I don't want to buy a player just find better players couple weeks after? Expand There is no specific date. It depends on the situation. If you are about to get promoted or expect a massive reputation jump for some other reason wait for the new season to start at least. For prices, deadline day is probably best. If you don't want any competition for a signing then do it outside of the transfer window. And so on.
In essence always be on the lookout for a good deal and as situation changes evaluate if it's a good deal or not at that time.
Faker said: with this, theres zero set piece training. Does it matter? Expand Might be placebo but my team seems to score more from set pieces with at least some sessions dedicated to it. So I include the session in 1 match weeks.
tam1236 said: Actually I see a way to test it (or shouts' effectiveness) - but definitely not me! One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways . And quite often I have an impression that an outcome is already set - in my previous post I meant, it is not set , say, one hour before the match (in a beginning of a match - maybe).
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them. Expand I was talking about the whole match being predetermined until a change occurs, for example subs, tactical changes, shouts etc.
As for testing shouts, the issue is if you start the same game 20 times and do absolutely nothing you might get 10 or even 20 different results. There is so much noise in the signal that you'd need a much much larger sample. It may be doable but it would require significant effort just to establish if they have any effect or not.
tam1236 said: From many cheats I tried I must say it's not true. Unless you meant "probability of an outcome".
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded) Expand There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input.
Mainly depends what you want to use him for. I never listen to any of his tactical advice, for me the most important part is JPA and JPP so I can get good reports, and then maybe player management, personality. I should probably look more at substitution tendencies, usage of young players ... but it usually exceeds the time I'm prepared to commit for this particular task.
For a B team manager if I ever need one it's mostly about formation and tactical style and only then everything else.
Possebrew said: Say, I wanted to cheese this to the max. Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?) - Motivation - Shouts (?) - Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?) - Determination - Just because it makes everything better? Expand There is a lot more to managers than those attributes. Their tendencies are probably far more important.
MeanOnSunday said: This is just not correct. Larger sample size makes xG difference work better irl, and xP is a worse predictor than xG difference. There is a lot of research to show this. This is why the site was moving in that direction.
Your final point may be correct in FM but look back to the OP where it was the goals against that was being hypothesized as the source of the problem, not the goals for. Expand It's a worse predictor but a better descriptor. The correlation of xP to actual points tends to be better than xGD to points (unless new research has come out lately). Also we cannot completely mirror the game and real life because real life suffers from smaller sample. We could argue if in a large enough sample size (say 10000 games ) xP would be a better predictor as well.
On top of that the player quality in FM Arena simulations are even unlike IRL. And since it's a game you can somewhat inflate xG numbers without adding any actual points.
As I said use whatever you feel is the best metric.
MeanOnSunday said: The question I’m raising is whether the sample size is in fact enough. Clearly the thinking was to use xG difference because it gives more precision for any fixed sample size. And this is correct in real life too. I’m not trying to be annoying or rude, but I don’t see how you can just look at the results and decide that there is some particular flaw about how xG is counted. If xG difference is not accurately predicting the points winner as the number of simulation increases towards infinity then this is a massive, massive problem with the match engine. It is literally saying that when SI programs a shot to have a probability x of scoring then the either a) the probability is not x, or b) SI can’t correctly add up x over the game. Expand The main thing why it works better in real life is sample size. The number of games in a season is a lot lower compared to shots. FM Arena sample sizes are much bigger and thus less prone to variance. Even in real life most leagues rather use xP than xG to sort teams, because it's a better representation of situational nuances.
As for xG difference, it's not quite so simple. As I said you can inflate the number artificially without really adding much to your point total by simply taking more shots even if they are bad on paper. There is also different variance depending what kind of shots you take. For example you can take 1 shot with 1 xG and end up scoring 1 goal, or take 100 shots at 0,01 xG per shot totalling 1 xG but it's actually very likely you'll score 0.
You can also create scenarios where tactics become win more in the sense that when they win they win big with high xG difference which adds up over the season but is actually not contributing to any additional points.
MeanOnSunday said: I’m not sure why you conclude that xG against is the problem here. In your example you could equally well say xG for is also below the actual goals scored and therefore the error is in the other direction. It seems very unlikely that the match engine can make a mistake that only affects goals scored by one of the two teams. After all every goal against one team is a goal for the other team. To trust actual goals more than xG you would have to believe that when the match engine says a shot is worth 0.1 xG it then calculates the result using a probability that is different than 10% chance of a goal. That would be a massive error by SI.
From what we know about real life, it is quite possible for actual points scored to be discrepant from xG difference in a season. But it is the xG difference that is the better predictor of future points totals. Of course in a simulation we should expect the two things to converge if the sample size is large enough. So are you concluding that this is not happening? If this is the case then I would agree that points is the only measure you can trust, but not that you have actually diagnosed the problem with xG only that something in the match engine is very broken. Expand xG isn't a perfect metric either. And if you try to optimize for highest xG the tactic might not actually function as well as you'd like. It is possible to inflate xG by taking lots of shots that "never really have a chance to go in" and while statistically you may "deserve" to score a goal, two or three based on xG it's actually not realistic to expect it to happen week after week. On the other hand there are certain counterattacks with relatively low xG (lets say 0,26 or something) that more often than not end up being a goal.
At the end of the day given a large enough sample size I think points are a good metric to evaluate tactics. You have the option to sort by xG, GD, GF, GA as well if you prefer one those.
It’s not only dribbling that is affected, but also finishing and other technical attributes, which have declined. This seems to be a general trend across the entire squad, but it is particularly noticeable with this player.
We can clearly see that finishing, dribbling, and passing have dropped significantly when comparing screenshots from 2025 to 2030. As I mentioned, this issue is affecting the whole squad.
Since I alternated weekly between the Rebalance 1 and Growth 1 training schedules, I started to think something might be wrong. Perhaps these schedules are not suited for young players, and a certain level of maturity is required to stabilize technical attributes.
Physically, as I said, the players have become beasts. However, technically, their attributes have declined significantly.
This leads me to wonder whether, when developing a player from the age of 17 with a focus on physical attributes, there is a specific age range at which those physical attributes can be “locked in,” allowing training to shift back toward technical development to improve those attributes again.
Overall, I’ve noticed that the only technical attribute that has improved significantly is long shots.
Thanks again for your feedback and for the work you’ve done. Expand Creating physical beasts has a cost in mental and technical attributes. Especially if the player doesn't have a super high PA, there will be trade offs
50 plus 1 rule said: @ZaZ Assuming that you're creating a training schedule in a week with a single match day (e.g. Saturday).
When using a training schedule like B8, do you spread them out across the week before the match or do you put all of them in the first 3 days, and give your players full days of rest before the match?
Is there any difference in number of injuries if I stack them intensely for the first few days followed by full rest days, compared to spreading them out across the week? Expand Players don't generally get tired from training or rather they regenerate more fitness in a day than they lose through training sessions. So there is no need to rest them before matches. Like ZaZ said, it's better to give them rest first day(s) after a match to make sure they can recover as quickly as possible to reduce injuries and have better effect of training.
I just run the same 3-4 sessions (physical, attacking, match practice + defending/set pieces depending on situation) that are in most popular full time schedules, and full rest if I have only one day of training between games - when there are 2 games in a week.
May not matter in most situations, but someone playing a YAC save needs to squeeze out as much as possible. Anecdotally it's slightly better than assistant schedules but either way the gains are not big.
There are still thousands of configurations of roles, team and personal instructions that could be tested and you never know when something clicks. Plus even figuring out which instructions are interchangeable is valuable. It's how you determine what matters and what doesn't.
This behaviour is nothing new, happens every year. You have some who try to come up with something new or try with offbeat tactics and others who want to maximise what we already know is working. If you sort out by date tested you can see actually quite a lot of different formations being tested, they just never make it anywhere near the top spot in points.
Bogeyman said: I wonder is this patch gonna be the latest patch for FM26 ? Expand There should be at least the big winter update and maybe separately international management, each should also include some additional fixes like these patches since release.
debelizec19 said: @juliius@Yarema hmm, very interesting. so,very quick conclusion. GS is not a reliable source for seeing player max potetial per attributes, only for total potetial. And what I can conclude, attributes will growth based on training that we are using and they will be high enough depending on max potential of player (higer potential, higer attributes ). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track Expand Well if you use assistant's schedules and your player reaches his PA it's probably pretty close to the attribute breakdown that GS will show. These broken schedules haven't been around for long and vast majority of players don't use them. Hidden attributes are of course important, but I've seen plenty of players that should develop based on everything that just don't. In the end you just have to see how they're actually developing.
why? Its impossible ? Expand It's not impossible, but FM24 has a different engine which means different things are effective. Strikerless was pretty bad in FM24. It's better if you pick one of the tactics that have been tested for 24 - doesn't have to be the top one, pick a system and playstyle you like.
debelizec19 said: Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear Expand Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says.
JW said: Hi everyone, I’m new to Football Manager and I’ve just started my first FM24 save as Borussia Dortmund.
I’m trying to take full responsibility for team selection and tactics for my U19 and reserve/second team, but I’m stuck.
1) Staff Responsibilities issue (Team Selection)
In Staff Responsibilities, I don’t have the option to take over “Manage Team Selection” for the youth/reserve teams (see Picture TS2).
Is this a known restriction in FM24 (club/league dependent), or am I missing a setting somewhere?
2) U19 copying my first team tactic
When I load a tactic for my first team (see Picture T1), my U19 automatically adapts the same tactic and I can select a team based on it.
My main question:
If I pick the U19 lineup, will it actually stick, or will the U19 manager change the lineup before matches because I can’t take over “Manage Team Selection” (TS2)?
3) Changing U19 tactics
Right now, the only way I’ve found to change U19 tactics is by creating/loading a new tactic for my first team, and then the U19 adjusts automatically to the active first team tactic.
Is there any other way to set separate U19 tactics (without forcing it through my first team tactic)?
4) Reserve / Second team tactics (3. Bundesliga)
For my second team playing in 3. Bundesliga, I can’t adjust tactics at all (see Picture T3).
I can select the players, but I’m not sure if my selection will be overwritten (same concern as above, because I can’t take responsibility in TS2).
So:
Is there any way to adjust the tactics of the second team, or is it locked to the second team manager’s preferred formation/tactical style?
If it’s supposed to be controllable, where exactly do I change it?
Any step-by-step guidance would be super appreciated — I’m still learning how responsibilities + youth/reserve squads work in FM24.
Thanks! Expand In Germany a 2nd team is technically an affiliate which means it's a separate club with it's own manager and staff. So you cannot influence their tactics (it is not a bug) other than choosing the manager with a preferred formation that you want - be careful, after he joins he sometimes changes his preferred formation ... just FM being FM
2nd/reserve teams have different status in different countries so you need to figure it out, there is no general rule for all leagues.
I don't want to buy a player just find better players couple weeks after?
There is no specific date. It depends on the situation. If you are about to get promoted or expect a massive reputation jump for some other reason wait for the new season to start at least. For prices, deadline day is probably best. If you don't want any competition for a signing then do it outside of the transfer window. And so on.
In essence always be on the lookout for a good deal and as situation changes evaluate if it's a good deal or not at that time.
Might be placebo but my team seems to score more from set pieces with at least some sessions dedicated to it. So I include the session in 1 match weeks.
One match, 20 repeats, no subs: 10x You made possibly detrimental shouting , 10x You shout in a best possible way - f.e. every 10 min. praise all when in lead , encourage when not). Of course great or idiotic speach in-between.
It's not so hard to accept such an outcome predetermination - we are cheated by this game in so many ways
PS Some highlights from interesting matches have nothing special in them.
I was talking about the whole match being predetermined until a change occurs, for example subs, tactical changes, shouts etc.
As for testing shouts, the issue is if you start the same game 20 times and do absolutely nothing you might get 10 or even 20 different results. There is so much noise in the signal that you'd need a much much larger sample. It may be doable but it would require significant effort just to establish if they have any effect or not.
To the topic - I don't see great difference between assistant and me on a bench in a result. But the difference is in subs, and they make unbelivable players' selection if You let them (unless you have all players very good and rounded)
There is no way to actually test this in game. Save scumming doesn't work to check this because it's supposedly determined as the match loads. To put it more plainly lets say you have 80% to win, 15% draw and 5% chance to lose. When you enter the match it'll determine what the exact result will be assuming nothing changes, but if you quit the game and enter the match again it'll "roll" the exact result again, so you don't necessarily end up with the same scoreline. That's the theory at least.
I understand it's a hard concept to accept because it basically says you are (almost) powerless as a player. But if we think about a match highlight for example, the game already knows the end result of the highlight otherwise it wouldn't show it to you. So then it's just a matter of extrapolating 1 highlight into the whole match. At best it's a series of these predetermined events and we can speculate whether the whole match is predetermined with recalculations after every player input or if there are automatic recalculations even wouth additional input.
For a B team manager if I ever need one it's mostly about formation and tactical style and only then everything else.
Which attributes should my assistant manager bring to the table?
- Tactical Knowledge - Tactics (?)
- Motivation - Shouts (?)
- Judging Current Ability - Substitutions (?)
- Determination - Just because it makes everything better?
There is a lot more to managers than those attributes. Their tendencies are probably far more important.
Your final point may be correct in FM but look back to the OP where it was the goals against that was being hypothesized as the source of the problem, not the goals for.
It's a worse predictor but a better descriptor. The correlation of xP to actual points tends to be better than xGD to points (unless new research has come out lately). Also we cannot completely mirror the game and real life because real life suffers from smaller sample. We could argue if in a large enough sample size (say 10000 games
On top of that the player quality in FM Arena simulations are even unlike IRL.
And since it's a game you can somewhat inflate xG numbers without adding any actual points.
As I said use whatever you feel is the best metric.
The main thing why it works better in real life is sample size. The number of games in a season is a lot lower compared to shots. FM Arena sample sizes are much bigger and thus less prone to variance. Even in real life most leagues rather use xP than xG to sort teams, because it's a better representation of situational nuances.
As for xG difference, it's not quite so simple. As I said you can inflate the number artificially without really adding much to your point total by simply taking more shots even if they are bad on paper. There is also different variance depending what kind of shots you take. For example you can take 1 shot with 1 xG and end up scoring 1 goal, or take 100 shots at 0,01 xG per shot totalling 1 xG but it's actually very likely you'll score 0.
You can also create scenarios where tactics become win more in the sense that when they win they win big with high xG difference which adds up over the season but is actually not contributing to any additional points.
From what we know about real life, it is quite possible for actual points scored to be discrepant from xG difference in a season. But it is the xG difference that is the better predictor of future points totals. Of course in a simulation we should expect the two things to converge if the sample size is large enough. So are you concluding that this is not happening? If this is the case then I would agree that points is the only measure you can trust, but not that you have actually diagnosed the problem with xG only that something in the match engine is very broken.
xG isn't a perfect metric either. And if you try to optimize for highest xG the tactic might not actually function as well as you'd like. It is possible to inflate xG by taking lots of shots that "never really have a chance to go in" and while statistically you may "deserve" to score a goal, two or three based on xG it's actually not realistic to expect it to happen week after week. On the other hand there are certain counterattacks with relatively low xG (lets say 0,26 or something) that more often than not end up being a goal.
At the end of the day given a large enough sample size I think points are a good metric to evaluate tactics. You have the option to sort by xG, GD, GF, GA as well if you prefer one those.
It’s not only dribbling that is affected, but also finishing and other technical attributes, which have declined. This seems to be a general trend across the entire squad, but it is particularly noticeable with this player.
We can clearly see that finishing, dribbling, and passing have dropped significantly when comparing screenshots from 2025 to 2030. As I mentioned, this issue is affecting the whole squad.
Since I alternated weekly between the Rebalance 1 and Growth 1 training schedules, I started to think something might be wrong. Perhaps these schedules are not suited for young players, and a certain level of maturity is required to stabilize technical attributes.
Physically, as I said, the players have become beasts. However, technically, their attributes have declined significantly.
This leads me to wonder whether, when developing a player from the age of 17 with a focus on physical attributes, there is a specific age range at which those physical attributes can be “locked in,” allowing training to shift back toward technical development to improve those attributes again.
Overall, I’ve noticed that the only technical attribute that has improved significantly is long shots.
Thanks again for your feedback and for the work you’ve done.
Creating physical beasts has a cost in mental and technical attributes. Especially if the player doesn't have a super high PA, there will be trade offs
When using a training schedule like B8, do you spread them out across the week before the match or do you put all of them in the first 3 days, and give your players full days of rest before the match?
Is there any difference in number of injuries if I stack them intensely for the first few days followed by full rest days, compared to spreading them out across the week?
Players don't generally get tired from training or rather they regenerate more fitness in a day than they lose through training sessions. So there is no need to rest them before matches. Like ZaZ said, it's better to give them rest first day(s) after a match to make sure they can recover as quickly as possible to reduce injuries and have better effect of training.
May not matter in most situations, but someone playing a YAC save needs to squeeze out as much as possible. Anecdotally it's slightly better than assistant schedules but either way the gains are not big.
This behaviour is nothing new, happens every year. You have some who try to come up with something new or try with offbeat tactics and others who want to maximise what we already know is working. If you sort out by date tested you can see actually quite a lot of different formations being tested, they just never make it anywhere near the top spot in points.
There should be at least the big winter update and maybe separately international management, each should also include some additional fixes like these patches since release.
). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track
Well if you use assistant's schedules and your player reaches his PA it's probably pretty close to the attribute breakdown that GS will show. These broken schedules haven't been around for long and vast majority of players don't use them.
Hidden attributes are of course important, but I've seen plenty of players that should develop based on everything that just don't. In the end you just have to see how they're actually developing.
why? Its impossible ?
It's not impossible, but FM24 has a different engine which means different things are effective. Strikerless was pretty bad in FM24. It's better if you pick one of the tactics that have been tested for 24 - doesn't have to be the top one, pick a system and playstyle you like.
Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says.
I’m trying to take full responsibility for team selection and tactics for my U19 and reserve/second team, but I’m stuck.
1) Staff Responsibilities issue (Team Selection)
In Staff Responsibilities, I don’t have the option to take over “Manage Team Selection” for the youth/reserve teams (see Picture TS2).
Is this a known restriction in FM24 (club/league dependent), or am I missing a setting somewhere?
2) U19 copying my first team tactic
When I load a tactic for my first team (see Picture T1), my U19 automatically adapts the same tactic and I can select a team based on it.
My main question:
If I pick the U19 lineup, will it actually stick, or will the U19 manager change the lineup before matches because I can’t take over “Manage Team Selection” (TS2)?
3) Changing U19 tactics
Right now, the only way I’ve found to change U19 tactics is by creating/loading a new tactic for my first team, and then the U19 adjusts automatically to the active first team tactic.
Is there any other way to set separate U19 tactics (without forcing it through my first team tactic)?
4) Reserve / Second team tactics (3. Bundesliga)
For my second team playing in 3. Bundesliga, I can’t adjust tactics at all (see Picture T3).
I can select the players, but I’m not sure if my selection will be overwritten (same concern as above, because I can’t take responsibility in TS2).
So:
Is there any way to adjust the tactics of the second team, or is it locked to the second team manager’s preferred formation/tactical style?
If it’s supposed to be controllable, where exactly do I change it?
Any step-by-step guidance would be super appreciated — I’m still learning how responsibilities + youth/reserve squads work in FM24.
Thanks!
In Germany a 2nd team is technically an affiliate which means it's a separate club with it's own manager and staff. So you cannot influence their tactics (it is not a bug) other than choosing the manager with a preferred formation that you want - be careful, after he joins he sometimes changes his preferred formation ... just FM being FM
2nd/reserve teams have different status in different countries so you need to figure it out, there is no general rule for all leagues.