I'm more placing this idea out there than actually testing
As far as specifically individual role attributes go I don't notice much change, however the progress graphs look good and I get more inbox messages of good training progress than I used to. For whatever that counts. Like I said could be only dumb luck.
I've been experimenting with taking your base training and rest settings and changing attacking sessions into chance creation and conversion, and defensive into aerial and ground defence. Main idea was basically to have every session (other than physical) work on individual roles, just to see if it actually does anything.
Only done like 1 season with the new schedule, results seem quite decent. Hard to evaluate without more rigorous testing, but lets say I'll be sticking to it for now. It's equally possible something just clicked, or I have players that progress better and the original training would have worked just as well if not better.
I think you guys are getting confused. There are personal instructions and there are positional instructions. You aren't implementing anything by changing that, you are merely swapping views between personal and positional instructions. Both still apply.
"There's a lot of factors that come in to play e.g. movement speed of players, bravery, strength, body position. It's rare that two players with the same jumping reach will be differentiated by their height since its extremely unlikely that these other factors are also going to all be the same. Personally I just look at jumping reach when judging players, never really check the height since it's factored in."
That's the only post I've found from an actual SI guy
Height doesn't matter in terms of aerial ability. 170 cm with 15 jumping reach is just as good as 190 cm with 15. However obviously taller players will tend to have those attributes higher.
It might influence player development slightly, taller getting slightly more progress into aerial ability and smaller into speed. But I've not seen definitive tests.
I just do it every sunday when I get training for next 2 weeks in the inbox, can fix everything there in a few seconds.
Only thing that really annoys me (and this has nothing to do with the schedule) is that if the match is played on sunday the game will override whatever training is planned for monday with recovery, so I have to manually fix that.
Been using your training schedule for pretty much whole FM23 cycle. It's so easy to use no matter what the match schedule is and results are good both in terms of progression and match results, helps when players are well rested for matches. The most "1 click per week and forget about it" schedule I've seen
Might be a good test to try now that we have some of these broken corner routines. Since it's scoring like 20+ goals per season we should be able to pick up the signal even in the raw goals per season data.
I like having a good set piece taker, but it's not something I'm focusing on. Usually one of the midfielders I pick up for other reasons has good enough attributes. I wouldn't sacrifice more than maybe half a star of ability to keep such a player on the field.
Especially for free kicks I'm not too sure how much it matters. You see some absolutely ridiculous goals from below average takers, and my 17 FK, 17 long shots, 15 technique guy hits only posts. For corners I do think it matters, but shouldn't really need 18+, depending on the level 13+ should be good, maybe above 15 for top clubs.
It's possible that a bit different type of striker is more effective than in other systems. From the limited time playing this tactic it feels aerial ability is quite important along with off the ball, anticipation with a touch of acceleration.
The "typical" 16 pace, 16 acc with 5 jumping reach AF is maybe not cutting it as there aren't as many situations where pure speed is the key factor. Such a player could actually be better off on the wing.
It's quite possible it doesn't make any difference how many players are in the wall. Not like there are a bunch of free kicks hitting or going through the wall, not on highlights at least.
Trying out this tactic a bit. Performs very well, plenty of goals, defensively solid.
One question. What's the idea with just 1 guy in the wall defending free kicks? Even direct ones. Conceded only 1 goal in a full season from it, but it kind of looks silly. Is it possible that it just works?
BWM is the new volante? In more seriousness, I haven't followed the testing all the time, have there been any tests with other DM roles, like anchor especially in 1 DM systems? Or is that just a strictly worse version of BWM.
Just play what you like. 4132 is fine even with underdogs. Obviously you'll get absolutely destroyed occasionally, but overall it does pretty well. I'd say it's far more important to grab some wins especially versus direct competitors rather than steal a draw against top half teams every now and then with more defensive play or lose only 2-0 instead of 5-0. I've done back to back promotions as the worst team in the league with one of the Poirer variations, which is about as attacking as you can get. You'd be surprised how often you catch better teams underestimating you or having a bad day.
In fact I'd even go a step further that the "safer" tactics are more important in cup competitions (including champions league) when you don't have multiple chances to fix things like in the league.
So I thought I'd ask you guys for some opinions or tips. The issue is basically how to develop decent enough club grown players.
Let me paint the typical picture. I bring a club from lower leagues into top division. Within a couple of years I start qualifying for european competitions which have quite strict registration rules, specifically 4 players grown at club. Usually I have no one of the required quality within the club at that point, youth intake is bad enough to produce nothing of sorts, so I have to "create" them.
I can buy a bunch of 18 year old prospects that will become club grown in time, but the issue is how can I aid their development. Can't buy a player younger than 18 generally which means they'll have to stay at the club the whole time.
So now I have a few lets say 2 star CA, 5 star potential players that I want to become club grown. But I also want them to develop. I can give them maybe 3 starts and 5 sub appearances per season, that's not enough. Loaning them out is not an option or they lose their chance to become club grown. Reserve team is either non existant or plays only friendlies and U19 can only cover for a year.
What do I do? Sacrifice their development and keep them at club, rotate them in when possible? Give up on their HG status and just register a couple of players less? Perhaps get some mid talent club grown and loan out the absolute top talents? I'm really interested how you guys tackle this problem.
Delicious said: So you getting hard life because of thrown-in? What kind of setup you using? BTW this can be fixed, that's a good feedback Ty! Expand
I can't remember exactly because I changed them when I conceded a few goals like that. A few of those routines with 2 CBs in opposition box and like 4 players near the throw in taker to supposedly cross. What happened was either the cross got headed away with a quick counter following or the crosser already lost the ball with same effect. Not that it happened every game, but chances given were very high quality and I felt using the routine was harmful overall.
Delicious said: i am testing those set pieces since like 10 test ago.. I don't think they make that huge difference in test, but we will see Expand
Most issues I generally have with imported set pieces are attacking throw ins. When you lose the ball and get hit by a counter attack because everyone is way out of position. Not sure how much that is tinkered with.
As far as corners go it made a huge difference for me when I added both near post and far post routines on both sides. Just near post scored maybe 5 per season, when I added far post the number went up to 15, most are still scored from near post like 10 vs 5 or so. It's as if variety is more effective than sticking to "the best" routine over and over. Could be just anecdotal, I've played quite a bit with both option but obviously nowhere near the testing levels.
As far as specifically individual role attributes go I don't notice much change, however the progress graphs look good and I get more inbox messages of good training progress than I used to. For whatever that counts. Like I said could be only dumb luck.
Only done like 1 season with the new schedule, results seem quite decent. Hard to evaluate without more rigorous testing, but lets say I'll be sticking to it for now. It's equally possible something just clicked, or I have players that progress better and the original training would have worked just as well if not better.
That's the only post I've found from an actual SI guy
It might influence player development slightly, taller getting slightly more progress into aerial ability and smaller into speed. But I've not seen definitive tests.
Only thing that really annoys me (and this has nothing to do with the schedule) is that if the match is played on sunday the game will override whatever training is planned for monday with recovery, so I have to manually fix that.
Especially for free kicks I'm not too sure how much it matters. You see some absolutely ridiculous goals from below average takers, and my 17 FK, 17 long shots, 15 technique guy hits only posts. For corners I do think it matters, but shouldn't really need 18+, depending on the level 13+ should be good, maybe above 15 for top clubs.
The "typical" 16 pace, 16 acc with 5 jumping reach AF is maybe not cutting it as there aren't as many situations where pure speed is the key factor. Such a player could actually be better off on the wing.
One question. What's the idea with just 1 guy in the wall defending free kicks? Even direct ones. Conceded only 1 goal in a full season from it, but it kind of looks silly. Is it possible that it just works?
In more seriousness, I haven't followed the testing all the time, have there been any tests with other DM roles, like anchor especially in 1 DM systems? Or is that just a strictly worse version of BWM.
In fact I'd even go a step further that the "safer" tactics are more important in cup competitions (including champions league) when you don't have multiple chances to fix things like in the league.
Let me paint the typical picture. I bring a club from lower leagues into top division. Within a couple of years I start qualifying for european competitions which have quite strict registration rules, specifically 4 players grown at club. Usually I have no one of the required quality within the club at that point, youth intake is bad enough to produce nothing of sorts, so I have to "create" them.
I can buy a bunch of 18 year old prospects that will become club grown in time, but the issue is how can I aid their development. Can't buy a player younger than 18 generally which means they'll have to stay at the club the whole time.
So now I have a few lets say 2 star CA, 5 star potential players that I want to become club grown. But I also want them to develop. I can give them maybe 3 starts and 5 sub appearances per season, that's not enough. Loaning them out is not an option or they lose their chance to become club grown. Reserve team is either non existant or plays only friendlies and U19 can only cover for a year.
What do I do? Sacrifice their development and keep them at club, rotate them in when possible? Give up on their HG status and just register a couple of players less? Perhaps get some mid talent club grown and loan out the absolute top talents? I'm really interested how you guys tackle this problem.
I can't remember exactly because I changed them when I conceded a few goals like that. A few of those routines with 2 CBs in opposition box and like 4 players near the throw in taker to supposedly cross. What happened was either the cross got headed away with a quick counter following or the crosser already lost the ball with same effect. Not that it happened every game, but chances given were very high quality and I felt using the routine was harmful overall.
Most issues I generally have with imported set pieces are attacking throw ins. When you lose the ball and get hit by a counter attack because everyone is way out of position. Not sure how much that is tinkered with.
As far as corners go it made a huge difference for me when I added both near post and far post routines on both sides. Just near post scored maybe 5 per season, when I added far post the number went up to 15, most are still scored from near post like 10 vs 5 or so. It's as if variety is more effective than sticking to "the best" routine over and over. Could be just anecdotal, I've played quite a bit with both option but obviously nowhere near the testing levels.