Thanks for the replies. Very helpful. Double intensity is going to form part of my development schedule for players on the fringe of the team. I'm going to run tests of my own to see how injuries occur, the type and duration of I juries and then tweet accordingly. My aim I'd to create a series of schedules thst are basically "one notch" below injuries, unhappiness and lack of development of other areas.
I'm starting to get into training a bit more. I used to just get my assistant to do it, the I downloaded a few highly rated training schedules and used them. Now I want to try and develop a system of my own with the main aim of being growth of players attributes.
I'm going to try, probably the wrong way, but I'm going to try anyway, of working out what a "dream" schedule might look like and work backwards to eliminate injuries, fatigue,player annoyance and all the things we would likely see.
My start point is as follows. If injury and the like are not a factor and can be ignored for simplicity. What would I do to maximise growth and would like to ask other players for their input.
My initial start point is intensity. Double intensity would surely mean extra hard training, so therefore more growth.
Match practice. This seems to be the highest weight for all positions involvement.
Individual training. Position and role specific eg a player match role being advance forward should be training as an advanced forward.
So my initial start point would be every single session being match practice, double intensity and position specific. Obviously this is not possible or practical so now I throw it open to the forum. Which other element of training do you find most important?
Which position is best for corner taker in this tactic? Do the full backs take them? Does slecting your best taker limit the positive impact of the corner routine? Seeing some people with 30 or 40 goals from their big defender which is insane.
Mark said: You need to also look at the positional rating on GS out of 20. For instance if the player is 49% for the position but only 10/20 they will be much lower. What the info you have is indicating is that if you retrained the player to full back up towards the 20/20 rating they would be easily your best player in that position. Expand
Brilliant stuff.
Thats pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Am I also right in that as a young player develops their CA towards their PA and attributes improve that their best position % might change to a new position eg a winger might develop full back beneficially attributes over winger attributes and as a result FMscout will say they would be a better FB than winger even if previously it was the other way round?
Using the attributes that make good players as previously mentioned if I focus my recruitment in the lower leagues on the best 5 attributes for that position eg pace, acceleration, off the ball, finishing and heading for a striker by setting in game filters for say over 11 for those attributes and getting the players with the best CA that are natural in that position with the highest attribute value it would be a good policy?
Thanks for the reply. They are both great reads. I have been lurking on this forum for ages and have really enjoyed looking at the in depth posts people have done on these threads.
Hi everyone. First Post on here thanks to lurking looking at tactics a this thread in particular. Sorry for the newbie question I have about to ask.
Im using the 4 diamond 2 formation currently number 1 in the testing table for reference and playing the level 10 English database, currently my club is at level 10.
Without using any filters on Fmscout I have a player who is not a FB at all but a DM or AMC on the player profile, however FMscout rates him as my best FB at my club on the position % buy a clear distance. He is rated 49% FB and the next highest player only 32% fullback. Why is this? Should it be ignored and him used as a DM or should I put him in at fullback if thsts what the FMscout says?
Thanks
I'm going to try, probably the wrong way, but I'm going to try anyway, of working out what a "dream" schedule might look like and work backwards to eliminate injuries, fatigue,player annoyance and all the things we would likely see.
My start point is as follows. If injury and the like are not a factor and can be ignored for simplicity. What would I do to maximise growth and would like to ask other players for their input.
My initial start point is intensity. Double intensity would surely mean extra hard training, so therefore more growth.
Match practice. This seems to be the highest weight for all positions involvement.
Individual training. Position and role specific eg a player match role being advance forward should be training as an advanced forward.
So my initial start point would be every single session being match practice, double intensity and position specific. Obviously this is not possible or practical so now I throw it open to the forum. Which other element of training do you find most important?
Brilliant stuff.
Thats pretty much exactly what I was thinking. Am I also right in that as a young player develops their CA towards their PA and attributes improve that their best position % might change to a new position eg a winger might develop full back beneficially attributes over winger attributes and as a result FMscout will say they would be a better FB than winger even if previously it was the other way round?
Using the attributes that make good players as previously mentioned if I focus my recruitment in the lower leagues on the best 5 attributes for that position eg pace, acceleration, off the ball, finishing and heading for a striker by setting in game filters for say over 11 for those attributes and getting the players with the best CA that are natural in that position with the highest attribute value it would be a good policy?
Im using the 4 diamond 2 formation currently number 1 in the testing table for reference and playing the level 10 English database, currently my club is at level 10.
Without using any filters on Fmscout I have a player who is not a FB at all but a DM or AMC on the player profile, however FMscout rates him as my best FB at my club on the position % buy a clear distance. He is rated 49% FB and the next highest player only 32% fullback. Why is this? Should it be ignored and him used as a DM or should I put him in at fullback if thsts what the FMscout says?
Sorry for the question.
Thank you for reading