Out of curiosity, do you actually think the mantralux approach is right? Iv done some basic and early stage testing and tbh I have still been able to use Sfrasers principles to shape certain players in certain attributes relative to their position where as using the linear theory simply more creates all round players, especially in the upper echelons of football where hidden stats are high. Thats fine if I want my striker to be able to fill in at the back but I dont, I want specialist players who are best in their position at what they do. It would be a real shame if the training aspect of this game reduced the impact we as coaches can have on moulding our future stars.
I think you've misunderstood Mantralux's theory. Linear schedules with equal focus on all categories should only be used as a test to see which categories a player as a default trains best in. After 3-4 months on Linear schedules you're meant to create positional or individual schedules based on the results of this test, the results being the training level progression bars. The idea is to adapt the schedules so that the players train the most in the attributes they are - as a default - most likely to experience attribute increase in, and thus maximizing their overall increase.
SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10
in Tactics, Training & Strategies Discussion
Posted
I think you've misunderstood Mantralux's theory. Linear schedules with equal focus on all categories should only be used as a test to see which categories a player as a default trains best in. After 3-4 months on Linear schedules you're meant to create positional or individual schedules based on the results of this test, the results being the training level progression bars. The idea is to adapt the schedules so that the players train the most in the attributes they are - as a default - most likely to experience attribute increase in, and thus maximizing their overall increase.