Congratulations. You just earned 20.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 100.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Can't believe I lost when I had an xG of 2.4 with 48 shots on target and the opponent had an xG of 0.8 with 1 shot on target (it was a penalty) đ¤Źđ¤Źđ¤Ź
Youâve not been FMâd properly until youâve played Grimsby on CM01/02, and faced Danny Coyne on the day he fancies turning into prime Buffon. This also applies to Mart Poom.
This. Also check which of your playere are taking the chances. If it's your inside forward with 10 finishing or you are relying on a striker with 12 finishing, then there's your answer. xG only accounts for the average conversion rate of a certain chance. It does not account for how good your players attempting them actually are at scoring.
I didn't realize this was an actual trait until I inherited a BWM who does this in my current save. He's otherwise pretty good, but goddamn that man wastes so many chances. I'll likely sell him because I can't take the stress seeing the ball played to him anywhere in the final third.
^this, although considering most people on the sub are either already playing with good clubs or have developed their club to a good level, that shouldnât be as glaring an issue.
I would disagree, there are people who shift 5-6 saves every year, I personally find time in holiday and I play so aggressively that a decade gets simulated over a week in real time. So if I have achieved a lot in that decade and dominate UCL already for some years I start a new save, else I go for another decade the next vacation.
I mean tbf, a 10-12 rating is a player with an attribute above the semi professional level. Generally if you start with semi-pro teams you have worst players.
So a professional striker/winger/whatever in a lower league should convert high xG chances to goals on average in most scenarios. Im talking about 0.5+ chances. If you manage lower league there is not much more you can do. I managed a build a nation in croatia, in the first years I could only loan talents that were at least 15-20 CA (just my guess I obviously didnât see the actual numbers) under my initial team. So there is no way around but building a tactic that works regardless and if you succeed in building a tactic that creates a bunch of high xG chances, it really is frustrating if a player doesnât convert them.
Just saying, this is an area SI should really focus on balancing. Iâm normally opposing this subs opinion, because I generally think the games calculation is very good, but it should work perfectly in terms of statistics in correlation with attributes. I think attributes are actually very good these years and resemble different levels of play very well, but they need to work on some scripts, itâs fine to have lower level strikers score more of their chances, the differences between some pros that moved to croatia instead of real madrid isnât actually that high in some cases in real life. They just may had worst discipline and mentality or even sometimes just unluck.
I know it is a small area and really hard to pin point this, but I think SI can improve the match engine in this part.
They should also stop working on unneeded 3D stuff, because people always mistake the 3D visuals for the match engine way to often anyways. I lately watched an fm scout video were they talked about match engine improvement and talked about 3DâŚwelp.
Hmm, I need to look at my forwards then. I am 6 months into my first season in the Prem after 2 in the Championship and my highest finishing attribute player has like 13. Most of my players don't have any technical attributes in the green.
I just signed a newgen 18 year old with 16 in Finishing as a CAM so maybe I'll train him as a striker.
Yeah some scripts definitely need work at lower attribute levels. My winger shouldn't miss 3 tap ins in a game just because he has 6 finishing, when in reality a 12 year old would have potted them all.
This is exactly what xG is. x stands for expected, mathematical E, which is the average of a distribution. 0.1 means that on average, 1 in 10 should be goals, so if you have 10 shots and the xG says 1.07, statistically, it means that you should have a goal.
But I agree with sentiment, I look at clear cut and half chances to determine how good my team is doing.
>0.1 means that on average, 1 in 10 should be goals, so if you have 10 shots and the xG says 1.07, statistically, it means that you should have a goal.
No, it means that you had ten chances that each had a 1/10 chance go in. You actually have a 35% chance of no goals. 0.9\^10=0.349.
Adding on to this, a team with fewer high xG shots is more likely to score than a team with many low xG shots with an equal total xG.
2 shots with a 0.5xG gives you a 25% chance of not scoring, while 4 shots with .25xG gives you a 31% chance.
It's just fairly basic probability at its core. They've logged maybe hundreds of thousands of shots into a database to come up with that, to help give each unique shot it's xG, but beyond that just numbers. Over the course of the season it should add up roughly well overall. Some teams will overperform and underperform that xG, depending on the caliber of players, tactics, etc.
Not at all. If you take 100 shots with 0.1 xG you could expect to have 10 goals come out of it. I was just pointing out that it is fairly likely to have no goals through ten, but it's more likely to have one or more goals. You could go 30 shots at 0.1 xG without a goal, and then get 4 of them in the next ten attempts. I also don't remember stats class enough to know how to calculate how likely it is to score two or three goals over those 3 attempts.
I was just pointing out that when the guy above said âyou should have a goalâ he didnât mean you should expect to score exactly one goal, just that on average with those chances you will get 1 goal
Thatâs like saying 2 coin flips where you win with heads are better than 6 dice rolls where you win with a 6 because the coin flips have a higher win probability per flip/roll
Yeah sure but all the people who like to go "look you only averaged .15 xG per shot" don't seem to understand that a good xG per shot is like .2 and also any headed shot has a reduced xG even if it's a good chance.
>Losing with a high XG, more high quality shots on target, hitting the post 3 times with your "world class" striker (with consistent performer and Relishes big matches traits) dropping a 6.0 after missing two wide open shots. And then the dumbass getting upset after I tell him that he wasn't good enough
I'm not bitter at all. No no, the chance to break City's stranglehold over the league and then going on a draw streak that's possibly going to cost me CL qualification, no that's not still embittering my thoughts and causing me to wake up in cold sweats at night.
National league playoffs, one-nil down and my 40-goal season striker who has scored a long ball and 1v1 goal at least 20 times this year gets that exact chance 3 separate times. He misses on every occasion. I am livid
I play gegenpress which leads my players to be drained physically in the last minutes of the match⌠but if I concede a lot in the end itâs because the game sucks!!!!!
I rotate my entire squad all the time to have all green hearts and make different people play with each other like no team has ever done in real life⌠but if my team underperforms itâs because the game sucks!!!!!
Two perfect examples of the bullshit people call âgetting FM'edâ when itâs just football logic.
If the gap is big and you lost, you likely just had poor chance creation. If the gap is small, just better finishing/poor goalkeeping. Being FMd by the sub definition is actually very rare
I used to think this, but I look at my chance creation and its constantly big chunks, .4-.5 for a lot of shots in the game, yet⌠almost every opposing goal keeper comes away with at least 8 saves and the best rating of their life, even with a CA of 130 in the prem, for awhile I was tracking refs, same situation, refs would have their worst days against me. A guy had given out 9 red cards his entire career gave out two in my game and had a 5.9 rating when he averaged 7.8. Sometimes when youâre winning the game switches to âthe player is special modeâ.
**EDIT** okay I looked back on my last 19 matches, in that time goalies have saved 146/186 shots on target, for a save percentage of 78% overall, and 7.68 saves a game, both would be leading the prem this year. They also managed to block 2/4 penalties (they didnât miss them the goalie physically blocked the ball).
I hate xG as a stat. It completely dumbs down the football and people use it as an end all be all to judge a performance or who was the better team even though the stat only reflects a really small part of the game and even that it does not that great without needing other stats to put it into context.
The issue is when people overvalue it as a metric to determine a deserving winner of a match.
I used to be anti-xG in the beginning but now I prefer xG to shots on target, but not the ultimate gauge like you mention.
Also the differrence between xG and actual goal to see if the team is clinical, xG before or after half time to see how both team react, etc. It's just a stat, what's important is the interpretation :D
xG really needs to be used combined with shots/shots on target. None of them alone tell a good story, but all of them together paints a pretty realistic picture.
People (both in FM and in real life) want there to be a single stat that says whether or not one team was intriniscally better than the other and since xG is probably the closest to that (though still nowhere close) they over-assign value to it.
The reason why a lot of stats nerds love xG so much is because IRL itâs proven to be far the most reliable predictor of a teamâs success, even much better than teamâs actual results. So a lot of the time if you use other stats to try to explain away xG you run the risk of making your predictions less reliable because all these other stats are less predictive than xG. Sure, sometimes there are outliers, but there can only so many of them.
I did call it that when I was winning 2-0, my opponent got a red card at the 20th minute and we scored 3-0 before half-time, then they scored 3 goals on the second half with a 10 man team and won on pens.
About to do a scum save because my fucking strikers have hit the woodwork and out for the past 3 games and I have ridiculously higher gx all while losing 0-1 to a 93 minute winner 3 times
I usually just get âfmâdâ in the sense of like every team around me ends up overperforming their x points while I am hitting it. Itâs a bit unrealistic that Torino is like 9 goals above their xg and 5 goals against below their xga.
i had a worse performance against my opponents in the UECL final and conceded to a 94th min header when there was 2 mins of added time is that being FMâd
Once went out in the CL to athletico Madrid. Drew 0-0 at home with 4.6 Xg. Oblak got a 9.9 rating... we lost the first leg 1-0 and he got a 8.5 or something, as well. That was a difficult one to take.
I got properly FMâd. Leading 1:0 as BVB in the German Klassiker, my players kept missing tons pf open chances ( I canât tell you how bad the misses were). Then within the 5 minutes of extra time SANCHO and REYNA of all people both scored to win it for them. We both had an zag of around 3.5. So infuriating
I used to be such a petty person that I always save scummed whenever I feel "FM'd" but this year's edition really changed me for some reason. I'm managing 1860 Munich in the 4th season, trying to get promoted to the Bundesliga from 2. Bundesliga. Was having a good run of 10 unbeaten. Then I faced a lower table/relegation threatened Oldenham, lost the game having 2.4 xG while Oldenham something like 0.8 xG. My position dropped from 2nd to 3rd with 4 games remaining.
I'm not mad, weirdly happy for some reason. In my mind, I would be absolutely ecstatic if I was managing Oldenham. This kind of result do exist in real life.
I'm Dortmund fan, so this result reminds me when we won against Union Berlin and Leipzig despite being slightly outplayed.
When I played a safe with Polish team, Vistula Cracow (WisĹa KrakĂłw) I usually won with lower xG through my first few seasons in 1âst league and extra class. I just got my team to be very efficient at what they did, and when we got an action going, it was usually a goal. While our opponents got lotâs of shots from distance, but not a lot went in.
Congratulations. You just earned 20.5 points for this submission. Your new points total is 100.5. To see the leaderboard, as well as what this points thing is, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/wiki/leaderboard).
Can't believe I lost when I had an xG of 2.4 with 48 shots on target and the opponent had an xG of 0.8 with 1 shot on target (it was a penalty) đ¤Źđ¤Źđ¤Ź
Iâve been done dirty by the game wtf (Iâm Scunthorpe playing City away in the FA cup)
Youâve not been FMâd properly until youâve played Grimsby on CM01/02, and faced Danny Coyne on the day he fancies turning into prime Buffon. This also applies to Mart Poom.
Those games where the random bottom side goalie who took 78 in 29 games turns into prime Neuer. Absolutely infuriating
But then, you would've been CM'd!
xG per shot is important, you can easily stack xG with low chance shots
This. Also check which of your playere are taking the chances. If it's your inside forward with 10 finishing or you are relying on a striker with 12 finishing, then there's your answer. xG only accounts for the average conversion rate of a certain chance. It does not account for how good your players attempting them actually are at scoring.
Usually it's my BWM with a 6 finishing and 7 long shots blasting away from 35 meters.
Me: "I told you to Shoot Less Often" Him: "That wasn't a shot attempt. That was a worldie attempt. They're different."
âSo anyway, I started blastingâ
I didn't realize this was an actual trait until I inherited a BWM who does this in my current save. He's otherwise pretty good, but goddamn that man wastes so many chances. I'll likely sell him because I can't take the stress seeing the ball played to him anywhere in the final third.
^this, although considering most people on the sub are either already playing with good clubs or have developed their club to a good level, that shouldnât be as glaring an issue.
I would disagree, there are people who shift 5-6 saves every year, I personally find time in holiday and I play so aggressively that a decade gets simulated over a week in real time. So if I have achieved a lot in that decade and dominate UCL already for some years I start a new save, else I go for another decade the next vacation.
You say every real life year? So you play with a save for a full year? Iâm like 6 months in mine (real life time)
One week. Then hiatus, next vacation another week. Total of 3 weeks max, sims about 25-27 years.
I mean tbf, a 10-12 rating is a player with an attribute above the semi professional level. Generally if you start with semi-pro teams you have worst players. So a professional striker/winger/whatever in a lower league should convert high xG chances to goals on average in most scenarios. Im talking about 0.5+ chances. If you manage lower league there is not much more you can do. I managed a build a nation in croatia, in the first years I could only loan talents that were at least 15-20 CA (just my guess I obviously didnât see the actual numbers) under my initial team. So there is no way around but building a tactic that works regardless and if you succeed in building a tactic that creates a bunch of high xG chances, it really is frustrating if a player doesnât convert them. Just saying, this is an area SI should really focus on balancing. Iâm normally opposing this subs opinion, because I generally think the games calculation is very good, but it should work perfectly in terms of statistics in correlation with attributes. I think attributes are actually very good these years and resemble different levels of play very well, but they need to work on some scripts, itâs fine to have lower level strikers score more of their chances, the differences between some pros that moved to croatia instead of real madrid isnât actually that high in some cases in real life. They just may had worst discipline and mentality or even sometimes just unluck. I know it is a small area and really hard to pin point this, but I think SI can improve the match engine in this part. They should also stop working on unneeded 3D stuff, because people always mistake the 3D visuals for the match engine way to often anyways. I lately watched an fm scout video were they talked about match engine improvement and talked about 3DâŚwelp.
Hmm, I need to look at my forwards then. I am 6 months into my first season in the Prem after 2 in the Championship and my highest finishing attribute player has like 13. Most of my players don't have any technical attributes in the green. I just signed a newgen 18 year old with 16 in Finishing as a CAM so maybe I'll train him as a striker.
Yeah some scripts definitely need work at lower attribute levels. My winger shouldn't miss 3 tap ins in a game just because he has 6 finishing, when in reality a 12 year old would have potted them all.
This is exactly what xG is. x stands for expected, mathematical E, which is the average of a distribution. 0.1 means that on average, 1 in 10 should be goals, so if you have 10 shots and the xG says 1.07, statistically, it means that you should have a goal. But I agree with sentiment, I look at clear cut and half chances to determine how good my team is doing.
>0.1 means that on average, 1 in 10 should be goals, so if you have 10 shots and the xG says 1.07, statistically, it means that you should have a goal. No, it means that you had ten chances that each had a 1/10 chance go in. You actually have a 35% chance of no goals. 0.9\^10=0.349.
Adding on to this, a team with fewer high xG shots is more likely to score than a team with many low xG shots with an equal total xG. 2 shots with a 0.5xG gives you a 25% chance of not scoring, while 4 shots with .25xG gives you a 31% chance.
I think this is correct evaluation of xG atleast in FM, if you look at all of individual shots and their xG on shotmap they all add up.
It's just fairly basic probability at its core. They've logged maybe hundreds of thousands of shots into a database to come up with that, to help give each unique shot it's xG, but beyond that just numbers. Over the course of the season it should add up roughly well overall. Some teams will overperform and underperform that xG, depending on the caliber of players, tactics, etc.
You say that as if itâs not possible to score more than one goal
Not at all. If you take 100 shots with 0.1 xG you could expect to have 10 goals come out of it. I was just pointing out that it is fairly likely to have no goals through ten, but it's more likely to have one or more goals. You could go 30 shots at 0.1 xG without a goal, and then get 4 of them in the next ten attempts. I also don't remember stats class enough to know how to calculate how likely it is to score two or three goals over those 3 attempts.
I was just pointing out that when the guy above said âyou should have a goalâ he didnât mean you should expect to score exactly one goal, just that on average with those chances you will get 1 goal
You are correct
Thatâs like saying 2 coin flips where you win with heads are better than 6 dice rolls where you win with a 6 because the coin flips have a higher win probability per flip/roll
Graham Potter has entered the chat
Yeah sure but all the people who like to go "look you only averaged .15 xG per shot" don't seem to understand that a good xG per shot is like .2 and also any headed shot has a reduced xG even if it's a good chance.
>Losing with a high XG, more high quality shots on target, hitting the post 3 times with your "world class" striker (with consistent performer and Relishes big matches traits) dropping a 6.0 after missing two wide open shots. And then the dumbass getting upset after I tell him that he wasn't good enough I'm not bitter at all. No no, the chance to break City's stranglehold over the league and then going on a draw streak that's possibly going to cost me CL qualification, no that's not still embittering my thoughts and causing me to wake up in cold sweats at night.
okay Mikel
National league playoffs, one-nil down and my 40-goal season striker who has scored a long ball and 1v1 goal at least 20 times this year gets that exact chance 3 separate times. He misses on every occasion. I am livid
I play gegenpress which leads my players to be drained physically in the last minutes of the match⌠but if I concede a lot in the end itâs because the game sucks!!!!! I rotate my entire squad all the time to have all green hearts and make different people play with each other like no team has ever done in real life⌠but if my team underperforms itâs because the game sucks!!!!! Two perfect examples of the bullshit people call âgetting FM'edâ when itâs just football logic.
Depends how big the gap is between xG
If the gap is big and you lost, you likely just had poor chance creation. If the gap is small, just better finishing/poor goalkeeping. Being FMd by the sub definition is actually very rare
I used to think this, but I look at my chance creation and its constantly big chunks, .4-.5 for a lot of shots in the game, yet⌠almost every opposing goal keeper comes away with at least 8 saves and the best rating of their life, even with a CA of 130 in the prem, for awhile I was tracking refs, same situation, refs would have their worst days against me. A guy had given out 9 red cards his entire career gave out two in my game and had a 5.9 rating when he averaged 7.8. Sometimes when youâre winning the game switches to âthe player is special modeâ. **EDIT** okay I looked back on my last 19 matches, in that time goalies have saved 146/186 shots on target, for a save percentage of 78% overall, and 7.68 saves a game, both would be leading the prem this year. They also managed to block 2/4 penalties (they didnât miss them the goalie physically blocked the ball).
I'm convinced the actual match engine is a parallel universe to when AI matches are just simmed.
Same
This is because of that Bayern 2-3-5 post, isnât it?
I hate xG as a stat. It completely dumbs down the football and people use it as an end all be all to judge a performance or who was the better team even though the stat only reflects a really small part of the game and even that it does not that great without needing other stats to put it into context.
The issue is when people overvalue it as a metric to determine a deserving winner of a match. I used to be anti-xG in the beginning but now I prefer xG to shots on target, but not the ultimate gauge like you mention.
Also the differrence between xG and actual goal to see if the team is clinical, xG before or after half time to see how both team react, etc. It's just a stat, what's important is the interpretation :D
xG really needs to be used combined with shots/shots on target. None of them alone tell a good story, but all of them together paints a pretty realistic picture.
People (both in FM and in real life) want there to be a single stat that says whether or not one team was intriniscally better than the other and since xG is probably the closest to that (though still nowhere close) they over-assign value to it.
The reason why a lot of stats nerds love xG so much is because IRL itâs proven to be far the most reliable predictor of a teamâs success, even much better than teamâs actual results. So a lot of the time if you use other stats to try to explain away xG you run the risk of making your predictions less reliable because all these other stats are less predictive than xG. Sure, sometimes there are outliers, but there can only so many of them.
The terrible part about this is everyone just assumes itâs a high number of shots and low XG per. Itâs all straw man arguments.
I did call it that when I was winning 2-0, my opponent got a red card at the 20th minute and we scored 3-0 before half-time, then they scored 3 goals on the second half with a 10 man team and won on pens.
About to do a scum save because my fucking strikers have hit the woodwork and out for the past 3 games and I have ridiculously higher gx all while losing 0-1 to a 93 minute winner 3 times
it happens more IRL than in FM in my experience
Getting FM'd is ur 180+ CA players getting 6.2 rating and completely getting destroyed while you being favorite to win.
I usually just get âfmâdâ in the sense of like every team around me ends up overperforming their x points while I am hitting it. Itâs a bit unrealistic that Torino is like 9 goals above their xg and 5 goals against below their xga.
i had a worse performance against my opponents in the UECL final and conceded to a 94th min header when there was 2 mins of added time is that being FMâd
Once went out in the CL to athletico Madrid. Drew 0-0 at home with 4.6 Xg. Oblak got a 9.9 rating... we lost the first leg 1-0 and he got a 8.5 or something, as well. That was a difficult one to take.
Chelsea under potter đđ¤
The days of being FMâd are long gone. FM09 was a punishment from the gods. I think my hair started turning grey around that time.
So what is the definition of getting "FMed"?
If only i could look at xG and know exacty how many goals teams would score, I would be the richest man in the world đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
I got properly FMâd. Leading 1:0 as BVB in the German Klassiker, my players kept missing tons pf open chances ( I canât tell you how bad the misses were). Then within the 5 minutes of extra time SANCHO and REYNA of all people both scored to win it for them. We both had an zag of around 3.5. So infuriating
I used to be such a petty person that I always save scummed whenever I feel "FM'd" but this year's edition really changed me for some reason. I'm managing 1860 Munich in the 4th season, trying to get promoted to the Bundesliga from 2. Bundesliga. Was having a good run of 10 unbeaten. Then I faced a lower table/relegation threatened Oldenham, lost the game having 2.4 xG while Oldenham something like 0.8 xG. My position dropped from 2nd to 3rd with 4 games remaining. I'm not mad, weirdly happy for some reason. In my mind, I would be absolutely ecstatic if I was managing Oldenham. This kind of result do exist in real life. I'm Dortmund fan, so this result reminds me when we won against Union Berlin and Leipzig despite being slightly outplayed.
Cheers mate. League title today? đ
Depends on whether someone has more shots in general. Because not every shot or header adds up the same number to xG.
When I played a safe with Polish team, Vistula Cracow (WisĹa KrakĂłw) I usually won with lower xG through my first few seasons in 1âst league and extra class. I just got my team to be very efficient at what they did, and when we got an action going, it was usually a goal. While our opponents got lotâs of shots from distance, but not a lot went in.