Training Programmes

[Geraghty]

Dear all,

after being inspired by the training masterclass thread and the guide to developing youngsters, I decided to abandon my previous training regime in favour of something more involved.

And I want to know if I am even close to getting it right.

Typically my players are improving by 8 to 15 pts (using CA / PA) per annum. With, as you expect, players getting game time improving more quickly.

do these figures represent failure / average growth i.e. am I wasting my time with tailored training / am I doing it wrong?

Happy to exchange schdules etc, although I get a sense from reading others posts (and uploads) that my players are not developing as quickly as others.

Another question - after reading post I am confused - just to clarify

training does not increase CA (this is done by playing in high rep games?), training redistributes it.

young players increase pyhsically more easily (and slowly on the mental stats)

older players decline physically (and this moves to the mental stats - but I assume the CA also declines - as it appears to)

that being the case - do I train young players on low aerobic and strength and high on tactics

and do I train older players on aerobic and strength and low on tactics?

please help?

Lee

[furiousuk]

I think a lot of this divides opinion.

I'd certainly agree that older players need more intense physical training. The idea here is to limit their physical decline - the CA will decline whatever you do but if, over a year, player X loses 10 CA pts I'd rather all 10 didn't come from their physicals as this could ruin a player. Also, with older players, I'd rather that any redistribution of pts should go into tactical to boost their mentals further to combat the inevitable loss of physicals. For example, I like very physical, quick players but I'd happily play an older CB with <14 pace if his anticipation, decisions & positioning are all high.

With younger players there is only so much shaping that can occur and it will take years to see any sort of discernable shaping. Most of my youngsters have at least 1 terrible physical stat, normally strength so I like to train that area as intensively as possible until they hit 18-19 y/o, often longer. My thinking is that I'd like most of their CA growth to grow straight into their physicals and I'll add the mental & technical stats as soon as they have physically matured to a level where they can start playing 1st team games and see a real boost to their stats.

I don't know whether 8-15 is a good CA growth rate as I don't use FMRTE or Genie (although I normally do during a test game before the final patch comes out) but if a young player has a couple of green arrows most months you know he's progressing nicely. Mid-age players will normally see less whilst you'd ideally like older players to show no arrows at all but sometimes you'll get the odd green.

Players will progress whether you use individual schedules, positional schedules or default schedules. If you want more control (not total control though) over how they will progress then you'll need to use individual schedules but this does require more time. Default schedules will see plenty of progress with high potential players who play lots of games but you might end up with a striker with 12 tackling when you would of prefered him with 6 tackling and more finishing. In short, if you have the time and the inclination then individual schedules are best.

Just for reference, I choose to use progress-based positional schedules (e.g young CB, breakthrough CB, established CB, veteran CB, etc) but accept that I'll never (quite) get as good results as an individual schedule for each player, however, my way requires much less time and intervention on my part now that I've created the schedules. All I have to do is check players are progressing as I'd like, if they are then they'll stay on the schedule, if not I'll try them on a different one. A players' playing position won't always dictate which positional schedule I'll place them in.

[Geraghty]

I think a lot of this divides opinion.

I'd certainly agree that older players need more intense physical training. The idea here is to limit their physical decline - the CA will decline whatever you do but if, over a year, player X loses 10 CA pts I'd rather all 10 didn't come from their physicals as this could ruin a player. Also, with older players, I'd rather that any redistribution of pts should go into tactical to boost their mentals further to combat the inevitable loss of physicals. For example, I like very physical, quick players but I'd happily play an older CB with <14 pace if his anticipation, decisions & positioning are all high.

With younger players there is only so much shaping that can occur and it will take years to see any sort of discernable shaping. Most of my youngsters have at least 1 terrible physical stat, normally strength so I like to train that area as intensively as possible until they hit 18-19 y/o, often longer. My thinking is that I'd like most of their CA growth to grow straight into their physicals and I'll add the mental & technical stats as soon as they have physically matured to a level where they can start playing 1st team games and see a real boost to their stats.

I don't know whether 8-15 is a good CA growth rate as I don't use FMRTE or Genie (although I normally do during a test game before the final patch comes out) but if a young player has a couple of green arrows most months you know he's progressing nicely. Mid-age players will normally see less whilst you'd ideally like older players to show no arrows at all but sometimes you'll get the odd green.

Players will progress whether you use individual schedules, positional schedules or default schedules. If you want more control (not total control though) over how they will progress then you'll need to use individual schedules but this does require more time. Default schedules will see plenty of progress with high potential players who play lots of games but you might end up with a striker with 12 tackling when you would of prefered him with 6 tackling and more finishing. In short, if you have the time and the inclination then individual schedules are best.

Just for reference, I choose to use progress-based positional schedules (e.g young CB, breakthrough CB, established CB, veteran CB, etc) but accept that I'll never (quite) get as good results as an individual schedule for each player, however, my way requires much less time and intervention on my part now that I've created the schedules. All I have to do is check players are progressing as I'd like, if they are then they'll stay on the schedule, if not I'll try them on a different one. A players' playing position won't always dictate which positional schedule I'll place them in.

many thanks for such a comprehensive response - I am using u21 and over 21 for my training (in each position) and I agree, that is more than enough, esp when you consider prefeered moves and focused training!

Lee