riv3th3ad

You literally cannot isolate the match boost because there will be a difference in fatigue vs. the team that didn't do the training.

Should also be able to post the adverts at least a bit ahead of time for any position where the staff member announces their plan to retire on date X.

I understand that players in FM and in real life sometimes do not perform well in matches or do not improve despite training well. The main takeaway is that if a training session says it works on attributes A, B, C but a test suggests that session in fact has zero impact on A, B, C and instead impacts attributes X, Y, and Z--that is a serious, serious problem that needs to be looked into by SI.

Yes. It's absurd. It's not realistic that multiple professional players at a club with world class facilities and some of the best coaches in the Premier League can't improve crossing by half or 1 point. You are 100% putting words in my mouth. I've not said I was asking a bunch of players to do a training for 10 years or even 2 seasons on a constant basis. I was simply using WB-At and crossing as an example because the tactic I'm currently running uses that role so I have 4 senior players as well as players in the U teams on that PRD and regularly cycling through crossing as an additional focus, and utilizing att overlap and play from the back sessions--certainly the young players ought to be able to improve crossing from 9 to 10 or 11 if they're training it (and getting great training ratings, I may add). I'm not asking for their crossing to go from 11 to 19 in 3 months. Crossing is not the only attribute I've seen behave this way. The point is that it's frustrating to know that session X may be having literally zero impact upon the attributes it lists.

Without even mentioning the inadequate sample size, the trouble with attempting to isolate just match prep sessions or just set piece sessions is that it ignores so many factors that are supposedly linked together. It's a mistake to run test with both teams at 100% tactical familiarity. It's a mistake to ignore whether players are or are not on PRD and/or additional focus training. It has been widely discussed that the match bumps do not stack, so running the set piece test with a bunch of attacking corner or attacking free kick sessions, according to what we supposedly know, shouldn't result in massive increases in goals from corners/FKs. What is worth investigating is whether this many sessions has bumped the attributes claimed by the card. On top of the tactical familiarity flaw, the test does not account for morale, training happiness over the course of a season. A better test of match prep and set piece sessions would run for multiple seasons with Team A and Team B set for identical training, excepting the match prep/set piece sessions, and equal, but lower than 100%, tactical familiarity at the beginning of each season. After watching several of the videos, I'm not prepared to completely throw the baby out with the bath water regarding match prep or set piece sessions. What is significantly more concerning is the testing that suggests the training cards do not actually boost the attributes they claim to boost. I believe there may be something to this, as, anecdotally, I constantly see instances of targeted attributes barely increasing across a season or two in players that are in the 18-23 range. If I have wingbacks set to WB-At PRD with additional focus training set to crossing and I routinely run attacking overlap and play from the back sessions, it's absolutely absurd that I shouldn't see noticeable improvements in crossing, flair, passing, vision in at least some of those players and in most they barely move.