A Closer Look at Training.

[Macon]

There is evidence to suggest that the higher the Overall Workload the greater the effect training has on influencing the bias of the attributes being trained.

Oh, that's really interesting. So if I give my promising young centre back plenty of first team football, and choose between

1) a training schedule strongly weighted towards tactics and defending, but very low overall intensity

as opposed to

2) a training schedule strongly weighted towards tactics and defending, with much higher overall intensity

I can expect about the same total increase in abilities on the two schedules - but using schedule 1), the game will pretty much distribute these points wherever it wants, and ignore my preference for tactics and defending?

That makes a lot of sense, actually.

[catafan]

I can expect about the same total increase in abilities on the two schedules - but using schedule 1), the game will pretty much distribute these points wherever it wants, and ignore my preference for tactics and defending?

Assuming (in fact they could be different due to the different overall training load) that the total increase in abilities on the two schedules are the same in the end, the answer could be yes or no to your question.

If your Tactics and Defending are set to the same amount (i.e. same number of notches in the bar) for the two schedules and the overall training loads differ only because schedule-2 has some more amount in other categories, i would like to expect that in the end more attributes will be distributed into Tactics and Defending in schedule-1.

If the Tactics and Defending training accounts for the same percentage in the total training load between the two schedules, i would like to expect that in the end the attributes proflie from schedule-1 will be less influenced by your preference.

Cheers

[Yonezzz]

Thanks very much for the answers, SFraser, especially the part about number of categories' realtion to overall training level. And to clarify further, it is not yet known what the individual training levels truly mean, or exactly how they affect attribute growth, correct? As in, does attribute growth bias largely depend on the shape of the graph, possibly altered again by the players individuality? And if you had a graph with some bars at the lowest possible mark (due to that training schedule not dealing with defending, say), does adding defending lower the other bars, or just increase defending? Again, sorry, I know this has all been discussed but clarification would help me piece things together.

Regardless, I'm going to have bit of a play about with the schedules of some of my senior squad. Currently in my squad of 22, I have:

- 9 players who are within one point of their maximum PA

- 6 players who are within 2 or 3 points of their maximum PA (though two of them are 29 and 30, so not necessarily something to focus on)

- 4 players who are within 6 to 20 points of their maximum PA

- 3 players who are within 27 to 48 points of their maximum PA

I'm going to try setting up a new schedule for all of the players in that last band, and a couple of players from the third band, based on what attributes I think they need. I'm currently using Darkstarr's or Tug's, can't remember which, and I edited my staff up to seven stars across the board, with my ass man and one or two others helping out in all areas. I think I'd be happy enough with the big PA difference players solely improving in one or two departments, I might try underweighting other categories to focus on those areas and then switch to a more general weighting if/when those stats improve.

[SuperOwens]

Been reading through and find it all very interesting. One thing though, and forgive me if it's been asked before, what about part time schedules?

Is it just impossible to improve players greatly on a part time schedule? Or is it relative? For example is maintaining an attribute only 4 notches?

[NotWordsButDeeds]

With regards to the timing of all of this you really want to start as young as possible and move him through the ranks when he is both technically and mentally able to play football at those levels, but also when he is physically capable of coping with the matches. He should play a few reserves games when his is 16 and might even break into your first team squad at the age of 17. 19 is usually far too late for a player just breaking into the first team squad, let alone the reserves. If he is not a superstar of your U18 team by the time he is 17 then he probably doesnt have what it takes. The age of 18 is really crunch time for a youngster. He should ideally be challenging for a first team spot at 18 even though he cannot cope with a full season. If he is not at this level then consider loaning him out, but there is no way he should be in the U18s and playing occasional reserve football. If he is at your club at age of 18 then take the time to make sure he plays exactly enough games to satisfy his development without burning him out. If he plays only a few times for the 1st team then give him every reserve game and possibly a few or most of the U18s, but this is to keep him playing and keep him developing. It should never be because the reserves is the level of football he can cope with.

SFraser, I've came late to this thread, so please excuse me if this has been answered after post 79 LOL.

The above quote is surely only true relative to the level of team you are managing? A young player, say18 to use the above example, might not have the ability at that age to break into the first squad (let alone team) of clubs like Inter and Manchester United. But surely that doesn't mean there's not a chance he won't come good in another couple of years? Wheras, by your example, you think he should be moved on if he can't cut it?

I have little experience of successfully developing youth, so this is just my opinion. Should I really be as ruthless as you suggest?

[SFraser]

SFraser, I've came late to this thread, so please excuse me if this has been answered after post 79 LOL.

The above quote is surely only true relative to the level of team you are managing? A young player, say18 to use the above example, might not have the ability at that age to break into the first squad (let alone team) of clubs like Inter and Manchester United. But surely that doesn't mean there's not a chance he won't come good in another couple of years? Wheras, by your example, you think he should be moved on if he can't cut it?

I have little experience of successfully developing youth, so this is just my opinion. Should I really be as ruthless as you suggest?

The paragraph you quote is purely theoretical from my own playstyle but the premise is that from his 17th birthday to his 19th birthday he should have had atleast a season and a half to develop his abilities at first team level somewhere, whether that is a full season on your bench or a full season at another club, and if after this he is not at a level where you can stop carrying him and start using him then he is running out of time for you to be able to profoundly influence him and functionally utilise him without detriment to your own squad or to other up and coming youngsters.

You don't have to be as ruthless as me. He may come good in two or three years at another squad but if you lack the room in your squad or the situations to exploit to improve him in your squad then it may take 3-4 or even 5 years before he comes good at your squad. It is all relative but I am talking about his ability relative to your squad and his development and function relative to your squad. A player with high PA but really low CA may take many seasons to develop into the player he is capable of and this may be 4-5 seasons you don't have to wait for him.

This is where several relative quality affiliates repay their price. You can loan him out for 2-3 seasons to increasingly superior affiliate sides, but you will pay the price in mentorship, which has a profound impact not just on CA gain but on the hidden mental attributes that produce consistent high quality performances from a high quality player. A youngster may develop the abilities of Luiz Nazario de Lima in 3 loan spells but if he returns at age 19-20 with the consistency of Luiz Nazario de Lima then it is unlikely he has any future from a managerial perspective. One season of relative quality first team football, one season of bench performances + mentorship then either the player is rotation level or he is out the door. That is my managerial style, and my managerial style takes into account motivation and consistency as well as CA/PA.

Plus I enjoy roleplaying as Ferguson

[NotWordsButDeeds]

OK, thank you for taking the time to reply mate. I'll have to get my head around a different approach to the way I do things at the moment. In addition, I like to keep micro management to a minimum because I take no joy from it. However, I do realise it's necessary to some degree. I guess this is one of those areas where I have to work around a style that brings me at least some of the benefits you discuss.

Thanks again.

[RENO24]

I've spent a lot of time over all versions of CM/FM on training and i subscribe to most of the ideas put forward in this thread.

However i have a question, (since personally i havent progressed fair enough in my save to get a conclusive result) which has been part of so much conjecture that SI need themselves to clarify.

Its revolves around the minimunm click theory for keeping players attributes steady.

Now, not in this tread (but another one) there was a theory put forth by a very trustworthy source (i forget his name, but it begins with 'H') that once a player had 'matured' you could assign them to general training to keep to stats and their distribution of them constant, i.e the player pretty much stays the same (doesnt regress) but gains a few stats here and there (not always position relative). This was done by using a training schedule that had everything a notch on medium.

Is this correct?

I suppose the basic question i am asking is what is the min level i need to set an individual training schedule to, to not see any player regression within that associated player attributes for that particular training field.

Is it relative - in as much that if i set a another slider for another part of his game slightly higher, the slider that is lower will still see a decrease because his stats are being redistributed accordingly and therefore the lower slider(s) cannot have a min level for stopping a player regressing because the redistribution of atrributes is controled by the slider(s) that are higher? Therefore to see no regression, all sliders would need to be kept at an equal level so that the players attributes are not redistributed according to which sliders are higher and lower (assuming there is no min level for zero attribute regression)?

I understand that the above may not quite make sense to you as its a little wordy and i may not have explained what i mean very well but i hope you have a rough grasp of what im asking...

[Mike~]

I would prefer a system closer to CM, where you set up normal training sessions like teams do in real life.

I concur. This was more realistic. A system whereby you assign players to schedules then setup those schedules with these sort of 'sessions' would be more like real life. You would also have to assign coaches to those specific sessions depending on their skills and training style.

[3at]

You guys are all making this to complicated for yourselves. In fact SI should at least explain how the training system works instead of letting the community find out for themselves.

[Parat]

Hmm, actually I think it should be much easier ....

Just let us arrange a list of attributes we want to train

[PhroX]

SI should at least explain how the training system works instead of letting the community find out for themselves.

Why?

Things like this are so much more interesting if you actually have to think about them and work things out for yourself.

[3at]

Is there a point in training aerobic and strength after age 24 because i rarely see any changes in those attributes with older players.

So should i maintain fitness and aerobic with these players at medium or should put them on light?

[phnompenhandy]

3at - yes, their fitness needs to be maintained. Generally that requires fist notch of medium, but it varies, so you need to keep a check on their levels. Redirect those training aspects into technical and tactical areas.

[RENO24]

3at - yes, their fitness needs to be maintained. Generally that requires fist notch of medium, but it varies, so you need to keep a check on their levels. Redirect those training aspects into technical and tactical areas.

Can you have a look at my post above and give me your thoughts on the subject?

[phnompenhandy]

I will since you ask RENO, but I'm not an instigator or pioneer; I'm humbly bow down to the like of SFraser, Lyssien and Hawshiels (your 'H') who do all the analysis and experimentation. Hopefully, therefore, a far more knowledgeable poster will trump me in due course but for now this is what I think:

As I suggested above, generally, the first notch of medium is enough to keep attributes constant (other than inevitable decline of physical attributes due to age). That, however, is subject to my next point.

Once a player peaks (either reaches their PA or due to age won't progress any further) you have 2 choices. Either endeavor to keep all their attributes constant as long as /much as possible - in that case what you say about a general training program makes sense. Due to maturity, as physical attributes decline, some may be naturally redistributes to mental areas.

Or, keep working to improve certain attributes. What these great analysts have discovered is that what training schedules do is not increase, but redistribute attributes. So, you may have a ageing striker who is in physical decline. With the right schedule you can take points away from his tackling and marking (0 defence) and redistribute them to composure and shooting, for example.

You have to make careful judgements, however. Let's apply the real-life case of Paul Scholes to FM: I'd guess that he's at the stage where his CA is dropping sharply, mainly in the pace/acceleration attributes. There's nothing you can do to stop this; however, if you drop his fitness schedules too low in order to redistrute to improve tactical or attacking (passing- we can give up on tackling by now ;-)) attributes, it could result in his fitness dropping even more rapidly and sharply.

Hope this helps, explains things clearly, and above all is correct!

[kilo]

Hello,

I have a question regarinding player training to learn new positions.

If a player has "Acomplished" as RB for example and he is a natural DC, does it worth to train him more as a RB.

For example Corluka : 6 starts as a DC, only 4 as RB. I want to play him as a RB. If I will train him ( because I can select - learn - position RB ) his qualily will grow to Natural and will gain another 1 or more stars in this position? Will he pay better ?

I'm sorry if this is not the correct thread to raise my question, but I didn't want to make another thread with my question, because I believe I can find a perfect answer here using your large knowledge in this area.

[phnompenhandy]

Accomplished is almost the same as natural. There's no real need to retrain.

[kilo]

Accomplished is almost the same as natural. There's no real need to retrain.

OK, but they will improve in that position, I mean ratings in games?My ass man will qualify him if trained to 5 stars from 4 ?

I have another player that is 5 stars on the wings, quality player (ass man feedback), but if I put him as MC ( he is acomplished as MC ) my ass man sais that he is just a decent 2 star player fully developed.

I know he has potential and ability to play also as a MC , because he is having the stats for a MC, but will he be better if retrained?

[RENO24]

As I suggested above, generally, the first notch of medium is enough to keep attributes constant (other than inevitable decline of physical attributes due to age). That, however, is subject to my next point.

Makes sense to me

Once a player peaks (either reaches their PA or due to age won't progress any further) you have 2 choices. Either endeavor to keep all their attributes constant as long as /much as possible - in that case what you say about a general training program makes sense. Due to maturity, as physical attributes decline, some may be naturally redistributes to mental areas.

Again, this makes sense

Or, keep working to improve certain attributes. What these great analysts have discovered is that what training schedules do is not increase, but redistribute attributes. So, you may have a ageing striker who is in physical decline. With the right schedule you can take points away from his tackling and marking (0 defence) and redistribute them to composure and shooting, for example.

So if i do not want to redistribute attributes, should a training schedule be designed where all notches are equal (at whatever intensity - assuming above first notch on medium)

You have to make careful judgements, however. Let's apply the real-life case of Paul Scholes to FM: I'd guess that he's at the stage where his CA is dropping sharply, mainly in the pace/acceleration attributes. There's nothing you can do to stop this; however, if you drop his fitness schedules too low in order to redistrute to improve tactical or attacking (passing- we can give up on tackling by now ;-)) attributes, it could result in his fitness dropping even more rapidly and sharply..

This makes sense again and thus would lead us to at least set his min level on strengh and aerobic training to first notch meduim no?

My general question is pretty simple. In most cases i do not wish to have players attributes redistributed once they peak. Im trying to find out how to not let that happen. So was wondering if all notches are on at least first medium and the others are higher, will his stats still redistribute in this instance? In which case would having an even split over all categories work to keep everything constant?

For instance:

I have bought Christian Gimenez back to Basel (its sentimental - hes one of my all time fave players and a club legend)

Hes 33 years old and im sure will not be improving at this late stage. I 'assume' given his age that i will be unable to get any physical attributes to improve. However i dont want them to drop any lower (then they naturally would) and i dont want them to be redistributed to other aspects of his game. In this case how would having different intensity levels on his training effect him if they are ALL at least 1 notch on maintain (meduim)?

I have Reto Zanni, a good solid player. Hes 27 so again i assume i will not see much improvement in physical attributes. Is 27 too early where attributes would not start to redistribute? I really just want some nice improvemnt across the board from him without redistribution.

I also have Marcos Angeleri. He is a great player. 25. Now i dont want his pace and acceleration to drop as they are both 18. But i also want some nice solid improvemnt in the rest of his game. Would his aerobic training thus need to be at least on maintain and even though other areas would be at different levels, in theory those 2 attributes shouldnt drop and also attributes would not be redistributed?

[SFraser]

I will since you ask RENO, but I'm not an instigator or pioneer; I'm humbly bow down to the like of SFraser, Lyssien and Hawshiels (your 'H') who do all the analysis and experimentation. Hopefully, therefore, a far more knowledgeable poster will trump me in due course but for now this is what I think:

As I suggested above, generally, the first notch of medium is enough to keep attributes constant (other than inevitable decline of physical attributes due to age). That, however, is subject to my next point.

Once a player peaks (either reaches their PA or due to age won't progress any further) you have 2 choices. Either endeavor to keep all their attributes constant as long as /much as possible - in that case what you say about a general training program makes sense. Due to maturity, as physical attributes decline, some may be naturally redistributes to mental areas.

Or, keep working to improve certain attributes. What these great analysts have discovered is that what training schedules do is not increase, but redistribute attributes. So, you may have a ageing striker who is in physical decline. With the right schedule you can take points away from his tackling and marking (0 defence) and redistribute them to composure and shooting, for example.

You have to make careful judgements, however. Let's apply the real-life case of Paul Scholes to FM: I'd guess that he's at the stage where his CA is dropping sharply, mainly in the pace/acceleration attributes. There's nothing you can do to stop this; however, if you drop his fitness schedules too low in order to redistrute to improve tactical or attacking (passing- we can give up on tackling by now ;-)) attributes, it could result in his fitness dropping even more rapidly and sharply.

Hope this helps, explains things clearly, and above all is correct!

Great post.

I would add 3 points.

First of all the exact balance to maintain an attribute when a player has peaked will depend upon what attributes you allow to drop, and your judgement of the rate of change. This is what makes perfection impossible unless you spend your life calculating precision data for every single week of FM activity. A guide I follow is to allow to drop a category of training that has multiple attributes you are willing to lose (such as physical for example) while attempting to improve a category of equal or fewer number of categories (ball control and attacking for example). Then you can err on the side of overcompensation and achieve desired results earlier, at which time you can switch to a more balanced schedule.

Secondly, when a player is close to his PA then CA will fluctuate constantly due to non-natural growth factors such as Match Practice, Performances, Form, Injuries etc. It is nigh on impossible to maintain maximum CA for a whole season, let alone ten. This accounts for off-season and post injury drops as well as apparently massive improvements through a rich vein of form. The CA fluctuation is not large, probably between 3 and 10 points for really severe penalties, but when a drop does occur then there is the opportunity to specifically target certain categories for massive bias when the almost inevitable increase does occur.

The third point is that once a player is past his peak all attributes will begin to decline, but physical attributes are hit hardest due to their massive bias weight. Attributes like Strength, Stamina, Acceleration and Pace suck up large quantities of CA in comparison to other attributes for a noticable increase. Physical attributes will decline, and their is no avoiding this, but it possible to maintain or even increase CA for a few more seasons if you redistribute physical attributes accordingly. Obviously no one wants to see a complete physical collapse, but if you take the ingame example of Paolo Maldini then it is possible to produce an effective and usable distribution of CA by allowing physical attributes to drop while massively biasing mental attributes. Mental attributes seem to diminish the least with age, perhaps because although mental attributes are hard to improve they are vastly less affected by age. I have done this myself, increasing the CA of Gary Neville by over ten points in one season by playing him regularly within a tactical setup suited for him, while attempting to minimise (but not halt) his physical decline and using the large quantity of training bias released by lowering physical to increase his mental attributes.

The inevitable decline of physical attributes will free up CA that can be redistributed back into other categories, but you must choose those categories that have the least inherant bias towards decline in order to replace or improve that CA loss. Think about it, your training and constant usage cannot overcome the natural tendency for Physical Attributes to decline, but Mental and Technical do not have such a natural tendency to decline rapidly just yet, so send all the CA into those attributes. Again it is a balancing act. Do you try to reduce the decline of Physical attributes or improve the gain of mental attributes? Ultimately though the player is on his way out and in a few years you wont be able to prevent the decline of mental attributes.

[Zebedee77]

Most excellent thread. Your attention to detail is most aweinspiring. And now to digest what I've read

Many thanks SFraser. Your work is hugely appreciated as I'm only now moving into delving into optimising my training.

[RENO24]

Great post.

I would add 3 points.

First of all the exact balance to maintain an attribute when a player has peaked will depend upon what attributes you allow to drop, and your judgement of the rate of change. This is what makes perfection impossible unless you spend your life calculating precision data for every single week of FM activity. A guide I follow is to allow to drop a category of training that has multiple attributes you are willing to lose (such as physical for example) while attempting to improve a category of equal or fewer number of categories (ball control and attacking for example). Then you can err on the side of overcompensation and achieve desired results earlier, at which time you can switch to a more balanced schedule.

Secondly, when a player is close to his PA then CA will fluctuate constantly due to non-natural growth factors such as Match Practice, Performances, Form, Injuries etc. It is nigh on impossible to maintain maximum CA for a whole season, let alone ten. This accounts for off-season and post injury drops as well as apparently massive improvements through a rich vein of form. The CA fluctuation is not large, probably between 3 and 10 points for really severe penalties, but when a drop does occur then there is the opportunity to specifically target certain categories for massive bias when the almost inevitable increase does occur.

The third point is that once a player is past his peak all attributes will begin to decline, but physical attributes are hit hardest due to their massive bias weight. Attributes like Strength, Stamina, Acceleration and Pace suck up large quantities of CA in comparison to other attributes for a noticable increase. Physical attributes will decline, and their is no avoiding this, but it possible to maintain or even increase CA for a few more seasons if you redistribute physical attributes accordingly. Obviously no one wants to see a complete physical collapse, but if you take the ingame example of Paolo Maldini then it is possible to produce an effective and usable distribution of CA by allowing physical attributes to drop while massively biasing mental attributes. Mental attributes seem to diminish the least with age, perhaps because although mental attributes are hard to improve they are vastly less affected by age. I have done this myself, increasing the CA of Gary Neville by over ten points in one season by playing him regularly within a tactical setup suited for him, while attempting to minimise (but not halt) his physical decline and using the large quantity of training bias released by lowering physical to increase his mental attributes.

The inevitable decline of physical attributes will free up CA that can be redistributed back into other categories, but you must choose those categories that have the least inherant bias towards decline in order to replace or improve that CA loss. Think about it, your training and constant usage cannot overcome the natural tendency for Physical Attributes to decline, but Mental and Technical do not have such a natural tendency to decline rapidly just yet, so send all the CA into those attributes. Again it is a balancing act. Do you try to reduce the decline of Physical attributes or improve the gain of mental attributes? Ultimately though the player is on his way out and in a few years you wont be able to prevent the decline of mental attributes.

Makes perfect sense to me

[Zebedee77]

Can I just ask an exceptionally silly series of questions?

As far as I can tell, the working theory at the moment is that players' physical attributes do not dramatically improve over the age of c.24? Is this a blanket thing no matter the position? What I'm wondering about are the in game 'tips' (and various documentation from SI over the FM series) about the varying ages when a player will 'peak' being dependant upon his position (and varying according to individual in addition?)? Now this could of course refer to CA/PA but confirmation either way would be brilliant. One reason I do ask about this is that some key goalkeeping attributes are actually in the 'physical' sections of training yet goalkeepers don't peak until their late 20s and early 30s, so is it possible that keeping the physical aspect of training up for longer with them would pay greater dividends etc?

One of those where I'm wondering whether 24 could well be the end of rapid increases from natural development but not necessarily the end of 'development' per se so that 'maintaining' or 'redistributing' schedules may be misguided if the player has not attained his PA (which for those who do not use editors etc will only be shown by the comments of staff on whether the player has room to improve or not). What has got me wondering was a thread a few months back on the failure of players to adequately groom new keeping talent, and I'm wondering whether the answer to this may lie in curtailing their 'development' schedules too early.

Hope that makes sense enough to be answered. I definitely feel much more comfortable using the training menus now I feel I have a grasp of some of the underlying principles which is a tribute to those who have taken time to explain things.

[XenoExclusive]

Yes, different positions do peak, but this is CA/PA based only, not physical increases.

As far as I know, it is a blanket rule over all positions. Sure, a striker will peak at the same time he stops gaining physical advances in his game, but in terms of a goalkeeper, that just means when his physical stat's will increase to the same age as 24, but will advance in all his other catergories until a later date (around 29-31 I believe).

Therefore its just a fact of having his physical high until 24, then maintaining it for a good 7 more years of his career in 'medium'. And then it's up to you if you want to reduce it and distribute it in more easily advancing catergories.

That's how I see it anyway.

[Zebedee77]

Thanks XenoExclusive. Most interesting.

[SFraser]

As far as I can tell, the working theory at the moment is that players' physical attributes do not dramatically improve over the age of c.24? Is this a blanket thing no matter the position? What I'm wondering about are the in game 'tips' (and various documentation from SI over the FM series) about the varying ages when a player will 'peak' being dependant upon his position (and varying according to individual in addition?)? Now this could of course refer to CA/PA but confirmation either way would be brilliant. One reason I do ask about this is that some key goalkeeping attributes are actually in the 'physical' sections of training yet goalkeepers don't peak until their late 20s and early 30s, so is it possible that keeping the physical aspect of training up for longer with them would pay greater dividends etc?

From my experience I think the "peak" has more to do with conditioning, fitness, match experience and performance ratings than with seperate growth curves for age per position, although there are different attribute biases per position so it may equal the same thing through a different mechanism.

This kind of information is extremely difficult to obtain because the very existence of attribute biases for positions, although known to exist, requires a lot of study to actually observe. The same goes for the affect of age on CA/Attributes. At certain points in a players career, age starts to force attributes to decline, but I do not know if this is a direct influence on CA gain, or if it is an inverse effect where attribute biases themselves are influenced with age and so produce a decline in CA.

I think that age influences attributes personally, because although age can reduce CA it is most marked in its reduction of physical attributes, and CA can be gained in players over 30 although physical attributes are nigh on impossible to improve.

As to the question of Goalkeepers, they are generally the position of least involvement in a side, they very often have little opportunity to get regular high quality ratings, and if my observation of common training schedules are anything to go by, they are also one of the most poorly trained of positions. This would imply that they are the easiest of positions to prevent a loss of CA through constant match practice, but also one of the hardest positions to develop through regular high performances when natural progression slows.

I have rarely seen dramatic improvements in Aerobics for any of my Goalkeepers post 24, but tactics and goalkeeping attributes seem to progress at a rate relative to my outfield players. This would imply that the positional bias for attributes exists, but it is no different to outfield players, and the question of "peaking" is not a question of position specific age curves or attribute mechanics, but rather a question of when the impact of age on a specific player begins to reduce the ability of that player to maintain his CA through match practice.

For example, a Goalkeeper with Acceleration 4, Agility 14, Pace 6, Stamina 5 with world class mental and goalkeeping stats is a hell of a player that can play 75% to 90% of your games per season at a World class level of football. For a winger it is game over as he will be exhausted within 30 minutes and move at a speed that is amongst the slowest in the game. Your goalkeeper will be able to get the match practice and performances to slow his rate of decline, whereas your winger will now lose about 5 points per attribute per category per season because he cannot keep up with the fitness demands of regular playing.

So to answer your question I would state that a players "Peak" is when the physical demands of his position overcome his ability through stamina and natural fitness to play regularly and minimise the loss of his stamina and natural fitness attributes. When reached this results in a rapid collapse of the player. This would imply that irrespective of position, when a player is nearing the age of 30, at which point physical attributes begin to decline across all positions, a training regime focused on stamina and the maintainance of condition is vital.

One of those where I'm wondering whether 24 could well be the end of rapid increases from natural development but not necessarily the end of 'development' per se so that 'maintaining' or 'redistributing' schedules may be misguided if the player has not attained his PA (which for those who do not use editors etc will only be shown by the comments of staff on whether the player has room to improve or not). What has got me wondering was a thread a few months back on the failure of players to adequately groom new keeping talent, and I'm wondering whether the answer to this may lie in curtailing their 'development' schedules too early.

I don't think so. I understand the point you are making but I think that the real reason for players failing to adequately groom new, keeping talent is an inferior understanding of how training works (training strikers in defending, set peices etc.), a penchant for sticking as much CA as possible into both physical categories at a young age and producing clumsy, stupid brutes, and a complete absence of a true strategy for developing players across multiple seasons.

It takes atleast 3 seasons to develop a single player from a 17 year old high potential youth into a Wonderkid that is nearing the limit of his CA, assuming that your strategy for developing him was not only thoroughly planned but went completely right first time and you did not waste a single season by sending him on loan to a club that didn't play him etc. Waste one season, fail to mentor him correctly, get him badly injured and the entire process is put back a whole season, and if you get it badly wrong then he runs out of time to develop his key personality attributes and that is it for him.

If you don't mind, let me show you a few examples.

Davide Santon.

First season of game start he spent the year in my under 18's and played in all my reserve games, with the occasional first team start in the Carling Cup. Was mentored all season by Gary Neville. He would have played more first team games but Gary Neville played a blinder that year and was the rock of my defence. His training was an intensive general schedule with all categories raised to the same level of intensity.

Second season was loaned straight out to Toulouse FC in the French Ligue One which was a full detail loaded league, where he played 33 First Team games, won the French Cup, and was named in their Season and Overall Best 11.

Third season, my current season, returned to my club and professed his loyalty despite mounting interest. Has had 9 starts and 9 substitute appearances between August and January. Though a good player he is unfortunately neither a fullback nor a winger and it remains to be seen if he will become a first team regular.

Mario Balotelli

First season, goes straight into my first team as a hot prospect, intended to be used regularly as a substitute and backup for strikers and wingers. Was intensively mentored by Wayne Rooney and picked up a lot of his habits. Scored 19 goals and achieved 20 assists in 25 starts and developed superbly. Training was an intensive schedule based on increasing his Physical attributes, with the rest going into tactics, ball control and finishing.

Second season continued much the same as the first with his hidden mental stats and high aggression and determination showing him to be a highly commited and powerful presence of the pitch when picked. This season was notable for his first cap, his call up the World Cup sqaud, and his ultimate selection as the World Cups Overall Best Player. Schedule for this season was a reduction in Aerobic and an increase in Ball Control and Tactics.

Third season, not much to say. A better player than he looks, and he looks good.

John Fleck

First season, straight into the under-18s for the whole season with an intensive, general youth schedule. Mentored intensively by Paul Scholes and had a decent run in the Carling Cup.

Second season, choice was to loan him out for First Team experience or keep him at my club and do the job myself. I decided to keep him at my club. He managed 30 appearances altogether, starts and subs, scoring 14 goals and creating 14 goals. Intensively mentored by Wayne Rooney and his schedule was an intensive adult schedule with a focus on Aerobic, Ball Control, Tactics and Finishing. Not a spectactular season but he got enough games to develop well and show his potential.

Third season, take a look. He is developing into a peach of forward and when he is hot he is hot. Unfortunately his consistency is keeping him back and it is race against time to find a way to improve it. Training schedule has switched from a focus on Aerobic to a focus on Strength as he is never going to be agile but he might be able to do the same job at beating defender through balance and strength.

Unfortunately I am not allowed any more images in this post so I cannot post my current projects, which are two high potential Centre-Backs with obvious flaws but equally obvious defensive strengths. The older one is on loan just now while the younger one is being mentored and is a backup in my squad. When the older one returns the younger one will go on loan, and it will be up to the older Centre-Back to prove his worth to the team next season. Without those kinds of strategies for development I would end up with both players directly competing with each other in my squad, to the detriment of both. It is obvious to me that to get the most out of your youngsters, even if they are not up to your first team standard, you need to devise comprehensive strategies to give them all the necessary experience and attention for decent development.

[Zebedee77]

Marvellous post again SFraser. A lot to take in, but hugely, hugely appreciated.

[SFraser]

Marvellous post again SFraser. A lot to take in, but hugely, hugely appreciated.

No problem. If you would like my opinion on any questions you have regarding training I am free to PM. I would say that this guide is not a nailed on certainty but more a set of work-in-progress assumptions that appear accurate through success. A certain quantity of it is fact, but a lot of the more expanded theory on what to do with training is most definately hypothesis, due in no small measure to the difficulty in observing game mechanics.

[XenoExclusive]

I read somewhere in this post that the training has a day it 'ticks over' every week right? Well I've been customising schedules for every player in my squad, until one of them (damn Ibrahimovic) said he was unhappy. I've reduced it greatly to mid-medium, and one tick over medium aerobic/strength, and after a good 4 weeks he is still unhappy. What am I missing?

[SFraser]

I read somewhere in this post that the training has a day it 'ticks over' every week right? Well I've been customising schedules for every player in my squad, until one of them (damn Ibrahimovic) said he was unhappy. I've reduced it greatly to mid-medium, and one tick over medium aerobic/strength, and after a good 4 weeks he is still unhappy. What am I missing?

Apparently the day you start the game is the day of the week that throughout your save will produce the updated results of training.

As for training unhappiness, it is nothing more than a slight negative modifier on morale and assuming you are doing well in your matches and keeping an eye on morale and motivation through man management then it really doesn't matter if he is unhappy over training. So long as his morale is good or better then train him as hard you like before incurring injuries.

[phnompenhandy]

SFraser - just a couple of thoughts here:

So now I see that we can keep players on a VERY HEAVY training schedule, with even the fitness regimes pretty high and sustain that with relatively few injuries. Don't you think that we are effectively exploiting a flaw in the coding?

Similarly, I'm utilizing your tactic with a D-line of 20 with very few problems. Isn't that also an exploit of the ME?

[XenoExclusive]

Yea was just about to say. With the exception to Ibrah, all my players are on 'Very heavy' workload, are happy with schedule, and are not incurring any injuries what so ever. This must be some kind of flaw.

In terms of tactical flaws, haven't tested this.

[RENO24]

I was under the impression that a prolonged heavy schedule would have a negative impact on player condition. Is this not the case then?

Could someone also clarify what action 'rest' has...I havent experienced any increase in players condition when using it. Even limiting a 'tired' players training through use of 'rest' doesnt seem to have any effect. I've heard a theory that it has a positive effect on reducing jadedness...can anyone confirm or deny?

Whats this D-line tactic im hearing off?

[DANNY1000000]

Yeah what is the D-line tactic?

[SFraser]

So now I see that we can keep players on a VERY HEAVY training schedule, with even the fitness regimes pretty high and sustain that with relatively few injuries. Don't you think that we are effectively exploiting a flaw in the coding?

The penalties for a Very Heavy training schedule do exist, from negative morale modifiers to a lowered recovery of condition which makes injuries more likely. I don't know if there is a difference in quantity and severity of injuries between low and high intensity schedules, and I do not know what the planned consequences are supposed to be, so I cannot say if it is an exploit.

What I can say is that it certainly has drawbacks in terms of condition, and that the gain from an intensive schedule is not dramatic, and that it has never looked like an exploit to me.

You could raise the issue in the bugs forums and see what SI say.

Similarly, I'm utilizing your tactic with a D-line of 20 with very few problems. Isn't that also an exploit of the ME?

Perhaps it is, but I have seen nothing to make me think it is an exploit. It is vulnerable to pace so I use an Off-side Trap, it is vulnerable to quick passing counter-attacks so I use a relatively high closing down. It would not work without a midfield operating as a line of four as there would be too much space to exploit the high defenders etc.

What makes you think it is an exploit?

I was under the impression that a prolonged heavy schedule would have a negative impact on player condition. Is this not the case then?

It does have an effect on condition. Prolonged Heavy Schedules will require a much greater degree of rotation than less intense schedules.

The question of it being an "exploit" depends on two things. Firstly is Intense Training supposed to be possible? If so then it is unlikely to be an exploit. The second is what exactly determines training ground injuries?

If people consider the use of Intensive Schedules to be an exploit or bug then by all means I encourage you to raise the issue with the SI bug report team. I have never used anyone elses schedules and have written this guide from my own experience, so have never considered the ability to train players Intensively as an exploit, simply a choice with drawbacks.

[RENO24]

So lets see,

A high intesive (overall) schedule can/does have a negative effect on players conditions. Training alone accounts for a small CA increase. Would it not then be advisbale to have a schedule that was on the high side of med intensive (overall workload) thus reducing player fatigue/risk of injury through lack of condition which would in theory allow the player to play more games during the season. This should then equate to a better CA increase no?

I guess its about finding the correct training level so you get the best of both.

What about older players (30+) though...?

"So to answer your question I would state that a players "Peak" is when the physical demands of his position overcome his ability through stamina and natural fitness to play regularly and minimise the loss of his stamina and natural fitness attributes. When reached this results in a rapid collapse of the player. This would imply that irrespective of position, when a player is nearing the age of 30, at which point physical attributes begin to decline across all positions, a training regime focused on stamina and the maintainance of condition is vital."

OK, but then how can we keep such players on a reasonable schedule that does not overly tax them/damage them due to lack of condition which could result in injury and would result in lack of playing time (injury or not)? Focus on Physical, OK, but what about helping shape other aspects of their game that can be improved (i.e mental). In theory we would be training these ares as much as possible also. Couple that with a high physical training and you will have a fair too intensive schedule for a player of advacing years no?

There has to be a happy medium (obviously). When you say "a training regime focused on stamina and the maintainance of condition is vital". What do you invision that level being? (i know every player is different) but are you thinking higher then say the mid point on medium as a good starting point?

I ask because at the moment i have a couple of 30+ players in my squad. Christian Gimenez, Scott Chipperfield, Benji Huggel.

Now Chipperfield has good physical stats for his age (32 at game start) I accept these are not going to improve. However my theory behind keeping them at the current level was simple:

Play him often (hes one of my best players anyway) but do not overuse him (i know the level im after)

Have his individual training schedule not high or intense but on a sensible medium which is highish side of Medium. The ratio of each training category is fairly balanced with nothing apart from set pieces on first notch high. Physical training is pretty much dead medium and the others are set as i see fit.

IYO, would this theory work in keeping his physical attributes as they are while also seeing CA increase in other ares i.e mental, set pieces (or any other category i have training levels biased towards)? OR, is he now of an age where i can do nothing about mainting physical attributes and will have to start to re-distribute as the initial decline is very close - even though like i say, right now his physical attributes are good and are better then most players of his age (and also caliber)

[phnompenhandy]

Re: 20 D-line

Perhaps it is, but I have seen nothing to make me think it is an exploit. It is vulnerable to pace so I use an Off-side Trap, it is vulnerable to quick passing counter-attacks so I use a relatively high closing down. It would not work without a midfield operating as a line of four as there would be too much space to exploit the high defenders etc.

What makes you think it is an exploit?

My reasoning is that where we have 1-20 sliders, 0/1 and 20 should be seen as desperate extremes, to be utilized in last-minute panic tactics (all-out attack, park the bus, shameless time-wasting etc). Employing them for a sustained period of time, let alone 90+ minutes ought to bring huge risks. I doubt SI envisaged scenarios where a 20 D-line would be a mainstay of a tactic.

I see that it would only work with exceptional teams. I play a 3-4-1-2 system with wingbacks, an MCd, and MCa all of whom are pacey, together with a sweeper-keeper and it works very well. Despite my squad being highly suited to the tactic, I have a queasy feeling that they ought to be caught out more often than they are.

[SFraser]

My reasoning is that where we have 1-20 sliders, 0/1 and 20 should be seen as desperate extremes, to be utilized in last-minute panic tactics (all-out attack, park the bus, shameless time-wasting etc). Employing them for a sustained period of time, let alone 90+ minutes ought to bring huge risks. I doubt SI envisaged scenarios where a 20 D-line would be a mainstay of a tactic.

I see that it would only work with exceptional teams. I play a 3-4-1-2 system with wingbacks, an MCd, and MCa all of whom are pacey, together with a sweeper-keeper and it works very well. Despite my squad being highly suited to the tactic, I have a queasy feeling that they ought to be caught out more often than they are.

I understand your point but at the end of the day it is the positioning of the D-Line and if you can utilise and dominate with Centrebacks 40 yards from the opponents goal, then why not use it?

If it is not working how it is supposed to be then it is an exploit, but I have no problems with you raising the issue with SI.

I don't think this thread is the right place for this discussion. If you would like to take to my "Less is More" thread where the tactic in question is being discussed then that would be ideal. Not shrugging you off, just saying that this thread is for training and would be best kept for training discussions.

[phnompenhandy]

Fair enough SF. I donm't want to push it since I'm utilizing it myself, whilst evolving it day by day. Now I'm intergrating the excellent analysis on high time-wasting.

pertinent to this discussion, therefore, is the same priciple applied to training. Following your advice, I have a number of schedules on the extreme end of VERY HEAVY, including non-too-light fitness schedules. As I said, I do okay with injuries. I have top class coaches and facilities. My squad do have exceptionally high DETERMINATION and mostly good on WORKLOAD and INJURY PRONENESS. I still feel 'queasy' about the success of this. However, it wqould be good if someone reported that they'd tried this with poor coaches and physios, and a squad of fairies and it turned out to be a disaster!

[SFraser]

Fair enough SF. I donm't want to push it since I'm utilizing it myself, whilst evolving it day by day. Now I'm intergrating the excellent analysis on high time-wasting.

pertinent to this discussion, therefore, is the same priciple applied to training. Following your advice, I have a number of schedules on the extreme end of VERY HEAVY, including non-too-light fitness schedules. As I said, I do okay with injuries. I have top class coaches and facilities. My squad do have exceptionally high DETERMINATION and mostly good on WORKLOAD and INJURY PRONENESS. I still feel 'queasy' about the success of this. However, it wqould be good if someone reported that they'd tried this with poor coaches and physios, and a squad of fairies and it turned out to be a disaster!

I have not done this, but I have found that when players come back to Pre-Season training from the off-season holiday that putting them straight onto an intensive schedule will increase their likelyhood of injuries.

Whenever a player is "back in training after injury" or otherwise returns to training after being out, I start them off with a light to medium schedule and slowly increase it to intensive after a week for minor injuries or two weeks for more severe injuries.

I find the especially during Pre-Season this strategy helps to eliminate the large numbers of injuries that often occur.

[phnompenhandy]

Oh - that's explains a few repetitive injuries - cheers!

[tomo31]

I was wondering about how/when you should transfer younger players form your youth schedule to tour full time one. I know you can do it when they sign a full-time contract at 17, but i'm not sure if this is when you should.

I thought maybe it would be an idea to have 3 types of schedules, Youth, Full-Time Youth & Senior, that way you could still have a bigger emphasis on developing the younger players Physical & Key stats as well as having them on a full-time schedule.

Im trying to improve my grasp on youth training & developing so i'm not sure if my reasoning works out?

Any pointers very much appreciated!

[phnompenhandy]

Simply, on a youth contract, they can only train part-time. Once they sign a full contract they can train full-time. That means your full-time youth schedules will be far more effective in developing them. They can still stay in your U18 squad if you don't feel they're ready for the reserves.

[tomo31]

Oh I know about them going from part to full-time on a pro contract, I was just wondering if its more effective to have a 'Youth Full-Time' schedule & a 'Senior Full-time' schedule rather than just 1 full-time schedule

[Scri76]

Hi,

only one question, is better to do a day of rest to team after every match or is better to make training evrey day?

Thank you

[leedsfan88]

how important are facilities when hoping to reach 7 stars training

[SFraser]

how important are facilities when hoping to reach 7 stars training

I am not sure of the actual effect of facilities, but I have read threads stating that facilities do nothing more than increase the rate at which attributes are redistributed through training.

Likewise the star rating of a coach increases the rate at which attributes are redistributed through his particular field.

I do not think facilities affect the function of a coach, but add to the function, so that high star coaches and high quality facilities will make your training regimes quicker and more sensitive in the short term when it comes to distributing and redistributing attributes.

In short 7 star coaches and quality training facilities make swapping CA amongst attributes much quicker.

[phnompenhandy]

Hi,

only one question, is better to do a day of rest to team after every match or is better to make training evrey day?

Thank you

So long as the players are recovering their condition between matches, there is no need to rest them. If they have low stamina they may need a day off. I do however cancel training for a week during the intensive Christmas schedule when they play maybe 4 games in 2 weeks.

[zyllu]

I would like to be explained one thing. In order to successfully train young player, we are supposed to max out his CA, right? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I've read here one should develop youngster physical attributes at his young age, and then, at some point we should start investing in his tactical and technical abilities? So doesn't fulfilling CA mean that player will no longer develop?