Hello, isn’t there a glitch with that match regarding the last goal?
The last update was at 85’ – how come there are two goals?

Because it’s quite worrying to concede two completely out-of-the-blue goals like that at the end when we were completely dominating.
#match?mid=6950383

It’s bad enough that there are those scripted 20–30-minute spells where you can’t create any chances – they drag on – but then to concede two completely out-of-the-blue goals like that at the end is the last straw 😂

Hello
No bugs, and no scripts.

aymeric45: Bonjour
Pas de bug, ni de script.

Right, thanks 🫡

It’s a bit odd, though, to have six chances in 15 minutes and then nothing for 30 minutes, with the same stats. And this has been spotted by colleagues across several matches.

Skyz: D'accord merci 🫡

Quand même étrange d'avoir 6 occasions en 15min puis plus rien pendant 30min avec les memes stats. Et ce, repéré sur plusieurs matchs par les collègues.

Hey, there’s nothing inexplicable about that, especially when possession was fairly even or around 60/40
=> your opponent may well have had the upper hand during that period but had little chance of scoring.

Galywat: Yop, en soit rien d’inexplicable d'autant plus avec des possessions assez proches ou autour de 60/40
=> ton adversaire a pu tout à fait avoir l'initiative du jeu pendant cette période et avoir peu de chance de scorer.

Yeah, you’re right, I was incredibly lucky for 15 minutes – I had everything going for me – and then for 30 minutes, nothing at all, and then for another 20 minutes, chances came thick and fast. 🫡

Skyz: Oui tu as raison, j'ai eu énormement de chance pendant 15min j'avais tout et puis ensuite pendant 30 minutes plus rien, et puis ensuite pendant 20min retour des occasions en bagaille. 🫡

It’s just a matter of statistics. MDM is simply a game of probabilities.

Galywat: C’est juste statistique. Le MDM est un jeu de probabilités.

These probabilities are pretty predictable, though 😅

Skyz: Assez prévisible quand même ces probabilités 😅

Exactement la même chose ici, temps fort pendant 25min et plus rien pendant 40min
#match?mid=6946758

Well, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then carry on believing it anyway – even though Aymeric’s explaining the opposite to you.

Galywat: Bah écoute si ca te soulage d'y croire, bah continue de le faire quand bien meme aymeric t'explique aussi le contraire.

It’s true that it works in loads of matches, even when you’re completely dominating… It’s glaringly obvious

You’re crushing the opposition (possession, 2 zones with 2 or 3 midfielders + 2 or 3 forwards, etc.)
You might have six chances in 20 minutes, then nothing for 30 or 40 minutes, as if there were moments of momentum (well, of course there are)

But then again, you’ve got to realise that watching for an hour and a half just for that can be a bit of a drag at times

Yes, I see exactly what you mean. But statistically, it’s entirely explainable. It’s not a systematic occurrence, mind you.

If I draw an analogy with a coin toss, you can regularly get heads four or five times in a row. That doesn’t mean the coin is rigged.

Galywat: Oui je vois tout à fait ce dont vous parlez. (Et je comprends tout à fait que la carotte que skyz a pris soit hyper frustrante)

Mais statistiquement ca s'explique tout à fait. C’est pas systématique d'ailleurs.

Si je fais l'analogie avec un pile ou face, tu peux tirer 4 ou 5 fois pile d'affilee régulièrement. Ca veut pas dire que la pièce est truquée.

The carrot isn’t really the point – that sort of thing happens to everyone.
I started this thread to ask Aymeric if there was a ‘ghost goal’ bug, as has been the case recently in several matches, and he replied that there wasn’t.

But those 30-minute gaps in matches are a recurring issue, and there’s definitely something going on – either the game is freezing or it’s down to momentum. It can’t possibly be random when it happens so often – you’ve got a clear run on goal with three attacks, 65 per cent possession, five chances in a row, and then nothing.
Then it comes back, and you’re racking up the chances again after waiting half an hour for things to get going again.

Skyz: La carotte en vrai c'est pas le sujet, ça arrive à tout le monde ça.
J'ai fait le sujet pour demander à Aymeric si il n'y avait pas un bug de but fantome comme c'est le cas récemment sur plusieurs match et il à répondu que non.

Mais les trous de 30min sur les matchs c'est vu et revu et il y a quelque chose, soit le jeu qui freeze, soit des momentums. C'est impossible que ça soit aléatoire quand ça arrive aussi souvent, des boulevards avec attaque x3 65 de possession tu as 5 occasions d'affi...

Just because you can’t see anything in the commentary box (and I agree it would be good to have more information), that doesn’t mean nothing’s happening: your opponent may have the ball and you’re marking them tightly enough to minimise the chance of conceding a chance or a goal, or perhaps you’ve got the ball yourself but the play is ultimately taking place in an area you don’t dominate – or dominate as much – generating xG but no clear-cut chances.

But if you look at the match exports, or watch the matches in question, you’ll clearly see a change in xG during these lull periods.

Probably only slightly, and so in the situations you describe, it’ll likely be in the opponent’s favour; 35 per cent possession is no small thing – they can easily string together a few consecutive moves over 20–25 minutes (or even longer, depending on their success), given how the mdm works. Attacks which, if you block them, almost always result in ‘nothing’ appearing on the commentary screen.

But this isn’t the MDM freezing up (we’ve seen that before; you can spot it with goals at 0.0 xG, incidentally, quite recently).

It is indeed a game of probabilities, but we are unaware of almost all the parameters except for one that has been officially published: a chance has a one in four probability of being converted into a goal (is this still the case, by the way? Not sure!)

It is this lack of knowledge that creates a sense of injustice or frustration.

But who can claim to know the exact parameters resulting from supposed dominance?

Who can claim that 75 per cent possession against 25 per cent, and an attack-to-defence ratio of 3:1, gives you three times the probability of creating a chance?

Who can claim to know whether a 1-point increase in that percentage has a linear, exponential or logarithmic impact?

Who can claim that, given the same percentage of dominance, you’ll have twice as many chances simply because you hold that dominance in two out of three areas?

I think that most of the results we find unfair are simply down to a set of parameters that follow their own logic – a logic that isn’t what we think it is.

Until someone has access to the MDM code, they can only conclude that the results do not conform to THEIR logic, but not to THE logic.

I doubt I ever said that a chance had a one-in-four chance of resulting in a goal, as that is not true.

As for establishing a link between possession and the number of goals scored when attack and defence are on an equal footing, it’s not very complicated given that all the data is freely available.

aymeric45: Je doute avoir dit jour qu'une occasion avait une chance sur 4 de se concrétiser en but, puisque c'est faux.

Pour ce qui est d'établir une relation entre possesion et nombre de buts à rapport attaque/défense constant, ce n'est pas très compliqué (surtout avec les outils modernes à disposition) étant donné que toutes les données sont librement accessibles.

Aymeric, I think this was demonstrated a few months ago using the available data

Mind you, we’re talking specifically about OPPORTUNITIES DISPLAYED

The difference lies in the probability: the higher the (displayed) chance’s xG value, the more likely it is to result in a goal (which makes sense).
But otherwise, the conversion rate (displayed chance to goal) was 1 in 4

It is true that a correlation between the frequencies of these two events has probably been demonstrated, but I doubt there is a cause-and-effect relationship, given that there is none.

And here I was thinking that some people had actually got the hang of it.

hazard14: Moi qui pensait que certains avait compris le mdm .

Not you, are you? 😂

Ced90: Pas toi si? 😂

Oh no, I’d never be so presumptuous, and that’s clear from my results.
But some people thought they knew it off by heart – apparently not.

Ced90: Aymeric, il me semble que cela a été démontré il y a quelques mois avec les datas à disposition

Après attention, on parle bien d'occasions AFFICHEES

Ce qui diffère c'est la probabilité, plus l'occasion (affichée) est forte en xG, plus elle aura de chances d'apparaître (logique).
Mais sinon le taux de conversion (occasion affichée/but) était de 1 sur 4

Not exactly; it had been shown that, broadly speaking, y xG equalled y per cent chance of a goal and y × 3 chance of a chance. Consequently, with xG > 0.25, the 4:1 ratio of chances to goals no longer holds true.

hazard14: Moi qui pensait que certains avait compris le mdm .

The model is accurate enough to predict xG in 99.9 per cent of matches, at any rate.

Even so, understanding the game isn’t enough to guarantee victory because there’s a large element of chance; you can dominate an opponent for an hour and a half and still get knocked out.

Take my Champions League match as proof: whilst I had the best xG of all participants in the round of 32, there’s no guarantee of success, and others who played matches with very low xG values went through to the next round on a fluke.
That’s why the winner changes every season and why there are sometimes ‘lucky’ winners who you’ll never see make it past the round of 16 again – that’s just how random it is.
I think it’s a bit of a blot on the “competitive” aspect of the game’s top competition.

No bug. The answer has been given, so the thread should be closed, as normal. There are already plenty of threads about the MDM elsewhere.

Skyz: La compréhension est assez bonne pour avoir les xG dans 99,9% des matchs en tout cas.

Après même comprendre le jeu n'est pas suffisant pour se garantir la victoire parce qu'il y a une grosse part d'aleatoire, tu peux rouler sur un adversaire pendant 1h30 et quand même te faire éliminer.

La preuve sur mon match en LDC, en faisant les meilleurs xG de tous les participants en 1/16e y a la carotte au bout, et d'autres en faisant des matchs à très faible xG vont au tour suivant sur un coup de bo...

It’s a way of saying that the MDM is ultimately random.
We mustn’t forget the team statistics, which, in my view, play a major part in the equation.
This is just my opinion, but the seasons seem to prove me right – or at least I see less of certain teams’ dominance, or less of an over-dominance of others’ xG.

hazard14: Cest une façon de dire que le mdm est aléatoire au final .
Faut pas oublier les stats équipes qui pour moi rentre fortement en compte dans l adittion .
Ce n'est que mon avis mais les saisons me donne raison ou je vois moins certains ou moins une surdomination des xg d'autre.

It depends on the players and their understanding of the MDM; some may have a better team than others but will still produce very average xG figures against opponents who know the system better than they do.

Ced90: Aymeric, il me semble que cela a été démontré il y a quelques mois avec les datas à disposition

Après attention, on parle bien d'occasions AFFICHEES

Ce qui diffère c'est la probabilité, plus l'occasion (affichée) est forte en xG, plus elle aura de chances d'apparaître (logique).
Mais sinon le taux de conversion (occasion affichée/but) était de 1 sur 4

The data simply showed that, for every four visual actions (green or blue), there were three ‘chances’ (green display) and one ‘goal’ (blue display) up to xG=0.25.

Nevertheless, events invisible to the naked eye do not alter the conversion rate: 0.01 xG still represents a 1 per cent chance of scoring (blue display), a 3 per cent chance of a chance (green display), and a 96 per cent likelihood of taking no shot (no display).

The difference demonstrated a few months ago was an extension of the xG range from [0–0.25] to [0–0.33], which may have recently reverted to the previous range.

I’m reproducing the full summary here, with the following for each xG value:

• In green, the probability of seeing a green display (chance)
• In blue, the probability of seeing a blue display
• In black, the probability that nothing happens (which causes quite a bit of noise here; we can see that this is the highest probability up to around 0.14xG)
• In orange, the visual cognitive bias that makes it seem as though there’s a 25 per cent chance of scoring, as the black events aren’t visible (goal/(goal+chance) ratio)
  

brewen: La data a simplement démontrée, que pour 4 actions visuelles (vert ou bleu), on devait observer 3 "occasions" (affichage vert) et 1 "but" (affichage bleu) jusqu'à xG=0.25.

Néanmoins, les évènements invisibles à l'œil ne changent pas le taux de conversion, 0.01xG reste 1% de chance de marquer (affichage bleu), 3% de chance d'une occasion (affichage vert), et 96% de risque de ne rien tirer (aucun affichage).

La différence démontrée il y a quelques mois était une extension de la xG pouvant êtr...

Yes, exactly 👍🏼

That’s explained better 😁