That is only true for the very best prospects from 15/16 years old with additional training from the start. If you buy an 18 year old wonderkid the effect of additional focus is close to 0, maybe 1 point overall and I'd argue that's pretty much nothing. It won't transform the player, in essence he's still the same player with maybe (big maybe) slight tweaks here or there.
5+ years of additional training for a single attribute point ... and not like it's coming free either, it's coming at the cost of other attributes. I'll need some hard data to convince me that it's not largely cosmetic.
I didn't say it's worthless. But people expect massive changes because of it and it is simply not true in practice. From my experience you can get maybe 1-2 additional points in the selected attributes over the course of whole career. If you are lucky. Some focuses work better than others, some I'd argue don't even work.
I feel like individual training is vastly overrated or rather people obsess with it way too much. The effects really aren't that large. You won't get someone with 6 positioning to 16 over the course of his career because of it. He'll naturally go from 6 to lets say 11 just with GK/SK training, and if you put him on individual training that involves positioning throughout his whole career you might get him to 12 or 13. All of these numbers apply for a guy from intake with great development and high potential. If you buy him at 18, develops less than ideally and/or just doesn't have elite potential you can easily half the numbers.
We should reward exploration, trying new ideas and taking risks, not posting 12 versions of a cookie cutter tactics so you can get a shiny badge for highest point average. There is enough competition as it is, there is even a HoF category.
Also I think what you guys suggest is too subjective and not really worth the effort and policing and would only cause bad blood. Most of us who regularly visit the site know who are the "innovators", "tweakers" etc. anyway or at least for me personally who is who.
ArsenalHighbury said: I have the smallest annual wage budget in the league, most expensive player is James ward prowse at £115,000 a week. Does database size play a factor? Think I heard somewere that if you have a massive database you’ll get less transfers because there’s so many other players to choose from? Expand
I'd say it's the other way round. If you have a small database it's kind of hard to sell or loan.
Gracolas said: What would be a good training schedule for non-professional clubs?
Im running this, but not sure if its the most effective:
Expand
It literally doesn't matter. Whatever your assistant puts up is fine, maybe some specific training before big matches that's it. You're not developing anyone training twice per week at 7/20 facilities.
It's possible you just hit a scoring slump. That maybe in some other part of the season you'd win 3 of those games 2-0, maybe opponent would win another one 1-0. Or you could have lost 3 of these games but somehow got lucky to draw them. There is so much variance in match results that yes such runs can happen, in fact should happen.
keithb said: Regarding loaning players out. They buffed devlopment for players loaned out to inactive leagues. And when it was last tested, 2-3 patched back but nothing in the recent patch notes to say its changed, the devlopment was significantly better than loaning out to teams in active leagues.
So for example if you dont have the Swiss, Austrian or Greek leagues active and one of their bigger clubs wants to loan your player this will be better than a team in an active league. Im sure there are some exceptions but this in general is better. I have used this method with the leagues I've mentioned along with Scandanavia and S Korea Expand
That's heavily assuming the loaded and non-loaded leagues are of same quality, which in most cases are not. The difference may be significant but not huge anyway. There are a lot of other factors I'd look for to choose the right loan before the loaded/not loaded "tiebreaker".
You can pick up a lot watching games and stats. I don't know what you are looking at for 10000 hours because you certainly can figure out how OP speed is, I did it over 20 years ago. We can argue it's sad that in all the years it hasn't changed.
Or more specific to FM23, finishing matters a lot for strikers. When you watch them play and you see the guy with 17 finishing scores way more than the guy with 12 even though he's better in some other attributes. May or may not be true in test environment, but every time I rotate similar strikers the one with better finishing scores more so I make a note that this is an important attribute. I can't really quantify it like a rigorous test but I can evaluate quite decently.
Tactically you maybe try tiki-taka and observe that while you have posession you don't do anything with it so you tweak it a bit and when it's still not better swap style. Until you stumble upon something that works reasonably well like gegenpress or vertical tiki-taka.
Effectively it's the same puzzle you are talking about except on a bigger scale. While you assume it all works and tweak last 2 buttons and are then shocked how they don't completely transform the game.
Those styles aren't equal IRL either. I have absolutely no issue with route one scoring badly for example. It's actually not a problem of the preset tactic, rather that the whole concept doesn't work well in the engine.
To me point of the game is to experiment a bit what works. Not sure when people became so afraid of it. Nowadays everyone wants optimal build and guide from the first minute they start the game, any game. You can enter FM with certain preferences, maybe you like 433, maybe 5221... try stuff out, see what works yourself - for example that gegenpress just plain performs better than anything else, that faster players generally perform better and so on. Once you actually know exactly what works best the game is fairly simple and you need additional challenges on top to make it challenging.
Honestly if you pick a preset gegenpress and change a couple of roles, add proper corner routine you have a pretty good tactic on your hands. Much better than what most people create themselves.
Yes some styles are bad, those could be better. Some roles used are also far from optimal. And well default set piece is terrible although much more realistic in terms of numbers to real life.
I think the preset tactics are a decent starting point to use and tweak. Obviously they keep it simple and don't "exploit" the engine like the ones tested here.
Surely there are traits that aren't available as PI. Like shooting traits (shoots with power, places shots, lobs keeper...), passing traits (dictates tempo, switches ball to the flank), dribbling traits (knocks the ball past his opponent) and probably various others
Chriswin4 said: I don't fully trust the system ZAZ uses though, where he puts training intensity on none aside from the full green heart. Surely that limits development. Expand
On the other hand anyone that didn't play in a match is training fully the next day, most other schedules have some recovery or rest the day after for the whole squad not only those that played. Also in fixture congestion it's common practice to give first 11 a couple of days of rest. The settings merely automate this process so I don't have to do it all the time.
Not saying it's necessarily the best, but I like the simplicity of it and how it reduces the amount of things I have to handle or pay attention to.
Criticise them if they underperform. I usually get 2/3 of my team at 8+
Did we?
5+ years of additional training for a single attribute point ... and not like it's coming free either, it's coming at the cost of other attributes. I'll need some hard data to convince me that it's not largely cosmetic.
Also I think what you guys suggest is too subjective and not really worth the effort and policing and would only cause bad blood. Most of us who regularly visit the site know who are the "innovators", "tweakers" etc. anyway or at least for me personally who is who.
I'd say it's the other way round. If you have a small database it's kind of hard to sell or loan.
-the program might already deduct some points because of position rating, the drop off from DL to WBL is too big otherwise
-if you train and play him at left back he'll get to 20/20 for position
-not sure the % are transferable between positions, what I mean is 66% at LB might be relatively worse than 65% at CB
Im running this, but not sure if its the most effective:
It literally doesn't matter. Whatever your assistant puts up is fine, maybe some specific training before big matches that's it. You're not developing anyone training twice per week at 7/20 facilities.
So for example if you dont have the Swiss, Austrian or Greek leagues active and one of their bigger clubs wants to loan your player this will be better than a team in an active league. Im sure there are some exceptions but this in general is better. I have used this method with the leagues I've mentioned along with Scandanavia and S Korea
That's heavily assuming the loaded and non-loaded leagues are of same quality, which in most cases are not. The difference may be significant but not huge anyway. There are a lot of other factors I'd look for to choose the right loan before the loaded/not loaded "tiebreaker".
Or more specific to FM23, finishing matters a lot for strikers. When you watch them play and you see the guy with 17 finishing scores way more than the guy with 12 even though he's better in some other attributes. May or may not be true in test environment, but every time I rotate similar strikers the one with better finishing scores more so I make a note that this is an important attribute. I can't really quantify it like a rigorous test but I can evaluate quite decently.
Tactically you maybe try tiki-taka and observe that while you have posession you don't do anything with it so you tweak it a bit and when it's still not better swap style. Until you stumble upon something that works reasonably well like gegenpress or vertical tiki-taka.
Effectively it's the same puzzle you are talking about except on a bigger scale. While you assume it all works and tweak last 2 buttons and are then shocked how they don't completely transform the game.
To me point of the game is to experiment a bit what works. Not sure when people became so afraid of it. Nowadays everyone wants optimal build and guide from the first minute they start the game, any game.
You can enter FM with certain preferences, maybe you like 433, maybe 5221... try stuff out, see what works yourself - for example that gegenpress just plain performs better than anything else, that faster players generally perform better and so on. Once you actually know exactly what works best the game is fairly simple and you need additional challenges on top to make it challenging.
Yes some styles are bad, those could be better. Some roles used are also far from optimal. And well default set piece is terrible although much more realistic in terms of numbers to real life.
I think the preset tactics are a decent starting point to use and tweak. Obviously they keep it simple and don't "exploit" the engine like the ones tested here.
On the other hand anyone that didn't play in a match is training fully the next day, most other schedules have some recovery or rest the day after for the whole squad not only those that played. Also in fixture congestion it's common practice to give first 11 a couple of days of rest. The settings merely automate this process so I don't have to do it all the time.
Not saying it's necessarily the best, but I like the simplicity of it and how it reduces the amount of things I have to handle or pay attention to.