Comprehensive suggestion for a redesign of player progression and training.

[Sealionborn]

The way training is set up currently leads to a lot of seemingly random or inexplicable results. I've seen just about enough of my strikers finishing and movement growing by 2 across an entire career, while their positioning, marking, and tackling grow by 6. All of this in spite of me running exactly 0 defensive sessions ever. As such I have taken it upon myself to design a training/progression system which would actually be responsive to the manager's input, while still being dynamic enough to avoid becoming completely predictable.

Before we start I want to clarify a point: when I say an attribute progresses by a point I do not mean it progresses from 15 to 16, rather I mean it progresses from 75 to 76, as under the hood FM stats are actually rated from 1 - 100 not 1 - 20. The game simply divides the actual attribute by 5 and rounds up to get the number displayed, this is how your coaches can say a player has improved significantly in an attribute despite the displayed number remaining unchanged. Personally I would prefer if the game displayed the actual number rather than the 1 - 20 approximation, but that is beside the point.

Part 1: Progression.
One of the issues I have with the current system is that players seemingly progress at unpredictable intervals. Personally I would prefer if players progressed all at the same time. I propose 00:00 every Monday. Paired with the more significant changes I suggest below this will help to create a more predictable and satisfying progression system.
As for how players grow, I suggest a system based on experience points gained through training and match experience. The training load and match experience -- modified by the quality of the player's performance in both arenas throughout the week -- contribute to the pool of total experience gained. This pool of exp is then allotted to the player's attributes according to a system of weighting which I will describe later.
Once an attribute has acquired the necessary exp it will increase by one point, say from 60 to 61. When a player's CA matches their PA ceiling their attributes will freeze at the level-up point if levelling up would bring the player's CA above his max PA. Any excess exp is then passed to the next attribute in line until all attributes are frozen. This stalemate is only broken by occasional attribute decline brought on by holidays, age, or injury, allowing attributes to progress again.
If a player's attribute declines due to injury -- say acceleration falls after an ACL tear -- this should be counteracted by that attribute receiving a proportional weighting bonus once the player recovers, representing the player trying to get back to their best.
Lastly, before we get into training I should note that not all attributes are made equal, some attributes are simply harder to improve than others, especially as a player ages. Acceleration and Pace might be more in line with the requirements of other attributes when the player is still a wonderkid, but as time passes it becomes more difficult to improve these attributes, until eventually all you can do is keep pace with the decline.
This probably goes without saying, but improving an attribute from 80 to 81 should require more exp than it took to improve that same attribute from 79 to 80.

Part 2: General Training.
The core part of training your players is General Training defined by the various training modules we use to make our training schedules. As much as I love the idea of this system in theory, in reality it doesn't really work as implemented.
As showcased by Evidence Based Football Manager on YouTube and others, the modules don't do what they are supposed to. Notably the Overall module doesn't progress physical attributes the way its description suggests, despite carrying a higher workload and risk of injury to suggest physical work is being done.
This makes the modules unreliable, and makes adjusting training to work more on a specific aspect of the game difficult and unsatisfying. After all it is hard to trust that running more Defending sessions would actually matter when my players are already becoming solid defensive contributors based solely off of a diet of Physical, Attack, and Possession sessions.
At the same time this training regime is not reliably progressing my players' attacking or physical attributes, which sometimes leaves me wondering if training is a total placebo.
The first  part of my solution to this problem is extremely simple: make it so that every attribute listed on a module is given the same amount of weight, I.E. if Teamwork is one of ten attributes listed it will receive one tenth of the attribute weight. This should ensure that training actually produces the desired results.
The second part of the solution is to allow the managers to design their own modules. Designing training is a HUGE part of management and I feel like the current system lacks both depth and engagement. If the player could design their own modules, including everything from which attributes are affected, the training load it incurs, and which groups of players get the most focus, this would allow the player to craft the training regime they truly want -- like a real coach -- rather than having to make do, as is often the case currently.

Part 3: Weighting and Individual Training.
With all this groundwork done in regards to progression and general training it is finally time to talk about individual training and the Weighting system.
What the weighting system does is taking the exp gained from training and match experience and decide how much of that exp goes to each attribute based on how much weight it has. Unlike total exp weight is not modified by training or match performance, it is a fixed value. If a training module awards 1000 weight units and affects 10 attributes, each attribute would receive 100 units of weight. If this training module was the only experience the player got that week then all of its exp would be shared evenly among these 10 attributes with identical weight.
If we consider all the results one can get from the near infinite array of possible training schedules it's easy to see how this can become a complex yet responsive system. It would allow managers to create well rounded teams, as well as teams geared toward a particular tactical style.
Certain actions during a match will add weight to an attribute as well. Taking set pieces should add weight to the respective attribute, acting as captain or vice captain in a game should likewise add weight to the leadership attribute. This should go a long way to compensate for these attributes being left out of most training modules.
As for the weight of attributes affected by match experience, this is decided by the player's individual Position/Role/Duty training. If a player is set to train as a Libero (Support) this will result in a slightly different weighting than Libero (Defensive). This weighting is based on the weighting the game uses to determine which Position/Role/Duty the player is best suited for. This weighting is also used for any training module whose affected attributes is listed as "Individual Roles". If a player training to be a Regista is played at CAM their attributes would still be weighted according to the Regista role.
If no role is being focused on the weighting will be decided by what position -- not role -- the player is played in. For training it will use the weighting of the position assigned as the player's "playing position" if no Position/Role/Duty is specified in individual training.
As the only function of Position/Role/Duty training is to modify the weighting of attributes it should not increase a player's workload.
Actually telling a player to work on a specific aspect of their game -- say Defensive Positioning -- should increase exp gained from training as well as add weight to the relevant attributes. As such it does increase training load. The same logic applies to telling a player to work on their weak foot, as this adds the weak foot on the list of weighted attributes.
I would also suggest making it so the individual training suggested by the backroom staff is based on which Position/Role/Duty the player is being trained in, I.E a player being trained as an Inside Forward should not be recommended crossing training.

Part 4: Adding some spice.
I feel like the changes outlined above would create a far more responsive and engaging system for managers to deal with, but it does run the risk of becoming too predictable. If every player developed the same it would quickly become just as stale as the current system (though still superior IMO). To counteract this without introducing simple RNG to the game i propose a mechanic I call "Developmental Archetypes".
A developmental archetype modifies the total exp required to increase certain attributes, making it so players are more likely to develop in certain directions, as they simply have an easier time improving those attributes.
My idea is that each player will have two of these archetypes, one primary and one secondary. All archetypes should be available as primary or secondary, though a player cannot have the same archetype twice. The archetype chosen as the secondary archetype will have half the effect it would have as a primary archetype.
As an example of how this system would work let's compare prime Salah and prime Messi, two players who ostensibly played the same position: Right Winger as an Inside Forward.
A player like Salah might have a primary archetype called "speedster" which boosts their Acceleration and Speed, plus a secondary archetype called "pressing monster" which boosts Teamwork, Work Rate, and Stamina.
Meanwhile Messi might have a primary archetype called "virtuoso" which boosts their Dribbling, First Touch, Technique, and Vision, plus a secondary archetype called "shifty" which boosts Dribbling, Acceleration, and Agility.
This way two players with similar starting attributes can develop dynamically even with the same exact training regimen, making the game far more compelling.
There should also be archetypes which negatively effect certain attributes, after all Adel Taarabt isn't turning into a team oriented pressing machine no matter what training you give him. Though exclusively negative archetypes shouldn't exist: A "soloist" like Taarabt makes up for much of what they lack in Teamwork, Work Rate, and Stamina through technical skills and Vision.
I imagine the primary developmental archetype being known for any player you've scouted, whereas the secondary archetype is only known for the players at your club.

These are my suggestions for how to improve the player progression in FM. After all, seeing players develop is the core of the FM experience, so it's  disheartening to see the system be as non-responsive as it is currently.

If you have any critiques or additional suggestions please add them to the conversation.

Edit
After some consideration I think it would be better if the Developmental Archetypes modify the amount of Weight an attribute receives rather than how much exp it takes to improve the attribute. Say a player with the "shifty" primary archetype earns 130% of base weight units for Dribbling, Acceleration, and Agility, instead of giving these attributes 70% of base exp cost.
My original suggestion would let players with relevant archetypes develop faster in addition to directing their growth, effectively letting some players earn more exp. This runs the risk of making some archetype combinations flat out superior in a way I find undesirable.
I think connecting archetypes to the weight system instead of exp makes it more of a seamless addition than the original suggestion.

Edited February 20 by Sealionborn
Changed phrasing and added a minor suggestion to part 3.