A Closer Look at Training.

[phnompenhandy]

No. Evn at max CA the player will still redistribute attributes. Eg if the young striker loses 3 points of tackling and adds them to finishing, he still improves as a striker.

[caulfield67]

daft question. But where do i install the training links to?

[phnompenhandy]

Do you mean training schedules? The 'schedules' folder. In your 'my docs/fm2009'folder

[ZdlR]

First of all, to SFraser for this thread, you are proving to be a very useful individual on these forums!

I particularly enjoyed the determinism versus indeterminism debate with respect to the assignment of untrained surplus CA. Personally, as a one-time game programmer, I'm tempted more by the determinism camp.

It is also interesting to hear the affects of mentoring, I've all-too-often neglected this side of things and now I regret selling Barton and Alan Smith. They might not appear to be the greatest of role-models, but one's a Perfectionist and the other is extremely determined. Not particularly professional though, I'd hazard a guess.

Which brings me on to my question - what are the differences in having someone tutored using the different options. It appears to be an intensity of tutelage, so I'd imagine the more intense, the more habits or mentality traits the pupil would pick up, right?

I bought Fleck for a snip and he's already started about 12 games for my Newcastle side due to injuries, sales and, well, the fact that he's generally better than my other players. I'm going to give him a rest, but he hasn't visibly improved in a single attribute so far, about 6 months after signing. Should I just be patient and hope he has a spurt later on - he's still only 17.

[SFraser]

I particularly enjoyed the determinism versus indeterminism debate with respect to the assignment of untrained surplus CA. Personally, as a one-time game programmer, I'm tempted more by the determinism camp.

It certainly does not seem impossible, and if not impossible then it would seem sensible and logical from a gameplay perspective, however I am not a programmer. The basis for my conclusion, which may turn out to be false given sufficient data, is the apparent correlation between used and unused attributes during a match and improved or unimproved attributes in categories that are not being trained. As I said, someone that is taking all your free-kicks or corners during a match should not lose points in these attributes, but may well lose points in throw-ins or penalties, which was my observation.

It may well be incorrect when natural position attribute bias is combined to training, but these are fine lines where the exact numerical bias can only be determined by observing the changes in single attributes between positionally identical players with identical training regimes and different match activities over a long period of time. Certainly though the assumption is supported, in my opinion, by the near universal increase in CA that can be observed post high performances versus quality opponents. Over for example three seasons it is a large stretch of the imagination to state that those matches fall exactly prior to monthly CA recalculation, rather than produce CA gain.

Although again it must be said that perhaps I am looking for correlations with the logic of real world football that do not exist. If they do not currently exist, then hopefully we will see them in the future.

It is also interesting to hear the affects of mentoring, I've all-too-often neglected this side of things and now I regret selling Barton and Alan Smith. They might not appear to be the greatest of role-models, but one's a Perfectionist and the other is extremely determined. Not particularly professional though, I'd hazard a guess.

Mentoring is incredibly powerful. At the very lower limit of potency you have the potential for a gain of 4-5-6 points of Determination across as little as 2 years. I have seen a gain of 2 points in Determination in a single month, and I have seen this several times. When you consider that CA gain is not limited to players under the age of 21 while mentoring is, and the immense impact that Determination has on every facet of a player's behaviour, not least of reacting to adversity, this possibility alone makes mentoring in my opinion the most potent and important aspect of player development.

However mentoring is not limited to Determination. It impacts the hidden mental attributes of a player, such as ambition, professionalism, consistency, big match performances, controversy, loyalty etc. I will speak about consistency in response to another part of your post, but suffice to say that observable attributes are only a part of the picture of any player.

Which brings me on to my question - what are the differences in having someone tutored using the different options. It appears to be an intensity of tutelage, so I'd imagine the more intense, the more habits or mentality traits the pupil would pick up, right?

This is the question. The fact there are three options implies there exists some difference, right? However the same individual that posted the detailed "Personality Guide" of high accuracy that has unfortunately disappeared down the forum somewhere stated that the three options displayed no discernable difference in outcome.

My take on this issue is that all prior analysis has focused on the idea that one option means mental traits, the second means mental traits plus hidden traits, while the third includes all the previous but also personal player moves. You however stated the idea of intensity and that is similar to how I view the mentoring system. It is not a question of what particular field you wish a player to learn about, it is a question of how closely you wish X student to follow the lead of their mentor. Rather than each option meaning "learn mental traits/learn mental and hidden traits/learn mental, hidden and PPM traits" it is my opinion that each option is akin to the following conceptions; "watch this guy and learn his strengths / watch this guy and style yourself around him / this is the player I want you to become".

I don't know how that works from a programmatical context, but it is the conception I use to understand the results. The mentoring options do not pick specific areas to focus on, they represent the degree to which you ask one player to mould himself according to another. Again this may be wrong, and from a programmatical and logical context it is certainly an inferior evaluation, but the FM gamer is seperated from the exact function of the system like no other in strategy gaming. This data is hidden from us across the entire game to an impressive degree if you factor immersion into the equation. It does however make understanding the game in detail somewhat of a challenge.

I bought Fleck for a snip and he's already started about 12 games for my Newcastle side due to injuries, sales and, well, the fact that he's generally better than my other players. I'm going to give him a rest, but he hasn't visibly improved in a single attribute so far, about 6 months after signing. Should I just be patient and hope he has a spurt later on - he's still only 17.

John Fleck is a player I have spent a lot of time developing. The lack of development at age 17 is something I have seen and it adds weight to the assumption of the non-linear influence of age on CA mechanics, whereby extremities of youth or veteran age groups display extreme negative CA gain properties. My assumption is that CA gain is the product of a polynomial where player age is a cleverly defined variable. That is the extent of my mathematical knowledge, unfortunately, but hopefully the point is clear.

You will notice I use the word "assumption" a lot, because that is what a lot of this guide is. I don't have the time nor the knowledge to perfectly deconstruct this game, and I would rather play it than study it in microscopic detail. However I think my assumptions are a lack of fine accuracy rather than spurious incoherence.

17 year old players are in my experience notoriously hard to improve CA wise, but can benefit greatly from mentoring. John Fleck in particular is a player that does not develop much at the age of 17 but as soon as he hits 18 and is played regularly will develop like a Trojan and can swiftly become one of the most devestating forwards in the game.

After three seasons my John Fleck is packing Off-the-ball 19, Determination 20, Creativity 20, anticipation and composure of 16, long shots and finishing of 17, dribbling and passing of 16. This is a 19 year old player that is 32! points off his PA according to FMScoutGenie.

Though as I stated before visible attributes are only part of the story. John Fleck on average will attain a consistency of 10. What this means in game terms is that unless you use an editor John Fleck will play to his CA only 10 games out of 25, with the drop in CA in the other 15 matches determined by random factors. When he is hot he will be the greatest forward on Earth, when he is not hot he could be anything.

However here we can be saved by motivation. Whatever CA level John Fleck is playing at can be improved by motivation. My advice to you would be to keep this player and view him as the single most potent forward in every single offensive context the game could provide, curse whoever decided to give him such a low consistency (or praise them for gameplay balance), and do your damndest to figure out what motivation techniques he responds to.

In terms of training, mentor him with the best mentors you have, play him as a backup for the age of 17, and when he hits 18 start looking to develop him properly as a player you know will become the greatest forward on the planet on his day. The training problems he poses you are ultimately physical in nature. His agility is rediculously low, so consider balance and strength rather than acceleration and agility. Strong and balanced can be better than fast and agile when movement is perfect.

[Supa Kick]

I've read through this thread and have a few questions..

What is CA and PA?

In a nutshell, should I be doing high aerobic/strength training with my youngsters and once that reaches a good level, then switch to technical stats?

I'm not used to this at all and it's so confusing..

[Macon]

CA = current ability

PA = potential ability

They are scores out of 200 which you can't see in the game unless you use an editor. You can get by quite happily without seeing them: a players visible attributes give you a good idea of how useful he is, and your coaches can tell you about the player's potential.

And yeah, I think the consensus is aerobic/strength training when they're young, because these scores will hardly ever go up after the age of 24.

[ZdlR]

With a player's personality being so important, especially to your ability to motivate them, and, given that a suitable mentor can mould a youth's personality, would a policy of purchasing players merely to act as mentors be a practical plan?

I've already got Alan Smith on my books, but I never play him. He just mentors my youth strikers because he is a Perfectionist. I've recently purchased some past-it Italian MC who will *never* get close to the first team, but he is a Model Professional with 20 Determination...

[SFraser]

With a player's personality being so important, especially to your ability to motivate them, and, given that a suitable mentor can mould a youth's personality, would a policy of purchasing players merely to act as mentors be a practical plan?

That depends on his cost, his impact on the morale, gelling and motivation of your squad, and the impact on your fans expectations.

The value of quality mentors cannot be underestimated, but you cannot play this game with your eye on single facets. Mentorship may be your idea role for a player but everyone else connected to the team, including the player in question, may very well think differently.

Ultimately it is not a bad plan in principle, but it must be managed well. I can only judge the principle because the specifics are yours to deal with.

Personally I would go for someone with the same personality that is both young and a definative improvement to your squad. This doesn't only kill two bird with one stone, a good mentor with limited management issues, it also gives you a long term high quality mentor whose particular attributes may make him an absolutely critical player in your side. Remember that hidden mental attributes mean more than just CA gain. Good personalities are good personalities for match performance reasons. Therefore it makes sense to purchase critical players in every context, both a good mentor and a player that dedicates himself to the match day.

Basically if you need mentors and the best mentors are inferior players then use your judgement and work hard to manage the situation, otherwise you really should look for those decisive players with quality attributes that play to an even higher standard through the mentorship relevant attributes. Those are trully the key players in the game. Who can argue with 10 years of quality on the pitch and in mentorship, followed by another 10 of mentorship and backup, followed by 20 as your assistant or coach? These are the players you should look for, and I would save my money to buy them unless the need is urgent.

Ultimately you are the manager mate All I can do here is highlight the issues you probably already know.

[Supa Kick]

Has anyone got a decent training schedule that I can look at?

I don't want to download one and use it, just to look at what has the most clicks etc..

[phnompenhandy]

With a player's personality being so important, especially to your ability to motivate them, and, given that a suitable mentor can mould a youth's personality, would a policy of purchasing players merely to act as mentors be a practical plan?

i tried this in my first FM09 save. I brought in 4 free signings, all 35+ ex-legends with superb mental attributes just for tutoring purposes. For some reason all of them either had no option to tutor, or no youths would accept the offer

[ron.e]

Can someone please confirm? What does the dark, middle and light blue bars mean on the left hand side of the picture? Do the training levels mean that i'm training him too hard on ball control, setpieces and attacking or is it telling me that he can not improve anymore in these areas so i need to train him less in these areas? and with defence and shooting, is it telling me that he can improve in these areas or is it just a mirror of the training schedule i have him on?

I really need this confirmed once and for all. Because if i do not understand this, then i can't make my own training schedules. I've even looked in the manual and it doesn't say anything about this area of the game which i think is out of order (and a bit lazy tbh) so someone please help. Thanks

[Supa Kick]

Ron,

How do I get a skin like that?

[ron.e]

The skin is called klasa. do a search you are bound to find it.

[Spuddie]

Hello. On FM07, I was Dundalk in the second division of Eire. I signed a lot of players on free's and had a large squad. I set my youth players on the hardest training intensity and it worked wonders. Injuries were never a problem as the squad was so big. After about 9 seasons, I won the Uefa Cup. Is this mentality to training still possible? has anyone tried it on 09? Does it work? It did before, I had half the Ireland squad before in regens that rapidly improved, despite the occasional injury and having bog-standard trainig facilities for ages. Any replies?

[Macon]

ron-e: you're not training him too hard in ball control, attacking and set pieces. But there's probably no cranking them up any further, as you're not going to get actual training levels much higher.

He's not doing any shooting or defending training, so training level is also zero, and scores in these categories are likely to drop. However, training levels are not always a mirror of the training schedule (top right) itself: if your player has a poor attitude to training / is returning from injury etc , it's perfectly possible to have set shooting to medium (top right) - but the training level for shooting (bottom left) graph to be near the floor still, because he just doesn't fancy it much

[SFraser]

Think of it this way. Input-Process-Output.

The training schedule is your input. It is your way of defining and tweaking how much you want to focus on each area. The training Levels are the Process. They are his personality in combination with your schedule producing an overall level of training. The final panel is the output. The exact extent of CA bias between attribute categories due to training.

[phnompenhandy]

A fella just asked me an intriguing question in this thread:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=126127

"But can you also tell me if I can train a 16 year old to get to a 20 passing no matter what if I concentrate on training him only on attacking - at intensive, with the rest at zero? And with his PA space allowing him to be ofc."

What's the answer? Is there a ceiling to attribute redistribution or can you get up to 20 through exclusive focus on one category?

[ron.e]

I think i finally understand. Tell me if i'm right here. You give the player a schedule that you want to give them. But depending on their personality and workrate, the training levels with indicate how they are responding to it. Because the idea is to have a near-perfect training regime for the player, the idea is to have everything as close to the top line of the training level as possible without the player becoming unhappy and suffering injuries. The reason i know this is, I've got 9 players on a general training regime because they have reached their PA's and i want to redistribute their stats. But when i look at there training levels they are all different due to their personalities and work-rate etc. etc.

Here is one of the players. Here are a few players in my team concerning their training:-

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5531/aaquilani.png

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9863/mveloso.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5647/marquinhos.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/439/aguero.png

These players training levels are different because they have different personalities. For example with miguel veloso i can afford to up his overall training a bit and he won't become unhappy. With marquinhos, i definately can up his overall training a bit because his overall training is dark blue which mean it is a bit low for him. With aquilani, his shooting and set-pieces i can turn it up a bit because it's really low. But only if i think it will benefit him and the way i play. Am i right here. It seems obvious to me. can someone please tell me. Thanks

[Tejaswi]

Cheers Phnom.

I've been reading this thread for the past two hours now and I've devised an experiment to test my questions in that thread. This is the first time I've got so interested in training. All this attribute re-shaping business has me completely hooked-on! I've always been a guy who plugs in a training - Darkstarr most recently and left it at that.

Now, I have 3 young (17) players. A defender (DL), A midfielder (MC) and a forward.

Following the popular opinion on this thread, I've used FM RTE to give them 18 in ambition, 20 for professionalism, 20 for determination and 18 for work-rate with a 100 CA and 200 PA. Prime candidates for development. My set up is the United team of 2009, with coaching atleast on 5* for all attributes and state of the art training facilities.

I would also like to say that I agree with catafan's view on player development. I want to make the CA go up as fast as possible with attributes being distributed depending on the training schedules that I've picked. I couldn't care less about his performances for my team as this is just a test run. Before you jump on me and say good performances lead to a better improvement in stats, I would like to say that -

1. I'm telling my assman to use the same team whenever possible, which means he will almost always get picked unless he has an injury and

2. It could have been purely coincidence.

I also go on the assumption that praising or interacting with players has absolutely no impact on the player development. Since tutoring is also unnecessary because of the high attrs in Ambition, determination, professionalism and workrate this is probably close to the ideal set up to develop a player in any way that you want to.

DL - I want to make him into a very very physical player

(Not very useful but I really want to test the limits of physical training. Can anyone develop 20 jumping / pace / acc which isn't very realistic?)

So I have him on an 'Intensive' training for both Str and Aerobic with all the others on first notch of medium. (I am aware that 8 clicks ought to do it, but since players have different levels for which they choose to maintain their attrs, I'm assuming first notch of medium should be, in general a good estimate for every player)

This has lead to a training routine with a 'Very heavy' workload.

MC -

Similar mental attrs on Workrate, Det, Prof., Amb.

I want him to achieve as much as he can on 'Attacking', 'Shooting', 'Tactics' while maintaining the rest. So I have the relevant training on Intensive and the rest on 'Medium'.

Fwd -

Similar mental attrs.

I want to make him a poacher. (Well, ignore the need for physical attributes). All on medium except shooting and tactics which are on intensive.

-- That concludes the setup.

Genie gives history points (I've just thought about it), so I'll let the game run on hol for an year at which point I'll save a snapshot so we can see how the player has developed.

Guesses -

Although natural progression would improve their stats in areas in which I'm not really training them, I believe training should have a significant impact on determining what sort of footballer a player will develop into. I have about five hours of free time now during which I'll be running the game (and taking sneak peeks on how good they've become) and I'll post updates.

Update 1 -

December, Year one. My initial estimate is proving right with the rest of the attributes improving slightly and the attrs that I'm concentrating on improving heavily. Additionally, due to the first team footy, the player values have also shot up nicely. Although this update doesn't have anything new or unexpected, it's nice to see initial estimates on target.

Hopefully any player will develop into what you want them to become if given the right mentality, training and first team football. Also note that all the players are 17 and have a lot of time to improve.

[phnompenhandy]

Excellent experiment Tejaswi - I'm following closely. I'd be interested to know if you knacker your young defender with all that intensive physical training. Do report injuries that he picks up.

[Tejaswi]

Update 2 -

Things are slightly off course 'm afraid. The defender has come on leaps and bounds physically, (+5 in everything except pace and acc) but still has quite average physical attributes. However, he's improved a LOT defensively and in general play (Which shouldn't be the case because I'm here accounting only for natural growth of a player).

He improved by 40CA this year with the first team footy etc. And I reckon he'll be a very good FB although how strong/fast he becomes remains to be seen. 60 CA left, I'm dropping training in other areas to zero and letting him continue his physical growth.

The forward and the MC however are very much on course, although I think that it's because I'm improving 'key' attributes for their positions.

Forwarding one more season to see how it goes..

[AoV]

I've actually experimented with a youth setup pretty much myself, though not using such controlled measures, but I've noticed that focusing all your training on areas you supposedly want your youngster to improve in doesn't necessarily get the desired results. ie. pumping intensive training purely into physical training does not mean only the physical attributes will increase, and if they do, not necessarily at an exceptional rate. This is even with the player receive playing time and solid mentoring. While the stats of a talented youngster do increase by alot regardless if given playing time, it tends to get channelled into areas you don't really want them to go into using this method.

A training schedule with better results however would be the one adapted from the examples SFraser put up a few pages ago whereby the notches for training in any particular area does not exceed or fall short of another by too much (3-4 notches for me). Of course a particular area that does not require training (ie. shooting for defender) is still left to zero, but the notches for areas that improvements are desired in are set out in a pretty even spread. This at least gives a better distribution of stats on youngs players though I've still yet to develope a player with such extreme stats as SFraser's Fleck example. Would it be possible to provide a screen of Fleck's training schedule?

[ZdlR]

Fleck already starts the game with about 19 creativity, so it doesn't take too long to increase him to 20. Similarly, his key technical attributes start quite high for his age.

[isuckatfm]

A fella just asked me an intriguing question in this thread:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=126127

"But can you also tell me if I can train a 16 year old to get to a 20 passing no matter what if I concentrate on training him only on attacking - at intensive, with the rest at zero? And with his PA space allowing him to be ofc."

What's the answer? Is there a ceiling to attribute redistribution or can you get up to 20 through exclusive focus on one category?

Purely off the top of my head and based on 08 (CA weightings may have changed but I'd assume the general principles of training within the code are more or less the same) there is a bottom limit to how far attributes can fall. I tested it out by setting training to 0 for a given category and holidaying. What I remember is the attributes hit a value in FMM and fell no further.

Also off the top of my head it was very far from a 1:1 correspondence which is to be expected but what I do remember thinking as that personally it wasn't worth it in terms of what was lost versus what was gained. That is personal preference though as I still like as much 'roundedness' in a player as possible e.g. I like to close down from the front so I wouldn't want a striker's tackling dropping 4 or 5 just to gain a point in finishing (random numbers to illustrate the point).

It's worth bearing in mind that there is a random element involved in attribute distribution within a specific category.

Marc Vaughan's Hints & Tips

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

I think i finally understand. Tell me if i'm right here. You give the player a schedule that you want to give them. But depending on their personality and workrate, the training levels with indicate how they are responding to it. Because the idea is to have a near-perfect training regime for the player, the idea is to have everything as close to the top line of the training level as possible without the player becoming unhappy and suffering injuries. The reason i know this is, I've got 9 players on a general training regime because they have reached their PA's and i want to redistribute their stats. But when i look at there training levels they are all different due to their personalities and work-rate etc. etc.

Here is one of the players. Here are a few players in my team concerning their training:-

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5531/aaquilani.png

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/9863/mveloso.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5647/marquinhos.png

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/439/aguero.png

These players training levels are different because they have different personalities. For example with miguel veloso i can afford to up his overall training a bit and he won't become unhappy. With marquinhos, i definately can up his overall training a bit because his overall training is dark blue which mean it is a bit low for him. With aquilani, his shooting and set-pieces i can turn it up a bit because it's really low. But only if i think it will benefit him and the way i play. Am i right here. It seems obvious to me. can someone please tell me. Thanks

I don't know what is going on with your game but those training levels look messed up. I have my entire squad on the default general schedule and there is only minor differences in the graph levels, almost imperceptible.

EDIT: Just saw your last screenshot. At what point/date did you change schedules? I would say check it again in a couple of weeks (in game) and see if the Def/Sho bars have climbed back up to reflect the schedule. Seems odd that all other categories adjusted relative to the changes in the training levels between the two screenshots.

[Tejaswi]

Update 3 -

MC and FWD developed beautifully in the way I wanted them to. They still have some potential to develop into, but the MC I was training had 18-19 for Longshots, Composure, Passing, Creativity. (I was training him intensively in shooting and attacking) and reasonable attributes in the rest making him a well rounded player with attrib emphasis on the areas that I wanted him to develop.

The forward was a much better example of this developing almost exclusively in areas that I wanted him to develop in (Off the ball, Anticipation, Composure, Finishing and a bit of Ball control so he developed a decent first touch and a very good heading capability and even with very light training, he developed well physically.

My fullback actually developed marvelously. Unfortunately, sometime during the holidaying, he got transferred to RM and I need to check the initial stats again, but it was almost at the range of +6 - +10 on each of the physical attribs before he actually stopped developing because he reached his CA.

I'll post the screenshots of player development, their training schedules in the next post.

Edit -

A very interesting issue here was that the player himself developed a PPM without anyone ever telling him to. Perhaps some time during the development, the ME checks if a young player has certain attributes and automatically gives the player a proper PPM. My MC has PPM of Shoots from distance and Tries killer balls often, both directly related to the amount of training that I've subject him to in Attacking and Shooting. My forward already had a 'Places shots' PPM and he developed 'Likes ball played to feet' PPM because of the Ball control training I've had him on.

[isuckatfm]

Edit -

A very interesting issue here was that the player himself developed a PPM without anyone ever telling him to. Perhaps some time during the development, the ME checks if a young player has certain attributes and automatically gives the player a proper PPM. My MC has PPM of Shoots from distance and Tries killer balls often, both directly related to the amount of training that I've subject him to in Attacking and Shooting. My forward already had a 'Places shots' PPM and he developed 'Likes ball played to feet' PPM because of the Ball control training I've had him on.

Are you holidaying in this test?

If so can you check the player history to see if your assistant possibly set up tutoring or asked a player to learn a ppm in your absence.

[Tejaswi]

Okay. Training schedule -

http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mctraining.jpg

Strength (maintain or slightly improve) -

Natural fitness - 13 +0

Stamina - 10 - +9 (Bec of sudden work rate increase through editor?)

Strength - 9 - +5

Workrate - 18 - +2

Total - (Maintain) - +16

Aerobic (maintain or slightly improve)-

Acc - 11 - +4

Agi - 8 - +7

Balance - 7 - +6

Jumping - 7 - +5

Pace - 12 - +3

Reflexes - :zz - wtf?

Total - (Maintain) - +25. (Natural development?)

Tactics (Heavily improve)-

Anticipation - 8 - +8

Positioning - 8 - +9

Decisions - 9 - +7

Offtheball - 7 - +7

Teamwork - 13 - +5

Total - (Heavy) - +36 (Natural develop. + Training paid off, clearly)

Ball control (maintain or slightly improve)-

Dribbling - 4 - +6

First touch - 7 - +7

Flair - 9 - +3

Heading - 6 - +6

Technique - 12 - +4

Total (Maintain) - +25 (Coincidence?)

Defending (Completely neglect)-

Conc - 8 - +2

Marking - 7 - +2

Tack - 9 - +1

Total - +5 (Only natural development without ANY training)

Attacking (Heavily improve)-

Passing - 12 - +8

Creativity - 11 - +7

Total - +15 (Reached his max here, so couldn't improve more than +15..)

Shooting (Heavily improve)-

Longshots - 12 - +6

Finishing - 7 - +5

Composure - 10 - +7

Total - +18. (Although finishing looks an anomaly, as he reaches the magic number of 20 in any attr. the growth there slows down a lot, so this can be put down to maxing out his potential in this area too)

Set pieces (maintain or slightly improve)-

Corners - 15

Crossing - 5

FK Taking - 14

Long throws - 2

Penalty taking - 8

(Too lazy to do this, but can assume it is similar to Aerobic)

[Tejaswi]

Conclusions -

For now, I stick with the school of thought that if you want to maintain and slightly improve, put them on first notch of 'Medium'. If you want to focus a players energies exclusively into a particular attribute crank it upto 'intensive' and leave the rest at 'Medium'. (Which for me atleast is the logical way of working IRL too.)

Attr drop is very rare for young players, so leave any areas that you don't want him to improve in at zero. (He still will, due to natural development)

As for my first question, I have a clearer view now.

As attributes keep progressing due to natural develop. or due to match exp. and training, as they keep coming closer to 20, their rate of increase gets slower. In all probability, SI have a function that uses (20-curr_attribute_value) to determine the rate of improvement.

So, if you want a 20 in a particular field, then it's a race between him reaching his PA (by improving other attributes) and his attribute growth on the required field. But we can atleast be sure that by training him properly, he will become very good (18-19) easily if not 20 if he has a sufficiently high scope for growth. The question is, is a 16/17 good enough for you? If so, then reduce the training on that attr. and shift it to another one before his PA runs out. (Remember, attr. drops are very rare)

This way, tweaking the schedules gives you a lot of say in what sort of player your wonderkid turns into which is what I wanted to know.

Also, training categories that have 4-5 attributes bundled together (Tactics, aerobic) probably need to distribute attribute increase over the 4-5 attrs so individual attr. growth cannot match that of an area like Attacking or Shooting. For example, an intensive on Attacking needs to distribute the improvement only over Passing and Creativity whereas an intensive training schedule on tactics needs to do so on several fields. This is actually a very good thing since each of the attributes in 'tactics' are equally important for any well rounded player and an average increase over all the attrs is much better than you improving, say, Off the ball disproportionately to decisions. Also, I think the game does take into account the position your player is playing in to determine which attributes should get an increase even if all of them are bundled under 'tactics'. So your striker will improve more in Off the ball and defender in Positioning automatically. (Unverified claim)

[Tejaswi]

Are you holidaying in this test?

If so can you check the player history to see if your assistant possibly set up tutoring or asked a player to learn a ppm in your absence.

Lemme see. Do assistants do that !?

Edit: One player doesn't have any favoured personnel listed and the other has way too many but neither have a player as a favoured personnel that they could've learnt from. How else can I check this?

Anyway, just to prove my point about training, I'm taking Norwood again and this time I plan to turn him into a hard tackling, physical CM. (I can also check the PPMs that he develops this way too)

Edit2: I've checked the media options in the player history, and it doesnt have any interaction from the assman. Do private interactions get shown up?

[ron.e]

Conclusions -

For now, I stick with the school of thought that if you want to maintain and slightly improve, put them on first notch of 'Medium'. If you want to focus a players energies exclusively into a particular attribute crank it upto 'intensive' and leave the rest at 'Medium'. (Which for me atleast is the logical way of working IRL too.)

Attr drop is very rare for young players, so leave any areas that you don't want him to improve in at zero. (He still will, due to natural development)

As for my first question, I have a clearer view now.

As attributes keep progressing due to natural develop. or due to match exp. and training, as they keep coming closer to 20, their rate of increase gets slower. In all probability, SI have a function that uses (20-curr_attribute_value) to determine the rate of improvement.

So, if you want a 20 in a particular field, then it's a race between him reaching his PA and his attribute growth on the field. But we can atleast be sure that by training him properly, he will become very good (18-19) easily if not 20 if he has a sufficiently high scope for growth. The question is, is a 16/17 good enough for you? If so, then reduce the training on that attr. and shift it to another one before his PA runs out. (Remember, attr. drops are very rare)

This way, tweaking the schedules gives you a lot of say in what sort of player your wonderkid turns into which is what I wanted to know.

Also, training categories that have 4-5 attributes bundled together (Tactics, aerobic) probably need to distribute attribute increase over the 4-5 attrs so individual attr. growth cannot match that of an area like Attacking or Shooting. This is actually a very good thing since each of the attributes in 'tactics' are equally important for any well rounded player and an average increase over all the attrs is much better than you improving Off the ball disproportionately to decisions. And, in fields like these, improvement is probably a much more complex func. with strikers getting slightly more emphasis on Off the ball and lesser on positioning than defenders.

I have always thought that if you want to max a youngster physical side then it has to be intensive training in that area. But what do i do about players who are close to their PA? I've got about 9 players young and old who are between 2-5 points away from their pa. The question is, do i put them all on a general training regime(where i assume the att growth will be across the board) or do i put them on a special training regime to go with the way i play(i'm using tyler bode tactics and training) I'm really not sure. I really need an answer to this because i really don't know what to do. Thanks

[isuckatfm]

Lemme see. Do assistants do that !?

Edit: One player doesn't have any favoured personnel listed and the other has way too many but neither have a player as a favoured personnel that they could've learnt from. How else can I check this?

Anyway, just to prove my point about training, I'm taking Norwood again and this time I plan to turn him into a hard tackling, physical CM. (I can also check the PPMs that he develops this way too)

Edit2: I've checked the media options in the player history, and it doesnt have any interaction from the assman. Do private interactions get shown up?

Very peculiar. Didn't think PPMs could happen spontaneously i.e. without learning/tutoring interaction.

Maybe as you say the holiday option has an impact in that the assistant sets them up but they don't get recorded? I'm tempted to post about this in GD on the off chance someone from SI responds.

What's the timeframe for the attribute changes you listed? Are those values all out of 20?

[isuckatfm]

I have always thought that if you want to max a youngster physical side then it has to be intensive training in that area. But what do i do about players who are close to their PA? I've got about 9 players young and old who are between 2-5 points away from their pa. The question is, do i put them all on a general training regime(where i assume the att growth will be across the board) or do i put them on a special training regime to go with the way i play(i'm using tyler bode tactics and training) I'm really not sure. I really need an answer to this because i really don't know what to do. Thanks

2 to 5 points won't get you 'growth', except maybe a little in mental attributes as they get older.

Once you reach that close to PA you can only theoretically remodel but if it's like 08 it won't be huge shifts and it will be less than controllable.

[ron.e]

2 to 5 points won't get you 'growth', except maybe a little in mental attributes as they get older.

Once you reach that close to PA you can only theoretically remodel but if it's like 08 it won't be huge shifts and it will be less than controllable.

So are you saying that with this players who are close to their pa, they should be on a general regime to maintain and maybe balance out their stats for example:- a striker with 20 for driblling and 15 for finishing could, in the end go to 18 dribbling and 19 for finishing? as i said i need to know what to do with these players. 5 out of the 9 players are vital members of my first team!!

EDIT: I have a youngster called Victor muller 20yrs old CA 180 PA 185. Now he is close to his pa but it still showing green arrows in profile. Is this a sign that his stats are being re-evaluted or something?

Marquinhos 25 yrs old CA 172 PA 173. I really don't know what to do with him. He is not going to improve in the future so i was thinking of selling him. But he's a really good player and although i won't see a marked improvement because of his pa, will his stats change to losing points in dribbling (20) but gaining in positioning (13) as he gets older? Thanks

[isuckatfm]

So are you saying that with this players who are close to their pa, they should be on a general regime to maintain and maybe balance out their stats for example:- a striker with 20 for driblling and 15 for finishing could, in the end go to 18 dribbling and 19 for finishing? as i said i need to know what to do with these players. 5 out of the 9 players are vital members of my first team!!

I don't know definitively. To find out would be long and tedious because it depends on the weightings in the CA system. Instinctively I would say no for those specific numbers.

As a generalised assumption (alongside half assed testing that hit a brick wall) Finishing is one of the heavily weighted attributes for a striker. Then consider that Dribbling is in the same category as Technique so lowering Dribbling to the point of loss will most likely incur losses in Technique. Would it then potentially leave your striker worse off in terms of his ability to finish?

You want to find out, so save your game and test it

[ron.e]

I don't know definitively. To find out would be long and tedious because it depends on the weightings in the CA system. Instinctively I would say no for those specific numbers.

As a generalised assumption (alongside half assed testing that hit a brick wall) Finishing is one of the heavily weighted attributes for a striker. Then consider that Dribbling is in the same category as Technique so lowering Dribbling to the point of loss will most likely incur losses in Technique. Would it then potentially leave your striker worse off in terms of his ability to finish?

You want to find out, so save your game and test it

Thanks for the reply. I don't really know what to do. If looking at it from a common sense point of view, if a player has a CA 110 PA 170, it tells me that the player can improve by 60 points but how they improve will depend on my training and maybe tutoring(i don't know for sure). So common sense tell me when the player reaches their pa, i'm assuming that i'm no longer in control when it comes to how they will improve further in terms of physical and techiqical areas. As far as i'm aware mental attributes improve with age. So this is the road i'm going to down. It says in the manual that after 24yrs old it pretty difficult to improve a player physically. So the next youngster i bring into the club from 16-22 I'm going try this formula and see if it works. What do you think?

[SFraser]

Nice discussion lads. That is very much the area of training I have wanted to look deeply into but never had the time to do so.

Keep it up.

[ron.e]

So sfraser, do you think the idea i have about training youngsters and players who have reached their PA is on the right track?

[Lisandro Lopez]

Lemme see. Do assistants do that !?

Edit: One player doesn't have any favoured personnel listed and the other has way too many but neither have a player as a favoured personnel that they could've learnt from. How else can I check this?

Anyway, just to prove my point about training, I'm taking Norwood again and this time I plan to turn him into a hard tackling, physical CM. (I can also check the PPMs that he develops this way too)

Edit2: I've checked the media options in the player history, and it doesnt have any interaction from the assman. Do private interactions get shown up?

I believe media items like PPM's are only kept for 3-6 months and then they disappear from the records that might be why you see none in the media history.

[isuckatfm]

I believe media items like PPM's are only kept for 3-6 months and then they disappear from the records that might be why you see none in the media history.

Van Persie in May 2010 still has a PPM media item from 2008 in mine :confused:

Could be database size/active leagues related though as mine's on the bare minimum so maybe no need to purge?

[SFraser]

Something to keep in mind when dealing with natural attribute growth is that players have various "bias" for the development of attributes according to their natural position.

Natural Centre backs will automatically favour key defensive attributes for growth over offensive attributes.

Training works along a similar principle to this, adding or substracting from a players natural positional attribute bias.

However it is good to see experiments that show that Training Level and Schedule Intensity divisions are actual indicators of CA gain "plateaus". I originally posted such a theory but later rejected it through lack of evidence. Hopefully this current discussion can decide definatively one way or the other what the exact nature of Training Level divisions represent.

So sfraser, do you think the idea i have about training youngsters and players who have reached their PA is on the right track?

From what I have seen, there is no "end" to attribute distribution, there is just an increasingly negative "bias" on attribute distribution according to age, which eventually results in all attributes being "biased" towards an unstoppable decline. It may be that attributes themselves determine CA, or it could be that CA is determined independantly, but either way it is the ration between attributes and whether those ratios are positive or negative that is important.

Basicly players that are close to PA do not gain more points towards their key attributes, they redistribute points amongst key attributes. CA also fluctuates which make understanding the crux of the process harder. What you can be sure of however is that a player close to PA can improve in some attributes, but only at the expense of other attributes.

[Tejaswi]

Do you think drastic redistribution is possible? For example, can we even try to convert Ronaldo into a Beckham?

Does the redistribution of attributes take place only among each type of training? i.e., a point lost somewhere in shooting can be gained only in shooting and a point lost from tactical attribute can be only assigned to another tactical attrib?

Or maybe a Physical to Physical, Mental to Mental, Technical to Technical correspondence?

I have another question too which is slightly unrelated to training. How much of a difference does a passing attrib of 20 make over a passing of 16? Seeing how easy it is to develop a player with potential to get 15s,16s in an attribute and how hard it is to go up from that, if there's no significant advantage, wouldn't it be more helpful to develop him into a well rounded player who can do a bit of everything, instead of making him a specialist?

[ron.e]

Something to keep in mind when dealing with natural attribute growth is that players have various "bias" for the development of attributes according to their natural position.

Natural Centre backs will automatically favour key defensive attributes for growth over offensive attributes.

Training works along a similar principle to this, adding or substracting from a players natural positional attribute bias.

However it is good to see experiments that show that Training Level and Schedule Intensity divisions are actual indicators of CA gain "plateaus". I originally posted such a theory but later rejected it through lack of evidence. Hopefully this current discussion can decide definatively one way or the other what the exact nature of Training Level divisions represent.

From what I have seen, there is no "end" to attribute distribution, there is just an increasingly negative "bias" on attribute distribution according to age, which eventually results in all attributes being "biased" towards an unstoppable decline. It may be that attributes themselves determine CA, or it could be that CA is determined independantly, but either way it is the ration between attributes and whether those ratios are positive or negative that is important.

Basicly players that are close to PA do not gain more points towards their key attributes, they redistribute points amongst key attributes. CA also fluctuates which make understanding the crux of the process harder. What you can be sure of however is that a player close to PA can improve in some attributes, but only at the expense of other attributes.

Which is exactly what i thought. Marquinhos has dribbling 20 and finishing of 15 but if attributes improve while at the expense of others, by the time he's 28 he could have dribbling 18 finishing 18. But another important question - What is the best way of maximising attribute re-distribution? is it a general training regime or a striker training regime in your opinion sfraser? Thanks

[Tejaswi]

I think you should just reduce his training on ball control to zero and maximize his training on shooting.

When you see his attributes drop to 18 for dribbling, move him to a balanced schedule and see how it goes. I'm planning to try this after my convert a young MC to become an excellent CAM in one save and an excellent DMC in another succeeds. I'm actually running a Balotelli simulation in this save too where I'm trying to convert him into a poacher instead of developing his already well developed physical attributes. If I succeed, I'll try converting him to a creative striker instead of an out and out poacher.

For your question, I think you should run another save in paralell, take Rooney and convert him into an AMC or an out and out striker. He has the necessary CA, all you need to do is attrib redistribution. Can be done in a day holidaying methinks. Results would be very interesting to look at if you do do it.

[Macon]

Attr drop is very rare for young players, so leave any areas that you don't want him to improve in at zero. (He still will, due to natural development)

That's very interesting, and means I've been doing it all wrong...

So zero on non important areas till the age of 24 or so - and at that point, if I want to keep what they have for those attributes, I'd then need to upgrade to (roughly) first notch of medium? And if I don't do this, then these attributes would start to decline?

[Lisandro Lopez]

Van Persie in May 2010 still has a PPM media item from 2008 in mine :confused:

Could be database size/active leagues related though as mine's on the bare minimum so maybe no need to purge?

Yes but you did that which could also mean that’s why it still shows up, not sure if it's the same for other mangers or possibly assistants. On my save I have nearly all leagues loaded and a large database so yes possibly for purging sake it does this.

[ron.e]

Right - I've come to a decision. I've read alot of info in this thread about training and i've decided once and for all the route i plan to go when it comes to developing players, maintaining and redistribution of attributes. So here it is:-

14-22 - Focus on mainly on the physical side. But depending on the player i may do some extras.

22-25 - I will put players on specific training regimes depending on position.

25 Above - By this time they will either of reaches their PA in which i will put them on their own regimes and mould them into the player i want them to be(improve in some areas at the expense of others) or they haven't reached their PA so i can keep them on specific regime until they do reach their pa.

I believe that if you have a 22yrs old forward who has reached his PA, as far as i'm concerned you can no longer improve his physical stats. It will now just be a case of stat re-distribution. Is that right, what do you think?

[ron.e]

I think you should just reduce his training on ball control to zero and maximize his training on shooting.

When you see his attributes drop to 18 for dribbling, move him to a balanced schedule and see how it goes. I'm planning to try this after my convert a young MC to become an excellent CAM in one save and an excellent DMC in another succeeds. I'm actually running a Balotelli simulation in this save too where I'm trying to convert him into a poacher instead of developing his already well developed physical attributes. If I succeed, I'll try converting him to a creative striker instead of an out and out poacher.

For your question, I think you should run another save in paralell, take Rooney and convert him into an AMC or an out and out striker. He has the necessary CA, all you need to do is attrib redistribution. Can be done in a day holidaying methinks. Results would be very interesting to look at if you do do it.

That's a very good point. But if i zero his ball control then i'm sure his stats will go down in that area. What i'm going to do is maintain them (8 clicks) while trying to max out his shooting. What do you think?

[djkid85]

Just voicing out my thoughts with regards to tutoring.

I am not sure if many of us know about this and I would like to bring it out here to see if anyone knows the reason behind this.

Let's say we disregard the 3 options that tutoring offers when we click on the "Player Interaction" screen, and treat them all as one and the same option with the same effects that come through if the tutoring is successful. I am wondering whether anyone has identified the reason why tutoring fails with some players. I am not talking about those that say they did not find the tutoring useful or were disappointed with what they had learned from tutor "X".

I am talking about those that got disenchanted halfway during their "tutoring session" and mentioning of personality difference with their respective tutors. I am really now wondering is it the personality difference between the tutor and the student that caused the tutoring to fail or some other reason.

Why have I come to this conclusion? Most of the time, the tutoring is usually successful. But when it is not successful and I see the news "Player X is disenchanted because of personality difference with Tutor Y", I reload my game to the nearest save I have before this event took place, and fast forward it to the day that this supposed tutoring failed, and now I don't see it happening at all. So is it really a personality clash between the tutor and student? Or is a random factor X that we have yet to identify? Or is it purely the game trying to cause disruptions to us players and not make life so easy for us to have successful tutoring for all players in case we have multiple new Scholes & Gerrards type of regens.

I have played every version of CM/FM and ever since this tutoring function came out in the FM series, I have been highly interested in it. Hoarding numerous famous 30+ yr old players and stuffing them in my reserves with the sole idea of only tutoring my youngsters. I am sure I am not the only one to do that =).

I have a theory behind this failure in tutoring, it is untested, just something that came out off the top of my head. I am guessing that each personality type when matched with another personality type for tutoring purposes, the game comes up with a probability of success and failure. So lets say

E.g. 1 Tutor X is described as "Model Professional", while student Y is described as "Fairly Determined", the ratio of success to failure may be 70 - 30.

E.g. 2 We use the same tutor, Tutor X who was described as "Model Professional", and get him to tutor student Z, who is described as "Unambitious", the ratio of success to failure may be 40 - 60.

*Pls note that all figures are random

Therefore during this tutoring which usually last 6 months and longer, the game will continuously use this ratio of success to failure for the whole tutoring session, and determine whether the tutoring will fail or succeed. So for E.g. 2, if we get really lucky and the odds may be against us for the tutoring to succeed, the tutoring will still go through. But for E.g. 1, if we get really unlucky despite the odds for the tutoring to succeed being on our side, then the tutoring will fail and we get that news item we all hate to see "Player X is disenchanted because of personality difference with Tutor Y".

I believe this theory does make some sense with regards to the "randomness of success" for tutoring, but I have not tested it yet.

Anyone has any thoughts on this?

[Tejaswi]

That's a very good point. But if i zero his ball control then i'm sure his stats will go down in that area. What i'm going to do is maintain them (8 clicks) while trying to max out his shooting. What do you think?

But he ran out of PA didn't he? The idea is to make his Ball control stats go down and distribute them to Finishing..