18 finishing consistantly missing open goals pretty much because theyre not shooting realistically

[Llaerrick]

i pretty much agree with the OP. saves (actual saves, rather than just standing in place where the shot is blasted straight at the keeper) or near misses are one thing. but seeing shots from forwards who have 16+ finishing/technique/composure constantly failing to even be on target (or shooting straight at the keeper) is not realistic.

the most irritating are the open 6 yard box misses ...

[fourfourtwo79]

İlk olarak p2 tarafından gönderildi:

Im not carrying on arguing over this, this ISNT what im on about

That's exactly what you were on about in the latest post, the perceived inconsistency. Maybe it is too high, maybe it is not. But that is a thing in football all over the shop. It's part of the reason why bookmakers love to quote a team's most recent win-draw-loss record. A lot of Football matches are tight affairs that at one pointn could have gone either way anyway. However, any such streak can be hugely influenced by random chance. If publishing those streaks would provide gamblers an edge, they wouldn't do it.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/name/67/post/2271195/headline

In soccer, the rate at which shots are scored is massively variable. A club might win 1-0 on a perfect long-distance strike one week and then lose 2-1 the next while firing a dozen shots from good positions right into the keeper's chest. One of the counterintuitive lessons of statistical analysis in soccer is that the latter team, the one that lost 2-1, generally has better odds to win future matches.

I agree that the game doesn't show a huge array of finishes, btw. Forwards rounding the keeper for instance is pretty rare (no idea how often this happens in football tbh), and the shots into the side netting have been flagged as issue. So may see a fix.

[JengZa]

Yes, I agree with this. Conversion rate is ridiculous low. Players couldn't score even 1 on 1. Suck...

[Veslefrikk]

This is horrible, the game is not worth playing until the match engine is fixed. And this needs to happen ASAP! In all the years i've played this series this is the absolute worst i have experienced.

[haverespect]

Everyone who is complaining let your voices be heard on the following thread and let he team know what you think about the ME and game to get this changed. Too many smug fan boys saying the ME is ok https://community.sigames.com/topic/503206-football-manager-2020-feedback-thread/page/33/

[Lee.G]

absolute joke. every game so far im having 30+ shots with around 80% of those being on target! the ai gets 7 shots and the one shot on target always goes in!

[Icke]

its not that bad

if they changed the conversion rate they could have to nerf the chances created or there would be too many goals.

ive scored 49 out of 24 games missing tons of one on ones every game.

[chaddid]

I have the same opinion, but how many goals are you scoring? I think this 1 vs 1 thing and finishing everyone is talking about is there, but I don't know about everyone else, my team is still scoring. I probably get 5-7 1 v 1 situations. I think the wings come in and shoot off the net way too much, but I think they get those opportunities too much. In my opinion, the engine needs to tweak the amount of great scoring chances in the game. There are way too many shots, way too many 1 v 1 chances and way too many situations where the players get in on goal. Here's the thin line of being realistic, fun and trying to make the game fun for everyone, including those that don't know much about the sport. A game that has 5-6 shots and might get 1-2 goals just isn't fun for the non football fan. So the game has to kinda go over the top the other way. But you can't just have the finishing be realistic or the games would have 6-7 goals every game. I do agree, it's pretty frustrating watching me striker open and not get a pass, or him missing the net 5 times a game and not finishing on his 4 1v1 chances.

[fourfourtwo79]

İlk olarak chaddid tarafından gönderildi:

But you can't just have the finishing be realistic or the games would have 6-7 goals every game.

Whilst you're right this is a balancing act, this is inacurate. In actual football, the average shot conversion / expectation is 1 goal roughly every 10th shot. Therefore, any chance with a higher probability of scoring is to be regarded as a bigger chance. Chances in which the forward is in the advantage to score meanwhile are regarded as very rare. Messi et all don't average a goal per match because they put it all away (and they couldN't). They have 5+ attempts AVERAGE per match throughout their entire career. Football is a low scoring sports for reason. 1vs1s for instance on average are regarded as 1 in 3 chances. Long-term one in 3 are a goal (perfectly possible to not score in five, six). That means they're good chances, but they're not open goals (like a tap-in, or cutback scenario). There seem types of one on ones in-game that have a chance of conversion as high as 50%ish (1 in 2), see my big post and links in the first post above.

However you're right on the wingers/wide players from my end. They get behind the lines far too easily. However, as it is mainly those widish guys, they tend to approach the goal and oft finish from difficult angles. The red dots here are the 1vs1s (the dots marked blue difficult headers from the set piece and the like): https://i.imgur.com/2HCSDGR.png Most of those should be probably regarded as 1 in 5 chances at best. I've seen far better ones in actual football regarded as 1 in 4 chances by various xG models. The biggest issue to me seems actually the frequency, far too many in a match, which means fixing the defending. And naturally the decision making too. Then there's probably an issue with the conversion ratio at such angles, but it may not be that absurdly off the mark. Will watch it a bit closer in the coming days.