Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
SFraser

SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

Recommended Posts

Yes, if you want to read more about this theory, just look for the thread moved from Mantralux thread which is called linear schedule discussion, most of (all) my posts where moved in this thread and I have tried to explain as best as I can the idea CentralTen has just summarized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

No I do understand I just didnt want to spend the writing that out to explain what I have done! lol... From what I have seen players they are most likely to increase in attributes that they dont necessarily need as a main function of their role ie a CB improving long shots. Surely thats because it would take less CA to improve the attribute because of the weighting in relation to the position. At least with the Sfraser style of approach im not wasting CA on long shots when I want his marking, tackling etc to improve. They wont improve in these areas as quickly (because they require more CA) but they are vital to his position.

You will also find that as the standards of coaches and hidden attributes improve all the areas of training improve at the same time, making the 'see what he is good at and change it' approach obselete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?)

No sir. The inventor is SI Games it self, it's own system which explain by the Marc Vaughan Hints and Tips Guide 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

So therefore do you simply think that you say I want A, B and C to improve in player X so il make them high and then think I dont need D &E so i will drop them down much lower? And then adjust from there depending on what you think needs improving etc. Obviously this is a rather general example!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No sir. The inventor is SI Games it self, it's own system which explain by the Marc Vaughan Hints and Tips Guide 2007

Sincere apologies Teutomatos for not giving you due credit if it was you. I genuinely couldn't remember who first described the linear approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So therefore do you simply think that you say I want A, B and C to improve in player X so il make them high and then think I dont need D &E so i will drop them down much lower? And then adjust from there depending on what you think needs improving etc. Obviously this is a rather general example!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not the guy who did this Prozone :), I read the document Teutomatos mentionned, he is a good friend of mine and introduce me to the idea, so now I heavily use and tweak a bit this way of training. As i saw Mantralux thread, I start the discussion about the linear theory. Sorry for off-topic.

I agree with you, the attributes graph is really usefull, I use it along training arrows to monitor closely how attributes evolves. Hopefully, there is an option since last patch to make it bigger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Linear theory, after several weeks of fannying about across many months of save games seems no better than the default SI schedules, and frankly just creates lots of average joes with average skills. There are exceptions to the rule, but they are exactly that.

Having made wide use of SF's schedules for FM10, I'm now sticking to a similar principle with better results, but tweaked for individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is there not any Def mid schedule? Should I put my DM on a MC schedule or a DC?

It depends on what kind of DM is your player. If Makelele type, put him on DC schedule, if Pirlo type then MC schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering about DM's and the like myself. I am using Rodwell as a ball-winning midifelder and Fellaini as a anchorman. I am using old schedules for both these players as there just isn't enough varierty in these schedules. The same goes for strikers. I use a combination of poacher, advanced forward, trequartista and complete forward yet only one of these players has a schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys

Excellent thread with some great advice, i have a few problems.

1) i dwnloaded the mediafire link, and got a schedules_1.tsh file, put it in my ...users\FM11\schedules directory, I can see the file in inport shcedules but FM11 is saying cant import file, any ideas on what im doing wrong? Do I have to convert the .tsh file or should it import?.

Im playing a lower league side AFC Telford so my training facilities are only adequate. I have found enough coaches with the right mix of coaching abilities to get 4 stars for coaching in almost all areas.

Can I expect to see any improvement in attributes or does the quality of the training facility's penalise me too much, I cant afford the number and quality of coaches if they arent going to give results.

I understand to get easy attribute improvements I need players with spare PA that is their CA is lower than their PA so I am buying released youth players who my scouts (all with JPP at least 14)say are potential NPL-1 players or above but not currently at this level. When they arrive in the team their team report almost always says playing near maximum potential.

So

Are my scouts constantly getting it wrong?

Is the fact my Ass Mgr only has JPP 11 affecting it, he writes the report maybe but cant see what the scouts did?

Is it that PA flexes with age so the fact they are 17 or 18 is affecting the report. They cant improve this year because they have already reached max PA for them at 17 but at 18 they get more room to improve?

Am i missing something which tells me if they have trainable PA or that the gap is purely CA they can gan as they havent played many first team games. If this is the case training can only shape where they get gains not give overall improvement to stats.

A few questions from a confused manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not breaking any rules bringing back such old thread back to live, but there's some people that play FM2010 (meaning that I still play FM2010) and I'm wondering whether there's ever been any definite word on sfraser's theory? Also curious about whether what was said in this post was true and whether it applies to FM2010, as asked by several other posters, but never answered.

The thing is that I've been doing some testing with the holiday mode, making sure all training categories had as many stars, creating a identical young players with equalized attributes, putting them on different schedules designed to have all attributes increase equally. I created a balanced schedule based on sfrazer's theory (3-5-0-5-4-3-2-3-5), creating position schedules based on attribute weighting and creating position schedules combining sfrazer's theory with attribute weighting. Again, the goal with each of those being equal attribute increase across the board. I've been finding that there was very little to separate all the various schedules with eachother and the default schedule. I even got to wonder whether players weren't secretly taken off their schedules during holiday mode and CA points were just allocated to attributes randomly, but another round of tests indicated that wasn't the case. It seems custom schedules are almost pointless unless perhaps you focus on a specific category for many years.

I suppose it's possible I've been doing my tests the wrong way, which is why I'm wondering whether there ever was has been a consensus on sfraser's theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His theory was wrong and held no substance unfortunately as that wasn't how training worked at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that SFraser's schedules worked wonderfully in FM2010. Now I play FM2011 and still using his theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll believe Cleon, because if sfraser is right, that means it's impossible to train, say, the tactics attributes as hard as attacking attributes and the default schedule is massively flawed. I don't think SI would make such a silly oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll believe Cleon, because if sfraser is right, that means it's impossible to train, say, the tactics attributes as hard as attacking attributes and the default schedule is massively flawed. I don't think SI would make such a silly oversight.

The search function is terrible but in one of his older posts he mentions it himself how his assumptions were wrong after getting confirmation from SI. However he still trained his players using this method as it was working for him and was part of his strategy of running a football club rather than playing as a club if that makes any sense :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...