Am I a bad trainer?

When I started my game, I had a few players on my team who were rated at 3 stars with a potential to attain 4 star level. Now that I am two-thirds through my first season, these same players are being evaluated at 3 star ability with 3 star potential!! They've peaked already!

Did I simply not get enough out of them? Not play them enough on the first team? Was it my training facilities (which are rated at 'Good') or my coaches (my best are 5 stars in Aerobic, Stength and Tactics - the rest are 4 stars). I'm assuming this is where I didn't fulfill my end of the bargain.

Any thoughts?

werkz

Actually, it's more likely that the people (scouts or coaches) doing the rating got it wrong first time round. This happens, even for top class staff. No matter how badly they trained, a player's potential never changes, except for possible reductions from serious injury (his current ability is what changes).

Ah, ok. I guess I don't fully understand how the system works. I thought there was an age where the abilities of the players more or less stopped developing and that was when they capped their growth.

The one player I was most distressed about was a 23 year old terror: Great Pace, accel, agility & balance with top-level dribbling, technique & creativity. A terror on the left wing. I was stoked to see that he actually had room to improve when I saw he was only at 3-star level and had 4-star potential. Last night I looked at him again and his potential had changed to only 3 stars.

I thought because of his age I simply had not extracted his full potential before his development was maxed. You seem to suggest there is no such restriciton.

Ah, ok. I guess I don't fully understand how the system works. I thought there was an age where the abilities of the players more or less stopped developing and that was when they capped their growth.

The one player I was most distressed about was a 23 year old terror: Great Pace, accel, agility & balance with top-level dribbling, technique & creativity. A terror on the left wing. I was stoked to see that he actually had room to improve when I saw he was only at 3-star level and had 4-star potential. Last night I looked at him again and his potential had changed to only 3 stars.

I thought because of his age I simply had not extracted his full potential before his development was maxed. You seem to suggest there is no such restriciton.

Development does slow down significantly after ~24 years old, but there's no fixed point at which it stops, it varies from player to player. However, even after the player's stopped developing, he still has the same potential, he just won't have reached it (I've found 30 year olds with, say 2 star ability and 6 star potential - no chance of them ever reaching it).

Right then, so using this 30 y/o as an example...

What did his manager do/not do that allowed all of this potential to go to waste? Reason I am asking is I found a 16 year old with 5 star potential. His current ability is 7 Silver Stars. I'm trying to justify spending the $2.1 million (over two-thirds of my available transfer budget ) to bring him to my club at such a young age where my Youth Facilities are rated as 'Excellent'.

I could almost use him NOW with his current skill-set. Maybe not in the BIG games but in general league play, I could certainly work him into the rotation. I really don't want to mishandle him so I'm looking for the ideal way for him to reach his full potential.

Aside: Am I putting too much stock in 'Star Ratings'? Should I be focusing more on where his strengths are in relation to his position? Is a 4 star AML always better than a 3 star AML?

Right then, so using this 30 y/o as an example...

What did his manager do/not do that allowed all of this potential to go to waste? Reason I am asking is I found a 16 year old with 5 star potential. His current ability is 7 Silver Stars. I'm trying to justify spending the $2.1 million (over two-thirds of my availabletransfer budget ) to bring him to my club at such a young age where my Youth Facilities are rated as 'Excellent'.

I could almost use him NOW with his current skillset. Maybe not in the BIG games but in general league play, I could certainly work him into the rotation. I really don't want to mishandle him so I'm looking for the ideal way for him to reach his full potential.

The biggest single way to increase ability is to play him at a level which is challenging but not overwhelming. If the player is averaging around 6.6-7.2 then he's probably at the right level. If he's averaging lower than this, he's at too high level (so put him in reserves/youth team, or loan him out). If he's averaging significantly higher (say, 7.5 and above), then he's probably to good for your team, and you might be stunting his growth.

The other major factor is the players mental stats. Players with good determination and workrate increase faster than those with poor ratings.

Training schedules only affect how the player develops, not by how much. For example, putting him on a schedule with intense shooting, but no defending will cause any increases in ability to be in attributes like finishing and composure, but not in tackling. He will improve overall at the same rate as someone on a balanced general schedule, but the shape of his development would be more focused towards being a striker.

I'm not certain of the exact effect of coach ratings. For a while it was pretty clear they had very limited effect, provided the workload of the coach was light. I'm not sure what the rebalancing of coaches in 9.3 did to this.

Aside: Am I putting too much stock in 'Star Ratings'? Should I be focusing more on where his strenghts are in relation to his position? Is a 4 star AML always better than a 3 star AML?

Stars are a good guide, but are definately not the final word. Although the star rating might show up some things outside his attributes (eg two footedness and hidden stats), the players attributes are more important than his overall ability (which is what the stars measure). For example, I've found a lot of regen DCs come through with poor jumping (5-6 or so) but high ratings elsewhere, hence they have high star ratings. Do you really want someone like that in the center of your defence?

The biggest single way to increase ability is to play him at a level which is challenging but not overwhelming. If the player is averaging around 6.6-7.2 then he's probably at the right level. If he's averaging lower than this, he's at too high level (so put him in reserves/youth team, or loan him out). If he's averaging significantly higher (say, 7.5 and above), then he's probably to good for your team, and you might be stunting his growth.

Perfect. Very nice way to measure his abilities.

The other major factor is the players mental stats. Players with good determination and work-rate increase faster than those with poor ratings.

I've noticed this. I read somewhere that his personality has an affect, too with 'Ambitious' & 'Professional' being more likely to train/improve better than others.

Training schedules only affect how the player develops, not by how much. For example, putting him on a schedule with intense shooting, but no defending will cause any increases in ability to be in attributes like finishing and composure, but not in tackling. He will improve overall at the same rate as someone on a balanced general schedule, but the shape of his development would be more focused towards being a striker.

Thought about using a downloaded schedule, but opted against it in the end. Good to know I didn't waste my time setting up individual training schedules for each of my players!

I'm not certain of the exact effect of coach ratings. For a while it was pretty clear they had very limited effect, provided the workload of the coach was light. I'm not sure what the re-balancing of coaches in 9.3 did to this.

I really hope it has an affect. I didn't like how easy it was to get 7 star coaching across the board in previous versions. I think 9.3 is a much better representation of how a real coaching staff would look. I hope the difference in being trained by a 3-star vs. a 5-star coach is significant. Would make for 'interesting decisions' which is an essential part of every successful strategy game. Do I spend the wages on established (though expensive) players or do I invest in coaches to develop my players current players for a bit less, but with an eye on long-term gains. Would make landing 6 & 7 star coaches a really exciting moment in your game if they actually had a significant impact in their area.

Stars are a good guide, but are definitely not the final word. Although the star rating might show up some things outside his attributes (eg two footedness and hidden stats), the players attributes are more important than his overall ability (which is what the stars measure). For example, I've found a lot of regen DCs come through with poor jumping (5-6 or so) but high ratings elsewhere, hence they have high star ratings. Do you really want someone like that in the center of your defence?

Good point. I guess I am just smitten with looking at my Team report and seeing 4 & 5 stars throughout my squad!

Final question (probably): How accurate are the coaches when they evaluate a players ranking on the depth chart within your team. Specifically, 'Player X plays best as a Central Defender. Player X would be the 5th best Central Defender on your team.'

Is this Coach/Scout evaluating on the star ratings (overall ability) or is he actually able to determine based on a larger variety of factors: Current abilities, how settled he is within the club, his comfort at that position (Natural, Accomplished, Competent, etc.) and so on.

Thought about using a downloaded schedule, but opted against it in the end. Good to know I didn't waste my time setting up individual training schedules for each of my players!

I wouldn't set up individual ones for each player, but I would set up position specific ones. Else your strikers are going to end up wasting ability points on things like tackling and throw ins.

Final question (probably): How accurate are the coaches when they evaluate a players ranking on the depth chart within your team. Specifically, 'Player X plays best as a Central Defender. Player X would be the 5th best Central Defender on your team.'

Is this Coach/Scout evaluating on the star ratings (overall ability) or is he actually able to determine based on a larger variety of factors: Current abilities, how settled he is within the club, his comfort at that position (Natural, Accomplished, Competent, etc.) and so on.

AFAIK, they judge purely on percieved CA (ie the stars). As does the AssMan team report. As do AI managers...

I wouldn't set up individual ones for each player, but I would set up position specific ones. Else your strikers are going to end up wasting ability points on things like tackling and throw ins.

That was part of my issue with the 'position specific' ones.

For example: One of my FC's has great Set-Pieces. I find this particularly useful for him to maintain & have on the field as he has scored 6 goals alone from Penalties. He also takes most of my Free Kicks (has a rating of 16) and has a crossing ability of 14. Not amazing, but I usually have him on a Free Role, so he can use all of his abilities. He also has composure & finishing at 14.

My other Striker simply has pace, finishing & composure. His heading/jumping is not the greatest (13/14), but with the other 'Play-maker' Forward on my team, they seem to play quite well together. Either stretching the field with pace allowing my play-maker to move freely and buy time for extra attackers to arrive or killer balls placed beautifully behind defenders playing the trap.

I have found most downloaded or 'cookie-cutter' training would not focus at all on set-pieces for my striker. Or would focus too much on pace and not enough on play-making, or whatever. Essentially, the guy who creates the training program is designing for his players, with their Natural Fitness levels, work ethic & attitude, his tactics and may be overlooking what is important to making my team work - more specifically, addressing the abilities of my specific players.

After I address the abilities of individual players, I design a routine that (in my eyes) maximizes their role within my team/tactics. Avoiding things like you mentioned: Setting high Defending on my Play-making Wingers (AML/AMR in a 4-3-3) or Intensive Shooting on my Central Defenders.

I have some of my players who are as high as 4 ticks into 'Heavy ' training routine who are 'Happy with their current training'. This one particular guy is 'Professional', has a Work Rate & Determination in the mid-to high teens and a Natural Fitness of 20. Others in the same position (DL) who are 'Unhappy with their current training' when they are set at 3-4 ticks below the Medium-to-Heavy mark. Now I can target that specific player and adjust his training down to suit his mood. Group training wouldn't allow me that flexibility.

AFAIK, they judge purely on perceived CA (ie the stars). As does the AssMan team report. As do AI managers...

Good stuff, man. Thanks for all the help!

Maybe I misunderstand why you feel this is a bad way of arranging my training schedules.

Ermm.. my fault, I misread your post. Thought you said you didn't bother setting up individual ones :o

Anyway, yes, setting up individual ones is best, but even if like me, you're too lazy, you should go with posisiton based ones.

Ermm.. my fault, I misread your post. Thought you said you didn't bother setting up individual ones :o

Anyway, yes, setting up individual ones is best, but even if like me, you're too lazy, you should go with posisiton based ones.

No worries. All of your advice/guidance has been tremendous, so I thought there was going to be some hidden reason why Personalized Training was not recommended.

Agreed that it takes a lot of time to set-up initially, but once it is done & inplace it is easy to maintain. I set it up for all of my first team players & subs. I also set-it up for all of my youths that showed they had a minimum of 3 star potential. The other youths I just put into the generic training for their position. I created each schedule with the name of the player: R. Marquez, for example.

Really, if you have a skin that allows you to scroll through your roster (has the up/down arrows and not just the back/forward ones), it doesn't take that long. Once you're on the training schedule for your player, just push the down arrow and it takes you right to the next players training screen. A one-time set-up for 20 - 25 minutes and you're set!

Once that was done, I just have to set it up for any new player that signs with me. They even have a convenient 'Set Training' button in the corner of the Mail to click and set-up his routine. Lastly, I just made myself a Note to check on the teams training status 'Once a Month' to see if they were happy/unhapppy with their training so I could adjust it if necessary. Lets me see if they are improving where I was hoping they would.

It's more of a matter of being to lazy to work out what each player's should be. I might make a personalised one if there's a glaring deficiency in a player (generaly physical), but most of the time, position based ones are good enough for me (Tugs being my weapon of choice).

I'm not certain of the exact effect of coach ratings. For a while it was pretty clear they had very limited effect, provided the workload of the coach was light. I'm not sure what the rebalancing of coaches in 9.3 did to this.

I believe that Coach Ratings as well as the Overall Training Workload increases the rate at which training redistributes attributes.

I'm unsure whether there is a difference between having 5 star coaches or 7 star coaches for each position. People say that it doesnt matter so long as the workload is light and the training/youth facilities are what makes the difference

anyone have opinions on the matter? I dont want to waste cash on 7 star coaches if my current crop can do fine

I believe that Coach Ratings as well as the Overall Training Workload increases the rate at which training redistributes attributes.

Finished reading your huge post/article in the Tactics Forum. Fantastic stuff. :thup:

I was more or less on the right path with my training schedules, but wasn't sure of where the 'minimum to maintain' setting was at on the slider bar. Thanks to your hard work, observations and insight I'll be able to fine tune my existing schedules even better! I didn't have time to get through the entire thread yet, but overall some great advice on the matter.

I had a question on your findings - more of a clarification on something mentioned, but I'll post it there once I'm done reading it to make sure it wasn't answered already.

I'm unsure whether there is a difference between having 5 star coaches or 7 star coaches for each position. People say that it doesnt matter so long as the workload is light and the training/youth facilities are what makes the difference

anyone have opinions on the matter? I dont want to waste cash on 7 star coaches if my current crop can do fine

I'd love to know the answer to this. Would be too difficult to test, I think. With the randomness of injuries, first team experience & match ratings, it would be hard to get identical training for the same player.

My feeling is "Why wouldn't it?" Taking the oft-overlooked attribute - Determination for a Scout - you'll find a significant difference in the volume of reports generated by a scout with high vs. low. Essentially, it was coded in with some meaning. It would seem silly if the attributes for training weren't given the same consideration or had similar relevance to the success.

If you read SFrasers article in the tactics forum, you'll find that the coaches and training sliders are important but not THE most important thing. Good Work Rate, Determination and Performance ratings at a competitive level (like PhroX mentioned here) being the largest contributers to the growth of your players.

I believe that Coach Ratings as well as the Overall Training Workload increases the rate at which training redistributes attributes.

So, assuming I've understood what you're saying, Training is not that important when you've got young players who you're just trying to improve as much as possible, but it comes into play later when players have pretty much reached their potential, and you're trying to alter the balance of their attributes, right?