Training Masterclass - Individual tailored schedules (Moved Posts)

[ZdlR]

It basically shows you what is the effect of your training schedule on a particular player.

This is certainly how I interpret the graph. The schedule is just one input into training, but it is the one that you - as manager - control. There are a lot of other inputs that you cannot control (directly), split between the player's visible and hidden attributes, the training staff and their hidden/visible attributes with the facilities also being of some, unknown, influence. The Training Level graph then shows the absolute output benefit* that the player has received for each area of the schedule. The only logical thing to infer from this graph is that the higher a player's benefit in a category, the more likely it is that they will improve in that area.

However, that isn't the end of the story, because there is no level at which all players are guaranteed to increase their attributes, as we've already learnt. This is where the Attribute Development graph comes in.

See my reply to the other training masterclass thread

If a player is gaining loads of benefit into, for example, strength and they are not improving and they are >24 years old, you might as well just drop their schedule workload for the strength category because they are treading water. You would be better off lowering it until you find the point where they start to decline slightly and then raise it up a bit more to the minimum level required for a plateau. This completes the heuristic process of creating efficient, tailored schedules for each player.

*I say 'benefit' rather than 'effort' because effort is definitely a personal thing. One player is naturally going to try harder than another. The facilities and the staff will combine with the effort to produce a net 'benefit' for the player. It is logical to assume that a player may put a lot of effort into training but be hampered by facilities or substandard staff, thus the net benefit might actually end up lower than the player's effort.

[Teutomatos]

@ Zdlr

Thanks !!

@ Sarmatian

Apologizes for my lack of english.

Are you sure to understood ?

Watch the post # 42 of Naks http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/243816-Training-Masterclass-Individual-tailored-schedules-(Moved-Posts)?p=6190372&viewfull=1#post6190372

We aren't stand on linear. Linear it's just for 2/3 months after return of holidays. Do you know calibration process for technical, manual, or informatic tools generaly ?

It's just initial process to count the graph response, effectivly, like you feel in relation with player capacity.

After this first step, we follow the grap instruction to report it on cursor. In relation with the player habilities and eventual potential.

If you think it's not the respons of the players habilities with all adds ( club offer ... ) that we take in count about to follow the graph. I m curious to read what you think it could be !?

Observ some external editor, you can watch some specifical relationship with potential. You ll not surprise totaly with the graph. And well, first with the actual habilities before potential.

It's clear ! With no doubt.

Sorry, i'm not sure to be clear. Or do you think, we said, to stand on linear all the times ? If it's the case, we had never said this thing.

your players are individuals and they won't blindly follow your instructions in a match like robots but you can influence the way the play with your instructions

i m agree with that. It's call like bad translation by "collectif" in french and teamwork in english, (more clear in original language), limitation of strict coach orders. I guess we are on same line with that.

At the same time give the linear training to a very dedicated player (high workrate, determination, proffesionalism etc...) and you will see much less difference between bars in the training graph.

Of course you could "trick" the graph by the cursor. We knows. That's the problem.

In case you didn't wonder, that is the reason why Cassian had all bars the same height with many players in his Man Utd squad when he tried linear training - most Man Utd players have high Determination, high Workrate, high proffesionalism etc...

No it's because on MU, almost all the best player get their top capacities already obtain ! eheheheh To easy, you fall down in the trap.

So they don't progress anymore. I said almost, and for the most ...Because they can't !

Check it with Génie Scout !

Rooney is full

Scholes is full

Rio is full

etc ...

Just sometimes some space for a couple of PA for mental attributs random with âge and experience.

You can just training them for "maintain" their level and capacities. And the graph tell you the needs for each one ! No problems.

but it is a FACT that some attributes are more important than other.

The fact is, it's not the training which provid it, if it's not preview by the game at the player's création. But just obtain their own possible limited roof. And with the time ...

You don't modeling your player, but just fill the space preview. May be for a small part, by tutoring, or may be good management, career experience and process. But never a revolution !

I observ the génie scout since 3 years now. And it's always in the same way beetween my game, the player habilities and informations from this editor.

For the rest, you manage well your players with their own possibilities. Never, which you like expecting, they don't have, and may be, they 'll never obtain.

[Sarmatian]

Oh, boy.

I do understand what linear training is about.

You give player same workload in all areas for a few months, look at the graph and increase in areas where bar is high and decrease where bar is low. Simple enough.

I'm telling you I think it is wrong. Training graph doesn't show what area is going to improve, it shows the effect of your training schedule. If you don't trust common sense here's a quote. I bolded the significant parst.

Training level graph tells you how well the player is training in each category, ie. it thus reflects the chances of related attributes improving. Naturally there are a lot of factors involved, but the training levels should give you an idea on how the training schedule is currently working out for the player.

The training arrows show exactly what it says on the screen, the training improvements of the attributes. You should note that an attribute can improve without a visible change in the 1-20 display value of the attribute, because the actual attribute levels are tracked on a more detailed scale inside the game. You can notice this via the attribute graph on the player profile training screen, where the changes smaller than 1 display unit are also visible. We've added an option in the next patch to expand the graph to fill the whole panel, so it is even clearer to see the changes.

Use a player with 20 workrate, 20 proffesionalism etc... (create him if you have to using the editor) with CA 100 and PA 200, give him linear schedule and you will see that after 3 months his training graph shows bars at almost same height.

[NakS]

I agree with Zdlr on training levels meaning, by the way I have read your response on the other thread as well though I didn't react there, I willl do it later in this post as what you have said is interesting and useful.

It is fascinating to see how this thread is going as its main aim was to introduce how training levels and training arrows could be used, at the same time I standed back off it for a while to get my thinking clear. I have read again the whole thread. The first thing is I don't think the training module is completely irrelevant, it have been stated numerous times by some people on the other part of this thred. I have read Riz, the SI guy in charge of the training module, he was posting on one of the numerous "Refont the PA system" thread, which logically deal with player developpement and so training. Here is what he said.

A player cannot improve simply by "performing extremely well", since his match performance is not just dependent on the player alone but also the ability of his team mates, the level of opposition he faces and the tactics employed by his manager. To gain ability, the player must train and gain match experience and possibly receive tutoring or other more personal coaching. Performing well in matches is not the only factor in player development either and I would say that in the big picture, the match performance is a smaller factor really. For example with passing, depending on your position, you'll need to play quite a few competitive matches before you complete the same number of passes you would perform in training during only a handful of drills focused on passing the ball. And they do say you only learn by doing.

I think we all agree on this here, since we are on a training thread. I recall another quote from Riz, answering a thread started by Prozone who is interested in training as well and is almost the only piece of info regarding how the training works. Here you go:

Training level graph tells you how well the player is training in each category, ie. it thus reflects the chances of related attributes improving. Naturally there are a lot of factors involved, but the training levels should give you an idea on how the training schedule is currently working out for the player.

The training arrows show exactly what it says on the screen, the training improvements of the attributes. You should note that an attribute can improve without a visible change in the 1-20 display value of the attribute, because the actual attribute levels are tracked on a more detailed scale inside the game. You can notice this via the attribute graph on the player profile training screen, where the changes smaller than 1 display unit are also visible. We've added an option in the next patch to expand the graph to fill the whole panel, so it is even clearer to see the changes.

The much bigger picture is to see the whole training panel like a giant feedback loop. As Zdlr said, you have an input (training schedule) for either a group of players or an individual player, and you have parameters like coaches quality (down to attributs, both visible and hidden), training facilities, coaches workload and maybe other thing, but these are the mains bar player related parameters. You can not completely control this, you have though the star rating for example when assigning coach which is taken into account in the training process and providing feedback, the obvious thing being, the higher the better. But before I continue, I want to react to Samartian points first.

I don't totally agree with the fact that marking is useless for a striker or composure useless for a centre, but I agree that some are more likely to be more useful for a striker than a center back, hence the position CA calculation process with different weight on each attribute. But I am sure you have looked at Cleon Thread "attributes during match play", he always speak of a whole set of attributes in each move, maybe 6, 7 or more out of 30 something visible attributes and I am sure he will agree that composure is relevant for a defender being pressed, as well as passing and creativity to spot quickly and efficiently an outlet. Don't get me wrong, I perfectly see your point when you are saying that some attributes are momre likely to be of use than other, we agree on this. I just want to highlight the fact that when yo uhave the ball everybody attack, and when you don't everybody defend and the whole set of attributes could be usefull. The only difference between a striker and a center back is one is better at attacking and the other is better at defending, hence position on the pitch. I know you are not saying this, but all attributes are relevant for each position, some are just more likely to be more frequently used than other. I have used tools like Genie Scout when I started playing FM, but I focus too much on CA and PA to sign wonderkids and now it was a mistake, I wasn't looking carefully at attributes on a whole, both attacking and defending.

The other thing is how training categories are made this year, more rounded and balanced. I don't think it is a interesting move to completely neglect attacking for a center back for example, as it will neglect the passing attribute. If you decide to train really hard the ball control category for center back to increase his heading, don't forget there is dribbling in this category as well and you are more likely to increase it. One way to deal with this is to use individual focus to emphasize only one attribute for example and mixed it with rather extreme schedule, as 10% of the workload is on one attributes. This is a step toward more control on player developpement and a useful tool to increase the progression rate accurately.

At the end of the day, as you said, there is only one fixed ceiling, player PA. You cannot radicaly and completely shape a player as you wish, for example, take a dribbling 5 CB to a dribbling 20 CB. But I do think you can shape him slightly depending on your training schedule make him work hard on this, special focus are useful here, make a dribbling 5 CB into a dribbling 8 CB or a bit more, but maybe he will not doing well for some reasons (coach for instance) in this category and it will require lots of workload to shape him.

I have tested it myself numerous time, and you can shape partly a player with heavily focused training and special focus training. It was done on a youg Brazilian striker with lots of potential, I put aerobic on full and quickness individual focus to try to increase as much as I can pace and acceleration while keeping the other categories less than average in order to have a acceptable overall workload, I have made as well 2 default save with default schedule to compare with, and my heavily unbalanced schedule bring acceleration and pace almost 3 points higher than the default schedule had, but as you guess other attributes were less high. I played around a bit with other individual focus and categories (technical and physical), and I have unbalanced the player as well towards my choice, but not drastically in a 10 point scale.

This is what I call, partly shape a player. An example is of course not a proof, but it still shows a tendency, maybe it would be more radical to set all categories to zero bat one and an individual focus, but practically you don't want a player to lost post everywhere, that's why I didn't bother doing this. And as you have limited workload as well to spread in a training schedule, you have make a choice. This is where the training level graph come into play for me.

Training level graph is how well a player is training in a category, and so how the attributes within this category are likely to increase as Riz said in the previous quote, I think we all agree here. Don't forget it is all relative to this very player though, it is impossible to compare directly 2 players using the graph, it is only how well he is training in this category relatively to the other categories. Bear in mind as well that the higher the workload in one category, the higher the chance of increasing, you can simply check this but unbalancing radically a category and setting others almost to no workload. The other thing you can check easily is when all training levels are the same, tweak one category in the schedule slightly and you'll see the training levels follow.

Then you have training arrows, which are basically training levels variations, a player who is training less well than the previous week will have a red arrows and so the attributes within this category are less likely to increase, but still they can increase. A simple way to picture this is take training levels as a speed and arrows as a variation of speed, you can slow down but still, you are getting forward, hence increase in attributes without any green arrows in the training tab. I think we agree here as well

Basically I use these 2 things (and attributes improvement later) to make and monitor individual schedule. First with a linear schedule during 2-3 months, I simply want to highlight where a player is more likely to increase relatively to other categories, all parameters taken into account (coach, facilities, etc). This is just the effect of a perfectly balanced schedule through all external parameters on your player and I just want to gather infos on how the player react to this schedule and choose a starting point (read starting schedule). This is the first feedback loop.

At this point, we have 2 differents way of dealing with players, my logic is to make him work where he is the most likely to improve to get the best of the workload available, but still I don't neglect other categories and I try to keep categories sliders pretty tight in the schedule in a 6-8 notches range, but that's just me Keep in mind as well, this is not improvement, but chance of improvement, player will improve or not down to other things, we all agree on this as well.

So if a striker is training equally well in defense and attack on a linear schedule then, at a start, I put the same workload for both attack and defense to give him equal chance to increase attributes in both categories as I don't rely on CA weighting to design my schedule, I look at player on a whole, not just positionnal relevant attributes, as I said all players attack when in possession and all players defend when not, some are just better than other in defensive or attacking situation.

Some will max out attacking for striker, nothing wrong with that, I just have a different logic based on what mean the levels graph and training arrows. There is no true or wrong answer as everything in this game, just 2 differents ways of dealing with training, the main thing is to understand informations available, then it is up to you.

@Zdlr

I have started to use this attributes improvement as well alongside training arrows to balance training schedule from my starting schedule, exactly as you do, since they have make it much bigger . It was barely readable before.

Training arrows represent benefit variation as you called it, so chance of increasing variation, but are not real improvement as you rightly reminded. The attributes graph is useful to spot what are the real effect of the training schedule on attributes improvement on a detailled scale, spot a plateau or a fantastic increase. It is part of the training feedback loop. You have increased workload in one category, training arrows is green telling you his chance of increasing have increased, then you monitor attributes graph to see the effect of your modification, if nothing happens either you need a greater workload or you simply the player cannot improve anymore in this attribute. Similarly, you have to reduce the overall workload of a player in a congested fixture, thanks to this graph you know accurately where you have room to decrease workload without dropping attributes points. Good post zdlr, like the one about Klose

[Teutomatos]

I'm telling you I think it is wrong. Training graph doesn't show what area is going to improve, it shows the effect of your training schedule.

It's why we practize a calibration period with temporaly linear cursor level. As you can watch yourself, a player with significant differences on differents parts, with a linear you could observ, noticable differences on graph.

More easy to observ with low player on low division, Russian mountain appears more surely on graph than big stuff player with all everywhere full boost, tendancy to make flat respons at least, but the principe it's the same.

Professionnalism, work rate determination, and all you want, inside the beast, for the same price ...

You think but ... Check, and shake it well.

[ZdlR]

Training level graph is how well a player is training in a category, and so how the attributes within this category are likely to increase as Riz said in the previous quote, I think we all agree here. Don't forget it is all relative to this very player though, it is impossible to compare directly 2 players using the graph, it is only how well he is training in this category relatively to the other categories.

Can you back up the veracity of this statement? While it is plausible that cross-player comparisons of training investment* might be invalid, I'm pretty sure the training levels show absolute output investment. If it was relative, there would not be such a pronounced difference between a player like my regen Chrzanowski (who is a perfectionist and throws everything he has into training) and my "fairly sporting" winger who is returning from injury:

Kacper Chrzanowski

Bryan Ruiz

The differences between these two graphs are threefold:

1) Chrzanowski is a perfectionist, while Ruiz's most defining mental trait is that he is 'fairly sporting'

2) Chrzanowski has had uninterrupted training for months, Ruiz is returning from his second consecutive injury

3) Chrzanowski's overall workload is high 'heavy', Ruiz's overall workload is high medium

(It is worth noting that I have 4.5 star coaches in Ball Control and Defending, although it's likely that there's a more granular differentiation between them.)

If these graphs were relative to the categories for only this one player, Ruiz's graph should certainly be a darker blue with taller bars, just like Chrzanowski's. After all, relative to the other categories, he has trained Ball Control well. But, rather than being dark blue, it is one of the medium blues because, on an absolute scale, he has actually not done so much even with his best trained category.

As for whether you can compare the training level graph bars across players, I'm not too sure but I do agree that it is probably futile. Even if you can, I'm not sure there's any value in doing so. Let's say, for argument' sake, that the lines on the graph represent a five point investment scale like: Very Low, Low, Okay, High, Very High. Chrzanowksi's lowest yielding category (defending) has generated an output training investment of 'okay', despite only having his defending workload on 3. Ruiz's highest category (ball control) has generated almost the exact some output investment even though his workload is 'high'. This hasn't really told us anything whatsoever. In isolation, this is utterly meaningless. What we need to do now is check their respective attribute development graphs and see what 'okay' investment means for each player in these categories.

Kacper Chrzanowski - Attribute Development (Defending)

Bryan Ruiz - Attribute Development (Ball Control)

For Bryan Ruiz, who is a 27 year old left winger, 'Okay' Ball Control investment means absolutely nothing, at this stage. It is holding his attributes where they are and not improving nor diminishing them. Of course, if his investment was to stay the same for a few more months, I might want to ensure that they weren't decreasing. Although, given another couple of months I anticipate that his investment increase as he gets back to training fully after his injuries.

For Kacper Chrzanowski, a 17 year old central midfielder, 'Okay' Defending investment means increases in all three categories. This could be due to his age which is very conducive to attribute increases. Or it could be that his defending attributes are lower than Ruiz's ball control attributes, which could mean they are easier to train. It is plausible, but speculative, to say that it is easier to increase from 1 to 5 than it is from 16 to 20, for example.

It does not follow, however, that 'okay' in all other categories for Chrzanowski will necessarily increase those attributes in the same way. He has made across-the-board improvements in all categories but the rest of his categories have a High or Very High investment. Perhaps an Okay investment in these categories would see a plateau in his development graph - or perhaps even a decline.

---

*I have ditched 'benefit' because it implies gain. It is hard to argue that you can generate an overall benefit in a training category and yet your attributes can fall. It is better to say that the graph shows an overall investment in a category - where the stakeholders are the player, the staff and the facilities. The term 'investment' implies risk. People invest in things all the time yet lose out due to a bad investment, so this is a slightly better term.

[NakS]

Can you back up the veracity of this statement? While it is plausible that cross-player comparisons of training investment* might be invalid, I'm pretty sure the training levels show absolute output investment. If it was relative, there would not be such a pronounced difference between a player like my regen Chrzanowski (who is a perfectionist and throws everything he has into training) and my "fairly sporting" winger who is returning from injury:

I don't. But because you have no numerical values or any absolute comparison means (I don't think very good is absolute for example) along the vertical axis to be sure that the 4 dotted line are actually the same thing for each player, in absolute terms. You have just 4 dotted lines on a graph, that's it. For example, the attributes graph is absolute because you have numerical values along the vertical axis, and so you are able to compare accurately 2 players attributes evolution without any doubts. It was more of a"safe statement" saying that, you don't know for sure if you can use the dotted line to compare 2 players, as I don't know for sure I can not use the dotted line as absolute line for all players .Maybe it is absolute, maybe it's not? On an absolute scale, and purely investment related, an "okay-perfectionnist" will be higher than an "okay-unambitious".

To be honest, it would make more sense to have absolute doted lines for all players than not, for the sake of simplicity at least, the position of the highest bar providing infos on the highest investment of a player relatively to the other players, to spot the effect of perfectionist and unambitious player on training investment for example. And as the training sliders are absolute it seems logical to have somewhere in the feedback loop an absolute comparison means, the dotted lines. That's what you meant I guess?

Morever what would be the point comparing 2 players others than investment comparison or comparison sake? What matters is results (attributes graph with a numerical vertical axis to track evolution), the levels graph is just investment, he is doing better in this category than in this one, rough infos and should be taken as such I think, effects of the schedule, coaches, facilities, personnality, etc.. on the player investment, that's why I have focused on the relative category thing for a player not the position of the highest bar as it is just a result of all others training parameters, some I control, some I don't. What is interesting is the relative order of the workload, to spread workload as efficiently as possible.

I just use the infos in this levels graph as a relative investment order, a relative likelyness order of improvement to design my base schedule, then I adjust overall workload as high as possible depending on how happy is the player, personnality, upcoming fixture, condition to have the highest investment as possible. There is the constraint of the workload of the training schedule, this is the thing to optimize, but it is fairly obvious I think, that the higher the workload, the higher investment so the higher the chance of increasing, then it maybe not enough to trigger an increase, that's what the attribute graph is for.

It is a bit like mentality pattern actually for training schedule, I choose to play a rigid philosophy (roughly relative slider position based on relative investement) and then I choose the strategy (overall workload) depending on how much aggressive I want to be, it is a bit of a far-fetched comparison though, but you get my point. And I keep all sliders pretty tight for a start because I know I will have to tweak later according to the others tendencies training arrows and results attributes graph. So that I am pretty "decrease safe" by not putting any sliders too low at the very beginning before monitoring other graphs

If these graphs were relative to the categories for only this one player, Ruiz's graph should certainly be a darker blue with taller bars, just like Chrzanowski's. After all, relative to the other categories, he has trained Ball Control well. But, rather than being dark blue, it is one of the medium blues because, on an absolute scale, he has actually not done so much even with his best trained category.

The highest bar is not necessary at the highest limit, I don't see it on a 0-1 vertical axis scale. In other words, you don't divide all bars norms with the norm of the highest bar too have a 0-1 scale where the highest bar is 1 and is at the very top of the graph (is the word standardize?), it is not a % based on the highest bar, I didn't mean that. I think it is more of a % based on the maximum potential investment of a player. You have the 4 dotted lines to scale this, let's say reprensenting "very well, well, average, poor" and maybe the highest bar is inbetween "well and average" like the screen of Ruiz shows. I apologize it all that was badly worded, I may have use the word relative abusively here.

[ZdlR]

The highest bar is not necessary at the highest limit, I don't see it on a 0-1 vertical axis scale. In other words, you don't divide all bars norms with the norm of the highest bar too have a 0-1 scale where the highest bar is 1 and is at the very top of the graph (is the word standardize?), it is not a % based on the highest bar, I didn't mean that. I think it is more of a % based on the maximum potential investment of a player. You have the 4 dotted lines to scale this, let's say reprensenting "very well, well, average, poor" and maybe the highest bar is inbetween "well and average" like the screen of Ruiz shows. I apologize it all that was badly worded, I may have use the word relative abusively here.

Then I'm pretty sure we're on the same page

[NakS]

Then I'm pretty sure we're on the same page

Good, always useful to rephrase in a different fashion.

Out of interest Zdlr, would you like to share how you construct your base schedule? Are you starting from a positional schedule (let's say striker), role schedule (poacher, etc...) or on a player by player basis, weakness in attributes for the kind of football you expect them to play.

[ZdlR]

I create individual schedules for all of my players with a program that I made:

With this, I can create some initial personalized schedules very quickly. They're usually a bit wrong in some places, because it's very hard to predict how a player is going to react to a schedule - their happiness seems to have more of an effect nowadays, too. It uses SFraser's concept of a "balanced notch", but I usually deviate from that quite quickly because there are no hard-and-fast rules with training. It's much more fluid than that.

I know when I worked on CM (after the split) we had equations that mapped out a player's development. This created a graph of their development. Analogous to this in PES:

Of course, showing this to a player in FM would be silly, but PES is much more of an arcade game. Internally, there's likely to be something along these lines for each player where the inputs are things like natural fitness, personality traits, potential, etc. There are probably even different graphs for how technical, mental and physical attributes develop or decline.

The difference in FM is that you have the ability to influence the change with training schedules, so the graphs are more likely to detail how susceptible areas are to change, so at any one time you are almost definitely under- or over-training an area, with the "Goldilocks Zone" of 'just enough training to yield maximum attribute gain' a nebulous property.

The aim with games like FM is to prevent an optimal, generic solution being developed so that the user is better off using an heuristic solution, instead. If it was as easy as 'notch 11 will prevent a players attributes from dropping, notch 18 will increase their attributes at a rate of 2.65 per year', then the designers would have failed horribly. Thankfully, with each iterative release, the possibilities for these systemic solutions decrease across the board for every aspect of the game. Only things like the star ratings for coaches remain systemic, whereby hiring coaches with attributes (X, Y and Z > 16) >= 4 star. One example of a systemic solution that was neutralized with great effect was the old arrow system, which could be used to generate ridiculously powerful tactics. If the tactics system can be exploited to yield ridiculously good results with relatively poor players, then the whole game is skewed. Success on the pitch is success, period. So it's good that this area has been tidied up and is much more realistic.

[NakS]

That's a really nice tool you've made here, at least you have included the overall workload slider as SI did in the revamp training panel in the player profile, you know just below the 2 training graphs, all categories workload sliders are here though, but the overall is missing! Anyways, I have skim read your topic on the role editor and training schedule editor you have designed, as I am pretty rubbish at programing, have to say I am impressed. I'd be playing on windows, I would have give it a hopefull and thankfull try as I like to have both flexibility and customised player roles...too bad. By the way, do you think you would be able to design a philosophy editor? That would be awesome, I like to control accurately how mentality is spread around my team, I have to tweak with philosophy, duty, role to have the wanted effect without losing strategy flexibility (ie not fix mentality)

So if I understand you well, I guess you have worked on the player development on CManager as a software developper, that's cool! Well, back on the training topic.

I have never used SFraser work though I think I understand it by reading his massive thread on the subject, as far as I know the base "slider ratio" is set according to the number of trainable attributes in each category, each attribute is supposed to receive the same amount of workload first, then using a positional focus and age focus, multypling these 2 things and you have your schedule, the aim being: increase keys attributes position wise and age wise, correct me if I am wrong and see this thread.

But, at that time IIRC, it didn't too much take into account training levels graphs, training arrows and of course the new FM2011 feature, detailled attributes evolution. And, I tend to think the most important think is not necesseraly the starting schedule, but how you tweak it according to the infos you are provided with and to really suit your player. I am sure SFraser has tweaked his own schedule to suit his own player along his season and he carefully monitor each piece of information that go through the training module, I don't post much here, but I lurk quite a bit and I know he is the kind of guy that pay attention to small details. He perfectly knows that there is no magical schedule or one size fit all schedule, so I would be interested to hear from him and others here, and start a quick discussion about the "on the go" tweaking, adaptation of a training schedule thanks to the information provide by the game (graph, personnality, age, attriibutes, whatever is relevant) like you have nicely done Zdlr through the use of attribute evolution graph.

Because I think we pretty much agree to what the graph mean thanks to discussion, point of view and the few facts provided by Riz Remes on the matter, and it may be useful not to provide a download, but rough guidelines to player development in a individual schedule training fashion, I think it would of use for people aiming to pay attention to training and use individual tailored schedules for 1, 2, 5 players or even a whole squad and are clueless about the meaning of graph and arrows.

If I sum up your way of proceeding Zdlr, you are using the detailled attribute graph to spot a plateau in a category, and then you decrease notch by notch the related category workload slider, then detect when attributes in this category start to decrease slightly, and raise it one notch to ensure a kind of steady state. Then you have free up workload to put where you think it is needed. This is obviously related to age factor, the usual limit of increase for physical attributes being around 24.

So I have a question for you, do you anticipate the fact that mental stats are harder to train at younger age? For example, find the sweet "waiting notch" to ensure the mental category attributes don't decrease and shift the workload to physical attributes that are booming between 18-24?

When I have reached a plateau in a category and the player is becoming older, I pay attention to training arrows as a first hint of potential decrease. For example, when a player reach 30 something, physical stats will inexorably start to decrease, and some are very important for match experience like stamina and natural fitness. I anticipate a potential decrease when I see a light orange arrows meaning the player is doing a bit less well in this category so my "steady state" is maybe no longer one and I may leave the plateau. I wait a bit and watch carefully the physical attributes, see how it evolves, if I am leaving the plateau, then I add workload depending on how much "spare" workload is available to slow down as long as possible the decrease, just slow down because I know it has to decrease somehow. So both arrows and attributes help me prevent a brutal decrease, but of course there not always a orange or red arrows before to warn you...so I advice paying attention to both graph at the same time. Sometimes when training arrows shows, you are kind of warned, so don't completely dismiss them.

[ZdlR]

SI did in the revamp training panel in the player profile, you know just below the 2 training graphs, all categories workload sliders are here though, but the overall is missing!

Yes, and it's a shame that the training level progress graphs for each specific area don't work, too

By the way, do you think you would be able to design a philosophy editor?

Well, the idea was actually to have it read in your squad from the running game and then generate roles and training automatically, but I haven't really got the time as I'm in the process of moving abroad.

So if I understand you well, I guess you have worked on the player development on CManager as a software developper, that's cool!

Yeah, back in 07/08 I worked for Eidos for a year on CM8 and CM9, working on various different areas of gameplay. It was great, despite sales :S

And, I tend to think the most important think is not necesseraly the starting schedule, but how you tweak it according to the infos you are provided with and to really suit your player.

I agree absolutely.

If I sum up your way of proceeding Zdlr, you are using the detailled attribute graph to spot a plateau in a category, and then you decrease notch by notch the related category workload slider, then detect when attributes in this category start to decrease slightly, and raise it one notch to ensure a kind of steady state. Then you have free up workload to put where you think it is needed. This is obviously related to age factor, the usual limit of increase for physical attributes being around 24.

Yeah, that's it in a nutshell. If the player hits 24 and his physical attributes have plateaued, then what's the point in making him train those areas so highly? So I lower it to try to find the point where it starts decreasing and then raise it to keep it level. The same goes with old players whose physical attributes are declining- I raise it to find the plateau. This sounds really laborious but I don't increase it one notch and then come back in a month, I use a binary search to find the spot. So, if you have a young player training physical stats to 20 notches and they plateau, I will take them down to 10. If, after their training level graph has then plateaued to show that they've hit the new level they haven't lost any ground, I'm fairly safe that this is a good place to leave the workload - perhaps it could go lower but halving a physical workload frees up a whole heap of workload for other areas. However, if it has decreased I will increase the slider to 15 to try to find the plateau there. I have not yet had to repeat this more than twice.

So I have a question for you, do you anticipate the fact that mental stats are harder to train at younger age? For example, find the sweet "waiting notch" to ensure the mental category attributes don't decrease and shift the workload to physical attributes that are booming between 18-24?

Yes, but only once mental attributes are definitely not improving. I place a huge emphasis on mental attributes (as my signing of Klose indicates) so I try to ensure that even young players have good mental attributes.

When I have reached a plateau in a category and the player is becoming older, I pay attention to training arrows as a first hint of potential decrease. For example, when a player reach 30 something, physical stats will inexorably start to decrease, and some are very important for match experience like stamina and natural fitness. I anticipate a potential decrease when I see a light orange arrows meaning the player is doing a bit less well in this category so my "steady state" is maybe no longer one and I may leave the plateau. I wait a bit and watch carefully the physical attributes, see how it evolves, if I am leaving the plateau, then I add workload depending on how much "spare" workload is available to slow down as long as possible the decrease, just slow down because I know it has to decrease somehow. So both arrows and attributes help me prevent a brutal decrease, but of course there not always a orange or red arrows before to warn you...so I advice paying attention to both graph at the same time. Sometimes when training arrows shows, you are kind of warned, so don't completely dismiss them.

I will have to take this onboard because I really don't pay any attention to the arrows yet. I assume you mean the arrows on the club training screen, below the coach star ratings? I read a while ago that there's a certain day of the week that they get updated? I'll have to investigate that area a bit more thoroughly.

--

Edit: I've just looked at them briefly - they show changes in training investment, right?

[Teutomatos]

Edit: I've just looked at them briefly - they show changes in training investment, right?

Correct ZdlR

Arrows suppose to show the kind of activities provid on the worshop. Neutral ( - ) suppose to get maintain purchase. Almost one week waiting need to watch the refresh of any noticable changes of this tendance if you play with cursor.

We used to make a new menu on the team page for that. With personnalisation, you plugged a specific one with all training workshop, more easy to consult, like to go in the deep of the training page each time.

[NakS]

Zdlr,

Regarding the other graph, a slight change have been made since FM2010. In FM2011, the graph is called "training level progress", in FM2010 I am pretty sure it was "training progress". So actually it seems that it is not displaying what we were used to and is linked to how training levels are evolving? I still have to figure out what is going on with this graph, but it is hard as there no variations between category for a same month, at all. To be honest, I don't use this graph anymore as I don't know which kind of informations are displayed, I think training arrows are more handy as it shows investment variation, and the training level graph show how much investment.

Regarding training arrows, not in the attribute panel in the player profile, but in the training panel, along other tabs like coaches assignement and schedules, you are spot on, as Teutomatos said, it displays investment change and it is updated weekly. A good way to picture this is to think investment as a pace and arrows as acceleration (pace evolution). (-) means you have the same investment as previous week, up and green you have more, red and down, you have less investment in this category. You can simply check this by taking a screen shot of training levels, decrease radically workload for a category, then wait one week or so, wait for a red/down arrows, and comparing the previous levels graph with the new one, you'll notice that the bar related to the category workload you have decreased is lower. I suggest as well to make a customize display in your squad screen, so that you quickly spot who, where and how much investment is evolving and eventually tweak workload accordingly.

Some questions related to training:

Do you use individual focus? It shifts 10% of the workload on only one attribute and each time have set one on a attribute likely to increase, it as speed up things. I tend to use individual focus for a few players, where averagely almost all attributes are going up, but an important one (tackling for holding midfielder for example) is not evolving that great. It was a good surprise that tackling focus has been added in patch 11.3 as it was unvailable before. Then I check the effects with the attribute graph to see what is happening, if I see results, I stick with it for while as long as it doesn't penalize too much other attributes. Usually the best period to do so is October-March, when match preparation is filled everywhere an your player are not too jaded yet. At the end of the season, April May, it set individual focus to none and reduced overall training workload because players need much time to recover, so my squad is always in the 95-100 fitness scale, sometimes the 90-100% fitness scale in a highly congested fixture with postponed leagues game when I am doing well in national and euro cups.

A thing I have no clues about is the coach hidden attribute "hardness of training"? Do you think it is somehow affecting injury proneness? So that a "hard coach" will be more demanding on the player, so they might do a bit better but injuries risk are increased? Do you know how it is possible to spot this hidden attribute? I think coach and manager description are not that usefull to guess hidden attributes range.

[ZdlR]

So actually it seems that it is not displaying what we were used to and is linked to how training levels are evolving?

Yes, it does that - and I'm pretty sure it always did, regardless of the label change. The problem is that it is broken and only ever shows the evolution of the overall progress - clicking on each individual training level bar does not show the related progression graph for that category. It should, but it is broken.

I've made the customized squad screen showing the training arrows. It's quite useful but it would be more useful if the training level progression graphs worked because it shows the increase/decrease at a more granular level (weekly, rather than monthly). Around 20th of each month I seem to find that the training arrows on the player profile screen (showing full attribute point changes) is updated. I'm trying to find out which day the other arrows are updated.

I think I'm probably tweaking the training too much to be honest. I change some schedules at least once a month at the moment when I might be better off setting note reminders for certain days to monitor changes, improvements and declines.

Finally, the end of month training report from the assistant manager - this shows the training categories of players who have shown the largest increase in investment, not improvement, right?

[NakS]

Ok, then. It won't be fixed until FM2012 so...anyways, a kind of "bug report/explanations needed" thread regarding the training level progress graph and addressed to Riz could be useful. I'll PM him on that matter, though I am sure it was reported a few times between previous patches and nothing have been done.

Regarding, the monthly training report, it is investment yes...so related to the training level progress graph I guess!! Maybe it is only the display that is broken, but under the hood the assistant manager have the correct informations? Because, it is supposed to track investment progress monthly...You can use private discussion when a "professionnal" player is not training harder, usually he acknowledges and promise to train harder. Usually it works, but I haven't done a thorough study of this, mostly trial and errors.

Maybe you are overtweaking, for the record I have set a fortnight reminder where I am going through all attributes graph, I usually look at training arrows before each game as I always look at my squad fitness, it is very quick as I have a customized menu and if necessary I deal with problems. At the beginning of each the month, I check the fixture, see how important and congested it is, and reduce workload if necessary to rest some keys players, I roughly plan which players are gonna play, etc and this is when I usually tweak my schedule, so monthly. I think it is a good balance, it is not over time consuming, but still I am monitoring closely players as I check each fortnight training.

[ZdlR]

You can use private discussion when a "professionnal" player is not training harder, usually he acknowledges and promise to train harder. Usually it works, but I haven't done a thorough study of this, mostly trial and errors.

Yeah, I tried to get my lazy winger to work harder and he took offence with it. Scored a hatrick in the next game though, so he mustn't have been too annoyed!

Maybe you are overtweaking, for the record I have set a fortnight reminder where I am going through all attributes graph, I usually look at training arrows before each game as I always look at my squad fitness, it is very quick as I have a customized menu and if necessary I deal with problems.

I think fitness is absolutely paramount for performance. The only players who are 'lacking match fitness' to any degree are returning from injuries. With a squad of about 30 first team players, I have to rotate a whole lot to keep them fit - although the more occasional players are given much higher overall workload. The AI seems to favour playing key players who are 'tired' rather than rotate. Wenger played a tired 72% condition Fabregas against me and he proceeded to have a shocker. Then Ferguson played a tired 89% Rooney against me. While his performance was better than Fabregas', he still didn't do too much. In both games I had a tired Torres on the bench and played N'Gog instead, winning both games.

[Teutomatos]

The AI seems to favour playing key players who are 'tired' rather than rotate. Wenger played a tired 72% condition Fabregas against me and he proceeded to have a shocker. Then Ferguson played a tired 89% Rooney against me. While his performance was better than Fabregas', he still didn't do too much.

AI prefer select best rating efficient ratio available in the squad at this instant for this duties. Ratio subjected at the condition of course. But independantly of the fit level expecting in commun run for a match. This point, related certainly to a coach IA hidden attributs.

Considering from his artificial point of view, that Fabregas had still the best output anyway, even with this lack of condition.

At least the lack of IA, our chance to win sometimes

[SFraser]

NakS pm'd me to ask if I fancied sticking in a few opinions to this thread because of my experience of training in the past. It's a thread I have been watching because I think there are a lot of accurate points, but there are some things I disagree with but I didn't want to get into a debate about this approach v mine for FM10. I don't actually think there is a whole lot of difference. The meat is not in the theory, it's in being able to reach a level where you can use training functionally, the theory exists to make sense of all the graphs and sliders and feedback, but the crucial issue always remains the players attribute panel.

I want to say that the basis for my thread in FM10 wasn't some epic theory for awesome training, it was simply to make greater logical sense of the sliders so people would be able to construct actually working schedules of any type they wished. FM11 has taken the FM10 training module and balanced the categories, which is ultimately what I did. It's a bit of an indictment of FM, but I think that those who followed and understood my thread last year were simply put into a position the same as people that load up the FM11 training module and know nothing further about training, the categories are atleast all the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

So for the first time in many versions the training input is now sound and logical, and I am guessing that as a consequence the graphs are now showing balanced results. No more Aerobic sitting at maximum possible level and Attacking sitting at the next level above zero and both producing the exact same outcome in terms of the attribute panel.

That's great news and a big step forward for FM, but that's not what NakS asked me about. He asked me about my approach to training. And an approach to training is only something you can have when you feel comfortable that you can get the results you are looking for, which for FM10 I am pretty confident I am able to. It's worth pointing out that my experience with FM11 begins and ends with the demo, but with regards to the specific training module what I saw was balanced categories and little other change. The match prep etc. might bolt onto training but I don't see it altering the underlying mechanics of training. Simply adding something further ontop of training to consider.

My approach to training is simple: You do the hard work in the Pre-Season and then throughout the season you tweak schedules according to the results you observe. I have done a lot of "guts and theory" stuff on a huge variety of areas of FM and while I don't claim my knowledge of the game is perfect, it is robust enough that I no longer have to "work stuff out". I can now play the game in a football-like manner and that is what I do with every area of the game, and it works in every area of the game. My approach to training might not produce the kind of precision you are looking for in this thread, but it is functional enough for me to be entirely happy with how I do training.

I will go into detail now:

1: Hard Work In Pre-Season

The off-season is exactly the same as a two month injury for players. It butchers match fitness and condition, it disrupts the training patterns you had players following, but worst of all it removes everything that was keeping a player at the level he was at ability wise. This directly translates into a high risk for a drop in Physical Attributes.

There are three things you should worry about in Pre-Season. Players losing physical attributes, players not reaching match fitness before the big kick-off, and a horrible level of condition during pre-season that makes dealing with those previous two issues really tough. A player with horrible condition can easily not be pushed enough to regain match fitness and pretty much continue with his "injury" or he can easily be pushed too hard and be completely unplayable for a good few weeks. Condition is incredibly important in the Pre-Season. How you manage condition in the Pre-Season is what determines whether or not you can have a good pre-season, and a good pre-season is one with minimal physical attribute drops and every player hitting match fitness as soon as possible.

These issues are so important because physical attribute drops and poor match fitness and low condition are a mutually reinforcing doom for players. While it is true that there is no "special pre-season module" aspect of FM, the basic normal mechanics of FM make Pre-Season a vitally important time and a manager should be taking steps to negotiate this period to the best of his ability.

My Pre-Season schedules are the same for all outfield players and the same for all goalkeepers. I stick all of these players onto a "Pre-Season" and "Pre-Season GK" schedule. These schedules are Physical Categories high and balanced, with everything else very low and balanced. Not even I am going to make custom Pre-Season schedules for all my players. The high-and-balanced versus low-and-balanced ensures that the first improvements go into Physical Categories, while the overall workload remains low, which helps with regaining condition between Pre-Season matches.

As my squad slowly improves it's overall condition and match fitness and once I am comfortable that I mitigated the worst of the Physical Attribute drops, I will start raising the rest of the categories incrimentally. This will ensure that Physical Attributes are still favoured but increasingly less so, so I can keep an eye on players while slowly moving them back up to the rough overall level they were training at before the end of the season.

As I get comfortable that individual players are no longer at risk of losing physical attributes and have reached match fitness, I move them back on to their individual season training schedules, or I make one for players that don't yet have one. Obviously this process is at it's most time consuming in the first season at your club, but once done you don't have to do it again untill you change clubs or start a new save.

2: Training Arrows : Levels : Progress

I never paid much attention to these, not because they are not useful, but because until FM10 I think they have been completely broken. It's a funny "break" as well, they show what they are supposed to show but it's never been useful to the player because the results were not "normalised" to show comparative results. It comes back to balanced categories again. If the categories are not balanced then the results that show up on the graphs will be completely accurate but also completely unbalanced. This has changed for FM11 and so now they might actually be useful.

The fact I don't use them doesn't mean I don't have ideas about what they mean. I have spent enough time with FM to have a good idea of what they mean.

Training Arrows: Shows the short term changes to a players training based on his schedule. Any changes to the effect of a schedule will show up here. If you decide to crank up a players shooting training then you will see a green arrow here for the first few weeks, but you might also see a red arrow for his attacking training in which case you can see that it is having a negative effect to his attacking training and act accordingly. Over time players on the same schedules will drift towards a completely neutral set of bars, because there is no change to the effect of the schedule.

Training Levels: As has been said this is the "investment" a player is putting into each area in combination to his schedule. Schedule intensity + player effort = training level.

Training Progress: The actual, literal category progress.

Now the question is, given that this is why I think they mean, is this actually what they show? Until FM11 I would say categorically no. Yes in a technical sense but when it comes to presenting usable and balanced information to the user, not even remotely. Has it been fixed for FM11? I would imagine so but I haven't played the game in detail.

But here is the caveat, even if they do work I wouldn't use them. That's just not how I train players. This thread and it's approach seems to be based on the system of "input->process->output" which is admirable, it's great, it's fine and dandy. However I am so used to my system of "input->output->input" with it's organic "tweak how you see whenever you wish" premise that I doubt I would be comfortable changing. If a player comes to my club with a poor attitude for training I will not worry about his individual category "investment", I will mentor the sod until he becomes epic on and off the pitch, or I decide his time is up and he gets sold.

That's two ways of doing the same thing, and I think that's what NakS was wanting. Not a critique of this particular training approach, but food for thought from someone that has wrestled with training before and has a fair knowledge of the game.

3: Building Schedules

This is where you have to pick a school of thought, and it's not a school of thought that involves anything written in this thread or the original "Training Masterclass Thread". The two schools of thought are:

1: Every category set to low means all attributes drop, every category set to medium means no change, every category set to high means they all improve.

2: Every category set to low means every attribute is going up or down at the same rate, every category set to medium means every attribute is going up or down at the same rate, every category set to high means every attribute is going up or down at the same rate.

That's training "theory" in a nutshell. As the "inventor" or atleast as the first real "formulator" of the second school of thought I unsurprisingly build schedules based on the second school of thought. What this means is that I don't build schedules based on "control" of specific categories, I build schedules based on a "shape" for improvements or declines that I cannot control.

This means every schedule I build is a "shape" and not a numerical absolute. For me a category set to "Notch 1" can still have positive growth under certain conditions but it depends on the "shape" and the scale of shape. I do not define specific rates of change for each individual category, I construct relative change "shapes".

Now there may be merit in the claim that the attribute slider scale is divided into sections of "+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3" but all this means in my understanding of training is that the biggest difference you can have between categories is 7x. It doesn't mean a category set to -3 will always lose three attribute levels, but that it will always be 7 attribute levels less than the maximum.

I will confess I am not sure if the sliders describe 7 degrees or 25 degrees of change. I would wager on 7. What I am sure of is that -3 doesn't directly translate to a drop of three attribute levels relative to the current attribute level. It represents a -3 level of change compared to a slider positioned neutrally.

Scale of change, not absolutes. That's how I train.

With that horribly technical and completely un-football explanation out of the way, I will return to describing my "football-like" way of building schedules:

1: I start from the ground up. I build schedules by equally increasing categories by the same increment (for FM10 follow my thread, for FM11 just follow your nose). I crank up all categories until the least important is at a level I like. Then I leave that category and crank the rest up until the second least important reaches a level I like. Then I leave that and crank up the categories until the third least important is at a level I like, and so on. I continue doing this until I build a rough shape for the relative shape of the schedule I like. It's not that hard in reality, I just explain it complicated. Knock all categories up and keep shaving off categories as you get higher.

2: Nothing is more important than looking at your finished schedule and then looking back at the players profile. Look at the shape you built, then look at the shape he has, then go back and make sure you tweak that shape to something you want to see happen.

3: Leave for a while and see what happens.

4: Tweaking Schedules

This is the true meat of training in my opinion. For me this is where you produce what you want independant of all theories and philosophies and systems and approaches. You see what happens and you tweak accordingly. Infact if you don't try to theorise and simply tweak based on the outcomes you see on a players attribute panel you will eventually build the perfect schedules for all your players. This is why it so worth building individual schedules for your players at game start, because once done you can quickly go into any players profile and make the tweaks that will eventually lead you to training perfection.

Most of my Training Tweaks happen during a match. From my point of view this is where attributes matter. You can think you know perfectly what a players attribute panel is saying before he kicks a ball, but only when he is on the pitch can you see his real weaknesses. So when I see a regularity of a particular weakness in matches I check a players profile for the attributes that relate to those events, highlight his weaknesses, and it only takes one more click to get to the training screen where I bump up those categories.

My training is not based on observing a players "training investment" nor on some theoretical combination of magick numbers. My training is based on the annoying weaknesses that makes a player regularly fail at something important on a football pitch.

5: Things to Be Way Of

The obvious one here is too much physical training that causes injuries, but there are two greater issues to be aware of in my opinion.

1: Too much theory distracts people from practicality. The only reason why anyone needs any theory is to build the first schedules. After that all that matters is watching players perform and tweaking their schedules to improve performances.

2: Not Enough Risks!

Nothing is more obvious when it comes to training that almost everyone refusing to take risks in developing schedules. You simply can't get the improvements you want to see if you don't start cranking sliders and building huge gulfs in your training schedules. Go wacky, go crazy, stick shooting at 25 and defending at 0. Nothing is stopping you from doing the reverse if it all goes ****-eyed.

[Teutomatos]

NakS pm'd me to ask if I fancied sticking in a few opinions to this thread because of my experience of training in the past. It's a thread I have been watching because I think there are a lot of accurate points, but there are some things I disagree with but I didn't want to get into a debate about this approach v mine for FM10. I don't actually think there is a whole lot of difference. The meat is not in the theory, it's in being able to reach a level where you can use training functionally, the theory exists to make sense of all the graphs and sliders and feedback, but the crucial issue always remains the players attribute panel.

What things are you disagree ? Don't be shy.

According to possibilities against volontary modeling ?

Volontary i's not really original, it's the sick on all forums area separate beetween usually euphorics with desesparate players.

And we can just observ that the first aren't really accurate to understanding desesparation of the rest.

Obscessionnal statisticians sometimes demonstrate briantly a relativ coherence about weight of workshop on different aspects for differents players in differentes positionnal rating. It's good !

In relation with Sarmatian assumption which not agree too, we are alright, theres some parts of you could interact by preferences. But it's always, with the detriment of something else.

And when i read that :

Go wacky, go crazy, stick shooting at 25 and defending at 0.

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war affect the FM conscience from the times, and the fondation of desesparate player's family.

It's why the french chevalry was defeat by the british long bow at Azincourt 1415. But for a short times in 98 we have, may be with history's lesson, learn the defensiv shape, got the best with some low talents.

As well, make some couple of friendlies matchs to be ready is a significant release to start training, like a minima of strengh is necessary too, in same time, to complete the pré season. Not more, not less, but in one ligne.

2 months of calibration by linear, to get the graph respons, and the show go on. And since 2009, but i guess before 2007 as Vaughan describe it, arrows works perfectly for our needs. Second lines.

I m talkin about 2 lines because i believe to understand, that too much théories killed théory ? You right. It's why in Marc Vaughan i believe, and watch the miracle all days, all others pay cash.

The fact is, it's extremly long to take count and discussin about [Dark Vador voice mod] Univers is under your control, master ...

But that does not look at us.

Except if Naks is asking you ( his fault ! )

So welcom, to join us anyway. But to be honest, don't worry, i notice we are on different "approch", i prefered without reserve the ZdlR tibute.

Last years in period when you re screaming suddenly everywhere that pré season is ********, i ve posting you a PM on FM britain to congratulate about this hurry discover. And encourage to watch the vaughan assumption more nearly and try to describe it. Always expecting an answer, but i ve got it right now i suppose, even if it wasn't for me.

[SFraser]

Go somewhere else.

[legod]

The only consistent trend ive observed is that when you have "none" training in a category, those attributes in those category always fall by at least one or two points. it would therefore make sense that if those attributes fell, ca points would be freed up for other more relevant categories...oh wait this doesn't apply for set pieces but yea, i always have to individual training focus "composure" for my defenders because i always give them "none" for shooting. having individual training focus on "composure" and zero training for shooting gives a slight net positive increase to composure.

besides that, its all quite frustrating. i have jack rodwell on lowest notch of medium on aerobic having his acceleration shoot up from 15 to 18 in 3 seasons and his finishing only increasing by 1 point in 3 seasons despite medium notch of medium shooting training + individual finishing focus.

Oh yea, and james vaughan having only a one point increase from 13 to 14 in his finishing despite intensive shooting training for 3 seasons. Plus, i raised his freaking pa from 14+ to 16+ with fmrte

[SFraser]

What things are you disagree ? Don't be shy.

I disagree with the general idea that all there is to training is an analysis of the graphs, because I have produced spectactular results by completely ignoring the graphs. The crucial point is that there is no graph showing CA gain/loss which turns the graphs from absolute indicators into relative indicators premised upon a completely unknown quantity.

In short when studying the graphs you have no idea if you are dealing with the differences in training between a huge increase in CA, a huge decrease in CA or a completely negligable change in CA. Building schedules using this approach and only this approach produces a schedules that are entirely theoretical constructs with no practical relevance.

Indeed you even go so far to claim that you should build schedules based on how a player reacts to training, implying that if a Striker with low Composure is performing poorly in his Composure training, he should be trained even less in Composure. This is highly impractical.

The question regarding this approach to training is:

Can the information being discussed here be applied to building useful, practically relevant schedules? Is this thread truly a training masterclass or will it be necessary to have another thread explaining how to utilise this information to actually construct practically relevant and useful schedules for a wide variety of players, management styles and various ingame contexts. In short can this thread do more than analyse graphs and claim that is how you should train players?

According to possibilities against volontary modeling ?

Volontary i's not really original, it's the sick on all forums area separate beetween usually euphorics with desesparate players.

And we can just observ that the first aren't really accurate to understanding desesparation of the rest.

Obscessionnal statisticians sometimes demonstrate briantly a relativ coherence about weight of workshop on different aspects for differents players in differentes positionnal rating. It's good !

Modelling is simply modelling. Application of information is crucial. There is little in this thread about the application of information.

You have explained to me how you think the graphs work, you have explained nothing to me about why I should use them or how to use them in my practically successful, outcome dependant process of training.

Secondly, obsessional statisticians demonstrate a relationship between weights and positional ratings but they demonstrate no proof that this matters within the training system or that it is anything more than a game balancing mechanic, and they produce no information for the user in how to effectively utilise this information. So while they can demonstrate relationships, they can offer no reason as to why anyone needs to know these relationships.

Thirdly, euphoric and desperate players is both irrelevant and smacks of a chip on your shoulder. I don't reply to every PM I get because otherwise I would be spending all day replying to PM's about how to get strikers working or how to build a 4-4-2 or if I can build training schedules for the entire team of multiple forum members. If you want to engage me in discussion then write interesting posts and threads, specifically those that show a holistic understanding of game processes that enhance end results. I have seen enough training line theories in my time to know that if someone doesn't offer clear evidence of significant attribute profile results then it's not worth paying attention to.

I haven't seen one player profile in any of these training master class threads, so while the analysis of the graphs may be accurate to an infinitesimal degree I simply don't see the relevance.

I am not interested in a nice smooth arrangement of bar charts and good looking line graphs, I am interested in this:

So explain to me what the relevance is in the analysis of the graphs when it comes to a completely results based method of developing players. What do you have to tell me that is going to enhance my already significantly impressive results?

I put the question to you.

In relation with Sarmatian assumption which not agree too, we are alright, theres some parts of you could interact by preferences. But it's always, with the detriment of something else.

And when i read that :

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war affect the FM conscience from the times, and the fondation of desesparate player's family.

It's why the french chevalry was defeat by the british long bow at Azincourt 1415. But for a short times in 98 we have, may be with history's lesson, learn the defensiv shape, got the best with some low talents.

Rhetoric does not an interesting thread make. A couple of good jokes here and there can help, but mostly practical information is what everyone is after.

As well, make some couple of friendlies matchs to be ready is a significant release to start training, like a minima of strengh is necessary too, in same time, to complete the pré season. Not more, not less, but in one ligne.

2 months of calibration by linear, to get the graph respons, and the show go on. And since 2009, but i guess before 2007 as Vaughan describe it, arrows works perfectly for our needs. Second lines.

In a variable CA environment how can you possible work this way? This is my criticism, your information might be valid but how you apply it is entirely impractical.

I m talkin about 2 lines because i believe to understand, that too much théories killed théory ? You right. It's why in Marc Vaughan i believe, and watch the miracle all days, all others pay cash.

No one has ever paid me any cash for my opinions I can tell you that, I don't have that high an opinion of myself. I said from the beginning that charging money for information and opinion would kill normal discussion and guess what, FM Britain is a wasteland of a forum.

However I still haven't seen any "miracles" from you. Football is a results based business, people want to see results. I want to see results. It's all well and good talking a good fight but what you are talking about in this thread needs to be applicable ingame. It needs to have relevance.

The fact is, it's extremly long to take count and discussin about [Dark Vador voice mod] Univers is under your control, master ...

But that does not look at us.

It looks squarely at you for having such a juvenile outlook on a community discussion forum. I write what I write because I am an obsessional FM Gamer, no one has to read what I write and I don't write it because it gives some kind of irrelevant gravitas amongst a collection of paragraphs written by people I don't know. I write what I do because I want to talk about it, and if I'm being completely honest because not many other people are in the habit of writing threads about what I want to discuss.

Everything I contribute is a self generating discussion. I write what I write because people will offer me opinions, feedback, a bit of debate and banter and some ideas and points. I'm not some Sith Lord of the T&TT forum, I am the Sith Lord of my club in my current save but that's different. That interests me and gives me a lot of enjoyment that I wish to discuss with others on a discussion forum.

What's true though is that comments and views like that have had a detrimental impact on this forum since I joined it. A lot of good posters that I owe a lot to for my own knowledge FM no longer post or very rarely post, and everyone loses out because of that.

And not to be egotistical but if myself, Cleon and Heathxxx didn't spam this place, in my opinion it would be nowhere near as fun. Not a lot of people are willing to stick their necks out and provoke interesting discussion.

Except if Naks is asking you ( his fault ! )

Yeah good one, have a go at someone for asking me if I wanted to stick my opinions into this thread. That's definately the way to go about making this a fun discussion forum where everyone can be comfortable sharing their ideas. Good stuff there.

So welcom, to join us anyway. But to be honest, don't worry, i notice we are on different "approch", i prefered without reserve the ZdlR tibute.

Last years in period when you re screaming suddenly everywhere that pré season is ********, i ve posting you a PM on FM britain to congratulate about this hurry discover. And encourage to watch the vaughan assumption more nearly and try to describe it. Always expecting an answer, but i ve got it right now i suppose, even if it wasn't for me.

I have stayed out of this thread for precisely this reason. I entered it in good faith and offered my opinions in a good spirit. It's an interesting thread but I question the practicality of it, particularly the practicality of the final approach to building schedules put forward. I think that for it to be a "training masterclass" as I personally would consider it, it significantly more detail and attention on the literal end results.

All this other rubbish you have come up is just detrimental to any kind of discussion that might actually be of interest to people. But I have a thick skin, a great love for discussing FM at length, and I like nothing better than a good, proper FM debate.

[Teutomatos]

I disagree with the general idea that all there is to training is an analysis of the graphs, because I have produced spectactular results by completely ignoring the graphs. The crucial point is that there is no graph showing CA gain/loss which turns the graphs from absolute indicators into relative indicators premised upon a completely unknown quantity.

In short when studying the graphs you have no idea if you are dealing with the differences in training between a huge increase in CA, a huge decrease in CA or a completely negligable change in CA. Building schedules using this approach and only this approach produces a schedules that are entirely theoretical constructs with no practical relevance.

How do you know that i can't get the same with the graph ? The crucial point is that you don' know the roof too.

It's an obcessionnal but blind method.

I prefer the objectiv view of the graph, to Sfraser subjectiv studying with any doubt. Which have a follow it on the railroad of he would found, taken a couple of masterly example, but forget all the longroad strew of innocent sacrificed victims. Not a rubbish words, i notice theres a reason. You couldn't upgrad every one like you expecting. I know you assume it, but that's the point. For one surprizing sucess how many rubbish ?

So explain to me what the relevance is in the analysis of the graphs when it comes to a completely results based method of developing players. What do you have to tell me that is going to enhance my already significantly impressive results?

Simple. Your result only impress yourself and simple minds. Or sometimes my infirmary if i have the misfortune to follow your kind.

Injuries are not simple link to the high physical training. But by too much things in somewhere.

All in this game aspects sail beetween the too much and the not enough.

Along my games, since i pratice the Vaughan graph following, 2009 yet, i always seen my players from the low division till the top league obtain the maximum of Génie Scout preview. Undifferently from level player or PA expectations.

We can talk about the Génie's predictions, Eugéne Tabarovski talks about some parts that he haven't take in count. Ok theres unpredictable "variations"...

You could dispute the Génies assertion. It's an another point. May be, it's the point !

You project a modeling way because, under presumption of uncertain contour that we couldn't know. So each time your right, for sure, in its circumstances. I believe in Génie in its profil preview. ( with its "little" uncertains variations )

It's certainly the heart of our different.

Strange miracle, graph should find, the most of time, an acceptable and corélative answer in this tool.

But except for a couple of points, rarely, theres always the predictions which realize. How long i could follow the players under my direction. But leave them in the good direction anyway. I never saw my donkeys became super star, and upset, ( no no don't hurry too soon, never arrive under your way too, i m certain ) and always my fabulous regens follow perfectly the expectation under the rules of Genie predicts. It's always according in any case with the Génie's potential announcing.

I appreciate the different degrees of intensity could provid by differents training structures, coach numerous or quality still i grow up in financial options of comfort and environmental qualities. Each thing arrives in its time

No need to prove it. Don't need publishing spectacular screenshot of 2 youngs from MU which certainly get the same in almost any case ( reductiv and easy rethoric i admit ). All my players indifferently get their full possibilities. In any times, in any club, in any circumstances, in any division ... But always too, in same time, with their full 100 % condition at each matchs ( or almost ). And ... "Ready to play". ( but this point rules under a different way call the natural fitness management and rotation ). Or all totaly satisfy about their training. I recall, "always". It's just a management to regulation volum for recorvery condition and time playing, of course.

I have, at this time, in my "community environnement" enough witness to confirm this statement with any doubt. Nobodies needs sceenshots, they just have to look at their own games. Satisfy to stop watching disaster party breakdown by injuries fatality. Got always perform players to follow an adaptiv tactics. Saw their habilities grow up and complete like in Génies' walk at times.

And for the others, some pré determined training fanatics, trying it by curiosity to compare, they confess that, with their own top mondial team, with a little "squeaking of teeth", they conceed obtain something near the same in the badest case.

Someone else is disapointed, don't watch progress on MU that the players can't never have, because they have all already ! ( for the most ) Funny ! May be he'll prefer something to loose them, have sensation of "acting" ... ehehehe

That's all ...

I accept the part for some little intentional influence that you could expect to forcing in one direction.

Howether without any insurance in front of whole profil of several thousand hundred player's possibilities. And with the risk to penalize some others opportunities obtain certainly in same time. The risk of wasting time.

But i don't understand the real interested to sacrify some others parts, even under tactical volontaries which stay to demonstrate. If the desesperate practice witness, all along the years, using and follow the formated training views yet, are not enough for that.

I assume the sentencial dogmatic precept of, defense beguin by the top, and attack by the down. Which never happens effectivly with radical segmentation.

For the whole of our discuss i just retain in my lack of english, you would apologize me if i m wrong, that you said in substance i know the using of arrows, but it's don't work and i don't use them. I just have to say, use them and you'll known how it's work.

And you have all my empathy for this long studies you have proceed, certainly with sincerity and objectiv conscience, i guess liking experimentation, we had the sames kind of statisticians from our side ... That you provid for something that we don't really need. But always interesting anyway !

Retry it next time with a ... i don't know ... Blyth spartan squads for example ?

It's dirty and malicious ... sorry ...

From an another part, i recognized merits, and i said it without irony, about your science in the count of relativ weight. And i pretty sure, if you married it, with our methods, sorry with Vaughan methods, your could distinguish and improve our empirics régulation précisly, and may be the part of smart exploitation.

I assume our rules of touch under the dictact of arrows influences.

If you loose for a while your practically successful, outcome dependant process of training.; working with players of low division too for beguinning; suppose accept the graph answers, suppose exploiting the best accurate in offer at times for apply in objectiv and realistic tactics in relation; discumber of how it could be in a perfect projection of futur and suppose collapse of some habilities subjectivly unuseful for some subjectiv preferences.

May be we could benefit it.

Don't said any bad words ( and you don't of course ... [Jokin] ) about the TTF assumption, Millie, Thenextdiaby or WWFan, i ve taken pleasure to play this game because they makes things logical, smart and simple. All others things is simply without interest. It's a pity sometimes to read users approch the game like in about the ZdlR CM03 period. ( special dedicated with love )

For the "FMB bizniss plan" deviation at least ... it's another point that i don't agreed, even if i can understand some points of view, like basic financial support to existing. In same time absolute surprizing that WWFan don't get any subsidies for his tribute. It's stand their own concern.

But i use my time to translate and share with my community theirs free explanations, sometimes with my own trick to use it well. Because it's the real age of silex over there ... So without them, the understanding about this game stay a real desert.

Here, my lack of english limited my language subtilities, my share, tribute, and i'm sure to be too rude than i m expected when i m do it. So, sometimes a direct idea, if it's enough clear for "you" economize a disturbing variations. Like a green arrow It's why your not use to "see me".

And why my traveller's friend Naks coming in front line ... Independantly of his own prospection. An empathic thing for him to support my vehement company.

All this other rubbish you have come up is just detrimental to any kind of discussion that might actually be of interest to people. But I have a thick skin, a great love for discussing FM at length, and I like nothing better than a good, proper FM debate.

I m expecting the same like you. Not to read a repeat of things that we known yet.

Vaughan graph explanation and calibration method, with Génie to controle, in front of ... yours. It's seems the clash of 2 approchs.

We see and accept a relativ variation like possible. And can find if we are enough motivated, a nice apply in complement may be with you report, one day.

But not the impressiv and fabulous pretends, even with a couple a screen shot for MU regens or better long statistics, that we are not impress at all. It's why i use my rubbish "ton".

Just simply because ... we have the same ...

I would believe you get that my stats are in my own games since 3 years. And i don't feel the needs to lower my pantalon to prove it ... The principle is an evidence for who having humility to use tools presents in game more than to consider him like he's pretty smart and skill than the developpers ( pretend is not enough when you demonstrate the invers ), and all things are vacant wrap by default.

Theres some defaults. I m not the last one has to criticize. But to easy to sweep of a reverse of hand arrow and graphs.

At this moment, only WWFan and friends offer an intelligent view to use skill variation better than best kill your mom, the cat and hurry tact of all the world to dwl. I don't know what he s thinking about training. I'm glad to read Vaughan comments too, one day.

But i m feel more in harmony with them with our graph approch than all the "impressiv training preset".

At least about the public interest, i pretty sure than the politic of a good screen of MU regen is more attractiv, for that i call the simple minds, than an austere graph method.

Be sure, i have no doubt about it ...

[SFraser]

Beautiful, but you are not even close.

[NakS]

Firstly, I'd like to thank SFraser for his input here and the time he put in sharing his approach. So cheers for that.

I have "PMed" him mainly to ask him how he is tweaking training schedule, having read his numerous threads about trainings during last days, I have understood how he constructs his base schedule and that's perfectly fine for me, that's not the point I want to discuss here actually. But as he put some efforts writing about pre-season and other things I will quickly react on it.

Oh, and for the record, all this thread has been created from the other one by a mod, so now I am supposed to be the original poster and the title is an inheritance from the first thread! I am not teaching anyone here.

Regarding Pre-season, I fully agree with you though I think I am not as extreme as you are! What's true is that you can not afford to get pre-season wrong, regarding match condition and the fitness aspect especially, overplaying at that time and you are good for 2-3 weeks of "exhausted-tired-lacking match fitness" status, I don't very heavily focus on the physical categories, I only do this with older players where I know stamina and natural fitness are keys for him to play regularly over the season and once he has dropped a point, it's almost impossible to gain it back and it affect his end of career, so without any infos from the detailled attributes graph at the very beginning of the season, I increase aerobic and strenght as a safe option, while keeping the overall workload average high to keep injuries risk quite low. So it is a very fine balance between preventing a decrease in stamina for example that would have a very detrimental effect in olders players and preventing an injury that would have very detrimental effects on older players as well... The relevant infos being here are the fitness % of course and the match condition status, once "match fit" is reached and condition is rocking, I know injury risk is now a bit reduced and I wait until the end of the month to have my first look through the data and the effect of the schedule. The aim of this targetted workload increase is not to boost macth fitness over the season, I only use friendlies to regain match fitness, then squad rotation, but only to prevent a drop in physical attributes for older players, I don't expect an increase at that time. This is where graphs are handy, with the detailled attributes graph, I roughly now if the physical workload is enough to maintain or not, maybe it is too high as well so I can tone it down, mostly trial and errors here and training arrows could be a warning sign of "not enough workload here", so when I see a red training arrows, even if the attributes graph doesn't display a decrease but a plateau, I raise the workload slightly again as a safe move, not an improvement move. This process lasts between 2 and 3 months, until everybody is fully fit and really ready to train and play.

Once stamina and natural fitness are doing ok, I revert back to a more conventional way of training.

Regarding developping or peaking players, I don't heavily focus on aerobic and strength training from the start, but as a safe measure I increase 1 or 2 notches as well, almost like the FM11 default general schedule, so not that much actually.

I don't have a specific pre-season schedule for all, I am doing all this in individual schedules, I think this is actually the part of the season where indidividual schedules are the most useful as regaining fitness, prevent injuries and sometimes counter a drop in physical points is a matter of individual, collective schedule are not that useful here in my opinion. By the way, I am always using individual schedules at least to control match fitness and condition recovery to keep my squad as fit as possible

The way I build schedule (ie beginning of a save game) is a mix of "linear schedule" to see what he is doing for a same workload everywhere and "players apparent weaknesses schedule", related to how and where I am gonna play him. During the first 2 months the schedule is purely linear except the physical aspect I have just explained. When everybody is fully fit, ready to play and train, I use the levels graph just to see where the player is doing well and what I can expect from him, at the same time I look at the detailled attributes graph to see what are the real effects of the same workload everywhere.

As Zdlr said, sometimes an "okay" level means decrease, steady state or increase, and the only way to know this is to look at the attribute graph. The relevant info here is the "workload margin", roughly a slider at position X means a slight rate of increase on attribute 11, or slider at position Y roughly means a steady state for attribute 8, and so on. If you have a huge increase, you have a confortable workload margin from the plateau for example. When looking for a sweet spot as I discussed with Zdlr previously, you are estimating how far you are from something. This is useful when, at the end of the season you have to reduce the workload because players are starting to get jaded.

Basically, I just use it as a test to have a kind of reference point to start with regarding how attributes evolves for the same input. This is important actually, as you have real tendencies and magnitude of improvements or decreases . The direct link between input and output is here. This is relevant informations to tweak individual schedules during the season.

Back in FM10, it was impossible to track attributes to such a detailled scale, so training levels and training arrows were the only piece of information regarding how the player is doing and as a results, training was much harder to control. You could only assume that levels are likelyness to increase are training arrows display how this likelyness of evolution is changing...the attributes graph was already a tool I used, but it lacked the accuracy on the short term to tweak precisely and more efficiently training schedules on a month by month basis. A point by point scale was not handy enough when it comes to accurate regulation, so I mostly relied on arrows and "likelyness" on the short term. This new graph is a great addition. Now since I have stood back a bit from FM10 and grasp the use of the attribute graph in FM11, alongside the knowledge of levels and arrows, I am much more confortable in tweaking schedules I think.

Regarding the base schedule, I know that training levels represents the player investment (discussion for lack of involvment and tutoring are useful here) in each category and training arrows the evolution of that investment which are useful as a prediction/warning means, I know as well the "workload margins" based on how attributes evolves accurately and roughly how far I am from decrease or plateau while tweaking the input and observe the output. I just have to decide how I am gonna train this guys within his capacities and how I'd like him to developp to have a schedule to start with. In other words, I am identiyfing what are the strenghts and the weaknesses of a player, which kind of role and position he is likely to be the most efficient within my tactical system. I know I will not transform a rubbish player into a star player, but I try to developp him at his best and partly shape him in the direction I see fit.

Taken all this onboard, I have evolved from my very first post in this thread from purely graph based schedule to introduce a part of shaping, not necesseraly positional wise but "role wise" using attribute focus training and category focus in increasing the workload, while spreading the workload as efficiently as possible (basically training levels and likelyness of improving alongside with attributes graph) so that I am trying not to neglect any aspects, that's why I keep things pretty tight regarding my schedule, usually 8-10 notches from the lowest to the highest workload, but that's just me and a personal style...For example, it is a rare case but if my strong CB is doing well in the attacking category and his passing skills are increasing, I will not tone down the workload in this category for example, except if he has a major CB flaw somewhere else and I need to free up workload of course. Don't get me wrong, it does not produce players with 10 in all attributes and I don't aim to have this kind of player, but I really don't mind a CB that can pass the ball rather well or a ST knowing how to tackle, personal management style, I am not a 100% specialization manager and I like having players rather complete if possible. All players defend and attack (yes I am very fluid at the moment ) some are just better at defending and better at attacking. If possible I try to avoid players that have real, real weaknesses alongise, real, real strenght and look for more all-rounded players with good strength.

As a side and personal note, I am not using Genie Scout anymore and especially regarding its futures attributes predictions since I know the ins and outs of it through testing and understanding what is going pn under the hood. Its accuracy (prediction) is almost inversely proportional to the PA-CA difference actually, it just linearly recalculates attributes from the current point assuming that CA = PA, age is taken into account so that a player may not fulfill his potential. So the more room for improvement a player has, the more likely you will deviate from predictions using individual focus for a long term, tutoring to increase progression rate or training really hard in a category like I have done in an experimental save. Moreover, with tools and infos available ingame I realize I don't need further informations so I have just stopped using this for training and youth prospect purposes and it fits better the way I play the game, moreover I am on mac so...it's not that convenient to use.

Unfortunately, it is a rather time consuming job and I have not enough playing time to focus on training for a whole squad. Still every player have an individual schedule to control his fitness and recovery, I just don't put the same effort on each of my players and I am aware that I am somehow neglecting them. This is where the attribute training is handy, while keeping a global/balance schedule category wise, you have the possibility to insist on something you think is worthy for your player.

@ Zdlr: I just notice Riz answered me during the week-end. So, yeah the training level progress graph might be broken...Of course a more extensive bug report is needed in the bug forum with screenshots and save game, so we have the "under review" tag

I'll try to do it this week (I hope tonight) unless you absolutely want to do it yourself.

[jim morrow]

I don't understand why the linear calibration method can have some detractor every time we told about, It recalls me time where some people said that earth is turning around sun and other people treated like they are fool.

One side, you have plenty of theory based on numerous hazard coming only from experience.(and scientific know a lot that experience only can lead you to big mistake).

From the other side, a theory based around the understanding of a text coming from a FM builder, and helped, supported by tools provided in the game (Graphs and arrows).....

Sorry, but I made my choice. As Teutomatos said, It's not really a clue to show super progression of player trained in the bigger club of the planet to explain that you're right.

Please, show me same progression with a lower club of the 3rd division in Switzerland and perhaps, we can tell you, yes that's the way !!!!

As everybody knows, even with the worst training schedule (or just standard training), you can gain big progression on MU or Liverpool if the player is fit and play match regularly in his good task and role. So what is the proof in this ?????

As a lot of people on this forum, we like to read your post, SFraser, and we take some vital informations from them, but I'm asking just one question each time I read you ???

do you already play with a lower team during 10 seasons ? with a Division 10 team for example why not ????

You explain how deal with 18 coaches, 25 scouts...okay but when you have 1 scout, 2 coaches ? how can you take the best from them ????

You train young player to be able to sell it to Barcelona for 100M€. Okay, but how can you train young player with 35 CA only ?

You explain how to cross the ball with Walcott or Hernandez capacity to score goal in a poacher role on just one leg...okay that's good, but can you explain how to cross with the best winger in division 10 who get only 7 in crossing attributes ????

It's easy to command a squad where the lower decision is 14 but how do you create a tactic with a team who get a decision average of 9 ?

That's my question.

[SunDevil]

jim morrow,

That seems to be my overall frustration too.

On one hand you have SFraser who still plays FM10 and only the demo of FM11. He likes to play his team in the premiership and has said on occasions that he does not play much lower league clubs.

On the other hand you have heathxxx who creates guides on how to play the lower league clubs and but has stated in his guides and other occasions that he does not get all that involved in training.

So we currently have a hole in the community where we have two great people who are very knowledgeable on their area of interest and yet lower league training is something that is neglected.

So at least to me the real question is what are we missing by not focusing on training for the first couple of years as a lower level manager. Something that heathxxx has mentioned in terms of scouting when at a low level is try to increase the number of scouts so when he is ready in a couple of game years to have the resources to scout and find young players, the ground work is already done. So to me the same logic can be applied to training. Spend the first couple of years trying to get your coaching staff limit increased by asking the board, and try to improve the facilities as much as possible, so when you do have players that you want to keep when moving up the levels of your league, the ground work is already done. Is the training schedule for a player that you are going to get rid of when you get promoted to the next level really an investment worth making?

I do like reading the different challenges in the Challenges Sign Ups and Experiments and from my personal experience and what I read in these challenges is that the player at the lower level is not someone who is on your team that long. So a more focused question for SFraser is with crap facilities, coaches and limited time of the player on my team, what can I focus on for training that would provide the best results? And with lower league teams, the physical attributes can always make the difference in those games, and based on the ages of the players (19->24), those same attributes are also the quickest to increase with training.

[phnompenhandy]

About training in the lower leagues:

SFraser invites us to think of FM not as a glorified spreadsheet, but as a simulation of real-life football managing. So, in real life at a non-league club what do we find? Your star striker, Bob De Builder, is part-time. He can only come in for training for a few hours every week which will mainly involve jogging around the cowpat-ridden pitch with your one coach barking at him. You the manager simply doesn't have the facilities or skilled staff, and the player doesn't have the time to significantly improve his skills. Success as a lower league manager doesn't come through training; it comes through superior tactics (which is quite easy when everyone in your division are useless cloggers). That's why heathxxx makes perfect sense when he says build your training facilities so that you are ready in the future when micro-managing training will start to pay dividends.

In the short term, however, sundevil, you are right. Keep them fit and focus on increasing speed and strength - especially the former. I have one of the physically weakest squads in my league, but my DCs can outpace most strikers, and my strikers outpace most DCs. Hence I concede very few and usually nick a goal in the final 15 via a decent through ball.

[jim morrow]

for myself, training in lower club can make difference between a success story to a nightmare.

Why you need to focus in training :

- To avoid injuries who can ruin your season cause you don't have 50 players in your squad to substitute. Good training routine with squad rotation and good use of QPN attribute.

- To form young player to be quicly future key player of your team and others to be sell at "good" price to refull your bank account.

And don't forget in lower club, as soon as you obtain semi-pro status, to sign player, if they accept, with Full time contract.

As you said, in lower club, superior tactic make the difference. That's why I consider to learn how FM works in details that you need sometimes to go down into the mine...

Cause with BIG club, your tactical errors can be compensate by the qualities of your player. In lower club, tactical error can be fatal and each individual order can be measured easily.

This season (I manage Warrenpoint in N. Ireland), I have a -18 squad and I record, each begin of month, progression of CA for each young player. At the end of season, I will write here the result, perhaps can we discuss about it and some experienced people can tell if progression is impressive or not. (I really don't know exactly what a 17 year old boy with good progression rate can gain in one season)

[Teutomatos]

Real life and simulation search the error ...

Low league or first one, it's not the problem. The game workin equal to all level.

The only technical reserve to warning, is that the recorvery fit necessity could make us, to fall down too much, the Strenght workshop. Under a "certain" volum ( depend of players type ) all the training workshop are desengage. We can observ it with the ... arrows became all (totaly ) red and in same time.

It just mean we must grow up in it at this point the strengh work shop ( not aerobic ! only strenght ).

The limited half general volum offer for taining in half professionnal, junior, or non professional could make this thing happen. If we take care about recorvery condition ...

That's all ! Excepted the half level of graph.

For the rest, the graph inform us that the player can every time, in its general circumstances. Even strengh and speed, are essential, because, first ... it was taken in count in the graph, second ... if i read my Vaughan book, it could be the less developpements parts that generaly expecting, third ... of course more physio are purchase by the player, more general volum he'll got.

Tactics approch are the same.

That's long time ago, under the rules of TTF arguments, that we have made our own tactical creator sheet already in 2009. Comparativ process beetween the TTF wizzard and our squad limitation.

It's a gift for the first step tactic. Our best start to beguinning to working in match under some other WWFan explanation about the IA attitud tendancy evolution during the match. That i call, hunting the interval revolution with my stratégy gun.

Our agument is, don't ask something to your player that he don't know.

As well, even, like training developpement we recognize the part of the hurry movement that sometimes happens. Or the necessity to, it's better to make it anyway, even if it's not good enough, because it's not building but relieves.

Low division fight against low div teams too. Rubbish are more extend anyway. Consequences attenuate by the reciprocal inconsistency. But individual statistics are more the result of that we asking for, more that the player do by himself. According with the teamwork limitation.

Semantics names use by game are just a default references. My mojo working even with all cursor at zero, soon they got the ball. They are attacking under defensiv shape by default, because its their level for example. And they make it better under this shape. Until the opposition strategy sometimes needs a different conjonction.

It's not a strategy's shape, its my circumstances limitations, of my game reality.

If i'm limited formaly, options are too. One can count on speed, and long ball of course, like ultimate soluce. Easy way and fate conclusion. The conquest of intervals have its mysteries. I don't want to neglect. But, if get more 80 % of passing sucess never promise a victory. But often could help ...

Beguin to bet on its possibilities that it is tactic or, like training shape, time winning on absolute tricking theories based on that we could have in perfect world.

Low division approchs still the same for all level to the 90 % of users. The most of i use to talk with them, don't know that attacking instances, are not a neccesity for attacking. The most of users use and choose blind tactic under this semantic trick, the most apply an overloading, the most of time.

[higgins]

I don't understand why the linear calibration method can have some detractor every time we told about, It recalls me time where some people said that earth is turning around sun and other people treated like they are fool.

One side, you have plenty of theory based on numerous hazard coming only from experience.(and scientific know a lot that experience only can lead you to big mistake).

From the other side, a theory based around the understanding of a text coming from a FM builder, and helped, supported by tools provided in the game (Graphs and arrows).....

Sorry, but I made my choice. As Teutomatos said, It's not really a clue to show super progression of player trained in the bigger club of the planet to explain that you're right.

Please, show me same progression with a lower club of the 3rd division in Switzerland and perhaps, we can tell you, yes that's the way !!!!

As everybody knows, even with the worst training schedule (or just standard training), you can gain big progression on MU or Liverpool if the player is fit and play match regularly in his good task and role. So what is the proof in this ?????

As a lot of people on this forum, we like to read your post, SFraser, and we take some vital informations from them, but I'm asking just one question each time I read you ???

do you already play with a lower team during 10 seasons ? with a Division 10 team for example why not ????

You explain how deal with 18 coaches, 25 scouts...okay but when you have 1 scout, 2 coaches ? how can you take the best from them ????

You train young player to be able to sell it to Barcelona for 100M€. Okay, but how can you train young player with 35 CA only ?

You explain how to cross the ball with Walcott or Hernandez capacity to score goal in a poacher role on just one leg...okay that's good, but can you explain how to cross with the best winger in division 10 who get only 7 in crossing attributes ????

It's easy to command a squad where the lower decision is 14 but how do you create a tactic with a team who get a decision average of 9 ?

That's my question.

A really good question!

[SFraser]

Sorry, but I made my choice. As Teutomatos said, It's not really a clue to show super progression of player trained in the bigger club of the planet to explain that you're right.

Please, show me same progression with a lower club of the 3rd division in Switzerland and perhaps, we can tell you, yes that's the way !!!!

That would be impossible because extent of progression depends on Reputation.

As everybody knows, even with the worst training schedule (or just standard training), you can gain big progression on MU or Liverpool if the player is fit and play match regularly in his good task and role. So what is the proof in this ?????

The proof is not in the extent of the progression, but the shape of the players. Look at their defensive attributes. Look at how their physical ability compliments their technical and mental abilities. Look at how I have two very different but equally solid players, and neither of them is 20 yet.

As a lot of people on this forum, we like to read your post, SFraser, and we take some vital informations from them, but I'm asking just one question each time I read you ???

do you already play with a lower team during 10 seasons ? with a Division 10 team for example why not ????

Because I am only on season five in my first FM10.3 save. I don't rush through the game quickly enough to rack up ten seasons in a release.

You explain how deal with 18 coaches, 25 scouts...okay but when you have 1 scout, 2 coaches ? how can you take the best from them ????

1 scout? Scout your own league.

You train young player to be able to sell it to Barcelona for 100M€. Okay, but how can you train young player with 35 CA only ?

You explain how to cross the ball with Walcott or Hernandez capacity to score goal in a poacher role on just one leg...okay that's good, but can you explain how to cross with the best winger in division 10 who get only 7 in crossing attributes ????

It's easy to command a squad where the lower decision is 14 but how do you create a tactic with a team who get a decision average of 9 ?

That's my question.

Slightly underplaying my contributions to this forum. I have never explained how to score with a poacher standing on one leg, I have explained how to understand a player in exhaustive detail. I have explained my style of football, what it is premised on and how I instruct it. I have explained my tactical thinking, my tactical changes to my systems and why I develop them.

The game scale down at lower leagues. There is nothing I have written about that does not apply at lower levels of football, but trying to blatantly copy my team at lower levels of football will not work out exactly like my team. That's rather obvious.

You can criticise me for not playing lower levels of football. That's up to you. It is through playing with one team very slowly over a long period of time that I am able to produce what I produce.

I have answered your questions, now answer mine. Show me one example of player progression using this training method at any level of football. Until I see that I only have your word to take that it is any good.

[Teutomatos]

I have answered your questions, now answer mine. Show me one example of player progression using this training method at any level of football. Until I see that I only have your word to take that it is any good.

Trying yourself.

[telV7]

A interesting thread starting to turn into a sniping session, pretty bloody annoying really. I have always understood the forums to be a place where knowledge and experiences are shared debated and discussed, as through such discussions we all improve our game play and understanding. TBH I am really really annoyed at some of the things I have just read, but I will refrain from further ranting

Along my games, since i pratice the Vaughan graph following, 2009 yet, i always seen my players from the low division till the top league obtain the maximum of Génie Scout preview. Undifferently from level player or PA expectations.

I for one would like to see some screenshots of your players if you could. As, unless I am misreading you, you are stating your players always meet their maximum potential, through following a linear training.

Further, it is easy to to have a dig a Sfraser being at ManU and his regens, however, and apologies Sfraser for speaking on your behalf, but one of the key points Sfraser always makes is a holistic approach. That is to say - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now below is a couple of my screenshots, if they could be explained to help me understand it would be good.

The first is a monthly training report, the importance is Jagielka.

Next is Jagielka training, linear schedule for excess of three months

For someone that supposedly trained really badly in Aerobics, he did pretty damned good I would say.

So I don't quite understand, why he would get a bad report when the graph shows otherwise

[Coentrao]

Isn't just the physical decline from age (he's already 31) and consequent CA loss that gets reported as failing in training though?

[telV7]

Seeing as I put myself in a hole, I may as well keep digging, off topic so apologies

To further try and explain what I mean with

. . .That is to say - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

If we have a look at Sfrasers' screenshot of Cerra, many would probably pass him over, as his acceleration and pace for a Defender Left is really poor, simply too slow, we want fast fullbacks so they can bomb up and down the line. From a training perspective, many would probably, just crank up the aerobics and try and get the speed up.

But when you stop looking at the individual aspects and start taking into consideration the player as a whole a completely different picture can emerge. I for one would not be surprised if, when he is 25 he will be the captain for ManU and other teammates would have in their profiles, "think Cerra organises the defence well" as he is has been retrained as a DC, another Rio in the making.

So that is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"

Apologies again for the off topic

[telV7]

Isn't just the physical decline from age (he's already 31) and consequent CA loss that gets reported as failing in training though?

I honestly don't know, I understand what you are saying though in regards to age and decline of attributes. I would however expect that to be shown in the graph and also you would expect Keown to report that he is starting to decline.

The other thing to note is a all levels across the board increased, which again I would not think there is a decline due to age.

But if what you proposed in a question is correct, then that would mean the graph is flawed and following as a consequence linear training is flawed.

[Teutomatos]

I honestly don't know, I understand what you are saying though in regards to age and decline of attributes. I would however expect that to be shown in the graph and also you would expect Keown to report that he is starting to decline.

The graph show activities. ( the first one on top "training levels" ) A subtil mix result of something beetween, match time playing and form, shape of players attributs, environnemental opportunities, and open valves cursors influences.... Not a progress or decline.

Declins are shown in player sheet. If comparison beetween before and now. In it, red arrows is actual tendancy, and advertising by the coach report.

About declin of a player after 28 years old, nothin could be really manage at this point. Physical are the essential of that. Level of competition, time playing, facilities reduce the bad way. After 32 the process is accentuate.

About discussing way telV7, i don't remember, i need to read again myself if Naks have describe all reasons and aspects at the beguining of the subject, if he don't, it's his fault or mine don't learning english at school.

But normaly, all it said. Discussing is just for non reading people. Or people who forget the "trip", or misunderstanding meaning of "graph show activities". Problem here only the meaning of activities. Well, in same time, the pressure gauge's graph. Ok ...

It's not discussing, except for ZdlR, but the most of time, just psychological process needs to personalization of repeating the same thing. More and more ...

And as well, like before some posts before, sarmatians just stand on pressure gauge, forget the rest, or SFraser neglect the pressure gauge respons, Cleon failed to read Vaughan guide. And for the most don't integrate the calibration process.

Protest usualy, are motivate by refusal acting and individual management. Differents non sens arguments are simply idleness. Forget the condition and form factor. Or for the popular area's personnalities more implied, blind by volontary's determination, forget to rely some parts, fluctuate factors, and miss the point. Sometimes even, request some screen's evidence.

It looks likes, History of astronomy.

[prince_capri]

I honestly don't know, I understand what you are saying though in regards to age and decline of attributes. I would however expect that to be shown in the graph and also you would expect Keown to report that he is starting to decline.

The other thing to note is a all levels across the board increased, which again I would not think there is a decline due to age.

But if what you proposed in a question is correct, then that would mean the graph is flawed and following as a consequence linear training is flawed.

Have you checked his aerobic attributes? They would have definitely declined. So the graphs are fine, but they don't take into account his age decline. I think the graphs shows HOW MUCH he is training (how effectively)

, but decline due to age and loss of morale etc are quite likely!

[SFraser]

Sometimes even, request some screen's evidence.

Can you believe that? The horror.

I asked for evidence this stuff works, you have none. That's all I need to know.

If we have a look at Sfrasers' screenshot of Cerra, many would probably pass him over

Shame on you. A bit more physical development and he might even be able to play Centreback.

[telV7]

Shame on you. A bit more physical development and he might even be able to play Centreback.

hehe ... thats what I said

[Teutomatos]

Can you believe that? The horror.

I asked for evidence this stuff works, you have none. That's all I need to know.

We have talkin about yet.

Try it and you'll known.

Eventualy open Genie scout, open a player sheet, anyone indifferently, select Show potential attributs. And "imagine" that you filled all. Get it ?

If you asking for paperwall dealers, i can help you for searching the best cornershop. Where do you live ?

[ZdlR]

Forgive my ignorance, but I seem to have missed what this argument is even about. This is partly due to my failure to clearly comprehend Teutomatos and Jim Morrow. I'm sorry about this, whatever your first languages are you can be absolutely sure that I can't speak word one of it, so it is certainly not your fault. However, I've seen that Teutomatos namechecks me a few times but I feel like maybe this is erroneous - I'm not sure I follow the same methodology for training as you do. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

[Teutomatos]

Forgive my ignorance, but I seem to have missed what this argument is even about. This is partly due to my failure to clearly comprehend Teutomatos and Jim Morrow. I'm sorry about this, whatever your first languages are you can be absolutely sure that I can't speak word one of it, so it is certainly not your fault. However, I've seen that Teutomatos namechecks me a few times but I feel like maybe this is erroneous - I'm not sure I follow the same methodology for training as you do. Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

Sorry, don't worry, you don't need to assume, stinking badges about calibration. I reach you a explanation by PM. Nothin bad. The thing is not, what are you practize, but how are you interest about the graphs operations. Seems to me positiv.

Discuss and intention are not the same... That's all.