Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About LlamaZA

  • Rank

About Me

  • About Me
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I definitely agree with the comments above that suggest dropping your CM's to the DM line. You'll want an Anchor man and a DLP(s) there. I'd also suggest that Gerrard was the equivalent of a CM(a) (in the CM strata as opposed to being in the AM strata - if you watch how a CM(a) plays you'll see a lot of Gerrard type gut busting runs into the box). Otherwise I think you've got it pretty close.
  2. Read this by the late SFraser http://forums.fm-britain.co.uk/topic/7455-tactical-analysis-of-the-4-5-1/ That should give you a lot of insight into the tactic and how to set it up. The 4-5-1 is designed to beat the 4-4-2, so you shouldn't be having troubles.
  3. Hey Cleon I'm back after an FM13 hiatus, and I come back to the forum and you're doing your thing as only you can do. Been a great read - so thanks for that. Thought about implementing the Bayern system on my Liverpool save but decided to stick to 4231 with Liverpool not having any MR/L, only Lucas for DM and having options at AMC. This thread has helped me with building that - and a lot of times on attack my formation comes out as a 4141 with my MRC right sometimes joining the striker ahead of the AMC, receiving possession, turning and playing the ball on for the on-rushing AMC. It's a joy to behold. Defensively the wings don't do as much as they should but the IF(s) does do some work (especially when I play Gerrard there). Anyway - there was this comment in your opening post that I wanted to discuss: As I recall from my FM12 post on making a tactic - Fluidity affects two things Mentality and Creative Freedom. Creative Freedom was affect as expected, but Mentality actually did some counter-intuitive things (which on reflection make sense). I'll quote my post to explain: So going back to your original post and discussion - a Very Fluid strategy may be better as it will bring the Wingbacks and Wide Mids closer together (whereas Very Rigid pulls them apart). The Bayern tactic is big on the double-up of the outside players. In order to have players stick to their roles, use the Stick to Position shout.
  4. Keane, none he's a reserve player. Cleverley, one or two games - early season I give all players equal time to reduce fatigue at the end. He would've played the same amount roughly both months.
  5. No such thing. I know it's not the answer you're looking for, but for some players for some attributes it'll be 3 clicks for others in other attributes it'll 9. It all depends.
  6. Ok, so one month has passed and this is how Cleverley's training tab now looks: As you can see, the only changes I've made to his training was to re-align his Defending and Shooting training. Now there are many factors involved in training, and the schedule is just one of them. But overall he's had an improvement in all his Training Levels - including Shooting. On the downside he's moved from Pleased to Content with his training schedule (but this would only be an issue if his progress decreased). I am tempted to adjust by one click down on Defending and up on Shooting since he does seem to be getting a lot of value now from Shooting training. Probably reassess in a month and see what other adjustments can be made. This is a very fluid watch and adjust system, whereby I place the player on a training I feel is appropriate and then adjust as the months move to where he is showing preferences. Things I look for - high Intensity and low Levels, low Intensity and high Levels, Intensity and Levels out of line (equal Intensity but unequal Levels). All these will result in me shifting clicks on the basis that I'm trying to maximise Level/Intensity across the spectrum of categories.
  7. I would like to think so But I can't prove anything. Nearing the end of the month, will post updated Cleverley situation then
  8. I'm just going to type out the relevant attributes since its easier and clearer: Keane Attacking: Crossing - 8 Passing - 10 Creativity - 4 Off the Ball - 9 Ball Control: Dribbling - 4 First Touch - 11 Heading - 12 Technique - 11 Flair - 5 Cleverley Defending: Marking - 10 Tackling - 10 Positioning - 10 Shooting: Finishing - 13 Long Shots - 14 So in short - no, its not because the player has higher/lower attributes already. In both cases the player is not saturated in either set of attributes, and Keane is tending towards those attributes he's higher in while Cleverley he's preferring the lower attributes. Your hypothesis is wrong No, in fact it usually ends up being the opposite to a 'fill the gaps' method. The player has a tendency to prefer areas where he is already strong. Cleverley has high training schedule and level in Tactics where his attributes range from 12 to 15. My method tends to be a specialising method and I use Individual Training Focus to fix any weaknesses. I think the key lies in the position the player prefers, Keane is a natural CB and thus prefers to train Heading over all the other attributes listed, so has a preference for Ball Control training. Cleverley is being trained as an MC and perhaps this is the cause for him 'wanting' Defending training. Fighting against his natural attribute gain is more based on what the player is tending towards, factors that I think are relevant are; his positions, the roles he plays, and his age. I don't think players tend to try gain in weaknesses, imagine you were training Hernandez in real life - he'd probably gain a lot more from an hour of finishing practice (something relevant for his position, something he enjoys doing and something he already has some skill in) than he would from 2 hours of learning to man-mark (no relevance, and since he has no skill or finds any enjoyment in it, he'd probably be more frustrated and not pick up anything)
  9. I've brought this up in another thread, but this one appears to be the 'go to' thread for Youth Development It's a concept I picked up from another thread here that has also been lost along the way. In effect what it is, is that players have tendencies to improve certain stats faster or better than others. What is suggested is that we can determine what these tendencies are by looking at the Training Levels of a player. When a player has a high training level despite low training or more importantly for us, low training level with high training level we are miss-matching the schedule with what is in the players natural growth. So in this regard I do a monthly check of the players to see if they are training optimally. As an example, I'm using a reserve player on a non-player specific schedule to show you how my constant update process would work, and then I'll show you Cleverley's schedule which required minor updates. (unfortunately I'm into my second month of the season which means my players are already on adjusted schedules) Here you can see the player is on my standard Fullback training schedule. What I want you to look at is the position of the sliders to the Training Levels, specifically the comparison the Ball Control and Attacking levels and sliders. (I can confirm that the player has been on this schedule for at least two months with no changes or injuries and as you'll notice his overall progress is good so there are no issues with his overall improvements) The schedule he has is on 9 clicks Ball Control and 11 clicks on Attacking, but if we look at his Training Level you'll see that he is still twice as likely to increase in Ball Control attributes than Attacking ones. I suppose one could hold two theories on this, either it means we need more Attacking training to get his crossing and passing up, or we are wasting our time with Attacking training. I've taken a view that it is latter, what I would do in this instance is drop down his Attacking training by 2/3 clicks and transfer them to Ball Control where he appears to have an affinity for gaining attributes. Here's Cleverley's situation: Here the training is clearly biased towards Defending over Shooting despite the player having the same training intensity in the two categories. So this month I make the slight adjustment of moving two notches from Shooting to Defending. My goal in all this is to make sure that when the player gains CA I maximise the the attribute increases I receive. I would guess the CA cost of Shooting attributes for Cleverley at this time significantly higher than Defending attributes and thus it makes more sense for us to distribute the players CA gain where it will be most optimally utilised. This system may not work in those instances where you are trying to mould a player and are theoretically fighting against his natural attribute gain.
  10. Thanks Unfortunately i've never used a sweeper so no idea how they play. would be great if someone could do a write up on it.
  11. Oh, I see the problem Right click the link and select "Save Target As..."
  12. Just download the .xml and copy paste it to the Panels folder, its correctly named for FM12.
  13. Still your schedules though The example above was based on misinformation so best to ignore it. If I look at the new info, what you see is Nolan having MORE notches in Defending but LESS Training Level (possibly the same Training Level). Either way it appears that there is no benefit to those extra notches in Defending. To make it clear, what I'm saying is that if we placed a player on a schedule with an equal weighting across the categories. The Training Level would be unequal based on the players natural affinity towards certain attributes (position is a key part of this and since we all use pretty solid position schedules we don't see this imbalance that often - but it does exist). The question is what this means for your training - are you wasting time in that area? or should you overcompensate and try push the player to learn those attributes regardless of his affinity for those attributes? Thus 'overtrain' the player in order to try get an increase in those attributes. Per the example above, you should you push more training at Defending to try get Defending above Tactics (or just decrease Tactics training to make the relative game stacked in Defending training's favour?) Are they though? Are we saying that there is a fixed sum of attributes that a player can have? So +1 in Tackling is a cost of +1 in something else, and for full CA players this becomes a zero sum game of lose a rating in one place to gain in another? I think I've read somewhere that attributes aren't equally valued (some use more PA than others) and this is based on position, so even then a small increase in Defending attributes for a Striker will come at little cost to his Shooting attributes. I'm not 100% sure of the background mechanics, but there is definitely a system of increases that occurs in players whereby players prefer certain types of attributes to others - but on the plus side it appears players tend to prefer the attributes they need. So it becomes a balance game of the cost of PA vs. the cost of training time vs. the relative value of say 3 points in Passing vs 1 in Tackling (almost would you take 3 Passing in 1 year or 1 Tackling in 2 years - its never as clear cut as that but it highlights a point). I think the goal of my method is to speed up CA gain by taking the player along the path his naturally going and creating a Schedule that tries to get as much attribute gain as possible as quickly as possible. If you look at Januzaj above you'll see the method in action, which created an across the board increase for the player. Now you could argue there was a lot of wasted PA there, and I'd be happy to accept that as a potential problem of this view on training a player.
  14. Ah, that would explain it then. Having just come off pre-season would affect his Training Levels as they're based on the past month. Pretty much makes my whole analysis off the concept remains, but the discrepancies aren't as vast. I can't see completely clearly, but there appears to be an argument to up his Tactics over Defending for the reasons I've outlined above I also always like to leave one or two notches in other areas (well except Shooting for Defenders and Defending for Attackers) in order to gauge the players affinity for the stat gain, since generally you do see 0 Training Level with 0 training.
  15. I find this a bit odd coming from you, since if I look at your training schedules you always assign some training to what is "not useful" - go look at your Striker schedules that have 4ish notches in Defending or your Fullbacks with some Shooting training. Although above your AMC doesn't have any Defending training. Anyway, no-one said 'shape the player into an attacking one'. That's a complete misrepresentation of what was said, what I said was that there were wasted 'notches'. Let's look at Nolan - and let's assume we're trying to make him a pure DC. He has (roughly) 13 notches in Strength, 14 in Aerobics, 21 in Tactics, 6 in Ball Control, 22 in Defending and 0 in Attacking and Shooting. Now despite this the chances of him increasing his Strength attributes is slightly greater than the chance of him increasing Tactics attributes (13 vs 21) at the same time he has significantly more chance of increasing Strength over Aerobic (13 vs 14) and Ball Control has the same probability as Aerobic despite the vast difference in training intensity. As I read this situation it tells me that I'm wasting my time with Aerobic training, he's just not getting it - all that 'time'/intensity is wasted here. Meantime he appears to be soaking up Ball Control training like a sponge (and the same for Attacking). The next bit is the assumption I'm making (if you do not agree with this then my whole theory falls apart); there is no hard cap on how many attributes a player can gain as he converts his PA into CA - i.e. as a player converts PA into CA he gains attributes and it may be 4 or it could be 20. So you don't lose out if a player gains 1 in Tackling and 1 in Off the Ball as if that 1 in off the ball was 1 he could've had somewhere else. He could've gained 1 in Tackling and 0 in Off the Ball or 1 and 1 for the same gain in CA. (I hope this quick explanation makes sense) What does this all mean? In Nolan's case we should be taking training away from Aerobics since we're wasting our time there, if we had instead focused on Ball Control or Attacking we would have got all the same gains in Defending and Tactics AND more in Ball Control - and in both cases we'd have seen little increase in Aerobics. Even further then this I sense that 21 notches in Tactics is too high, we could probably get the same training level at 16/17 notches freeing up a further 4 notches to other training areas. If I look at Strength training I would say its almost perfect, probably one or two more notches would take it to the same Training Level as Defending. Looking at this player, his current schedule, and his Training Levels I would adjust to the following: Strength 15 Aerobic 11 Tactics 17 Ball Control 12 Defending 19 (and check Training Level and see if falls/stays the same and adjust accordingly looking for that 'sweet spot' where his Training Level stays high for lowest number of notches) Attacking 8
  • Create New...