Chat Goal Scoring Problems Illustrated

[lcutini32]

After playing 8 of the 11 other teams in my division (admittedly early in the season) I thought I noticed a trend so I took down some stats and did some quick calculations. The table shows what I found and I’ll go through it. 

- Tf and Ta: shots on target for (f) and against (a)

- Gf and Ga: goals for (f) and against (a)

- TxG: really rudimentary expected goals (not taking into account shot location or difficulty) of a shot on target for (f) and against (a). Essentially a conversion rate for shots on target. 

- TfN and TaN: Shots on target needed to produce 1 goal for (f) and against (a)

My biggest takeaway is probably obvious at this point. My teams need to take 2.294 shots on target to produce a goal while the opposition (8 of the 11 other teams) only need to take 1.333 shots to produce a goal.
This is what’s bothered me a lot on this edition and I’ve talked about it on here before. My team isn’t playing bad, I’m happy with the tactical shape and with the performances of most players, but we don’t get results and we don’t finish chances and I can’t figure out why. In contrast the AI gets one or two chances and beats me because they convert their chances way more often than I do. I have two more goals scored than the rest of the league and almost double the shots on target. How does the rest of the league do so much more with so much less?

[arrisosacchi]

Intresting ! Keep going.

Do you use shoot on sight ?

[lcutini32]

2 hours ago, arrisosacchi said:

Intresting ! Keep going.

Do you use shoot on sight ?

I actually don’t have that ticked either way.

we’re a newly promoted side so I don’t think it’s that teams are sitting back against us. It’s possible I just need better strikers but imo they’re about league average so I’d expect them to finish shots at a similar rate 

[DanEnglish]

Nice analysis. I’ve also noticed this trend ever since CM0102 - and for me it is massively (+80%) caused by the tactics I use.

Example. Man Utd in season 1. We should win the league (certainly top 4). 

Use a 4231 formation with through balls to an AF, IF + B2B, vs an opposition 4231..

• Result? We have lots of shots (on target)/game, but only a few CCC (clear cut chances) and on average win 2:1 … but can be some 3:1s and some 1:1 draws!  
• The opposition have few shots (on target), but most are CCC, and they’ll usually score 1 goal/game.
• Why? I have lots of half-chances + long shots, whereas their AMC is unmarked, and the opposition create very high quality chances in the holes between my 2 DCs + 2 MCs

So what to do (for me)? Score once, change tactic to a more balanced 41221 or 41410 formation:

• Result? We shoot less, but the few shots we have are either long shots or CCCs, so sometimes will score again, sometimes not.
• Crucially - the opposition rarely score, as their AMC doesn’t have space, and my wide attackers aren’t too aggressive. 

Summary = so I find the shots (on target) to goal ratio is directly dependent on the chance quality each side has, which is mostly dependent on the tactics used 🙂 

Note = you should also do this analysis just for the first half of each game - as the opposition often changes mentality mid/late in the second half to chase a goal, meaning they’re more likely to create chances + score, if you haven’t already changed things yourself.

Edited July 28, 2022 by DanEnglish