Jump to content

A Closer Look at Training.


Recommended Posts

SFraser,As it's been a while since you updated the OP, and considering all the discussion that's been had between now and then, are you in a position to bring it up to date with your current thoughts/beliefs?

I'd like to congratulate all those who have contributed to this great thread with their testing and work. It would be of great assistance if all of the efforts could be brought together in a revised OP.

Right now I am spending Christmas and New Year with family and don't really have the time to rewrite the original post for atleast another couple of weeks. I would like to update it though and I share your sentiment on the contributations that has made this a fantastic thread. There has not been anything like this thread throughout the duration of FM09 and although I started this thread, this thread has changed my perspective and understanding of training more than once.

The only problems with updating the original post of this thread is A: the very fact the original post takes up a single post and B: the time and motivation required to do justice to the knowledge produced in this thread. The thread itself has become something of a library of player development and attribute mechanics, and a reference point for the holistic overview of detailed testing of specifics. If it was up to me I would start from scratch and rewrite the original guide in a new thread in complete detail, because there is a complete guide to the mechanics of training, player development and attributes within this thread.

I have noticed your other posts and threads around this forum and I respect what you are doing, your level of knowledge of the game, and your professionalism. If you would like to contribute or collaborate on an updated guide to training and the mechanics of player attribute development then send me a PM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 521
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would like to provide a contribution to this fantastic thread, which I don't believe exists in these forums, regarding the workload contributions of each of the training categories. I think that this analysis is most useful for anyone wishing to design schedules which result in a desired workload (eg. last notch of Medium).

This is only a small contribution in truth, but I hope it adds a small piece towards the full understanding of training mechanics.

The values I will present are the results of my own experience with the training module and have been obtained by playing with known slider positions (and some solving of a few simultaneous equations), I have not hacked the code in any way. Here goes:

Workload Notch No.s

0 None

1 Very Light

25 Light

70 Medium

110 Heavy

120 Very Heavy

130 Maximum

Category Notch No.s

0 None

1 Light

9 Medium

16 High

23 Intensive

25 Maximum

Senior Schedule Categories:

Strength, Aerobic: 1 notch = 2.12 Workload

Goalkeeping, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending, Attacking, Shooting: 1 notch = 0.83 Workload

Set Pieces: 1 notch = 0.33 Workload

Youth Schedule Categories:

Strength, Aerobic: 1 notch = 2.96 Workload

Goalkeeping, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending, Attacking, Shooting: 1 notch = 1.16 Workload

Set Pieces: 1 notch = 0.47 Workload

The Workload cost of the youth training categories are 40% higher than the equivalent senior categories.

Small rounding errors exist in my calculations and are unavoidable. However, all Workload values stated above are accurate to within a ±1 Set Pieces slider notch error in the resulting schedule.

Having obtained these values I have been able to replicate the individual category notch positions in an Excel tool and accurately and quickly obtain the corresponding Workload. In short, I have built the training sliders system in Excel. Please refer to the 'Senior' and 'Youth' tabs for the tool. The data already in the 'Senior' page are from Tug's 2010 schedules and I have included them as they are a popular example. Note that Tug has designed them all for the last notch of Medium workload (Workload = 109).

http://www.filefront.com/15275023/ProZone%27s%20Training%20Sliders%20Analysis.xlsx

I have made one final observation. The tool displays a Total Sum value, which is simply the sum of all the individual training category notch values. I have noticed that for the Overall Training Level (Ovr) bar in the Training Levels window, when the Total Sum value of the schedule is ~100, the bar reaches the uppermost line (once the training levels settle down ~2 months or so into the season). Refering to Tug's schedules again, they all have Total Sum values of ~100 or slightly greater. Would be nice to know Tug's reasoning for this and/or whether this is something we should consider when we design training schedules?

Happy New Year to you all!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I guess I'll just copy / paste here since the other thread went unanswered

Hey all. Currently just started my 4th season and I've noticed my players have taken a huge dip in form. I was on Tuggs Training schedule when it started and switched them to General after it didn't improve. It still hasn't.

79381185.jpg

11916589.jpg

Most if not all players are currently "Unhappy with the level of training he is getting"

I have tried everything to make it work better. Hired more coaches, lighter / harder training but they just aren't improving. My players are dropping stats rather than improving. I have no clue what I'm doing wrong, it's as if my coaches aren't doing anything.

Anyone have a clue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made one final observation. The tool displays a Total Sum value, which is simply the sum of all the individual training category notch values. I have noticed that for the Overall Training Level (Ovr) bar in the Training Levels window, when the Total Sum value of the schedule is ~100, the bar reaches the uppermost line (once the training levels settle down ~2 months or so into the season). Refering to Tug's schedules again, they all have Total Sum values of ~100 or slightly greater. Would be nice to know Tug's reasoning for this and/or whether this is something we should consider when we design training schedules?

Happy New Year to you all!

There was some testing done a while back that showed that increased Overall Workloads (large number of slider positions hence large Overall Training Levels) contributed a small increase to CA gain in players. The test in question however showed that the largest rate of CA gain per workload occured somewhere around light to medium overall workload with diminishing returns after that.

The other point to take into account is that higher workloads reduce condition recovery and reduce morale, so perhaps Tug has based his schedules on some ideal balance between all relevant factors. Speaking personally the relationship between CA gain through match experience and condition recovery for multiple players is far better exploited through good use of squad rotation and playing youngsters than any training schedule, but that is a personal management view. I have never yet found a good reason for limiting workloads other than 1st team condition or a sequence of negative morale modifiers.

Right I guess I'll just copy / paste here since the other thread went unanswered

Hey all. Currently just started my 4th season and I've noticed my players have taken a huge dip in form. I was on Tuggs Training schedule when it started and switched them to General after it didn't improve. It still hasn't.

Most if not all players are currently "Unhappy with the level of training he is getting"

I have tried everything to make it work better. Hired more coaches, lighter / harder training but they just aren't improving. My players are dropping stats rather than improving. I have no clue what I'm doing wrong, it's as if my coaches aren't doing anything.

Anyone have a clue?

It is a common misconception that Training actually improves players and better coaches improve players more. What improves players is experience so conversely what causes stats to drop is a lack of match practice or the dreaded old age. Looking at your screenshots and reading your post it seems like A: you switched to an inferior schedule because you misunderstood what to expect from Training and B: you are currently on the receiving end of a club wide 2 month holiday drop in CA.

The arrows in your training screen show you where each players CA is going. It does not mean your players are gaining or losing CA. However because your entire club has been on holiday for two months, give or take a World Cup, most of your players are going to lose a couple of points of CA regardless of your training schedules, and this is reflected in the arrows telling you where the CA is going, i.e. straight out of every category.

Good training schedules do a few things, none of which is actually increase a players ability. They redistribute CA amongst attributes to reshape players into better sets of attributes, they take advantage of Age related acceleration or decline of natural category growth, and they manipulate condition and morale. Young players far under their peak will naturally improve, old players well past their peak will naturally decline, and players at their peak will neither improve nor decline but simply shift CA between attributes. Training has nothing to do with this. Training simply lets you interfere with where the CA is going.

If you go back onto Tugs and play a couple of months of competitive football, all of your players that are not declining due to old age and are playing regularly will all recover their lost CA and possibly gain some extra CA. Again, this has nothing to do with Training, just match experience. Tugs training however will be better are shaping good players for their roles than the general training schedule which in FM10 will actually try and turn all of your players into creative defensive midfielders that can take set pieces. I'm sure a 35 year old Carragher can do without that training schedule.

EDIT: Coaches by the way increase the speed at which CA is shifted between categories. The better your coaches at particular categories the faster you can shift CA between categories and get quicker results from Training.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another hint, from playing a team in Brazil... Schedule friendlies after the season. Not more than a match every 10 days. What happens is that players don't go on holidays, so you can stick them to a preseason training schedule strengthening their physical attributes for a time (telling them the match is about fitness and not result, and putting opponent instructions on light tackling allows them to avoid injuries). I hope it works for you too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, a few questions for your comment if possible as I'm struggling to understand the comment below and the meaning of the training arrows in general:

The arrows in your training screen show you where each players CA is going. It does not mean your players are gaining or losing CA.

:confused:

What is the explanation for the arrows pointing up or down? Are you saying that a vertically downward pointing, red arrow means that zero CA is going into that category or does it indeed mean that a CA contribution is being taken out of that category? If it is the former, then how can redistribution of attributes be achieved in mature players?

Having agreed on the point that there is no such thing as a universal 'maintain' notch position, if I am happy with the balance of a player's attributes and the player has reached his PA or is "unlikely to improve", ie. I don't want any redistribution to take place, should I:

a) try to achieve equal Training Levels for each training category;

b) try to achieve equal training screen arrows for each training category (as per this Vidic example http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4660737&postcount=12 with the exception of Set Pieces);

c) ensure that the training screen shows no arrows, just -;

The key to understanding the Training Schedule is to understand that it works by ratio and intensity. The higher the intensity of the Overall Workload and the higher the intensity of individual Training Areas then the greater the attribute gains in those areas. The greater the variation between the intensity in different Training Areas the more one area is favoured for increases over another.

d) set all slider positions the same for each training category (as per the above comment from the OP);

e) it's uncontrolable?

The comment in the coach's report on a particular player will in some cases say "unlikely to improve in the future". Do you know if this is this age related (eg. older than 24) or does this message appear when the player's CA gets close to his PA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the explanation for the arrows pointing up or down? Are you saying that a vertically downward pointing, red arrow means that zero CA is going into that category or does it indeed mean that a CA contribution is being taken out of that category? If it is the former, then how can redistribution of attributes be achieved in mature players?

First I have to say that my explanation for the arrows in the Training screen is based on observation and deduction. There is no testing involved, there is no calculation and there has certainly been no means of proving or disproving this statement attempted. Therefore it could be entireally wrong.

The arrows in the Training screen have several particular features you can observe ingame. They rarely correspond to the relative Category Intensity of a Training Schedule, they rarely correspond to the precise pattern of minor Attribute changes regularly seen in a players profile throughout their careers and they rarely correspond to the pattern of large Attribute increases or decreases seen in players that have recently gained or lost significant quantities of CA.

If we look at a screenshot of Jonny Evans recent Training and development we can see several things. Feel free to critique my reasoning as to their meaning.

242758x.jpg

The immediate thing we can quite clearly observe is that zero Set Piece Category intensity combined to a huge red downward arrow for Set Pieces in the Training panel cannot prevent the Set Piece Attributes from gaining CA when a player has played regularly and well in a short period of time for high Reputation sides in high Reputation competitions. Jonny Evans has recently received a massive boost to his CA through playing that has completely overpowered any potential Set Piece decline brought about by this Training regime. Whatever zero Set Piece workload and a great big red downward arrow means in a Training regime, it does not mean decline in Set Pieces irrespective of contextual issues.

The second thing we can see is that the precise pattern of Category Intensity in notch numbers does not equal the precise pattern of arrows in the Training Panel. We can see the much lower positioned Shooting Category has a green arrow while the much higher positioned Ball Control and Strength does not.

The third thing to observe is a bit more complex. This schedule was designed based on one single premise, to work with the Ratio of Attributes per Category. Thus the Strength slider is moved by 4 notches each time I wish to increase the Category bias. The exact ratio for Category bias I am working with is 4 Strength Increase to 4 Aerobic to 4 Tactics to 2 Ball Control, to 4 Defending, to 2 Attacking, to 2 Shooting to zero Set Piece. Assuming this is close to how the Training Schedule (independant of other factors) actually functions then we can see that the 2x Attacking and Ball Control has no green arrow, the 4x Aerobic, Tactics and Defending have green arrows, the 0x Set Pieces has a great big red arrow, but breaking the symmetry is the 4x Strength with no arrow and the 2x Shooting with a green arrow.

Hence even under that premise there is no direct representation, although there is a much closer representation.

Therefore the Training Panel arrows indicate not what the Schedule alone is trying to do, nor the precise final output of CA into a players attributes, but something else. It is my hypothesis that the Training panel represents how the various features of an individual player modify the basic Schedule input and show you how Player+Schedule is redistributing Training CA.

In the case this Player on this Training Schedule with no other outside factors such as CA gain or loss through Match Experience etc. is redistributing CA from Set Peices into Aerobic, Tactics, Defending and Shooting Categories. The players Age, Preferred Position and perhaps Personality etc. is defining how this schedule is actually redistributing existing CA. Ofcourse any event that disrupts this process, such as a large influx of additional CA in a short space of time, will produce actual final results that differs from Training redistribution.

I hope that answered your question Prozone. By all means feel free to critique my reasoning and provide your own thoughts on this issue.

Having agreed on the point that there is no such thing as a universal 'maintain' notch position, if I am happy with the balance of a player's attributes and the player has reached his PA or is "unlikely to improve", ie. I don't want any redistribution to take place, should I:

a) try to achieve equal Training Levels for each training category;

b) try to achieve equal training screen arrows for each training category (as per this Vidic example http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4660737&postcount=12 with the exception of Set Pieces);

c) ensure that the training screen shows no arrows, just -;

d) set all slider positions the same for each training category (as per the above comment from the OP);

e) it's uncontrolable?

That is quite a complicated question to be fair and actually achieving that zero redistribution or Character Maintain will be exponentially harder than simply explaining how you might achieve it.

As I understand the Training Screen, Training Levels and Training Progress are essentially indicators of the details of the Schedule itself. Training Levels are an indication of little more than the ratio of Schedule Category Intensity and are essentially the bar graph version of the Schedule itself. Training Progress represents the relative quantities of CA being shifted by that Schedule for example pumping CA into Aerobic and barely whispering CA into Shooting or Defending, but crucially makes zero account of Attribute Weights, Player Age and everything else that is really important to the final outcome of Attribute Redistribution.

Therefore if you produced a schedule where all Training Levels and all Training Progress was as the same identical bar height then the Schedule itself would essentially be attempting to do nothing. Then when you stick a 19 year old Centreback and 34 year old Striker onto this zero sum Schedule, you get results that reflect the Individual Player. The 34 year old Striker would start to rapidly lose Physical Attribute CA while the 19 year old Centreback distributes his hard earned CA gain from matches around all his attributes almost equally. Our 34 year old Striker starts dropping in Workrate while gaining Anticipation and the 19 year old Centreback develops his Agility, Finishing and Penalties as equally as his Tackling, Jumping or Strength.

Irrespective of the equivelant bar heights across the board for our 34 year old Striker we would see in his General Training Panel declining red arrows for Physical and improving green arrows for Mental. Our 18 year old Centreback would likely see green arrows in all the wrong Categories or perhaps even green arrows in most Categories, as his overall CA redistribution is near to zero due to Age combined to Preferred Position.

To design a pure "Maintain Schedule" you must calaculate the precise ratio of Attribute Distribution caused by Age and Preferred Position under zero Training and then design a Training Schedule that perfectly counteracts this Naturally evolving balance. Even then, the very fact that differently weighted attributes are grouped into the same Category means that a perfect Maintain Schedule is probably impossible.

The comment in the coach's report on a particular player will in some cases say "unlikely to improve in the future". Do you know if this is this age related (eg. older than 24) or does this message appear when the player's CA gets close to his PA?

The actual comment itself is defined by both factors, Age and CA/PA difference. Young players close to their Potential are commented on as "Playing close to their Potential". Older players around 24 playing close to their PA are commented on as "Unlikely to improve in the future". Players older than 30 regardless of their CA/PA difference also receive the previous comment.

These are rather poor guides in my opinion. Superior guides to the evolution of players are Training Coach reports, especially for older players for whom keeping an eye on closely and pumping CA into Stamina at key points during a season are all vital aspects of managing them. If Veteran players are still able to play regularly yet you receive the report that they are "Decling slightly over XYZ period" then you have just been informed that it is time to find large quantities of non-essential CA and pump it into their Stamina attribute if you want them around for the next couple of years, while you cannot afford whatsoever to have them injured for anything longer than a couple of weeks. This usually means retraining them in all meaning of the word for a low mobility central position while you sacrifice Aerobic for Stamina. Prevention however is better than cure and you should be considering this aspect of player evolution long before they reach 30.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is such a thing as an optimum workload.

All the information in this thread shows that each individual player has an individual response to training, determined by his character. Any setting which you may therefore consider to be 'optimum' will be very much player specific.

The consideration regarding workload is relatively simple. An increased workload can bring about a faster improvement of attributes whilst carrying the risk of an increased chance of the player picking up an injury. The opposite would be true for lower workloads.

The whole 'last notch of medium' theory is something I personally do not support. There are many examples of players developing well on Very Heavy Workload schedules. I think the aforementioned theory has ultimately scared many people from using heavy workloads which is unfortunate. However, there is still much to be understood and as the details are revealed I'm sure you will find them here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe there is such a thing as an optimum workload.

All the information in this thread shows that each individual player has an individual response to training, determined by his character. Any setting which you may therefore consider to be 'optimum' will be very much player specific.

The consideration regarding workload is relatively simple. An increased workload can bring about a faster improvement of attributes whilst carrying the risk of an increased chance of the player picking up an injury. The opposite would be true for lower workloads.

The whole 'last notch of medium' theory is something I personally do not support. There are many examples of players developing well on Very Heavy Workload schedules. I think the aforementioned theory has ultimately scared many people from using heavy workloads which is unfortunate. However, there is still much to be understood and as the details are revealed I'm sure you will find them here.

Ok but overall the schedule needs be balanced whilst trying to improve a players weaker attributes?

So you probably done this before but briefly explain what your spreadsheet does? Sorry for my ignorance just dont see the advantage atm :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

First I have to say that my explanation for the arrows in the Training screen is based on observation and deduction. There is no testing involved, there is no calculation and there has certainly been no means of proving or disproving this statement attempted. Therefore it could be entireally wrong.

The arrows in the Training screen have several particular features you can observe ingame. They rarely correspond to the relative Category Intensity of a Training Schedule, they rarely correspond to the precise pattern of minor Attribute changes regularly seen in a players profile throughout their careers and they rarely correspond to the pattern of large Attribute increases or decreases seen in players that have recently gained or lost significant quantities of CA.

The immediate thing we can quite clearly observe is that zero Set Piece Category intensity combined to a huge red downward arrow for Set Pieces in the Training panel cannot prevent the Set Piece Attributes from gaining CA when a player has played regularly and well in a short period of time for high Reputation sides in high Reputation competitions. Jonny Evans has recently received a massive boost to his CA through playing that has completely overpowered any potential Set Piece decline brought about by this Training regime. Whatever zero Set Piece workload and a great big red downward arrow means in a Training regime, it does not mean decline in Set Pieces irrespective of contextual issues.

The second thing we can see is that the precise pattern of Category Intensity in notch numbers does not equal the precise pattern of arrows in the Training Panel. We can see the much lower positioned Shooting Category has a green arrow while the much higher positioned Ball Control and Strength does not.

The third thing to observe is a bit more complex. This schedule was designed based on one single premise, to work with the Ratio of Attributes per Category. Thus the Strength slider is moved by 4 notches each time I wish to increase the Category bias. The exact ratio for Category bias I am working with is 4 Strength Increase to 4 Aerobic to 4 Tactics to 2 Ball Control, to 4 Defending, to 2 Attacking, to 2 Shooting to zero Set Piece. Assuming this is close to how the Training Schedule (independant of other factors) actually functions then we can see that the 2x Attacking and Ball Control has no green arrow, the 4x Aerobic, Tactics and Defending have green arrows, the 0x Set Pieces has a great big red arrow, but breaking the symmetry is the 4x Strength with no arrow and the 2x Shooting with a green arrow.

Hence even under that premise there is no direct representation, although there is a much closer representation.

Therefore the Training Panel arrows indicate not what the Schedule alone is trying to do, nor the precise final output of CA into a players attributes, but something else. It is my hypothesis that the Training panel represents how the various features of an individual player modify the basic Schedule input and show you how Player+Schedule is redistributing Training CA.

I think its pretty hard to disagree with what you say here although I think SI should aid players in the way it is presented as in reality you dont know 100% whether what you are doing in training is working, and whether it could be match performance, age etc that is in fact shaping the available CA.

IMO there should be a way of seperating the two. Something simple like different coloured arrows would be a start (although it would probably raise more questions than it solves!).

To add to your point about 'training ratios', I have looked at using some of my fairly crap youngsters who dont get many games to see whether what you have said adds up and the answer is pretty much yes. What I found is that in the training categories where the ratio was higher the player increased his attributes. Most of the players had low composure and ball control so I specifically targetted these areas and the players improved in these areas alone. As they dont get many games, and if they do they are crap games where they dont really contribute much it takes away a certain amount of ambiguity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add my opionion on the "training arrows" in the training section, since SFraser and Prozone (among others) have contributed quality work and been wondering about that feature.

I am pretty sure that these arrows represent an increase or decrease of actual training level (i.e. training progress bar for the month) progress per category from one month to the next.

Ex1: player 1 is injured for 3 months. After the first month, training levels (progress) drop in all areas and you can see red arrows in all training categories.

Ex2: player 2 returns from a three month loan in a lower league club. After the first month, training levels (progress) increases in all areas and you can see green arrows in all training categories.

Ex3: player 3 has been on the same training schedule for months, playing games regularly and hasn't been injured. I change raise his attacking training and lower defensive training and, a month later, low-and-behold, the attacking category has a green arrow and the defensive one has a red arrow, while all the other categories don't have an arrow.

Naturally, I am not 100% sure, but I have noticed a direct correlation between training progress changes on a monthly basis and the training arrows and have not yet seen an exception to this.

Has anyone actually confirmed whether or not the different dotted lines in levels/progress (and therefore the different bar colors) are specific thresholds or simply a gradual scale?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you probably done this before but briefly explain what your spreadsheet does? Sorry for my ignorance just dont see the advantage atm :S

Don't get fixated on the spreadsheet. I only included it as proof of the work I conducted on determining the Workload contributions from each training category.

I don't use it to design schedules now, although I did in the past when I fell for for the very misleading Workload Optimisation and Training Limit theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add my opionion on the "training arrows" in the training section, since SFraser and Prozone (among others) have contributed quality work and been wondering about that feature.

I am pretty sure that these arrows represent an increase or decrease of actual training level (i.e. training progress bar for the month) progress per category from one month to the next.

Ex1: player 1 is injured for 3 months. After the first month, training levels (progress) drop in all areas and you can see red arrows in all training categories.

Ex2: player 2 returns from a three month loan in a lower league club. After the first month, training levels (progress) increases in all areas and you can see green arrows in all training categories.

Ex3: player 3 has been on the same training schedule for months, playing games regularly and hasn't been injured. I change raise his attacking training and lower defensive training and, a month later, low-and-behold, the attacking category has a green arrow and the defensive one has a red arrow, while all the other categories don't have an arrow.

Naturally, I am not 100% sure, but I have noticed a direct correlation between training progress changes on a monthly basis and the training arrows and have not yet seen an exception to this.

Has anyone actually confirmed whether or not the different dotted lines in levels/progress (and therefore the different bar colors) are specific thresholds or simply a gradual scale?

That is something I noticed aswell, however the correlation between Progress increase and Training Arrows is not exact and does contain some significant exceptions. The exceptions to the rule of Progress Increase equalling Arrow Increase all seem to follow the same pattern of Attribute Weight, whereby attribute Categories with high Attribute Weights record no arrow improvement despite having a Progress bar that increased by an equal or superior quantity to an Attribute Category of lower Weight.

In other words the relationship between the Training Arrows and Progress Improvement is almost exact, but where it is not exact can be explained by Progress Category making no account for Attribute Weight while Training Arrows do account for Attribute Weight.

For example: If the Shooting or Defending Category records an Increased Arrow and an Increased Training Progress bar, the Strength or Aerobic Categories will have to register 50% or 100% greater Progress Increase to achieve the same Arrow Increase depending on the players favoured position and his age.

For example: An older player will register a large increase in his Tactics Arrow with a small increase in Tactics Training Progress, but will only register a small increase in his Strength Arrow with a larger increase in his Strength Training Progress. This is because the older players Tactics Category is very receptive to CA so a small increase in Progress in this Category produces a large increase in his Tactics Attributes. Likewise a large increase in Progress in Strength for an older player means only a large increase in the attempt to place CA into an attribute pumping out CA, so a small increase in the Arrow is produced, and this actually is a rather impressive result considering his age and should only occur with a corresponding huge downwards red arrow in some other Category.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, it's late and I've had issues with my internet so forgive me if you've covered this here but could it be (almost) as simple as an increase in CA produces a "surge" of CA points spread throughout a player's skill set (hence allowing for set piece attributes being raised even with a 0 training load) and then the training itself redefines and organises said CA boost.

In very much the way any type of skill level can suddenly "jump" and we find things are easier to do than they were before. Our bodies and minds are aware of what they need to do and so after the "jump" we have to refine this new automatic skill (compared to when we were less talented and had to really focus on the basics). Perhaps there would be a weighting towards the positionally needed skills as getting the new CA points first but they wouldn't hog the entire load. In essence, match experience CA gains are making a player a better all rounder through experience and we then have to use this new mental and physical experience to hone his new skills.

Just a thought.

Bestie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just stumbled upon this thread, what I would really like to know is how these numbers (8, 14, 20) talked about throughout this thread were worked out?

Where is the evidence that 8 is to be taken as the point at which players maintain their stats; 14 where they begin to improve; and 20 is the most that a player will improve, although higher levels will make the player improve quicker (this is, at least, my understanding)?

I'd be grateful for any clarification. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just stumbled upon this thread, what I would really like to know is how these numbers (8, 14, 20) talked about throughout this thread were worked out?

Where is the evidence that 8 is to be taken as the point at which players maintain their stats; 14 where they begin to improve; and 20 is the most that a player will improve, although higher levels will make the player improve quicker (this is, at least, my understanding)?

I'd be grateful for any clarification. :)

The original poster will have to forgive me for not remembering his/her name in order to give the due credit but I don't think there was any evidence for it, not that I've seen anyway.

There were big assumptions made regarding the meaning of these notch positions and thus the 'Training Notch Theory' was born. Such 'theories' have a nasty habit of spreading rather quickly on these forums and this one even made it to a sticky on the FM-B boards.

Training is not well understood and the notch theory appeared to be an attractive, simple answer to a very complex problem. I will freely admit that I bought into this one initially but anyone who plays the game and takes the time to observe things in detail can immediately see that it just doesn't add up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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