Training Masterclass - Individual tailored schedules (Moved Posts)

[NakS]

At the request of the OP for the [url="http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/240386-FM2011-Training-Masterclass"]FM2011 Training Masterclass[/url] thread, I've removed a quantity of posts from there and moved them here instead.

Some of the discussion was going off at a tangent from what the OP had intended and were discussing linear schedules, which could be considered a different topic of discussion.

Therefore I've placed them all in this thread, so if the contributors want to continue with their discussions, they can do so here.

Heathxxx

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

Hi Mantralux

First of all, always good to remind actual facts and THEN do speculations based on it, I enjoyed the read. My question is simple, and I hope you (or others) have some answers and facts.

What means training levels graph? Here is an example to make the reading easier for everyone.

Here is my speculation now. Please feel free to point me where I am wrong.

I put all training sliders at the same notch to make each category receive the same amount of workload, then this workload is “shared” between the attributes in each category in order to make them having the same chance of increasing. For example, there are 4 attributes in a category, each will have ¼ , 3 attributes, 1/3. Ok, I know each attribute will not have the same increase chance at this point, before the calculation process that you have explained with coach. All I want is each category at the same slider notch.

I call it “linear schedule” as every category is supposed to receive the same amount of workload, here comes now the training level graph for each category, and my main and big speculation

I put this linear schedule to all my players to see how each player reacts. The aim of this process is to design individual training schedules, as I think there is no “one shoe fits all” schedule.

Here comes into play this document, Hints and Tips 2007 by Marc Vaughan, available to download on SEGA official website, which is still relevant and I think is reliable information.

You can find it here

I have quoted below the training section related to the graph understanding, there is of course more information in it.

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

This graph is training levels and does not show improvements, and if I understand well what Marc said. The highest bar on this graph means this is the training category where he, relatively to the others, performs the best, where he has capacity.

That is why I have put all my players in a linear schedule, not with attributes numbers in each category taken into account, but only category as this graph displays level in categories and not in attributes.

I have my linear schedule, each category receives the same, and I have the reaction of the player to this linear input. The aim of this is to spot where he can accept a lot (highest bar) of workload and where he can less. From this point, I keep the slider related to the highest bar unchanged, and then I reproduce the bar pattern to the training sliders, approximately. Simply because he has performed less in this category than for the one with highest bar, so there is no point keeping him at the same level anymore. Once I have reproduced the pattern, I increased the overall workload to an acceptable level.

And that’s it. Once a month or two… I adjust accordingly to this graph my training sliders. When I hire new coaches, I do again this linear process to make sure my player receives where he “wants” or “can”. I don’t think a player can be modelled as we wish by keep training intensively one category, there are limits, you can not transform a CB into a world class Striker. Each player is different, and I think the best I can do is to make sure he is as close as possible to his full potential, even if it means training defence for a striker.

So here is my speculation about training, partly based on the document I have mentioned and some of the things Mantralux reminded. Much more based on my interpretation of course.

This is my explanation of the training level graph and how I use them. So, since you seem to have good information concerning training, I would like to know what you think about this graph and how to use it. I only see downloadable schedules based on weird and complex theories sometimes and none of them seem to use this information. They have results of course, some impressive sometimes but I don’t think it is the better way to improve players.

Thanks a lot for reading this long wall of text, I am of course open to constructive criticism as I really would like to know once for all how I can use efficiently this graph, maybe I am already doing the right way or not? Well what do you think ?

PS: Please forgive my bad wording, some ideas are difficult to explain in a foreign language. Thanks.

[ProZone]

@ NakS

I'd like to take you up on a few points made in your post, which I've summarised for ease of reading. Mostly its the interpretation of the information provided by Marc Vaughan...

Here comes into play this document, Hints and Tips 2007 by Marc Vaughan, available to download on SEGA official website, which is still relevant and I think is reliable information.

You can find it here

I have quoted below the training section related to the graph understanding, there is of course more information in it.

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

Well, I guess it's simple if you have access to all the information like Mr. Vaughan!

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

I interpret this to mean that once you increase the training slider in any category to the point at which a dark blue bar appears on the Training Levels Graph (indicating that a maximum, or near maximum, training level has been reached) then increasing it any further has no merit and simply wastes workload. Do you agree?

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

I cannot get my head around the meaning of the sentence which I've underlined. What exactly is a 'lower range of posible attribute values'?

If this is referring to the attributes as in the numbers which appear on the Player Profile screen then players with high professionalism and workrate would have a higher range of possible values, surely!

If it means that players with high professionalism and workrate need lower slider positions to achieve a maximum Training Level bar in a given training category then that seems more logical to me. :confused:

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

This is fine and clear to understand.

I have my linear schedule, each category receives the same, and I have the reaction of the player to this linear input. The aim of this is to spot where he can accept a lot (highest bar) of workload and where he can less. From this point, I keep the slider related to the highest bar unchanged, and then I reproduce the bar pattern to the training sliders, approximately. Simply because he has performed less in this category than for the one with highest bar, so there is no point keeping him at the same level anymore. Once I have reproduced the pattern, I increased the overall workload to an acceptable level.

This is a bit difficult to understand when you haven't stated what it is that you are trying to achieve. The method which you have described (reproducing the Training Levels pattern) means that you let the player control what he wants to train in. This is not necessarily a good thing. For example, everyone likes to do shooting practice or penalty practice in training and left to their own devices would put a lot of effort into that. That is not necessarily good for the role the player is asked to play by the manager. A defender, for example, needs to be forced/encouraged to develop his devensive skills even if he has a non-favourable reaction to doing it.

So, let's say you wanted to create a 'general player' who is equally competent in all areas of his game. The target would therefore be to have the highest Training Level in each training category to produce a maximum and equal development of all his attributes. Let's also forget for the purpose of this exercise that the Workload limit may or may not allow this to happen.

Rather than reproducing the Training Levels pattern, would you instead reproduce something akin to the inverse of the Training Levels pattern with the Training Category sliders? Essentially you'd be asking for more training effort to be given to the areas in which he is showing the least response and asking for comparitively less effort in the areas in which he shows a greater response. This should give you an equal development, no?

[NakS]

@JimMorrow.

I am glad you use the training graph the way I do, very few people (from what I have read here) actually use individual training schedules like this, I understand positional schedules are convenient, but at lower levels, with part time schedule, bad coach and facilities, low potential players or so, you can not afford to waste any workload where it is not necessary. Thanks Jim, feel less alone, I hope you will provide me some support in explaining

@Prozone.

Ok, I will try to answer as accurately as possible giving my english skills.

Marc Vaughan said it is dead simple, so I tend to do simple things, he said as well this training graph is a "godsend", definitely must be of some important use.

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

I interpret this to mean that once you increase the training slider in any category to the point at which a dark blue bar appears on the Training Levels Graph (indicating that a maximum, or near maximum, training level has been reached) then increasing it any further has no merit and simply wastes workload. Do you agree?

Ok, each category has the same workload with the linear schedule, this training graph is not improvement in terms of attributes, so the limit Marc is talking about does not means the players has reached his maximum improvement. You agree on this. BUt it actually capacity related, how well is is performing in each category relatively to the others. When Marc said, the players has reached his limit in this category, it does not mean you can not increase the overall workload of the training schedule, it means relatively to the others categories, this is the one where he is at his best

That's why I choose a linear schedule to the calibration process, same input everywhere, it is to highlight via the training graph, where "he cannot get any worse" and where he is doing at "his best". Then as I said, I keep the corresponding slider unchanged, it has to be the highest one, Marc said it is a limit. Then I decrease accordingly to the training graph the other sliders. I have not found any direct relation between the difference between 2 bars, and how many notches a category should be decreased. So I roughly reproduced the pattern.

But then, I was thinking the same as you as the beginning, but you can definitely increase the overall workload of the training, while making sure you keep the pattern. Usually the linear schedule I use is around 12-13 notches, once the adjustments are done, the overall workload can be pretty low, so far I don't have any problems with increasing and keep the "pattern", you just increase the chance of attributes of this category to increase, he is still performing well. I increase until I have reach the overall capacity of the players, when he starts moaning, but mainly when he is 100% fit for the next game.

I cannot get my head around the meaning of the sentence which I've underlined. What exactly is a 'lower range of posible attribute values'?

If this is referring to the attributes as in the numbers which appear on the Player Profile screen then players with high professionalism and workrate would have a higher range of possible values, surely!

If it means that players with high professionalism and workrate need lower slider positions to achieve a maximum Training Level bar in a given training category then that seems more logical to me.

Usually when you have promising youngster, you set the linear schedule, and you will have a "flat" training graph. I explain now how I relate this to the "lower range" Marc talked about, and professionalism.

If you have a young player with a high determination, work-rate and a high professionalism, he is very likely to reach is full potential if everything else is ok (match, coach, facilities, etc...). That's why it is useful to tutor the more promising youngster ASAP to increase these important attributes because it massively influence the "work rate" or "work efficiency" of the player. So depending on the personality of the player, the scale of the graph is not the same, as Marc said, between 4-6 ability point. This kind of players have a higher training capacity, they are willing to accept very high workload that others will not, that's why I increase the overall workload after reproducing the pattern to make sure, he has as workload as he is willing to accept. This is where you see the difference between the 4-6 range, I see it more like a potential range that personality and relevant attributes can achieved, so there is not direct measure to do on the grap, you will know you are at the sweet spot in increasing overal workload while keeping the pattern.

This is a bit difficult to understand when you haven't stated what it is that you are trying to achieve. The method which you have described (reproducing the Training Levels pattern) means that you let the player control what he wants to train in. This is not necessarily a good thing. For example, everyone likes to do shooting practice or penalty practice in training and left to their own devices would put a lot of effort into that. That is not necessarily good for the role the player is asked to play by the manager. A defender, for example, needs to be forced/encouraged to develop his defensive skills even if he has a non-favourable reaction to doing it.

When you said, this is not a good thing to let the player control his training, I see where you are coming from. But actually, can you control his needs? I don't think so. As Mantralux said higher value of attribute are harder to train, but each players has is own limits regarding these higher value and I think.

You must have attributes "limits" values somewhere along CA/PA and this is maybe the most important thing, you are can not modelled players as you wish even the best professional, determined, whatever you want...young very promising CB will not be modelled in a Striker, even if you keep training him hard on attacking category, you can only make sure he as the most chances to increase where he can. But don't worry, you will never see you CB wants only to train attacking and not defense.

So, let's say you wanted to create a 'general player' who is equally competent in all areas of his game. The target would therefore be to have the highest Training Level in each training category to produce a maximum and equal development of all his attributes. Let's also forget for the purpose of this exercise that the Workload limit may or may not allow this to happen.

Rather than reproducing the Training Levels pattern, would you instead reproduce something akin to the inverse of the Training Levels pattern with the Training Category sliders? Essentially you'd be asking for more training effort to be given to the areas in which he is showing the least response and asking for comparitively less effort in the areas in which he shows a greater response. This should give you an equal development, no?

But, Prozone, if you "reflect" the graph pattern, you will actually waste most of the workload for almost nothing, simply because with the initial linear schedule he can not get any worse from training at the lowest bar, if you increase even more this category relatively to the other, it is a complete waste of workload that should have been used where he is performing well. I have never tried such an "invert pattern" though, but I don't think you will have a linear development, maybe you will have the worst one actually.

Well this is how I see the training, I hope I have answered your remarks Prozone and make it understandable, I have spent nearly 2 hours writing this!

Maybe it would be useful to bring Marc Vaughan back on this thread for a little while, he is around the FM Handheld version now but maybe he can do something here and shed some lights on training graph and how to use them

[Teutomatos]

@ Jim morrow

Don't be sad, you'll never walk alone

@ Pro zone

For beguinning Vaughan never lies. Just need to understand that he 's talking about ... And ... The consequences !

You don't understand 3 things. But never mind, i'm gonna tell you, how **** happens ...

The calibration system. How to manage it after the adjustement. And what the gauge means.

And like general introducing, that, each player have is own specific capacities, because a melting mental and physical 's attributs alchimy, which are not similar whith the major parts of all the others.

This report is a simple access to all minds ? It mean single training for each player.

If you don't ? You're training like a blind man.

You need to proceed a calibration period. Generaly in all industrial, and mecanic process, all tool is adjut to a reference. Here, the reference is to maintain "a period" of linear gauge in each worshop, to compare the possible players activities, in front of ... the club offer, facilities, numbers of coaches and their qualities which divide beetween all players ! Sorry all player's needs ... The mystic point is here. Imagine everybodies need the same thing in same time ?

But it's subtil results, because the power of the whole and the time, stabilize relativly this aspect. Just good to know for info.

After this period (3 months is a perfect timer for a new player without jadness ), where the gas pressure in the differents workshop tubes objectiv the results in the graphic, that the player need, and that the player can make. At this point you must make a mirror on the cursors.

If you don't wait a calibration period, to manage your training's cursors, you ll never know the needs and possibilties. And the graphicals, will be the reflection of the impose, the will, not the need.

ok ok !! Difficult to reproduce ! You right. It's the fault. But when you play with this intention, you 'll find a solution ... We'll gonna talk about, in a few.

The principe is to respect the curve. After, you put the curve on maximum.

How to manage this curve at maximum ?

Never forget : don"t touch it, if the player is not ready to play means get its match exercice ! Because it's not effectiv without ... and you destroy the curve model.

When he is ready to play, just before to launch a match, the % condition, inform to you, the lack of %. ( To know how much is missing, there's a calibration process too, waiting beetween 2 matchs, indeed, the time to recover fitness % )

You'll gonna reduce the general training volum by a level (?) or two, or if you prefer, you watching the activities arrow of workshop to make a precision adjustment. Don't need to explain that the red ones means something missing in this workshop ?

And ... you watch at the next match if you player have the good general level training, which permit him, getting the time and volum to recover his full fitness.

If it's not ? Reduce again ! Until you find the good value.

It's the training system of this game ... The advantage consist in 2 fundamental things, the perfect respons of the players needs, and exploiting his best capacities in match.

It couldn't be the "inverse". Vaughan said, "worse" like it can be worse, not the better. But, i understand, it's a duplicity, it means it's a minimum that he need, in relativ value of the others which they are the maximums. It's really simple to observ. Test it and ... you know.

This curve model change sometimes, because, the intensity of matchs are sometimes differents, because theres much matchs, because the player obtain his maximum in one of attribut, for the season or may be better for his career. This specific benefit could be reduce, at this point, but in same time, the player need to work on the maintain of his possession.

Anyway, with your good beguinning calibration, you can observ objectivly the activities arrows.

You can argue that, it's boring thing to manage for each player ... It's why SIG offer a general taining, and this year a general line's training. And move the cursors regulators in on other place, they thinks certainly is to easy to get the graphics in same place ...

You can argue that, i shall developp my volontary aspects, because i'm much interest about some kinds in respons of my tactic ? Yes but, in your head only, because you can never make thing that players can't. It's a tempting envelopp, but generaly a loosing time. Don't talk about hurry genuis specific player's progress example with a preset training download, because for each one of them, i have 10 000 which it's not working. Often, the hurry push users don't wait a carreer for full developpement, broken theirs troops on one or 2 seasons, buying, selling and in this case can't observ nothing on the longer, and in the deep, don't understand not so much.

In same time, you could play the game in the whole aspects, relativly simple to manage when you know them, or play to Monopoly buying players shop with a big four club, general training, forget the match exercice, forget the condition, and waiting like in Civilization V, where is the icon about where building my town ...? It's respectable, sometimes i like it. More ... I need it !

As well, we could expecting in the futur some progress beetween the both aspects. A better interface "to manage" clearly the deeper genius of the "tips" ...

At least, you always stand the boss of your own way. The only interesting thing, is how it's working. For the rest, we don't need nothing ..

Like always, apologizes for my bad and poor english, hopes you don't feel it to much agressiv and thanks for your patience.

[ProZone]

@ NakS & Teutomatos

My sincere apologies to you both for not understanding but I still do not get this 100%, despite your considerable efforts for which I am very grateful. It all seems a little counter-intuitive.

Let me break this explanation down into bitesize chunks and take it step by step, for the benefit of me and any others reading this thread. I'll start by recalling NakS's Almunia example and let's assume that you have given him your so-called 'linear schedule' i.e. one in which all the sliders are set the same:

If this graph was the result (output) of your linear schedule (input) after say 3 months, my interpretation would be as follows:

he trains best in the GKss category

he trains worst in the Ball category

Do you agree?

[Miguel Lourinho]

@ProZone - Your conclusion about NakS's Almunia example 'linear schedule' is right . But you forgot to mention one thing, the part where trainers come in. Basically with good trainers/coaches, Almunia will be able to train really good in the GKss category and minimise the side effect for such low workload in the Ball category. Now with not so good trainers the effect will definitely be at least 50% less on both categories.

So there must be a balance where workload is shared between/even(for) the different training categories so that with bad or good trainers the results come to be positive.

I have tried to make linear schedules, but they do not work

[NakS]

If I understand what NAks and Teutomatos said and my own experience, yes you're right...Training levels graphs are like a training report, like a coach who notes players for each workshop...As the load for the workshop is the same in your linear schedule, if graph are not on the same level you can easily understand that your GK is performing well in GKss workshop but not very well in Ball category...(but don't forget that for having concrete graph you need player with 100% match exercise and at least two months of training).

So after having this report, you just need to copy/paste the position of the graph to your schedule sliders......

, Jim is spot on here, I do exactly the same way based on my interpretation from Marc Vaughan. But if some SI guys can show up and give some informations regarding this training graph, would be useful. But if Mantra has already sent PM, I guess it is only a matter of time until an official opinion about this.

[NakS]

@ProZone - Your conclusion about NakS's Almunia example 'linear schedule' is right . But you forgot to mention one thing, the part where trainers come in. Basically with good trainers/coaches, Almunia will be able to train really good in the GKss category and minimise the side effect for such low workload in the Ball category. Now with not so good trainers the effect will definitely be at least 50% less on both categories.

So there must be a balance where workload is shared between/even(for) the different training categories so that with bad or good trainers the results come to be positive.

I have tried to make linear schedules, but they do not work

Yeah, but once you have used this linear schedule for 2-3 months, you then have to roughly copy the bar pattern to the sliders and adjust overall workload, simple as that actually.

[ProZone]

, Jim is spot on here, I do exactly the same way based on my interpretation from Marc Vaughan. But if some SI guys can show up and give some informations regarding this training graph, would be useful. But if Mantra has already sent PM, I guess it is only a matter of time until an official opinion about this.

Okay, so if we agree that we interpret the graph in the same way we can move on.

The next step you do is to leave the slider which corresponds to the highest bar where it is and reduce all the other ones to produce the same shape as the Training Levels graph. Agreed?

What this says to me is this... for the categories that the player trains worst, reduce the workload.

This is completely counter-intuative and this is where I am having difficulty seeing the merit of your approach. As a manager I would want to promote/enhance training of the poorer aspects of a player's game. I would want to push him harder in the areas in which he is showing less effort. Wouldn't you?

[pandemonium]

ProZone, it seems to me that the idea that Naks and others are putting forth here is maximizing returns. if you do more of what you're good at and less of what you're bad at, your overall output will be the highest possible you can produce. for example, if Almunia trains better at GKss and worse at Ball, then if he spends more time doing GKss and less time doing Ball, his overall trainig output (measured by increase/maintain in attributes) will be highest possible. Inversely, if he spends more time training Ball, and less time doing GKss, his overall trainig output will be minimized.

If the above is true, then it follows that letting players train what they prefer will maximize their training potential. However, it also means that there are serious limitations to reshaping a player's attributes, because if you want to improve Almunia's Ball attributes, not only will he develop Shot slowly, but he might also lose morale as it's not what he likes to train.

Naks, Jim and Teutomatos, is this what you mean?

[ProZone]

@ProZone - Your conclusion about NakS's Almunia example 'linear schedule' is right . But you forgot to mention one thing, the part where trainers come in. Basically with good trainers/coaches, Almunia will be able to train really good in the GKss category and minimise the side effect for such low workload in the Ball category. Now with not so good trainers the effect will definitely be at least 50% less on both categories.

So there must be a balance where workload is shared between/even(for) the different training categories so that with bad or good trainers the results come to be positive.

I didn't forget it, but sure, I didn't mention it specifically. Anyway, the quality of your coaches will be reflected in the response to the assigned training schedule which are the Training Levels themselves. They are included in the calculation of the bar heights.

[NakS]

Yes, you try to reproduce the pattern you see on the graph with the sliders.

For me it makes perfect sense, for the same input he trains "worst" in this category whereas for another one it will be "better", he may increase in the lowest bar category but at which cost? Again, that's why the schedule has to be linear at first, to spot where, roughly, it is worth train and where it is not. I can understand you want him to spend more time/workload where he is not doing well to "compensate" the fact that this is the category where is the worst, but that's a workload problem, you have limited amount to spread into different categories, you have to make a decision on how you want to spread it.

As a manager I'd prefer to focus on the category where he is doing well rather than try to grab with difficulty some attributes points with a heavy workload whereas he could have gain a bit more in others. But again, this is just how I interpret the graph and use it, proof is we don't have the same interpretation and not the same use so it needs to be cleared up a bit in order to make safe assumptions.

ProZone, it seems to me that the idea that Naks and others are putting forth here is maximizing returns. if you do more of what you're good at and less of what you're bad at, your overall output will be the highest possible you can produce. for example, if Almunia trains better at GKss and worse at Ball, then if he spends more time doing GKss and less time doing Ball, his overall trainig output (measured by increase/maintain in attributes) will be highest possible. Inversely, if he spends more time training Ball, and less time doing GKss, his overall trainig output will be minimized.

If the above is true, then it follows that letting players train what they prefer will maximize their training potential. However, it also means that there are serious limitations to reshaping a player's attributes, because if you want to improve Almunia's Ball attributes, not only will he develop Shot slowly, but he might also lose morale as it's not what he likes to train.

Naks, Jim and Teutomatos, is this what you mean?

Yeah, I think you have definitely got the idea behind it.

[ProZone]

ProZone, it seems to me that the idea that Naks and others are putting forth here is maximizing returns. if you do more of what you're good at and less of what you're bad at, your overall output will be the highest possible you can produce. for example, if Almunia trains better at GKss and worse at Ball, then if he spends more time doing GKss and less time doing Ball, his overall trainig output (measured by increase/maintain in attributes) will be highest possible. Inversely, if he spends more time training Ball, and less time doing GKss, his overall trainig output will be minimized.

If the above is true, then it follows that letting players train what they prefer will maximize their training potential. However, it also means that there are serious limitations to reshaping a player's attributes, because if you want to improve Almunia's Ball attributes, not only will he develop Shot slowly, but he might also lose morale as it's not what he likes to train.

EXACTLY!

This is my point and you have worded it perfectly! I only wanted to make sure I understood what these guys were saying first before stating my case because I don't know what the 'truth' is either.

The method that they are describing essentially lets the players decide what they want to train and suggests that the design of player development is taken away from the manager.

What it implies is this:

- very fast CA gains can be made by targeting categories which progress well with additional workload

- specialist players will be produced rather than well-rounded ones

- the idea that players can be moulded efficiently according to the manager's design is invalid (and if this is true then I don't like FM as much as I did before!)

[jim morrow]

But Prozone, with my experience with such type of training, with linear sliders during three months, you will see that for example, a natural DC will have high graph in workshop useful for a central defender and low graph on workshop not very useful (there are some exception)....so "reaction" to training is designed naturally by the natural position of the player. Height of the graph will depend of the "level" of player. If you coach Lampard, drogba etc... all graph will be high..so you can shape attributes likes you want.

if you coach a sunday player or a even blue premier, you will have more difference between high and low workshop....and if you think 2 second, all that is logical.

[ProZone]

Yes I agree jim.

I am not saying I am right and anyone else is wrong. Far from it. All I wish to do is to test the logic which has been adopted to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I think I most probably represent the majority of FM gamers in my 'understanding' of how training works, and that is quite simply that I am considerably confused. I have no problem admitting that.

It would appear that the game and the training module is designed to produce certain specialist types of players, i.e. if you're a DC then you will train best in the Defensive, Tactical and Strength categories for example and the graph not only shows you that but also gives an idea of how to distribute the sliders. I'm not sure I like this but it is what it appears to be so my opinion doesn't really count for anything much.

The fact that below the Training Levels graph we also have the Training Levels Progress chart which tracks each Training Level over a 12 month period (which nobody has mentioned yet incedentally) lends further weight to NakS's argument as it is an indication of when training levels change and therefore when you should consider modifying your original slider distribution for the individual player.

Now I'm speculating though and that's dangerous. I would definitely welcome some input from SI. Please!

[RobinGoodey]

Surely the answer is for NakS to show us what happens to this training graph once he has altered Almunia's training to match the graph?

Presumably (apart from the highest bar) they will all drop? What then happens to the overall workload bar? if that drops - then surely that would be a bad thing (ie not working the player hard enough which wouldn't allow him to reach his full potential)

Do you then increase the overall training workload?

What would be done if NONE of the bars reached the top line on the linear training?

[Miguel Lourinho]

@ ProZone, mantralux, NakS and everybody whos interested

I have created a custom league to test my schedules. Basically it is a league with 2 teams & 40 rounds (games 3 in 3 days) plus nation competitions. In this post is presented my GK's schedule, focused on one player only (Roberto).

Roberto Stats Day 1

Roberto Stats End of Season

GK's Schedule Work Load & Trainers Level

This was an experiment, as you can see this training schedule gives the player a high workload in several categories. I do not know if this is what NakS was thinking about, but anyway what do you think about it ?

Edit: Forgot to mention that Roberto is pleased with his training schedule.

[NakS]

RobinGoodey, Jim, Prozone, Mantra... all, I am doing a test save as well right now, I'll report back with some screens, results proves nothing in itself, but at least to highlight much more clearer the process, if Mantralux doesn't mind of course. If you have ideas of what would be worth monitoring, feel free to ask me.

@Miguel Lourinho.

So you have put the linear schedule for 3 months, and then copy the graph on the training sliders?

My initial impression of the training graph was that the bars actually indicate how well the training score measured up to the counter score.

Explanation:

As stated in the OP, a training score is calculated based on workloads and coach quality. This is score A. Another score is then calculated, based on hidden attributes, current attribute levels, level of training facilities, fitness, morale, etc. This is score B.

Now those scores are measured against each other to decide if training is a success or not, and if so at what rate (speed).

Based on that, my theory is that the training graph levels are showing you how score A measured up to score B - how successful the current training schedule is for that particular player. If a bar is high, the training score (A) has been very successful against score B, meaning the player has the best chance of increasing the attributes in the category with the highest bar.

Based on how the training module works, I'd say that is the most logical explanation of how the graph works.

So far, and based on what we know, it seems the most logical explanation for me as well

[Miguel Lourinho]

@NakS

Nope I did not.

Basically my conclusion is that, the graph (upper part - Training Levels) represents the training sliders (mantralux theory fits perfectly here). To train at maximum the player needs to play games and in case of injury the train will be affected.

Both, Roberto & Moreira played several games but in this case Roberto was my first choice and as you can see both have the same training levels and training progress, despite one played 29 games (Roberto) and the other (Moreira) 5 games.

Now referring to maxtralux theroy, here is an example (I hope).

Julio Cesar, played 6 games but his training levels and training progress are slightly inferior comparing with Roberto and Moreira.

- What affects their Happiness?

I am not sure, but I guess is related with the fact that you do not have enough trainers to cope with the workload you are trying to impose.

Good/Enough Trainers + Good Training Schedule = Pleased

[Miguel Lourinho]

Before posting my test results I would like to answer one thing, when you talk about linear training do mean this:

If that so, I have some results that prove your theory

[NakS]

Before posting my test results I would like to answer one thing, when you talk about linear training do mean this:

If that so, I have some results that prove your theory

Precisely, all the sliders at the same notch (linear schedule), if it is at th beginning of the season wait 2-3 months, then reproduce the graph pattern with your sliders. I must have explained it in more depth in my previous post I guess.

Here you go, own quote

That's why I choose a linear schedule to the calibration process, same input everywhere, it is to highlight via the training graph, where "he cannot get any worse" and where he is doing at "his best". Then as I said, I keep the corresponding slider unchanged, it has to be the highest one, Marc said it is a limit. Then I decrease accordingly to the training graph the other sliders. I have not found any direct relation between the difference between 2 bars, and how many notches a category should be decreased. So I roughly reproduced the pattern.

[jim morrow]

Naks, perhaps if it's not a too high time consuming for you, can you make a tutorial with a standard player of a medium team ? with 1st phase of training shedule, results, adaptation following results, and second phase of training shedule ?

[Miguel Lourinho]

Ok here we go. So based on NakS initial idea of a linear training, I have created the following schedule, with 2 GK's on it for 1 month.

Linear Schedule

Roberto & Julio Cesar - Linear Training Response

Based on mantralux theory, I have developed another training, but this one specific for Roberto. Since I wanted to test the theory behind graphic bars I have assigned this schedule to both players, Roberto and Julio.

Specific Training Schedule - For Roberto

Roberto & Julio - Specific Training Response

So as you can see, both had different training effects. To start on their linear training graph they did not had similarities, and training the same amount of workload on each category in Roberto's specific schedule each player outcome training/response was different. This proves that mantralux theory.

[mantralux]

So as you can see, both had different training effects. To start on their linear training graph they did not had similarities, and training the same amount of workload on each category in Roberto's specific schedule each player outcome training/response was different. This proves that mantralux theory.

Could you give me the following attributes for both goalkeepers:

Dribbling

First Touch

Technique

Heading

Flair

If my theory is correct, Roberto should have a lower average on those 5 attributes.

[Miguel Lourinho]

I have another theory as well:

The dotted lines in the training graph might be there just for a visual indication, so it's easier to see the difference between two or more bars. But...maybe there's more to them? Maybe the dotted lines are the actual levels of where the attributes in a category will be increased or decreased?

People have been looking for the 'maintain level' for a long time, maybe that first dotted line is the maintain level. Meaning; if you tweak your training sliders so that ALL bars are either on, or slightly above, that first dotted line...that could mean that all attributes are maintained. They won't increase, but they won't decrease either.

Just a theory though, will have to test it.

I have tested that, basically what happens since you have the same amount of workload between each category, the player will not improve too much. He will maintain, that is a fact, but since he did not focus in any particular area (e.g DC - Defending) he stats will rapidly decrease over time (holidays included). He trains everything (low amount) instead of training high amounts in the right place.

Could you give me the following attributes for both goalkeepers:

Dribbling

First Touch

Technique

Heading

Flair

If my theory is correct, Roberto should have a lower average on those 5 attributes.

Roberto Stats:

Dribbling:

First Touch: 5

Technique:

Heading:

Flair: 4

I cannot see the Dribbling, Technique & Heading values.

[mantralux]

Roberto Stats:

Dribbling:

First Touch: 5

Technique:

Heading:

Flair: 4

I cannot see the Dribbling, Technique & Heading.

And Cesar?

[NakS]

Naks, perhaps if it's not a too high time consuming for you, can you make a tutorial with a standard player of a medium team ? with 1st phase of training shedule, results, adaptation following results, and second phase of training shedule ?

It is in the pipeline Jim , I am at work right now, but I hope to finish this tonight if possible.

@Mantralux.

Remember what Marc said, there is between 4 and 6 ability points (depending on the player)between the highest and the lowest limit

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

@Miguel Lourinho.

I am not sure I have well understood what you are explaining with your graphs, both the linear and the specific schedules show that graph are differents. So your first set of screen is response to linear schedule, ok. We can see where each of the players performs the best, where he has more chance to increase I guess.

But then how have you designed the specific schedule? it doesn't seem to fit (copy graph onto sliders) either Roberto or Julio? Is it ramdom?

You crank up ball control workload while keeping tactic at medium (same as in the linear) make sense ball control bar will be a bit higher.

I am a bit confused with your experiment and its conclusion.

[Miguel Lourinho]

And Cesar?

César Stats:

Dribbling:

First Touch: 1

Technique:

Heading:

Flair: 1

The test took place in middle of the season, I have another one in the beginning and it's rather confusing but if you want I can post it. Trial and Error right ?

[Miguel Lourinho]

@Miguel Lourinho.

I am not sure I have well understood what you are explaining with your graphs, both the linear and the specific schedules show that graph are differents. So your first set of screen is response to linear schedule, ok. We can see where each of the players performs the best, where he has more chance to increase I guess.

But then how have you designed the specific schedule? it doesn't seem to fit (copy graph onto sliders) either Roberto or Julio? Is it ramdom?

You crank up ball control workload while keeping tactic at medium (same as in the linear) make sense ball control bar will be a bit higher.

I am a bit confused with your experiment and its conclusion.

Well what I tried to do, was to combine both your theory and mantralux together. What I did was for one month I gave the same training (linear training) for both players. After 1 month their training levels was different despite the same training schedule, so I tried to cover roberto training progress. As you can see Roberto did not train very well ball control, so I tried to develop a training where the main focus was to keep Strength, Aerobic, GK - Handling & Tactics balanced. GK - Shot Stopping since was the highest bar I tried to give him less work load in that area so that I could use it on Ball Control (Intense maximum), I wanted to see for 1 month both players reaction to the specific training. Based on a even workload through each categories (linear training) I have tried to create a specific training that could give a more balanced progress to the specific player, in this case Roberto. E.g Julio César did not need an Intense training in Ball Control, so he did not respond very well in his training.

But maybe be we are doing it wrong, should we first start with linear training schedules ? Is Ball Control important in GK stats ? Should we focus on high bars and let the lower bars alone ? Should we focus on a even training with every bar pointed to first line on the bars graph ?

[jim morrow]

Miguel, don't forget that players must reach and maintain 100% of match exercise during the training to have significant training levels. Before start of season or if the player doesn't play regular match, your training levels will be faked by this lack of match activity.

I think that what you want to show it's for Roberto, in linear schedule, we can see that ball control graph is lower than other areas...but with the specific shedule where ball contro sliderl is higher compare to linear, ball control graph is higher....so the question is, why this difference ??? But I think that you was needed to lowered the GKss slider to be able to increase ball control, so as the player train less in a area where he get plenty of improvement, he can train more in another area...and ball control area is the winner... I think logically that each player have a maximum potential of work...and the linear schedule is the only way to find what is the best for the player. In you example, yes you train better Roberto in ball control....perhaps...but you are loosing a lot in Gkss where Roberto performed very well..........and what is the most important for a natural GK ? Gkss or ball control ?

[Miguel Lourinho]

Miguel, don't forget that players must reach and maintain 100% of match exercise during the training to have significant training levels. Before start of season or if the player doesn't play regular match, your training levels will be faked by this lack of match activity.

I think that what you want to show it's for Roberto, in linear schedule, we can see that ball control graph is lower than other areas...but with the specific shedule where ball contro sliderl is higher compare to linear, ball control graph is higher....so the question is, why this difference ??? But I think that you was needed to lowered the GKss slider to be able to increase ball control, so as the player train less in a area where he get plenty of improvement, he can train more in another area...and ball control area is the winner... I think logically that each player have a maximum potential of work...and the linear schedule is the only way to find what is the best for the player. In you example, yes you train better Roberto in ball control....perhaps...but you are loosing a lot in Gkss where Roberto performed very well..........and what is the most important for a natural GK ? Gkss or ball control ?

GK-SS is more import without any question , but if we follow the linear training for each individual we do not need specific (position) training schedules. E.g Winger will always lack defence stats, so that will be shown on the graphs bar, but do really want a winger to train defence stats ? maybe a little bit, which in this case linear training provides that.

[jim morrow]

I think we must wait Naks explanation, cause linear training is just for the 3 months start....For rest of the seasons, training sliders is no more linear but adjusted by :

1 - compare to graph levels after 3 linear months.

2 - adjusted during the rest of the season following player condition before match, and color of Arrow of his training progress...i explain : After "modulation" of the sliders due to 3 linear months, if you see a Red arrow coming in a specific area, you need to increase corresponding slider to 1 notch (or 2). and wait for update to see if red arrow is leaving.

so you can easy understand that your schedule is moving during the season, total workload will decrease also, some players will have light total workload in May for example. And if you look at IRL, it seems that training follow the same rule. At the end of the season, players will not train a lot, just making some football game between us and not fitness or aerobic because jadedness and a lot of match

would have sucked all their energy....

[Miguel Lourinho]

I think we must wait Naks explanation, cause linear training is just for the 3 months start....For rest of the seasons, training sliders is no more linear but adjusted by :

1 - compare to graph levels after 3 linear months.

2 - adjusted during the rest of the season following player condition before match, and color of Arrow of his training progress...i explain : After "modulation" of the sliders due to 3 linear months, if you see a Red arrow coming in a specific area, you need to increase corresponding slider to 1 notch (or 2). and wait for update to see if red arrow is leaving.

so you can easy understand that your schedule is moving during the season, total workload will decrease also, some players will have light total workload in May for example. And if you look at IRL, it seems that training follow the same rule. At the end of the season, players will not train a lot, just making some football game between us and not fitness or aerobic because jadedness and a lot of match

would have sucked all their energy....

Linear Training does not provide 100% correct values in terms of training level/progress. This is my answer to your previous post and so on

3 Examples

New Save - Roberto, Moreira & Julio César 1 Month Linear Training

Specific Training for all 3 Players

Outcome After 1 Month of Training

As you can see not all players respond in the same way despite having the same training schedule + knowing that linear training varies from month to month or even game saves. So linear training is out of question, we need to turn to position schedules. We know already that there is not "fit all" that is why we need to try to make balanced training schedules. Individual training schedules in my opinion are not worth the time.

So what do you think, will they develop more with linear training or with specific training ?

[Miguel Lourinho]

Cont.

Field Player Named Airton Linear Training

Based on mantralux therory these are the average values for the different categories:

Strength - 16, 11, 11 and 14 |*average value of 13

Aerobic - 14, 13, 13, 12 and 13 |*average value of 13

Tactics - 15, 12, 9, 14 and 14 |*average value of 12.8

Ball Control - 10, 11, 10, 13 and 8 |*average value of 10.4

Defending - 15, 14 and 15 |*average value of 14.6

Attacking - 7, 10 and 11 |*average value of 9.3

Shooting - 8, 9 and 14 |*average value of 10.3

The player subject to this test is a DMC. Mantralux maybe the lower bars indicate the areas he does not need train because he already has enough good values or are not important for his position.

[NakS]

I am afraid, you completely miss the point of the linear schedule and the whole process here Miguel,

I try to explain again.

The linear schedule is only a short term calibration schedule to spot where he is performing well relatively to others categories. To do so, you have to put the same input for all categories (linear schedule), wait 2-3 months if it is as the beginning of the season, at the same time you make sure the player regain his match exercice (match fit message). Once you have reached the end of this 2-3 months period.

You make INDIVIDUAL schedule in copying the bar pattern to the sliders, you roughly reproduce the pattern, the highest bar, the highest slider, the second highest bar, the second highest slider, same height, same notch…and so on.

NEXT, you regulate players condition with usually overall worload to make him almost 100% fit match day, if he is fully fit 2 days before, you cant try to increase the overall workload, if he is not, you gonna have to reduce it. So no linear training anymore. It is only set for calibration amd relative comparison purposes, that’s it. At no point I have said « keep the linear schedule once for all. »

As the player is jaded during the end of the season, congested fixture, you react or sometimes anticipate players conditions fluctuation. That’s not rocket science, you only have to control player condition, and message like « tired », etc…the red or green arrow as well can help you regulate workload.

Your example are crystal clear, but you have increase workload in a category, you can not make a reliable comparison anymore. Actually, for all your goalkeepers and ball control category, if you look at the linear training graph amd then the specific graph, Roberto still has the highest bar, then Moreira and finally Julio, it seems as well relative offset are kept. There are some slight fluctation in the other though because your overall workload is higher on the specific schedule than in the linear, but the overall pattern is still there, Julio is a perfect example, although there is less « contrats » between bars, there is still some difference. It seems more flat because in increasing the lowest category slider, you have reduced the bar limits range

Of course, the higher the workload the higher the bar, you have cranked up ball control category, no suprises this bar gets higher, proves nothings at all !

Keep in mind as well, THIS GRAPH IS NOT TRAINING PROGRESS the result of the training calculation process is in the other graph, regarding training graph levels, it is « how well » so maybe how likely he will increase, how he has room for increasing, kind of potential capacity in each category, that is what Mantralux is investigating at the moment if I have well understood, taken into account current attributes values and have a closer look at the dotted lines.

As you can see not all players respond in the same way despite having the same training schedule + knowing that linear training varies from month to month or even game saves. So linear training is out of question, we need to turn to position schedules. We know already that there is not "fit all" that is why we need to try to make balanced training schedules. Individual training schedules in my opinion are not worth the time.

That’s exactly why individual schedules is the way to go, you said in the same sentence that you know there is not “fit all” schedule, right next that you think balanced positional schedule is the way to go… You will make tests on how much players as you can, report progress, slider positioning…

It has already been done, and the guy who did this study come up with the line theory, 7 notch is the minimun to maintain, 13 is medium, these are average values…doing this you completely dismiss the fact that, and you said it yourself, each player will react differently to the same schedule.

Worth the time or not is down to your managing style, I perfectly understand and I agree it can be time consuming.

Mantralux maybe the lower bars indicate the areas he does not need train because he already has enough good values or are not important for his position.

That is what we are saying, he would be better to train him less in this category, yes. Why is what Mantralux is investigating, as you said, current attributes and I am pretty sure "limits" value are down do his position naturally. So the average value helps, but the relative heights of teh colum as well (between 4 -6 ability point between lowest limit and upper limit): maybe using a scouting software to have a rough idea where he can increase can be helpful as well.

Anyways, thanks for doing some testing and put screenshots, it helps a lot

[Miguel Lourinho]

Well I understand that a general training that fits all, will be very difficult to produce because of the facts that were stated in the previous posts , and yes individual trainings may be the solution or position trainings (Target Man/Central Defender/Wing Back).

[ProZone]

No problem mate, we are all trying to find answers here

I think it is pretty well sum up, if you absolutely want to try increase this category and try to "shape" players, then by all means increase the workload on this category. If you want to follow the optimization path, then I would advice spread workloads along graph pattern.

Good man.

Let me get something straight... You start off with a 'linear schedule' --> you get a Training Graph shape --> you look at that shape and recreate it with the slider positions, meaning that you further lower the chance of increase in the weaker areas --> what now happens to the shape of the Training Graph?

If I pre-empt your answer, I think you'll see the lower categories get lower. Am I right?

Then, if you updated your schedule a couple of times to match the re-generated Training Graph shape then after a while you'll end up with sliders on, or near, zero for those lower categories.

How can this be considered an optimised path for schedule design?

[NakS]

As I said earlier, I will put some pictures tonight if possible of what is happening in the whole process and next the "copy-paste" process, will be much more simpler to explain ans save me 1000 words! I hope tonight will be ok as I have to go through the season to take care of the schedule, player fitness...quite time consuming.

To answer you question, it is always "relative" heights and this is where the big "approximation" is, I really don't how much notchs there is between 2 dotted lines, so...roughly the pattern, I don't put the slider related to the lowest bar at notch 1, and I have never reached the first notch. Because in my process, the linear schedule is pretty low at the beginning (around 10-11), I keep the slider corresponding to the highest bar unchanged, them decrease the other, the range is around 4-5 notches (totally arbitrary), then I increase overall workload as detailled earlier

So when a bar decrease, I lower 1 or 2 notches sometimes I don't lower at all, not 5 or 6. I tend to keep it tight but that's just me, I just make sure the overall trend is still kept. It is really not accurate at all as you don't have a clear and direct link between bars, dotted lines and sliders. That's the problen actually, maybe it is best to relatively space more the sliders, I don't know for sure unfortunately. But I definitely try to avoid the low notches, I do this because you need a minimum to maintain current level of ability.

I considered it as optimised schedule because I spread workload where he has more chance to do well at training and at the same time, as it is individual schedule, I deal much more easily with player fitness, that's harder to do in group schedule. But again, that's just how I see and manage training.

[jim morrow]

meaning that you further lower the chance of increase in the weaker areas

No, you just avoid chance to loose load for no or minimum gain as it's a weaker area for the player...And in the other hand, you increase chance to gain in stronger area. As Naks explain, once you have adjust sliders to be a copy of the graph, the total workload is now inferior than it was before...so next step, you increase the total workload by increasing all the sliders you have just adjust.

Final step, look at the condition of the player but as I said before, look at the arrow...red arrow : increase of the area concerned slider.

so at the end of the season, there are a few chance to have slivers near 0...but surely, your total workload will be lower. it's a easy method to avoid most of injury...It's not human to have the same workload in september than in June. it's often the reason why the "stupid" gamer said : " this game is a ch.....t, all my players has got injured in my second or third season".....

yes it's because you ask too much to your players...there are no robots

[ProZone]

As I said earlier, I will put some pictures tonight if possible of what is happening in the whole process and next the "copy-paste" process, will be much more simpler to explain ans save me 1000 words! I hope tonight will be ok as I have to go through the season to take care of the schedule, player fitness...quite time consuming.

Okay, don't rush. I look forward to seeing the info.

[jim morrow]

Be patient..Naks is testing linear method during one season to show us how we can manage training by this way......I think this week-end, we will have a complete tutorial.

[NakS]

I just want at this point to add some food for thoughts, at least explain how I adjust the schedule. I have finally finished doing all my custom individual schedule, step one is done atm. Of course it is time consuming to make individual schedules, match play is far more important, moral, etc...I definitely agree, we just try to figure out what is going on with the graph and how to use them. If these graphs are useless, so please someone official come here and said so and I will not care about training anymore, waste time anymore and use default positional schedules. or random sliders arrangement (someone official can also show up and tell what the graph mean ). Still I think each info is worth being taken into account.

Phase 1: Put all the players to a linear schedule during almost 3 months (to recover from inactivity period). The so called linear simply reflects the fact that each slider is at the same notch, meaning each category has the same chance of increasing. I do not take into account here the number of attributes in each category but we know that the workload in one category is equally shared between all the attributes into it. I have done this mainly because training graph show the levels in category not in attributes. Well same input everywhere. I have picked an example randomly to explain, I have 52 others examples if necessary with various postion, age, ...

Let me introduce you Lee Barnard, a 25 years old striker. Here is his profile at DAY 1 (6 July 2010)

And here is his linear schedule.

We are now the 2 October 2010, his training levels graph looks like this.

This is basically Barnard's response to training schedule, not his progress but his levels. It is like a filter you superimpose on the linear schedule, each category receive the same amount of workload and according to the player, facilities, coach rating, initial workload in the category you have the levels graph, etc...you have an output. The other output is the progress graph, there are is also "activity arrows" with several colors and arrow angle. And the final output is of attributes increase or not. I don't think these informations are pointless, especially the graphs and the arrow, they allow us to control closely how the player is training, there is as well assistant manager reports "who train well or fail to impresse". I have save as note these report to track this info as well.

Sa here we go, loads of informations, but the thing is we don't know what they mean, we have ideas, theory, of course... is MV Hints and Tips outdated? Subject to different interpretations? Surely, but as far as I know this is still the only "official" document, and I take as fact as well what Mantralux sum up in the OP. The manual is almost useless here (section 9.3.1), the graphs are not even mentioned (or I missed it) that's unbelievable (useless?)...training arrows are explained with the quote sentence

any attribute changes they’ve undergone since beginning their training schedule.

Each player has the same linear schedule, each one has the same coaches, same facilities, event some of these parameters can fluctuate, they all train at the same club basically...but, still there is differences even for players with the same natural position, so it is an individual matter. My interpretation of these graphs is exactly the same as the one explained by Teutomatos, it is relative categories capacities ratios highlighted by the fact that you have put the same workload everywhere. The lowest bar "he cannot get any worse", you have as well others bars that are higher for the same input workload. My way of dealing with this is reduce the workload where he is not "doing" well ant focus where he is doing "the best". (more infos from official in these graphs are welcome as well)

So I keep the slider relative to the highest bar unchanged and reduce the other according to the relative heights of the training levels. I tend to adjust them pretty tight and try to avoid the lower notch, because there is a sweet spot to maintain but I don't know exactly where he is.

As I have decreased some sliders and the more the slider are high the more you have chance to increase, I then increase the overall workload while making sure the slider pattern is kept, and then I will regulate it to make the players almost 100% on match day according to how far in the season I am, how congested is the fixture, how the player react (happy or not), etc..usually I decreased the overall workload according to fitness level on match day. If he has recovered early (2-3 days before match day), I increase a bit the workload. The way I regulate the workload will be as function of age for example, training arrows: if you have a lot of red arrow pointing down, it means you may have not enough workload assigned on strength category as it "triggers" player fitness . If the player is unhappy with his schedule, it can be due to a drop of morale for various reasons (losing streak, bad performance, clash with other...) but in this case it can be due to a unadapted workload distribution or/and a too high workload.

Ok, so now, the individual training schedule of Barnard looks like this

Same process have been carried out for 52 players of my 53 players (yeah I have forgot one at the beginning...).

That's it for now, phase 1 "calibration and adjustment" is done for all players (youth first team) I prefer to post my process step by step.

Phase 2 is currently carried out I will save the game every month to tack graph evolution. So I continue playing as usual my players to keep them match fit, I choose them as I go, I rotate the squad, adapt a bit tactics according to opponents, usual teamtalks, regulate workload, look at training arrows...these kind of thing, a usual save. So if you want details to be closely monitored, feel free to let me know. I will if possible try to make the saves available tonight if you want to have a real look at the schedule, minutes played, coach ratings, facilities, players attributes....

[5ergio]

I'll try and adapt this to my San Marino League save and see how this "linear approach" works for amateur clubs (yes, not even semi-pro). Hopefully with players being the crappest of possible, the youngsters will also have a good shot at playing chances. Excellent read btw, big thanks to all contributers up to now & from now on

[Teutomatos]

I'll try and adapt this to my San Marino League save and see how this "linear approach" works for amateur clubs (yes, not even semi-pro). Hopefully with players being the crappest of possible, the youngsters will also have a good shot at playing chances. Excellent read btw, big thanks to all contributers up to now & from now on

With unprofessional or hallf professionnal or youngster contracts, It s the same trick, "but" ... As you get the half of volum offer in general training, all worshops are half ...

It's the same management, to recovery condition etc ... You could risk to reducing too much the Strengh worshop. But be careful one thing, as it's low level, sometimes you could be inspired to loose this "key". Under a "certain volum of strengh, all fall down.

Easy to check, it's when you observ all the activities arrow in red in all workshop.

In this case just re up a level for the strengh worshop only.

Be careful too, the match exercice of each player. Never touch or regulate the training, if the player haven't the "match fit". Wait he played some matchs to get it.

It's a paradox, he need to play , to be ready to play ... But !!! It's why theres reserves matchs and friendly matchs. You have a function for manage it easily. Select the Available for reserve squad until match fit, when it's right, the function disapear ( turn to grey ) automaticaly. Anyway, you have the comment advertise too, in fitness menu ...

[jim morrow]

To build your own individual training, please read the Naks post, everything is explained. Let me explain how I proceed :

- Begin of season or when you sign a new player during season : create a schedule for every player with linear sliders at maximum of total workload.

- Each week, check of the happiness of the player. If player complain of too heavy training load, reduce sliders of one notch. Check next week, if player is still unhappy, decrease one more notch.

Do the same each week until player become happy again.

- Wait three months, you will see graph increasing month by month from August to October.

- 1st November or after three months, copy the pattern of the training levels graph to training sliders for each player as explained by Naks. After you copy pattern, increase the total workload to maximum but be careful to keep pattern of the sliders when increasing total workload.

Two things to control now until end of season :

- Each week, control happiness of the player. If unhappy with training, decrease workload like i explained before.

- Before each match, if time between last match is 1 week, control % condition of the player at the day of the match. He must be back to 99/100%. If not, reduce totalworkload like explained before

and check next match if condition is coming back to 99/100%. if not, reduce one more time....

At the end of season, during holiday you must put all your players back to linear sliders. Cause training levels could not be the same next season, due to age increasing, attributes improvement etc....

[Teutomatos]

Thx Jim morrow ! ... Or even Karax.

Just a thing the recorvery condition can be moderate under the 3 months period. The calibration is the linear, but if player need more condition, you can reduce a numerous of notches from general volum which necessary. A player coudn't get the same volum of training still the beginning if his "genetic" don t support.

Graph provid the right necessity at least anyway. Just the linear is the calibration.

The reference to moderate the general volum for recorvery condition, is not a fix period like a week, but the period until the next match.( which the player is select himself of course ! )

Howether ... A player which not playing during almost a 15 days, loose is fit for playing match. Means, his match exercice base. Like Karax said, player need match or he don't training no more.

But karax don t forget the maintain of ... i call it "purchase" (?) A valid Acquisition level point in attribut, is a correct word to use ? Tell me if it s right word ? thx.

So, the maintain .. "something" is contain in the graph. Talking about graph like a progress expansion is not false, but not exact. It s in first, the necessary level of maintain CA and, in a second hand, opportunities of developping PA ( if theres some possibilities that we don't know ).

To obtain the precision, and regular refine of the graph "line" whatever the General volum, in the season, we have the "activities arrows". Activities arrow don't objectiv a progress, but a positiv work for it. A neutral one (-) that we work on maintain the current level. A red arrow that we don t work enough in this worshop.

The hapiness could be check each time we need to manage the player, nothin to do with good general moral or not. Well, for a part, an hapiness factor is an hapiness factor more, to get up the general moral. But in the training comment in personnal player page, hapiness offer an specific information about 2 specifics things : a good distribution on the differents worshop sliders, and a good general volum.

You could observ sometimes, something like , with a same general volum, but, with good distribution, unhapiness becomes satisfaction.

Thx all for your interest, rely and your support.

[jim morrow]

Thanks Teutomatos, I forgot to talk about activities arrows. After three months, If I see red arrows, I increase 1 or 2 notches for this training area and check next time if red arrow is still there. simply

[Teutomatos]

Thanks Teutomatos, I forgot to talk about activities arrows. After three months, If I see red arrows, I increase 1 or 2 notches for this training area and check next time if red arrow is still there. simply

Thanks so much to you Jim, please could you tell me if "purchase" is a correct word for the "acquisition point level " ?

[jim morrow]

Purchase mean buy something, so I don't think so.

[Cassian]

I have trouble with 2 players. Went with 3 months benchmark schedule. Then went on individual schedule based on their graphs. Few months later, they have very low workload (and all bars are below middle) .. one is happy the other is unhappy with schedule. I tried to tick some of them 1 2 notches in different direction... but it's like they are not training. I play Man Utd, I have enough couches in each department, they get plenty of match (one of them is Neymar = wonderkind) ... what could be the reason.

PS: I put them from medium to heavy workload... but no change, graphs still say low workload