Jump to content

Does having multiple training schedules affect team gelling and by extension performance on the pitch?


Recommended Posts

Since I generally stick to the default General scheme to minimise injuries this is something I had never really considered until I read this thread over in the Tactics and Training forum.

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1519717/m/9252005883

With the OP's permission I've posted this question in here to get a wider spread of feedback.

Here's a cut and paste of the OP

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by rantbox:-

Like most of you, I've been playing this game for over 10 years now (!!!)... and one of the things that has always been unpredictable and often undecipherable has always been training. Playing 2008 since it came out now, I've to a conclusion, at least as fas as my games are concerned.

Splitting players into different training groups ruins teamwork and makes it hard for the team to play as a unit, especially in attack. After playing for months as Newcastle, and getting angry with the closing down, tactical details and that sort of thing, I started a game with PSV. For the first time since i got FM2008 i was playing flowing, fast, and deadly attacking football that resulted in huge beatings against crap Dutch teams. Nothing special there given the huge gap in quality between PSV and say, anyone else except Ajax.

At some point in October i noticed my players were still on 'General' training. I set up some groups (DC / Fullbacks / Wingers / MC / Strikers), and assigned coaching staff accordingly. Gradually, over the next 2 months my performances began to go wrong. De Jong no longer played clever little balls into the box for Keovermans to flick onto Wagner Love, the wingers no longer cut to the byline and cut the ball back for the MCs to smack into the net Lampard-style, etc. I was winning games (largely thanks to an embarassingly high number of penalties in my favour) but i was playing crap.

I then created a new regime balanced between attack and defence, and assigned all my players except the GKs into it. Within 2 weeks the flowing football was back, the clever touches were there again and the strikers linked up with the MCs properly.

What confuses me is that i know a lot of people on here have mega complex regimes for specific positions. But I'm convinced that if you split your players in training, as you would expect in real life, they will lose understanding with each other and won't perform as a unit.

I'm now tempted to maybe try two groups (DEF / ATT) and see how i get on. I've never seen such a huge difference in playing style as a result of changing training methods like this.

What's everyones thoughts on this? I'd be interested in hearing thoughts! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not a discussion of the effectiveness of particular training schedules in improving players or attributes so please no specifics on that area (if that's want you want then head to the link at the beginning of this post). It is basically to find out other FMers experiences of general team performance when they use multiple specific schedules which if you draw a comparison with real life one would imagine this splitting the team up in the 'virtual training facilities'.

Do you see in the 2D engine any evidence of a lack of understanding on the pitch as rantbox has?

Has anyone done as rantbox did and switched schedules only to notice less fluidity in the interplay of their team?

Is the game that complex that there is recognition in the team gelling effect of players not training together?

I understand that there is a multitude of variables involved such as tactics (yours and the AI opposition, morale, condition etc.) but what is your general experience of this.

I know it's pretty unlikely but any input from SI would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I generally stick to the default General scheme to minimise injuries this is something I had never really considered until I read this thread over in the Tactics and Training forum.

http://community.sigames.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1519717/m/9252005883

With the OP's permission I've posted this question in here to get a wider spread of feedback.

Here's a cut and paste of the OP

originally posted by rantbox:-

Like most of you, I've been playing this game for over 10 years now (!!!)... and one of the things that has always been unpredictable and often undecipherable has always been training. Playing 2008 since it came out now, I've to a conclusion, at least as fas as my games are concerned.

Splitting players into different training groups ruins teamwork and makes it hard for the team to play as a unit, especially in attack. After playing for months as Newcastle, and getting angry with the closing down, tactical details and that sort of thing, I started a game with PSV. For the first time since i got FM2008 i was playing flowing, fast, and deadly attacking football that resulted in huge beatings against crap Dutch teams. Nothing special there given the huge gap in quality between PSV and say, anyone else except Ajax.

At some point in October i noticed my players were still on 'General' training. I set up some groups (DC / Fullbacks / Wingers / MC / Strikers), and assigned coaching staff accordingly. Gradually, over the next 2 months my performances began to go wrong. De Jong no longer played clever little balls into the box for Keovermans to flick onto Wagner Love, the wingers no longer cut to the byline and cut the ball back for the MCs to smack into the net Lampard-style, etc. I was winning games (largely thanks to an embarassingly high number of penalties in my favour) but i was playing crap.

I then created a new regime balanced between attack and defence, and assigned all my players except the GKs into it. Within 2 weeks the flowing football was back, the clever touches were there again and the strikers linked up with the MCs properly.

What confuses me is that i know a lot of people on here have mega complex regimes for specific positions. But I'm convinced that if you split your players in training, as you would expect in real life, they will lose understanding with each other and won't perform as a unit.

I'm now tempted to maybe try two groups (DEF / ATT) and see how i get on. I've never seen such a huge difference in playing style as a result of changing training methods like this.

What's everyones thoughts on this? I'd be interested in hearing thoughts!

This is not a discussion of the effectiveness of particular training schedules in improving players or attributes so please no specifics on that area (if that's want you want then head to the link at the beginning of this post). It is basically to find out other FMers experiences of general team performance when they use multiple specific schedules which if you draw a comparison with real life one would imagine this splitting the team up in the 'virtual training facilities'.

Do you see in the 2D engine any evidence of a lack of understanding on the pitch as rantbox has?

Has anyone done as rantbox did and switched schedules only to notice less fluidity in the interplay of their team?

Is the game that complex that there is recognition in the team gelling effect of players not training together?

I understand that there is a multitude of variables involved such as tactics (yours and the AI opposition, morale, condition etc.) but what is your general experience of this.

I know it's pretty unlikely but any input from SI would be great.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could try what i did, simply group everyone into the same training scheme and play 4-5 games. i saw a huge improvement in teamwork, players seemed to work for each other more and laid off clever balls around the box for each other. i have never seen this in my previous Newcastle game (with Riquelme in it!!), using split training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought.

It hadn't occurred to me; I always do split and have never noticed a negative effect .. but come to think of it, my assistant does say my current side are struggling to come together as a unit.

Now I wish I'd been more observant over past save-games..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be an interesting point, i always seem to start the season well before i move everyone to different training schedules based on positions then problems seem to occur.

Ive taken your advice and bunched all my defensive players together and the same for attacking players. Will give it about 10 games and see if i notice any differance.

icon_wink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting point, and to my knowledge never noticed or considered before!

If I have enough coaches I always have multiple schedules, but with a lower league team with one assman and one coach I'll just have 3 (all customised by me) - GK, defender and attacker schedules.

So, what - if any - difference does it make? Looks like it would be easy enough to get a few tests done if you can see the results after only 10-12 games. I'm looking forward to some verdicts. icon_smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always used 6 or 7 different training schedules and the only time I have noticed any lack of gelling is when I sign several new players in the transfer window and that would be as expected. No other indication that training will cause lack of cohesion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrazT:

I have always used 6 or 7 different training schedules and the only time I have noticed any lack of gelling is when I sign several new players in the transfer window and that would be as expected. No other indication that training will cause lack of cohesion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Franz - i think the point in this case is that cohesion is always relative to how they perform with group training. in my experience, my PSV side played OK with split training but performed like a well-oiled machine in group training.

it's a case of comparing both methods and investigating properly.

i'm surprised this hasn't really been discussed before... it's been annoying me for a long time and i never found a topic that covered it, so i decided to do my own icon_smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is based on speculation rather than knowledge, but I can't imaine that multiple training schedules should have too much effect on cohesion. I think of it in relation to CM 03/04.

In 03/04 you actually set the schedules, such as Crosses, Shadow Play, Pig In The Middle, etc... whereas in FM08 you signal the intensity on each specific area. As long as you have all players doing a bit of everything then there will be training sessions where the team works as a group, and then there should be more specific sessions where the players group off. Perhaps your midfielders will be working on attacking whilst your defenders work on defending in the same session (e.g. a midfield vs defence role play), and during that time the strikers will be elsewhere with your goalkeepers working on their strenghts (e.g the strikers trying to score against your keepers).

Although this isn't evident by the intensity-based schedules, I naturally assume that this is what "would" happen in the game; so as to replicate reality as much as possible. By having a different schedule for Centre-Backs and Full-Backs shouldn't mean they never train together. Obviously the closer each individual schedule is to other schedules should contribute to overall cohesion

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have found that when i make my own training scheduals either 1 for the whole team or differnt ones for differnt positions it always FAILS.

never once have i made a succseful training scedual. so now i just leave it to my training staff, and instead of wasting time fiddiling with the sliders to get the perfect training i look for the best staff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting topic indeed. I have always wondered about this. Having played football for sixteen years, the only time I could say the team operated in an individual/group sense, was with set plays and a few drills. Otherwise all players were training together. And yes I would say, all in all, it would have created a better understanding amoungst our team.

The problem we have here is that if you want your players to develop in a certain way the traing apart from changing it day to day does not lend itself to a group training method. so i personall would like to know whether group training is still creating good positional players. Keen to here some more on this topic, could be a very very important one. icon14.gificon_wink.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some clarification on how this works would be welcome.

I think it would be good if we could have some parts of training as an entire group and others separate - and actual specify this in the game.

For example I might want to spend 2 hours on set pieces. For this I may want all my defenders to be practising defending them and all my attackers practising attacking them. Maybe I want this separately or maybe I want all the players involved, defence v attack.

We could say the whole squad spends 2 hours on Monday morning doing warm-ups, stretches, running/stamina work, then splits for 2 hours to do things relevant to their positions, before coming back together to work on pattern of play etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rantbox:

you could try what i did, simply group everyone into the same training scheme and play 4-5 games. i saw a huge improvement in teamwork, players seemed to work for each other more and laid off clever balls around the box for each other. i have never seen this in my previous Newcastle game (with Riquelme in it!!), using split training. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it is you tactics! icon_smile.gif

Or your players. You should try it with Newcastle and see if there's any difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Geoff Newman:

This is based on speculation rather than knowledge, but I can't imaine that multiple training schedules should have too much effect on cohesion. I think of it in relation to CM 03/04.

In 03/04 you actually set the schedules, such as Crosses, Shadow Play, Pig In The Middle, etc... whereas in FM08 you signal the intensity on each specific area. As long as you have all players doing a bit of everything then there will be training sessions where the team works as a group, and then there should be more specific sessions where the players group off. Perhaps your midfielders will be working on attacking whilst your defenders work on defending in the same session (e.g. a midfield vs defence role play), and during that time the strikers will be elsewhere with your goalkeepers working on their strenghts (e.g the strikers trying to score against your keepers).

Although this isn't evident by the intensity-based schedules, I naturally assume that this is what "would" happen in the game; so as to replicate reality as much as possible. By having a different schedule for Centre-Backs and Full-Backs shouldn't mean they never train together. Obviously the closer each individual schedule is to other schedules should contribute to overall cohesion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. You can even see the number of players training in each category when you go to Training -> Coaches. So, unless you set your schedules so that they don't have any overlap in the categories, your players are training together at least part of the time.

For example, if you have one schedule with only Strength training and one with only Attacking, and split your players between them. Then the two groups wouldn't be training together.

I'm not saying that the OP isn't onto something here. It could indeed be beneficial to have the players training in the same schedule for some time when new players are introduced into the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...this explains a lot. I'm always better off before "enhancing" my training.

Unfortunately I notice players don't tend to gain attributes any faster on a more specific session either, which is disappointing. Best to ignore the whole training lark from now on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good topic icon14.gif

interestinmg to know peoples views etc.

to be honest, ive personally allways found having set schedules a big improvement.

i have schedules for:

full/wing backs

def centre

def midfielders

att midfielders

strikers

and i also have a pre season schedule.

i set my coaches to the certain schedule which they are specialised in etc.

i judge the training by looking on the training screen, there should be a high number of green and yellow arrows pointing up if the schedule is working.

if the arrows are red and orange pointing down then i try and usually tweak the schedules to balance them etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having never played around with training, i can't comment on the negatives, only that i've never experienced what amaroq described - my players always gell quite quickly, perhaps this could be the reason why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In general, in the past despite winning games, I have always admired the way the AI play. I am trying the team approach and the team looks more fluid, more "lovely move" comments.

Perhaps even with coaching, a coach may be specialised in one area, but may lack motivation and determination, so balancing coaching despite reducing stars may work better, until top class coaches in all key areas are employed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put my two cents in:

The first 3 seasons I had all my players on General training (never touched the slides), and the team gelled together nicely and the results were very good.

After the third season, I downloaded a training schedule per position. Now, three seasons later, my assman still says our team gells together well, and are willing to die for eacht other. No change there.

While I still win games and championships, it seems harder to accomplish the same results. Even tough I have some new (almost identical) players every season, every statistic seems to be dropping (goal for, goals against, average rating, average team rating).

So you could be on to something. I'll change back my training regime to general (in the middle of the season) and hope for the best!

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Burscoughnian:

Hmm...this explains a lot. I'm always better off before "enhancing" my training.

Unfortunately I notice players don't tend to gain attributes any faster on a more specific session either, which is disappointing. Best to ignore the whole training lark from now on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's perfectly realistic for group training to yield less extreme individual stat increases. Obviously players are spending less time doing one particular thing and more time working as a unit on everything else.

I'm convinced that in FM08 individual player attributes mean a lot less than in previous versions. Finding fluidity and cohesion between your "lines" is far more important than having a player who can hit a 50 yard pass or can beat a fullback every single time. Even players such as Ronaldo or Robinho can't do that every time now (unlike in previous versions, where i recall Kieron Dyer casually and consistently humiliating every single fullback on the face of the earth). It's a team game here.

Players with exceptional skill will only show it on a regular basis when the rest of the team is playing well. There's far less heroism than before. Of course, there are exceptions.

Some of the key things I've noticed since switching back to Group (based on my 4-4-2 system):

> Strikers momentarily drop off to pick up short quick balls from MCs far more often.

> Strikers play short clever balls to their strike partners inside the box. This has almost never happened in split training in my save games. It leads to a lot of great goals.

> Wingers reach the byline and cut the ball back to the edge of the box much more often.

> Defenders pick up loose balls in DMC area and cover the gaps left by MCs a lot more often.

> Fullbacks more play great through balls for wingers to chase on the line

In most cases the improvements are happening where players playing in different "lines" are interacting better with each other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree. You can even see the number of players training in each category when you go to Training -> Coaches. So, unless you set your schedules so that they don't have any overlap in the categories, your players are training together at least part of the time.

For example, if you have one schedule with only Strength training and one with only Attacking, and split your players between them. Then the two groups wouldn't be training together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe this is true. Let's assume the following, for the sake of argument:

Group X (20 players):

Shooting: 18

Attack: 17

Defending: 5

Group Y (20 players):

Shooting: 4

Attack: 5

Defending: 18

In my opinion, players in Schedule X will practice Shooting separately from those in Schedule Y, even if they share the same coaches, i don't believe this is done at the same time. As a result I don't believe players in Schedules X and why will ever meet on the training field as far the schedules are concerned.

This is 100% realistic, and there's a real-life explanation for this. Group Y, 'Light' shooting won't be doing this at the same time or in the same way as those doing 'heavy' shotting in group X, it's just not feasible. I think the 'level' of training applied to each category is relevant to the time they spend and the intensity of the work. They would not do this together.

Group X will do some defending work, and then loads of Attack/Shooting work, whereas Group Y would do a lot of defending work but only a small amount of attack/shooting. Each group would work separately throughout the day.

This is precisely how the youth teams works. Each schedule represents a pyshical 'group' of people.

I believe schedules are designed by SI to provide a way for managers to develop players who are extremely weak at one particular side of their game, to help players recovering from severe injury and so forth. They are meant to be purpose-made individual or small-group based schemes to target specific problems (such as Riquelme's stamina, or Martin's finishing, etc). I now see them as short term 'shock' plans to address specific problems. They are also designed to allow an entire squad to train separately (reserves, youth, goalkeepers, etc).

As a result I would conclude that having more than one training schedule for the first team will destroy team unity and will result in broken-up play.

By the same token I believe that if you have a team that manages to put in good performances on split regimes, if you were to switch to a group system you would become truly unstoppable.

Does anyone want to do an 'official' impartial test?

wow, that was a long post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rantbox:

I don't believe this is true. Let's assume the following, for the sake of argument:

Group X (20 players):

Shooting: 18

Attack: 17

Defending: 5

Group Y (20 players):

Shooting: 4

Attack: 5

Defending: 18

In my opinion, players in Schedule X will practice Shooting separately from those in Schedule Y, even if they share the same coaches, i don't believe this is done at the same time. As a result I don't believe players in Schedules X and why will ever meet on the training field as far the schedules are concerned.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whilst I agree that Group X and Group Y will have limited contact, this doesn't mean they won't train together - it just means each groups focus will be different. Whilst the attacking and shooting coaches will work a lot more strenuously with Group X, they will still work partly with Group Y - and players will still work together to some extent on drills which encompass all training schedules. For example, a 5-a-side competition, with each team having 1 goalkeeper, 1 defender, 2 midfielders and 1 striker would be covered by both of the above schedules and would see players working together but with slightly different individual focusses.

To make the point further; let's say you had 5 schedules - Goalkeepers, Defenders, Centre-Mids, Wingers, Strikers. Each schedule is tailored towards the roles specific to that player, but all schedules have at least 10 for ball control and at least 5 for Set Pieces. It is very likely that the all the players would work together for this "10" in ball control. In real life you might have a drill whereby two players stand 5 yards apart and one player throws the ball to the other at an awkward height or angle. It is then the receivers job to control it with the first touch and return the ball with their second touch. This is repeated a few times before the players switch roles. As a partner-based exercise, perhaps the players would be paired up differently each time this drill (or variants thereof) are used. This may cover the "10", and for those players with higher intensity for ball control there would be further training to satisfy this. Perhaps implementing other training sections (a quick pass and move exercise would suggest some involvement in "attacking" as well). Similarly for the "5" in Set Pieces this could pertain to drills where all players are needed, such as practising corner routines (where some defenders will be on the "attacking" team and some attackers will be on the "defending" team).

Now this might not be how it appears (as you don't choose your type of training, just the intensity), but this is they way I assume it is implemented as it is the way which appears most logical to me, if I was programming a game. By that token, then having all players on the same training programme should increase cohesion, but not by a tangible amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One slightly concerning thing is that if making your own training groups is detremental to your side, it basically negates the need for a traing part of the game. Just put everyone on General and have done with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

Interesting thought.

It hadn't occurred to me; I always do split and have never noticed a negative effect .. but come to think of it, my assistant does say my current side are struggling to come together as a unit.

Now I wish I'd been more observant over past save-games.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Splitting vs General might have an effect on how the team plays; I seriously doubt it but can't prove it one way or the other, but I really don't think it affects the "gelling" according to the ass. man.

I think that's due to two things;

- Squad consistency (i.e for how long they've played together, how big the turnaround is each season etc)

- Personalities.

I've had that my players "Are willing to die for eachother" even when using 14 training schedules at once. Now it takes a while to get that status, but "Extremely strong understanding" doesn't take very long as long as you don't change half the squad each season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the training is a bit 'faux-pas' in that it might make a difference to individual players in the short term by giving them specific training schedules, but in general it doesnt make much difference whether they are on the default schedule.

I would say, its just another gimmick thats not in depth enough. If you asked me how to make it more in depth, I would want to be able to have the players practice specific set-piece routines, or practice a specific style of play, ie..two touch passing or have players pass long into the channels. Obviously I would also want them to focus on physical training like Strength and Stamina which you can do, but it doesnt have enough of an effect on the players attributes to really be used succesfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting question. i did muse over it a few years back but then lost interest and just carried on playing.

the reason why i mused on it was because when i hated a player i would give him his own training regime with no one else and only give him extremeley hard physical and cardio training.

apart from teh training i'm sure being on his own would affect his morale as wel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Saintjonny:

I think the training is a bit 'faux-pas' in that it might make a difference to individual players in the short term by giving them specific training schedules, but in general it doesnt make much difference whether they are on the default schedule.

I would say, its just another gimmick thats not in depth enough. If you asked me how to make it more in depth, I would want to be able to have the players practice specific set-piece routines, or practice a specific style of play, ie..two touch passing or have players pass long into the channels. Obviously I would also want them to focus on physical training like Strength and Stamina which you can do, but it doesnt have enough of an effect on the players attributes to really be used succesfully. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's not true. it does make a dffirence whether they're on default teraining or not as the default training makes them basicly utility players by training defenders in attacking and attackers in defending.

this is obviuosly pointless and also means you can't train the defenders/attackers hard enough in their specific training regimes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest villafan

On another forum someone has tested various schedules on 802 patch including the general schedule to see which was the best over a season in terms of attribute gain and loss. The general schedule performed ok for all players in all position without players turning into utility players although players over 30 lost stats rapidly...but if it also means players gel well as a unit as the original poster of this thread is suggesting then it could be the way forward with minimal loss to attribute gain. Coloured arrows almost seem irrelevant over the course of a season.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what i've done is used a few categories:

GK

FB

DC

MC

Wingers

ST

i've not changed any by that much just a a few clicks here and there, ie a few more shooting and attack for strikers at the cost of a couple of defending. so all players are doing everything but in different amounts.

i've not noticed a huge amount of change just a point or two on the attributes but having said that i've been doing this for all of FM08. i think it'd be worth keeping an eye on though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would different schedules named differently change players' teamwork? Players train together except when they need to train on a specific area where they train with players of similar positions anyway. You say your two strikers play clever balls to each other(for example). Weren't those two training together anyway?

In any case, players who train shooting go train together. When there's running to be done, everyone who needs to do it will do it together. I'm not sure about defensive or attacking training though. What are they anyway? You don't just teach defenders to slide tackle better or midfielders to pass better. Those get better gradually with practice matches or smaller training regiments like the ones from 05 iirc. And the team do those altogether. How do you take individual players and train them defensive skills? You explain the basics if they lack general defensive knowledge and make them play in defence in a match as a part of a team. The current training system is very oversimplified and not really realistic so you should consider that before coming to a conclusion. I wish I could do some tests but I'm...just lazy. icon_biggrin.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by delibey:

Why would different schedules named differently change players' teamwork? Players train together except when they need to train on a specific area where they train with players of similar positions anyway. You say your two strikers play clever balls to each other(for example). Weren't those two training together anyway?

In any case, players who train shooting go train together. When there's running to be done, everyone who needs to do it will do it together. I'm not sure about defensive or attacking training though. What are they anyway? You don't just teach defenders to slide tackle better or midfielders to pass better. Those get better gradually with practice matches or smaller training regiments like the ones from 05 iirc. And the team do those altogether. How do you take individual players and train them defensive skills? You explain the basics if they lack general defensive knowledge and make them play in defence in a match as a part of a team. The current training system is very oversimplified and not really realistic so you should consider that before coming to a conclusion. I wish I could do some tests but I'm...just lazy. icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

FM is a game of millions of possible combinations.

broadly speaking my point is that there's more fluidity as a result of group training. this could be because my 'custom' regimes have been **** in my case, or because there's a fundamental difference. i'm not sure.

perhaps the point here is not that it's better to have group training, but rather that it's dangerously easy to ruin your team by tinkering with training regimes, and should be kept simple or left alone.

if i can find the time i will do some tests and report back...

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Amaroq:

Interesting thought.

It hadn't occurred to me; I always do split and have never noticed a negative effect .. but come to think of it, my assistant does say my current side are struggling to come together as a unit.

Now I wish I'd been more observant over past save-games.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I left it split up as I had, sort of thinking "Control group" and didn't make any real changes to tactics or team-talk approach. In fact, I even split the training a bit more, calving off two new training regimes to "coddle" a couple players who were complaining about intensity.

1. According to the Assistant, the team started coming together as a unit around January

2. Went on a something-like 23-games-unbeaten run to finish out the season.

3. Anecdotally, the play on the pitch looked very crisp, exactly the sort of teamwork that I was looking for. Yeah, we're LLM so there were certainly miscues and mental gaffes, but the quality of play as a whole was better than it had been the first half of the season.

So .. I wouldn't say I'm experiencing any of the symptoms that rantbox is talking about.

I'd suspect, from that, that the problem rantbox reported was coincidental in timing: loss of confidence from a poor result, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add my two cents (and possibly going against the grain, based on what I've read in this thread) :

I set all my players on individual training sessions - not just for positions, but for the individual (This obviously takes a while at the begining of the game or when taking up a job offer, but seconds in any other case as you usually only sign one player at a time). Each individual works in areas where I feel I would like them to improve, and often this has helped me greatly with youth players for example, working hand in hand with training a new position. Every month, when the training report arrives, I take a few minutes to check the progress of every player, and will then slightly modify sliders accordingly if they are not improving in a way I might like.

And I have to say, I've never noticed any problems as far as a team gelling goes, and since I started assigning individual training sessions (FM05, I think), I've generally been more successful in my games. However, I very rarely vastly alter formations. I usually play the same formation and adapt by adjusting individual sliders slightly. What I'm suggesting is that maybe it's tactical consistency that plays a part in the team gelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by madog308:

i have found that when i make my own training scheduals either 1 for the whole team or differnt ones for differnt positions it always FAILS.

never once have i made a succseful training scedual. so now i just leave it to my training staff, and instead of wasting time fiddiling with the sliders to get the perfect training i look for the best staff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts exactly, I use the very same philosophy

I always (try to) sign Ricardo Moniz of The Spurs, he has 20 points for both attacking and technique training and his arrival at my clubs always increases the quality of my training schedule dramatically

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have individual training schedules for almost all of my players and i use also pre-season and season schedules. It's a lot of work and it sounds unbelievable that it isn't sensible. A striker like Luca Toni needs other skills than Barca's Henry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...