Just how important is a 7 star training schedule?

[Solid Gone]

Liverpool allows me 17 coaches.

Are you sure? They allow me 22.

[Galactus]

Still no SI response?

[zeusbheld]

Are you sure? They allow me 22.

it may be both; it may be variable. a lot of things, including individual player CA, can vary when you restart the database.

[zeusbheld]

Ah, but .... leave me out in the rain and call me rusty, but shouldn't the Latin plural be ad homina, not ad hominems? Well, well?

last i checked we were writing in english

AND i'm tall.

[Deltaroad]

Still no SI response?

:mad::mad:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[CHARLIERODD]

Is the above really necessary? I think you've gone a bit over the top there.

[JohnShaft]

Still no SI response?

"They haven't seen the thread yet."

[Carradona]

It's called selective vision

[JohnShaft]

It's called selective vision

You don't need to see his identification.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

You can go about your business.

Move along.

[GillsMan]

:mad::mad:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Say something constructive, or say nothing at all. Please don't spam.

[Fox]

just read all of this and feel none the wiser.

[razorr666]

so.......do we have an answer??

[MadCatz900]

7 Star coaches are better to have than others, I always try to get the best available so they can get the best out of my players. Id say you wont really see any major improvements in your first team because what can you do to get more out of top players. However having the best coaches for your youngsters would probably be the best idea because they will develop faster.

[DougyMarshall]

7 Star coaches are better to have than others, I always try to get the best available so they can get the best out of my players. Id say you wont really see any major improvements in your first team because what can you do to get more out of top players. However having the best coaches for your youngsters would probably be the best idea because they will develop faster.

Way to completely ignore the entire thread and post an opinion based solely on reading its title.

[pastie]

I've read all these posts and can understand peoples points, however, common sense would seem that the higher the stat e.g Defensive Coaching 20 will be better at training defensive stats than someone with 5, the same as a stiker with 20 finsishing will be a better striker than someonme with 5 for finishing?

You would assume that more is always better?

I usually put my work load to the max as i presumed this meant the players do more training? Is this worng?

[Cigol]

Needs official communication from SI.

'LIE TO ME JERRY... LIIIIIIEEEEE TO ME.'

[Jack Rudd]

The Latin plural of ad hominem is ad homines, if you really must know. Not that that means the same thing as ad hominems, though. The former plural means directed towards more than one person; the latter plural means more than one person-directed attack.

[zeusbheld]

Is the above really necessary? I think you've gone a bit over the top there.

haven't you realized that SI, by not addressing this issue, have ruined the lives of several FM players, and unless they address this thread immediately their suicides are imminent? good God man, have some respect. lives hang in the balance.

[Deltaroad]

I think Si has seen it but are not going to comment. Which indicates to me the threadstarter was right. 7 stars means nothing.

[Majkee]

I think Si has seen it but are not going to comment. Which indicates to me the threadstarter was right. 7 stars means nothing.

I am trying to do my own tests (based on no more than 360 days per test) and in early stages it seems only a little difference between 1 or 2 stars coaches compared to top coaches with 6 or 7 stars. May be "coach"workload should be the decisive factor, but I have not it tested properly yet.

The only problem is, that I do not have a lot of free time to test it faster.

[iamjerome]

just an additional question i asked elsewhere that may well suit this thread better: do AI teams, then, use training schedules other than 'general'? i mean, for this to be the case, surely there should be other default training schemes in some /training/ folder somewhere in one of the fm directories like there is with the default tactics? because of the lack of such default training schemes i've always suspected AI teams always limit their players to train using 'general' which would further suggest that even supposed optimised training schedules only benefit minutely. i've long held the belief that training on the whole in fm needs to be completely revamped, and if it is the case that all the time it takes to scour the world for 7*coaches (lol), setting up perfectly optimised training like researched by a lot of us i'm sure, give minimal returns in terms of improvement/time to improve for your players then it's "not" awesome.

[opul]

...i've always suspected AI teams always limit their players to train using 'general' ...

disagree with the "limit" part, I have been doing extensive training research within our small local FM research community and using a general training regime, usually the standard one, with right coaches (so in our opinion YES they do have an influence) brings out the best in players and certainly won't ruin any of the other stats (e.g. I like my DCs to be able to finish well, because there are lots of set pieces).

by sticking to a general training regime with good coaches you do your team the best, while with some training regime you are capable of ruining certain aspects of a player's development.

[iamjerome]

apologies, i meant 'limit' in the sense of options - i don't disagree that there are definite upsides to using a general regime (or infact THE general schedule)

[zeusbheld]

I am trying to do my own tests (based on no more than 360 days per test) and in early stages it seems only a little difference between 1 or 2 stars coaches compared to top coaches with 6 or 7 stars. May be "coach"workload should be the decisive factor, but I have not it tested properly yet.

The only problem is, that I do not have a lot of free time to test it faster.

the russian test is inconclusive (imo) on a lot of things, but it seems to demonstrate decisively that facilities are massively important (and players of fm8 should have figured that out the first time a player wouldn't sign because of their facilities). match practice also matters a lot (as it should). also, caoching workload.

as for difference between coaches--are you finding a little difference, or none at all? i can't comment yet as i am early in the running the 2nd half-season of my test (not an experiment, not rigorous or controlled enough). i suspect *some* effect based on what i'm seeig so far (start of august) but nothing worth spending a lot of money on as a manager.

[zeusbheld]

just an additional question i asked elsewhere that may well suit this thread better: do AI teams, then, use training schedules other than 'general'? i mean, for this to be the case, surely there should be other default training schemes in some /training/ folder somewhere in one of the fm directories like there is with the default tactics? because of the lack of such default training schemes i've always suspected AI teams always limit their players to train using 'general' which would further suggest that even supposed optimised training schedules only benefit minutely. i've long held the belief that training on the whole in fm needs to be completely revamped, and if it is the case that all the time it takes to scour the world for 7*coaches (lol), setting up perfectly optimised training like researched by a lot of us i'm sure, give minimal returns in terms of improvement/time to improve for your players then it's "not" awesome.

while i'm on board for revamping training, i think you misconstrue the purpose of training schedules--they are about distribution of attributes not overall training level. for example, if you crank up the composure/shooting training, these attributes will improve relative to, say defense if you dial defense down. this has been pretty thoroughly tested both in the SI forum and the FMB forum. that said, if you want all-around footballers who can attack and defend and are fit, your scheds start to look like the 'general' one. in short, schedules are about priorities.

[zeusbheld]

disagree with the "limit" part, I have been doing extensive training research within our small local FM research community and using a general training regime, usually the standard one, with right coaches (so in our opinion YES they do have an influence) brings out the best in players and certainly won't ruin any of the other stats (e.g. I like my DCs to be able to finish well, because there are lots of set pieces).

by sticking to a general training regime with good coaches you do your team the best, while with some training regime you are capable of ruining certain aspects of a player's development.

really though it's not about general being "the best" unless you want your players to equally emphasize everything. if you want to emphasize certain skills, either to make a player more general or more specialized, depending on your needs and tactics. for example, in various version of FM i have tended to train my players at setpieces more, in case of penalty shootouts, and it has paid off in cup runs.

incidentally, i won't bother to prove it but my impression from the massive goals my dcs score in 09 is that 'heading' matters more than 'finishing' for DCs scoring.

[Perfect_Record]

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo?

[Pob]

the russian test is inconclusive (imo) on a lot of things...

The russian test is interesting, but unfortunately doesn't fully take into account how attributes are affected by the CA development model.

For each position, there are some attributes that do not cost CA (for example, finishing and long shots for DC/FB/WB; all of the free kick attributes except crossing for all positions; crossing for central players except ST). The ability to train free attributes varies between versions of FM: in FM07 it was relatively easy to improve them, but in FM08 it was impossible to improve free attributes (didn't play FM09 long enough to delve into training).

CA does not increase because of training. Attributes are derived from CA, but some attributes do not cost CA, so these can be improved by training. Attributes that cost CA points can only be redistributed by training (increase some decreases others because CA isn't improved from training).

My training schedules on FM07 are primarily based around improving free attributes...

Defenders: train shooting intense as only composure costs CA, and composure is useful for defenders.

All central players except strikers: train set pieces intense as none of the attributes cost CA.

Strikers: train defending intense as only concentration costs CA.

With regards to staff, I did some experimenting with staff attributes and genie scout, but can't find the results, but I'll look more later. A common misconception is that a staff member with higher CA is always better than one with lower CA, but, as with players, performance of a coach/physio/scout is driven by attributes, altough not always in the way that common sense would dictate. Better coaches does result in better attribute development for the relevant training area, but this is always within the confines of CA development (a player would develop the same if he had 1 star or 7 stars in all training areas as long as the training intensity is weighted relavant to his position, except free attributes would increase more under a 7 star coach). Also, higher reputation does not mean a better member of staff (although apparently having staff with high reputation will help keep big name players settled, but I don't know how to quantitatively test whether this is true).

(I'm in the middle of putting all my training and staff philosophies in the T&T forum)

[werhnamhogg]

This is possibly the most intriguing & confusing thread i've read on here. I will be looking at training in a whole different light. Am i right to assume that i'm not on my own? Everyone assumed that 7 stars meant you were getting better training?

[x42bn6]

This is possibly the most intriguing & confusing thread i've read on here. I will be looking at training in a whole different light. Am i right to assume that i'm not on my own? Everyone assumed that 7 stars meant you were getting better training?

Sort of counter-intuitive, no? It appears it means nothing...

I do think it's workload of coaches. I have 7 star coaching in all areas with light workloads, but I've just tried out the cheat training schedule and I'm getting ridiculously better training - but surely nothing can be better than 7 stars in all areas? Apparently not...

[werhnamhogg]

Sort of counter-intuitive, no? It appears it means nothing...

I do think it's workload of coaches. I have 7 star coaching in all areas with light workloads, but I've just tried out the cheat training schedule and I'm getting ridiculously better training - but surely nothing can be better than 7 stars in all areas? Apparently not...

This is all very odd....

[this_game_is_unrealistic]

haven't you realized that SI, by not addressing this issue, have ruined the lives of several FM players, and unless they address this thread immediately their suicides are imminent? good God man, have some respect. lives hang in the balance.

You're unbelievably annoying. Just stop posting within this thread. Clearly, players wish to discuss and find out in actuality how it works, stop trying to play moderator and **** off.

I'm shocked that you haven't given the reply, "it's your tactics."

Troll.

[Solid Gone]

it may be both; it may be variable. a lot of things, including individual player CA, can vary when you restart the database.

Since the board takeover, I am now allowed 28 coaches!

[Jumbalumba]

I feel the lack of difference between the comparisons in the picture provided by Joor shows that not enough time has been given to allow for training to take effect. I believe that even in the exact same test, that is using the exact same coach, the results would be more different in subsequent runs.

Also, the not-as-talented coach's stats were quite decent, being 12 for everything. With the training schedule with a few things at at most medium or so, 12 is more than adequate to train the player.

I believe the stars indicate the maximum effective intensity training level a player can achieve in that particular area. So if the test was run for a player training max on shooting for example, a not-as-talented coach in shooting would not be able to provide the extra level of training that the training schedule attempts to provide for.

Basically, I believe that if you want that little extra in sculpting your player, to train on a high level of intensity in a certain area, you need a good/high-star-rating coach. If you only need up to medium in training intensity throughout all your players' training schedules, you only need a medium-level coach, say perhaps 15 out of 20 (or 5 stars) would be very much good enough.

Also, I feel players are better off specialising in areas rather than being mediocre in everything. I tend to give high intensity training of the more necessary areas for particular positions and none or only 4 notches for other training areas. I feel this is more relevant for players with a limited amount of PA, that is, not very high. With a lowish PA, you want to maximise that actual ability within their PA so you don't want to have much training in unnecessary areas. With a high PA, you would likely be close to maximising the most important skills for a position regardless so you don't have to force the player to have high intensity training in those skills to keep them at max.

[AmundS]

Let me summarize what we learn last year in Fm08.

7. When your team have poor training conditions or when you send player on loan, skills fall.

I've always sent players on loan... And I had the opposite effect... If they played(even in a club with poor training conditions) they came back a much better player...

[Majkee]

as for difference between coaches--are you finding a little difference, or none at all?

There is a little difference between 1, 2 stars coaches and 6, 7 stars coaches (that is my very early presumption). It seems, that 6, 7 stars coaches are able to raise more player attributes as 1 or 2 stars coaches and this raise is sometimes higher by 1 point. But it is not so obvious.

And also little difference between average workload of training category per 1 coach and easy workload - attributes are raising one month earlier on easy as it is on average. And it seems that 35 players on high training category in schedule per coach is milestone between average and easy workload of training category per 1 coach (again that is my very early presumption).

I am not able to test different impacts like playing/not playing, level of training facilities, loans, injuries, form, morale etc.

[opul]

incidentally, i won't bother to prove it but my impression from the massive goals my dcs score in 09 is that 'heading' matters more than 'finishing' for DCs scoring.

I don't doubt that, but very often it happens that a DC is still up there around the penalty box, when a ball bounces to him and he tries a shot from 15-20 meters.

I find that players do develop the relevant stats for their position more rather than improve in simply every area the same, despite having the standard general training. Maybe it depends on the position and their instructions in matches, maybe it is not nearly as sophisticated

[Hawshiels]

The way training works within FM has never been very good or realistic. It now remains one of a very few (thankfully now that transfers have been overhauled) number of areas that requires work. However it is not stand-alone and therein lies the problem as far as I understand it.

This is how it works.

Each player has a CA (current ability) and PA (potential ability). The player will increase his CA depending on the number and "quality" of games he plays in. He can do this until he reaches this artificial PA ceiling.

All that the training does, is shape how these additional CA points are "shaped". I'll try to explain this more. If I have a defender with a CA of 140 and a PA of 150, by the end of a season he may have picked up 6 additional CA points - taking his total to a CA of 146. But underneath this CA of 146, his individual attributes will have been increased. The degreee to which the additional 6 points are reflected in the attributes is dependent on the training schedule for that player. So, if this defender was left on "general" training schedules, it may be that the system would increase a wide range of stats to reflect this 6 point increase. However, with a 7-star coach employed to focus on the defending training, he could increase his defending-specific attributes at the expense of other non-defence attributes.

Equally, this focus on re-shaping the attributes underneath the CA, would allow you to take this same defender and whilst not increasing his CA, you could in theory re-shape his individual attributes to make him perform his specific role better - at the expense of the other attributes that he doesn't need. This could make him a "better" player for YOU in YOUR system.

The number of stars determines how quickly you can re-shape the existing CA points as well as any additional ones gained through playing games.

How the CA points are then "spent" on individual attributes is another story, but one that I'm happy to go into if of interest. But I warn you, it is VERY complicated.

[RT--]

Good explanation, Hawshiels - that's roughly what I imagined was happening, as well. I suspect that the rating for 'training facilities' maybe makes a small difference to how many CA points a player gains in a season, regardless of whether they're playing or not. So a player who doesn't get a game all year might gain 2 or 3 more CA points if the training facilities are excellent, rather than average. Or maybe it just has a 'multiplier' effect on coach ratings?

With regards the coaches/reshaping, though - that suggets, doesn't it, that there would be no difference in attribute gains in a player on 'general training' between all 1-star coaches and all 7-star coaches? Because what it seems is that the star-ratings of coaches only affects how easily you can distribute attributes, but doesn't have any effect on how many CA points a player can gain.

[RT--]

Good to see you back on the forum, by the way.

Your posts on the giant Ability/Attributes thread were consistently great to read.

[voidex]

How the CA points are then "spent" on individual attributes is another story, but one that I'm happy to go into if of interest. But I warn you, it is VERY complicated.

Please go on, what you wrote on the theory of training system is highly interesting.

[Hawshiels]

RT-- Thanks, I appreciate you saying that. I've been reading the forums, but to be honest I've been really enjoying playing the game this year, so far fewer posts this time around. I've also been getting into any differences in the attributes system in this version. Thankfully (or not depending on how you look at it), there are few changes with it.

Please go on, what you wrote on the theory of training system is highly interesting.

The attribute system in FM is one that I am happy to give more information on (based on my own 'investigations'), but I warn you that this thread could become hostile (in a constructive way hopefully) shortly. It did the last time(!!!!!), mainly because there are many opinions on what attributes SHOULD be important and there is also a great deal of confusion around one aspect of this system - the footedness of a player. Or, as someone called it last time "dual footed competency".

I'll give you the summary though to get it started.

Although each player has a CA, these CA points are spent on attributes. The "cost" of each attribute falls into a few categories. there are "free" attributes which cost no CA points. There are "high cost" attributes such as the physical ones that will take up lots of CA points if you train hard in that area. And then there are the "others". Now, the others are where it gets interesting AND confusing because the cost of each one depends on the position (and the level of competency of the player in that position) a player can cover.

So, lets take an example of the DC. The "cost" of tackling, marking, etc for a DC (Defender) is far different to the "cost" of these same attributes for a FC (Striker). The same is true for the skills more associated with the FC (i.e. finishing, dribbling, etc).

Does this make sense? Because, here's the next bit .....

Many people that play the game will compare the attributes of one player to another and then decide who is best. But VERY FEW gamers check the footedness of a player. I believe that the match engine is fairly accurate in that it represents the advantage of a two-footed player very well. So, what this means is that you could have the following:

Player A - Left foot skill = 20, Right foot skill = 20, Passing skill = 15

Player B - Left foot skill = 0, Right foot skill = 20, Passing skill = 20

Who is the better passer of a ball? If all other attributes were equal? It depends on how long the average pass is for this player, but on anything other than extremely long passes, the better passer is likely to be Player 'A'. The reason for this is that he can achieve a high quality of pass with either foot. Player 'B' will either not make the pass with his left foot, or it is likely to go askew most times. Does he have enough time to get it onto his better foot? Again, the technique of Player A could be less than the technique of Player B and yet Player A could still be more effective in a game. Does this make sense?

As well as the day job, I am a youth coach and we are required to have every child 'almost equally' competent on both feet by the age of 9. But this is in recognition of the fact that it is more important now that the speed of the game (and hence the window of opportunity is decreasing) is increasing. Decision making and two-footedness are the most important attributes that we are required to teach through the use of games, and specific training.

I'll kick off with this little explanation first by way of an introduction. Hopefully you'll find it of use.

If you want to try any of this out for yourself, you can use the editor to prove it. Try setting all attributes of a DC to 20 and start the game. Then re-edit the player and change him to have 20 for both feet. The game HAS TO downgrade the attributes of the player because he is much more effective by having two "good feet".

For what it is worth, I tend to agree with much of the way this is assessed, however I think there should be a weighting of the dual-footed-competency of a player based on the increased effectiveness of the player. So for example, I think the MC and FC is more likely to be more effective with two good feet than a DC would. But again, this is just opinion.

[zeusbheld]

I think Si has seen it but are not going to comment. Which indicates to me the threadstarter was right. 7 stars means nothing.

is there anyone on this thread who doesn't know what your opinion is already? i doubt it. you post the same thing over and over. it's INCREDIBLY informative, thanks.

[The-Perfect-Fm'er!]

I have different training schedules for different positions, all the different Schedules have workloads of the high end of medium...now is that bad!?

Like my strikers have,

Medium aerbic and strength..intensive shooting..etc, etc..is this right!?

what's this about having light workloads!?

[x42bn6]

For what it is worth, I tend to agree with much of the way this is assessed, however I think there should be a weighting of the dual-footed-competency of a player based on the increased effectiveness of the player. So for example, I think the MC and FC is more likely to be more effective with two good feet than a DC would. But again, this is just opinion.

If one-footed Vela starts training his weaker foot, in this game, his heading might go balls-up - this is my biggest peeve with the system.

Attributes will also appear to plummet if you train your weaker foot and it's misleading.

Also, since there's only 7 levels of strength on a 100 (20) scale, there can be a big difference between, say, Weak and Very Weak - something we can't see.

In addition, it really makes scouting for players difficult.

If I sharpen a knife, it will cut things better, but I don't expect it to lose its brittleness, even if the knife is now better than it was before.

[zeusbheld]

You're unbelievably annoying. Just stop posting within this thread. Clearly, players wish to discuss and find out in actuality how it works, stop trying to play moderator and **** off.

I'm shocked that you haven't given the reply, "it's your tactics."

Troll.

let me get this straight. YOU are accusing ME of playing moderator?!?

um... have you paid *any* attention to who is among those discussing and trying to "find out in actuality how it works"? apparently not.

anyway congrats on winning the hypocrite of the year award. it was worth spending one of your 37 incredibly constructive posts to win it i'll bet.

[zeusbheld]

I've always sent players on loan... And I had the opposite effect... If they played(even in a club with poor training conditions) they came back a much better player...

agree, i've had the same experience. can't think of any threads but i think it's been tested somewhere, and matches played, even on loan, contribute to improvement of young players' CA.

[Hawshiels]

I have different training schedules for different positions' date=' all the different Schedules have workloads of the high end of medium...now is that bad!?

Like my strikers have,

Medium aerbic and strength..intensive shooting..etc, etc..is this right!?

what's this about having light workloads!?[/quote']

May I just use your training schedule to point something out about the "cost" of CA points? (See my point above)

If you have medium aerobic and strength training, this could be using up CA points that could better distributed to other attributes - and in doing so making this player more effective. Of course, if the aerobic and strength attributes are important for your tactics for this player then that's fine. Think about the distribution of the attributes for each player. This may ultimately lead you to have a different schedule for each player (if you can be bothered). It does make a difference though, and allows you to re-shape the existing attributes - which is very useful if a player has reached his PA.

[zeusbheld]

I don't doubt that, but very often it happens that a DC is still up there around the penalty box, when a ball bounces to him and he tries a shot from 15-20 meters.

this is true, and IMO (even for strikers) high composure matters more than high finishing for this.

I find that players do develop the relevant stats for their position more rather than improve in simply every area the same, despite having the standard general training. Maybe it depends on the position and their instructions in matches, maybe it is not nearly as sophisticated

they didn't used to in earlier versions of FM, especially in regens. i think this is something SI did to fix the bizarre attributes regens tended to develop. it makes sense IMO that skills relevant to position should develop faster. it hasn't been perfect and has caused some other strange and unrealistic behavior, as this thread suggests.

[Hawshiels]

If one-footed Vela starts training his weaker foot, in this game, his heading might go balls-up - this is my biggest peeve with the system.

Attributes will also appear to plummet if you train your weaker foot and it's misleading.

Also, since there's only 7 levels of strength on a 100 (20) scale, there can be a big difference between, say, Weak and Very Weak - something we can't see.

In addition, it really makes scouting for players difficult.

If I sharpen a knife, it will cut things better, but I don't expect it to lose its brittleness, even if the knife is now better than it was before.

I agree with you about the attributes and training system not being what it should and I'd love this to be completely re-worked. When I say I agreed with the way it works, I mean the fact that a two-footed player should be more effective.

I have a few ideas about how it could and should be implemented to stop these frustrations with the training system, but SI are also well aware of the issues with it and they are smart guys. Hopefully it is something that will be looked at. I would prefer that training is what made a player better rather than the number and type of games played. Match experience is important, but most of the attributes of any player are developed on the training ground - not during a match! (In my opinion).