Jump to content

SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10


Recommended Posts

1. This one I've been meaning to ask for a while. It's probably pretty simple, but I just haven't found an answer for it on this thread. The question is basically, at what focus must a training category be set in order to simply maintain the attributes linked with that category? For example if I have a player whose defensive stats (tackling, marking, concentration) are sufficient and I don't want them to improve any further, nor do I want them to drop any lower, would having the defense category set on focus of 1 be good enough to simply maintain that category?

The idea that you can easilly "maintain" a single category, halt the improvement or decline of a particular aspect of a players abilities, is a myth that has sprung up and become widespread due to the "Training Line Theory" and the lack of logical alternatives. While it is theoretically possible to micro-manage a player in this level of detail, like it is theoretically possible to prevent all changes in Morale, Happiness, Condition, Match Ratings etc. through intense micro-management, it is practically impossible.

The reason for this is that there are constant changes to a players CA throughout the course of an entire season, and there are constant changes to how attributes grow or decline as a player ages. Every player has in effect a unique pattern of growth and decline caused by his age combined to his own season long performances and experience in matches. And at the same time every player will start off the season with slightly reduced CA, will stabilise his CA loss early in the campaign, and then if performances levels and match experience and age and club reputation permits, he will slowly increase his CA to a peak level somewhere around the middle to the end of the season.

Under these variable CA conditions, even a perfectly tuned schedule to "maintain" a player of X position at Y age will still experience growth and decline of attributes, albeit minor changes if the player in question is around 25 and playing close to his PA peak.

The game represents fluctuations in ability from the start of the season when players are "rusty" or after an injury when they are "not quite at peak level" right up to mid-late season "peak ability" when players are firing on all cylinders. And this is for mid 20's first team regulars, let alone those that are rapidly improving as youngsters or rapidly declining as veterans.

The easiest way to achieve a "maintain" level is to get a player to his maximum CA peak as soon as possible, design a schedule based on Age for him that reduces all bias between categories and essentially attempts to shift little or no CA between his attributes, and then try to keep the player at his peak for as long as possible. If the player has a significant drop in form, a medium injury, or ends the season and goes on holiday then his CA will drop and your current schedule will not be able to "maintain" anything. However it will minimise changes and when the player improves his CA, you will see the respective increase to match the decrease. It will not be identical though, and the players own natural pattern of improvement and decline combined to seasonal match conditions will influence the exact pattern of changes.

It is extremely difficult to night on practically impossible to get absolute precise short term results from Training. Training is best used and best understood and best managed and best utilised when, in my opinion, it is viewed as a long term method of moulding or sculpting a player throughout his career with anticipation for his future needs or requirements. There are certain inevitable trends in players, such as the decline of Physical Ability and improvement of Mental Ability and so in my opinion training is best used and viewed as a means of managing a player with an eye on his future.

The game does not practically allow this "maintain" level of control even if it is theoretically possible that certain people keep promoting, and they really should stop saying this if they do not want to cause even more confusion and give the completely wrong impression about how training, players and the game itself works.

2. If you have the focus set to 1 on one of the categories, and then have three other categories set on focus of 4. Will the categories with high focus begin draining the category with focus of 1 of CA points? This is kind of goes back to my first question on having the lowest possible focus which will simply main a category without increasing or loosing CA points.

What will happen is that the Category with Focus 4 will receive more "impetus" or "bias" for Training changes over the Category at Focus 1, but the exact product depends on multiple factors.

The Category at Focus 4 might be a Physical Category and the player might be 34, meaning that all that happens here is the natural decline of physical attributes is reduced or halted, and likewise the natural improvement of Focus 1 Tactics is reduced or halted.

Do the same but in reverse, with Tactics Focus 4 and Physical Focus 1 for a 34 year old, and physical stats will drop like a stone.

If the player is say 25 and you have Defending Focus 4 and Shooting Focus 1, then what you expect to happen will happen if the player as near his PA. His Shooting will be 4:1 outmatched by his Defending, and his Defending will grow at expense of his Shooting.

The key point to remember is that Age and Attribute Type work to produce a set of "natural ratios" of change in attributes and so train effectively you need to be aware of them and factor them into your design process. At around about 25-26 ish age everything is relatively neutral balanced, i.e. 1:1:1:1 and so on, so your schedule should work precisely how it looks like it should. Before or after that age, the natural ratios will change and your schedules will reinforcing or counteracting the natural ratio of change with their own ratios.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Been reading this thread and it inspired me to experiment on those bar graphs. jim morrow appears to be right:

With every outfielder on the identical generic schedule (General maxed out) after three months, the results on the graph were unique for each player. Tellingly, every player stat increases demonstrated positive correlation with bar graph levels, although the opposite wasn't always the case (high bar graph didn't always lead to stat increase).

In one player, stat decrease was linked to relatively low initial graph reading and progressively decreasing bar graphs over the course of three months.

This doesn't take into account CA/PA, hidden personality stats and perfect training and coaching facilities.

But it indicates a potential variable for training that if optimized would lead to even better control of stat gains. My theory is that the graphs do indeed reflect player response to training, probably influenced by player personality as well as the coaches motivation abilities, if not other stats as well.

Anyway, not looking to take this thread on a tangent. Just wanted to throw my findings out there, that stat increases appear to be influenced by the graphs. The fact that the graph categories don't account for individual stats and stat concentration is irrelevant to this particular scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been reading this thread and it inspired me to experiment on those bar graphs. jim morrow appears to be right:

With every outfielder on the identical generic schedule (General maxed out) after three months, the results on the graph were unique for each player. Tellingly, every player stat increases demonstrated positive correlation with bar graph levels, although the opposite wasn't always the case (high bar graph didn't always lead to stat increase).

In one player, stat decrease was linked to relatively low initial graph reading and progressively decreasing bar graphs over the course of three months.

This doesn't take into account CA/PA, hidden personality stats and perfect training and coaching facilities.

But it indicates a potential variable for training that if optimized would lead to even better control of stat gains. My theory is that the graphs do indeed reflect player response to training, probably influenced by player personality as well as the coaches motivation abilities, if not other stats as well.

Anyway, not looking to take this thread on a tangent. Just wanted to throw my findings out there, that stat increases appear to be influenced by the graphs. The fact that the graph categories don't account for individual stats and stat concentration is irrelevant to this particular scenario.

That's a good issue to bring up, as I do think the bar graphs need to be looked at in more detail not only in order to make sense of them, but also to make use of them. They clearly have a purpose irrespective of confusion and obscurity of what they show, so understanding them really should be a massive help when training players.

The problem is that so far the contemporary and consenus understanding has been that the bar chart levels relate to category intensive levels which relates to absolute levels of "maintain" and "improve" and so on, which is nonesense. It's an easy conclusion to jump to, most people jump to it, but it is wrong and you yourself have witnessed that the correlation is not between height and improvement/decline, but change and improvement/decline. I myself have seen that as well. Height is irrelevent, it does not function as the consensus states. Change is what matters irrespective of height.

I personally am not sure exactly what they show. I am reasonably convinced that they do not account for the number of attributes per category, and should therefore be viewed relatively, i.e. Aerobic at a high level is equal to Attacking at a low level. That I am pretty sure of.

However beyond that, what they display is not obvious. Do they display the effect of the training category? Do they show the quantity of CA being displaced? Do they show the attribute change end result from CA displacement + player age and CA gain/loss?

Personally, I would avoid getting too hung up on the bar charts when training players if you do not know for sure what they show. They are afterall only a measure of information, when the input and end result is the key factors. Getting too caught up in bar charts and ignoring input/end result leads to things like the Training Line Theory which produces terrible results and theorises behaviour completely contrary to known game mechanics, yet is accepted as fact because "it makes sense" and is easy to understand, even if completely wrong.

I would like to know precisely what they show, but untill I know that I am happy to completely ignore them in favour of a direct approach of tweaking sliders and observing the actual end result given the actual gameplay mechanics known to exist. Additional information is not always necessary, and if the additional information is obscure then it is unwise to attempt to base your activities on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I recently tried to do a shedule myself now, but I went to focus 5 strenght & 4 AER for a promising winger, rest pretty much standard he was already technical blessed only really the fysiek part lacking in 3 years on it he gained +6 strenght +2 stamina +1 acceleration +1 agility +2 jumping (I was mainly hoping to see some increase in stamina, but guess due age also a bit it chose to put points into building body)

but now more to the question by putting strenght as highest focus, 1 higher the AER have I basicly missed a chance to increase his pace at all then If I wouldve kept it on equal focus wouldve I seen more of a balanced gain? Or the AER stats were just even harder to gain for a winger? Hes also now becoming 22 im not sure weither I might as well have come to the point to lower the strenght training and maybe put it more in the technical stats now?

&also do hidden stats take CA? And do they also develop w/o fines/praise/critic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good issue to bring up, as I do think the bar graphs need to be looked at in more detail not only in order to make sense of them, but also to make use of them. They clearly have a purpose irrespective of confusion and obscurity of what they show, so understanding them really should be a massive help when training players.

The problem is that so far the contemporary and consenus understanding has been that the bar chart levels relate to category intensive levels which relates to absolute levels of "maintain" and "improve" and so on, which is nonesense. It's an easy conclusion to jump to, most people jump to it, but it is wrong and you yourself have witnessed that the correlation is not between height and improvement/decline, but change and improvement/decline. I myself have seen that as well. Height is irrelevent, it does not function as the consensus states. Change is what matters irrespective of height.

I personally am not sure exactly what they show. I am reasonably convinced that they do not account for the number of attributes per category, and should therefore be viewed relatively, i.e. Aerobic at a high level is equal to Attacking at a low level. That I am pretty sure of.

However beyond that, what they display is not obvious. Do they display the effect of the training category? Do they show the quantity of CA being displaced? Do they show the attribute change end result from CA displacement + player age and CA gain/loss?

Personally, I would avoid getting too hung up on the bar charts when training players if you do not know for sure what they show. They are afterall only a measure of information, when the input and end result is the key factors. Getting too caught up in bar charts and ignoring input/end result leads to things like the Training Line Theory which produces terrible results and theorises behaviour completely contrary to known game mechanics, yet is accepted as fact because "it makes sense" and is easy to understand, even if completely wrong.

I would like to know precisely what they show, but untill I know that I am happy to completely ignore them in favour of a direct approach of tweaking sliders and observing the actual end result given the actual gameplay mechanics known to exist. Additional information is not always necessary, and if the additional information is obscure then it is unwise to attempt to base your activities on it.

The idea that graphs reflect training intensity itself is incorrect.

A more likely structure: [training intensity + player traits + coach traits + environmental conditions = bar graph]

One way to test this would be to have two identical players take the same routine at the same club with the same coach with the same match experience.

Result:

-If the graphs for both players are virtually identical after repeated tests, then we can establish that traits + match experience = graph.

-If the graphs are wildly different, then we are dealing with RNG or some other factor that we aren't aware of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that graphs reflect training intensity itself is incorrect.

A more likely structure: [training intensity + player traits + coach traits + environmental conditions = bar graph]

One way to test this would be to have two identical players take the same routine at the same club with the same coach with the same match experience.

Result:

-If the graphs for both players are virtually identical after repeated tests, then we can establish that traits + match experience = graph.

-If the graphs are wildly different, then we are dealing with RNG or some other factor that we aren't aware of.

But how would you do this? No match experience is the same. What if one palyer gets a good grading, and the other on doesn't? What if one player scores? What if...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that graphs reflect training intensity itself is incorrect.

A more likely structure: [training intensity + player traits + coach traits + environmental conditions = bar graph]

That's right 50-cent, it's what I explained in this post...And it came from Vaughan who explained that to make things more simple for everyone, SI mixed a lot of parameters to produce the graph.

But I don't want to explain again and again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But how would you do this? No match experience is the same. What if one palyer gets a good grading, and the other on doesn't? What if one player scores? What if...?

I think it's possible to guesstimate based on their match stats and match rating related to mentality.

That's right 50-cent, it's what I explained in this post...And it came from Vaughan who explained that to make things more simple for everyone, SI mixed a lot of parameters to produce the graph.

But I don't want to explain again and again.

No, I gotcha. I don't think anyone really knows yet if the graphs are truly an important influence. I mean in terms of whether they significantly influence stat gain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

50-pence I've done some testing, like you suggested.

This is the result after 120 days in training and matches. the two players are identical in every aspect. There training s the same, their coaches too. They have the same role in the team. botrh players played equal matches and the graphs showed slight differences. Both players improved a lot because I had given them enough potential to improve. There was absolutely no obvious impact on training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser or someone

does match practice through first team fixtures affects the growth of a player more than match pratice through reserve fixtures? because on genie scout all my reserve players are with 100% match practice along with the first team players

Link to post
Share on other sites

50-pence I've done some testing, like you suggested.

This is the result after 120 days in training and matches. the two players are identical in every aspect. There training s the same, their coaches too. They have the same role in the team. botrh players played equal matches and the graphs showed slight differences. Both players improved a lot because I had given them enough potential to improve. There was absolutely no obvious impact on training.

Awesome. Were all the training categories equal or was the graph on one category higher than another?

What about match rating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was testing it with a part-time team. Both had 2 focus on every aspect, except for the physical ones (so they wouldn't be too tired to play).

The graphs in the training shedule showed differences:

One player trained better than the other overall (like suggested by the graph)

Tactics and Set Pieces showed higher numbers

Defence and attacking turned out to be lower

the player that trained better had 1 MoM) and higher match ratings than the other. The one with the lower ratings was injured for a few matches so it may have had an influence.

There was absolutely no difference in their training output. Every categorie improved equaly: Their Set Piece taking and attacking for both players improved 2 points in every attribute. This is a high number because I accidently made their CA too high. Later, I lowered their PA to the level of their CA. So now I'm testing if their is an influence on the shifting of attributes as a player peaks. I hope to do this soon, and come back with the results.

EDIT a few months later both players improved their antcicipation, both grpahs show tactics as major "training levels". Maybe they improve the attributes first on those categories, then shifting it to others?

Since I lowerd my players potential, their graphs seem to have dropped significantly. So I reckon it shows how well they progress in some way.

Here's a screenshot a few months later. I think it has an ampict short term. Anticipation was already improved so tactics seem to get the upper hadn in this training, even though it's al balanced shedule following SFrasers theory:

09b7e80e3c.jpg

The best way to prove thsi is to wayt another month or two to see if Set Pieces attributes will improve next. Note that set pieces is only at this training level since this month, so it might be a "natural" way of spreading growth over different attributes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Natural Fitness and Reflexes are not counted for outfield training.

That is the mistake I made in the original schedules.

Likewise Flair is not trainable in the Ball Control category.

SFraser made a mistake when he made the first ones as he explaines above. Got to each of the training shedules and extract 1 for each level of focus wirth bal control, aerobic and strength. It's not that difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefaan, it's interesting that lowering their PA lowered their graphs. I'm assuming you didn't touch their mental stats or hidden attributes.

Could it be that the graphs are connected to PA/CA/Attribute development?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, their mental/hidden stats remained the same. The graphs seem to have no influnece on long term development, as SFraser stated. they just have an influnece in short term development. The graphs seem to be influenced a lot by PA and training intensity. A training category with high graphs develops first, then the other categories.

So I think their is limited use for them, maybe only in de Long-term injury training it could be usefull. This shedule is devised so that it replaces loss in aerobic and strength categories quickly. If you put a player on this shedule and notice the graphs on those categories aren't the higher ones, you could give them more focus. That's the only use I can think of. Maybe some-one can test this as I have not that much time on my hands now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The graphs seem to be influenced a lot by PA and training intensity.

Yes because each graph is linked with the capacity of the player to train each training area....

High graph with high training intensity can mean two things :

1) Player have a big capacity in this training area and will improve and gain CA in the next months. So you can try to increase intensity to see next month if graph increase too. If not, so you can come back to last intensity cause it's the maximum the player can train.

OR (and that is the difficult things of the graph)

2) Player has reached the maximum in this training area, cannot improve any more but need this big intensity to maintain...

In the other hand, low graph with high training intensity means that the player has not capacity to train this area. So you can lowered training intensity and see next month if graph has lowered again or remain the same. If graph decrease, come back to last intensity, if remain the same, you can decrease it one more time and wait for next month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Jim Morrow, but that 's not right. A player can gain points in every attribute, regardless of the graph. I tried it and SFrasers thory is completely right. Even with a low graph, a players gains points, if he has enough "unspend" CA. The only difference is the speed at wich it grows. The example I gave above is after a few months in training, later on (and with enough CA gain) all attributes gained equally. There is no maximum they can gain, unless they are at their peak.

There is absolutely no evidence to back up your ideas, so I feel free to neglect them entirely. If you post any evidence that proves a correlation between high training graphs and attribute gain on the long term, I will change my mind however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stefaan, you don't read well my post......

1) Did you see somewhere in my text that I said that low graph means no gain in attributes ? I just said that low graph despite high intensity in the training area mean that the player has no capacity to train more this area...... I never said that he can't gain.

2) you said : "If you post any evidence that proves a correlation between high training graphs and attribute gain on the long term, I will change my mind however. "

did you really read my post ? I said that high graph can mean two things differents !!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A player can gain points in every attribute, regardless of the graph. I tried it and SFrasers thory is completely right.

For sure, it's an evidence.....if you train part time player or even amateur one, you will see that graph has low or very low...but player gain points in attributes. And it's lucky cause not everybody play with top teams in FM2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because each graph is linked with the capacity of the player to train each training area....

High graph with high training intensity can mean two things :

1) Player have a big capacity in this training area and will improve and gain CA in the next months. So you can try to increase intensity to see next month if graph increase too. If not, so you can come back to last intensity cause it's the maximum the player can train.

OR (and that is the difficult things of the graph)

2) Player has reached the maximum in this training area, cannot improve any more but need this big intensity to maintain...

In the other hand, low graph with high training intensity means that the player has not capacity to train this area. So you can lowered training intensity and see next month if graph has lowered again or remain the same. If graph decrease, come back to last intensity, if remain the same, you can decrease it one more time and wait for next month.

There is no capacity range when training players. Each player can gain in any attribute regardless of position, mentality,... The only impact i've found was: PA-CA= graph height in OVERALL training. The attributes attached to a category with a high graph will improve first, but all attributes will grow eventually following SFrasers theory.

This means: a high graph will improve his attributes first but not most, at a balanced shedule they will gain ground equally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fight with you but I don't understand sorry ????

you said : "The graphs seem to be influenced a lot by PA and training intensity."

I said, yes i'm agree with you and explain why.....But you reply that i'm wrong on things that I didn't say in my post...

so what evidence you want ? and on what subject....

You want to see a screen of my graph and training intensity ? you want to see a screen of young player of mine with a lot of green arrow on each attributes....and everybody will applaud me ? but where will be the evidence ???

I have respect with SFraser training theory and with tons of very good posts he made on FM2010 so I decide not to argue with my methods against its..but now when I see things that it's okay with my method, I post some comment to said " I'm okay with that."

That's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I copy what you can found in Vaughan Tips, that's remain available in FM2010 as training is the same since :

"The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, I ask you why you post things, and why you conclude those things. I just like to see evidence. I'm not posting screens with a lot of green arrows because that would be pointless. I only post relevant screens like above. What I mean is, what you are saying could be true, but you'll have to explain why, and don't state things you don't back up with some evidence.

I want to see those screens:

The attribute growth of one of your players, along with his training screen

The same screens a few months later when you've changed intensity

The same screens some months later in game when you've changed them again.

That would be evidence that could back up your statement that there is a "maintain level" of categories and that there is a difference in attribute growth over a long period.

2) Player has reached the maximum in this training area, cannot improve any more but need this big intensity to maintain...

This is what I disagree with. There is only CA/PA, no cap in attribute growth per category.

I'm sorry if my statements sound harsh to you, I'm not trying to riduculise you, I just like arguments backed up with evidence and some reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, that should be tested though. Maybe if you've got time on your hands?

On the other hand, maybe we should first find all correlations between training output and the training graph, before we proceed to test what influences the graphs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it in your schedules folder? If so on the game click on your team name, training, import schedules and find what you called it. I don't have a club team open at the moment so I'm unsure of the exact place.

Aw easy peasy, thanks mate :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why it's only explained with full numbers when explaining focus, but perhaps I just have misunderstood everything ot it's just for the sake of ease of explanation?

A well-rounded defender playing for the first team might have a plan like 3-3-0-3-3-3-2-1-0 which gives him quite a low workload compared to what is possible without him being upset. Wouldn't it be better to have 3.6-3.6-0-3.6-3.6-3.6-2.4-1.2-0 (or nearest click possible) instead sacrificing the CA gain for lower workload?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why it's only explained with full numbers when explaining focus, but perhaps I just have misunderstood everything ot it's just for the sake of ease of explanation?

Yes the focus has so far been described using whole numbers for ease of use but also because the testing carried out has been with whole numbers so we can be confident in what they produce.

Focus fractions are absolutely possible, but are only sensible so long as they correspond to a whole click in the relevent training category. However, schedules including Focus fractions have not been extensively tested as yet. Feel free to try yourself and share your findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goalkeepers work differently to outfield players. Basically they work like this:

Strength : Applies and has few attributes.

Aerobic : Applies and has many attributes.

Goalkeeping : Applies and has many attributes.

Tactics : Applies and has many attributes.

Ball Control : Barely applies. Has one fairly useless attribute.

Defending : Does not apply.

Attacking : Does not apply.

Shooting : Does not apply.

Set Pieces : Does not apply.

Where I say "does not apply" what I mean is that the attributes in the category receive no CA when the player is a goalkeeper. You can train them as hard as you like but you are simply wasting workload for zero effect. Like training your striker in Goalkeeping, he simply will not improve any goalkeeping attributes no matter how hard you train him, because goalkeeping attributes are untrainable in outfield players.

The combination of two very small categories and three very large categories, and four categories than simply do not apply, is the reason Goalkeeping Training is almost universally terrible amongst people creating schedules. The scale between large and small categories leaves absolutely no margin for error, you either get it right or you fail completely, and ontop of this alot of people crank up workload training categories they think might have some benefit but actually has absolutely zero effect other than increasing workload for no reason and depriving yourself of room to get the relevant categories properly balanced.

Personally I would say the gold standard to test for to see if someone understands training is whether or not they can train goalkeepers remotely accurately and see increases in the right categories, but I am biased in this respect because I can do this. You may have noted my initial goalkeeping schedules were producing very strong goalkeepers, because my strength count was slightly off by one attribute, but the compound result was dramatic strength increases. I am glad to say that this is no longer the case, and has been resolved with intent and by design.

That's great to hear. The schedule pack was always really a cheap test of my "theory". The real point was explaining how to achieve specific results through understanding training by looking at attributes.

How to increase attributes for goalkeepers like concentration,composure if we do not train them in attacking or defending?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the focus has so far been described using whole numbers for ease of use but also because the testing carried out has been with whole numbers so we can be confident in what they produce.

Focus fractions are absolutely possible, but are only sensible so long as they correspond to a whole click in the relevent training category. However, schedules including Focus fractions have not been extensively tested as yet. Feel free to try yourself and share your findings.

Alright, I've done so. My test dummies have been Holger Badstuber (20yo with significant CA to gain) and Daniel van Buyten (31yo playing close to his CA) from Bayern Munich as I used the Central Defender example above, and Munich has been playing pretty constant in my games, so no major rating differences are responsible for changes.

I've done 10 Tests for each player first with the 3-3-0-3-3-3-2-1-0 schedule which has about 66% workload, and then with a 3.6-3.6-0-3.6-3.6-3.6-2.4-1.2-0 schedule which has 1 click short of heavy workload.

On average the results are pretty much as expected, with the young Badstuber gaining 14 attribute increases on full number, and 18 increases with the fractional schedule. Van Buyten has seen practically no change with just the odd one attribute increasing, and sometimes a shift from the untrained Set Pieces category towards the highest focus groups.

What actually did surprise me is the uneven balance of Badstuber's attributes. Taking the higher gaining fractional schedule above would result in average change of 3,5-1-0-5,5-1,5-3-1,5-2,5-0 (full numbers: 2-1-0-5-3,5-2,5-0-0-0). The highest gain is in the Tactics group which are all Mental attributes, while the young-player-friendly Aerobics attribute is the lowest category to be improved and the Strength group gets all the physical love. Also, I would have expected the Set Pieces category to lose points on attributes over the course of half a year which didn't happen at all. In all 20 test runs the Set Pieces attributes stayed the same.

Do you have any ideas about why this is happening?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, I've done so. My test dummies have been Holger Badstuber (20yo with significant CA to gain) and Daniel van Buyten (31yo playing close to his CA) from Bayern Munich as I used the Central Defender example above, and Munich has been playing pretty constant in my games, so no major rating differences are responsible for changes.

I've done 10 Tests for each player first with the 3-3-0-3-3-3-2-1-0 schedule which has about 66% workload, and then with a 3.6-3.6-0-3.6-3.6-3.6-2.4-1.2-0 schedule which has 1 click short of heavy workload.

On average the results are pretty much as expected, with the young Badstuber gaining 14 attribute increases on full number, and 18 increases with the fractional schedule. Van Buyten has seen practically no change with just the odd one attribute increasing, and sometimes a shift from the untrained Set Pieces category towards the highest focus groups.

What actually did surprise me is the uneven balance of Badstuber's attributes. Taking the higher gaining fractional schedule above would result in average change of 3,5-1-0-5,5-1,5-3-1,5-2,5-0 (full numbers: 2-1-0-5-3,5-2,5-0-0-0). The highest gain is in the Tactics group which are all Mental attributes, while the young-player-friendly Aerobics attribute is the lowest category to be improved and the Strength group gets all the physical love. Also, I would have expected the Set Pieces category to lose points on attributes over the course of half a year which didn't happen at all. In all 20 test runs the Set Pieces attributes stayed the same.

Do you have any ideas about why this is happening?

It seems clear to me that CA gain is having a significant effect. This is the kind of feedback that is excellent.

Van Buyten seems to be behaving pretty much as the Focus of his schedules would indicate. His Age would put him at a CA level he is unlikely to improve, but not so much that significant declines are occuring, and his pattern of change seems to pretty much fit the pattern of Focus for his schedule.

However Badstuber is the opposite on both counts. He is gaining CA and his training change patterns do not seem to fit the Focus ratio of his schedule.

My short answer, based on what you produce here, is that CA gain/loss is distributed according to attribute weights while existing CA redistribution occurs according to what has already been said in this thread. In other words what has been explained in this thread works for a player with stationary CA in redistributing his CA, but does not account for what is actually happening when CA being gained or lost.

That's the short answer. I will need to come back tomorrow or some other time and go over this in more detail, but that is what jumps out at me from looking at your results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using these training schedules for a little bit.

There is an issue I find.

I have a 22 year old Center Back, who is awesome for a defender, but also possesses a lot of other good skills. Not long after getting him, all these other skills have died to near nothing, the only skills which have stayed the same are the ones required by a CB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@eastley

At a guess, his CA is close to his PA maybe?

So to increase the skills being trained in the CB category, other skills have had to drop, and due to attribute weighting for each position, the drop will be very noticeable with little gain on the others

But that's a guess without actually seeing numbers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic detail - really intrigued by it so I've opted to use your schedules.

I haven't been using it very long but with the heavy training schedules has anybody noticed an increase in injuries at all? I've had a couple of youngsters injured in training - only knocks - but it makes me wonder whether I will need to tone this down a little.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using these training schedules for a little bit.

There is an issue I find.

I have a 22 year old Center Back, who is awesome for a defender, but also possesses a lot of other good skills. Not long after getting him, all these other skills have died to near nothing, the only skills which have stayed the same are the ones required by a CB.

Sorry to say it mate, but this is what happens when you download someone else's schedules when they've told you to make your own based on his theory. Should have made your own to be honest. Not having a go but he did make the schedules for his team based on his theory which you should either customize or make your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...