The Champions League final proves that if 2 managers put up a big defence you can end up in a real stalemate with a match without any action for 90 minutes.
In order to spice things up a bit (and stick to reality in fact), could we have penalty-type chances that would have a particular success rate (like 3 chances out of 4) and that would be favoured over aggressive or very defensive teams, which would make it possible to unlock closed matches.

To avoid closed matches, there is a solution whereby, in the event of a draw, it is not the current "Russian roulette" penalty shoot-out that decides between the 2 teams, but that victory goes to the team that had the last chance.

That way, at any given moment, one of the two teams would always have to work hard to create at least one chance, if not a goal, and every second the cat-and-mouse game could be reversed if a chance was created.

As a result, even zero-zero games would be spiced up.

That way, the game would get going, right from the kick-off and not after the 1st goal, which may never come, or a few seconds from the end, as in this LDC final.

And for those who say that it's out of sync with reality, I invite them to look at the dozens of things in the game that are out of sync with reality: a walk in the forest at) 500 ko! a goalkeeper who never gets injured or never gets carded! a stadium full to 90,000 spectators for a friendly match against a team from the 6th zone! etc....

Frankly, if it's easier for Aymeric to code, why not? There are dozens of ways to spice up a match, and all you need is at least one of them.

myforsans: Pour éviter les matchs fermés, il y a la solution qu'en cas de match nul ce n'est pas l'épreuve actuelle des pénalitys "roulette russe" qui départage les 2 équipes mais que la victoire revienne à l'équipe qui a obtenu la dernière occasion.

Comme ça à l'instant "t", il y a toujours une des deux équipes qui doit cravacher pour se créer au moins une occasion à défaut d'un but et à chaque seconde le jeu du chat et de la souris peut s'inverser si une occasion est créée.

Du coup même les matchs ...

So the guy who hounded the other team all match without scoring but had the misfortune to concede the last chance because he was pushing to score is automatically out?

The right solution is to double the xG cap and make the MDM more reactive/punitive when a guy is struggling defensively.
We've made it far too commonplace to spend 1 hour 30 minutes watching the game for 4 chances.

Didn't see that one coming 🤣🤣

Skyz: Du coup le mec qui mitraille l'autre tout le match sans marquer mais qui a le malheur de conceder la derniere occasion parce qu'il pousse pour marquer est éliminé d'office?

La bonne solution c'est des doubler le cap des xG et rendre le MDM plus reactif/punitif quand un mec est à la rue defensivement.
On a beaucoup trop banalisé le fait de passer 1h30 devant le match pour 4 occasions.

I approve.

Regarding the penalty shoot-out in the event of a tie, why not create a manual shoot-out, with each manager taking 30 seconds to shoot, with the option of choosing right, left or centre, and if a manager isn't connected, he'll automatically shoot to the centre and stay in the centre during the stoppages. This would allow managers who follow their matches to be rewarded and not play the lottery, and to spice up big matches in the event of a tie with a real penalty shoot-out.

Instead of commenting on the summary of the match with a slim action (which resulted in a goal for Ced), and concluding things from it, it would be nice to have followed and experienced the match directly.

Ced's basic profile is very defensive, coupled with an almost unpredictable attack. Just look at his 6 LDC games in the finals: he conceded a total of 0.123+0.57+0.056+0.494+0.234+0.309 = 1.78 xGA (in 6 games). On the other hand, he very often generated +1xG rather than xGA compared to his opponents.

I also have a fairly basic defensive profile 0.076+0.725+0.103+1.112+0.285+0.276 = 2.577xGA (in 6 matches). Obviously, we couldn't expect a very exciting match in terms of generating action with two defensive profiles. On the other hand, in terms of the number of tactical changes we made despite malus, it was my most active match for a very long time. The first team to score was going to win (especially with our PHJ players on the bench for concreting afterwards), which led to the ultra-defensive profile of the match, lacking in content.

For me, at least, it was a conscious decision to favour my defence over my attack, as I couldn't change my attack without exposing myself too much against Ced (which was the case in each of Ced's finals matches, as he dominated them all in xG vs xGA).

Playing defensively is therefore sometimes a conscious and deliberate choice, quite different from the absence of actions generated despite scenarios that are conducive to action in terms of stats. But that's the game! So I don't really see why we should penalise TABs (for TABs in real time, we already have a module that allows you to choose the L/L/L of shots and saves), or create totally absurd rules on strategic choices made by players? If the match hadn't generated anything because two teams had attacked hard and got the better of opposing defences, why not (although the real debate would be "why didn't it generate anything?"). But I really don't get it.

I quite agree that if the 2 teams concretise, there's nothing illogical about the score being 0-0, 0-1 or 1-0.

But the problem is that with the current settings, when you concretise for 90 minutes you're pretty sure you won't concede anything or at most one goal, but if you go on the attack you're not at all sure you'll score.

Example of one of my recent league games
#match?mid=6692250&stats
I played full attack for 90 minutes with a big attacking armada (over 400 in attack all match) and almost 70% possession all match.
And... no goals, although admittedly the strikers were clumsy (and statistically possible)
but also almost no chances, which is less understandable.
So it's this kind of game that doesn't make sense, not the 0-1 scoreline in the LDC final.

myforsans: Pour éviter les matchs fermés, il y a la solution qu'en cas de match nul ce n'est pas l'épreuve actuelle des pénalitys "roulette russe" qui départage les 2 équipes mais que la victoire revienne à l'équipe qui a obtenu la dernière occasion.

Comme ça à l'instant "t", il y a toujours une des deux équipes qui doit cravacher pour se créer au moins une occasion à défaut d'un but et à chaque seconde le jeu du chat et de la souris peut s'inverser si une occasion est créée.

Du coup même les matchs ...

Basically, replacing one random thing with another random thing. Might as well keep it the way it is.

Yes, there's a problem with the settings for this kind of situation: #match?mid=6691166&stats

40 minutes (from the 47th to the 88th) without a single chance, despite 80% possession and an opponent that didn't even defend the centre!

myforsans: je suis bien d'accord si les 2 équipes assument de bétonner, rien d'illogique que le score soit 0-0, 0-1 ou 1-0.

Mais le problème c'est qu'avec les paramétrages actuels quand tu bétonnes 90 minutes tu es à peu près sûr de rien encaisser ou tout au plus un but, par contre si tu joues l'attaque à fond tu n'es pas du tout sûr de marquer.

Exemple d'un de mes matchs de championnat récent
#match?mid=6692250&stats
J'ai joué l'attaque à fond pendant 90 minutes avec une g...

Your analysis (which I share, I had the same game in the league today where I attacked but nothing happened) is shared by many, and led to another debate a few weeks ago (I can't find it now, started by Tomasm from memory). In my view, the problem here is that we're limited to 20-22 actions per game (depending on extra time), at xG of 0.27 max. So inevitably, without adding a number of draws at 0.27xG (30 to 40 actions max per match, already getting a little closer to statistical laws > N=30), and/or slightly increasing the maximum xG per action, these scenarios will be present and frustrating. But under no circumstances should these observations be used to bias matches where both teams defend very well. Here, even with 60 action draws, observing only 2 or 3 maximum actions would not have been a scandal at all. In reality, there were only 6 or 7 minutes in the maximum match where there was really a very favourable configuration for one or the other.

brewen: Ton analyse (que je partage, j'ai vécu le même match en championnat aujourd'hui où j'attaque sans que rien ne se passe) est partagée par beaucoup, et avait mené un autre débat il y a quelques semaines (je ne le retrouve plus, entamé par Tomasm de mémoire). Le soucis ici à mes yeux est qu'on est limité à 20-22 actions par matchs (selon les temps additionnels), à xG de 0.27 maxi. Donc forcément, sans ajouter un nombre de tirages à 0.27xG (30 à 40 actions max par match, déjà se rapprocher un peu...

It's true, you can play any way you want, but unless you have +400 stats against a B team or a friendly, you'll be playing a game with 7-8 chances maximum 90% of the time.
I tested this again in the league, playing 2-4-4 = 7 chances in 1 hour 30 minutes.
image](https://i.imgur.com/MgUxZFq.png)

We don't know why, but sometimes nothing happens for 25 minutes.

brewen: Au lieu de commenter sur le résumé du match avec une mince action (qui a donné but pour Ced), et d'en conclure des choses, il serait bien de directement avoir suivi et vécu le match.

Ced a un profil de base très défensif, couplé à une attaque fléchée quasi imprévisible. Il suffit de regarder ses 6 matchs de LDC en phase finale, il concède un total de 0.123+0.57+0.056+0.494+0.234+0.309 = 1.78 xGA (en 6 matchs). A contrario, il générait très souvent +1xG que de xGA par rapport à ses adversaire...

Yes, it's clear that you both decided to play defensively, but even if we sometimes have sterile matches when 2 great teams meet, things happen, we rarely see matches that are totally deadlocked irl, at the very least set-pieces, corners, free-kicks, provocation to get a penalty to break the deadlock, shots from distance.... Nothing at all. 0-0 or 1-0 isn't shocking given the tactics chosen, but there have to be actions. 90 minutes is not an insignificant length of time, 90 minutes for a single line of action. It's the way it's played that's more disturbing than the result, but when you add this example to those matches where you decide to take risks and nothing happens, it's a lot. Closed games should still create chances even if they don't materialise, risk-taking should lead to goals for or against either side, but something should, and clearances left by an inactive player should be rewarded by goals almost systematically. Fortunately, the result doesn't always follow the logic of the strongest team, but sometimes the game descends into a no-man's-land where nothing happens for 30, 40 or 60 minutes, a time when you feel like you've wasted your time and taken no pleasure whatsoever.
That doesn't seem to have been the case for you - it's the exception that proves the rule, because I think that 99 times out of 100 games, players will come away frustrated from a match with just one action.