herne79

I didn’t say that. I also said I’m sure the players could have developed even faster given ideal conditions 👍.

Not necessarily no. Take a look at the two young players below that I've had in my first team squad for 2 years now. They get some first team matches but mostly play for the U23s although Godwin is about to become a first choice pick for the senior team. And if Leslie keeps developing as he is he'll become my first choice left back soon. Both came through my club's youth intakes. Including U23 manager/assistant, GK and Fitness coaches, I have 14 "coaches" coaching my senior squad - just 5 have a WWY rating of 15 or more. This doesn't make a mockery of Training. What it shows is the training module is very complex with many many factors affecting it - some of which can impact others, some of which can help mitigate shortfalls. I'm sure the two players below could have developed even faster than they have given "ideal" conditions but training is based on realism and realistically having "ideal" conditions is very unlikely. In short, don't just assume that lacking in a certain area or two means players will suffer .

Whilst Determination can indeed be an important factor in player development, it’s just one factor of many which will contribute to that development and thus having low Determination is not the end of the world. Players with low Determination can and do develop into decent players. Even players who have low Determination, Ambition and Professionalism can still develop well. I’ll give a slightly different perspective: lets say I’m managing a 4th tier team and in my youth intake I get a high potential player with great Determination, Ambition and Professionalism - pretty much the ideal young player to develop. But if he stays at my team in the 4th tier it’s unlikely he’ll ever fulfil his potential, despite him having such great attributes. That’s because he plays in the 4th tier. Playing at a relevant level is another factor in player development. So from this example I’m trying to demonstrate that Determination is not the be all and end all. Can it help? Yes of course, but it’s just one of many factors. Another example - I currently have a young player who has an “Unambitious” personality yet he’s come nicely through my youth ranks and is just about to become one of my first choice central defenders (I’m managing a regular Champions League side). And yet Ambition plays a practically equal role to Determination in player development. So how has he developed so well? Because it’s just one of many factors and the other factors I’ve been using (such as quality of training facilities, coaches, match time at a relevant level and so on) have still promoted such development. Could he have developed even better with good Ambition? Possibly yes but going from a 16 year old in my youth intake to first choice pick at age 20 isn’t bad going. TL;DR yes Determination is an important attribute but there’s no need to give up on a player if it’s low 👍.

Why does it mean Aggression cannot be trained? Perhaps it means that Aggression is just very slow to develop in players, sometimes to the extent where it doesn’t shift at all - and isn’t that realistic? Do real life footballers become more Aggressive as they age? I don’t have data to know one or the other but I know SI do, therefore isn’t their training module realistic? Just because Aggression is listed under a training session doesn’t mean it will automatically develop - it means it’ll behave in line with the realistic training module that SI have developed. As said above, drawing conclusions is perhaps coming at this from the wrong direction - if you think something is off with the training module (SI have never said it’s perfect) then feed the data into SI, let them study it and draw conclusions 👍.

I know SI are always interested in studies such as this and once finished you could create a thread / post your data and results into the Bugs forum (I know it’s not a bug but that’s the place to upload such information). My only observation for now concerns the design ethos and intent behind the Training Module - it’s designed to be realistic. Because of that, once we start introducing unrealistic inputs such as changing things in the editor or creating synthetic training schedules, we run the risk of receiving unrealistic outputs. So if some results are surprising, whilst it may show an area of concern within the module it’s probably more to do with the complexities of the module and the realistic basis. Because of that, trying to draw conclusions is perhaps coming at it from the wrong angle - instead output the results and then, as said above, feed them into SI to analyse and let them draw conclusions 👍.

The main concern for training / unlearning a Trait for that particular player is his age. The older a player is the harder it becomes to learn/unlearn a Trait. At 25 he's ok but not ideal. CA is not and never is a concern - it is not a measure of how good a player is and is a useless (for us) hidden metric. Player progression is the issue - if you feel the player will be better for you in your team in your chosen role if he doesn't have Move into Channels then go ahead and ask him to unlearn it (the point about age above notwithstanding). Cohesive player development for both Attributes and Traits combined is what's important . However, to specifically answer your question, it would never make his CA go down and any impact on CA progression would be minimal if anything at all. This is because it only really affects workload and decent top players can handle heavy workloads; and at his age playing matches at a relevant level is more important than training. Training's not irrelevant of course but playing matches takes precedence. One other thing to add: Move into Channels is about player movement. A Poacher with that Trait is still going to be in the box, it may just encourage him to use the channels a bit more often, that's all. If you've actually watched his movement in the box and aren't happy with it then fair enough, but if not it might be an idea to watch how he plays first before trying to unlearn the Trait .

It doesn't "hurt" them no. It may not be the optimal way or we may not see the fastest progression, but players can still happily develop. (I appreciate I may be being a bit too literal there when I focus on the word "hurt" ). Take a look at the player below who I've had since a 16 year old in my youth team. Last season I moved him to my senior squad and he made just 6 first team appearances but played pretty much every U23 game. This season he hasn't made any first team appearances yet (to be fair we've only played 5 matches so far) and he's not even on the subs bench. He's still playing every U23 match. It's now the 4th season that I've had him - he spent his first 2 years in the U18s before I moved him straight to the senior squad last season - and he has come on leaps and bounds. If my current wide players weren't so good he'd be my first choice starting player (and probably will be one day) and would probably get into most Premier League club starting line ups. I'm sure I could have made him develop even faster than he has but I seriously doubt it would be more than relatively small gains over and above what I've already seen. There is also the realistic side of things to consider (which I never used to bother about). If I take a look at West Ham's first team squad it has 25 players, a few of which will barely play for the first team this season - perhaps the odd sub appearance or start in an easy cup match (sound familiar? ) - but they'll still play for the Reserves. And that's pretty much what I do in FM these days. Now there are limits. I'm not going to simply dump all of my young players into my senior squad. It's not realistic and coach workloads would go through the roof - player progression would then take a hammering. Probably solved by employing a lot more coaches but having a bazillion coaches isn't exactly realistic either. So I keep things to a manageable "realistic" level. Note - I keep using the word "realistic". I have no idea how a club operates in real life (squad size excepted) and therefore what is or isn't actually realistic. It's really just my own logic, common sense and some knowledge of the game. Don't get me wrong. I used to play the game in a different way. I'd spend hours setting "optimal" training programs, really looking to get the most out of my players. These days I take a much more realistic or even laid back approach. And I think this is what you are kind of looking for - not necessarily a laid back approach but to have a certain amount of information to be able to make your own informed decisions.

Personally I tend to have 22 players in my first team squad - 11 first choice players and 11 backups to cover each position. The backup players will be a mix of backup/squad players and some younger players I’m bringing through. That gives me a kind of A team and B team. For example, if I look at my current 4 central defenders in my first team squad - 2 are my first choice players, one is a very good back up (almost as good as my first choice players) who’ll be on the subs bench and the last is a younger player I’m bringing through who will be on the bench if one of the 3 ahead of him are injured / tired. I’ll sometimes have 23 or 24 players in the squad, the extra 1 or 2 being young players with very high potential who are just about ready for the occasional game time (like in my screen shot in your other thread). The younger players in the squad I’ll always make available for my U23 team (unless they are playing in a first team match that week) along with the squad players needing match fitness. My substitutes for each first team game (assuming all first choice players are in the starting 11) will be those expecting to have “squad player” or perhaps “impact sub” game time and maybe one or two younger players I’m bringing through, especially if it’s an easier game and I think I can bring them on in the second half when I’m winning. I’ll fully rotate in my B team for easy cup matches, with individual B team players rotated in when first choice players are injured / knackered / looking like they might moan about game time. I don’t worry too much anymore about the amount of game time the younger players get so long as they are progressing well.

It's mainly from a "realism" perspective. I used to do a lot of "optimal" player development but honestly I find that quite boring these days. So now I look at it as I have youth teams therefore I use them as such - under 18s will be in my U18 squad unless there is a real stand out Donnarumma / Mbappe type (which is rare). It may not be optimal but it still produces results, as in the example above. By the time they reach 18 I've usually got a good feel for who the brightest prospects are therefore who I can move to the senior squad, U23s, loan out, sell or let contracts lapse.

@danej There’s not really a straightforward answer I’m afraid because each player will develop differently. Generally speaking (and generalisations aren’t always a good thing) if I have a young player who I think looks like he’s a potential good first team player I’ll put him into my first team squad at 17-18 years old without even touching my U23s. I’ll give him some (limited) first team match experience and make him available for the U23s. I don’t worry too much about his first team training routine vs his U23 match commitments because he’ll still be getting decent training and match time, just not in an “optimal” manner. If he needs it I’ll also put him into a Mentoring group with highly influential first teamers. Players who I’m doubtful of their potential I’ll move into the U23s. I’ll watch their development and most of my players I loan out come from that squad as well. I usually don’t get any that develop into first team regulars from there but several go on to be squad or back up players. Most eventually get sold off though. I find that to be an effective approach. It’s not “optimal” by any means but I’m not bothered by that and I don’t think you are either 👍. One final thought on youngster personalities - their starting personalities when they appear on youth intake day are primarily influenced by your Head of Youth Development. That’s not to say if your HOYD is highly professional you’ll start producing hosts of highly professional youngsters, but he will have an influence on them. It can help give them a kick start. Also worth noting the HOYD doubles up as a coach, so decent coaching attributes are also a plus to have. By way of example, below is who I consider my hottest youth prospect to be. He's just turned 17 and is currently in my U18 squad. I'll probably move him straight into my first team squad at the end of the season, giving him some sub appearances and possibly a couple of starts against easy opposition next season. The reason I'm bypassing the U23s is because to my eye he's on the verge of the first team - for his position he has decent tackling, marking and positioning already. His mentals are good and whilst his strength needs work his physical attributes are ok. So even though his coach report says "currently operating at a national league level" I think that come the end of the season he'll be ok for the odd first team appearance (and play for the U23s). Note - I don't pay too much attention to coach opinions. That perhaps comes from my own experience of the game, however coach opinions are limited by game AI and as such don't really look at the big picture or understand what we want from our players. They'll pick responses from set criteria which doesn't always tie in with my criteria. Clearly I wouldn't start this kid against Liverpool or Man City, but if we're winning 3-0 with half an hour to play or up against low league opposition in a cup then he'll be ok - but the AI can't recognise that. Anyway, I'll also put him into a Mentoring group in the first team, however even though his personality is "Unambitious" I'm not too bothered by that because he's steadily (and rapidly) developing. Mentoring will (hopefully) help but he's ok as he is already.

I agree it is frustrating. In one of my saves I had Moukoko not develop at all in 3 seasons at my club - not a single attribute - despite what I’d consider a well balanced training program and a healthy amount of match time. I ended up selling him. Yet in a different save I turned him into a world class striker. The training module is far more complex than we sometimes appreciate. Some may (with reason) call it random or unrealistic. Perhaps there is room to make a tweak to the system so that targeted attribute development does bear a greater resemblance to what we ask our players to do. I don’t know, but if that were to happen it’d need to come from SI’s own close links and reviews with real life clubs and how they develop actual players. So when we talk of “unrealistic” attribute development is it really unrealistic or just our own view? SI work closely with real clubs and their development module is based on those case studies. Personally I have zero experience to say with any confidence what is or isn’t realistic, but I know SI do. I imagine there’s room for improvement but that’s nothing more than my own supposition and knowing that SI are always looking at ways to improve the game in a realistic manner.

Why is it “absurd”? Just because we want our players to do something doesn’t mean they will. The training module has never been tell a player to train X and they do it, it’s way more complex than that. As a (rhetorical) counter point - why are you, as the manager, constantly asking players to do something which they clearly aren’t capable of doing? To quote Neil above, how is that “realistic”, bearing in mind that’s how training is designed? Isn’t a manager who spends 10 seasons (or just 2 seasons without change) asking players to improve crossing without success absurd? Re-read Neil’s post: I agree it’s frustrating and could be made clearer in game, but if we’re doing things in an unrealistic manner or “without an overall balance in schedules to work over time, not be set in isolation” we can’t just blame the game. Therefore doesn’t the “evidence from the videos” actually support SI’s training module design rather than finding a flaw? Doesn’t it demonstrate that if we do something outside of the realistic design intent we get unrealistic results, which is exactly as expected? So going right back to the thread title I’d suggest that no it’s not a bug, it’s working as intended and the conclusions being drawn are incorrect as the testers have done so without a full understanding of the game’s design using unrealistic inputs. I’d be far more interested in results of evidence based testing which, over multiple seasons and multiple saves, uses realistic and balanced training programs which are balanced with the rest of the running of the club(s).

No, they don't. The AI is quite capable of adapting based on your performance over the course of a season, or even during a match, but that is very different to learning how you play.

In my opinion it's always better to start with no instructions unless a) you want your team to play in a certain style or b) you want them to do something specific, usually in relation to issues you may notice during matches. So in this example I'd suggest not giving your keeper any instructions unless he is indeed wasting too much possession via long kicks. Using a DLP who is coming deep may help reduce long kicks anyway as your players should tend to seek him out for a pass .

I quite happily play Declan Rice as a B2B and he starts with Off the Ball of 10. Anyway, if you look at it like that your player doesn't really fit as a BWM either (those Traits). Ideally he's more of a DLP but any player can play any role, they'll just play it different ways, but in this case his Traits are more of an issue than his attributes imo. So perhaps a DLP(D) rather than the CM(D) and change the wide playmaker to a winger or WM. But there's the thing - you'll get different opinions. Just because I might do that doesn't mean you should. What you have set up now might work ok so you don't need to change, but you haven't tried it so it's all just theory until you do. These are just things to watch out for and potentially experiment with when you start .

Best thing is to try it, although personally I never like a playmaker on the wing in a 442 - I’d prefer a playmaker (if I use one) in the centre where he can control play better with greater passing options. That’s not saying it’s wrong to have one there, just personal preference. If you have someone who can play in midfield with a bit of stamina and work rate then you could try the BBM role. He may not be ideal for the role but he could do a job for you. If you have someone who could play your defined BWM(s) role I don’t see why he couldn’t play as a BBM. When testing the system keep an eye on your left flank. Make sure the IW is getting the support he needs from your fullback especially. It’s probably ok, especially if your fullback has the trait to get further forward and you are using the Positive mentality which will increase his mentality a little, but something to keep an eye on. One other thing - throw it long and distribute to centre backs? How far up field will your centre backs be?

No but keep an eye on the forum .

You're not annoying, neither am I annoyed. It's good that you ask questions. I would however question "Better to have some dubious opinion on a given topic than to get no input at all" if you already know it's dubious. I kind of agree and I'd certainly agree their in game tooltips are lacking. SI's stance on the matter though is they intentionally don't go into much detail - they'd rather provide some guidance rather than hold our hands every step of the way. This is what you tend to find from the better content creators as well, like rashidi or cleon - they'll give us the principles of how things operate rather than simply telling us to do xyz. Now ok, lots of people do want someone holding their hand and to tell them what to do to "win". And there are plenty of content creators like that too, no problem at all. But I don't think you're one of those people - I think you want to know how things work rather than just giving you something which does work. So as you do want to learn general principles of how things work I'll correct myself: "stop watching so many videos except rashidi's".

What I mean is you seem to be watching a lot of videos which are giving you bad information which you've already been advised about in one of your other threads. I appreciate you want to learn more and more about the game, which is great, but bad information will teach you nothing other than confusion. So it's not really a case of being impatient or belittling people, it's more a case of why continue to do it if you've already been given the advice .

If you want to develop your players in essentially an equivalent manner to the AI, delegate everything to your assistant. If you want to develop players broadly in line with the style of play you want and/or your defined player roles, delegate General Training to your assistant and take charge of individual training yourself. If you want to be significantly better than the AI (which you don’t) then take charge of everything. For pre-season, if you don’t want to be significantly better than the AI, either let your assistant handle it (as part of your delegated General Training) or set it up yourself but just do what you think is good. You’re the manager, not Zealand. There is no “should” do this or “should” do that unless you are trying to min/max and give yourself a significant edge over the AI, which you don’t want to do anyway. Basic advice: delegate general training to your assistant; take charge of individual training; set up a friendly every 3 or 4 days for pre-season; give all your players match time during those friendlies to improve their condition; rotate players during the season as they become tired; rest jaded players from training for 7 days and the next match. That’s still better than the AI but not significantly so. And stop watching so many videos, they’re confusing you.

Most of that comes from experience, you can only be told so much. However, that being said, keep it simple. The worst thing you can do is try to watch everything or ball watch. To start off, just watch your players and try to see if they are broadly doing what you expect them to do based on their given roles. So from the tactic posted at the top for example, is your right fullback providing good overlaps and getting into the opposition final third? And is he getting back quickly into defence when you lose possession? Is your Box to Box getting forward to support your striker but also tracking back well to defend? Is your winger getting down his flank well and putting in good crosses? That’s the kind of thing to watch out for to begin with. You’re also looking for consistency in these areas. All players will make mistakes or bad decisions and get caught out of position. If it happens infrequently then no big deal but if they’re doing it regularly, then you have a problem to fix.

My advice - stop watching videos and use that time to actually play the game instead 👍. A little while ago you started a thread called “How to be reasonably successful without being too perfectionist? In particular regarding youth development”. And now here you are looking at detailed general training schedules - and all because you’ve been watching loads of videos and, if you don’t mind me saying, getting yourself a bit confused with it all. If you want to get into the detail then that’s perfectly fine, but walk before you run. Delegate General Training to your Assistant (he’s actually pretty good at it), set up individual training for each player, assign players to training units, set up some mentoring groups (if needed) and let them get on with it. Then play the game and learn stuff as you go along without getting bogged down in the detail. Expand into the more detailed stuff (if you want to) as and when you feel comfortable with the rest of things 👌.

My advice to anyone wanting to learn more about the tactical side of things is to start without any tactical instructions. People often make the mistake of thinking they need to add team and/or player instructions to a tactic when in fact there are only really 2 purposes for such instructions: 1) To create a certain style of play. So we’d use some instructions to create a possession based style and a different set of instructions to create a counter attacking style for example. 2) In order to fix certain issues which are seen during matches. Notice how I say “seen during matches”. Never assume you need to add an instruction - only add if an issue is actually seen when you play matches. It’s also very important to understand that when you change Mentality you change pretty much everything else as well. Team instructions change and individual player mentality also changes. Our players are perfectly capable of playing a game of football without us managers telling them what to do. So to start I’d concentrate on player roles and duties, and how they combine with the players at your disposal. Roles and duties (and other tactical instructions) determine how you want your players to play, their attributes and Traits determine how capable they are of actually carrying out those roles. Then simply set the Balanced Mentality and play a few matches. Do your players broadly do what you want them to? What looks good? What issues do you notice? Add in an instruction or two which you think might help resolve issues. Watch a few more matches - do your changes work? If yes, great. If no, undo and try something else. If it helps you to learn, set up a test save and experiment. The tactic creator can be a bit of a minefield, so navigate through it in small steps at least at first 👍.

He does indeed put in a lot of work, but be careful about drawing conclusions from it. If he says his data has been checked and verified by SI as well as his own testing then yes, take it as fact. However, if any has not been checked and verified by SI then take it as something of interest only. This is because only SI actually know how all the coding links together and something which may appear to be at odds with SI's own information may not actually be. In other words, something else under the hood in the coding may be having an impact which no end user testing can take account of. By way of example the current thread in GC regarding match prep. It does indeed appear to show match prep doesn't work as SI tell us, but what if it does have the impact which SI tell us but then something else (or many other things) hidden under the hood in the coding crops up to negate the impact? As we don't know what might crop up how can that be measured by us end users? That might skew results and lead to the (potentially) incorrect conclusion being drawn. All too often we've seen users perform vast amounts of soak tests, draw conclusions seemingly at odds with SI's own information, only for SI to demonstrate how the user's conclusions are incorrect once SI have actually been given the chance to go over such data. TL;DR - let SI verify things before conclusions are drawn.