SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

[Jumbalumba]

It is you that is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. You assume that it is important to know the relative weightings in order to make accurate schedules, but you have no evidence or arguement to back this up. It is a mere assumption based on the fact you are aware that attribute weightings exist.

It seems I must state again that I do not intend to say that weightings have any effect on actual training or the speed of training.

We want the optimal training. Certain attributes are more important than others. Certain attributes behave differently than others based on age etc. as you correctly pointed out. Instead of adjusting the basic training schedule based on how many attributes are in each training category by an arbitrary method of deeming certain attributes as more important or affected differently, I would like a more scientific study on this. I believe attribute weightings offers an unbiased opinion on this so I believe studying them is of value. I am not saying they are definitely correct and I do recognise there are other factors too. All I am saying is studying them is of value.

We can look at this another way. The initial starting point for you is that all attributes are evenly weighted in terms of training. We can make a schedule based on that but obviously we need to adjust for position, age etc. or else everybody would have the same training and that's illogical. So we adjust it by how important we deem certain attributes or the training of certain attributes for each position or age of the players. How do we do this? The CA weightings offer one solution to adjusting for position. Again, I am not saying that they are definitely correct or optimal but the fact that it is programmed for certain attributes to be weighted higher means that those attributes are of higher importance to that position. The weightings offer us an unbiased way to adjust schedules instead of the arbitrary method of thinking 'hmm, I think this category is this much more important than another so I'll add a few clicks here and I'll take away a few here' with "no evidence or arguement to back this up".

As for the question on your assumptions, that was in no way taking a jab at you and what you are doing here. I just want to ask what "evidence or arguement to back this up" you have for choosing to follow a way that assumes each attribute is weighted evenly in terms of training rather than the more popular 'Number Line' theorists that assume each training category is weighted evenly. I can see the logical underpinnings of your assumption in that there are fewer attributes in Strength so why should I train as much as Aerobic but, on the flip side, it seems somewhat weird that training would work like that. The idea of training Strength lightly and training Aerobic mediumly leading to the same improvements in each attributes can be uncomfortable. You should understand why I can be a bit skeptical because throughout all the years of FM, clearly the most popular of training schedules have always had Strength and Aerobic at the same amount. I have always used my own schedules based on equilibrium amounts of training with the idea that the equilibrium position is different for each category and for each position. However, surely the great majority cannot get such an integral part of FM so wrong for so long.

I do recognise that you have provided a few examples but I guess what I wanted to ask was "is there any non-empirical basis to your assumption?".

[w00t77]

I have been following the training thread for the last month or so, and following the notches/focus theory, i.e. 3 attributes in Str means it should be increased 3 notches each time, based on each player's focus. I have had pretty decent results, but I think its fair to say that this is still an assumption?

I somewhat think what Jumbalumba is suggesting kinda make sense, about the assumption that assumes each attribute is weighted evenly.

To make things clearer, for example, we increase Str training by 3 notches (because theres 3 attibbutes, strenght, stamina,workrate) each time, depending on focus right? But what are the underlying evidence that 1 notch is equals to training 1 attibute. It's only still an assumption right?

So, putting Strength training @ 12 notches and Aerobics @ 20 notches (both 4 focus) is suppose to give a player the same focus. However, the training graph SI shows us are not indicating that, it will indicate that this player is doing more Aerobics training than Strength. This graph is suppose to help us assist us monitoring training progress right? My point is, could the core theory of '1 notch = 1 attribute' be flawed? Are we over complicating things? Could it be (from the same example given above) that, eg. putting 16 notches on both Strength and Aerobic Training will result in the same focus?

Because to be honest, I've seen decent results when using Sfrasers theory to create schedules as well as other schedules I used previously, eg, TUG's traninig. Both yield decent results, therefore, Im not sure it's very hard to determine which is optimum and which underlying principal is accurate when creating schedules.

I want to stress that I am not here to argue, but to encourage discussions.

[Indi75]

ive just noticed all developing schedules get very heavy training results which cant be good for young players or am i missing something?

Oh sweet jesus! PLEASE READ THE THREAD!

This isn't a quick miracle download that immediately makes all players into uberathletes. It's a discussion that includes a download that has since been noted as erroneous.

SFFraser, it might well be worth taking down the link with the erroneous schedules on, else we'll have noone bothering to read the discussion and everyone asking this same old question 3 times a day having not been able to download an instant fix.

I've been using these for 3 seasons now and they are by and large working well, but it seems to me that it's harder to improve WF attributes in a ML/MR than in a AML/AMR. This seems to be position specific to a degree?

[polskaGOLA]

I agree with Indi75, but I do hope that someone will make new proper schedules soon however.

Also, if you do make a new schedule set, please deferentiate DM and CM schedules as well as Wingers(WF) and ML/MR's. Annoys me that when I have a DM or ML/MR I could be training them the wrong way.

[Abaddon879]

To try and stop all these questions about the changes to training, perhaps it is easiest to make public the suggested changes in simplified form. As stated by SFraser:

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.

In summary:

For every 4 strength, reduce by 1

For every 6 aerobic, reduce by 1

For every 5 ball control, reduce by 1

Schedule reductions

In accordance with the changes above suggested by SFraser, the schedules should be reduced as follows:

U-17:----|Str|Aer|Ball

WF| -3 | -3 | -3

ST| -3 | -3 | -2

FB| -3 | -3 | -2

CM| -3 | -3 | -2

CF| -3 | -3 | -2

CB| -3 | -3 | -1

AM| -3 | -3 | -2

Develop:-|Str |Aer|Ball

WF| -4 | -4 | -4

ST| -4 | -4 | -3

FB| -4 | -4 | -3

CM| -4 | -4 | -3

CF| -4 | -4 | -3

CB| -4 | -4 | -2

AM| -4 | -4 | -3

1st :----|Str |Aer|Ball

WF| -3 | -3 | -4

ST| -3 | -3 | -4

FB| -3 | -3 | -3

CM| -4 | -3 | -3

CF| -4 | -3 | -4

CB| -3 | -3 | -3

AM| -3 | -3 | -3

Veteran:-|Str|Aer|Ball

WF| -4 | -3 | -3

ST| -4 | -2 | -4

FB| -4 | -2 | -3

CM| -5 | -2 | -3

CF| -5 | -2 | -3

CB| -4 | -2 | -3

AM| -4 | -2 | -4

Injury:----------|Str |Aer|Ball

Short-term| -2 | -2 | -2

Long-term | -3 | -3 | -2

I have uploaded these corrections to the original schedules and if SFraser agrees, will make them available for download. In the meantime, you can now easily make the corrections yourself - took me 5 minutes once I had worked out the numbers.

[facman]

In the meantime, you can now easily make the corrections yourself - took me 5 minutes once I had worked out the numbers.

Hear Hear! It took me 5 minutes too!

Anyway - great thread with some very interesting theories, evidence etc. I'm giving the training regimes a go with my Everton team and with the reduced intensities I have only had 1 training related injury in the last 2 months (and that was Saha so doesn't really count as his injury proneness stat is something like 18!)

[ProZone]

But what are the underlying evidence that 1 notch is equals to training 1 attibute. It's only still an assumption right?

Correct. It is an assumption and will remain that way until we can see the game code and know for sure what is going on. That is never going to happen mind.

Therefore, there can be no conclusive evidence. Confidence that the assumption is correct comes from predicting and then seeing the desired results. The results that have been reported thus far are all positive and show that the assumption is more or less sound.

The fact that attributes are grouped into categories makes it impossible to target single attributes individually. However, this very fact helps to reinforce the 1 notch per attribute assumption. We know all the attributes are weighted and thus 1 notch per attribute would be errorneous if we had the level of control to affect each attribute individually. But, the very fact that the assumtion is spread over a training category containing multiple attributes means that any errors are smeared and the end result is possibly something very close to 1 notch per attribute. This is a further reason to be confident in using the 1 notch per attribute assumption. Obviously, we can be more confident in this assumption for the Tactics category containing 5 attributes than we can in the Attacking category which only contains 2 attributes. Again, category sizes are outside of our control but the proof, as always, is in the pudding - the results being reported so far are very good.

I'm pleased to see the assumptions being challenged in a constructive manner

[polskaGOLA]

Ahh, thanks a whole ton Abaddon! I knew the schedules were fixable but I didn't know how to fix them until now!

So now that I lowered STR, AER and BAL, should I just leave everything else as is for a less intensive training schedule?

What about GK schedules?

And I am still wondering my question from last page regarding injuries:

In addition to this,

What are the injury schedules for? I mean, During the injury or is it injury recovery?

Also what would you consider a long term injury and what a short term?

[ZdlR]

As far as I am aware, players don't train while injured. Therefore, it is for the recovery of the injury. Probably until they are fully fit and integrated back into the squad again.

[marcolam]

Sorry can anyone can explain what is the long term and short term injury for?

[Abaddon879]

Ahh, thanks a whole ton Abaddon! I knew the schedules were fixable but I didn't know how to fix them until now!

So now that I lowered STR, AER and BAL, should I just leave everything else as is for a less intensive training schedule?

What about GK schedules?

And I am still wondering my question from last page regarding injuries:

If you read the post I referred to, SFraser states that the error was a miscount of Natural fitness and reflexes on the outfield schedules.

If you look at the GK Test schedule, you will notice SFraser has only included 3 clicks for Str on that schedule, so the mistake with Natural Fitness was not present on the GK schedules.

As for injuries:

As far as I am aware, players don't train while injured. Therefore, it is for the recovery of the injury. Probably until they are fully fit and integrated back into the squad again.

This is the understanding I have, and I could have sworn SFraser answered the question somewhere back in this very thread but I cannot seem to find the post right now. From what I remember, the basis was that it was dependant on how long they had been out. Long term injuries schedule was intended for players who have been out a long time and so will have dropped point in Str and Aer. This schedule is intended to build these points back up and slowly reintroduce the player to training. The short term injuries schedule was intended for players who have only been out a very short time 1-2 weeks at most I would say.

From what I remember, you are meant to leave the player on these schedules until they are back to match fitness.

[phnompenhandy]

The short term injuries schedule was intended for players who have only been out a very short time 1-2 weeks at most I would say.

From what I remember, you are meant to leave the player on these schedules until they are back to match fitness.

Ah dammit. I deleted the injury schedules cos I didn't understand them. Now I've got players coming back after 2-3 weeks out and promptly getting injured in their first first team game back

[Sergey S.]

Ah dammit. I deleted the injury schedules cos I didn't understand them. Now I've got players coming back after 2-3 weeks out and promptly getting injured in their first first team game back

As far as I remember they're pretty intense too since SFraser was trying to force the recovery or "saving" of physical attributes via the injury recovery schedules. So to do that he had to make them very physically intensive and that can lead to a quick injury once more.

[Abaddon879]

The injury schedules aren't intense at all. They are designed to rebuild the lost CA in the str and aer categories from long term injuries while not risking a relapse of the injury through intense physical workouts. It is much more appropiate to place them in a lesser schedule for a week or two after injury than to have them training at full capacity straight after injury. Can you really see Beckham coming back and training every minute of every day? He will slowly be re-introduced to training to regain his fitness levels and get him match fit before risking a more intensity of training.

[L.McDaDe]

Great post SFraser, never tried these schedules suprisingly ! I will now

[GADONGTA]

But what are the underlying evidence that 1 notch is equals to training 1 attibute. It's only still an assumption right?

So, putting Strength training @ 12 notches and Aerobics @ 20 notches (both 4 focus) is suppose to give a player the same focus. However, the training graph SI shows us are not indicating that, it will indicate that this

player is doing more Aerobics training than Strength. This graph is suppose to help us assist us monitoring training progress right? My point is, could the core theory of '1 notch = 1 attribute' be flawed? Are we over

complicating things? Could it be (from the same example given above) that, eg. putting 16 notches on both Strength and Aerobic Training will result in the same focus?

Because to be honest, I've seen decent results when using Sfrasers theory to create schedules as well as other schedules I used previously, eg, TUG's traninig. Both yield decent results, therefore, Im not sure it's very hard to

determine which is optimum and which underlying principal is accurate when creating schedules.

I want to stress that I am not here to argue, but to encourage discussions.

Correct. It is an assumption and will remain that way until we can see the game code and know for sure what is going on. That is never going to happen mind.

Therefore, there can be no conclusive evidence. Confidence that the assumption is correct comes from predicting and then seeing the desired results. The results that have been reported thus far are all positive and show that

the assumption is more or less sound.

The fact that attributes are grouped into categories makes it impossible to target single attributes individually. However, this very fact helps to reinforce the 1 notch per attribute assumption. We know all the attributes are

weighted and thus 1 notch per attribute would be errorneous if we had the level of control to affect each attribute individually. But, the very fact that the assumtion is spread over a training category containing multiple

attributes means that any errors are smeared and the end result is possibly something very close to 1 notch per attribute. This is a further reason to be confident in using the 1 notch per attribute assumption. Obviously,

we can be more confident in this assumption for the Tactics category containing 5 attributes than we can in the Attacking category which only contains 2 attributes. Again, category sizes are outside of our control but the

proof, as always, is in the pudding - the results being reported so far are very good.

I'm pleased to see the assumptions being challenged in a constructive manner

Talking about assumptions, I am one of those many people who was skeptical of what Sfraser introduced to us of his theories. I think I am somewhat similar to w00t77, still find it is difficult to move away from the "Line theories" that has served me so well (probably too well in fact) and even did some researches on training for FM on my own. Yet, I was just observing this thread from the beginning without participating on something that I am quite passionate about because I didnt find anything for counter arguement of Sfraser's approach....well up until now (that I realised THE stumbling block)

It was because of what ProZone had introduced of his workload research (Great work, btw). What he had introduced led to the line of thinking that, for example, with Atk and Tactics categories sharing the same overall workload weight, it became hard to argue against the idea that we should train these two categories differently based on the number of attributes in those particular categories if we wanted to train them at equal progression rate. I believe this line of thinking also led Sfraser to develop his approach of "1 notch per attribute" as we are seeing now.

HOwever, what would Sfraser and ProZone think if I propose that the differences in the number of attributes in the example of equal workload weighing Atk and Tac categories should not be interpreted into the need to develop disproportionated training level of these two? At notch 13 for example of Atk category, couldn' it be that training levels of Passing AND training level of Creativity SEPARATELY are both at 13. The attribute weighing of Passing and Creativity in the Atk category up until now can safely be assumed as hasn' been found yet, nevertheless isn't their levels that combine into an overall workload of 0.83??? Similarly, at notch 13 for Tactics category, the training levels of Anticipation AND Decisions AND Positioning AND Off-the-ball AND Teamwork SEPARATELY are ALL at 13. Although once again the attribute weighing of this category is unknown, would it wrong to theorize that their combination of training levels lead the Tactics category overall workload again at 0.83? What I am trying to propose is overall workload-wise, Passing training of Attacking category might be different than Off-the-ball training of Tactics category, yet, following my assumption above, wouldn't they be trained at similar pace given that their training levels are the same if we put Attacking and Tactic categories on the same level? In another word, I think we could be confuse between WORKLOAD with TRAINING LEVEL of ATTRIBUTES.

Lastly, the training of FM10 hasn't changed jack since the last version (exclude the Composure and Concentration training in the GK category since 10.2), therefore, shouldn't what we have learnt since previous version still be somewhat useful??? Assuming that it is the case (which it is btw) then firstly how should we deal with Position and PPM workload issues following the "1 notch per attribute" approach. I know how I should (and would) do in FM09. (too lazy to write again). Secondly, the "1 notch per attribute"(dis)proportionate focus approach totally ignored the training levels of each category as far as I see because in the training screen , there are Light, Medium, Hard and Intensive levels that we should taken into account for. From there comes the third issue, which is the training lines in the training graph itself. Sfraser has stated that the "lines in the training graphs are misleading" yet, how should we interpret those lines of OTL&TPO and certain limit of those lines (up until certain points then heavier training might not be necessary according to the graph)?

Oh well, so many things to be taken into account and thus so confusing!

[ProZone]

@ GADONGTA

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could I ask you to re-phrase and maybe include a worked example of how you might formulate a training Baseline on the Workload contributions of each category.

I get confused by Training Levels. I have never seen a clear, unambigous explanation of what the graphs represent. Because of this, to the best of my understanding, SFraser has devised these schedules based on his observations of outputs (attribute changes) from the inputs (category slider notches). The training graphs have been largely ignored as a schedule design tool. Perhaps you could start by giving your interpretation of their meaning.

[SavageNick]

@ GADONGTA

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could I ask you to re-phrase and maybe include a worked example of how you might formulate a training Baseline on the Workload contributions of each category.

I get confused by Training Levels. I have never seen a clear, unambigous explanation of what the graphs represent. Because of this, to the best of my understanding, SFraser has devised these schedules based on his observations of outputs (attribute changes) from the inputs (category slider notches). The training graphs have been largely ignored as a schedule design tool. Perhaps you could start by giving your interpretation of their meaning.

As far as I can tell - what he's trying to say is that the notches for each training category are related to EACH stat in the category, not all of them as a whole. As an example - the standard "General" training that you start with has all categories at the same level, roughly 12/13 (apart from GK which is 0). If your players spent their entire time training in this schedule (like the AI players do) then ALL trainable stats for an outfield player should have EXACTLY the same weighting in regards to the amount of CA assigned to them (obviously you need to take age etc into account but we'll ignore that for the example). Essentially, what it means is that the number of stats in the category isn't relevant because EVERY stat in the category is set to the same weighting as the number of clicks.

It's an interesting theory and would explain why the general schedule has all the categories set to the same value (i.e. a "uniform" increase in stats when ignoring age and injuries).

Hmmm...

[FM1000]

I read some post of this thread and i dont understand anything.I dont have time to read all of the post so can somebody enlighten me how do i make my training schedules! For exp the 32 years old striker Sfrazer was talking about will gain much more teamwork than acceleration so i need to put aerobic to max and tactics to 1 or?

[jim morrow]

Once again for training :

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. That's why is useful to put all players to the same notch for all training area. (like the general schedule in FM2010 but with more notches)....

So after two or three months, the training levels graph will show how player training activity is in each area. In a perfect world, you would see all training graph very high and training graph increase month by month to reach maximum after one season.

For the area where the graph is low, it means that the player can't train any more on it...So you don't need to put heavy load on it just a maintain level.

What's a maintain level, is a level where the graph doesn't decrease month by month.

That's why you need each month to adjust training sliders following increase or decrease of training level graph...it's the only solution to know if your player has reached his maximum on a specific training area....

Like Marc said, it's so simple.....Don"t try to know which attributes will increase or decrease in the same training area, it's pure illusion....too much complex for us and with tools in FM2010 we have (sliders for a training area) can't do that.

[ProZone]

It's an interesting theory and would explain why the general schedule has all the categories set to the same value (i.e. a "uniform" increase in stats when ignoring age and injuries).

But this doesn't happen in my experience. I will happily stand corrected if anyone can confirm that this is what they see when using the default General schedule.

[ClarenceZico]

Really interesting thread guys, KUTGW.

One question though, i make my own schedules but was wondering if i usede SFrasers long term and short term injury schedules to help ease them back in whether it would work? Or do they only work properly if you use all of his training schedules?

[aunmar]

I've been using this schedule for a couple of seasons. It is amazing!

I have a question about midfielders and passing. My deep-lying playmaker Sandro only has 14 in passing, and I really want to improve that area. Almost every other stats than passing is improving on his Developing CM-schedule. What do you reccomend me to do?

[Filke]

any updates to this shedules ?

tnx

[SFraser]

It seems I must state again that I do not intend to say that weightings have any effect on actual training or the speed of training.

We want the optimal training. Certain attributes are more important than others. Certain attributes behave differently than others based on age etc. as you correctly pointed out. Instead of adjusting the basic training schedule based on how many attributes are in each training category by an arbitrary method of deeming certain attributes as more important or affected differently, I would like a more scientific study on this. I believe attribute weightings offers an unbiased opinion on this so I believe studying them is of value. I am not saying they are definitely correct and I do recognise there are other factors too. All I am saying is studying them is of value.

I have already explained to you that Attribute Weightings do not fit into Training Schedules and that there are no patterns of attribute change that correspond to Attribute Weightings. The difference between the largest and smallest Attribute Weights is a factor of 21x as far as I am aware, and if these Weights were directly involved in attribute growth then Training would be impossible, and there would be rediculous scales of non key attribute growth.

Attribute Weightings, like CA, are limiting factors on the maximum level of attributes. All differences in attribute growth rates can be explained by Age, and if there is any room for Attribute Weight influence on Attribute Growth rates it is minor. There are certainly no examples whatsoever of natural growth patterns of non key attributes reaching 21x the rate of increase of key attributes. Indeed there are few examples of any attributes growing at a rate of 4x another per season even under perfect conditions with vast biases in Training schedules.

Attribute Growth rates do not correspond to differences in Attribute Weights. Indeed the actual evidence suggests that once Age is taken out of the equation there is no difference in the growth rates of attributes in the same Category. Any and all variations in attribute growth rates inside a Category when Age is removed are minor and are very likely to be perception errors.

You assume that I have made no study of Attribute Weightings, and you completely wrong. I have spent a long time studying their influence on Training and Attribute Growth and my conclusion is that they have none, or if they do it is minor and accounts for a fraction of the end result which could equally be explained by perception errors.

We can look at this another way. The initial starting point for you is that all attributes are evenly weighted in terms of training.

That is entireally incorrect. My initial starting point is that attribute growth behaviour is not equal, does not follow patterns of Training Levels and Training Progress, and does not produce equal results from equal slider positions. My initial starting point is that all the tools available to us immediately upon entering the Training screen or Attribute Profile requires vast quantities of study and interpretation before even basic relationships can be defined and exposed.

The end result of a long term process of study and investigation is a set of experimental Schedules testing the premise of Training players based on accounting for the number of attributes being Trained and taking into account the impact of Age. The resulting feedback from these schedules accounting for Attributes and Age would inform me of the impact of other factors, such as Attribute Weights etc.

As you can clearly see from this thread there is none, or only a minor impact accounting for a fraction of the end result.

We can make a schedule based on that but obviously we need to adjust for position, age etc. or else everybody would have the same training and that's illogical. So we adjust it by how important we deem certain attributes or the training of certain attributes for each position or age of the players. How do we do this? The CA weightings offer one solution to adjusting for position.

This is the fundamental point you are missing. The direct evidence argues against the impact of Training Weights. The direct evidence argues directly in favour of accounting for number of Attributes being Trained and the impact of Age on their rate of growth or decline.

It is not possible to see all results conform precisely to predictions and knowledge of factually involved game mechanics based on a completely faulty premise.

Have you actually tried these schedules? You keep asking me for evidence as if none exists when this entire thread is a library of evidence. Now it is my turn to ask you for evidence to support any of your assumptions.

Talking about assumptions, I am one of those many people who was skeptical of what Sfraser introduced to us of his theories. I think I am somewhat similar to w00t77, still find it is difficult to move away from the "Line theories" that has served me so well (probably too well in fact) and even did some researches on training for FM on my own. Yet, I was just observing this thread from the beginning without participating on something that I am quite passionate about because I didnt find anything for counter arguement of Sfraser's approach....well up until now (that I realised THE stumbling block)

It was because of what ProZone had introduced of his workload research (Great work, btw). What he had introduced led to the line of thinking that, for example, with Atk and Tactics categories sharing the same overall workload weight, it became hard to argue against the idea that we should train these two categories differently based on the number of attributes in those particular categories if we wanted to train them at equal progression rate. I believe this line of thinking also led Sfraser to develop his approach of "1 notch per attribute" as we are seeing now.

HOwever, what would Sfraser and ProZone think if I propose that the differences in the number of attributes in the example of equal workload weighing Atk and Tac categories should not be interpreted into the need to develop disproportionated training level of these two? At notch 13 for example of Atk category, couldn' it be that training levels of Passing AND training level of Creativity SEPARATELY are both at 13. The attribute weighing of Passing and Creativity in the Atk category up until now can safely be assumed as hasn' been found yet, nevertheless isn't their levels that combine into an overall workload of 0.83??? Similarly, at notch 13 for Tactics category, the training levels of Anticipation AND Decisions AND Positioning AND Off-the-ball AND Teamwork SEPARATELY are ALL at 13. Although once again the attribute weighing of this category is unknown, would it wrong to theorize that their combination of training levels lead the Tactics category overall workload again at 0.83? What I am trying to propose is overall workload-wise, Passing training of Attacking category might be different than Off-the-ball training of Tactics category, yet, following my assumption above, wouldn't they be trained at similar pace given that their training levels are the same if we put Attacking and Tactic categories on the same level? In another word, I think we could be confuse between WORKLOAD with TRAINING LEVEL of ATTRIBUTES.

Lastly, the training of FM10 hasn't changed jack since the last version (exclude the Composure and Concentration training in the GK category since 10.2), therefore, shouldn't what we have learnt since previous version still be somewhat useful??? Assuming that it is the case (which it is btw) then firstly how should we deal with Position and PPM workload issues following the "1 notch per attribute" approach. I know how I should (and would) do in FM09. (too lazy to write again). Secondly, the "1 notch per attribute"(dis)proportionate focus approach totally ignored the training levels of each category as far as I see because in the training screen , there are Light, Medium, Hard and Intensive levels that we should taken into account for. From there comes the third issue, which is the training lines in the training graph itself. Sfraser has stated that the "lines in the training graphs are misleading" yet, how should we interpret those lines of OTL&TPO and certain limit of those lines (up until certain points then heavier training might not be necessary according to the graph)?

Oh well, so many things to be taken into account and thus so confusing!

First of all I would say you are vastly overcomplicating issues without providing any kind of basic explanation of how to train players for best results, and providing absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims.

Secondly I would say you are completely focused on Bar Charts without explaining precisely what they tell us, or taking into account Attribute Change end results.

I am sure everyone that plays FM has had their fair share of grand theories on how Training Schedules relate to Bar Charts, but end results are inevitably poor and most "theories" simply fail to take into account the most basic of factual, unavoidable, clear-cut and important factors. The "Training Line Theory" that you so love simply cannot work when CA changes or attributes increase/decline with Age, which is something we all know happens ingame. There is no Aerobic Maintain line for a 40 year old player, end of story. You can pretend otherwise but it is still only a pretence of an understanding of Training.

The "Training Line Theory" is a double edged sword. On the one hand due to its simplicity it has become quite enthralling to many people, on the other hand it is so obviously false that it motivates others to dispel what is quite frankly a rediculous myth. When the completely false is obviously wrong it is much better for everyone looking for information than when the completely false is not obviously wrong.

I should thank you both for your input to this thread. You have both perfectly illustrated precisely what is to be avoided, and that is assumptions that are never tested, never explained, that never take into account the data presented on screens. Assumptions that are put into practice on the wing of a prayer without ever checking to see what is what, or taking into account what actually happens.

My "theory" is simple. Ignore "Training Lines" ignore "Attribute Weights" ignore all these other theorems that simply do not correspond to what is seen ingame. Take into account the number of attributes per Category, take into account the impact of Age on the rate of improvement/decline of each of the three Attribute Profile Panels. I have produced schedules based on these simple points and the results are here for anyone to look at. This thread always was a test, and the results have been as good as I could have hoped for. The feedback and refinement and subsequent analysis, investigation and explanation has been absolutely top notch.

The bottom line is end results. Everyone wants the best possible results. I want the best possible results and that's why I started this thread.

[aunmar]

I've been using this schedule for a couple of seasons. It is amazing!

I have a question about midfielders and passing. My deep-lying playmaker Sandro only has 14 in passing, and I really want to improve that area. Almost every other stats than passing is improving on his Developing CM-schedule. What do you reccomend me to do?

Any help would be much appreciated!

[Chris6543210]

Has there been any updates on this training shedule? Or is the one in the opening post the only set?

[Jumbalumba]

My "theory" is simple. Ignore "Training Lines" ignore "Attribute Weights" ignore all these other theorems that simply do not correspond to what is seen ingame. Take into account the number of attributes per Category, take into account the impact of Age on the rate of improvement/decline of each of the three Attribute Profile Panels.

Are you saying then that you do not, at least directly, differentiate between different positions?

In practice you appear to go outside of your abovementioned simple theory. You do seem to consider which training categories are important in your taking into account the impact of Age. As you have pointed out in your examples, older players decline in their physicals a higher degree than in their other attributes and so you relatively increase their physical training. However, you do not uniformly decrease their training in other categories. In one of your examples, you stated that you chose Tactics and Defending to be relatively unharmed and instead decreased the training of the other categories.

Now how do you come to the conclusion that maintaining physicals but training less in other categories is preferable to declining physicals but relatively greater training in other aspects? In the same way, why is Tactics and Defending preferred to the other categories? How do you come up with how much preference you give to these categories? Are you not applying some standard of importance here?

Without any such standard, would you really have a striker with the same amount of shooting training as a central defender? To my knowledge, which is admittedly quite limited, there is no suggestion that strikers and defenders train or lose shooting attributes at different rates apart from the fact that the lifespan of strikers is smaller. Any effect due to age will most likely not be enough to result in the large difference in training in shooting that people would usually consider appropriate. It probably wouldn't suggest the 50-100% difference that you have in your schedules.

If you are not applying some sort of standard to each category then I'd like to understand what is happening with that example you gave. If you are applying some sort of standard then I can understand you better in that respect. Even then though, I'd still like to understand how you come to how much preference you attribute to each category.

[ProZone]

I've been using this schedule for a couple of seasons. It is amazing!

I have a question about midfielders and passing. My deep-lying playmaker Sandro only has 14 in passing, and I really want to improve that area. Almost every other stats than passing is improving on his Developing CM-schedule. What do you reccomend me to do?

Increase his ATT training by 2 notches. This adds an extra level of Focus as we have described it. Give it ~3 months (without injuries) and check to see if there has been an improvement. If not, repeat this process.

And post your results here please

[SFraser]

Are you saying then that you do not, at least directly, differentiate between different positions?

In practice you appear to go outside of your abovementioned simple theory. You do seem to consider which training categories are important in your taking into account the impact of Age. As you have pointed out in your examples, older players decline in their physicals a higher degree than in their other attributes and so you relatively increase their physical training. However, you do not uniformly decrease their training in other categories. In one of your examples, you stated that you chose Tactics and Defending to be relatively unharmed and instead decreased the training of the other categories.

Now how do you come to the conclusion that maintaining physicals but training less in other categories is preferable to declining physicals but relatively greater training in other aspects? In the same way, why is Tactics and Defending preferred to the other categories? How do you come up with how much preference you give to these categories? Are you not applying some standard of importance here?

I have already written a large post in this very thread explaining how I go about designing specific schedules, how I judge the value and importance of Categories, and how I modify my ideal end results based on Age for a longterm approach to development.

Even when starting from the basic and simple premise of increasing Category intensity according to the number of attributes in that Category, there are still a vast number of factors that have to be taken into account when designing an accurate schedule. Some of those factors are by-products of the premise itself and of the limitations of the Schedule interface, such as a limit on the scale of relative differences between Categories. Other factors are actual game mechanics, inability to know in detail the precise impact of those game mechanics, the details of the player himself, the club around the player, and what you want to achieve with the player.

The combination of all of these factors produce an individual "framework" for a particular player and no two players are exactly alike. The first and greatest "standard of importance" is an accurate understanding of the player in question in terms of general development potential, in-match ability and longterm desires for improvement shape. This is the absolute crux of all Training, and everything else after this point is just the application of basic rules to achieve the ideal end Schedule.

The biggest stumbling block in Training so far has not been a lack of understanding of basic rules of attribute growth and player development, but a working method of applying these rules accurately to the Schedule Categories. The fundamental problem has been highly theoretical "guestimates" on how the sliders relate to each other and should be positioned for X result. All the knowledge in the world on the practical mechanics of attribute development is completely useless if you do not know how to position and judge the sliders. Working in terms of Categories or Bar Charts, Overall Training Lines and maximising Overall Limits are all "theories" with no solid arguement behind them and no solid end results supporting them. Indeed they fail to account for factual and inevitable declines in attributes while focusing solely on achieving high Bar Chart levels and interpreting those levels as success.

These are unanimously poor approaches to Training built entireally upon assumptions that directly contradict ingame development patterns. The race to produce pretty, symmetrical, and unanimously high Bar Chart levels has blinded people to the fact that these charts provide unknown information that is guessed at and assumed to mean "great training" while people also get carried away by seeing 25+ green arrows in youngsters and assume these schedules are perfect. There is a significant quantity of fundamental misinterpretation of game mechanics being paraded around as excellent Training schedules.

My own approach to Training is to simply find out how to judge slider positions relative to each other. To find out what slider positions per Category produces the same or similar Training effect once Age is accounted for. My first attempt was to increase each Category according to the number of Attributes contained within that Category, and it turned out to produce incredibly accurate results. Only when I was convinced that I was on the right track, that training Attributes per Category and not simply matching Categories was producing significantly superior results in terms of targetted attribute increases, did I release these schedules to the public.

If you are not applying some sort of standard to each category then I'd like to understand what is happening with that example you gave. If you are applying some sort of standard then I can understand you better in that respect. Even then though, I'd still like to understand how you come to how much preference you attribute to each category.

I am not sure exactly what you want here.

[Jumbalumba]

My own approach to Training is to simply find out how to judge slider positions relative to each other. To find out what slider positions per Category produces the same or similar Training effect once Age is accounted for. My first attempt was to increase each Category according to the number of Attributes contained within that Category, and it turned out to produce incredibly accurate results. Only when I was convinced that I was on the right track, that training Attributes per Category and not simply matching Categories was producing significantly superior results in terms of targetted attribute increases, did I release these schedules to the public.

I believe I understand what you are saying here but how would this approach give us the best training? Understandably, an understanding of the levels of training that gives us the same rates will help for further adjustments for more specialised training with regards to position. However, do you do these adjustments? If so, how or, more specifically, how do you determine which categories to adjust and by how much to adjust? If not, then why is training at the same rate in every attribute the preferred training?

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.

In looking at your schedules as well as your statement above, there is obviously not a strict focus on training at the same rate in everything. So what's going on? Again, from the initial point of training at the same rate in everything, how do you determine which categories to adjust and by how much to adjust? I'd like more focus on "how much to adjust" because the answer to "which categories to adjust" is inherent in that.

[SFraser]

I believe I understand what you are saying here but how would this approach give us the best training? Understandably, an understanding of the levels of training that gives us the same rates will help for further adjustments for more specialised training with regards to position. However, do you do these adjustments? If so, how or, more specifically, how do you determine which categories to adjust and by how much to adjust? If not, then why is training at the same rate in every attribute the preferred training?

You already answered your own question. Starting from a position of zero Training bias allows you to construct schedules for players based on their needs from a controlled position. It is much easier to design a schedule for Defenders based on a control schedule of zero bias than it is to design a schedule for Defenders based on a Schedule designed for Strikers.

A control schedule is an essential template as it allows you to judge subsequent schedules in comparison to a schedule with minimal impact on attributes. Attempting to design a schedule for a Defender based on a schedule designed for a Striker in the absence of a control template gives you no ability to judge which Categories are biased for improvement, which are biased for decline and to what extent these Categories are biased.

I have produced control schedules for download in my schedule pack precisely for the purposes of designing schedules if mine are not to your satisfaction. Without a control schedule it is incredibly hard to reverse engineer schedules developed for specific positions, specific roles, specific age groups etc.

In looking at your schedules as well as your statement above, there is obviously not a strict focus on training at the same rate in everything. So what's going on? Again, from the initial point of training at the same rate in everything, how do you determine which categories to adjust and by how much to adjust? I'd like more focus on "how much to adjust" because the answer to "which categories to adjust" is inherent in that.

You really need to read this thread in it's entirety. I am not going to constantly rewrite detailed explanations of my entire thought process and design procedure because you cannot be bothered to find the previous explanation in a 5 page thread.

Start with this post. http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4924985&postcount=250

[Dantil]

Anybody having troubles with injures using this trainings?

[Bubisch]

Dantil, yes, gotten alot of injuries lately. But I thought it might be because I haven't used the Injury scheduels when injuries arive. I asked this some days ago but did not get an answer. Should I use injury schedules during a injury? Or should I use it for X weaks after the injury is finished off?

[jadelith]

seriously guys, when you ask questions that are already answered in this thread, you look a little silly. you won't get an answer because it has already been answered.

[Abaddon879]

For those after the tweaked schedules, I have uploaded the set I made changes to. They can be downloaded from here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?4dxhmftnl0m

These are the ones I am using, and have had the changes I listed above made to them.

I hope they help those of you who weren't sure what changes to make.

[polskaGOLA]

So for the injury schedules, how long should players be on them after their injury is over? Until they are match fit?

edit: Also, how do you "fix" the Goalkeeper schedules? I realize it is to heavy phisically and aerobic, but by how much?

[Abaddon879]

The goalkeeping schedules are not too heavy as far as I am aware. I have yet to have an injury through GK training. It was only outfield schedules that were miscounted.

[ClarenceZico]

Abaddon: Ive noticed with your updated schedules that the Attacking training category is extremely low. Especially in categories you would want it high, i.e. CM.

Why is this?

[grimness]

Attacking covers only two attributes so even with high focus workload isn't shown as big.

[SFraser]

Attacking covers only two attributes so even with high focus workload isn't shown as big.

Exactly.

Categories with few attributes will always appear low precisely because they have fewer attributes. Aerobic has 5 trainable attributes and Attacking has 2 trainable attributes. Placing Aerobic and Attacking at the same Training level means each Category is training at the same level, but it means each Attacking attribute is getting 2.5x more training than each Aerobic attribute.

Aerobic at notch 5 and attacking at notch 4 means attacking attributes are still getting 2x more training than Aerobic attributes. It is lower training for the Category, but the Category contains less than half the attributes. Each attacking attribute is getting heaps more training than each Aerobic, even for less Category Training.

Attacking is hard to balance because it is so small. Each notch increase for attacking is another 50% increase for each attacking attribute versus all other attributes. Knock Aerobic up a single notch and you gain 20% more training for each Aerobic attribute. Knock Aerobic up 2 notches and you gain less than 50% more training for each attribute. Knock Attacking up two notches and you gain an additional 100% bias for each attribute.

Aerobic can never go higher than 5x Training for each attribute. Attacking can go as high as 12.5x training for each attribute. It is easy to "fluke" good results for Aerobic, it is a matter of absolutely perfect fine tuning to get the right balance of attacking.

[Jumbalumba]

You really need to read this thread in it's entirety. I am not going to constantly rewrite detailed explanations of my entire thought process and design procedure because you cannot be bothered to find the previous explanation in a 5 page thread.

Start with this post. http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4924985&postcount=250

I do not really expect you or anyone to break down everything I want to know or understand at every instance. However, that post really does not answer my question which is why I asked it in the first place.

In that post you do state that determining "Focus" for specific positions is complex. I agree.

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.

You just state, after some qualitative analysis:

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

Similarly, you have done so for further reworkings. You state you will explain how to work with these "unknown details" and yet I do not really see the "how" here. Again, how do you get these numbers? Surely there is something more than a mere idea that focus on Strength is important for this player and that "[w]e should forget about" some other things. What you have said does not translate to numbers which is why I'd like such explanation. Arguably, "forget" can be translated to training 0 in those categories but that is not so for you.

It may be necessary for me to state that your analysis makes sense and the suggested schedule workings make some sense too. However, something that is quite different would also make sense taking into account of that qualitative analysis. I guess my question is: Why those numbers and not something else? It may be quite an arbitrary exercise, you have stated that the focuses "might" be as you stated, and you have recognised the need to check the progress of training to see if the schedule works but all those provide no real justification for the numbers you have chosen above.

[ZdlR]

I would never presume to speak for someone else, but I'll have a stab at this one.

By 'forget', I think it was meant as 'forget about improving' those areas, in order to concentrate on targeting other, more important, areas for improvement. If you forget about them entirely, ie: 0 training, they will go down. This isn't forgetting about them - it's wilful negligence.

It sounds like you're wanting to make a science out of an art here, Jumbalumba. If SFraser left the training as he has planned it here and didn't alter it again, you'd be absolutely right to enquire why such (partially) arbitrary numbers were preferred. However, training is a feedback loop that requires constant and attentive refinement. After perhaps 6 months, I imagine you should return to this player and see whether his training's intent is being matched by its reality. Perhaps it turns out that there is too much attacking going on and increases have been made in passing and creativity. This would indicate further refinement downward in this category, freeing up workload for another area.

[Filke]

For those after the tweaked schedules, I have uploaded the set I made changes to. They can be downloaded from here:

http://www.mediafire.com/?4dxhmftnl0m

These are the ones I am using, and have had the changes I listed above made to them.

I hope they help those of you who weren't sure what changes to make.

is this final version ? \o/

[Grisales]

I know overall workload isnt something that has been discussed in great detail in this particular thread, but as theres so much knowledge about training in this thread I thought I would ask here.

What I have been doing so far, is after making the adjustments to the SFraser schedules based on the miscalculations, adjusting the workload up to the point at which distortion appears. For most of the schedules this is about four clicks before one (or more) of the individual sliders increases.

My question is, do these clicks actually have any effect. As the overall workload does increase individual sliders if you increase it enough, do changes to overall workload that do not effect the individual sliders have any effect. I really havent phrased this well, but I hope you can catch my meaning.

[ProZone]

I've often wondered this too. There is a certain amount of 'slack' when moving the workload slider before the category sliders start to move. There is also an uneven spreading out of the category sliders relative to each other when you increase the workload slider which I have never been able to explain either.

I really don't know :confused:

[Harryseaess]

I've saved the training scheduals in the scheduals folder but when I go on the game and try to upload the scheduals there is nothing there, any ideas why?

[Sergey S.]

I've saved the training scheduals in the scheduals folder but when I go on the game and try to upload the scheduals there is nothing there, any ideas why?

Its a way the game is installed on your computer, usually there's a bunch of the files saved where you told it to save it, but also a whole bunch of files in the Documents folder somewhere. Usually the files in the Documents folder are the ones that are used when looking up training schedules/tactics etc. So when you're trying to import these trainings, click on the folder you're looking in to see the whole path to that folder and you'll see it's looking in the wrong training folder, after you point it to the correct one you'll see the trainings there.

[Harryseaess]

Its a way the game is installed on your computer, usually there's a bunch of the files saved where you told it to save it, but also a whole bunch of files in the Documents folder somewhere. Usually the files in the Documents folder are the ones that are used when looking up training schedules/tactics etc. So when you're trying to import these trainings, click on the folder you're looking in to see the whole path to that folder and you'll see it's looking in the wrong training folder, after you point it to the correct one you'll see the trainings there.

Brilliant, i've got it now, thanks.

[Comedybegs]

On a side note, does anyone really know the amount of CA that can be gained through training (or even if it can at all?!). I have read on here that it is only a very small gain (as opposed to match experience CA gain) but would it be worth toning down some of the schedules to definately avoid injuries and excessive tiring (especially in congested times or if you have a smaller squad).

For example the developing CF schedule has the following focus:

Str - 4

Aer - 4

Tac - 3

BC - 3

Def - 2

Att - 3

Sho - 4

SP - 0

In theory could this be halved and still produce the same results?