The Long Term Approach - Squad Building and Development

[phnompenhandy]

8 hours ago, Cleon said:

It's not worth worrying about the split for role/attribute training as individual attribute training is only a small short term boost anyway so long-term it doesn't make the slightest difference to anything. 

Sorry, what? Is this true? I thought only match prep gave a short term boost. So if i have a defender who is a natural Defensive Full Back, and I train him to be a Full Back so he's more of an all-rounder, you're saying it's pointless?

 

[yonko]

1 hour ago, Cleon said:

The difference is only visual so people know what attributes are classed as important by the games recommendation. When it comes to actual training all attributes get equal focus whether they are primary or secondary attributes when training a role, the game isn't coded to give different amounts of training to different attributes contained in a a role schedule.

Cleon, what do you think about the game recommended attributes? Do you find them accurate? I think there are a few inaccurate and misleading ones I think. Like for example a DLP-S has Off The Ball highlighted, while AP-S doesn't. Another example, why is Agility not highlighted for DLPs? It's more important attribute than balance.

[Cleon]

19 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

Sorry, what? Is this true? I thought only match prep gave a short term boost. So if i have a defender who is a natural Defensive Full Back, and I train him to be a Full Back so he's more of an all-rounder, you're saying it's pointless?

 

Individual attribute training is designed to be a short term option not a long term one. Once you see the attribute change then there isn't much point keeping it on it again, you may aswell work on something else and come back to it later. It's designed for 2-3 months max training not longer periods. That's why you should rotate them. Once an attribute changes it reverts back to the very start of the next one and under the hood its a much larger scale than the 1-20 we see in game. That's what I meant by its supposed to be used for a short term boost. 

Quote

Cleon, what do you think about the game recommended attributes? Do you find them accurate? I think there are a few inaccurate and misleading ones I think. Like for example a DLP-S has Off The Ball highlighted, while AP-S doesn't. Another example, why is Agility not highlighted for DLPs? It's more important attribute than balance.

I don't agree with the majority of them that's why I disregard them and just go with the attributes I think the player needs for how I ask him to play. A DLP without agility is like having a chocolate fireguard, useless.

[yonko]

7 minutes ago, Cleon said:

 I don't agree with the majority of them that's why I disregard them and just go with the attributes I think the player needs for how I ask him to play. A DLP without agility is like having a chocolate fireguard, useless.

That's what I thought. I suspect these recommendations confuse or deceit most FMers more or less. Same thing with the pie chart for roles on the tactics pitch. I'm sure you ignore that too. I do too but it is so annoying and distracting.....

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Cleon said:

Correct.

The difference is only visual so people know what attributes are classed as important by the games recommendation. When it comes to actual training all attributes get equal focus whether they are primary or secondary attributes when training a role, the game isn't coded to give different amounts of training to different attributes contained in a a role schedule.

1) ok, so regarding individual attribute training and general/role training, is this true:
-Let's say you've got a player that's slow. It’d be wrong to set general training to fitness (unless all your players are physically weak - then they would profit from being faster and stronger) and add Quickness to his individual training. That’s bcs you've already got a much greater emphasis on acceleration and pace due to selecting fitness, it's covered under this already. Selecting it again as the individual focus is wasteful as it’s already being worked on and at a much greater rate than normal.
On the other side, it’s OK to set a role training to, say, BBM and set Quickness to his individual training. This training program already trains Quickness, but this would not be time wasting.

2) this one is just of my curiosity:
you said that if you want to develop young players, you then wouldn't use a certain program (e.g. ball control) in general training - you'd rather use balanced on low/average intensity. Why isn't the intensity of general training what matters, why couldn't you chose "ball control" on low intensity and a certain role program and produce the same effect - focus more on role training? Bcs it seems that what matters now is the type of general training - it needs to be balanced.
It seems illogical that you must set a young player to train in all the fields that make a footballer (on balanced, he trains all the attributes), rather than have him focused on just a few he really needs to play his position (e.g. just the "ball controlling" attributes) + 1 or 2 individual attributes. Logically, this just prolongs his development. 
Or I just got this completely wrong?

[phnompenhandy]

45 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Individual attribute training is designed to be a short term option not a long term one. Once you see the attribute change then there isn't much point keeping it on it again, you may aswell work on something else and come back to it later. It's designed for 2-3 months max training not longer periods. That's why you should rotate them. Once an attribute changes it reverts back to the very start of the next one and under the hood its a much larger scale than the 1-20 we see in game.

Sorry, I'm still a bit incredulous here, or maybe we're talking at cross purposes.

Let's take a full back. We can train him as a full back or defensive full back (leaving aside the three wingback options). Are you saying the benefits of this role training is merely temporary? I find that hard to believe.

Then we have the individual focus, e.g. tackling. Maybe you mean that has a temporary effect and is not really worth doing.      

[yonko]

I think Cleon is talking about the individual focus on one attribute having a temporary effect. For example if you train composure for fullback, it is not covered by the role training for fullback, for 2-3 months. If you see it increase after a certain period, then switch the focus to a different individual attribute until that increases too. After that you can go back to training composure again.

[phnompenhandy]

3 minutes ago, yonko said:

I think Cleon is talking about the individual focus on one attribute having a temporary effect. For example if you train composure for fullback, it is not covered by the role training for fullback, for 2-3 months. If you see it increase after a certain period, then switch the focus to a different individual attribute until that increases too. After that you can go back to training composure again.

Okay, that's clearer. We just talking about individual focus on one attribute. So to be even clearer, say, taking an example from above, you add 'quickness' to that full back's training. That is more useful, so if he gains 1 point in accel + pace, when you move onto focussing on tackling, does that boost in acc/pace stay or revert back? 

[yonko]

I think it would stay

[Cleon]

20 minutes ago, phnompenhandy said:

Okay, that's clearer. We just talking about individual focus on one attribute. So to be even clearer, say, taking an example from above, you add 'quickness' to that full back's training. That is more useful, so if he gains 1 point in accel + pace, when you move onto focussing on tackling, does that boost in acc/pace stay or revert back? 

 

13 minutes ago, yonko said:

I think it would stay

It stays yeah. My wording of boost was perhaps incorrect, maybe I should have said temporary focus instead.

[Cleon]

Quote

1) ok, so regarding individual attribute training and general/role training, is this true:
-Let's say you've got a player that's slow. It’d be wrong to set general training to fitness (unless all your players are physically weak - then they would profit from being faster and stronger) and add Quickness to his individual training. That’s bcs you've already got a much greater emphasis on acceleration and pace due to selecting fitness, it's covered under this already. Selecting it again as the individual focus is wasteful as it’s already being worked on and at a much greater rate than normal.
On the other side, it’s OK to set a role training to, say, BBM and set Quickness to his individual training. This training program already trains Quickness, but this would not be time wasting.

Nailed it

Quote

you said that if you want to develop young players, you then wouldn't use a certain program (e.g. ball control) in general training - you'd rather use balanced on low/average intensity. Why isn't the intensity of general training what matters, why couldn't you chose "ball control" on low intensity and a certain role program and produce the same effect - focus more on role training?

I covered this already a few posts towards the end of the last page. It's because general training has greater emphasis on everything and those attributes the general schedule you use would have more importance than any other. You can no longer set intensity like on version FM16 and before.

Quote

It seems illogical that you must set a young player to train in all the fields that make a footballer (on balanced, he trains all the attributes), rather than have him focused on just a few he really needs to play his position (e.g. just the "ball controlling" attributes) + 1 or 2 individual attributes. Logically, this just prolongs his development. 
Or I just got this completely wrong? 

I think you've misunderstood something. But this is the whole point I've made. This is why role training is much more important because it does just that, focuses on the attributes you've chosen with the role catergory you put him on. This doesn't prolong development it is actually more accurate because you don't waste current ability points like you do with the general training strategy. Balanced doesn't train all attributes, balance means there is no focus on attributes i.e they all get worked on the same. The role you choose determines what attributes the player will train.  That's why balance is so important compared to other general focuses which DO focus on attributes.

[Cleon]

18 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Nailed it

I covered this already a few posts towards the end of the last page. It's because general training has greater emphasis on everything and those attributes the general schedule you use would have more importance than any other. You can no longer set intensity like on version FM16 and before.

I think you've misunderstood something. But this is the whole point I've made. This is why role training is much more important because it does just that, focuses on the attributes you've chosen with the role catergory you put him on. This doesn't prolong development it is actually more accurate because you don't waste current ability points like you do with the general training strategy. Balanced doesn't train all attributes as such, balance means there is no focus on attributes i.e they all get worked on the same. The role you choose determines what attributes the player will train. That's why balance is so important compared to other general focuses which DO focus on attributes.

 

[Guest]

I see, I did not say anything but I'm still playing FM16.. So I can use intesity. So if I want to focus on developing certain players, should I go on balanced with low intensity + role raining - as in FM17, or I can use any general training program + role training?

[ozilthegunner]

17 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

I'm confused by his question too, but I think his line of thinking goes like this:

If you set specific role training and individual focus, the individual training is split 50/50.

If you set just generic role training and individual focus, more than 50% will be directed towards the latter, hence the player's attribute that you're focusing on will rise faster. 

The alternative is presumably that the player's individual training is simply lighter than it should be.

 

Can you clarify and confirm?

So the thinking above was merely what I would expect may explain why it could make sense to not set role training if you are doing individual training.

But that, it seems, was based on my confusion. But in my defense I read this in the first post:

"I will give each one of those a focus for 2 months at a time then I’ll switch to some complete wing back training depending on if I see the attributes rise or not in that time."

That seemed to imply you did not assign role training while doing the individual attributes. so that is what led to my question. 

Thanks for clarifying

[Cleon]

5 hours ago, ozilthegunner said:

So the thinking above was merely what I would expect may explain why it could make sense to not set role training if you are doing individual training.

But that, it seems, was based on my confusion. But in my defense I read this in the first post:

"I will give each one of those a focus for 2 months at a time then I’ll switch to some complete wing back training depending on if I see the attributes rise or not in that time."

That seemed to imply you did not assign role training while doing the individual attributes. so that is what led to my question. 

Thanks for clarifying

That's because he was on wingback training to begin with along with the individual attribute focus

7 hours ago, charisma_charisma said:

I see, I did not say anything but I'm still playing FM16.. So I can use intesity. So if I want to focus on developing certain players, should I go on balanced with low intensity + role raining - as in FM17, or I can use any general training program + role training?

This post was written for FM16, all the answers are already in this thread no matter the version you play. I've already answered your question about 10 times in the thread already

[2calvin]

@Cleon

quick question if i may

Player A is 'determined' with 19 determination. Coaches say my squad is highly ambitious and player A is in a similar mould

I can tutor him with someone who is fairly professional, but they have 15 determination.

In this instance, what would you advise? Is it worth the determination hit? for a more professional personality? I would assume so. I guess I'm asking because my coaches are hinting he's ambitious, so already has one piece of the puzzle, if you like

[Cleon]

29 minutes ago, 2calvin said:

@Cleon

quick question if i may

Player A is 'determined' with 19 determination. Coaches say my squad is highly ambitious and player A is in a similar mould

I can tutor him with someone who is fairly professional, but they have 15 determination.

In this instance, what would you advise? Is it worth the determination hit? for a more professional personality? I would assume so. I guess I'm asking because my coaches are hinting he's ambitious, so already has one piece of the puzzle, if you like

I'd tutor as a determined personality type is okay but there are much better ones so I'd take the determination hit.

[phnompenhandy]

15 is still good for determination. Professionalism is very important.

[menne]

Can i have a general approach (fro example ball control set high) and also the readjustment of a player into another position i want him to play with player instruction? do i slow down his developement in that way? one possible way is to train individually until the player is good in that position and then leave the individual focus to "none"?

[Fritz13]

On 30/11/2016 at 09:47, Cleon said:

There is a point yeah because that attribute will have a higher focus than normal. If not then what would the point of individual attribute training be?

Cheers - just wanted to check it wasn't wasting the additional focus training 

[sgevolker]

Hi,

I'm not sure if I unterstand this right. I want to train my CD in Teamwork, which isn't part of the CD Role Training. 

So I choose Focus Balanced, Intency Level Average and the the Role Training Defensive Midfielder. Then he is trained in most of the common CD Attributes plus the advantage of a Teamwork Training.

Is this approach what you recommend?

Regards

Volker

[Cleon]

30 minutes ago, sgevolker said:

Hi,

I'm not sure if I unterstand this right. I want to train my CD in Teamwork, which isn't part of the CD Role Training. 

So I choose Focus Balanced, Intency Level Average and the the Role Training Defensive Midfielder. Then he is trained in most of the common CD Attributes plus the advantage of a Teamwork Training.

Is this approach what you recommend?

Regards

Volker

He would then be training as a defensive midfielder and not a CD. But if the schedule has teamwork included in it, then yes he'd also be working on that attribute.

[ozilthegunner]

10 hours ago, sgevolker said:

Hi,

I'm not sure if I unterstand this right. I want to train my CD in Teamwork, which isn't part of the CD Role Training. 

So I choose Focus Balanced, Intency Level Average and the the Role Training Defensive Midfielder. Then he is trained in most of the common CD Attributes plus the advantage of a Teamwork Training.

Is this approach what you recommend?

Regards

Volker

It may be worthwhile to see if the ball playing defender role trains teamwork. I'm not sure if it does (and cannot access the game right now) but if so, it'd be a better option if you don't also want to familiarize the player with the dm position

[sgevolker]

 

1 hour ago, ozilthegunner said:

It may be worthwhile to see if the ball playing defender role trains teamwork. I'm not sure if it does (and cannot access the game right now) but if so, it'd be a better option if you don't also want to familiarize the player with the dm position

Unfortunately not, that's what I looked first. But DM trains Marking, Positioning, Takling, Decisions, Concentration and Teamwork. So for me it's fine.

[kharza_xo]

On 12/7/2016 at 01:40, Cleon said:

He would then be training as a defensive midfielder and not a CD. But if the schedule has teamwork included in it, then yes he'd also be working on that attribute.

So I've done this a few times as well.  I want a position to have certain attributes that aren't trained in one of the schedules for his "position".  Is there any downside to this?  In this case does training as a DM mean he has to play as a DM to gain the points or is it strictly training sessions and doesn't matter where he plays in the game?  I do this a lot training Wing Backs in Defensive Winger schedules and strikers in Shadow Striker roles.  Also does this take away from CA at all by them learning the new position?

[jayahr]

On 26.11.2016 at 17:42, Cleon said:

Position is rated on 1-20 and that's what the descriptions determine. So someone accomplished would be 14-17 and someone natural would be 18-20 for example. You don't need to max out someones position because at the end of the day its attributes that matter, if someone has good attributes for the role he'll be fine whether he is unfamiliar or natural for the position.

That part just caught my attention.

Is this something which can be taken advantage of?
Like, if you have a player whose attributes can be moulded to fit into the attribute set required for a role in another position, which the player is not familiar with. Like your own example with the player Chris above and your idea to turn him into a good striker.
Now, could it be better to mould the players attributes to fit the requirements of the striker position, but without adding any positional training? The idea is that the key attrubutes for the unfamiliar position should 'eat' less of his CA as long as he is unfamiliar, thereby enabling him to have better attributes for this role than a player with the same CA who is natural in this position could have. Would the higher attributes weigh more than the positional familiarity?

[Mad Fortune]

What is the amount of first team games when a youth player "has a role in the first team and cannot be tutored" ?

[Fosse]

48 minutes ago, Mad Fortune said:

What is the amount of first team games when a youth player "has a role in the first team and cannot be tutored" ?

Isn't it down to squad status?

[ozilthegunner]

2 hours ago, Fosse said:

Isn't it down to squad status?

From what I can tell, yes. Sometimes I buy a player who is like 19 or 20 but already really good and so he will only accept a 'first team' squad status (but super low pay...) so I sign him, and he cannot be tutored because he has a role in the first team.

I switch him to rotation or some such and then he can be tutored.

This is obviously a reason to avoid assigning a young player a 'first team' or 'key player' squad status while he can still be tutored (age-wise) if you want to tutor him at all.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

On 30/11/2016 at 16:14, Cleon said:

I don't agree with the majority of them that's why I disregard them and just go with the attributes I think the player needs for how I ask him to play. A DLP without agility is like having a chocolate fireguard, useless.

Hahaha. SI should get you to give them recommended attributes.

[Wing Wizard]

Hi Cleon,

Just wanted to check I've correctly understood optimal training strategy for FM17.

1) Balanced on low

2) Match training 20% or lower

3) Player specific Role training or individual attribute training not both?  (I am uncertain from the threads whether it's one or the other or both is okay)

[Cleon]

I've already answered this about 50 times in the thread, not sure how you'll understand the answer I'll give now if you don't understand the answer I've already gave though as it's the same. #3 Both are fine as stated above several times and I've done threads highlighting the use of both. So not sure which threads you are actually unaware from. I gave screenshots and wrote it in text 

[Jibby123]

Cleon, how would you best develop young players 16-17 when your youth team is chock full when you have a 2nd team as per the German model? I am big on hoovering up best youngsters but now have so many that I think could be worth developing.

All left in my youth team, they a) don't get enough youth match time so match sharpness is never optimum and b) don't get enough coaching time (limit on u19 coaches from Board).

Does putting them in the 2nd team in a German regional league make sense?

[Guest]

Players aged under 17 cannot play in adult matches so moving them to the II team should result in them not playing any matches as that team will play in the adult league structure, that can only be harmful to their development.

[Jibby123]

Ah right, thanks, wondered if German regional leagues which 2nd team play in had different rules to Bundesliga. Thanks for clearing that up.

[isignedupfornorealreason]

On 19/12/2016 at 13:28, Cleon said:

 

Cleon,

 

I hope you don't mind me asking as it's not a tactical issue but a squad building one and this is probably a really stupid question really...

 

I generally do as you do, keep a small team with youngsters popping along. Sometimes I get pretty lucky and find myself stacked with too many people in a particular position, either because a youngster defied expectations and had an explosive growth in terms of attributes, or because the kids just want to give me a headache!

 

So my question is, when is the ideal time to transfer list the golden oldies to make way for the kids? In England, I'm sitting on a save in June now contemplating whether it is the right time to list those I've decided to be surplus for next season. Normally I have this well under control, but for some reason I've had a wealth of youngsters suddenly crop up out of the blue ready to be backup players, so I'm keen to shift older members of the squad.

[QSF25]

Let's say you decided to train tackle and after 2 weeks it grows from 10 to 10.2 would it be wise to wait more time in 2 or 3 month cycle or change it to another attribute and wait until tackle can be focused again.

[ilkork]

Here I am @Cleon.
Ok, some things I don't understand.

1. Why is the following "wasteful"?

On 11/30/2016 at 19:00, charisma_charisma said:

-Let's say you've got a player that's slow. It’d be wrong to set general training to fitness (unless all your players are physically weak - then they would profit from being faster and stronger) and add Quickness to his individual training. That’s bcs you've already got a much greater emphasis on acceleration and pace due to selecting fitness, it's covered under this already. Selecting it again as the individual focus is wasteful as it’s already being worked on and at a much greater rate than normal.

Let's assume that we have a player who is natural at AMR-Winger and we want to improve his Stamina. So, we set the following for him:
General Training: Fitness---Role Training: AMR-Winger---Additional Focus: Stamina (an attribute that is already covered by General Training and Role Training).

For a second, let's assume that it's not a problem that all the other players in the squad will be trained in "Fitness", let's say that we do want that.
Why is the previous example wasteful? Someone would think "hey, by doing that, you completely emphasize on Stamina", right?

2. If you only want to improve one attribute, just one attribute, is it better to set Role Training or leave it empty?
Let's use our AMR-Winger again, and let's assume that we want to improve his Long Shots attribute (an attribute that is not covered by the Winger role). Examples:

A) General Training: Balanced---Role Training: None (you leave it empty, AM (R) - Playing Position)---Additional Focus: Long Shots
B) General Training: Balanced---Role Training: AMR-Winger---Additional Focus: Long Shots

I've always used example 2B in FM, every year. But then I thought, in example A, we don't set any Role Training, so we only care about the Long Shots attribute. Isn't safe to assume that Long Shots gets about 95% of training, instead of less percentage if we also set Role Training like in example B?

3. If we choose Team Cohesion for General Training:

A) About how much percentage do we get for Role Training?
General Training: Team Cohesion---Role Training: AMR-Winger---Additional Focus: None

B) And if we also add Additional Focus?
General Training: Team Cohesion---Role Training: AMR-Winger---Additional Focus: let's say Agility

[herne79]

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

1. Why is the following "wasteful"?

Potentially wasteful perhaps, from 2 main perspectives:  a) As you already know, setting a General Training focus will affect your entire squad.  So if you neither want nor need all of your squad training Fitness, that's potentially wasteful for the players that you don't want it to affect.  b) More than just Stamina will get developed when choosing General Training - Fitness and/or an individual role where Stamina is part.  Great if that's what you want, but again potentially wasteful if you don't want all the other attributes developed as well.

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

2. If you only want to improve one attribute, just one attribute, is it better to set Role Training or leave it empty?

You can't improve just one attribute no matter what you do.  Players can develop naturally over time; playing matches may help develop players.  Further, if you don't set your General and/or individual role training, you may lose control over how your players develop as overall complete players.  If you want to focus on just one attribute then set it as a specific focus for that individual player (assuming it is available to select).

8 hours ago, ilkork said:

3. If we choose Team Cohesion for General Training:

The more you add to training, the greater a player's workload becomes.  It's a cumulative effect.  Exactly how that workload is proportioned I have no idea and is probably something that only the SI devs would know.

[Cleon]

herne sums it up perfectly especially the potentially wasteful comment. Not every player needs the same attributes working on, not ever player has the same starting attributes value. That's why it has potential to be wasteful as it assumes everyone needs the same level of training for those attributes determined by whatever focus you choose for general training. Just to add to what Herne said about number 2. If a player doesn't have no role training, under the hood he is still trained on the basics for his position anyway. So he is still training on his basic attributes needed for the position he plays.

Also stop getting hung up on percentages, I think you're over thinking it and look for a perfect formula when each player will be different. Instead think of it like this - General training = a more generic approach to training as all players would focus on the same attributes listed in whatever training catergory you selected i.e fitness, attacking etc. Individual training = Trying to maximise the player but taking a more detailed approach to his training and development. Which allows to focus on players weakness and strengths better (as you have more control over what you can/can't focus on).

Both approaches can work.

[ilkork]

Thank you both for your answers @herne79 and @Cleon!

The reason I am asking, is because my youth development includes "General Training: Fitness" for about 3 months, for all the youth players (and I don't care about potential injuries).
I have a winger whose stamina is awful. So, which from the following is more effective for my situation?

A) General Training: Fitness---Role Training: Winger---Additional Focus: None
B) General Training: Fitness---Role Training: Winger---Additional Focus: Stamina (an attribute which both General Training and Role Training cover)

[herne79]

Personally (I stress "personally") I'd go with B. because I'd want my player developing overall but with a particular focus on Stamina.  But all players are different and will train differently, so you'd need to keep an eye on how things progress.  Also pay attention to morale - if players start to complain about their training (workload or effectiveness) it may affect their morale, and unhappy players may not train as well as happy players.

45 minutes ago, ilkork said:

(and I don't care about potential injuries).

Fair enough, but ignore at your own risk.  Injuries can hamper or in severe cases may even negatively impact player development, so keep at least half an eye on your injury list and adapt if things get out of hand.

[ilkork]

Thank you very much for your time @herne79!

[Cleon]

3 hours ago, ilkork said:

Thank you both for your answers @herne79 and @Cleon!

The reason I am asking, is because my youth development includes "General Training: Fitness" for about 3 months, for all the youth players (and I don't care about potential injuries).
I have a winger whose stamina is awful. So, which from the following is more effective for my situation?

A) General Training: Fitness---Role Training: Winger---Additional Focus: None
B) General Training: Fitness---Role Training: Winger---Additional Focus: Stamina (an attribute which both General Training and Role Training cover)

I echo what Herne said above and personally speaking I'd also go B. 

If developing youth I'd be very concerned about injuries, they can have a massive impact on developing whether it be a long term injury or lots of small injuries. When someone is injured it means less playtime and less training which is a development loss.

[ilkork]

7 minutes ago, Cleon said:

I echo what Herne said above and personally speaking I'd also go B.

Thank you for your time!

[Seb Wassell]

Not only does injury keep a player from training/playing but serious injury can reduce attributes.

[ilkork]

35 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Not only does injury keep a player from training/playing but serious injury can reduce attributes.

Yes, I understand the risks, I just speak for myself, don't condone this kind of action .

[alanschu14]

Is risk of injury dependent on the type of training being done (i.e. fitness is more demanding than tactical) or is it more the workload (listed in lower right - i.e. heavy/very heavy/medium)?  My assumption is the latter.

[ilkork]

9 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

Is risk of injury dependent on the type of training being done (i.e. fitness is more demanding than tactical) or is it more the workload (listed in lower right - i.e. heavy/very heavy/medium)?  My assumption is the latter.

My logic says that Fitness is more demanding than the others. And if you play matches during a "Fitness" week, the risk of injuries is increased. But it would also depend on:
A) the player's attributes (Injury Proneness, Natural Fitness and Stamina I guess)
B) the Individual Player Workload (Light/Medium/Heavy/Very Heavy). What I learned all these years (from @Rashidi, guides, etc.) is that "Heavy individual workload is the golden rule".
C) something else that SI has to confirm?

So, what I do when I choose Fitness for General Training is to:
-have my worse players (the ones who have bad values for Injury Proneness, Natural Fitness and Stamina) on a "Medium" to "Heavy" individual workload and never "Very Heavy".
-the ones who have good values for those attributes on "Heavy" and sometimes, I repeat sometimes, on "Very Heavy" individual workload (rare instances, 1-2 players that may have ppm learning at the same time).

Of course, the weeks when I have 2-3 matches, I set the General Training on "Low" Intesity. The rest of the weeks are on "Average" Intensity so that I can achieve the "Heavy individual workload golden rule".

[Rashidi]

11 hours ago, alanschu14 said:

Is risk of injury dependent on the type of training being done

Every player has the potential to be injured, some of it is down to his injury proneness, how often you play the player and how aggressive you've set his training intensity to. We have the power as coaches to influence the individual intensity of their training, and this is where we face the challenge of having to balance things out.  I can handle a squad with 18 players and play 3 games a week and still see my players improve, but the type of training does not impact their injury proneness, its how I use the players that does.