SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

[kenlimfornication]

hello all,

is it just me or anyone else couldn't get through the mediafire link?

will appreciate if anyone can send the training file to me via my email - kenlimfornication@hotmail.com

Thanks in advance!

[Liverpool1991]

The link is working i just downloaded it ... Thanks for the information on training bro ... 1 QNS though ... Do i still put the same training schedule for players that are injured? ... What i have been doing so far is to put them in training schedule that have lesser physical training - aerobic & Strength

[SehnSucht]

Having great results with this schedule. I do admit that the workload is a tad too heavy, which is a little bit of an issue with my young squad. I'm eagerly awaiting your revised lighter versions.

I did also notice the set piece stats decay as pointed out in previous posts. I always thought a lack of set piece training would only prevent improvement (maybe a slight decline with progress deviation). Some of the stat declines are quite noticeable.

I keep my key set piece takers on a different schedules to maintain their skills but i'm wondering if this will be addressed in your revised schedules. Perhaps some form of light set piece training to maintain stats? Doesn't really make much sense to be honest as i think regular training and match practice should keep those values steady.

[WoGiTaLiA]

Having great training results from an improvement side.

But I am also getting absolutely hammered on the injury front.

Basically I have had the same base squad for about 3 seasons and had next to no injuries. Applied this system and I'm noting a lot of weight room injuries and hamstring, twisted knee, knee sprains and groin strains/tears on the training track.

I am Torquay United, in the Premier League, facilities are about a 15 I think. I can almost certainly link the training and injuries as they basically started happening a week after I put everyone on them. They do appear to have slowed of late as the team has rounded into match fitness and what not, I have been using them approximately 9 months, most injuries were when I first started and then right after the squad got back from pre-season. Squad has basically gotten healthy right now.

Haven't noticed a negative morale effect, but I am running a very successful and winning team and my Ass Man does an excellent job in the press conferences of not upsetting players so I am not really in a morale watching position.

I am certainly seeing gains, most notable has been the gains in my young DL/DR guys, who as I play a 3-4-1-2 are improving pretty much entirely due to training(and are of no use to me of course) and the CMs. In the main squad it is the AM/CM/CB showing the most improvement, though I think this is probably more related to that also being where my youngest guys are who should be improving(My CBs are 23, 22 and 21, all mids between 18 and 24) Have only noticed gains in one striker so far(22) the 24 year old has shown no gains. The 38 year old has maintained and the 29yo has also shown no movement either way.

Overall it has been a success implementing the schedules. The injuries so far have only really hit replaceable players and not the stars that my team is built around.

[Son of a Gun]

I must admit I haven't read all of the posts as I'm in the middle of playing the game and just minimized it in order to reply here but it seems to me that a lot of people here play with good teams. I myself play with IFK Gothenburg of the Swedish top league and I'm having huge problems with injuries, the training facilities aren't the best considering it's a small club.

Most injuries are short term like 6 days up to 3 weeks and occur in training mostly pulling something during weight training or trying to reach for a ball in practice. But I've also noticed a higher number of injuries during matches and those injuries are the worst, 2 months minimum when they occur. Early season it's not that many, mid season it starts to rise a bit but towards the end with a handfull of games left and the most important matches half my squad are injured.

I'm just trying to help out with the development, I like the training schedules it's just a bit unlucky getting all the injuries, mainly because my squad lack depth, those that are fit are showing an increase in their important stats although slowly but again I'm not playing with a very good team.

EDIT: Oh yeah forgot to mention the positions of the players injured, I got a DM long term injured, my best CB short term injured, both of my goalkeepers are short term injured, a bench playing DM with a severe back injury which seems odd as the back injury is unique and the others all have pretty much the same injuries or injuries that have been mentioned before. My playmaking AM is injured for a few days. And one of my young developing FB/CB got an injury which will last about a month.

Doesn't sound like much but those are the ones injured now, just had a few people come back from injuries and the FB/CB came back from a short term injury and on the very same day he got injured again in training.

Again I might sound PO'd but that's not the case, just trying to give as much info as I can.

EDIT 2: After the players have gotten used to the new schedules it seems the injuries are going down and they stop injuring themselves during training despite the harder schedules

[ladro]

I still don't quite understand these injury schedules. Can someone explain to me how these are supposed to be used?

[dfgrigg]

Son of a Gun:

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

[Siddo]

Thought rather than create a new thread i'd ask the question here:

I'm playing in League Two so my coaching and training level are not brilliant. My GK coach has a rating of 12 and double figures for motivation, discipline, determination. I've got a 35 year old GK and he's good for league two and one but due to money i can't find an adequate replacement so far.

What training/action can I take to prolong his career Brad Friedel style until a replacement can be found?

[phnompenhandy]

SFraser's already done that - download his schedule and put yer man on the Veteran Goalkeeper schedule.

[Siddo]

SFraser's already done that - download his schedule and put yer man on the Veteran Goalkeeper schedule.

Thanks for the reply, I'd rather create my own but i'm thinking my current one may not be working him enough but then i'm worried about injuries.

Just wondering if High Strength and Aerobic is the way to go and Medium Goalkeeping to Maintain those stats or vice versa?

[phnompenhandy]

Physical attributes drop first in older players; how fast depends on various factors but natural fitness is important.

However, it's not so important in a keeper since he doesn't run about too much. Even with low stamina, pace etc he can go on for ages. A 35 year old could carry on for 5 years or more.

[weeeman27bob]

Is it a good idea to use these schedules now or wait till the lighter versions come out?

I don't play very quickly, but I don't really want the injuries.

[Sidder]

Son of a Gun:

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

This is how you can already make it lighter manually

[Frog19021996]

Great schedules SFraser, are you going to include U-17 Long & Short term Injury Scheduled in your update?

[Sound]

I have downloaded this training schedule now and was wondering a few things?

1. Is this training schedule super-human and unrealistic or does it allow a nice stream of improvements/drops, realistically? If not, where can I get a good one?

2. How do you recommend using this? Every new game I start I go into the training I import the schedules to Youth and 1st Team/Reserve and assign schedules to all players and then I only need to change it when I buy new players?

3. How do I know what players suit what schedules - there is a lot of different schedules!?

4. All I'm looking for is a realistic result in terms of Player Attributes Improvements/Drops, so is there any better schedules than this for that goal?

Thanks in advance,

Sound.

[Veg]

1. This is not super human or anything like that, they are good schedules. Probably the best around, and if you read the OP, they are easy to tweak.

2. Again read the OP and go on from there

3. Same as nr 2

4. Probably not

[w00t77]

Son of a Gun:

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

Alright.

Can someone confirm this:

Category Attributes Affected

Strength: Natural Fitness, Stamina, Strength, Work Rate.

Aerobic: Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes.

Goalkeeping: Aerial Ability, Handling, Kicking, Throwing, One on Ones.

Tactics: Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning, Movement, Teamwork, Command of Area.

Ball Control: Dribbling, First Touch, Technique, Flair, Heading.

Defending: Tackling, Marking, Concentration.

Attacking: Passing, Vision.

Shooting: Finishing, Long Shots, Composure.

Set Pieces: Crossing, Corners, Free Kicks, Penalties, Long Throws.

For outfield players:

Strength: 3 notches? Stamina & natural fitness is the same i assume?

Aerobic: 5 notches

GK: 0

Tactics: 5 notches

Ball Control: 5 notches

Defending: 3 notches

Attacking: 2 notches

Shooting: 3 notches

Set Pieces: 5 notches

[SFraser]

Alright.

Can someone confirm this:

Category Attributes Affected

Strength: Natural Fitness, Stamina, Strength, Work Rate.

Aerobic: Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes.

Goalkeeping: Aerial Ability, Handling, Kicking, Throwing, One on Ones.

Tactics: Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning, Movement, Teamwork, Command of Area.

Ball Control: Dribbling, First Touch, Technique, Flair, Heading.

Defending: Tackling, Marking, Concentration.

Attacking: Passing, Vision.

Shooting: Finishing, Long Shots, Composure.

Set Pieces: Crossing, Corners, Free Kicks, Penalties, Long Throws.

For outfield players:

Strength: 3 notches? Stamina & natural fitness is the same i assume?

Aerobic: 5 notches

GK: 0

Tactics: 5 notches

Ball Control: 5 notches

Defending: 3 notches

Attacking: 2 notches

Shooting: 3 notches

Set Pieces: 5 notches

Natural Fitness and Reflexes are not counted for outfield training.

That is the mistake I made in the original schedules.

Likewise Flair is not trainable in the Ball Control category.

So basically:

Natural Fitness was miscounted for the Strength Category and for each multiple of 4 in that category the schedule should be decreased by one. 12 Strength means 3x4 means reduce the schedule by 3 strength.

Agility was miscounted in the Aerobic Category. For every multiple of 6 increase in that schedule, reduce the schedule by 1.

Flair was miscounted in the Ball Control Category. For every multiple of 5 increase, reduce the schedule by 1.

-----------------------

If possible, I would appreciate feedback on the above changes before I develop the new set of schedules.

I would appreciate knowing A: if the "re-count" is accurate and B: what the overall impact on the attribute redistribution is like.

I cannot be one hundred percent sure on all attributes, so the more information on these changes, the better the next schedules can be.

-------------------------

I am sorry for the lack of updates so far and I cannot give an accurate date for the next set of updates.

The feedback here has been immensely useful, but it was never my intention to get involved in a micro-managed set of training schedules.

That said I am willing to update them and I plan to update them, but most certainly any "willing volunteers" would be most appreciated. And unfortunately everyone waiting for new schedules is going to be subjected to my "FM bug" and will have to wait untill I roll up my sleeves and get stuck in.

I am sorry if you are disappointed, but I hope most of you either receive good results from the schedules or find the necessary information in this thread to design better ones that actually work as you wish.

[w00t77]

Thanks for the confirmation. I think your schedules are great. I notice young players improving abit quicker than before.

But I'll try tweaking them a little, because like what everyone else said, there are an increasing number of injuries. And most the longer ones are because of the Aerobic trainings. But great work!

[Veg]

Agility was miscounted in the Aerobic Category. For every multiple of 6 increase in that schedule, reduce the schedule by 1.

Are you sure, as the game says that Agility is part of the Aerobic category, if not were does he agility fit in?

[grimness]

Natural Fitness and Reflexes are not counted for outfield training.

So then it leaves only Stamina, Strength, Work Rate?

[ChrisDowns22]

Where do I put this because I havn't got a schedule folder!!

[ChrisDowns22]

Never mind sorted it out Hope this works well I have seen some promising pictures and read some amazing feedback!

I will let you know how it goes!

[ProZone]

Are you sure, as the game says that Agility is part of the Aerobic category, if not were does he agility fit in?

I think SFraser meant Reflexes not Agility. I believe that Reflexes are not counted for outfield players, only for goalkeepers.

SFraser, interesting to read that Natural Fitness is not counted. Does this mean it is not training affected at all and does it increase/decline with age? Also, could you let me know how you came to know that Flair is a non-trainable attribute?

If there is any support you need with the new set of schedules then please consider me available.

[Old Git]

I may be wrong ProZone, but I'm pretty sure that I read some time back that Natural Fitness was a fixed attribute and could not be trained, and personally have never seen it go up or down in any long-term game I've played. Not sure about Flair, as it's my personal opinion that it should be a mental attribute that could be encouraged, (as a player ages he becomes more confident in trying things, if that makes sense) though whether it is actually viewed that way by the designeers is another matter.

[ProZone]

SFraser,

I just thought I'd post the attributes I had arrived at independently from your efforts. These are based on the attributes which appear in each category on the Training > Attributes > Training Category screen.

Goalkeepers (36 attributes in each Goalkeeper's Profile screen):

Strength (3): Natural Fitness, Stamina, Strength

Aerobic (6): Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes

Goalkeeping (7): Aerial Ability, Handling, Kicking, Throwing, One On Ones, Concentration, Composure

Tactics (6): Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning, Command Of Area, Communication, Rushing Out

Ball Control (2): First Touch, Technique

Defending (0): -

Attacking (0): -

Shooting (0): -

Set Pieces (1): Free Kick Taking

Untrainable/Unassigned (12): Eccentricity, Penalty Taking, Tendency To Punch, Aggression, Bravery, Determination, Influence, Work Rate, Teamwork, Off The Ball, Flair, Creativity

Technique is highlighted because it appears in the Training Category Screen but not in the Player Profile screen. The total here is 37, an obvious discrepancy!

Outfield Players (36 attributes in each Outfield Player's Profile screen):

Strength (4): Work Rate, Natural Fitness, Stamina, Strength

Aerobic (6): Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes

Goalkeeping (0): -

Tactics (5): Anticipation, Decisions, Off The Ball, Positioning, Teamwork

Ball Control (5): Dribbling, First Touch, Flair, Heading, Technique

Defending (3): Marking, Tackling, Concentration

Attacking (2): Passing, Creativity

Shooting (3): Finishing, Long Shots, Composure

Set Pieces (5): Corners, Crossing, Free Kick Taking, Long Throws, Penalty Taking

Untrainable/Unassigned (4): Aggresion, Bravery, Determination, Influence

Reflexes is highlighted because it appears in the Training Category Screen but not in the Player Profile screen. The total here is 37, another discrepancy!

I would also like to propose a new method for the ongoing development of these schedules, which I alluded to in post #78 (pg. 1), that will most probably save you a considerable amount of time.

Once a Baseline has been agreed then each schedule you design can be described by the Focus you wish to give each category. Let me give an example of what I mean:

Baseline (Outfield Players):

STR: 4

AER: 5 (I'm choosing to omit Reflexes here)

GK: 0

TAC: 5

BAL: 5

DEF: 3

ATT: 2

SHO: 3

SET: 5

Focus (this is an example of SFraser's current Veteran MC schedule):

STR: 4

AER: 2

GK: 0

TAC: 3

BAL: 3

DEF: 3

ATT: 2

SHO: 2

SET: 0

Multiplying the Baseline by the Focus gives you the training schedule (where no.s = slider notches) i.e:

STR: 16

AER: 10

GK: 0

TAC: 15

BAL: 15

DEF: 9

ATT: 4

SHO: 6

SET: 0

I see three advantages for this approach:

I think this methodology would provide a much easier route for you to present your knowledge as a simple table of Focus values rather than releasing a full set of pre-prepared schedules each time.

This standardised platform would allow others to post their training schedule revisons and results clearly for all to understand.

The community would benefit also from much more frequent updates of your unrivalled understanding of training.

[ProZone]

I may be wrong ProZone, but I'm pretty sure that I read some time back that Natural Fitness was a fixed attribute and could not be trained, and personally have never seen it go up or down in any long-term game I've played. Not sure about Flair, as it's my personal opinion that it should be a mental attribute that could be encouraged, (as a player ages he becomes more confident in trying things, if that makes sense) though whether it is actually viewed that way by the designeers is another matter.

As you can see above, I came to my own conclusion. I'm not sure if there is a way of knowing for absolute certain either way. It's unlikely we'd get a response from SI either based on my previous requests for clarification.

SFraser has been looking at this for some time now so let's await his response.

[b_mack_]

I see three advantages for this approach:

I think this methodology would provide a much easier route for you to present your knowledge as a simple table of Focus values rather than releasing a full set of pre-prepared schedules each time.

This standardised platform would allow others to post their training schedule revisons and results clearly for all to understand.

The community would benefit also from much more frequent updates of your unrivalled understanding of training.

This seems like a great approach ProZone! I feel I've got a good handle on these schedules and how they work. But when I try to customize them for specific players or roles within my squad I struggle with determining Focus, particularly as it pertains to veteran and developing players.

[john1]

Currently giving this a go with Portsmouth

[SFraser]

I would also like to propose a new method for the ongoing development of these schedules, which I alluded to in post #78 (pg. 1), that will most probably save you a considerable amount of time.

Once a Baseline has been agreed then each schedule you design can be described by the Focus you wish to give each category. Let me give an example of what I mean:

Baseline (Outfield Players):

Focus (this is an example of SFraser's current Veteran MC schedule):

Multiplying the Baseline by the Focus gives you the training schedule (where no.s = slider notches) i.e:

An example of this in action is here (please note that this is for illustration/demonstration only at this stage): http://www.filefront.com/15714327/ProZone%27s%20Training%20Multiplier.xlsx

I see three advantages for this approach:

I think this methodology would provide a much easier route for you to present your knowledge as a simple table of Focus values rather than releasing a full set of pre-prepared schedules each time.

This standardised platform would allow others to post their training schedule revisons and results clearly for all to understand.

The community would benefit also from much more frequent updates of your unrivalled understanding of training.

I like that alot Prozone.

It is like the original training slider system but rather than 25 notches and no real understanding of how the different positions and categories relate to each other, instead we have a system of only 4 or 5 orders of difference and each attribute is accounted for individually.

As is seen here:

Focus (this is an example of SFraser's current Veteran MC schedule):

STR: 4

AER: 2

GK: 0

TAC: 3

BAL: 3

DEF: 3

ATT: 2

SHO: 2

SET: 0

The scale of actual training difference between categories is marginal despite the difference in notch numbers been vast in some cases, but the differences themselves are clear, organised, balanced, "whole" and easy to understand.

If this system is accurate then most other training schedules will be A: completely random in their effect and B: completely erratic in their scale. It would be possible to see apparently balanced schedules containing 7:1 ratios of improvement in favour of Attacking attributes versus Aerobic.

Prozone this simple and clear explanation of the relationship underlying these schedules could be easilly used to define "half increases" for example 2.5 : 3 or 4 ratios of improvement, and should make the whole thing easier to use and discuss.

I heartilly approve of any attempts by you to construct any excell based application for constructing balanced schedules, and would certainly like to find a way to format these ideas and explain them clearly to readers of this thread.

As for the issue of Attributes involved in Training, I have recently come to know specific information on certain types of issues that was completely unknown to me before but that we both discussed between ourselves as being vital information and the "next step" of investigation to clear up a great deal of training issues. This information I will not be releasing to the public directly but I will be using it.

I can say that Natural Fitness, Reflexes, Flair do not require CA in an outfield player and are not involved in Training. You are completely on the right track with your comparison of attributes to categories and this I have done myself, but the Training attribute display is at best "untidy" and at worst misleading.

These are all great points and I will return to this thread and these points very soon. I shall first have to go and consider what can be done with this new, and excellent, perspective.

[dfgrigg]

Your discovery that Flair cannot be trained is interesting, SFraser. Are you aware of what causes increases (and possibly decreases) in this attribute? I know that it can improve, as this has happened to one of the players in my current squad. Is it the result of a match event, of the kind that were discussed previously?

[SFraser]

Your discovery that Flair cannot be trained is interesting, SFraser. Are you aware of what causes increases (and possibly decreases) in this attribute? I know that it can improve, as this has happened to one of the players in my current squad. Is it the result of a match event, of the kind that were discussed previously?

That would be precisely what I suggest, especially after Cleon backed up my suspicions regarding match events.

I would suggest that high Creative Freedom over time may very well increase Flair. It seems reasonable to assume that the opposite is also true.

[b_mack_]

ProZone, I really appreciate that spreadsheet. It is really interesting to look at the focus numbers to get a real feel for what the training is emphasizing and how it changes from U17 through Veteran. I feel like I have a much better handle on the focus after studying that. I feel a lot more confident about customizing the schedules for individual players and roles within the squad.

I noticed a few things in the data regarding overall workload and balance, I am wondering if you, SFraser, or anyone else had opinions about whether or not I am drawing the right conclusions from it.

Strength and Aerobic training obviously effect the overall workload level more that the other 7 training categories. My understanding is that intense physical training in Strength and Aerobic has an influence on injuries, but the overall workload is more an indicator of a players happiness with that particular schedule. With that in mind I separated the the focus numbers into physical ~ non-physical groups and came up with this...

The first thing I notice his how consistent the numbers are throughout the system. The distribution of the focus numbers changes from position to position and throughout the evolution of the player but the aggregate numbers are generally very consistent and predictable.

1st team FC’s emphasize physicality more that the rest of the 1st teamers and as such their non-physical training is lower. Veteran WF’s and FC’s do the same. This is not surprising given that acceleration, pace and stamina are often the first things to desert an attacker.

The veteran MC seems to be slacking off compared to the rest of the vets, I reckon he needs to pick up a focus point in the either physical training categories or add another 4 focus points on non-physical training.

If these numbers are more than a coincidence I think it makes sense that when I customize my schedules regardless of the player or what I emphasize in his training I should aim for splits no bigger than this...

What do you think?

[Grisales]

I'm really still struggling to get to grips with this thread!

First point: looking at ProZone's excel sheet, it seems now that natural fitness is untrainable, and therefore Strength's baseline should be 3 for outfield, (instead of 4 as currently listed) correct?

Second point: I still dont really get how players improve given certain weights. It seems to me the training system is biased in favour of the categories that have fewer attributes, in that relatively speaking you could pump those alot more? (A full slider of strength relatively is higher than a full slider of aerobic)

I would love to get involved in making more specialised schedules to add to SFraser's current weightings, (people have talked about an anchorman, wingback, box-box MF, wide midfielder), but I'm not sure I fully understand what determines whether an attribute will grow.

If we assume Strength has 3 trainable attributes and aerobic has 6, then setting Strength to 6 and aerobic to 6 means that strength has double the focus as I understand it, so for every one point gained in aerobic attributes, two points should be gained in strength attributes? Say I left every other slider on zero, and this was a young player with plenty of spare CA to gain. This would be a very low intensity training programme, so would they gain at all? Im so confused

I think I better leave it to the pro's!

[ProZone]

@ Grisales

Don't despair! I think that, since the Tactics Creator has been introduced, training has become the most complicated area of the game to understand - perhaps it always was! I have been looking at it closely for many months now and I still can't answer many of the questions I have.

Your first point is correct and SFraser has said that there are revisions to be made to the original category baseline no.s used. These are in the process of being corrected. I did point out that my sheet was for demonstration purposes only.

Your second point is correct also. Certain categories can be biased more than others simply due to the fact that they contain fewer attributes. That's just the way it is.

I have long wanted to develop Role specific schedules too, and perhaps this is where I should come clean...

The framework which I proposed above can be easily adapted to do this. Whereas I proposed that Baseline x Focus = Balanced Training Schedule my belief is that this can be modified one step further, thus:

Baseline x Focus x Role Bias = Role Specific Training Schedule

This whole process has relied on someone to understand the requirements for, and produce, a balanced schedule which can then be biased to favour the attributes required for each Role. The Role attributes are known and have been used in the development of my own Squad Analysis Tool (apologies for the plug :o). SFraser appears to have discovered the elusive balance, not simply for one case but for each position and for each age group. In all honesty this is a remarkable achievement

The limiting factor, as always, with training schedules is the Overall Workload limit but we'll tackle that one when we get to it!

[ProZone]

You are completely on the right track with your comparison of attributes to categories and this I have done myself, but the Training attribute display is at best "untidy" and at worst misleading.

Absolutely! If I may be so bold and any of the SI guys responsible for the Training module are reading this then I'd like to politely and respectfully ask them to pull their socks up! A little more care and attention to detail, plus a clearer description of displays in the manual (any one of the various manuals at that), would remove a lot of ambiguity.

I like that alot Prozone.

Prozone this simple and clear explanation of the relationship underlying these schedules could be easilly used to define "half increases" for example 2.5 : 3 or 4 ratios of improvement, and should make the whole thing easier to use and discuss.

I heartilly approve of any attempts by you to construct any excell based application for constructing balanced schedules, and would certainly like to find a way to format these ideas and explain them clearly to readers of this thread.

As for the issue of Attributes involved in Training, I have recently come to know specific information on certain types of issues that was completely unknown to me before but that we both discussed between ourselves as being vital information and the "next step" of investigation to clear up a great deal of training issues. This information I will not be releasing to the public directly but I will be using it.

I can say that Natural Fitness, Reflexes, Flair do not require CA in an outfield player and are not involved in Training.

These are all great points and I will return to this thread and these points very soon. I shall first have to go and consider what can be done with this new, and excellent, perspective.

I'm glad you like the idea and I agree this will enable a greater degree of flexibility in designing training schedules.

I have described in my previous post how I think this approach can be extended too.

I will take responsibilty for producing an Excel based 'Training Design Tool' of some sort. It will probably look like the demonstrator I posted earlier but I could build in the Overall Workload contributions I solved for FM2009 if you remember those.

I agree that this needs to be written up clearly now, I'm happy to take that discussion offline.

[TacticalGenius]

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

Has anyone adjusted the schedules to these new amounts, and if they have, could they please upload them and post or pm me a link?

[Grisales]

@ProZone Thanks very much for your quick and clear response, I just have some more questions in relation to the points you raised. I hope you dont mind

How is 'Role Bias' distinguished from 'Focus'? It was my understanding that Focus was already biased towards roles, just that under SFrasers original schedules the roles were more loosely defined.

Also what do you define a "balanced" schedule as? For me a balanced schedule would be the same for every role (thus more akin to 'baseline'), in that it implies even improvement across all attributes.

Im embarassed to say I havnt seen any of your previous work on overall workload, but it would be my inclination to maximize workload subject to unhapiness with workload on an average player (unless you were going to individualise schedules). I have no idea what governs unhappiness with workload but I would assume professionalism, work rate etc.

[phnompenhandy]

If 'Natural Fitness' could be improved through training, it wouldn't be natural!

[ProZone]

If 'Natural Fitness' could be improved through training, it wouldn't be natural!

Indeed!

But what else are we supposed to assume if it's included in the strength Training Category attributes? If the training module could be tidied up a bit so as to be less ambiguous then it would benefit us all.

[b_mack_]

Yeah, I think the language as we use it in real life and how it functions in the game can be rather misleading. I mean in real life Jermaine Defoe is often referred to as "a natural finisher" but I don't think anyone thinks he doesn't work and practice to improve his finishing skills.

If natural fitness is included in the strength Training Category attributes it seems like we ought to assume it is trainable.

[ProZone]

@ProZone Thanks very much for your quick and clear response, I just have some more questions in relation to the points you raised. I hope you dont mind

How is 'Role Bias' distinguished from 'Focus'? It was my understanding that Focus was already biased towards roles, just that under SFrasers original schedules the roles were more loosely defined.

Also what do you define a "balanced" schedule as? For me a balanced schedule would be the same for every role (thus more akin to 'baseline'), in that it implies even improvement across all attributes.

Im embarassed to say I havnt seen any of your previous work on overall workload, but it would be my inclination to maximize workload subject to unhapiness with workload on an average player (unless you were going to individualise schedules). I have no idea what governs unhappiness with workload but I would assume professionalism, work rate etc.

Your understanding of balance is correct. Focus biases a schedule to achieve balance, nothing else. SFraser's schedules have not been designed for particular Roles. He has designed them for position and age and they are all balanced.

I think this highlights the need for a clear write-up, but I'll attempt to give a brief summary now.

Baseline - the number of slider notches/clicks is set to be equal to the number of attributes trained in a particular category. This provides each training category with what we'll call 1 training 'unit'. For outfield player's I believe we now have:

1 STR unit = 3 slider clicks

1 AER unit = 5 slider clicks

1 GK unit = 0 slider clicks (not interested in this for outfield players)

1 TAC unit = 5 slider clicks

1 BAL unit = 4 slider clicks

1 DEF unit = 3 slider clicks

1 ATT unit = 2 slider clicks

1 SHO unit = 3 slider clicks

1 SET unit = 5 slider clicks

Focus - what SFraser has tried to produce are balanced schedules. What this means is that, in general, all attributes increase by the same amount or all attributes decrease by the same amount. I say 'in general' because there are factors outside the control of training (match events being an obvious example) which affect this improvement or decline. Let's forget those for now.

The development of each player is affected by the position he plays, his age and other hidden character traits. However these hidden character traits are outside of our control so we are left with the ability to manipulate schedules for age and position only. These two factors need to be accounted for in all schedules we design and are the key reason why balance is not the same as the Baseline. Hence, SFraser has produced positional schedules each of which has 4 age variations (Youth through to Veteran).

The tricky part to understand is that development is controlled by CA distribution. Let me simplify this with the following example statement. 'It is harder to improve ATT attributes for attacking players because for attacking players the ATT attributes have higher weighting coefficients than for defensive players and therefore require higher amounts of CA for improvement.'

The following Focus values are for SFraser's First Choice AM schedule:

STR: 3

AER: 3

GK: 0

TAC: 3

BAL: 3

DEF: 2

ATT: 4

SHO: 3

SET: 3

What do we see? The ATT category is given additional Focus to ensure that the attributes contained within are developed at the same rate as the attributes in all the other categories. The DEF category has a reduced Focus to achieve the same effect. Thus, this AM schedule has been balanced. Focus biases a schedule to achieve balance.

Role Bias - now we have a balanced schedule for a player of known position and known age we can use this as a foundation and further bias the schedule to promote the attributes we would like to improve, or neglect the attributes we are not interested in, depending on the Role we want him to play.

Don't worry too much about my Workload comment. For FM2009 I managed to calculate the Overall Workload total from the individual training category slider positions. It's something I mentioned to include in a 'Training Design Tool' so as people don't design schedules which they can't implement in the game due to there not being enough Overall Workload available.

[Grisales]

That is a great summary, thanks so much. I feel like I understand much better now. Players have a natural bias against certain training due to their position thus the SFraser schedules assign greater weight to those harder to train attributes to attain balance.

This perfectly explains the need to have an additional role bias, which could be influenced by an individual managers tactics, and preference for stats in different positions (although as a guide the attributes highlighted by the game as being important to a role could have the bias, which I think are the ones used in ProZone's squad analasys tool.

Does this imply that under the current schedules a young centre backs finishing and tackling (just selecting a random unimportant, and important attribute respectively) should improve at roughly the same rate? (Just when I think I have a handle on things, my brain throws another question into the mix). By your explaination I think it would, but I have been using the schedules for a while and have always observed predominantly the most effective stats increasing more, so I assumed the schedules had already been weighted after being balanced.

[ProZone]

Does this imply that under the current schedules a young centre backs finishing and tackling (just selecting a random unimportant, and important attribute respectively) should improve at roughly the same rate? (Just when I think I have a handle on things, my brain throws another question into the mix). By your explaination I think it would, but I have been using the schedules for a while and have always observed predominantly the most effective stats increasing more, so I assumed the schedules had already been weighted after being balanced.

My understanding is that SFraser has tried to achieve balance in all cases. So yes, in theory all attributes should improve at the same rate if development was 100% controlled by training alone. But, in-match events for example provide an additional effect on attribute growth and I'd speculate that this may provide an additional boost, particularly to the key positional attributes, which would account for your observations.

I strongly suspect that achieving a perfect state of balance is impossible. The controls at our disposal are not fine enough to affect each attribute individually. Even if the balance is slightly off, your observations would suggest that the difference is in favour of the positionally applicable attributes which is no bad thing.

[DocSander]

I will take responsibilty for producing an Excel based 'Training Design Tool' of some sort. It will probably look like the demonstrator I posted earlier but I could build in the Overall Workload contributions I solved for FM2009 if you remember those.

Should you need some help of any kind, please just let me know...

Some weeks ago I've chatted with SFraser about the possibility of creating this kind of 'all encompassing' training tool, kind of in line with the Team Talk Optimizer (shameless plug ) that I've launched before!

It's good to see this thread really forming the thought process on this approach to composing training schedules now. Big thumps up for all contributors for holding onto a 'focussed' discussion...

Anyway, just let me know if you need a hand on this one...

Would be a waste of time to compose the same kind of tool independent of each other...

[brigandinho]

'It is harder to improve ATT attributes for attacking players because for attacking players the ATT attributes have higher weighting coefficients than for defensive players and therefore require higher amounts of CA for improvement.'

This, to me, is illogical and counter-intuitive. Doesn't this mean that a defender could potentially become much better at attacking and shooting than a striker? I would have guessed that a striker is a striker precisely because he has a knack for attacking and shooting, and thus would have an easier time training these things than the other way round. If this is the case, would it not be possible to hack this and train a very young defender as a striker and then training him for that position?

What about players that are natural in several positions, is it more difficult for them to train things in general because they have the penalties from several positions, or is it beneficial because the coefficients are averaged for all the players positions?

[phnompenhandy]

I have no intention of installing the new patch but I'm sure I'm in a minority here. I'm hoping SFraser will continue his analysis of training AS IS and soon releases his updated training schedules.

However, I'm concerned by 3 'fixes' I notices as I skimmed the patch fix-list:

- Adjusted newgen attribute creation and development

- Adjusted attribute progression

- Adjusted newgen PA levels

SFraser - does this bu99er things up? Do you need to back to the drawing board? Is this part of your newly-found insider knowledge? What are the implications for player development in 10.3?

[SFraser]

My understanding is that SFraser has tried to achieve balance in all cases. So yes, in theory all attributes should improve at the same rate if development was 100% controlled by training alone. But, in-match events for example provide an additional effect on attribute growth and I'd speculate that this may provide an additional boost, particularly to the key positional attributes, which would account for your observations.

I have tried to stick to a relatively balanced schedule for all positions and age groups, with a bias towards key attributes as I saw them when designing the schedules. These biases are small and are "on-the-fly" judgements as I was doing all this stuff in my head and did not have the clarity and ease of the excellent "Focus" explanation to assist me in working more easilly with my own basic premise.

Generally, I have taken a "Focus" of 2 as a baseline, then increased categories that are likely to contain lots of positionally key CA heavy attributes to Focus 3 for balance of those attributes, then increased further to 4 to provide a specific impetus to those categories.

For positions and Ages where I have decided upon a particularly intensive Focus on specific categories I have raised those to "Focus" 5.

I am sure you can see that my original schedules are haphazard in these respect, and that with the new "Focus" perspective on Categories it should be much, much easier to design, test and amend both schedules and assumptions on Focus level.

This, to me, is illogical and counter-intuitive. Doesn't this mean that a defender could potentially become much better at attacking and shooting than a striker? I would have guessed that a striker is a striker precisely because he has a knack for attacking and shooting, and thus would have an easier time training these things than the other way round. If this is the case, would it not be possible to hack this and train a very young defender as a striker and then training him for that position?

There are several components to this issue, and Phnompenhandy raises one of them, newgen Attribute Creation and Development.

The first component to this issue is that players of X position generally start with a high distribution of CA in those attributes. These particularly key positional attributes invariably start relatively high across the board, albeit with some vast bugs such as Decisions 1 or Anticipation 2 in a newgen Central Defender with otherwise decent defensive attributes. I hope this is what SI have fixed.

These attributes starting so high initially point to the second component. How age modifies CA gain/loss independant of CA weight. Tackling and Positioning do not increase at the same rates at the same age, and neither do Finishing and Off-The-Ball. For a youngster Tackling or Finishing can shoot up dramatically while Positioning or Off The Ball is difficult to raise, then as the player ages it becomes easier to improve Positioning or Off The Ball. So while in theory you could turn a good Centreback into a brilliant Striker, it would take you the players entire career to turn a poor distribution of striker attributes in a good Defender into a top quality Striker.

The third component is Training itself. Finishing and Tackling are in different Categories so you can either train one at the detriment of the improvement of the other, or train both at the detriment of the improvement of some other category. You cannot train both with no negative impact on other training improvements.

Altogether we have a player that starts off with a decent spread of attributes for a particular position, who can only improve certain components of his attribute table best at specific ages, and for whom decisions must be made as where to improve him. Attempt to turn a decent defender into a striker and it will take you many years to reach a sufficient level of striker attributes, and by this time it is likely some of his other key Striker attributes will begin to decline.

In short, what you are given is the best place to start. It is the easiest to improve as an overall player in the stages that development occurs, and it gives you maximum opportunity to achieve the best "peak" spread of attributes before degeneration of attributes.

What about players that are natural in several positions, is it more difficult for them to train things in general because they have the penalties from several positions, or is it beneficial because the coefficients are averaged for all the players positions?

Average spread of attribute weights means average rates of increase of key attributes and average rates of increase of non-critical attributes when a player is at the age where particular attributes are accelerating in their improvement. A particularly "heavy" attribute in terms of CA simply means it requires more CA to improve.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that "Heavy" attributes improve quickest and decline quickest at certain ages, and it is very likely that Position Preference not only determines the CA Weight of attributes but it also determines the pattern of Increase Rate and Decrease Rate according to Age.

Whether this is the same mechanism, or whether this is two different mechanisms working together I do not know, but it seems absolutely clear to me that it is going on. It is one of those areas of Training where we can "assume" its function and get good results, and backup our assumptions with observation, but requires further investigation to actually define properly.

However, I'm concerned by 3 'fixes' I notices as I skimmed the patch fix-list:

SFraser - does this bu99er things up? Do you need to back to the drawing board? Is this part of your newly-found insider knowledge? What are the implications for player development in 10.3?

It doesn't mean much for the schedules themselves as "Attribute Progression Rates" were worked into my schedules only in the most general of terms, with the schedules covering large age groups and applying biases to generic categories.

The schedules are quite simply not "clever" enough in detail to suffer from changes such as these. What we should see though is either superior improvements over time or inferior improvements over time for key position/age attributes and this will help refine the schedules.

[ProZone]

Should you need some help of any kind, please just let me know...

Some weeks ago I've chatted with SFraser about the possibility of creating this kind of 'all encompassing' training tool, kind of in line with the Team Talk Optimizer (shameless plug ) that I've launched before!

It's good to see this thread really forming the thought process on this approach to composing training schedules now. Big thumps up for all contributors for holding onto a 'focussed' discussion...

Anyway, just let me know if you need a hand on this one...

Would be a waste of time to compose the same kind of tool independent of each other...

This is great to know - thanks. I will be in touch I'm sure.

[SFraser]

Designing Schedules

Sorry for the double post, but I would like to explain this process and go into depth for those wishing to design their own schedules or wishing to refine the ones already produced, using Prozones excellent guide to understanding the underlying principles.

The basic principle here is to design schedules with "one notch per attribute" in each category. This should first of all make sure that we are designing schedules based on attribute growth and not category growth. As different categories have different numbers of attributes, designing schedules based on category growth will produce attribute growth we have not accounted for. Equal category growth for Tactics and Attacking could well produce 3x more Attacking attribute gains than Tactical gains, when we were actually hoping for equal gains.

As Prozone described:

Baseline - the number of slider notches/clicks is set to be equal to the number of attributes trained in a particular category. This provides each training category with what we'll call 1 training 'unit'. For outfield player's I believe we now have:

1 STR unit = 3 slider clicks

1 AER unit = 5 slider clicks

1 GK unit = 0 slider clicks

1 TAC unit = 5 slider clicks

1 BAL unit = 4 slider clicks

1 DEF unit = 3 slider clicks

1 ATT unit = 2 slider clicks

1 SHO unit = 3 slider clicks

1 SET unit = 5 slider clicks

This would give us a Training schedule giving every attribute the exact same quantity of Training, and would be a perfectly balanced schedule. It would be a low intensity schedule, and because it is low intensity it will:

1: Reduce the CA this player can gain through Training.

2: Reduce the quantity of CA being moved between attributes that we have direct control over through training.

Higher intensity schedules will allow us to:

1: Increase the quantity of CA this player gains through training.

2: Increase the quantity of CA being moved around that we can directly control through Training.

Ofcourse there are penalties for high intensity schedules. These are:

1: Increased injuries.

2: Lowered Condition Recovery.

3: A minor but regularly applied negative morale penalty.

For each schedule you wish to design upon these rules, you must consider a "Focus" for your players, which is precisely a focus on certain attribute categories. Training itself is limited by the maximum number of notches for each Category, and so in the case of Tactics which has 5 attributes and only 25 notches in the slider, you can only give each attribute 5 notches of training. This means that only a maximum "Focus" of +5 for Tactics is possible.

Here we have a schedule where we are training each Category by "one notch per attribute" so each attribute in all categories is receiving the same quantity of training.

We have decided upon a "Focus" for Tactics. The 5 Tactics attributes are now receiving "five notches per attribute" for an overall ratio of 1 of everything else to 5 tactics. Every increase of all other attributes should now be met with 5 increases for each tactics attribute. This is the "Focus". 5xTactics for 1xEverything else.

Now remember that these are not "Category improvements". It is not 5x Tactics Category improvement, it is 5x EACH Tactics Attribute compared to other attributes. Tactics as a category has 12.5x more Training than Attacking, but it has 2.5x more attributes than attacking.

These are the basic rules to be used for designing schedules. There are other vitally important rules to take into account, but they apply to players themselves.

Players

To design good schedules you must take into account the behaviour of players attributes.

General Attribute Rules

The general rule of thumb with player attributes is that each Category of Attributes on the Player Profile screen, Technical-Mental-Physical, have different rates of growth and decline depending on a players age.

Technical Attributes plot a generally steady course and are the "guide" for the other two categories. Technical Attributes start off slightly difficult to increase in very young players, become increasingly easier to increase as a player approaches late 20's and then get tougher to increase as the player approaches 40.

Mental Attributes start off very tough to increase in youngsters and get increasingly easier to increase right up untill a player is around 40, when they will drop rapidly.

Physical Attributes start off tough to increase in very young players but rapidly accelerate in their "ease of increase" and peak around the early twenties. After this they will start to slowly decline, and around Age 33-34 you will fighting an uphill battle to prevent their decline.

Specific Position Rules

I will be completely honest here, this area requires a lot of investigation before anything concrete can be defined.

In practical terms, these issues seem to make little difference to Training but erring on the side of caution and increasing key Position Categories seems to produce the best results.

This implies two things:

1) The underlying mechanics of these issues are attempting to make them irrelevant for general gameplay like Training.

2) The underlying mechanics are slightly out of balance (and were possibly changed for 10.3).

3) The underlying mechanics are complex.

Do not be alarmed here. In my experience it is completely uneccesary to work with these issue through Training, although erring on the side caution if concerned or not receiving the ideal results is advised.

I will explain how to err on the side of caution and how to work with these "unknown details" in my worked example to follow.

Do not panic.

Worked Example

The good old worked example is always useful. In this example I will use the Centreback, as they are the Position with least "opinion" and personal flavour, and least "distractions".

The Centreback is a nice, simple player to Train and it would appear that my Centreback schedules are the ones producing the best results. So here I will explain how I design a schedule for the simplest and most robust of positions, and hopefully explain to you how to go about designing your own schedules for all other positions.

The Young Centreback

This is the player we wish to design a training schedule for. A very good Centreback that my coaches tell me "would be a leading star for most Premier League sides". The very first, absolutely fundamental thing to do is to study his profile and work out what we wish to see occur.

Jonny Evans

Jonny Evans is an excellent Mental and Technical Centreback, he has quality levels for all Technical and Mental aspects of the defensive game, including First Touch and Passing. His key strengths are most certainly in reading the game and dealing with threats early, but he has an unfortunate lack of Physical Ability, and his key Mental and Technical Strengths are not high enough to deal with the best players and best sides in the game. My coaches also tell me that he is "close to his PA" so I will not be getting many more "Free Attributes".

Any improvements to this player are very likely going to have to come at the expense of other attributes. So my judgement and design is crucial. It is fundamentally necessary for me to look at this player and understand what his future potential can be from where he is now.

Jonny Evans is 22. This means his Physical Attributes have a few more years of relative ease of improvement before their decline, while his Technical and Mental Attributes have yet to reach peak levels of improvement. In 5-6 years time his Physical Attributes will start to decline and will migrate to his Technical and Mental Attributes. In 10-12 years time his Technical Attributes will start to decline and migrate to his Mental. His Mental game "could" reach extra-ordinary levels of ability, at the cost of physical and technical ability. By the time he is 26 he could have Vidic or Ferdinand mental ability. By the time he is 32 he could be getting close to Cannavaro levels of mental ability. However this is all going to come at the cost of Physical Attributes.

If his Mental Attributes reach Cannavaro levels he will not need much in the way of Pace and Acceleration. Neither his pace and acceleration and jumping, nor Strength is particular good for a Centreback. Crucially however his Strength Attributes are closest to being quite high, Aerobic will not be necessary, and Strength Attributes require less Training and have Fewer Attributes. I could sacrifice Aerobic not only for Strength Improvements, but also for Improvements in other areas.

Unfortunately his PA is too low to allow him to progress much in terms of overall improvement. He will never become a Ferdinand or Cannavaro in terms of all round ability. But we can instead train him to become an absolute specialist in the Mental and Technical aspects of defending. We should forget about Aerobic, Ball Control, Attacking Shooting, Set Pieces and Focus only on Strength, Defending and Tactics. Ofcourse we dont want Ball Control, Aerobic, Attacking to completely plummit, but we are willing to sacrifice them.

The ideal overall Focus might be something like the following:

STR: 4

AER: 2

GK: 0

TAC: 4

BAL: 2

DEF: 4

ATT: 2

SHO: 2

SET: 0

However we know that in the immediate short term we are running out of time to improve Physical Ability, and it will be atleast another 5 years before Mental reaches its peak gain. If we go with the current Focus then Strength may not improve by much, while Mental slowly grows then accelerates away to daft levels. We also know that his Technical Defending skills do require improvement and although they have a longer time to develop they will still decline before Mental where Evans is clearly already the strongest.

Our second worked Focus might be this:

STR: 6

AER: 2

GK: 0

TAC: 3

BAL: 1

DEF: 6

ATT: 1

SHO: 1

SET: 0

The problem here though is that our Strength Category is getting into the realm of injuries, and we might be encouraging rapid drops in highly useful attributes that we wish to see slowly decline rather than plummit outright.

So we adjust our Focus again and decide upon the final focus of:

STR: 5

AER: 2

GK: 0

TAC: 4

BAL: 2

DEF: 6

ATT: 2

SHO: 2

SET: 0

For a schedule like this:

We may have to accept the sacrifice of key Strength gains for this player, but we have the option to increase the Focus of Strength if we do not see the gains we wish. Hopefully this schedule will work for us in the near future, but if after 6 months we are not seeing what we expect we can knock down Tactics and Defending and go Whole Hog on Strength with a Focus of 6 or 7 or even 8 if we have the cahones.

That is the crux of my own released schedules. A major aspect of Injuries was the miscount of attributes, but the second major aspect was my "erring on the side of caution" when it came to attempting to ensure gains of physical attributes.

You either gain Physical Attributes rapidly and early, or you struggle for the rest of a players career.

Anyway, I hope his helps.