juliius said: I left full rest days after matches. Theres a thing i don't know though. Let's say we play an away game and first module of the next day is spent on travel, does it still count as superrest? Expand No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't
elholm said: I know this topic is a little off in terms of what this site is about, but I'm wondering if someone has the best scouting methods to find the best wonderkids/players in the game, both manually and maybe recruitment focuses (eventhough they're terrible). I'm currently managing in the lower divisions in England and so, I'm looking at ways to find the hidden gems that cost close to nothing, but obviously want to know the methods aswell for when I rise to the top. Expand I'd suggest starting with Second yellow card's Youtube videos on scouting for fm26 but also 24 and 23. Pretty much everything I use are watered down versions of his methods and even that is more than enough. I've seen a lot of guides from other people but there are barely any ideas outside of what he suggests. And his videos are probably the most comprehensive collection of tips and methods. Just don't go for all of it at once because it'll be way too much work. Pick a few you like and test them out and then swap out if they don't produce results you want.
juliius said: I've been thinking of trying to give every player aerial as a focus for half a season and half a season on quickness to see if i achieve a better balance on it. Expand Are you using aerial or strength individual focus? Anyway I've tried a few times on FM24 and results were very underwhelming.
nimus said: Should the two midfielders play on their natural foot or their inverted foot? Expand Watch the games and see what kind of positions they generally get in and which foot would benefit more. For central midfielders it usually doesn't matter much, but you can sometimes get into situations where a player plays considerably better on one side - it's very individual and hard to generalise.
Eddie said: Hey, and what about florin133's test from FM 24? Do his findings still apply to FM 26?
The most contradictory and counterintuitive finding is that putting your young players on after the 70th minute of the second half is useless for their development. That's rubbish if true, because that's exactly what I've been doing and many professional teams do with their young players to "give them playing time".
The other findings are obvious and certainly hold true, such as the fact that depending on age, keeping the player in the youth academy is important, the importance of matches, and the relevance of the league.
As far as 70th minute goes. It's really hard to test precisely so EBFM set some brackets. The 70+ also contains all those who only got 3 minutes of play. Additionally in older versions you didn't get a match rating unless you entered the pitch before 75th minute - strangely similar to 70 min cutoff. With new training schedules and "super rest" I don't think there is any downside from substituting players on at 70+ minutes. Even SI said that every minute counts. However take into account that giving them 18 sub appearances of 5 min each barely adds up to 1 full match, so not exactly a lot. There also seems to be an additional benefit to starting the game compared to coming on as sub even with equal minutes played.
Other findings are far from obvious. In fact I find that promoting a 16 year old that is ready to play to the senior team really speeds up his development. League relevance effect is overestimated, not in the graph but interpretation from others. It can be detrimental if a player is playing way below his level, but otherwise not a huge effect.
Overall though I don't think there have been any major changes in player development between 24 and 26.
I think the main point is basically that you shouldn't say alright that's enough lets switch to something else when you reach 18 pace, it is worth pursuing further. Whether you can reach 20 or not is a different matter. From what I remember from my FM24 YAC save I could reach 20 using only using some version of meta training on players with as low as 135 PA. Obviously not every player was reaching that, but pretty much the whole team was at 17+ without any (or minimal) technical loss. I don't know how it works when buying 18 year olds, I suspect a solid initial pace is required to begin with.
Competition level (league reputation?) is definitely an important consideration and there seems to be a CA cap to what you can realistically reach depending on that.
Eddie said: The setting is for automatic rest (no field or gym) when the player is tired.
In that sense, wouldn't it be redundant to schedule rest after a match? This is because the starters will already be resting due to the setting, while the substitutes who need match fitness or training will also be resting. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to schedule a match practice the day after a game so that the substitutes can train? Expand https://fm-arena.com/thread/16424-rest-exploit-fm26/
Thanks for the posts. Some of the stuff is paradigm shifting and goes against what we know so far, so backing it up with numbers would be really nice.
For example pace has been shown to be a great investment of CA at any level, while there may be diminishing returns it's questionable whether they outweigh the huge value of pace to begin with. Match ratings have had unimpressive results on player growth. You put a lot more value and importance into match practice than tests done so far, where it's close to replaceable by other sessions. The whole "CA" concept is completely new and assumes a couple of conversions that we've never heard of before. As I understood for example 30 full matches generate 20 CA, but if a player is 24 years old he only gets 5 of it and if training isn't stimulating enough perhaps in the end the actual growth is only 2 CA. Not saying it's incorrect, but it would be nice to see some backing of the claims.
Training absolutely does generate CA because without it or with very few sessions the CA growth is significantly lower. You do not need many sessions per week to get quite close to the maximum though.
Acceleration and pace maintain their value all the way to 20, although it does seem to get a bit harder to reach the very last point or two. To really take advantage of it your players should have a significantly higher pace and acc than your opponents probably at least +2 or +3.
Edit: I've now read the longer post. Maybe we disagree on semantics of what "creating" CA is, because if a match generates CA but it's never used by training is it really generated? And on the other hand if it is used due to good training schedule, is the training therefore not responsible for the CA growth?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: But it turns out professionalism under 12 is quite rare Expand No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players
tam1236 said: I mean - if all that players do is rest and speed training how do You get good goalkeepers, appropriate for a world cup? Do they get sufficient attributes just from playing? Acceleration is not enough for GK. You need agility . And maybe secondly reflex and aerial reach . And 1 on 1 and handling as third. I talk about FM24 , but dont see the difference with FM26. Expand Goalkeepers develop surprisingly well with these schedules as well. I do use reflexes individual training on them though, not speed and not agility unless I max out on reflexes.
I think with regular rotation, timely substitutions and using lots of rest there really is no need to conserve fitness through tactics. If you want to do it for tactical purposes or to avoid cards sure, but strictly for fitness I wouldn't bother.
IlPadreMogens said: Awesome job ZAZ, i will fit this to my schedule also, ive been using quickness instead of physical, but like your point.
anyone figured out how to add training schedule easily? or do you have to manually select every week :O in fm24 you could copy and paste , but havent figured this out in fm26?? Expand You still have to add it every week, except it's a bit more annoying than it used to be. Save the schedule and then select it from the dropdown menu for each week
Lapidus said: I guess SI finds that this mechanic works as intended if they didn't fixed it for FM26 Expand Hardly, but not sure if you've noticed they have about 27804998 other things to fix before that. Training was left largely untouched and it kind of works as intended unless you really try to exploit it and know how.
Serious fixes will probably have to wait until the major training overhaul in the next year or two.
MeanOnSunday said: Personally I don’t bother with training since you can only train the first team and they will gain mostly by playing time. Optimizing training was really useful for players from 15-18 when physicals could grow quickly but after that the player is either in the first team (with no role training and quickness individual trning) or loaned out so he continues to improve. The most I will do for the overall training is make a full day of rest after a game or add a bonding if the ass man doesn’t. Expand You can set youth team training, it's been fixed.
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness 1 x Goalkeeping 1 x Resistance 1 x Shot Stopping 1 x Match Practice 1 x Handling 1 x Match Tactics 1 x Aerial Defence 1 x Chance Conversion 1 x Play From The Back 1 x Distribution Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA. Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA? Expand These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy.
Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example.
Jolt said: A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand). Expand Basically unless you run 3x some sort of physical training (or similar) on double intensity you'll always recover more condition than it costs to run the training sessions from one day to another
No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't
I'd suggest starting with Second yellow card's Youtube videos on scouting for fm26 but also 24 and 23. Pretty much everything I use are watered down versions of his methods and even that is more than enough. I've seen a lot of guides from other people but there are barely any ideas outside of what he suggests. And his videos are probably the most comprehensive collection of tips and methods. Just don't go for all of it at once because it'll be way too much work. Pick a few you like and test them out and then swap out if they don't produce results you want.
Are you using aerial or strength individual focus?
Anyway I've tried a few times on FM24 and results were very underwhelming.
Watch the games and see what kind of positions they generally get in and which foot would benefit more. For central midfielders it usually doesn't matter much, but you can sometimes get into situations where a player plays considerably better on one side - it's very individual and hard to generalise.
The most contradictory and counterintuitive finding is that putting your young players on after the 70th minute of the second half is useless for their development. That's rubbish if true, because that's exactly what I've been doing and many professional teams do with their young players to "give them playing time".
The other findings are obvious and certainly hold true, such as the fact that depending on age, keeping the player in the youth academy is important, the importance of matches, and the relevance of the league.
Full post: https://www.reddit.com/r/footballmanagergames/comments/1mdcrps/the_complete_guide_to_youth_intakes_training_and/
Yeah he didn't test anything, that's all EBFM stuff. He maybe summarized the findings in one post, even though we've seen tons of similar posts as well.
As far as 70th minute goes. It's really hard to test precisely so EBFM set some brackets. The 70+ also contains all those who only got 3 minutes of play. Additionally in older versions you didn't get a match rating unless you entered the pitch before 75th minute - strangely similar to 70 min cutoff.
With new training schedules and "super rest" I don't think there is any downside from substituting players on at 70+ minutes. Even SI said that every minute counts. However take into account that giving them 18 sub appearances of 5 min each barely adds up to 1 full match, so not exactly a lot. There also seems to be an additional benefit to starting the game compared to coming on as sub even with equal minutes played.
Other findings are far from obvious. In fact I find that promoting a 16 year old that is ready to play to the senior team really speeds up his development. League relevance effect is overestimated, not in the graph but interpretation from others. It can be detrimental if a player is playing way below his level, but otherwise not a huge effect.
Overall though I don't think there have been any major changes in player development between 24 and 26.
In that sense, wouldn't it be redundant to schedule rest after a match? This is because the starters will already be resting due to the setting, while the substitutes who need match fitness or training will also be resting. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to schedule a match practice the day after a game so that the substitutes can train?
https://fm-arena.com/thread/16424-rest-exploit-fm26/
For example pace has been shown to be a great investment of CA at any level, while there may be diminishing returns it's questionable whether they outweigh the huge value of pace to begin with.
Match ratings have had unimpressive results on player growth.
You put a lot more value and importance into match practice than tests done so far, where it's close to replaceable by other sessions.
The whole "CA" concept is completely new and assumes a couple of conversions that we've never heard of before. As I understood for example 30 full matches generate 20 CA, but if a player is 24 years old he only gets 5 of it and if training isn't stimulating enough perhaps in the end the actual growth is only 2 CA. Not saying it's incorrect, but it would be nice to see some backing of the claims.
Acceleration and pace maintain their value all the way to 20, although it does seem to get a bit harder to reach the very last point or two. To really take advantage of it your players should have a significantly higher pace and acc than your opponents probably at least +2 or +3.
Edit: I've now read the longer post. Maybe we disagree on semantics of what "creating" CA is, because if a match generates CA but it's never used by training is it really generated? And on the other hand if it is used due to good training schedule, is the training therefore not responsible for the CA growth?
No idea where you are getting this from because majority of players are under 12, especially younger players
Acceleration is not enough for GK.
You need agility . And maybe secondly reflex and aerial reach . And 1 on 1 and handling as third.
I talk about FM24 , but dont see the difference with FM26.
Goalkeepers develop surprisingly well with these schedules as well. I do use reflexes individual training on them though, not speed and not agility unless I max out on reflexes.
anyone figured out how to add training schedule easily? or do you have to manually select every week :O in fm24 you could copy and paste , but havent figured this out in fm26??
You still have to add it every week, except it's a bit more annoying than it used to be. Save the schedule and then select it from the dropdown menu for each week
Hardly, but not sure if you've noticed they have about 27804998 other things to fix before that. Training was left largely untouched and it kind of works as intended unless you really try to exploit it and know how.
Serious fixes will probably have to wait until the major training overhaul in the next year or two.
You can set youth team training, it's been fixed.
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness
1 x Goalkeeping
1 x Resistance
1 x Shot Stopping
1 x Match Practice
1 x Handling
1 x Match Tactics
1 x Aerial Defence
1 x Chance Conversion
1 x Play From The Back
1 x Distribution
Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA.
Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA?
These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy.
Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand).
Basically unless you run 3x some sort of physical training (or similar) on double intensity you'll always recover more condition than it costs to run the training sessions from one day to another