Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

SFraser

Members+
  • Content Count

    2,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. Veteran, it is aimed at players that are losing physical attributes or are likely to lose them because of age.
  2. That's not an issue with the schedules, it's an issue with CA change very likely caused by moving clubs. Large improvements or declines in attributes comes from CA going up or down, which has nothing to do with training. I am not sure exactly what goes on when this happens, but quick improvements or quick declines in new signings are commonplace. I would guess Reputation, Adaptability, Playing Time has something to do with it, or all three. However it is not training at work, training does not have the power to produce rapid and large quantity declines in a player, especially if he is just recently signed and new to the schedule.
  3. It seems clear to me that CA gain is having a significant effect. This is the kind of feedback that is excellent. Van Buyten seems to be behaving pretty much as the Focus of his schedules would indicate. His Age would put him at a CA level he is unlikely to improve, but not so much that significant declines are occuring, and his pattern of change seems to pretty much fit the pattern of Focus for his schedule. However Badstuber is the opposite on both counts. He is gaining CA and his training change patterns do not seem to fit the Focus ratio of his schedule. My short answer, based on what you produce here, is that CA gain/loss is distributed according to attribute weights while existing CA redistribution occurs according to what has already been said in this thread. In other words what has been explained in this thread works for a player with stationary CA in redistributing his CA, but does not account for what is actually happening when CA being gained or lost. That's the short answer. I will need to come back tomorrow or some other time and go over this in more detail, but that is what jumps out at me from looking at your results.
  4. Eliminate the supply at source. For a big forward this usually means crosses from the flanks and uncontested longballs from deep, which means you should be looking to disrupt passes from deep and wide positions. Playing a high pressing game to force the opponents key distributors into rushed or inaccurate passes is what you want. Press the opponent high up the pitch so his defenders have no time to measure a decent pass, man mark his wingers so any quick out-ball from defence is immediately under pressure and prevents good buildup from the wide areas. Push your defence up to limit his threat from any passes he wins in the air. Instead of sitting deep and narrow, play high up and aggressive. Combine constant pressure on players with poor delivery from range, to an advanced D-Line that minimises the threat of balls won in the air. If forced into a defensive position do not try to win the header, but try to win the headed pass. Win the second ball and not the first. Play a cover centreback, or multiple covering defenders and have combatative DMs ready to mop up and harrass knockdowns or hold-up passes. In manager speak cut off or harrass the supply and make sure you win the second ball.
  5. They were ideas to make use of the other perks of staff members aside from training. Signing a coach with good management and motivation to take all training categories alongside your specialist coaches should keep morale up and give you good backroom info on any player issues. Signing one or two particularly good scouts and a lot of chaff keeps costs down and you can simply Ctrl-A an entire list of reports from a weak scout doing X assignment and get the better scouts to look through them, meaning you can pretty much ignore the stuff that turns up in your inbox if you have heaps of scouts, and look only at the reports from your main guys. You could/should also sign a coach with good Tactics and Tactical Knowledge even if he doesn't have a job to do training players simply to get really good and accurate Tactical backroom staff information. There is quite a lot of abilities from your backroom staff you should be trying to exploit/maximise even if the coaches don't have a "real" role or job to do. Club Psychologist - Good man management and motivating involved in training to reduce specialist workloads and keep morale up as well as keeping you up to date and giving you good advice for any personal issues at the club. Head Scout - Best quality scout you can find, to "scout" through the reports your "chaff" build up doing their widespread, wideranging assignments. Head Physio - Not really "head physio" so much as getting atleast two quality physios, one with Motivating and one with Discipline. Tactical "Right Hand Man" - Just a random coach with high levels for Tactics to give you the best feedback on tactical backroom issues. He doesn't need to be involved with the team much, though obviously for efficiency sakes it helps if he is for example really good at taking Reserve/Youth team games. There is far more to building a good backroom staff infrastructure than just getting the most stars for your coaches. If that's all you look for you are missing out on a lot of stuff, and likely suffering because of it.
  6. My apologies for inspiring a page of Benitez debate, my point was to say how I think that match-by-match midfield rotation of roles and positions in a 4-2-3-1 is key to avoid being easilly neutralised and to make maximum usage of your defensive and attacking talents in the key areas of the opponents midfield. For example take the AMC/Trequartista role, it can be hugely effective if the opponent does not have particular deep or defensively capable DM's, such as a Deep Lying Playmaker for example. If however the opponent does have a solid DM or deep midfield then the AMC/Trequartista might be better off employed in a slightly deeper role with your own DM's playing a more advanced box-to-box role. Take for example the combination of Scholes and Fletcher. The more offensive of the two players sits deep and dictates the tempo while the more defensive of the two makes runs from deep into attacking areas, making up numbers in attack and creating space for the playmaker. Then the rest of the midfield and attack is fleshed out by playing any number of various combinations of Nani/Park/Giggs/Carrick/Gibson/Berbatov depending on the exact opponent. For example Park had two excellent games as a defensive AMC/Second Striker against Milan and another against Liverpool in the same role. In the first Milan match there was no true Left Winger as Fletcher played left side of a diamond and Park played defensive AMC. In the second Milan match Fletcher dropped back to RCM, Carrick was dropped and Nani played Left Wing. In the last two games of the Premier League Park was dropped and Berbatov played a more attacking role from a similar position. So my point was to state that having a 3 man midfield does not mean you have to be stuck playing the exact same lineup of players in identical roles, but can put your Attacking players where they will do most damage, your Defensive players likewise where they will be most effective, make subtle tweaks to personel and roles for similar basic formations but completely different in-game effect and level of defense/threat, and switch and swap roles and positions as each game demands.
  7. I thought the Champions League Final last night was a classic example of the potency of an AMC used at the right time, in the right place, with the right tactical support. It was testament to how poor Bayern are defensively and how astute Mourinho was tactically that the final move "and through to Eto'o!!!" was never employed as Snjeider pretty much single handedly destroyed Bayern on the counter sitting neatly between Pandev and Milito in attack. Something I have been noticing alot recently is the fundamental importance of understanding the tactical flexibility of the three man midfield. All of the issues of the impotant AMC, the defensively weak Regista, the inability to defend against one form of a midfield and attack another form of a midfield, are all caused by the refusal/failure to adapt your own three man midfield to the opponent in even the most basic of fashions. The European Cup this season has been full of examples of this, good, bad and ugly. Mourinho's destruction of both Barcelona and Bayern was almost hilariously simple. Likewise how Manchester United took apart Milan and then tore into Bayern in the second leg prior to the sending off was a huge lesson to me watching. Perhaps the biggest lesson all season though came from Anfield, where Alonso left for Madrid, Benitez refused to adapt, and Liverpool FC imploded. Their battle to finish above Everton and finish in the Europa League positions came down to the last 3 games, and a European ban for Portsmouth. The key issue is that the prevailance of the three man midfield has come about because of the tactical battle for space and effective use of roles for the tactics of an entire team in midfield, and those that are continuing to be successful are continuing that tactical battle into every game. You cannot simply stop because you have setup a particular three man midfield, and those that do like Benitez are being crushed by failing to understand that football is an ongoing process, match by match.
  8. That's a good issue to bring up, as I do think the bar graphs need to be looked at in more detail not only in order to make sense of them, but also to make use of them. They clearly have a purpose irrespective of confusion and obscurity of what they show, so understanding them really should be a massive help when training players. The problem is that so far the contemporary and consenus understanding has been that the bar chart levels relate to category intensive levels which relates to absolute levels of "maintain" and "improve" and so on, which is nonesense. It's an easy conclusion to jump to, most people jump to it, but it is wrong and you yourself have witnessed that the correlation is not between height and improvement/decline, but change and improvement/decline. I myself have seen that as well. Height is irrelevent, it does not function as the consensus states. Change is what matters irrespective of height. I personally am not sure exactly what they show. I am reasonably convinced that they do not account for the number of attributes per category, and should therefore be viewed relatively, i.e. Aerobic at a high level is equal to Attacking at a low level. That I am pretty sure of. However beyond that, what they display is not obvious. Do they display the effect of the training category? Do they show the quantity of CA being displaced? Do they show the attribute change end result from CA displacement + player age and CA gain/loss? Personally, I would avoid getting too hung up on the bar charts when training players if you do not know for sure what they show. They are afterall only a measure of information, when the input and end result is the key factors. Getting too caught up in bar charts and ignoring input/end result leads to things like the Training Line Theory which produces terrible results and theorises behaviour completely contrary to known game mechanics, yet is accepted as fact because "it makes sense" and is easy to understand, even if completely wrong. I would like to know precisely what they show, but untill I know that I am happy to completely ignore them in favour of a direct approach of tweaking sliders and observing the actual end result given the actual gameplay mechanics known to exist. Additional information is not always necessary, and if the additional information is obscure then it is unwise to attempt to base your activities on it.
  9. The idea that you can easilly "maintain" a single category, halt the improvement or decline of a particular aspect of a players abilities, is a myth that has sprung up and become widespread due to the "Training Line Theory" and the lack of logical alternatives. While it is theoretically possible to micro-manage a player in this level of detail, like it is theoretically possible to prevent all changes in Morale, Happiness, Condition, Match Ratings etc. through intense micro-management, it is practically impossible. The reason for this is that there are constant changes to a players CA throughout the course of an entire season, and there are constant changes to how attributes grow or decline as a player ages. Every player has in effect a unique pattern of growth and decline caused by his age combined to his own season long performances and experience in matches. And at the same time every player will start off the season with slightly reduced CA, will stabilise his CA loss early in the campaign, and then if performances levels and match experience and age and club reputation permits, he will slowly increase his CA to a peak level somewhere around the middle to the end of the season. Under these variable CA conditions, even a perfectly tuned schedule to "maintain" a player of X position at Y age will still experience growth and decline of attributes, albeit minor changes if the player in question is around 25 and playing close to his PA peak. The game represents fluctuations in ability from the start of the season when players are "rusty" or after an injury when they are "not quite at peak level" right up to mid-late season "peak ability" when players are firing on all cylinders. And this is for mid 20's first team regulars, let alone those that are rapidly improving as youngsters or rapidly declining as veterans. The easiest way to achieve a "maintain" level is to get a player to his maximum CA peak as soon as possible, design a schedule based on Age for him that reduces all bias between categories and essentially attempts to shift little or no CA between his attributes, and then try to keep the player at his peak for as long as possible. If the player has a significant drop in form, a medium injury, or ends the season and goes on holiday then his CA will drop and your current schedule will not be able to "maintain" anything. However it will minimise changes and when the player improves his CA, you will see the respective increase to match the decrease. It will not be identical though, and the players own natural pattern of improvement and decline combined to seasonal match conditions will influence the exact pattern of changes. It is extremely difficult to night on practically impossible to get absolute precise short term results from Training. Training is best used and best understood and best managed and best utilised when, in my opinion, it is viewed as a long term method of moulding or sculpting a player throughout his career with anticipation for his future needs or requirements. There are certain inevitable trends in players, such as the decline of Physical Ability and improvement of Mental Ability and so in my opinion training is best used and viewed as a means of managing a player with an eye on his future. The game does not practically allow this "maintain" level of control even if it is theoretically possible that certain people keep promoting, and they really should stop saying this if they do not want to cause even more confusion and give the completely wrong impression about how training, players and the game itself works. What will happen is that the Category with Focus 4 will receive more "impetus" or "bias" for Training changes over the Category at Focus 1, but the exact product depends on multiple factors. The Category at Focus 4 might be a Physical Category and the player might be 34, meaning that all that happens here is the natural decline of physical attributes is reduced or halted, and likewise the natural improvement of Focus 1 Tactics is reduced or halted. Do the same but in reverse, with Tactics Focus 4 and Physical Focus 1 for a 34 year old, and physical stats will drop like a stone. If the player is say 25 and you have Defending Focus 4 and Shooting Focus 1, then what you expect to happen will happen if the player as near his PA. His Shooting will be 4:1 outmatched by his Defending, and his Defending will grow at expense of his Shooting. The key point to remember is that Age and Attribute Type work to produce a set of "natural ratios" of change in attributes and so train effectively you need to be aware of them and factor them into your design process. At around about 25-26 ish age everything is relatively neutral balanced, i.e. 1:1:1:1 and so on, so your schedule should work precisely how it looks like it should. Before or after that age, the natural ratios will change and your schedules will reinforcing or counteracting the natural ratio of change with their own ratios.
  10. There is pretty much two distinct "Technical Profiles" for each player, the Outfield and Goalkeeping set. One of which is hidden for either player and cannot be improved but is generalised and defined by their rating in that area. So imagine a striker for example, he will have both an "outfield" technical profile and "goalkeeping" technical profile. However his "goalkeeping" profile is hidden and does not take up CA, nor can it be changed whatsoever. Likewise for a goalkeeper, but in reverse.
  11. Goalkeepers work differently to outfield players. Basically they work like this: Strength : Applies and has few attributes. Aerobic : Applies and has many attributes. Goalkeeping : Applies and has many attributes. Tactics : Applies and has many attributes. Ball Control : Barely applies. Has one fairly useless attribute. Defending : Does not apply. Attacking : Does not apply. Shooting : Does not apply. Set Pieces : Does not apply. Where I say "does not apply" what I mean is that the attributes in the category receive no CA when the player is a goalkeeper. You can train them as hard as you like but you are simply wasting workload for zero effect. Like training your striker in Goalkeeping, he simply will not improve any goalkeeping attributes no matter how hard you train him, because goalkeeping attributes are untrainable in outfield players. The combination of two very small categories and three very large categories, and four categories than simply do not apply, is the reason Goalkeeping Training is almost universally terrible amongst people creating schedules. The scale between large and small categories leaves absolutely no margin for error, you either get it right or you fail completely, and ontop of this alot of people crank up workload training categories they think might have some benefit but actually has absolutely zero effect other than increasing workload for no reason and depriving yourself of room to get the relevant categories properly balanced. Personally I would say the gold standard to test for to see if someone understands training is whether or not they can train goalkeepers remotely accurately and see increases in the right categories, but I am biased in this respect because I can do this. You may have noted my initial goalkeeping schedules were producing very strong goalkeepers, because my strength count was slightly off by one attribute, but the compound result was dramatic strength increases. I am glad to say that this is no longer the case, and has been resolved with intent and by design. That's great to hear. The schedule pack was always really a cheap test of my "theory". The real point was explaining how to achieve specific results through understanding training by looking at attributes.
  12. If injuries were that simple no one would ever get any. If they were that simple they wouldn't be possible in any schedules I release to the public. The problem with injuries is that no one has defined their cause, no one understands why they happen, so they cannot be micromanaged out of the game. I don't wish to blow my own trumpet, but I think it is fair to say that as far as In Match injuries go, I have given the most detailed and logical explanation of their causes by far and repeatedly in these forums. Judge for yourself: Now when dealing with training injuries you have a compound problem: 1: There is a far larger number of reasonable potential injury causing factors in Training, ranging from Coach hidden attributes to the quality of Training Facilities and including the already explained "In Match Factors" while are likely to exist in training but in an abstracted fashion. 2: You cannot watch training occur. What this means in a nutshell is that Training Injuries are going to remain in the realm of theory even when In Match Injuries are defined with absolute precision. Which they wont be for a long, long time. Though in fairness, much like the premise of this thread, the basic foundations of an understanding are being worked on.... The short answer is to do what everyone assumes works, lower the workload etc. Do not ask for absolute solutions because knowledge of the causes of injuries does not exist among the fanbase in this forum atleast. These schedules do not cause injuries because I receive few injuries using them. This means that while they may exacerbate the causes of injuries, they do not directly cause them and Training injuries are caused by many compound factors. I understand that some people have injury problems with these schedules, but the very fact that others do not mean that injuries are a complex issue that cannot be controlled, tested into non-existence, or even defined at this point.
  13. Kind of defeats the point considering the 1st Team Schedules are really all about maintaining attributes and improving condition.
  14. It does really work. If someone has an uncharacteristic outbust because of a harsh Teamtalk or any other perceived "wrong" other than demanding more first team action, then sticking them in the reserves will often produce a public apology as they "realise their behaviour will not get them near the first team". The crucial point is "uncharacteristic". If they have a Personality whereby bad reactions are a regular occurance then you must apply different man management techniques because the usual/effective ones will simply produce a different (and therefore negative) response in these players. It is the kind of thing you will not see happen if you are loathe to send first team players to the reserves as punishment, or indeed take other harsh measures to reinforce your authority over the squad. You must make this leap in order to actually see the consequences, and the consequences as I have explained do very much exist and are very effective at nipping these kinds of potentially ongoing issues in the bud.
  15. If a player is "confrontational" then taking a hard line approach will rarely work, and will only provoke more and worse behaviour. To get the optimum out of them you will have to be supportive, kind and complient. If a player rarely confronts you or anyone else, i.e. has a rare outburst then a very hardline approach is desired, even if it is your fault. Sticking someone in the reserves for badly reacting to you, even if it was justified, will quickly solve the problem. If they are regularly confrontational then you need to adapt your criticism and your approach to their mentality.
  16. It is a lot less complex than it seems, alot less complex than this thread might make it seem. Once you get into it you will realise that it is all rediculously simply, and you will wonder why you never thought of it first
  17. No they wont. Touchline Shouts are shortcuts for controlling tactical instructions, so if you have ticked ANY tactical instructions to adapt them manually, they will not be controlled by the touchline shouts. Shouts do not over-ride the tactical changes you have specifically made to your team. This area of "customisation versus ease of use" is one of the big issues in the current Tactical Interface, and no doubt a really complicated problem for SI. The current system will not over-ride your specified tactical instructions, and therefore the Shouts will not work with those specific instructions. You can however leave some of the key instructions unticked and manipulate them with shouts, while unticking specific key instructions for individual players and set them manually. This gives you something of the "best of both worlds" but is not perfect.
  18. "Focus" basically equals "size" of training or quantity of training. It is the actual amount of training you want to do, based on 1 notch per attribute = 1 equal "lot" of training. Where every Category slider is set exactly to the number of attributes in that category, 3-5-5-4-3-2-3-5 for outfield players, each category has a Focus of one and is training each attribute at exactly the same level. If age were removed from the equation then a training schedule of notch positions 3-5-5-4-3-2-3-5 would produce a completely balanced schedule at lowest possible level of training, so this is "Focus 1" for all Categories. Focus 2 for all categories would double the training, but without biasing any category. Focus 2 for ONE CATEGORY would double the training received by one category compared to all the others. You would expect it to improve twice as fast as the rest. Now untill someone figures out what increased levels of training does for perfectly balanced categories, I cannot tell you exactly what the benefit is from a high workload versus a low workload with similar biases, but I think everyone would logically assume that higher training = more training. From what I know of the game, I would assume that low workload means you get less control over a player, i.e. get to move around a smaller percentage of the CA that changes each month. Higher workloads mean you control a greater percentage of monthly change. That is my assumption. It is just an assumption. However if it is wrong, then higher workloads would be pointless, unless I am missing some huge point somewhere along the line. If you ever try to think of training in terms "2x this, half more of that, 3x the next" then that is exactly what Focus is. It means these "multiples" of basic training levels. Focus 1 = 1 notch per attribute, Focus 2 = 2 notch per attribute and so on. It is a way of keeping the basic principle of training attributes, while easilly being able to manipulate relative actual quantities. If this doesn't make it clear for you, let me know and I will try again.
  19. I like the sound of that one personally. A World Cup Tactical Match Day thread I think would be excellent for the forum. As long as the comments and discussion was kept on topic and in the theme of the T&TT forum, I think the thread would be a different beast altogether from other World Cup matchday threads in other forums. I could understand how the Mods might be concerned it would be a duplicate to other Matchday threads, and generate similar kinds of discussion, but as I said if it was on-topic and tactical only it would be a great thread for this forum. I can imagine it being something that I and other users would really enjoy. A match on in one window/on T.V. and the thread open and reading the tactical analysis and tactical discussion of the game from other users. Would certainly trump the analysis and punditry of all the mainstream media, and very likely be a big help to a lot of people to see tactical concepts explained using a real match, ask questions about what is going on/how to set something similar up and more besides. Excellent suggestion Crouchaldinho. The success of that one-off World Cup thread could maybe be used to judge the merit and ease of maintaining more regular Tactical Matchday threads for other competitions in this forum.
  20. Good result and a nice comeback, but that away goal is a very nasty thing in European football. Now I'm just waiting to see if Aguero can pinch one in the other match. EDIT: That'll teach me eh.
  21. It's almost certain I will release something new sometime but I cannot guarentee when. The fact I am so active on these forums means not releasing new schedules sometime in the future is almost an impossiblity. However that wont be untill I have developed something I want to release, and while I have refined and improved the schedules I currently use for my own players, I have not developed anything for community use so far beyond what has already been produced for download.
  22. Sorry I should have said, it's more a General Goalkeeping schedule for players around 23-24 to 30. Should still produce better overall results than the other two schedules but may not produce the rapid Physical improvements in youngsters, or prevent the rapid Physical declines in Veterans so use them at your discretion.
  23. Both training Goalkeepers and improving their ability is tougher than outfield players. Training is tougher because they have fewer Categories to train and those Categories have either many attributes or few, and so the Schedules are very, very sensitive to even the slightest misbalance in favour of less important/relevant attributes. My original goalkeeping schedules were slightly misbalanced in favour of Strength and goalkeepers would rapidly improve their strength. Improving the ability of goalkeepers is tougher because they need high ratings to get regular CA increase, and those can only come from good goalkeeping performances behind a defence that isn't coping with the opponent. With goalkeepers that are not already good it is easy to go from one extreme to the other with little work to do as the team plays well, then get absolutely destroyed when the team plays badly. It is very, very hard to develop a goalkeeper at your club that is not already first team quality. Remember that performance, match experience, club reputation and player personality determine CA gain while Training simply shifts those points around into the desired places. I have designed a new Goalkeeper schedule that I am getting far better results with in terms of stuff going in the right places. I signed a new Goalkeeper 3 months ago and in that time he has improved his Pace and Balance which means his Jumping and Agility will also be going up but not yet registered a change, he has improved his Positioning and Command of Area, and he has improved his Kicking, Handling and Throwing. Different goalkeepers in different clubs in different saves will have different levels of improvement, but the improvements will go into the correct categories at similar ratios. You can download the new schedule by clicking the following link: http://www.mediafire.com/?njltnzt14jm
  24. Interesting read. I love that website. As one of the comments says, 0-0 is a better result for Hamburg than Fulham. It will be interesting to see how Hodgson plays the next leg but if he is not playing for penalties over two legs then he might have done himself a mischief.
  25. It's a great table and great work, but the above is not entireally accurate. Attributes with 0 CA Weight are not "Free" but independant of the CA/PA system for attribute change. This means rather than costing no CA to change, instead they cannot be changed at all other than by a small number of specific gameplay events. For all attributes weighted 1 to 6 in the table, they change according to CA quantities and CA attribute behaviour mechanics, so can be trained and changed that way, can increase/decrease as CA increases/decreases and so on. Attributes weighted at zero are a completely different type of attribute that behave in different ways. They are first of all generally more "behaviour/personality defining" such as Determination/Aggression/Flair/Natural Fitness etc. that have a very big say in playstyle and behaviour. Or they are hidden attributes that define strengths/weaknesses in key areas of a player such as Injury Proneness, Important Matches and so on. These attributes are incredibly hard to change because they define huge aspects of a players individuality. They all change not through training, but by ingame events such as Mentoring, or playing more regularly/big performances, or disciplinary measures or by getting serious and longterm injuries. Two things regularly overlooked/misunderstood is that there is a select number of relatively static yet personality/behaviour/playstyle defining attributes. These attributes represent "natural talent" or "natural gifts" etc. For example Carrick will never, ever reach the same level of Playmaking ability as Xavi because he has such a low Flair attribute and prefers not to attempt the flamboyant. These are key "natural personality/playstyle" defining attributes, and players that naturally lack certain key attributes will never be "the greatest ever" in certain roles, no matter their PA etc. The second thing overlooked, and it is quite hard to spot, is that FM has a rather deep "event driven development" system for players. Players that achieve certain things, fail in certain things, consistently perform certain things etc. will improve and decline in the related attributes. A youngster that plays more regularly, puts in good performances, scores important goals will increase his Influence and become a more important player in the eyes of other players. He will improve his Consistency/Important Matches etc. Likewise a Free Kick specialist that regularly takes and scores from Free Kicks, but does not do any set piece training, will still improve in his Free Kick attribute. Someone made captain will likewise improve in his Influence. Someone that gets a broken leg will become more injury prone, and so on. These "event based changes" do not happen regularly, but they do happen and effectively chart a players career. You have limited direct control over them, and cannot change these attributes like you can the rest of the "Ability Attributes".
×
×
  • Create New...