Individual Training - expected position + role for immediate future, or ideal role for attribute development + long term future?

[Jack722]

I have only just realised that individual training roles have a signficant effect on overall tactical familiarity - even if they are already natural in the position.

In the past I have always trained players in a role who's attributes I thought best would improve their overall ability. For example, I have a natural advanced playmaker in the no.10 position. I see his long term future in this position, and i'd like his attributes to grow according to the role requirements. But due to having to balance my current squad and accomodating other players, he is forced to play most of his games in AML as a trequartista. Should I train him as a trequartista in AML to imorove tactical familiarity, or continue training him in AMC as an AP to mould his attributes how I would like?

[chewbaccaloveaddiction]

Tactical familiarity doesn't have a significant effect on performance, at least not in FM21 based on this test and it's probably the same in fm22, so I'd always focus on attributes.

[fc.cadoni]

1 hour ago, chewbaccaloveaddiction said:

Tactical familiarity doesn't have a significant effect on performance, at least not in FM21 based on this test and it's probably the same in fm22, so I'd always focus on attributes.

Those kind of tests it's a little pointless to me; and the reason is that the ME is not scripted.

If you continue to roll the dice, every time you will get different results and not exactly the same outcome.

Especially when all attributes is 13 and having natural position in all positions. 

[chewbaccaloveaddiction]

7 minutes ago, fc.cadoni said:

Those kind of tests it's a little pointless to me; and the reason is that the ME is not scripted.

If you continue to roll the dice, every time you will get different results and not exactly the same outcome.

Especially when all attributes is 13 and having natural position in all positions. 

 

That's irrelevant, if you look at each roll in isolation you will see different results. But if you do 100, 1000, or more rolls each number will be very close to the expected value of 1/6. 

[Jack722]

Also just realised that formation has 0 effect on tactical familiarity. All that affects it is instructions, mentality and individual training. This doesn't feel right to me. This way you can only really achieve very high tactical familiarity in one formation. 

Training different formations to be able to switch seamlessly within games like many teams do, eg. England under Southgate, is sort of pointless

[Luizinho]

Be good to get an official SI response on this. I'm confused!

[CARRERA]

Always go for familiarity, there are many other factors aside from raw individual trading that influence your players development.

especially if the roles you are about to pick from are relatively close to each other as for example two playmakers (T / AP)

I think the video proves exactly what TF does - it makes your team play better. The Win rate increased by almost 50% from ~30 wins to ~45.

Also he doesn’t understand what PRD actually does and just put it aside as useless because it isn’t editable. That’s not very evident.

One thing is true though, that small changes will only have a small impact and can be done without a huge penalty to your teams performance

[Jack722]

7 hours ago, CARRERA said:

Always go for familiarity, there are many other factors aside from raw individual trading that influence your players development.

especially if the roles you are about to pick from are relatively close to each other as for example two playmakers (T / AP)

I think the video proves exactly what TF does - it makes your team play better. The Win rate increased by almost 50% from ~30 wins to ~45.

Also he doesn’t understand what PRD actually does and just put it aside as useless because it isn’t editable. That’s not very evident.

One thing is true though, that small changes will only have a small impact and can be done without a huge penalty to your teams performance

Agreed.

I think it also makes sense now to train three different 'instruction sets' instead of three formations like I used to. If you're a purist manager with only one style of play, just have one gegenpress slot, while if you're like me and prefer to adapt, just have a defensive slot, standard, and then attacking.

I don't really like this way though, because if you do need to change formations for whatever reason, it is much more likely to mess up your set piece routines and takers. Especially since a change of formation will mean that a player in a certain position is much less likely to start. I'll have to see if you can save different formations and keep along with it the set piece routines.

[fc.cadoni]

1st slot of tactic, will gain 60% of training; rest by 20%. Have that in mind as well

[Jack722]

It's also a good idea to leave most your individual trainings on "playing position", something that my assisstant used to do but I always changed.

Then you can adjust the individual training if you've got a big game coming up and you're planning on changing the formation in a few weeks time.