Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
SFraser

SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

Recommended Posts

What would you advise doing with a 26-30 year old who only plays backup for the first team, and doesnt play many games in a season. Doesnt seem to fit any of the categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the positive response.

It is especially pleasing to see people happy with the pattern of gains rather than just seeing plenty of green arrows in useless or irrelevant attributes. Improving players does not just mean gaining CA, it also means putting gained CA or existing CA into the right attributes for your players.

In the next few weeks I plan to go through the entire set of Schedules and retweak them all for better results based on what I have learned from this thread so far, perhaps even rebuild an entireally new set of Schedules from scratch.

I would appreciate any feedback people could offer me on designing these new schedules. What particular types of schedules you would like to see, do you want Pre-Season schedules for Intensive Physical and reduced Physical Training throughout the season, do you have any particular set of Positions you wish to see included, or do you have any particular schedules of your own that you have developed and would like to see included?

I cannot promise that these updated schedules will be better, but they will atleast give me an opportunity to measure my ideas for redevelopment and improvement. Hopefully they will surpass what has already been produced but if they do not then it will good learning process.

So if you have any suggestions, ideas, or feedback you wish to raise and discuss, then by all means please do so. I would appreciate the involvement of the community in designing them, and we could perhaps design several different packages of entire schedules for different types of clubs and different styles of football and management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had way to many injuries during the start of the season but my facilities are not the best, I only have good facilities but they are being upgraded. My coaches are all from 4,5 to 5 stars.

While I am a bit disappointed about the injuries I won't give up yet I'll keep trying.

What about a 20 year old player with much potential who is a first choice in my team?

Where should I place him? I think Developing is way to intense for a starting player, will he progress with 1st choice?

p.s please try to lower the intense of the training in your next update in order this schedule to be usable for teams withn not world-class facilities!

Thanks, keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all for the positive response.

What particular types of schedules you would like to see, do you want Pre-Season schedules for Intensive Physical and reduced Physical Training throughout the season, do you have any particular set of Positions you wish to see included, or do you have any particular schedules of your own that you have developed and would like to see included?

That injuries are an issue seems to be a universal observation.

I'd like to see separate schedules for defensive-biased and attack-biased midfielders.

There's a category of players who are over 20 but not first team regulars - you could clarify which group they belong to or create a slightly different set of schedules for them.

About pre-season training; from all your experiments, what do you think? Are pre-season schedules beneficial, or do you think it makes no difference?

I wish I had more time to play - I'm dying to see these schedules through a season but alas it's not possible right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The injury routines are kind of "added-on-extras" that have not been fully developed, but there is a point to them.

Short Term Injury is for players that get knocks or bumps and bruises and is intended to recover condition quickly when a player returns to Light Training without distriburing much of his current attribute shape. Players should be on it untill they recover a high level of condition.

Long Term Injury is for players that have been out long enough to have 0 match practice. Because their match practice is so low they will lose CA. This CA will often come out of Physical Attributes and those attributes are hard to improve, impossible to improve if the player is at a certain age. This Schedule is designed to hugely bias physical attributes in Training to make sure the CA loss is primarilly coming for other attributes that can be recovered. Players should be on this schedule after a long period out untill they recover a high level of Match Experience, and so gain CA or at least no longer lose CA.

I've been wondering about this for a while, and I still have a few questions:

• If you keep a player on his regular training schedule while he's injured, could that do much harm?

• Let's say one of my regular players gets injured for 2-3 weeks. I always put him on "long term injury" during that time, and then back on his normal schedule when my physio says he's back in training. But you are suggesting he should stay on the injury schedule for some more time, right?

He should still be quite fit if he plays on a regular basis, so that's why I put him back on his normal schedule so soon. Is that wrong you mean?

Cheers for excellent Q&A btw!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive found that when a player is dead tired/ very low condition after match or just recovering .. hes at big risk to pick up injury with heavy shedule ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of pointers for you SFraser. Now in my second season of using these schedules and whilst the physical changes are very, very impressive, I find that base skill improvement, such as passing, esp for CB's appears minimal. Even at a basic level, the game is about passing the ball, so every player needs improvement in this area, so perhaps review the levels for passing required for the defenders.

Additionally, having gone through the developing programmes, can one assume that the fact that the developing CF schedule is set to an absurdly high "Heavy" level with almost full on aerobic trg is an error? Was losing young forwards hand over fist till I looked at the schedule.

Set-piece trg covers a multitude of skills, free-kicks, throw ins etc. Some of the schedules, in their existing form lack set-piece trg for certain positions in which the trg of a specific skill is required. As I've pointed out before, no set-piece trg for CMs, despite the fact that many CM's are free-kick specialists.

The schedules are really good, though the CM schedule appears more defensive than creative, whilst the AMC routines you have previously said yourself are probably not designed for a pure AMC. I have tinkered around with the base schedules and made alterations in those areas, (reductions and inreases based around the base theory you postulate on the number of areas within each category) but I'll have to let it run to see whether I notive a massive difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the feedback. I will try to respond to the points made by Phnompenhandy and Old Git first.

That injuries are an issue seems to be a universal observation.

It does seem that way. I have very few in my own save but that doesn't mean the schedules are not a huge contributing factor for other managers.

I believe I have miscounted certain Attributes in both Strength and Aerobic Training Categories. This means that in my next set of Schedules I could knock down every Aerobic and Strength slider by 3 to 4 points atleast while maintaining the same or similar balance, which would be a huge improvement to the overall Intensity of Physical Training.

It also helps to explain the additional bias towards physical improvement that people seem to be reporting. While I have favoured a bias towards Aerobic in youngsters and Strength in older players as a matter of personal opinion on longterm development trends, I do think they are producing excess results. A miscount of one attribute in Strength for example would mean every 3 "group" improvements would produce an additional and undesired "group" improvement. For Aerobic it would slightly higher, with every four or five producing an additional group improvement. Again this explains the additional improvement in Strength Attributes compared to Aerobic.

Taken altogether, each schedule is likely to have it's Strength and Aerobic Categories unbalanced according to the desired balance. There is likely to be atleast one and possibly two additional "group improvements" compared to the desired balance for the Physical Attributes. The positive here is that each schedule does not have to reworked from the ground up in terms of basic idea in order to achieve better end results and low injuries, they simply have to be tweaked to a more accurate balance.

Trial and error, testing and feedback, and discussion of these points are all highly useful in recognising the basic issues and the extent of the consequences. This thread has done in weeks what would have taken me individually months to spot.

I'd like to see separate schedules for defensive-biased and attack-biased midfielders.

I concur. I also have a much greater understanding of the basic Positional Attribute Weights for players, i.e. what Positions the game works by and what those relative attribute weights are like. My next set of Schedules should more closely relate to actual positions used by the game.

There's a category of players who are over 20 but not first team regulars - you could clarify which group they belong to or create a slightly different set of schedules for them.

I think there is a "niche" for a fourth type of Positional relative schedule. Rather than Developing, First Choice and Veteran, I could build Developing, Rotation, First Choice, Veteran, or even go for Positional Physical, Mental, Technical, General development.

Or perhaps a combination of those ideas such as Developing, Physical, Mental, Technical, General, Veteran.

This is where others could help me out by suggesting the kinds of Schedules they wish to see, or even assisting me to build them if I give out the basic Position template I will be working from and what biases I would prefer to see per Schedule Type.

About pre-season training; from all your experiments, what do you think? Are pre-season schedules beneficial, or do you think it makes no difference?

It would be benificial in the sense that it would remove Intensive Physical Training with the risk of injuries from mid-season Training and place it firmly outside of the Season proper. The downside would be the relative lack of time a player would get to spend on the schedule, combined to the invariable lack of Match Experience, combined also to the already high risk of Injury that comes from poor Condition during the off-season.

The other benefit ofcourse is that with a Physical Intensive Pre-Season schedule, the drop in CA that comes from low Match Experience would be off-set by the high Intensity Physical Training a player is doing, so the end result might be more of a negation of Physical Attribute drop rather than any Physical Attribute gain.

Worth looking into. The more I think about Pre-Season schedules the more I can see possible benefits from having them.

Couple of pointers for you SFraser. Now in my second season of using these schedules and whilst the physical changes are very, very impressive, I find that base skill improvement, such as passing, esp for CB's appears minimal. Even at a basic level, the game is about passing the ball, so every player needs improvement in this area, so perhaps review the levels for passing required for the defenders.

Additionally, having gone through the developing programmes, can one assume that the fact that the developing CF schedule is set to an absurdly high "Heavy" level with almost full on aerobic trg is an error? Was losing young forwards hand over fist till I looked at the schedule.

There are essentially two issues at work here. The first is a Practical issue and the Second is more of a theoretical issue.

1st) As I said above I have made errors in counting the number of attributes in each Physical Category that actually receives CA. This means I over-estimated the Intensity required to achieve a certain result, and therefore over-estimated the results that are being achieved. The other aspect of the practical issue is that I cannot design schedules that are going to be perfect for all players. I can only design schedules that have a certain "shape" in mind as an output and let the user judge whether he wishes to apply that "mould" to his players.

2nd) The theoretical issue is twofold. First is that fact that Physical Attributes become increasingly resistant to improvement and are the first to start to decline, while Mental Attributes are increasingly easy to improve but are the hardest to improve to start with. Second comes the fact that the exact rate and timing of these changes is unknown to me. I know that players experience a Physical "growth spurt" in their youth, followed by a period of slow mental maturity, followed by a period of physical decline and rapid mental growth, followed by a final period of complete decline in all attributes. I do not know precisely when these things occur, nor at the precise rates at which they change.

Therefore I develop Schedules for Youngsters that largely bias Physical Attributes knowing that excessive Physical Growth can be reduced or halted and ultimately swapped for Mental Attributes while the converse is not possible. Between the Ages of 25 to 30 you can increasingly easilly swap Physical Attributes for Mental Attributes, while swapping Mental Attributes for Physical Attributes becomes increasingly harder and eventually impossible.

For older Players I take note of the fact that Stamina is an integral Attribute in recovery and maintainance of Condition, that Condition determines how regularly and for how long a player can play, and that how regularly and how long a player plays for determines whether his CA improves, maintains, or declines. Thus in older players, a low level of Stamina will produce an inability to achieve enough Match Experience to maintain CA levels, which will result first and foremost in an increased decline in Physical Attributes. Thus my Veteran schedules are designed primarilly to fight against Stamina decline as much as I think is possible without running the risk of injury or excessive unbalancing of the general player.

So while you are observing dramatic increases in Physical Attributes, remember two things. 1; the Categories have been miscounted slightly, and 2; you will not see this continue at the same rate and it will eventually halt and then reverse course with age.

It is my opinion to overcompensate for Physical Attributes in youngsters as that can be fixed, while undercompensation cannot be.

Additionally, having gone through the developing programmes, can one assume that the fact that the developing CF schedule is set to an absurdly high "Heavy" level with almost full on aerobic trg is an error? Was losing young forwards hand over fist till I looked at the schedule.

This would be an example of where the Schedules were designed for my players, namely Rooney and Macheda, and my personal usage of the Centreforward role as a role that can perform the triple functions of Winger, Playmaker and Striker. I happen to play against the type of defences that require the ability to cope with all kinds of Physical demands, and I play a formation that requires individuals to be capable of adapting to and performing in all types and styles of forward play.

My young Centreforwards require a crash course in the physical aspects of football as a matter of course.

Set-piece trg covers a multitude of skills, free-kicks, throw ins etc. Some of the schedules, in their existing form lack set-piece trg for certain positions in which the trg of a specific skill is required. As I've pointed out before, no set-piece trg for CMs, despite the fact that many CM's are free-kick specialists.

That is where I must make a judgement based on averages or playing the numbers game. Some CM's might be Free Kick specialists, but in general they do not require training in throw-ins, penalties, corners, crossing, and few will require Free Kick Training.

A set piece specialist CM might be better off Training in the Fullback or Winger schedules. The CM schedule for me was designed solely on the basis of command and excellence in the middle of the pitch.

This is one of the reasons I am so keen to explain the thinking behind my schedules and explain to others how to develop them along the same line of thought for their own players. If I had your particular savegame then I could design schedules fitting your particular players, but I cannot do this for everyone.

The schedules are really good, though the CM schedule appears more defensive than creative, whilst the AMC routines you have previously said yourself are probably not designed for a pure AMC. I have tinkered around with the base schedules and made alterations in those areas, (reductions and inreases based around the base theory you postulate on the number of areas within each category) but I'll have to let it run to see whether I notive a massive difference.

Thank you for the feedback. It is really good to know that despite the errors and flaws and mistakes that I am aware of in the schedules, that they are still producing results that are positive and on the right track for the most part.

I cannot design schedules that everyone agrees with in terms of ratio and balance, and I have also made a few fundamental errors in counting attributes and planning "mould" shapes. Likewise I have failed to account for inferior Training Facilities and the unique demands of particular Training setups and seasonal demands on players in other clubs.

Despite this the signs exist that the basic foundation of these schedules is sound, and can be improved to either produce excellent schedules, or can be explained to others so that they can produce as close the ideal schedules as is currently possible with known and publicly available data.

I especially appreciate you taking the time to alter the basic schedules according to your own needs and according to the basic rules I have set out. This above all else will tell me whether I am on the right track, and at the same time provide you with the best possible schedules.

I would appreciate any and all feedback you have on your endeavours designing your own schedules based upon my rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi. I used your schedules for half a season, and while the results are there, the injuries are there as well : ) those back strains hurt the most, I continually get 3-4 week injuries with those. most of the time the injuries are 4-5 days ones though. when the same 22 year old player got 2 injuries back to back, I decided to stop using your work :/

oh and my fitness coaches are 4.5 star ones, and the rest are 5-starred. my training facilities are `one of the best in the world`. so I really don't think its my staff or the facilities.

also, as others pointed out, you might want to give some more set piece training to AMC's? my 20 corners 20 freekicks player went down to 19-19 which was a bad surprise :p

anyway, I'm going to continue to follow your updates and try the next version maybe? oh sorry about not fully reporting the injuries. I'm too lazy ;p great work though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, as others pointed out, you might want to give some more set piece training to AMC's? my 20 corners 20 freekicks player went down to 19-19 which was a bad surprise :p

That means you're wasting attributes for the rest of your AMCs, much better to stick him on his own individual schedule which adds focus to set pieces.

My current schedules are one for each position (DRL, DC etc.), plus one for each player who likely to be a set piece taker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with AMC's is that there is quite a lot of different varieties for them.

A DMC tends to come in either a physical or mental flavour, the Makalele or the Essien.

AMC's however can be anything from Pirlo/Carrick style sitting deep and pinging expert passes to a highly attacking and highly numerous forward line, the Gerrard/Rooney type "action-man" style of aggression, workrate, physical ability and technical brilliance, the Kaka/Modric/Ronaldinho style of Pace, Technique, Dribbling and slick Passing, the Zidane type of pure Ball Control and Technical genius, or the Scholes type AMC of a zero physical/dribbling ability player that is ten years ahead of Paulo Maldini and Nesta when it comes to reading the game.

When it comes to constructing schedules, I personally find that the further you get away from defensive players, the more options you find yourself considering for role and style and attributes. A physical giant of a Centreback you are training intensely in Mental Ability can make up for a lack of Ball Control, Attacking, Shooting, Aerobic through the tactical detail of having an easy "out-ball" to the goalkeeper or a fullback or DMC when he wins the ball.

Attacking players on the contrary have to not only defeat players but defeat systems. They require immense levels of Physical Ability, immense levels of Technical Ability, immense levels of Mental Ability, and you generally need multiple numbers of these working together to defeat teams. Ofcourse certain opponents allow you more space than others and so if you are heavy underdogs you only require a battleaxe of a pacey forward ideally supported by a battleaxe of a technical AMC, but when you play at the top levels of the game you need to find players capable of defeating top quality defenders in order to simply play the next pass, let alone construct defence destroying moves.

The game itself is balanced in accordance with tactical and football issues. The Attacking Category of Passing accuracy and Creativity or "Vision" is the one Category that is most easy to bias and can be biased for improvement more so than any other Category. That bonus comes with the penalty that it is the hardest to balance accurately, the hardest to judge, because a misbalanced schedule of +1/-1 to Aerobic can mean an equivelant misbalance of +3/-3 to Attacking.

Add to that the fact that FM players have a tendency to strive for simple and effective defensive setups, while pouring all their imagination and creativity into attacking patterns, and the end result is that a functional and solid, and slightly misbalanced defensive schedule becomes the creme de la creme of community desire, while even the most perfectly balanced Attacking schedules simply do not cut the grade for the vast varience and individuality of attacking play.

With defensive players you can match their position to the relevant schedule and get something very close to the desired results. For attacking players however the quantity and depth of variation means you have to look at the "mould" set by the attacking schedule types and choose which "mould" you wish to apply to each player, and even then you may not be happy.

I hope that the community, or atleast those regularly posting in this thread, would assist in developing these highly varied schedules. In my initial post I spoke about how I would like to see a "library" of schedules developed by all those wishing to take part. I cannot design all possible schedules for all possible players and development desires, but we can each design schedules for our own players according to our desires of change, and we can each post these schedules and describe the purpose and point and ideas behind those schedules.

I could design several different improving "versions" of some quality basic schedules and take most of the plaudits for doing so, but this would never achieve the same level of overall quality and usefulness to everyone as a library of community designed schedules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I start using this, I had a lot of players complain about workload of it ... but now after season or so with it most of them seem to accept/handle it now now more complaint

so what does complain indicator tell me low prof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to develop this line of thought, what I would recommend is that you have a long good look at your first team and develop individual schedules for them, following this principle:

Strenght and Aerobic: The one tick before the first separation line is the minimum you should look at. Depending on the position of the player, you want to add an extra tick in strength for central positions (Defenders, Midfielders, Attackers) while giving an extra tick in aerobic for goalkeepers and wide positions (Defenders, Midfielders). Then consider your player. Does he have a deficiency in a given attribute related to either strenght or aerobic? If he doesn't give him a balanced extra one tick in each. If he does, give him two ticks in the category where he is deficient.

Goalkeeping: obviously only for goalkeepers.

Ball Control and Tactics: These matter for all players. If you want to have a team that is capable of playing as a unit, I would strongly advise you to have all Defenders, Midfielders and Attackers to have at least one tick after the first separation line in both ball control and tactics. After that, have a look at the respective player and identify where his weaknesses are. If he doesn't have obvious deficiencies, add extra 4 ticks in both ball control and tactics for defenders and attackers and extra 6 ticks for midfielders (just to make it clear, LW and RW count as attackers, LM and RM as midfielders, LWB and RWB are defenders). Otherwise consider 5 ticks in the category you see a deficiency in and 3 ticks in the category that seems Ok (for midfielders this would be 7 and 5 respectively).

Defending is vital for all defenders and should be at least 5 - 6 ticks after the first separation line. For attacking midfielders and any striker that is not a poacher (he can live with 0 in defending), consider having defending at one tick before the first separation line. Again, if a player has to be tackling in your game and is weak at it, just add an extra tick or two in defending.

Attacking can stay at one tick before the first separation line for central defenders but is required at least 4 ticks above the first separation line for all other players. Any player that will be a major passer in your game needs additional 4 ticks in attacking, and if he is playing in a zone through which play is focused he will need at least two extra ticks (even if he is not a major passer). For example, if you are playing through the flanks, your major passers will likely be the two wingers who need extra 4 ticks in attacking, however since play passes through the flanks, the two full backs will need extra two ticks. If you play through the center, you may depend on a deep lying playmaker and an advanced playmaker / deep lying forward to route play and they will get extra 4 ticks, however your additional central midfielder(s) are playing through the zone where passing is done and they will need extra two ticks (forget about the CDs, and you may forget about a poacher striker - any other striker will also likely participate in a passing game, so give him the extra 2 ticks). Note that if a given player is given high creative freedom, it is healthy to consider his passing being 15+. If that is not the case, you must give him an extra tick or two in attacking training.

Shooting is essential for all players who will be finishers in the game, and you may keep it at zero for all defenders and defensive midfielders. Frankly, unless a midfielder is meant to switch positions with a striker, he would not be dimisnihed by not having shooting training. So, I would consider for box-to-box midfielder and advanced playmaker CM having shooting at one notch below the first separation line, while an AM, LW and RW would get 4 notches above the first separation line. ST and LW/RW who are meant to play as inside forwards would get 8 notches above the first separation line. Then have a look at your offensive players and anyone with finishing below 15+ should get an extra two ticks.

Finally, set pieces. Let us be frank, we need these for the two full backs (throws), for the wingers (crossing, corners and likely both free kicks and penalty kicks), and for your penalty taking striker. Obviously, the LB/RB (LWB/RWB) and LW/RW (LM/RM) benefit the most from this, so give them at least 4-6 ticks above the first separation line. If a wide player has crossing below 15+, consider givning him an extra two ticks. For the ST that will be a penalty taker, consider having set pieces at one or two ticks above the first separation line.

Now that you are set, look at each of your players again. Where do you want them to grow faster? OK, so now start giving them an extra tick for each attribute you want to increase until your schedule gets just one tick before overall workload of "heavy".

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I start using this, I had a lot of players complain about workload of it ... but now after season or so with it most of them seem to accept/handle it now now more complaint

so what does complain indicator tell me low prof?

Low work rate, I think. SFraser has explained elsewhere that their moaning is not a problem SO LONG AS you keep their morale up in other areas - i.e. winning matches and man-management. If they're unhappy in other areas outside training, the workload will exacerbate their attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks again for the feedback. I will try to respond to the points made by Phnompenhandy and Old Git first.

2nd) The theoretical issue is twofold. First is that fact that Physical Attributes become increasingly resistant to improvement and are the first to start to decline, while Mental Attributes are increasingly easy to improve but are the hardest to improve to start with. Second comes the fact that the exact rate and timing of these changes is unknown to me. I know that players experience a Physical "growth spurt" in their youth, followed by a period of slow mental maturity, followed by a period of physical decline and rapid mental growth, followed by a final period of complete decline in all attributes. I do not know precisely when these things occur, nor at the precise rates at which they change.

May be FM data can help us ?

I extracted 80 0000 player's datas from my game, then filtered it with PA and position.

Look at this charts :

Strikers versus Central defenders

fm20010005.jpg

fm20010004.jpg

fm20010003.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, I certainly think you are on the right lines in terms of the base thinking, proportionate to the number of categories within each area. and undoubtedly no system can be perfect for every player as they are all different beasts in terms of the roles each user defines for them within their system (your CF as opposed to mine for example). I think one of the problems we have, is how SI have split the "skills" down when it comes to set-pieces. Are free-kicks purely an attacking skill in terms of their training, or does free-lick training also cover the skill required in defending free-kicks. I wouldn't necessarily want FB's developing free-kick dead balls as a matter of course, but I would want them developing throw-ins and crossing, conversely, I don't necessarily look at CM's/AMC's as throw-in specialists but do view free-kicks and crossing, even perhaps corners as key skills required.

In terms of the discussion on pre-season, I'm pretty sure one of the tootips and pieces of advice you receive actually suggests intense physical is best carried out then, so that's a game developers clue is it not as to the levels required in terms of strength and aerobic base levels for the season itself. I have always developed a very basic heavy physical pre-season schedule in the past and then lowered the levels during the season, albeit not based on the base theory you have worked from. Obviously the first thing you then notice when changing is downwards arrows in their strength and aerobic sections when changing, but that was to be expected as they have massively reduced the amount they are doing. The attributes themselves had increased, then stabilised throughout the season.

On the issue of squad players, here we do have a problem. They are obviously not going to get as much match experience as the starting 11, it's always been theorised that playing reserve (If you have a reserve team playing in a reserve league, but thats another issue) matches doesn't really assist development, so potentially you have elements of your squad which, despite their potential for development being high, they will not, or that development will be slowed somewhat, particularly when they become too old for youth football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a better chart with Strikers, central defender and wingers.

For CB : physical attributes increases until 26

For ST : physical attributes increases until 25

For Wingers : physical attributes increases until 22

For CB : physical attributes decreases from 31

For ST : physical attributes decreases from 29

For Wingers : physical attributes decreases from 29

fm20010007.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some very interesting graphs there lch.

Could you explain precisely and carefully what has been plotted and how you came across this information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LCH, if it's not a big ask, can you please plot a graph here with Physical, Strength and Mental attributes for Defenders ,Midfield and Strikers .Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a QUALITY thread. Kudos to all that have contributed.

I would be curious to know in what season/year the data for the above graphs was taken.

For the graphs to be of value they would need (IMHO) to be from as far into the game as possible.

That way the attributes will have been a function of the game engine. If the data is from too early in the game then the figures will be biased towards the players' original attribute values as determined by the researchers I would think??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

Despite writing at great lengths about the topic of how players work and how training works I have never released any Training Schedules to the wider public. This is partly because I do not believe that "one-shoe-fits-all" schedules exist, partly because I had never taken the time to develop a broad range of general schedules that could be used by other people, and partly because I did not know enough detail about certain key aspects of Training and player mechanics to produce what I would consider accurate schedules.

While the first remains true the latter two have changed and I am now confident of releasing a comprehensive set of powerful and accurate schedules for community use. More than that however I would like to encourage and engage the community to assist me in developing these schedules further, in greater depth and detail, and in fine tuning the basic underlying principles.

Should you download these schedules you will be a guinea pig, but do not be alarmed for I have already received very positive feedback and observed some very impressive results already from these schedules. However I do not simply wish to release a bunch of schedules for your use, I wish to get your help to further explain the details of training, further improve and develop superior schedules, but also help users to construct their own ideal individual player schedules based on what is understood about training and player mechanics, and based on the underlying premise of these schedules.

The following screenshots are the kind of results you can expect after a year, under ideal conditions, and with a well balanced schedule. However I will be the first to admit that not all the schedules are well balanced and this is where I need your help. I need your help to design and test better balanced versions of these schedules, indeed to design and test whatever schedules you can think of for players. To do this you will need to understand the rules I am following when designing these schedules, understand the key factors to pay attention to, understand the ratios I am working from, and hopefully you will also pop up with some new and more accurate information of your own.

r94msm.jpg

2l9inpt.jpg

The now 32 year old Jamie Carragher has improved in almost everything except his Physical Attributes and his Physical Attributes have not gone down. Atleast that is how it looks on the surface. Underneath all this his Physical Attributes have gone down but not by enough to register a change. The schedule predicts this and trains him intensively in Physical Attributes so as to slow down the rate of change while at the same time favouring Tactics and Defending slightly more than Ball Control, Attacking and Shooting to receive the lost CA. The schedule also anticipates that his Ball Control Attributes and Shooting Attributes will require less CA to go up than Tactics and Defending, and so we have a near perfect spread of small increases in his Technical and Mental attributes while his Physical attributes barely change.

Looking at this screenshot perhaps I should have reduced his Ball Control and favoured his Tactics or Attacking more but then this is where I need your help to test the balance of these schedules on different players and make suggestions for improvements to the balance, or even design your own superior schedules based on the information I will give you.

Now lets take a look at the 25 year old DM/CM Mascherano. This 25 year old powerhouse midfield destroyer has improved his Stamina, Strength, Teamwork, Decisions and Concentration. How is that for some Central Midfielder training? A 25 year old clearly improving his physical attributes is not something you see very often, and to improve the key physical attributes at the same rate as his other vital positional attributes are improving is something I am sure everyone wants to see in their own players. Why is his Composure bouncing around? Because there has to be concessions made and for this schedule the concessions are unfortunately in his Defending, Attacking, Shooting and Set Pieces. No free lunch I am afraid. Do you want to change this balance? I will tell you how to do so.

The Schedules

zjgs3m.jpg

Before I give you the link to download these schedules it is important to explain how they work, how to tell if they are working for you, and to tell you how to change them as you see fit.

As we can see from the screenshot above, these do not in any way follow the "Number Line Theory" of Training you can read about in certain training threads or in other forums. This "Number Line Theory" suggests that if you place one slider at precisely a certain notch, 7 I think, then those attributes will not change. Likewise if you place the slider at notch 18 or 19 or something then those attributes will increase. Well that's rubbish.

Take a look at Vidic, Ferdinand and Brown. They are all fit, at 100% match experience and they are all on the same schedule with huge variations between sliders. Yet for some reason they are not all behaving exactly the same, and for some other reason that shoots the "Number Line Theory" out of the sky, all of them are powering through Shooting Training which is at notch 9 while barely making a dent in Tactics that is at notch 20. The only guy improving his Tactics is Vidic.

So what is going on in this screen? Well a number of things are going, you just can't see all the individual details so it makes it hard to figure out what the arrows mean.

Wes Brown and Ferdinand are both at 100% Match Experience and have been at that level for a while and they are both at or close to their PA. Ferdinand cannot gain any more CA so his attributes cannot go up unless CA is removed from other attributes. Ferdinand is also a Centreback and this means that certain attributes go up faster or slower for the same amount of CA. For Ferdinand his Age, CA/PA, Match Experience and his particular Attribute CA needs means that this schedule is almost perfectly balanced to do nothing. The amount of CA being shared by this schedule between his Strength, Aerobic, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending and Attacking is exactly enough to prevent any change while he is at 100% Match Experience. However we are not training his set peices and his Shooting Attributes dont need much CA to improve because he is a Centreback. This means that while his other attributes stay the same, his Shooting Attributes are improving.

Yes you read that correct. His Strength, Aerobic, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending and Attacking Categories are all perfectly balanced for his Age and his Position.

Vidic is not only younger which changes the balance for him, but he has also just reached 100% Match Experience after being injured. He will have lost a small amount of CA when he was injured and will now be gaining all that CA now he is at 100% Match Experience. So ontop of his zero Set Piece Training freeing up CA for his Shooting Attributes to improve, he is also gaining CA which means all of his other attributes instead of being perfectly balanced to do nothing, are perfectly balanced to increase at the same rate.

This 1st Choice CB Schedule is designed to "Maintain" Centrebacks that are near to their peak Ability level while favouring only minor increases in key attributes. Composure in this case because in my first attempt at a CB schedule I forgot to consider Composure and Concentration in my schedule (thank you for the omission SI) and lo and behold down went Ferdinands Composure after a months training. The above schedule for a Centreback that is close to their PA and not yet suffering from heavy Age penalties is very close to a perfect "Maintain" schedule. It wont prevent CA from going up or down or shifting around during a season, but it wont speed up or slow down these naturally occuring changes.

The Developing CB and Veteran CB schedules above and below this one are completely different. For each position their is an U-17 Schedule, a Developing Schedule, a 1st Choice Schedule and a Veteran Schedule. The U-17 Schedule emphasises key attributes for the position at the expense of any nonesense young players do not need to learn. The Developing Schedules are for players between 17 and 24 or those than need a crash course in the Senior Basics. They are Physically Intensive and they focus again on vital areas of the game for that position. The 1st Choice is generally a more rounded, more "Maintain" Schedule aimed also at reducing intensity and maintaining condition and Morale. The Veteran Schedule is aimed purely at players who are starting to decline Physically. It attempts to halt the destructive drop of Stamina while channeling Aerobic CA into Mental and Technical attributes in order to build a Maldini or Giggs.

The exact shape of the schedules for each position is my own view on what the position should look like and how best to deal with different ages. They may be far from your own liking and may also be poorly balanced in certain respects.

The exact design of each schedule is based on two fundamental ideas. Designing Category intensities based on numbers of attributes contained within each Category and designing Relative Category Intensities based on ratios.

Let me try and explain for you clearly.

Strength has 4 attributes in the Category, Aerobic has 6 attributes in the Category. Therefore to train Strength and Aerobic equally I place Strength at notch 4 and Aerobic at notch 6. Attacking has only two attributes so to train attacking equally with Strength and Aerobic I place Attacking at notch 2. If I want Attacking to receive twice as much Training as Strength I place Attacking at notch 4, the same as Strength. Strength has 4 attributes while Attacking has 2 attributes, so now each Attacking attribute should receive twice the CA as each Strength attribute.

The complicated part comes from the fact that certain attributes require more CA to improve than others, based on Age, Position etc. There are some rough and ready rules but no exact figures so there can be no exact science to training.

The Strength and Tactics Categories for a Centreback will require more CA to increase than the Ball Control Category. If he is young then his Strength Category naturally receives more CA anyway, if he is old his Strength Category naturally tries to shed CA. This means that you will always have to consider Strength Training much higher than others to achieve the same rate of increase, but this is not true when a player is very young nor very old.

I have developed a Test Schedule containing the basic ratios of a balanced schedule independant of Position and Age.

2ildefb.jpg

This Test Schedule (ignore Vidic here as he has been on it 5 minutes) is the basis on which all my schedules are designed and you will find the Test, GK Test and U-17 Test schedules in my schedule pack.

To avoid overcomplication all schedules have been kept precisely to these ratios. There are no half Strength increases, only an increase or decrease by 4 every time I wish to increase Strength training by "a balanced notch".

A Centreback Schedule may for example increase Strength by 4 "notches" to position 16, Aerobic to 24, Tactics to 20, Ball Control to 10, Defending by 4 to 12, Attacking to 4, Shooting to 6. Once this achieved, a rough pattern for the shape of a Centreback's Training of important attributes 2x less important attributes, you will then have to take Attribute Weights and Age into account, so perhaps Increase Strength by another 4, Tactics by another 5 and Defending by another 3.

These schedules seem to work and seem to work well, although there are plenty of rough edges and areas that could be much better balanced. I would appreciate as much feedback on these issues as you can give me, and as much feedback on any others issues as well.

Download Link

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

Huge fan of your work however do you have a part-time and youth training options?

Everyone always creates Full Time programs but forget if you play as a journeyman coach/manager you do need to develop for semi-professional leagues which tend to have part-time players and more youth players.

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've created some PT schedules that try to mimic SFraser's FT schedules, but the number of clicks per catagory didnt seem to pan out with the hours they have for training. So what I did was use the same proportion of effort in each catagory rather than the same number of clicks if that makes any sense? If you can picture the bar chart of training for one of SFrasers FT First Choice CB's (for example) and then scale it down to a Part Time schedule, it doesn't have 50% of the number of clicks, but the pattern of the bar chart looks the same. They are all still Heavy or Very Heavy in terms of intensity and most of the players are grumbling about it, but it seems to be slowing the decline of player attributes that my part-time players were suffering from previously. It doesnt help that my LL team have pitiful facilities and incompetent trainers for sure, but I think SFraser's theory is sound so I'm giving it a go with my whole team.

I dont know if this approach of mine is a good idea or not and not many LLM post on here about training so I thought I'd just experiment. A handful of my more promicing players have full time contracts and are using SFraser's FT schedules. That may turn out to be a useful comparison. But I've only switched my team from individual training schedules to this new 'regime' for a couple of months so it's way too early to tell.

In LLM, your trainers and assistant managers have such a low level of reliability in terms of assessing player potential, that it's very difficult to tell how much they could or should improve by. Nor do I understand how much having superior training facilities would increase the players improvement - or the trainers improvement for that matter. But I dont want to 'cheat' and look at their hidden stats so I'll have to figure it out the hard way.

Despite the problems with injuries, the way I see it is that the heavy training will toughen them up and if certain players cannot handle it over the long haul then I may put them on an individual lighter schedule or more likely transfer them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've created some PT schedules that try to mimic SFraser's FT schedules, but the number of clicks per catagory didnt seem to pan out with the hours they have for training. So what I did was use the same proportion of effort in each catagory rather than the same number of clicks if that makes any sense? If you can picture the bar chart of training for one of SFrasers FT First Choice CB's (for example) and then scale it down to a Part Time schedule, it doesn't have 50% of the number of clicks, but the pattern of the bar chart looks the same. They are all still Heavy or Very Heavy in terms of intensity and most of the players are grumbling about it, but it seems to be slowing the decline of player attributes that my part-time players were suffering from previously. It doesnt help that my LL team have pitiful facilities and incompetent trainers for sure, but I think SFraser's theory is sound so I'm giving it a go with my whole team.

I dont know if this approach of mine is a good idea or not and not many LLM post on here about training so I thought I'd just experiment. A handful of my more promicing players have full time contracts and are using SFraser's FT schedules. That may turn out to be a useful comparison. But I've only switched my team from individual training schedules to this new 'regime' for a couple of months so it's way too early to tell.

In LLM, your trainers and assistant managers have such a low level of reliability in terms of assessing player potential, that it's very difficult to tell how much they could or should improve by. Nor do I understand how much having superior training facilities would increase the players improvement - or the trainers improvement for that matter. But I dont want to 'cheat' and look at their hidden stats so I'll have to figure it out the hard way.

Despite the problems with injuries, the way I see it is that the heavy training will toughen them up and if certain players cannot handle it over the long haul then I may put them on an individual lighter schedule or more likely transfer them.

Part Time contracts and Training, Youth Training Schedules, and indeed variations in "Intensity" per notch of a Category are all things to be looked at for an ultimate overall understanding of Training.

These schedules, although apparently producing excellent ratios of distribution, are essentially nothing more than my first basic attempt at designing generic schedules for download based on my understanding of Training. They are simplistic, basic, embryonic test sets that I released for public download because A: I was confident in my basic understanding of Training and B: I wished large scale feedback across multiple different test situations.

A read through this thread shows two things clearly:

1) They are test schedules with some fundamental problems requiring attention.

2) They are well received in general and produce results that seem to be a cut above most or all other takes on Training.

The feedback from this thread so far has been just about as good as I could hoped for. The schedules are in general well recieved and applauded, which is great, but most importantly the problems that have been described perfectly fit my personal errors in either calculating ratios which others have brought to my attention, or my personal preferences for design.

This makes me completely confident that I can refine these generic schedules to solve many of the problems users are experiencing with a second version of these schedules. This second version should then hopefully bring to light issues regarding "Notch Intensity" factors, the basic "notch per attribute" theory I am working by, and any other possible factors producing variations or anomolies.

Ofcourse this is for FT schedules as you say. Once the FT schedules are ironed out, with subsequent feedback looked at and studied for additional factors of influence, a set of the principles governing ideal FT schedules can then be applied to PT schedules to study the variation and understand the key differences.

I do not imagine that this will be a short process irrespective of the accuracy of my schedules, and ofcourse if any spanners show up in the works then the entire process will become elongated. This is why feedback is so vital, as ultimately feedback accelerates the process, and ultimately I have no wish whatsoever to see imperfect schedules and Training theory posted for posterity in my thread.

This may be a tough ask, but if you are interested in seeing PT schedules developed to a high level of quality, could I ask you to assist me in refining the FT schedules to a level that is complete in terms of results versus theory? When that is achieved then the baseline exists for adequate judgement of PT issues. Untill that exists there can be no accurate basis for accurate comparison.

As a note: I do not do much testing when I have free time, I tend to play the game according to my understanding of it. So my second set of improved schedules is unlikely to produced for another few weeks as I complete the final third of the season of my current career save. That does not mean the information produced in this thread is ignored, quite the contrary as I take it onboard and plan my second set of schedules based upon that feedback. It does mean however that I am likely to take my time.

This thread is ultimately as much a source of information for me and the improvement of my game, as it is a source of information for others and the improvement of their game. The more others can contribute, the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been asked and answered already, but what schedule would you give a young player (18-21) who is in the first team? Obviously he is still developing but also playing a lot of games. I'd be more inclined to put him on a 1st choice schedule, but would he improve as much as he would on the developing one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if this has been asked and answered already, but what schedule would you give a young player (18-21) who is in the first team? Obviously he is still developing but also playing a lot of games. I'd be more inclined to put him on a 1st choice schedule, but would he improve as much as he would on the developing one?

I'm in this situation - a lower league squad with a few warhorses and many youths including a few 17-18 year old first team regulars. My interpretation is that they still have a lot of developing to do, especially physically, so I put them in those schedules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow .. there is alot to take in ... and I didn't read the whole thread :)

I am inclined to try out these schedules, but it seems that most use it for PL teams, and I am currently in BSP with Bath City with mostly part-timers (though am going to upgrade contracts soon) and rather bad facilities.

Can these schedules be used for lower league teams too?+ .. or would I soon be fielding 'greys' as my entire squad is out with injuries?

If I make PT schedules based on these, could i just turn down the notches from the FT schedules to match?? ... say like setting each category down by 5 or 7 notches or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, you said earlier in the thread:

I believe I have miscounted certain Attributes in both Strength and Aerobic Training Categories. This means that in my next set of Schedules I could knock down every Aerobic and Strength slider by 3 to 4 points atleast while maintaining the same or similar balance, which would be a huge improvement to the overall Intensity of Physical Training.

Does this still hold true?

If so, I assume it means that every strength and aerobics Atribute tick goes down by one notch. Strength from 4 to 3 and Aerobic from 6 to 5.

I'm planning to make training schedules for all the different player types listed in the Tactic Generator, adding to the schedules allready published by SFraser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If so, I assume it means that every strength and aerobics Atribute tick goes down by one notch. Strength from 4 to 3 and Aerobic from 6 to 5.

Yes it still holds true and yes you are quite correct in understanding how to apply it.

I'm planning to make training schedules for all the different player types listed in the Tactic Generator, adding to the schedules allready published by SFraser

That would be absolutely brilliant. Thank you very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been wondering about this for a while, and I still have a few questions:

• If you keep a player on his regular training schedule while he's injured, could that do much harm?

• Let's say one of my regular players gets injured for 2-3 weeks. I always put him on "long term injury" during that time, and then back on his normal schedule when my physio says he's back in training. But you are suggesting he should stay on the injury schedule for some more time, right?

He should still be quite fit if he plays on a regular basis, so that's why I put him back on his normal schedule so soon. Is that wrong you mean?

Cheers for excellent Q&A btw!

Hey SFraser, I understand you get a lot of questions and probably don't have time to answer them all, but I'll just bump this in case you get a couple of mins, cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are some very interesting graphs there lch.

Could you explain precisely and carefully what has been plotted and how you came across this information?

I hope that you can understand my Frenchglish :(.

What we know:

If the player is young then rapid CA growth.

At a certain age, CA is growing more difficult and then stagnates

Finally, when he is old, the CA decreases.

It's difficult to see this progress in our own game with only 30 to 40 players in our teams.

Also, how to check this rule?

My statement is :

If this is true during the game, it should be true at the beginning of the game.

Also, I started a game with more than 79,000 players, and then extract data to import them in a database.

Then, it's easy to query datas to check CA progress with a large volume of players.

For example, to verify the CA:

select age,

AVG ([uRC]) AS [Average CA]

*from datas

*WHERE Age <38

*by age group

*order by Age

As you can see on the screen below, I get a curve of growth which corresponds exactly to what we know about the progress of players but with a little more precision.

fm20010001.jpg

The player <17 years => hard to growth

Player> 17 years until 21 or 22 years increase is significant

Player> 22 years to 28 increase is very slow

the 28 years to 33 years it's stagnant.

above 33 the CA decreases.

It may be noted that this rule is true regardless of club's reputation.

This first chart confirms that the assertion is true.

If this rule is true, all other curves should be true.

But it should be better to check it, isn'it ?

What we know for physical attributes:

It increases rapidly when the player is young, then follows a period of calm and finally attributes decrease rapidly after a certain age.

In this case, I need average amount of physical attributes which are:

Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Natural Fitness, Pace, Stamina, Strength

On the next curve, you can notice that player's physical attributes progress until 24, then it's quite stagnant until 30 when it begins to decrease quickly.

fm20010002.jpg

Do we know more things about physicals attributes ?

The game tells us that depending on the player's position, it's at its full potential at different ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the next graph, then i try to verify this and add a filter on the position of the player. (i.e :DC =20, (AML=20 or AMR=20), ...)

fm20010003.jpg

First, we note a difference depending on the reputation of the clubs. This is probably due to the fact that players who belong to these teams have higher potential and best mental traits attributes.

General (All players) :

fm20010005.jpg

Physicals attributes progresses hardly before the age of 18 years then increase is significant until 24 and then stagnated until 30 years and then decrease quickly.

For top team (Squad rep > 6000) :

fm20010006.jpg

Physical attributes progress is significant until 25 and then stagnated until 31 years and then decrease quickly.

Is there a difference depending on player's position?

Comparison between DC and wingers:

We can note that physicals attributes evolves differently for each player's type :

For a winger, the limit is 22 years against 25 for a DC.

The plateau lasts up to 29 years for a winger against 31 for DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LCH, if it's not a big ask, can you please plot a graph here with Physical, Strength and Mental attributes for Defenders ,Midfield and Strikers .Thx

There are lot of curves on these charts but i think it's better to compare datas.

Strength for all field position :

fm20010007.jpg

Aerobic for all field position :

fm20010008.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am arsenal, and am finding a massive amount of injuries occuring within my squad, from players of various injury-proneness, varying schedules and positions, some in match, some in training. no discernible pattern really, but i have lost the following for prolonged injuries (roughly a month or more) eboue, gallas, vermaelen, senderos, fabregas, ramsey, arshavin, van persie, walcott. and shorter term injuries to gallas, vermaelen, mannone, almunia, senderos, ramsey, nasri, rosicky, wilshere.

a number of reserve and youth players have all suffered medium-term injuries, eastmond, randall, hoyte, bartley, coquelin, byles & hajrovic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most impressive read so far.

Although I might claim that over the years, I've been extremely adept with tactics and player attributes (I would reserve the term "mastered" for the real managers and coaches ;) ), training has always been a grey area for me. With that in mind, I can't say how useful any input I add will be, but I'm more than happy to be an observant guinea-pig :D

In essence though, just as I don't believe there's a "plug-and-play" tactic, I don't believe there's a "plug-and-play" training schedule. It's clear and makes sense that to get the best out of an individual, you need to tailor his training to a certain extent.

Who knows where this research and experimentation may lead... Tactical Wizard seems to have helped a lot of people, reading through the threads so far... maybe in the future, lies a Training Wizard ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify there, do you mean down one 'notch' for every STR and AER schedule, or do you mean one 'set of notches'?

For each "group of notches" I have miscounted by 1 for Strength and 1 for Aerobic.

Therefore if Strength is at position 16 it has gone up by 4 points 4 times. This is 4 times I have added an additional notch, so reduce Strength by 4 notches to position 12.

Aerobic functions in multiples of 6. Every time Aerobic has gone up 6 points, I have miscounted by 1. If Aerobic is at notch 24, I have miscounted one attribute 4 times, so reduce Aerobic by 4.

Because my Developing and Veteran Schedules are Physically Intensive, there is a rather large margin of error in these particular schedules, and reducing these large margins of error should have a very positive impact on the unfortunately large quantities of reported injuries.

I should really try and get around to releasing my second set of schedules asap.

If anyone has any suggestions for the pattern of schedule types they think would be useful, please let me know. I am currently considering schedules based on all Natural Positions in the game, with schedules for Mental, Technical and Physical development per Natural position.

EDIT:

Just had another read through your graphs lch and they are absolutely brilliant.

There are some interesting details regarding Winger versus DC Physical Attribute graphs. From what I understand of Attribute Weights and what you have shown here of Attribute Distribution, to me it looks very much like that individual Positions (individual Attribute Weights) have an individual rate of Physical Attribute Growth/Decline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For each "group of notches" I have miscounted by 1 for Strength and 1 for Aerobic.

Therefore if Strength is at position 16 it has gone up by 4 points 4 times. This is 4 times I have added an additional notch, so reduce Strength by 4 notches to position 12.

Aerobic functions in multiples of 6. Every time Aerobic has gone up 6 points, I have miscounted by 1. If Aerobic is at notch 24, I have miscounted one attribute 4 times, so reduce Aerobic by 4.

Because my Developing and Veteran Schedules are Physically Intensive, there is a rather large margin of error in these particular schedules, and reducing these large margins of error should have a very positive impact on the unfortunately large quantities of reported injuries.

Right, done that. Would it adversely affect the balance of your scheme to compensate the reduction of the 2 fitness schedules thus by increasing Set Pieces by 16? SP is a 'light' schedule which I don't think carries a risk of injuries, but would there be knock-on effects?

FYI I'm trialling your schedules under highly artificial optimum conditions. I've maximised certain key variables to more clearly monitor the effects. Specifically, I've started a new save with a very low league created club. It has no money but perfect training and youth facilities and ridiculously good staff. I have a tweaked Eric Cantona as assman and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer as Youth Team Coach. Furthermore, most of the squad are youths on very low CA but very high PA. They all have 20 for DET, NAT FIT, AMB and PROF. They have the club and myself as favourites. I want to monitor their rates of development over the years.

Even under those conditions I was getting a few hamstring pulls in training, so it'll be interesting to see if they cease with the reduction in AER training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, done that. Would it adversely affect the balance of your scheme to compensate the reduction of the 2 fitness schedules thus by increasing Set Pieces by 16? SP is a 'light' schedule which I don't think carries a risk of injuries, but would there be knock-on effects?

The schedules were not particularly balanced in terms of overall workload or overall "clicks" or notches etc. The point of this set was to see if training individual attributes at ratios compared to each other would produce more accurate results, or a "better spread" of attribute gains for each position.

As for compensation for the drop in Workload by increasing Set Pieces, the initial effect would be to increase the gains in Set Pieces by reducing the gains in the rest of the categories. The ratios between those attributes would be preserved, but each would receive less overall CA in order to increase the quantity of CA being gained by Set Pieces.

Secondary effects will depend upon the precise mechanics of Overall Training Workload. For example Catafan showed that increasing Overall Training Workloads corresponds to an increasing, small quantity of CA gain. Higher Overall Workloads would produce a very small increase in CA gain.

However it is also possible that Overall Training Workload, or indeed Overall Training Progress, corresponds to the quantity of monthly CA shifting that is controlled by Training Schedules. In other words someone doing "Light Training" workloads would shift the same quantity of CA between attributes each month, but a much smaller proportion of that CA would be shifted according to the pattern of the Training Schedule, with the rest following "Natural" progression patterns. Conversely someone doing Intense Training workloads may see all of their monthly shift in CA alter according to Training Schedule Patterns.

This would be very important information to find out. However there is no "need" to compensate for the workloads in my schedules as yet. You may do so if you wish but I have made no account for those issues yet.

FYI I'm trialling your schedules under highly artificial optimum conditions. I've maximised certain key variables to more clearly monitor the effects. Specifically, I've started a new save with a very low league created club. It has no money but perfect training and youth facilities and ridiculously good staff. I have a tweaked Eric Cantona as assman and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer as Youth Team Coach. Furthermore, most of the squad are youths on very low CA but very high PA. They all have 20 for DET, NAT FIT, AMB and PROF. They have the club and myself as favourites. I want to monitor their rates of development over the years.

Even under those conditions I was getting a few hamstring pulls in training, so it'll be interesting to see if they cease with the reduction in AER training.

A key factor in CA development is Club Reputation. To achieve maximum CA growth in your players you would wish to have the maximum possible Club Reputation.

Otherwise that sounds like a very interesting test scenario. It would be interesting to read your feedback on the rates at which your players progress, and ofcourse on how you think the schedules are doing in terms of the quality rather than quantity of attribute redistribution.

Injury rates can be tweaked through adapting the schedules, but first it is important to know if the basic premise is accurate and what other errors exist within the schedules. Important for me that is, ten players on the physio table is a lot more important for you.

Hopefully the reduction in Strength and Aerobic now I have accounted for my counting errors should reduce the rates to a more manageable level for you, and also produce far better and more logical and desireable improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is there a updated version or just the OP?

An updated version is hopefully coming real soon. I am just about completed the 4 Goalkeeping schedules, 4 SW schedules and 4 DR/L schedules, although I might have to redo these ones as I made some errors in judgement of attribute weight ratios.

If that all goes well then only another 32 to design and proof check.

No youth schedules this time around unfortunately, also no age related schedules, and certainly no P/T schedules in the foreseeable future.

Ofcourse if anyone would like to see Youth, Veteran and perhaps Pre-Season schedules then let me know here, and I will do my best to produce them.

If anyone wishes to lend a hand, my PM box is always open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that all goes well then only another 32 to design and proof check.

Blimey.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which training schedule do you use for wingers?I always just chose WF which i think means wide forward, but nearest thing to what i wanted.

But i have a regen winger and have him on devolping WF, but there's been no improvment he's just gotten worse, so this leads me to think that WF will not work for wingers and i have been using the wrong training schedule?

63666501.png

Also his crossing was 17 pace was 15 & acceleration was 17 when i first bought him,and all those stats have dropped by one also. He's been injury free since i signed him too.

Besides this, i have been using these schedules for a while and i must say they work great, especially the veteran training schedules, they always improve my older players attributes.

Thanks for creating them. :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at his attributes you can see that his Set Pieces, Shooting, Tactics and Defending Categories are all going down. This leaves only Ball Control, Attacking and the two Physical Categories.

However you say that his Pace and Acceleration have also dropped. This leaves only Strength, Attacking and Ball Control Categories as possible gains.

Now the WF schedule is Ball Control and Aerobic intensive, so the schedule should be favouring these areas for gains. They should not be reducing unless your player is suffering from a reduction in CA. If his CA stays stable they should increase. If his CA improves they should go up dramatically.

If they are dropping then he is either not playing enough games, or the games he has been playing for the last few months are not at a high enough level for him to maintain his current CA level.

I notice that your player has played 8 games in the league in the 2.5 months since season start. This should be enough to prevent a drop in CA through Match Experience.

However, your player is Romanian and has played 5 International matches since the generation of a "new season" by the game, i.e. since around June/July. He has played 5 games for the International side since June/July, scoring 2 goals, creating 2 goals, 1 MOM and with an average rating of 7.38.

I assume you have just recently gone through a period of intense International matches, Euro 2016 Qualifiers I imagine? Your player has played extremely well in these matches, and has very likely received a CA boost due to his International Team Reputation, International Tournament Reputation, and his personal performances in those matches. Your player has since returned to your club and failed to perform, therefore his Peak CA achieved during International Competition has dropped.

Training Schedules are not responsible for either dramatic declines or dramatic improvements in attributes. This is a result of improvement or decline of CA, which Training has no part in. Others producing schedules may take credit for 8+ green attribute arrows in a screenshot but they are misleading people that use those schedules. Likewise schedules cannot be blamed for 8+ downward arrows unless a player has been injured during training.

Either your player has been unlucky and has lost enough CA in those 8 attributes to register a downward change before enough CA has gone into his other attributes to register a positive increase, in which case you need to wait a while to see the corresponding improvements, or your player has lost CA.

I would not take credit for 8+ upwards arrows and these schedules cannot be responsible for 8+ downward arrows in a fully fit player. The game simply does not work that way.

Judging by what you have posted here, I would suggest that you need to find a way to get much better performances from this player, as his performances during International Matches is boosting his CA and then being lost when he returns to your club.

Besides this, i have been using these schedules for a while and i must say they work great, especially the veteran training schedules, they always improve my older players attributes.

Thanks for creating them. :thup:

No problem, thanks for the feedback.

What the Veteran schedules actually do is slow down the decline of physical attributes so it takes much longer to register a negative change, while putting that free CA into positional key, much CA lighter, much easier to impove attributes.

There is no improvement to your players CA, and it is probably declining, but the schedule is fighting against a rapid physical decline while putting that free CA into easy to improve Mental attributes. Each point in your players Physical Attributes contains alot of CA, so a reduction of say half an attribute point wont show up, but is enough to boost multiple other attributes by a point or so.

The exact amount of CA your player has at any one time depends on multiple factors that have nothing to do with a training schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the 32 to go??!! As well as the above request for wingers, if possible I'd love one for wingbacks. I put mine on FB but my whole tactic relies on the performance of my wingbacks and I have a few kids to develop.

My club rep is 200. You're doing experiments with Man U, so I decided to go to the other extreme. It will still be interesting to see how far my youths can develop with optimum conditions but with a low rep club, playing low rep opposition.

PS here's a topical story, whatever it's veracity:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1252622/Roberto-Mancini-facing-players-revolt-Manchester-City.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

`I concur. I also have a much greater understanding of the basic Positional Attribute Weights for players, i.e. what Positions the game works by and what those relative attribute weights are like. My next set of Schedules should more closely relate to actual positions used by the game.`

this is something I'd really like to see. for example, box winning mc vs advanced playmaker mc.

do you have a release date for your new schedules? : ))

thx for all your great work

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...