Quite a lot of Football Manager players will argue that things are not working as they should when they dominate the statistics but still lose the match. The argument being that teams who have more possession and more shots should win more matches.

But is this true? What is the real logic here? Is it:

Teams who dominate the statistics tend to win…

or…

Teams who win tend to dominate the statistics?

I would argue that a team that is playing well and deserves to win will, on the whole, tend to dominate the statistical battle. But doing well in possession, shots, clear cut chances, pass completion, and so on is a symptom of a team playing well - not proof.

A team can dominate the stats and not be playing that well

I should explain here what I mean in more detail. I’m not saying that teams who dominate the stats have played badly. What I am saying is that dominating the stats does not necessarily mean that the team are playing that well.

People often get ends and means mixed up. The end goal in football is obviously to score more goals than your opponent. One way to do that is to create more chances than the opponent. You get chances by creating shots.

However, it is not a logical conclusion to say “I will create a tactic which creates a lot of shots, because this will score more goals than my opponent”. The means (creating shots) becomes more important than the end (scoring more goals than the opponent). So, people equate “shots” with “deserving to win”. And therefore they become frustrated.

This logic has not been confined to virtual football management. Charles Reep analysed football matches and concluded that most goals come from attacking moves containing three or fewer passes. Therefore, the best way to play would be to lump the ball forward and use as few passes as possible. He also argued that he had never seen a team lose if they had 10 shots or more on target. Therefore, the team should shoot whenever they had a sight of goal, because this would increase the number of shots, shots on target, and therefore guarantee a win.

Obviously, the logic here is seriously flawed. Do teams who have 10 shots on target and win get those shots because they’re deliberately getting as many shots as possible? Or do they get so many shots on target because they create many more quality chances from outplaying their opponents? Similarly - the three pass observation. Is this because a lot of goals are scored with quick counter attacking football? There’s no mention of how long those passes were. Nor is there any analysis of how a team would hold onto possession when they didn’t have to score. Indeed, there was very little analysis of non-British games in Reep’s studies. Had he watch the 1970s Dutch teams or the Brazilians, perhaps his data would have been different.

Or look at the National Health Service. Rather than work on the end of providing better patient care the hospitals work on the means which is improving the statistics such as waiting lists - even if this means that overall the care gets no better.

In any case, take a look at the statistics in your games. One game of domination without a win every now and again could be down to bad luck. More than that, and there are serious issues. For instance:

Possession: Are you dominating this because your centre backs are knocking it between each other, getting nowhere? Were the opposition better at quick counter attacks, and so didn’t need much of the ball? Was your passing accurate, but not opening up the opposition. Check the action zones to see where you have the ball - too much in the midfield or defence would suggest that your team is not actually doing anything with possession. Also, see how many “key” passes the players are making. Better to have 45% possession and get goals than 60% and not getting any chances.

Shots and Shots on Target: Are you getting lots of shots because your players shoot on sight? Are you creating quality chances, or just hitting and hoping? Look at the way you’re playing, and ask how you could get more quality chances.

Clear Cut Chances: This should provide you with more goal scoring opportunities, but if you don’t take them you’re not going to win. It could be tactical (a player missing lots of shots will be low on confidence, so when they do get a CCC they might miss), but more likely it is simply that your strikers are not motivated/confident/good enough. Keep an eye on repeat offenders, and either drop them or find a way to motivate them.

The only statistic that matters is the score

The match stats are merely analytical tools. They show how the game has been played, and they show potential problems in the way teams have played. Sure, it’s a good idea to play in a way that creates CCCs. Because playing in this way tends to lead to better chances, which in turn leads to more goals. But it’s useless creating a tactic which guarantees 5 CCCs a match if you then go and concede 5!

Remember the crucial difference - statistics are the means, not the end. They are symptoms of a team playing well, not the cause. Yes, dominating possession and shots is preferable to not dominating them. But this does not give you a right to win. It merely reflects the fact that you kicked the ball at goal more and had more time with the ball at your feet. That makes it easier to score - but it doesn’t guarantee that you will.