A Closer Look at Training.

[ron.e]

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..

Yes of course. I think you are right. But if i zero ball control, i assume that it will affect dribbling, first touch etc? If that is right then that will be good in a way because i want to make him a more allround player to be honest.

[AoV]

With regards to tutoring, I'd go with the random factor X thing too. I tried having Walcott tutored by Thierry Henry who was originally listed as a favoured player and who had pretty similar personalities but for some reason, Walcott grew disenchanted with the tutoring after only a matter of weeks. After a reload, the disenchantment didn't occur again and Walcott ended up receiving a good 6 months worth of tutoring.

[nni]

Great post! Training has always been one of those "occult" areas of FM that I rarely ever get involved in.

I have a question though: what do the different Overall training levels mean re increasing players' attributes? There is a certain number of horizontal lines (which are also related with a darker "yellow" column). At what level is an attribute going to increase/stabilize/decrease?

Thanks

[SFraser]

Great post! Training has always been one of those "occult" areas of FM that I rarely ever get involved in.

I have a question though: what do the different Overall training levels mean re increasing players' attributes? There is a certain number of horizontal lines (which are also related with a darker "yellow" column). At what level is an attribute going to increase/stabilize/decrease?

Thanks

The exact meaning of the bar heights and the divisions is something I don't know. There was a theory going around a while ago that each division line directly represented the point at where attributes would increase or decrease, but I have not done the testing to determine this one way or the other.

The discussion a few posts prior raised this suggestion again, so it is perhaps likely that there is some merit to the idea. Whether the divisions are exact, or serve as a guide influenced by player statistics is another question.

[shakeable]

The exact meaning of the bar heights and the divisions is something I don't know. There was a theory going around a while ago that each division line directly represented the point at where attributes would increase or decrease, but I have not done the testing to determine this one way or the other.

The discussion a few posts prior raised this suggestion again, so it is perhaps likely that there is some merit to the idea. Whether the divisions are exact, or serve as a guide influenced by player statistics is another question.

You should read Marc Vaughan's hints and tips. Here's a quote from the guide. It's not precise but as provides a basic explanation.

Training

Basic Overview

Training in FM 2007 is far quite simple to use – push the sliders on a schedule around to ensure that it concentrates upon the areas which you feel are more important for the players who are upon it.

The initial default schedule which outfield players start upon is aimed at being a balanced schedule which will generally maintain all attributes - you can increase the workload of this schedule' date=' but you will tire the players out more and increase the chances of them getting more training injuries.

Divide your players into schedules based on areas of their game that they are lacking on. You may decide to have 3 or 4 basic schedules focusing on improving fitness, ball control, etc. Alternatively you could create a custom schedule for each player as no two players are alike and each may require individual training.

[b']Understanding the graphs[/b]

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

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%.

A link to the guide can be found in the Unofficial tactics bible sticky thread.

[SFraser]

Thanks for that, it is a big help.

[Zebedee77]

Does anyone have any links to the testing done which seemed to rule out the 3 differing mentoring options having differing impact?

Totally understand where SFraser is coming from with regards to it being 'intensity' - not sure why that should be so though as what benefit does varying the 'intensity' actually have? Unless it's a modifier on success/failure in attribute changing? Which leads me onto...

I wonder whether tutoring actually fails when a (hidden?) attribute is negatively impacted? eg a chance for whether or not the attribute is changed, if not, then tutoring fails.

Does that make sense?

The odd thing is that I've seen players actually improving visible mental attributes (eg determination) at 'highest intensity' and then stop the mentoring process - the mentor had a higher determination attribute which would explain that but I have a feeling that other hidden mental attributes were not as high as the player being mentored (balanced personality vs fairly loyal personality which is as good as it gets for me in spotting hidden attributes outside of odd coach report comments). Which indicates that this isn't an all or nothing process and why players failing to mentor may occur.

[SFraser]

I recently had a Centre Back lose 2 points of Determination under mentoring and then the mentoring failed. I have not checked his hidden attributes.

I would suggest that the benefit of intensity would be in matching a mentor with an incredibly high key attribute but a small deficiency in another to a player you wish to minimise the influence of the deficiency. My choosing a lower intensity of mentoring you can gain reasonable growth in an area of large positive difference while minimising the loss of attributes in an area of small negative difference. If that makes sense.

EDIT: That is just a theory mind you. I don't have the same patients for indepth testing of these training ideas right now as I am playing around with my tactics.

[Zebedee77]

Yeah, that makes sense. Makes choosing the mentor correctly rather difficult - in fact, it brings into question whether this should shape your actual transfer policy - lower CA/PA for a 'better' personality.

[SFraser]

Yeah, that makes sense. Makes choosing the mentor correctly rather difficult - in fact, it brings into question whether this should shape your actual transfer policy - lower CA/PA for a 'better' personality.

Well the ideal scenario would be to get the best possible mentors at your club and have them pass down their personalities.

I personally would say that in terms of transfers, Determination and Consistency are the two trully decisive attributes for purchasing a player that you will be happy with. If either of these are low then you will inevitably be frustrated at some point. I am one of those players that considers mental attributes above all others to be the ones that give maximum returns. Determination and Aggression are a great combination for that never say die attitude with every action or decision. I don't tend to pay a lot of attention to the actual personality description but rather the mental attributes onscreen and behaviour during a match. The personality description can be a useful indicator, but if you see a player firing on all cylinders in tight matches and playing to the final whistle then that's the kind of attributes whether obvious or hidden that you want to be passing along or purchasing for your side, assuming his other qualities are at a basic standard for your club.

I have a central midfielder with a passing attribute of 14, with Anticipation 16, Creativity 16, Decisions 17 and Teamwork of 19. He has 5 assists and a pass completion rate of 81% in 8 games in Europe with an attacking mentality and TTB Often, because he makes intelligent choices and sees the game around him better than most.

[Zebedee77]

It might also give a good reason for lower league clubs to hang onto their old men for a bit longer rather than refusing to renew a contract - I think that's where this really kicks in for lower league clubs, in that usually the choice is between young players and old ones with regards to improving the quality of your team. Usually, the obvious answer to me has always been to bring the youth in and then try to develop them for a potential resale later on. Certainly room for some improvement on my part I think as there seems little point bringing in lots of young players without a few old men when mentoring plays such a key role.

I've got to confess I've not really been tracking player's performances in that level of detail (extremes do tend to be flagged by coach reports though which mitigates my lack of attention). Then again, I tend to change clubs every few seasons (career game with ultimate aim of getting the Liverpool job) and it's taking me a month to play a season at the moment so I have no excuse

[SFraser]

It might also give a good reason for lower league clubs to hang onto their old men for a bit longer rather than refusing to renew a contract - I think that's where this really kicks in for lower league clubs, in that usually the choice is between young players and old ones with regards to improving the quality of your team. Usually, the obvious answer to me has always been to bring the youth in and then try to develop them for a potential resale later on. Certainly room for some improvement on my part I think as there seems little point bringing in lots of young players without a few old men when mentoring plays such a key role.

To get the ball rolling this is definately true. Although there is no hands on management of youth academies or anything like that, the game definately calls from some planning and strategy when it comes to dealing with youth. To get the best results it really pays to have some kind of a youth system to deal with all the necessary requirements. One of the issues that will really hit a lower league side hardest is the fact that players can only mentor a player of similar position. This would possibly mean that you would have to deal with one area of the team at a time in terms of securing the ideal mentor to get that first quality youngster up to the right mental standard. Whereas I could comfortably keep veteran mentors that rarely play on my books for every position, I doubt you would have anything like that financial ability to deal with every position simultaneously. It would probably be wise to invest in a single mentor for an area where you are strongest in terms of youth potential, but again to give them all the correct level of attention you may need to sell some of your prime-age players.

Ofcourse once you have mentored this awsome striker prospect and gone on to find a mentor for your defenders, it is quite likely he will be poached by a bigger club

I think though if you can decide upon a strategy and stick to it, such as mentoring strikers with an old pro for 1-2 seasons before he retires, then mentoring midfielders for another 1-2 seasons, then defenders etc. or having 2 mentors out of 4 general positions at your club at one time and cycling, then atleast you will have a system for achieving results that can be tailored to your particular financial level. Not only that but you are bound to find a loyal and quality coach or assistant or scout along the way, and possibly make some cash as well.

EDIT: I would also add that it takes about 2 seasons minimum to setup a squad like this that is tailored to your specific policies without upsetting everyone. You should consider a 5 year project at the same club for practice in setting up an entire club system suited to your exact policies under tough conditions, and then see if the job you desire becomes vacant as you plough up the league ladder. You certainly seem to have tactical understanding to achieve on the pitch, and I find that the next enjoyable step is completely tailoring a club to my specific strategies outside of the changing room.

[Zebedee77]

To get the ball rolling this is definately true. Although there is no hands on management of youth academies or anything like that, the game definately calls from some planning and strategy when it comes to dealing with youth. To get the best results it really pays to have some kind of a youth system to deal with all the necessary requirements. One of the issues that will really hit a lower league side hardest is the fact that players can only mentor a player of similar position. This would possibly mean that you would have to deal with one area of the team at a time in terms of securing the ideal mentor to get that first quality youngster up to the right mental standard. Whereas I could comfortably keep veteran mentors that rarely play on my books for every position, I doubt you would have anything like that financial ability to deal with every position simultaneously. It would probably be wise to invest in a single mentor for an area where you are strongest in terms of youth potential, but again to give them all the correct level of attention you may need to sell some of your prime-age players.

I think that's the fundamental issue really with wage budgets which are 2.5k per week. At Liverpool, I can happily raise generation after generation of superstars mentoring with the world's best players (30 years there in my last career game using 06), down at the bottom leagues such decisions are much more restricted. Another huge issue which I'm struggling with is that you cannot select a mentor even if there are more than one within the club - for instance, I have an excellent DC prospect and a senior old pro who is DRC who would be ideal, however the only mentor offered is a young DC/DM who is on the transfer list because his mental attributes are so poor that he underperforms on a regular basis. Your posts are really appreciated because you've obviously considered aspects of the game which are 'new' to me in some depth and I can use them to take soundings in order to tailor them to both my approach and my resources in a career game. Thank you

Ofcourse once you have mentored this awsome striker prospect and gone on to find a mentor for your defenders, it is quite likely he will be poached by a bigger club

The joys of lower league management - I'm sure Dario Grady could write much on that subject

I think though if you can decide upon a strategy and stick to it, such as mentoring strikers with an old pro for 1-2 seasons before he retires, then mentoring midfielders for another 1-2 seasons, then defenders etc. or having 2 mentors out of 4 general positions at your club at one time and cycling, then atleast you will have a system for achieving results that can be tailored to your particular financial level. Not only that but you are bound to find a loyal and quality coach or assistant or scout along the way, and possibly make some cash as well.

That might work providing the old pros are willing to accept lower wages - I've generally found in 09 that they only accept lower wages once they've started their decline in a fairly serious fashion. Even then a £200 per week contract within a 2.5k budget means that the player has to be able to play at the level and within my system. It will make for some fun trying to implement it though, as I think that seems to be a very sensible solution to the problem (the only solution in the short-term?!) although I may be looking for hen's teeth in finding good/perfect fits. Another issue is also which young players to pick for full-time contracts as I can't afford too many and with staff attributes the only guide to potential I fear I may do a Trevor Francis and turn down a gem of a player

EDIT: I would also add that it takes about 2 seasons minimum to setup a squad like this that is tailored to your specific policies without upsetting everyone. You should consider a 5 year project at the same club for practice in setting up an entire club system suited to your exact policies under tough conditions, and then see if the job you desire becomes vacant as you plough up the league ladder. You certainly seem to have tactical understanding to achieve on the pitch, and I find that the next enjoyable step is completely tailoring a club to my specific strategies outside of the changing room.

Making me wonder whether I should attempt to take Bognor to the Premier League now! Certainly making me wonder whether I should be less of a Guttmann and more of a Dario Grady in my play style in career game....

[SFraser]

It may not be worth investing in specific mentors in that context. If the ideal is to have 11 first team players with perfect personalities and 11 high potential youngsters learning from them directly, then probably your best bet is to concentrate on maximising the quality available to you in each position and hopefully find enough first team players through youth and mentoring with what you have to give you greater financial flexibility for critical future purchases. If you cannot afford excesses then aim for those players that will benefit you in every way if possible, and aim only for them.

I tend to find that players around the age of 17-18 will accelerate rapidly in terms of ability if given a good run in the team, so long as they have a good base of potential, key mental attributes and consistency. It is entireally possible to obtain a CA value close to PA at age 19, but this runs the risks of burnout and becoming injury prone. To be entireally ruthless and ensure that you commit to developing youth under every circumstance you could limit yourself to one player per position over the age of 19 and use backups that are teenagers, say a rotation of age 19 and a backup player of age 17. That would be a radical suggestion, but also a cheap solution and one that ensures you develop youth and give every player at your club a key role in your squad.

This would give a situation where your rotation players of late teens would automatically be receiving enough games to push their CA up as fast as it could go through resting and injuries etc. while you mid teen players of age 17 would be receiving a few games games throughout the season. When a youth player arrives at your club you would be in a position where someone else is forced to leave, perhaps that 19 year old for a decent sum. This would also put you in the position where each purchase of a player over the age of 19 would be a critical purchase intended as a first team member with the player he places being sold or otherwise leaving. It would also automatically force your eye to consider and compare youth of all ages throughout the game in an immediate squad context and you would be able to recognise at age 15-16-17 exactly what kind of player these individuals are now and have the potential to become.

Ofcourse the sooner you get up the divisions the easier it will become. However that is the kind of barebones approach that would soon make you an expert on youth development.

[AoV]

One thing I've noticed with regards to mentoring is that the determination of youth players will increase or decrease according to the tutors selected. For example:

Case #1: Jay Emanuel Thomas (Arsenal) who already has a determination of 19 was tutored first by Patrick Vieira (determination value 20). During a successful stint, his determination increased to 20. For his next tutor, I selected Ognjen Vukojević who has a high determination value of 19. While the current stint appears to be successful with JET picking up some PPMs, I noticed the determination value drop to 19 again.

Case #2: Kieran Gibbs (Arsenal) is a promising left back/left mid with a determination value of 17. As I want to train him as a left-back, it would seem Gael Clichy (determination value 17) would be an ideal mentor. However, in two consecutive saves, I've never had a full successul mentoring stint between the two, with Gibbs saying he did not pick up anything substantial.

Case #3: Henri Lansbury (Arsenal) is another promising youth player with a determination of 17. However, after successful tutoring by Rosicky (Determination 16), I noticed his own determination drop to 16 and remain there.

Therefore, it seems to me that determination is a key factor to consider when selecting tutors. Perhaps when two players determination values are similar, the likely outcome is a meaningless mentoring stint (not rigourously tested) and that a youth player with different determination value from his mentor will as a most immediate result of mentoring see his own determination stats move to match that of his mentor, wheither negatively or positively. This is of course in addition to the impact on character traits, picking up of PPMs and other hidden statistics. I do not use any add-ons to see these hidden values so I've based alot of this on observations.

[phnompenhandy]

On the topic of developing youth through training - another spin:

I've read on another thread an assertion that I haven't seen demonstrated in any experimentation. It's claimed that specific YOUTH coaches are more successful in training kids on youth contracts than general coaches (even those with a high 'working with youngsters att). Has anyone got any evidence to either confirm or refute this hypothesis?

[pele10]

i agree with phnompenhandy

i had coaches and 1st team coaches and my youth players never got any better so i think its a must to have a balanced coaching staff or only have 1st team coaches and youth coaches

[SFraser]

On the topic of developing youth through training - another spin:

I've read on another thread an assertion that I haven't seen demonstrated in any experimentation. It's claimed that specific YOUTH coaches are more successful in training kids on youth contracts than general coaches (even those with a high 'working with youngsters att). Has anyone got any evidence to either confirm or refute this hypothesis?

That is a sensible conclusion but I don't have any means of confirming it just now. It is something I have seen discussed before, without firm answers either way.

However what I have seen in my save is that specific youth coaches are not necessary for the development of players on youth contracts. Note that this doesn't directly contradict your statement.

[Zebedee77]

That is a sensible conclusion but I don't have any means of confirming it just now. It is something I have seen discussed before, without firm answers either way.

However what I have seen in my save is that specific youth coaches are not necessary for the development of players on youth contracts. Note that this doesn't directly contradict your statement.

Wouldn't the "Work with Youngsters" (or however it's phrased) influence the attributes and so you'd tend to get better results with specific Youth Coaches as they tend to have higher ratings in this than a general coach? However, if you move that same individual who was once a Youth Coach into a full coaching role, then I'd imagine the difference would not be that great providing the workload on the coach isn't too silly as a result.

[SFraser]

Wouldn't the "Work with Youngsters" (or however it's phrased) influence the attributes and so you'd tend to get better results with specific Youth Coaches as they tend to have higher ratings in this than a general coach? However, if you move that same individual who was once a Youth Coach into a full coaching role, then I'd imagine the difference would not be that great providing the workload on the coach isn't too silly as a result.

Yeah that was my understand of the process, but I have read somewhere that "Working with Youngsters" actually has no effect whatsoever on the rate of attribute change in youngsters. If this is true I cannot imagine it is working as designed.

[robertgee]

-------------------------------------------

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

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%

--------------------------------------------------------

The above was taken from previous posts in this thread

as you can see from a player I am trying to develop from the graph on the left and the training he is doing I always thought that the two were linked?

So am I right in thinking from looking at the above quote it means that he is almost maxed out in the ball control and attacking training zones for his ability points eg his dribbling score is maxed and wont improve so I could drop them and train him in other areas.

Thanks.

[Tejaswi]

?

I just thought it showed how much a player trained in a particular area. Since you have him on high training on Ball cont. and Att. He trained well there, nothing to do with what the players CA is in Ball control and Att. if such a thing exists.

[www2]

Hmmmm.....it does not mean he can not improve in that area....but means that he s training the most in that area, and he will continue to improve until he reaches max. for that attribute.

In this example it does not mean he will not improve driblling anymore.....he might or he might not.....now this depends on his CA......if his other attributes continue to rise but driblling stays at 17 for, lets say 6 months....than its safe to say that it wont increase anymore.

[AoV]

I have one question with regards to mentoring though. What stats are directly impacted as a result of good tutoring? One noticeable one is that determination is increased while another is that the personality of a the tutored player changes to match that of the mentor. The question though is to what extent can a youth player's hidden stats develop to match his mentor's? For example can an inconsistent player be tutored until he becomes a consistent one?

[phnompenhandy]

It is mainly the hidden personality attributes that change - such as professionalism, ambition, temperament. Determination is the only visible one, AFAIK.

[isuckatfm]

I have one question with regards to mentoring though. What stats are directly impacted as a result of good tutoring? One noticeable one is that determination is increased while another is that the personality of a the tutored player changes to match that of the mentor. The question though is to what extent can a youth player's hidden stats develop to match his mentor's? For example can an inconsistent player be tutored until he becomes a consistent one?

Tutoring has no effect on consistency.

[NickToye]

Hi,

I am re-writing your theory, but for me, so I can understand it clearly - by doing so it generally makes more sense to me to interpret and write down.

Anyway, I am on this section:

Player Info

Am I right in thinking that you adopt an individual training schedule for each player?

Or do you do a blanket schedule for positions, and then if a player is unhappy, you create a customised schedule for him?

Nevermind, just read the next section and it explains it all there.

[pele10]

what sort of work rate to look for in a young player?

[NickToye]

I would say the higher the better. It also seems Strength training improves Work Rate.

[NickToye]

I don't understand this:

"The Overall Training Workload describes the workload you are giving a player but counter-intuitively it does not describe the Overall Training Levels a player is subjected to. By reducing individual workload areas to their minimum you can increase the Workload of the remaining areas to maximum and increase the Overall Workload without actually changing the Overall Training Levels of a player. This is important."

Anyone care to explain it, and to quote Denzil Washington, like I am a 6 year old.

[pele10]

cheers Nick... but before i read this thread my scouts said this young gk will be great 5-6 stars so i signed him and over the next few years he never really improved then when i checked his stats his work rate was only 1

i don't know if a 16 year old with a work rate of 10 or above might be a good starting point when you have found a player

[NickToye]

Depends on your level, I am in the Premiership and at Everton, so following on with David Moyes' theories on work ethic I kind of demand high levels, even from my youngsters.

[NickToye]

Ok, am I right in thinking that once you set the Overall Training Level, you can then tweak the individual levels without effecting the Overall Level?

[NickToye]

click number 19 or position 20 is where attributes will no longer increase in size but only increase in speed.

What does that mean? Either the attributes increase or they don't.

[isuckatfm]

Ok, am I right in thinking that once you set the Overall Training Level, you can then tweak the individual levels without effecting the Overall Level?

Yes/No. It's context based on all.

Strength/Aerobic always 1 to 1.

It's difficult to explain in words so just test it real quickly and you'll get a feel for it. Assuming outfield player move all sliders except GK (leave at zero) to match the default level as in the General schedule. Then tweak the slider positions using your keyboard arrows for fine control.

Observation 1: Tweaking Strength or Aerobic causes WL to increase by same amount => 1 to 1 correspondence

Observation 2: From the default levels tweaking any of the other levels by +1 causes WL +1 (except Set Pieces)

Observation 3: Following the first +1 from the default level in any area except Str/Aer, the next +2 (single are or distributed) has no impact on WL (except lesser weighted SP)

Observation 4: Set Piece Test. From the default level we get the following pattern of continuous tweaking

Change in SP => change in WL

+2 => +1; +6 => +1 [continuous changes so total is +8]

-2 => -1; -3 => -1; -3 => -1; -3 => -1 which takes us to SP = None

Observation 5: Single Area (exc Str/Aer/SP) from default level (GK = Zero)

+1 => +1; +3 => +1; +4 => +4; +2 => +1; +2 => +1; +2 => +2 [Area Maxed]

-2 => -2; -2 => -1; -1 => -1; -2 => -1; -1 => -1; -2 => -1; -1 => -1 [Area = 0]

etc. etc

-------------

That's a mechanical approach but the simplicity of it is that you don't need to spend hours figuring out the exact weightings etc. Just tweak from a base and watch how the WL slider shifts to figure out when you can get a 'free' notch to maximise it how you want it.

Just messing with it there I would guess if you had the time or that particular ability (some people are just good at spotting patterns and quantifying them mathematically) or both, you could probably figure out how the system is coded fairly easily.

[NickToye]

Observation 2: From the default levels tweaking any of the other levels by +1 causes WL +1 (except Set Pieces)

Is that right? I thought it was every click of the non aerobic/strength sliders = 2.

[SFraser]

I don't understand this:

"The Overall Training Workload describes the workload you are giving a player but counter-intuitively it does not describe the Overall Training Levels a player is subjected to. By reducing individual workload areas to their minimum you can increase the Workload of the remaining areas to maximum and increase the Overall Workload without actually changing the Overall Training Levels of a player. This is important."

Anyone care to explain it, and to quote Denzil Washington, like I am a 6 year old.

The easiest way to explain it would be to describe a scenario.

Imagine you have a player of 200 PA that is also at 200 CA.

You set his training schedule so that all categories are equal, which produces the maximum Training Workload, the maximum Overall Training Levels and the maximum Overall Training Progress. This is good, he is going great guns and developing each area to the maximum possible level, but equal to all others. Thus his attributes do not change through training, as he is already at 200 CA. They will alter according to his natural position attribute bias, but training will have no impact.

You take this same player and you reduce one of his Training Categories to zero in his Training Schedule while increasing the rest equally to their maximum allowable levels. This gives him a maximum training workload, but it gives him lower Overall Training Levels and lower Overall Training Progress. However he starts to improve in attributes through training.

This happens because you are allowing one category to diminish and you are relocating the attributes from that category into the other categories. In our 200 CA/PA player it is producing a lower Overall gain in favour of a gain in chosen attribute categories. Our 200 CA/PA player is already at his maximum so their can be no Overall gain, no matter how good or how hard his training is, but we are not looking for the impossible Overall gain, we are aiming for the critical specified category gain at the expense of other attributes.

Our players Overall development in 8 categories is lower than before, because we are increasing the development of 7 while totally ignoring the development of the remainder. This makes his Overall development weaker, but makes his chosen development areas improve faster.

If you can think of "Overall" as applying to the sum of attributes rather than to the name of the player, and if you can think of CA and PA in the same manner, you will understand training.

[NickToye]

I think I will need to read it a few times, it's going to be a huge penny when it finally drops I'm sure.

I think my problem is that IRL it doesn't make logical sense to me.

Also does this Overall Training Level differ from player to player depending on all the factors previously discussed?

Also, I don't understand why we need to promote a Lower Overall Training level? How does that benefit the player?

[SFraser]

I think I will need to read it a few times, it's going to be a huge penny when it finally drops I'm sure.

I think my problem is that IRL it doesn't make logical sense to me.

Also does this Overall Training Level differ from player to player depending on all the factors previously discussed?

Also, I don't understand why we need to promote a Lower Overall Training level? How does that benefit the player?

Overall means every attribute. The highest Overall rate is when every attribute is increasing at its highest level. For a box to box midfielder this is good. For a Striker or Centreback this is not so good. For a player under his PA this is good, for a player at his PA this means training has no effect.

Think of "Overall" as being the opposite of individual levels. The more equal individual levels are, the higher Overall is. Likewise the more variation between individual levels, the lower "Overall" becomes.

Overall does not represent his application or benefit from training. It represents the balanced progression of his attributes. For key positions like a Goalkeeper you want low Overall levels and high individual category levels. You don't want to train a goalkeeper in overall football skills, you want to train him in aerobic, goalkeeping and tactics.

[NickToye]

Ah, so for a fullback who's key attributes are

Positioning

Tackling

Pace

Anticipation

I want to be looking at High Levels in Tactics, Defending and Aerobic?

[SFraser]

Ah, so for a fullback who's key attributes are

Positioning

Tackling

Pace

Anticipation

I want to be looking at High Levels in Tactics, Defending and Aerobic?

Yes, and if you want to maximise the gain in those four attributes set every other category to zero while cranking those ones up to maximum. There are however key attributes for all positions spread around the training categories and this produces the balance of the system. I have also read that increased levels of Schedule Intensity help to increase CA gain and attribute distribution rates.

Training has an influence on the CA gain or loss of attributes. It is very much a mould rather than a method of increasing ability, unless your players are rarely playing against difficult opponents. A players natural position will automatically redistribute CA amongst the attributes over time for that position and training works in the same way.

The way I view training is as a percentage increase on the tendency for attributes to gain or lose CA. A striker may already have -10% to tackling and +10% to finishing, so adding shooting training and removing defending training will make that -20% and +20%. From what I have seen it the native rate of change is quite slow, but very context sensitive.

[NickToye]

Ok, you certainly know your onions mate - fair play to you.

But what's this -10% and +10% etc...that's all new figures to me.

[SFraser]

Ok, you certainly know your onions mate - fair play to you.

But what's this -10% and +10% etc...that's all new figures to me.

They were made up to make a point. The point being that each attribute gains or loses CA at a different rate depending upon position and training as the major factors, and perhaps some other minor factors.

[NickToye]

Excellent, well I think I am going to run individual training schedules for all my players, starting with what I call 2 weeks Boot Camp to find their limits.

[phnompenhandy]

This is great stuff. Surely, therefore, it becomes in mperatiuve to make at least 2 training schedules for each position. One for younger players who are a long way short of their PA, and a seperate one for older players who have maxed their PA and need a greater emphasis on redistribution of their attribute points?

[NickToye]

I think it's better to have customised schedules per player - that way you can tailor it to their own limits as I'm sure different players have different limits.

[phnompenhandy]

Yeh, that would be ideal - but I have a squad of 101!!! (Mostly kids to be fair).

SFraser - you have Ronaldo and Aguero, both of whom are still young but who by now have presumably hit their PA. So taking those two as examples, how would you organise their training so that you redistribute their attributes to improve them as forwards? And how about Rio, who has hit an age where his CA is on the decline - how to most effectively train an oldie like him?

[NickToye]

101!

Who is your club?

[bardock]

If you have a youth player with 10 across the board in hidden stats while you have a professional with 19-20's how far will the youth develop under tutoring?

Will he get the full 19-20 ambition, professionalism etc... or is there a limit for every training session assuming it went well?

[AoV]

based on observation, there does seem to be a limit for every training session even if it went well, though this limit varies from case to case. If the gap of the hidden stats between the tutor and the youth player is big, it's unlikely you'll bridge the gap in one session no matter how successful the tutoring is. But it should be possible for a youth player to eventually emulate his tutor's hidden stats given enough sessions.