Jump to content

ProZone

Members+
  • Posts

    335
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

Biography

  • Biography
    FM Toolmaker

About Me

  • About Me
    Bristol

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Manchester United

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'd say that is spot on. The problem has always been that for the attributes you are happy to accept no increase, or simply wish to maintain, there has never been a way to ensure that this happens. It has always been guess work on where to set the relevant training slider. The great thing with FM11 is that we have the attributes graph which allows us to see the progress of attribute development/decline which essentially allows us to control the pace of development/decline or ensure maintenance. If development is happening too slow or decline is happening too fast then we can now detect this (within a 1 month timescale, which is a massive improvement!) and increase the training level. As attributes change the chances of further changes are altered/recalculated and thus modification to the training schedule may be required to continue the progress you wish to see. By monitoring the graph you can detect increases, decreases, plateaus etc. in attribute development and 'manage' the training of you players as you decide.
  2. Sincere apologies Teutomatos for not giving you due credit if it was you. I genuinely couldn't remember who first described the linear approach.
  3. Just to be clear, there is no mantralux approach. I think you are referring to the 'linear' approach (I forget the inventor/author EDIT: Was it you Naks?) which I personally have no time for and it is something that mantralux asked to be removed from her thread. To my mind, the 'linear' approach takes 3-4 months to ascertain information that is of no practical use, and furthermore, like you I prefer to train specialist players on the whole, not all-rounders. The principle of SFraser's approach is still valid, absolutely. Giving less focus to the categories which contain attributes that are less important to a player's position is the basis of 'position-general' schedule design. My belief is that the best results are achieved by tailoring individual schedules (i know this is time consuming!) and the addition of the attributes graph this time around makes this much more intuitive. We didn't have the graph last year and I thought that my training design tool was useful, now I don't - simple as that.
  4. I just thought I'd post again in this thread as I feel it's my responsibility to say that I will no longer be using the Training Schedule Design Tool, posted earlier in this thread, for FM11. I believe that the addition of the Attributes Development Graph to the training module provides all the information needed to modify training schedules for individual players and the default positional schedules which have been added are a good point to start from. In the absence of SFraser for a while, I recommend mantralux's training thread as being particularly helpful for understanding the changes made to this year's training module.
  5. Here you go: http://www.mediafire.com/?v1pd9kckhpd58ic Apologies for the delay from the earlier requests for this!
  6. SFraser, have you had any input into the new training module announced for FM2011?
  7. If you look in the 'Reports' tab of the player then you can see whether your coaches are telling you something like 'Tafer is unlikely to improve in the future'. This means that his PA has been reached and therefore there are no ability points left to improve his attributes and would confirm SFraser's explanation.
  8. 1. Player improvement, specifically the distribution of gained CA, is determined by two things. First, a natural distribution which has been imagined to be some sort of 'development curve' which is hard-coded in the game. Second, the manager defined distribution as defined by the training slider positions. The current understanding is that a higher overall training intensity gives a greater bias towards the manager defined training distribution. That is to say a player's development will match more closely the way you arrange the training sliders. A lower overall training intensity does the opposite and effectively gives more control to FM10 to develop your player. The price to pay for more manager control however is an increased injury risk. 2. No-one knows for sure and I for one would love to see this sorted out. What is known is that the graphs are produced from multiple pieces of data such as training slider positions, player characteristics, club facilities and probably a lot more. It is therefore impossible to ascertain precisely what they are displaying. As a result, I now don't use them at all. I prefer to track my player's progress through careful monitoring of their attribute progression (output) and relate this back to their training schedule (input). That's all that is required in my opinion and I think the graphs in their current state are pointless and misleading, the evidence for which is the much previously lauded Training Line Theory which has since died a death. I would definitely not advise using them as a measure of whether your training schedule is 'working' or not! 3. Perhaps an initial assessment for this is in my response to question 1 although it's difficult to quantify exactly. My personal opinion based on limited observation is that retraining to a new position can have a considerable effect on particular attributes. An example which springs to mind is the difference in physical attributes between AMCs and MCs. My guess is that re-training an AMC to MC would assist the development of his physical attributes over-and-above whatever is assigned in terms of Strength and Aerobic training focus. This will be true of other positionally key attributes and understanding them all will obviously aid your efforts to develop players in your desired manner.
  9. Yes the focus has so far been described using whole numbers for ease of use but also because the testing carried out has been with whole numbers so we can be confident in what they produce. Focus fractions are absolutely possible, but are only sensible so long as they correspond to a whole click in the relevent training category. However, schedules including Focus fractions have not been extensively tested as yet. Feel free to try yourself and share your findings.
  10. Another great write up. Is this not a much easier way of designing schedules and explaining them to others? I promise to post something similar for a few of my developing players once I have got through 6 months of the season and can show some results. Needless to say I follow exactly the same approach as you have described, boosting areas of weakness through added Focus. One further consideration is that you may want to retrain him as MR. I think, but I could be wrong, that PA is distributed differently according to position. For example, MR probably has a higher tendency for Strength category attribute improvements than AMR. It's maybe worth a try if you are not seeing the desired results.
  11. A very nice post indeed This is exactly the sort of detail I like to see. If you get a moment, could you add the details of your coaches.
  12. Here's what is considered for outfield players: STR (3) - Work Rate, Stamina, Strength AER (5) - Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace GK (0) TAC (5) - Anticipation, Decisions, Off The Ball, Positioning, Teamwork BAL (4) - Dribbling, First Touch, Heading, Technique DEF (3) - Marking, Tackling, Concentration ATT (2) - Passing, Creativity SHO (3) - Finishing, Long Shots, Composure SET (5) - Corners, Crossing, Free Kick Taking, Long Throws, Penalty Taking
  13. The GK baseline is a bit of a grey area but we're not far off each other. Here's what I have accounted for in the Tool however, please feel free to further question these assumptions: STR (3) - Work Rate, Stamina, Strength AER (6) - Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes GK (7) - Aerial Ability, Handling, Kicking, Throwing, One On Ones, Concentration, Composure TAC (6) - Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning, Command Of Area, Communication, Teamwork BAL (2) - First Touch, Technique DEF (0) ATT (1) - Creativity SHO (0) SET (0) Including Creativity is perhaps a bit controversial but as the ATT Focus for GKs is always zero in SFraser's schedules it never gets included.
×
×
  • Create New...