SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

[Cassian]

What if, I started to look for youngsters who already has good physical attributes? .. then what?. I mean if i input something like, stamina + strength > 16, natural fitness > 14 .... and get some players, how would you train these? ... what is missing until 20, it shouldn't be a problem in a 10 year horizon. If physical attributes wouldn't be a problem no more, would it be easier to train technically and/or mentally?

[Tom14]

No it would still be easier to train physical attributes to a young player than mental or technical.

[PrinceEgypt]

Stupid question coming up and i expect to get some abuse for this...(I have just spent hours reading this thread but can't find a solution to my question...so here goes...)

What exactly is 'focus' in relation to SFraser's theory?

i.e. unit x focus = slider position ...... I understand that there are a number of attributes in each training category.... but how do you determine what the 'focus' is in order to get the assumed correct slider position.

Please any help would really be appreciated.

[Jenko_EFC]

Stupid question coming up and i expect to get some abuse for this...(I have just spent hours reading this thread but can't find a solution to my question...so here goes...)

What exactly is 'focus' in relation to SFraser's theory?

i.e. unit x focus = slider position ...... I understand that there are a number of attributes in each training category.... but how do you determine what the 'focus' is in order to get the assumed correct slider position.

I know this may have been covered but i have looked but cant seem to find the answer.

Focus, as far as I'm aware, is say for eg; I have a young player who I wanted to improve his aerobics, I would pick his focus say 4/5 (5 is the limit as 5x5=25 which is the maximum number of notches in training) and x by how many trainable attributes there are so 5x5=25 and I'd do 25 notches on the slider or 4x5=20 etc.

[PrinceEgypt]

Focus, as far as I'm aware, is say for eg; I have a young player who I wanted to improve his aerobics, I would pick his focus say 4/5 (5 is the limit as 5x5=25 which is the maximum number of notches in training) and x by how many trainable attributes there are so 5x5=25 and I'd do 25 notches on the slider or 4x5=20 etc.

Hi thanks for that Jenko...It is a bit clearer now after that explanation.

[Jenko_EFC]

Hi thanks for that Jenko...It is a bit clearer now after that explanation.

Glad I can help, it took me ages to get my head around it (but that's cause I'm thick )

[PrinceEgypt]

Glad I can help, it took me ages to get my head around it (but that's cause I'm thick )

Actually just one more 'thick' question...

Why choose to pick his focus at 4 or 5? Why not 2 or 3? .....I understand you are 'picking the focus'....but what exactly IS the 'focus'?

Are you choosing 4 or 5 because you want the attribute to eventually increase up by 4 or 5 ...i.e. Heading attribute on his profile from 10 --> 14 or 15

Damn, maybe i didnt understand after your reply to my question after all! lol. Sorry man

[Jenko_EFC]

Actually just one more 'thick' question...

Why choose to pick his focus at 4 or 5? Why not 2 or 3? .....I understand you are 'picking the focus'....but what exactly IS the 'focus'?

Damn, maybe i didnt understand after your reply to my question after all! lol. Sorry man

Don't worry not that stupid a question, the focus is simply how much emphasis you want to put on one particular area and you times this by the number of attributes for the area. Sounds complicated but bear with me. A focus of 4 or 5 would, in theory, have more emphasis on aerobic than 2 or 3 as you are training it more in that area and therefore more time for the player to work on this aspect in training and therefore improve more. With me?

[PrinceEgypt]

Don't worry not that stupid a question, the focus is simply how much emphasis you want to put on one particular area and you times this by the number of attributes for the area. Sounds complicated but bear with me. A focus of 4 or 5 would, in theory, have more emphasis on aerobic than 2 or 3 as you are training it more in that area and therefore more time for the player to work on this aspect in training and therefore improve more. With me?

Absolutely, now.....i get it. Damn 2.30am and you still have your thinking cap on! ....haha..thanks man! Im off to bed now but will definitely be starting my new game with Bradford City in League Two tomorrow!

Thanks again bro. Peace out!

[SFraser]

Stupid question coming up and i expect to get some abuse for this...(I have just spent hours reading this thread but can't find a solution to my question...so here goes...)

What exactly is 'focus' in relation to SFraser's theory?

i.e. unit x focus = slider position ...... I understand that there are a number of attributes in each training category.... but how do you determine what the 'focus' is in order to get the assumed correct slider position.

Please any help would really be appreciated.

"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.

[Jenko_EFC]

Absolutely, now.....i get it. Damn 2.30am and you still have your thinking cap on! ....haha..thanks man! Im off to bed now but will definitely be starting my new game with Bradford City in League Two tomorrow!

Thanks again bro. Peace out!

Good luck, and I only just have my thinking cap on, I'm nodding off and hit the side of my bed which is metal and kind of wake myself up you know haha

[Ibrahimagic]

I really like the idea behind this, being that Attack training needn't be as high as Ball Control, as the later trains 4 attributes as opposed to the two that Attacking improves.

That said, this whole 'baseline x focus' thing is completely unnecessary. Yes it's true that training Ball Control at notch 12, and Attacking at notch 6 (a focus of 3 for both) should result in in dribbling, first touch, technique, heading, passing, and creativity improving with relative concordance. However the 'focus' is largely irrelevant as having ball control at notch 15 (giving it a focus of 3.75) is fine, as it will still increase the training level of those in the schedule, even if 15 isn't a multiple of 4, and at the end of the day, a player's attributes don't increase due to their being a notch giving for each attribute within a training category, they increase with respect to the training levels they achieve.

So to get a player's Attacking attributes (passing & creativity) to increase with concordance with the Ball Control attributes (heading, first touch, technique and dribbling), he only needs to attain half the training level for Attacking as he does Ball control. These training levels are effected by the coaching staff's abilities for what their assigned too. So at a team who has a very good coach doing Ball Control, but a rubbish one doing attacking, it may be that to achieve that ratio of 2:1 for BC and attacking training levels, it may require 14 notches of BC and 10 on attacking. So this business of 'baseline x focus' goes out the window.

Adhering to the 'baseline x focus' makes creating schedules very difficult as it allows little flexibility in terms of creating a balance of training among different categories while fitting it into a reasonable workload.

It can be used as a good framework to a schedule, as it can great a base which can then be slightly tweaked, by a notch or two, to ensure an ideal overall workload. I suggesting keeping in mind the ratings that coaching staff have for each category too, as generally good fitness coaches are more easily available than a good set-piece or defence coach, so Defence may need more intensity given to it to achieve a high training level than Strength.

I must say though the idea behind your schedules are very well thought, such as they high training of Aerobics in younger players, and high training of Strength and Tactics for older players. My personal way of creating schedules is very similar to yours, taking the 'baseline' into consideration, but not using it as a factor to which each category must by divisible by, and I like to make individual schedules for first teamers and promising youngsters to maximise the capacity for improvements at certain stages of their careers.

[DocSander]

So this business of 'baseline x focus' goes out the window.

Adhering to the 'baseline x focus' makes creating schedules very difficult as it allows little flexibility in terms of creating a balance of training among different categories while fitting it into a reasonable workload.

Adhering to the rule that focus should be an integer (1.0 ; 2.0 ; etc.) goes out of the window...

Well, in fact it does not as it was never within the windows (?)...

The term focus is very valuable as it allows for comparisons between two different training schedules. No one has stated that this focus should be an integer at all times.

In fact, just as you've stated above, focus is influenced by a player's age, a club's coaching staff, and most importantly a manager wanting to improve certain attributes more than other ones.

[PrinceEgypt]

I really like the idea behind this, being that Attack training needn't be as high as Ball Control, as the later trains 4 attributes as opposed to the two that Attacking improves.

That said, this whole 'baseline x focus' thing is completely unnecessary. Yes it's true that training Ball Control at notch 12, and Attacking at notch 6 (a focus of 3 for both) should result in in dribbling, first touch, technique, heading, passing, and creativity improving with relative concordance. However the 'focus' is largely irrelevant as having ball control at notch 15 (giving it a focus of 3.75) is fine, as it will still increase the training level of those in the schedule, even if 15 isn't a multiple of 4, and at the end of the day, a player's attributes don't increase due to their being a notch giving for each attribute within a training category, they increase with respect to the training levels they achieve.

So to get a player's Attacking attributes (passing & creativity) to increase with concordance with the Ball Control attributes (heading, first touch, technique and dribbling), he only needs to attain half the training level for Attacking as he does Ball control. These training levels are effected by the coaching staff's abilities for what their assigned too. So at a team who has a very good coach doing Ball Control, but a rubbish one doing attacking, it may be that to achieve that ratio of 2:1 for BC and attacking training levels, it may require 14 notches of BC and 10 on attacking. So this business of 'baseline x focus' goes out the window.

Adhering to the 'baseline x focus' makes creating schedules very difficult as it allows little flexibility in terms of creating a balance of training among different categories while fitting it into a reasonable workload.

It can be used as a good framework to a schedule, as it can great a base which can then be slightly tweaked, by a notch or two, to ensure an ideal overall workload. I suggesting keeping in mind the ratings that coaching staff have for each category too, as generally good fitness coaches are more easily available than a good set-piece or defence coach, so Defence may need more intensity given to it to achieve a high training level than Strength.

I must say though the idea behind your schedules are very well thought, such as they high training of Aerobics in younger players, and high training of Strength and Tactics for older players. My personal way of creating schedules is very similar to yours, taking the 'baseline' into consideration, but not using it as a factor to which each category must by divisible by, and I like to make individual schedules for first teamers and promising youngsters to maximise the capacity for improvements at certain stages of their careers.

Thanks so much for your help guys.

The other question i have though is....(as i have not seen this answered on this thread but lots of people have been asking)... with the injury schedules..When do you put these players on them? After their injury? During? ... and for how long?

I hope this will be my final question before im ready to go ahead with my first ever game on FM2010

[timmytiger69]

wow, nice thread SFraser. I was one Fm Pundit who never really ventured into the training side of management, but after seeing some outstanding results, I have decided to give it a go or "Be a Guinea Pig" as you say I will let you no how i go,

Cheers, Tim

P.s Be warned... this area is completely new to me. I have no idea what I'm getting myself into

[aderow]

Wow that's a lot of pages.....

I'm gonna try out this very detailed training schedule and if it goes especially well or especially poor, I let you know.

[CElliott]

Try out the spreadsheet (back on page 6 of this thread you'll find a link). It makes things a lot quicker when you start creating all the schedules for the first time. After a while you'll remember how many 'notches' you need per category.

Is that spreadsheet link in the OP for this thread too? If not, it should be.

[SFraser]

P.s Be warned... this area is completely new to me. I have no idea what I'm getting myself into

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

[outtasync]

This might be a stupid question, but I want to know how was it derived that 1 attribute in a category = 1 notch of training? Is this based on the actual coding of the training module itself?

Because if I hadn't known this to be true, then I and everyone else who has not seen this thread would have been doing it wrong all along, and does this invalidate the popular schedules that we have been using i.e tugs training or darkstar?

[khudilo]

This might be a stupid question, but I want to know how was it derived that 1 attribute in a category = 1 notch of training? Is this based on the actual coding of the training module itself?

Because if I hadn't known this to be true, then I and everyone else who has not seen this thread would have been doing it wrong all along, and does this invalidate the popular schedules that we have been using i.e tugs training or darkstar?

Its Sfrasers Take On Training .People Have Had Improvements With clicks theory also.

[MisterX]

For those who would benefit from a helping hand in constructing training schedules based on SFraser's principles in this thread then here is an offering from DocSander and I:

http://www.filefront.com/15975135/ProZone%20%26%20DocSander%27s%20Training%20Schedule%20Design%20Tool%20-%20v.SFraser.xlsx

This basic MS Excel Tool will allow you to check that the schedules you have modified from SFraser's original set are correct and, more importantly, start to create your own.

The Tool takes the Baseline and multiplies it by the Focus given to each category to output the slider positions.

The only points to explain are:

- Users only need to edit the blue boxes, nothing else.

- If you choose to select both SFraser's Focus and the User Defined Focus then these Focus values will be added together

- Please use whole numbers for the User Defined Focus for now

- SFraser's WF schedule is AMR/L in the Tool

- SFraser's FB schedule is DR/L in the Tool

- SFraser's AM schedule is AMC in the Tool

- The SW, WBR/L, DM and MR/L Focus values are missing (a good place to start your own testing)

DocSander and I will support this Tool as best we can here in this thread if there are any further questions.

Please, please, please make sure you give feedback on your training schedules here so that it can be used in the continuing development of training schedules and further the understanding of training players in FM.

This is only for fulltime/youth? Or does it also work for parttime/amateur?

[CElliott]

Only fulltime & youth for the moment, but you can use it as a guideline for Part Time players.

Roughly speaking use half the amount of focus points for each category then tweek it a bit (usually down) so that 1) the proportions of training effort are similar to that of the Full Time schedule and 2) the player is training at a level he is comfortable with. It's only a guideline remember, you will need to adjust it to for the allowable hours and player needs, but it's a good place to start. For example a FT Developing CB schedule might require 5 focus on Strength training (or 15 notches on the slider) you should scale this down to about 2.5 focus (about 7 notches) and then after you have done the same for the other training categories look at how heavy the workload is, you may need to reduce some a little more, or up them a bit depending on the player.

In lower league / Semi Pro teams quite often some players will really struggle with Heavy training schedules (at least that's my experience) so I drop them down to the upper part of Medium intensity. When I say 'struggle' I mean they take too long to get back to match fitness, their morale suffers and they frequently get injured. Players with higher Determination, Natural Fitness, Work Rate and Ambition seem to be ok with heavier schedules.

I've found this to be technique useful even with very lowly Semi Pro teams.

[ReeNah]

So is the OP have the latest training schemes?

Honestly my guys have been on the regime for a year now but they don't seem to be improving all that much...

I put nearly everyone on the 1st team scheldule because I think the other ones are too high...

[SFraser]

So is the OP have the latest training schemes?

Honestly my guys have been on the regime for a year now but they don't seem to be improving all that much...

I put nearly everyone on the 1st team scheldule because I think the other ones are too high...

Kind of defeats the point considering the 1st Team Schedules are really all about maintaining attributes and improving condition.

[Jenko_EFC]

Always loved these schedules and love the tool but wanted to try something different, correct me if I'm wrong, okay so if training just spreads out CA among the players who are gaining it and allows you to have an educated guess at where attributes are going down then you should be fine with very heavy workloads as long as you're having success on the field and have a good backroom team like SFraser goes into detail about on one of his old threads so they can raise morale and decent teamtalks and press confrences you should be fine right? In this case how about if I took over say Ajax a team with incredible youth and training systems I'd imagine, if I set all youths on a focus of 1-2 and say possibly aerobic to 25 (5x5=25) would in say 2 years have a team full of speedy young youths who may lack any real ball skills but would be a real pain in the backside for defenders coming on late in the game? Or would it lead to injuries, poor morale if workload was on heavy or even very heavy as they're not getting many games to gain CA and are just working hard on their pace, accel etc?

[fm_freak]

I need some advices for my players:

Puyol- to stay in form for a year or two

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=5CarlesPuyol.png

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=5CarlesPuyol-2.png

Xavi too

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=6Xavi-2.png

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=6Xavi.png

i some good training for my regen player (3stars)

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=21Roberto-2.png

http://s576.photobucket.com/albums/ss202/barca-1899/FM2010/?action=view&current=21Roberto.png

[MisterX]

Only fulltime & youth for the moment, but you can use it as a guideline for Part Time players.

Roughly speaking use half the amount of focus points for each category then tweek it a bit (usually down) so that 1) the proportions of training effort are similar to that of the Full Time schedule and 2) the player is training at a level he is comfortable with. It's only a guideline remember, you will need to adjust it to for the allowable hours and player needs, but it's a good place to start. For example a FT Developing CB schedule might require 5 focus on Strength training (or 15 notches on the slider) you should scale this down to about 2.5 focus (about 7 notches) and then after you have done the same for the other training categories look at how heavy the workload is, you may need to reduce some a little more, or up them a bit depending on the player.

In lower league / Semi Pro teams quite often some players will really struggle with Heavy training schedules (at least that's my experience) so I drop them down to the upper part of Medium intensity. When I say 'struggle' I mean they take too long to get back to match fitness, their morale suffers and they frequently get injured. Players with higher Determination, Natural Fitness, Work Rate and Ambition seem to be ok with heavier schedules.

I've found this to be technique useful even with very lowly Semi Pro teams.

Thanks

And what do you prefer for amateur training schedules?

[CElliott]

Thanks

And what do you prefer for amateur training schedules?

I've never managed an Amateur team to be honest (I often pinch players from them though ) - but I think they are also considered as Part Time players? I'd treat them the same as PT players (unless they are actually on FT contracts??? how would they afford to eat??)

You'll be able to tell when you try to assign a player to an existing scedule it will say (part-time) or not as the case may be.

[ReeNah]

Oh I see SFraser I see I see...

I think there were too many injuries in developing...

Ok... I have question. I have Lukaku who is 19/20 this year and he plays in my fulltime squad. Plays most matches and I rely on him alot. He is young so I want his stats to improve but I don't want to work him over so he gets injured... Which one do I put him on?

[SFraser]

Oh I see SFraser I see I see...

I think there were too many injuries in developing...

Ok... I have question. I have Lukaku who is 19/20 this year and he plays in my fulltime squad. Plays most matches and I rely on him alot. He is young so I want his stats to improve but I don't want to work him over so he gets injured... Which one do I put him on?

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:

As for injuries and injury "trends", the first issue is that if injuries have been "beefed up" for 10.3 it is because the general trend in the entire gameworld is towards low average rates of injuries, meaning that the AI and AI run clubs are not generating the desired "average" rates of injuries. These details will not be tweaked purely for the human user, or to punish the human user, but because the game is not producing the desired realistic levels taken across the board. Human managers that can deal with injuries, minimise injury risks, and have good strong squads with players that are not susceptible to injuries will see a slight increase, while those human managers alread being punished through injury susceptible squads, tactics and performance demands that increase injury risks and so on will find their particular experience much more demanding. Perhaps even exponentially so if their management techniques are multiplying injury risks.

You need to look at these issues from a fair viewpoint to begin with, and not get lured into thinking that your game experience is an absolute for all users. You have to look at the general injury risk for the whole game you are playing to reasonably determine whether injury risk is actually excessive, and it has been shown that in general the average injury risk for the gameworld is about on par with real life injury rates. That tells you about the average, the general trend in the gameworld, it does not tell you specifics about your own injury risks at your own club for your own players. If the general rates of injury in the entire gameworld are about on par with real life, then the general injury risk in FM is pretty much spot on. Thus there is no glaring, massive, obvious, huge gameplay bug sitting in FM destroying the squads of all teams.

For actual human user specific injury experiences and solutions, there is a lot you can take from looking at injuries and injury trends, and a lot you can discover to counter-act your injury problems by looking for relationships in your injury lists, player types and tactical demands of players. The first place to start is looking through the injury history of your players for obvious trends, trends for a specific player and trends between players or variations between apparently similar players. The next place to look at is the ME representation itself, look at what is going on when these injuries occur, look at the kind of events happening or the possible attributes involved or try to understand the conditions that might be producing "inexplicable" injuries. By doing this you can get a very good picture of A: how injuries work and B: how SI might be trying to simulate the occurance of different types of injuries and injury causing factors.

I'll give you a hypothetical example based on my own experiences with injuries, and on the conclusions I arrived at based on my own injury lists and events happening in the ME.

Example:

You have a problem at Leftback with players playing there getting regularly injured, and you have two strikers that also seem to be getting injured.

The Leftback problem is almost constant Hamstring problems, occuring in multiple players.

One Striker is Michael Owen who misses about 2-3 months of a season with large numbers of small knocks and bumps.

One Striker is Wayne Rooney who seems immune to minor ailments but misses 2-3 months of a season with a serious ligament damage problem.

Watching these events in the ME you see the following events occurring: Michael Owen is attempting to challenge for headers almost every time he receives one of these injuries. The opponent wins the header, the two players come into contact, and Michael Owen gets hurt. Wayne Rooney constantly goes for headers and never gets injured, however his serious injury came from him running past a defender into the box, and as he ran onto the ball he got hit by a hard tackle from an angle. This badly damaged his ankle. The Leftback problem almost invariably comes about because I play my Left Winger tucked infield, and my Leftback sprints up the wing at some point during a match, and with absolutely no contact from any player, rips his hamstring.

There is one other trend here. Apart from Michael Owen, all of these other types of injuries become more likely in late stages of the match as condition drops.

With Michael Owen, my Assistant informs me that he is "susceptible to injuries" i.e. injury prone. Infact every player I have that has this problem seems to suffer similar injuries and be at a high risk of these minor injuries from any kind of physical contact. We can pretty safely assume that any kind of contact between players carries a risk of an injury, and players that are more injury prone are more likely to get injured. My Centreback Vidic is aggressive and strong and plays as a stopper and gets right involved with opponents, although he is not injury prone, he does suffer occassionally from these "contact injuries" purely because of the high rate of contact he is involved in. Is this a fact? No, but it could very well be accurate and it seems completely logical. Contact with players = injury risk, risk increased from each contact by being injury prone.

Wayne Rooney is as strong as an ox, and rarely suffers from injury from these minor contact collisions. However he does have low Anticipation, he was playing at a high Tempo, he was being asked to dribble the ball and sprint, and he did not see the incoming crunching tackle. Although my assistant says "Rooney should rarely suffer from injury", Wayne Rooney does regularly suffer from injuries, these very bad ones and not the minor ones. It is fair to assume then that players asked to carry out Physically/Technically demanding moves and are hit by tackles they do not anticipate and avoid are at extreme risk of serious injury. I.e. the unfortunate real life example of Arsenals youngsters. Inexperienced players running after the ball and being hit by brutal tackles they did not anticipate resulted in two very serious and almost identical injuries. Again this is not a fact, but as the actual event trends ingame seem to reinforce this assumption, and the assumption fits real life, it is safe to consider it as a real possibility for injury simulation.

My Leftbacks also seem to suffer from similar injuries to Rooney, but without anyone tackling them. Infact I get alot of injuries like this from intense physical exertion without any opponents being near my players. What's going on here? Well it would be completely logical and importantly realistic to assume that pitches themselves come with a small injury risk factor, that increases with poor pitch condition and poor weather conditions. This would simulate horror injuries like sprinting and getting your studs caught in grass, or hitting a divot at speed and seriously damaging your ankle etc.

All of these risks are increased by poor condition.

So by going through my own game injury trends, own game player information, and looking at what is happening in the ME. Then using my knowledge of real life football, real life injuries, and applying some lateral thinking as to how SI might be simulating injuries, I now play by the following four assumptions. Logical assumptions that seem to me to be highly realistic, but not proven facts.

1: Player condition increases all injury risk.

2: All contact between players carries a risk of minor injuries, the risk increased by higher susceptibility to injuries.

3: Physically/Technically demanding actions/moves by all players irrespective of injury susceptibility carries a high risk of serious injury if the player is hit by a tackle they did not anticipate.

4: Pitches themselves come with a small but ever present injury risk that is increased by poor pitch/weather conditions. Players carrying out Physically/Technically demanding actions and events are always at a risk of injury even with no opponents nearby.

All of these assumptions seem highly representative of real life injuries. Using this information, these assumptions based on game data and real life knowledge I can now employ multiple different types of specific targetted player behaviour strategies to minimise the on-pitch risk of multiple types of injuries from the minor to the serious, from contact to non-contact. I could be wrong, but the more I play and employ these strategies, the more I test my assumptions, and the better my understanding becomes.

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.

[MisterX]

I have a question. What if een young player always plays in de first team? Because his age, I guess developing is the best schedules, because the name of the schedules, I guess 1st choice is the best schedueles. I don't know which schedules I must choice.

[Sergey S.]

I have a question. What if een young player always plays in de first team? Because his age, I guess developing is the best schedules, because the name of the schedules, I guess 1st choice is the best schedueles. I don't know which schedules I must choice.

Developing.

1st choice is for people between 22-31 or so.

[damo666]

I have a question. What if een young player always plays in de first team? Because his age, I guess developing is the best schedules, because the name of the schedules, I guess 1st choice is the best schedueles. I don't know which schedules I must choice.

The way I've set it up is,

1st choice = players who will play in the first team squad barring injures 24-29.

Developing = players who will step up to play in a couple of years 19-23.

[Jenko_EFC]

When I used SFraser's schedules and downloaded them I took no notice of 'developing' or '1st team' I looked at my players' stats and if say a first team striker had poor finishing or defender poor tackling or basic defensive attributes I'd put them on developing as they may only gain a few point CA gain but that would go into areas which were needed for a defender as 1st team is mainly for condition and keeping them fresh..

[ReeNah]

I feel kinda bad for asking... Thanks for the great response SFaser I think I kinda get what you mean...

Cheers

[MisterX]

The way I've set it up is,

1st choice = players who will play in the first team squad barring injures 24-29.

Developing = players who will step up to play in a couple of years 19-23.

Thank you

[Coentrao]

Sorry for going way off-topic but i was wondering if someone found a skin/modification that allows numbers on the training sliders since this would be quite helpful, looked on the skinning forum but couldn't find any.

Been using these schedules for a while and they are awesome, what's even better is that with the baseline that Sfraser gave us you can really shape your players to the way you want them to be, awesome work!

[MisterX]

Another question: Why does players found there schedules too heavy?

[CElliott]

Another question: Why does players found there schedules too heavy?

It could be they aren't very determined players, not very ambitious or low Work Rate etc. I'm not sure what all the factors are that influence this level of training but if you leave them on a schedule that is too hard for them for too long it can effect their morale and the rate at which they recover their fitness between matches. In some cases it may not matter too much, but you'll have to experiment. I usually put players like this on an individual schedule and reduce the workload for them if they are first team players. For youth or reserve players, try to have them tutored to up their determination, ambition etc - they should be happy working harder then.

[Stefaan]

SFraser,

In one of your first posts you said something about gaining level in attributes, but not enough to be visible. Is that what happens when my assistant gives me a monthly update in who's training wel and who isn't? Because mostly they didn't improve at all in the area of training my assistent suggests. So I've always thought those reports where absolute rubbish..

I like your theory by the way, but my principles won't allow me to download shedules, so I've made my own based on your theory and they turn out to be great!

[MisterX]

It could be they aren't very determined players, not very ambitious or low Work Rate etc. I'm not sure what all the factors are that influence this level of training but if you leave them on a schedule that is too hard for them for too long it can effect their morale and the rate at which they recover their fitness between matches. In some cases it may not matter too much, but you'll have to experiment. I usually put players like this on an individual schedule and reduce the workload for them if they are first team players. For youth or reserve players, try to have them tutored to up their determination, ambition etc - they should be happy working harder then.

I have the problem with most of the players :confused:

[RLC]

The thoughts on training in this thread looks really interesting. I'm givining it a go now and I'll let you know if I find anything special about the results.

Of course, when it comes to youngsters, tutoring is essential, as mentioned many times before. I just had Gerrard tutor Adam Pepper at Liverpool and after 1 month his Determination went from 16 - 20. Amazing...

[DocSander]

Sorry for going way off-topic but i was wondering if someone found a skin/modification that allows numbers on the training sliders since this would be quite helpful, looked on the skinning forum but couldn't find any.

Been using these schedules for a while and they are awesome, what's even better is that with the baseline that Sfraser gave us you can really shape your players to the way you want them to be, awesome work!

There's one thread on this so far...

Unfortunately the skin guys haven't figured it out so far, seems really tricky to do...

[Spector]

Download Link

http://www.mediafire.com/?z2ftnmzazmm

Doesn't work

[DirtyACE]

Have a question about GK training. Is the tactical training responsible for training more categories for them or is it the same as with any outfield player? Also, same question pertaining to the physical training for GKs. Is it responsible for the same attributes as for the other players?

[mr. president]

any advice for the pre season training?

[SFraser]

Have a question about GK training. Is the tactical training responsible for training more categories for them or is it the same as with any outfield player? Also, same question pertaining to the physical training for GKs. Is it responsible for the same attributes as for the other players?

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.

I like your theory by the way, but my principles won't allow me to download shedules, so I've made my own based on your theory and they turn out to be great!

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.

[selman1]

great topic very useful

could someone enlighten me upon which attributes count towards each training section, im having a hard time finding them

thanks in advance, and also just to make sure im getting this, if a player has all 20's on a certain category, i still need to train on that category to prevent it from decreasing..

[Stefaan]

It's not that difficult, go to training in a players profile and choose "attributes". Mayby you can have a look in this topic too. It answers your other question.

[DirtyACE]

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.

Thanks for the detailed explanation SFraser. It really clears things up for me.

However, I do have a couple more questions:

1. This one I've been meaning to ask for a while. It's probably pretty simple, but I just haven't found an answer for it on this thread. The question is basically, at what focus must a training category be set in order to simply maintain the attributes linked with that category? For example if I have a player whose defensive stats (tackling, marking, concentration) are sufficient and I don't want them to improve any further, nor do I want them to drop any lower, would having the defense category set on focus of 1 be good enough to simply maintain that category?

2. If you have the focus set to 1 on one of the categories, and then have three other categories set on focus of 4. Will the categories with high focus begin draining the category with focus of 1 of CA points? This is kind of goes back to my first question on having the lowest possible focus which will simply main a category without increasing or loosing CA points.