The differences from the previous old test league are as follows: Previously, it was a test between a single opponent and player coach against player coach. The new test league is a test between players and AI. The opponents have 15 different AI coaches, using the tactical tendencies from the original game.
In order to save time, I didn't conduct the tests in the usual segmented manner. This time, the test conditions were to set all the attributes of the goalkeeper to 20, and then reduce them to 1, to observe the change in the winning rate.
Each condition is tested approximately 2,000 to 7,000 match.
The player is 180 cm tall and weighs 70 kg. Increase by 10cm, 20cm, and 30 cm Separately, and the winning rate changes minimally (less than 1%). At the same time, you can see that the effect of Jumping Reach is small.
1. The most important: Reflexes(12.8%) , Agility(8.0%) The second level of important : Acceleration(4.7%) , Aerial Reach(3.4%) ,pressure(4.1%) , Pace(3.5%)
2.The goalkeeper is the least important person among the 11 players. The verification method is to select any one of the player on the field, change the given attribute, and observe the extent of the impact on the winning rate. The impact of the goalkeeper on the winning rate is roughly only one quarter or one fifth of that of the any one players on the field.
4. This is a table. I used the test data to give "scores" to goalkeepers and non-goalkeeper players (Kind of like "Genie Scout". ) (On my computer, Genie Scout couldn't be used and it kept reporting errors without knowing why.) I didn't translate it into English, but you can have a general idea of what it is. I'm still quite busy and don't have time to reply to all the private messages and comments. Wish everyone a great time playing
Good evening. I'm currently in a very busy period with all kinds of daily chores, so I don't have time to reply to comments and private messages .
Here are some of my test results from a while ago to share:
1.The hidden attributes of... consistency important Matches pressure
2.How to develop position proficiency
1.Based on the previous testing conditions, I further test 3 hidden attributes.
From attribute 1 to attribute 18, the test condition is the regular league, and the change in winning rate: Consistency: 5.2% Important Matches: 5.7% Pressure: 27.1%
The influence of pressure is the greatest, far exceeding that of the other two.
From attribute 6 to attribute 18 Consistency: 4.7% Important Matches: 3.4% Pressure: 8.9%
From attribute 1 to attribute 6 Consistency: 0.5% Important Matches: 2.2% Pressure: 18.2%
The influence of pressure mainly focuses on 1-6. That is, similar to Work Rate, when the pressure is lower than 6, the players will face severe penalties (18.2%). However, when it is above 6, there are benefits, but the benefits are not as significant (8.9%).
2.position proficiency
This picture is FM24. It adjusting the proficiency of all players' When the proficiency level drops from 20 to 4, the winning rate will decrease from 50.9% to 24.9%.
This picture is FM26. It only changed the stats of two of the players. When their "with-ball Phase" position proficiency is 20 and their "without-ball Phase" position position is also 20, the winning rate is 46.4%. When their "with-ball Phase" position proficiency is 20 and their "without-ball Phase" position position is also 4, the winning rate is 40.9%.
Test conditions: 2 matches per week Adopting a certain fixed training schedule (which was later proven to be independent of the training schedule) The player already has two positions that are fully mastered, and is now practicing a new position.
The evaluation criteria are: 50 players, practicing in new positions. If more than 90% of the players have mastered the new position (with a proficiency level between 18 and 20), it is considered that they have successfully learned the new position.
Each branch condition and the corresponding result (how many match is needed to learned the new position):
Age=16 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 40 match Age=18 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 35 match Age=19 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 40 match Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match Age=24 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match Age=25 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 100+ match
Result: It is the easiest to learn a new position at the age of 16 to 19. It becomes extremely difficult at the age of 25 and beyond.
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+60 , 55 match Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+5 , 55 match Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match Age=22 , Professionalism=18 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match Age=22 , Professionalism=6 , PA=CA+30 , 60 match
"The remaining potential (=PA-CA)" has a very small or no impact at all. Professionalism has a certain impact
Replace the competition with friendly matches: Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 friendly matches no impact
Replace with Different training schedules :no impact
For FM26, it is particularly unique: The part of FM26 was tested by a friend, and it was found that you need to set the position in the tactics accordingly. "with-ball Phase" position and "without-ball Phase" position All must be kept consistent in order to enable the players to improve their proficiency in different positions. That is, I want to enhance the players' proficiency in a specific position. Therefore, I need to specially design a "practice-specific tactic". In this tactic, the position cannot change between the two phases. Then, I will have the players use this tactic to play a large number of friendly matches (or normal match).
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 ,Versatility = 10 , 55 match Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 ,Versatility = 20 , 50 match a certain impact for Versatility
If you don't worry about injuries, you can arrange 3 friendly matches/matches per week. For 1 month (4 weeks), that would be 12 matches. For 5 months, that would be 60 matches, allowing you to progress from no proficiency to full proficiency. But usually it's not necessary to do it this way. 2 matches per week is a reasonable balance.
Windth said: Hi, I’m new to this thread so I don’t understand much yet. Which training is the most meta in FM 26? I’d like to try it in one of my saves. Expand
To put it simply: 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
janusztokot said: Hi guys, first of all kudos to everyone involved in testing this stuff. Second of all, when actually playing the game, do You apply these principles in first team training or are You using this training plans also in the youth team?
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason? Expand
During the preseason, use the same training (it is highly recommended to arrange some friendly matches)
juliius said: How was the schedule set up in terms of getting rest after matches? It would change quite alot depending on what schedule was used and how many training modules was in said schedule. Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness? Expand
https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H for： no schedule x3, double intensity x2 no schedule x4, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8". Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed. All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
Rain said: So is it more optimal to use Double intensity on both excellent and good condition or just on excellent? Expand
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
juliius said: Could test some of the schedules with having the training intensity set to: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity?
I would like to see these schedules tested with that:
Match practice, Physcial, Attacking, Defending, Additional focus quickness Physical, Additional focus quickness Attacking x 6, Additional focus quickness
When just doing small tests myself i get significantly less injuries in seasons when i only train when they have a full heart.
I would like to see how much if any impact it has on development Expand
no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity ——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%. This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule". Just a guess, It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
Jasninja said: I cannot find the excel file which contains the training results with the 30 matches played comparison. Did I miss the link somewhere? Is it possible to share it again, if I missed it? Expand
I haven't kept the previous test data. They were tested over about a year or more ago. The details of the tests at that time were much less compared to now. Many attributes were not recorded (at that time, I wasn't familiar with how to export the data)
Its testing conditions are "100 matches".“Season duration: For 12 months, 100 matchs played” You don't actually need to play 100 games to achieve the desired effect under the given conditions. Generally, we believe that around 30-40 games would be sufficient to reach 100% growth. For young players, its requirements will be even lower. This "100" merely serves as a guarantee that the players will be able to achieve full growth.
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] And 334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] All member in defend group And 86 “rest”
Formulate three different types of growth requirements (high, medium, and low) to be used in the training schedule for the entire quarter
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical? Expand 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical It's in excel "B1" , 339,400 . They are very close.
ZaZ said: @harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain. Expand
The situation is something like this (I might not have fully understood your meaning. If what I tested was not what you needed say it in a different way):
1.The "Position/Role/Duty" of the player remains set to the default value (Selected as "Playing position" This is the set of conditions used during the normal test.
2.Select one of the Role/Duty , which The position that the player is already familiar with Example: The player is a center back (DC) , with a position proficiency level of 20. (the position proficiency level ranges from 1 to 20 ) Select "Ball-playing defender - Defend"
Result: Some "green highlighted" attributes have appeared on the screen. A small portion of the CA will be assigned to these "green highlighted" attributes. This result has been mentioned before. I'm just repeating it here for clarity.
The growth of CA has been changed (in some cases it has increased, and in some cases it has decreased)
3.The player selects a completely new position with no position proficiency. Example: The player is a center back (DC) . Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result: The training effect nearly unchange. The growth of CA nearly unchange. The new position was train to at a proficiency level of approximately 10-12 after one year .
4.The player selects a completely new position with some position proficiency. Example: The player is a center back (DC) . He has 10 position proficiency of "Midfielder (centre)" Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result: The growth of CA change. The training effect change. (lower growth)
The new position was train to at a position proficiency level of approximately 18-20 after one year Reason: The player has mastered an additional position. When the position proficiency is low, it basically doesn't occupy the CA. When the position proficiency increases to around 12-14, he will suddenly occupy the CA. This resulted in a discrepancy between "Recommended Current Ability" and "Current Ability". The player's attributes will be forcibly reduced to match "Current Ability".
EmreBJK said: Could you please visually add the training program that maximizes acceleration and speed?I don't understand any of the terms. Expand
This table is too extensive.
In fact, all you need to do is set "Training Intensity Scheduling" and "Additional Focus" properly. The "acceleration and speed" of Any training will increase significantly.
If you are aiming for the ultimate "acceleration and speed" level, use "all Rest" If you want something simpler, use the [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] mentioned above.
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity" Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
Kriek said: I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken). I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration. What are the "con" of this training? Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again Expand
He doesn't need to move player in the attacking unit. (because there is no indication in Excel)
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Thanks in advance! Expand
1. Yes. Off-topic. If we take it to the extreme, by testing various combinations of training schedules, it could potentially increase the CA by a little bit more - perhaps around 2-3%. However, the cost would be an increased likelihood of injuries due to more training, or the allocation of attributes to less efficient ones. So, roughly speaking, this is the best option.
2.That's fine The options listed here are already quite good and have different growth tendencies for the purpose. If you want to pay more attention to the details (because there are too many projects and it's impossible to explain each one one by one), then you'll have to spend time looking at the Excel table to see what attributes each item has been added with.
3. Yes.
4. Yes. If they have grown sufficiently (for example, by reaching 19) You can choose to modify them. The effect of Addtional Focus will be to force a portion of the growth to be allocated to the thing you have chosen.
If they have reached their maximum (by reaching 20) You should change them. Avoid having the growth continue to be forcibly allocated to an attribute that is already full.
5.You can take a look at the content I wrote above (right in this reply )
6.In simple : If you think the players have already had enough match time, you don't need to arrange friendly matches. If you think the players haven't had enough match , then arrange friendly matches. They are beneficial and harmless, except that there is a certain risk of injury.
Complex say: The match is not a training . Enough match can give you 100% growth. As players grow older, they will start to require more formal match (around after the age of 22) and a certain level of reputation for them to achieve 100% growth. Some hidden attributes also affect whether one can achieve 100% growth. When the players are still young, they only need a relatively fewer number of friendly matches (or U18 U20 formal match ) to achieve 100% of their growth.
7.friendly matches , 2-3 for a week
8.The goalkeeper, you can choose Addtional Focus Agility and Balance .
Or other options are also possible, because many attributes of the goalkeeper are valid. For example, Vision, Aerial Reach, Anticipation, and Pace are also effective attributes for a goalkeeper. Any additional focus that can enhance them is good.
ZaZ said: I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further. Expand
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it? Expand
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical? Expand
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes Expand
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this: Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ...... "358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling: It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
I haven't tested 6 to 12. Now there is: 1 to 18 6 to 18 1 to 6
Alexandru said: Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms The issue is that training in console version is simplified. So in few words:
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle. (Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond. Expand
I don't know how the PS5 will perform. Will it have the same mechanism? From the table, the simplest one is "[Match Practice]" for every week.
Pun said: Thanks @harvestgreen22 for all your amazing work. May I ask if you could add score for fm26 as well? Expand
I think the basic features of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
The main difference between them is probably as follows: FM26 Agility, Strength, Composure, Long Shots, Finishing should be a little More important.
FM26 Passing, Marking, Technique, Positioning, Stamina should be a little Less important.
So all you need to do is make some adjustments to the original coefficients, or simply visually estimate which training schedule is appropriate.
rmerino216 said: Is there a good schedule for preseason training? Expand
Unless you have specific requirements, I think there is no need for any difference. Just use the same throughout the entire season.
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA 284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA 306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA 276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it Expand
It is on row 280 of the table.
CA Passing Crossing Marking Penalty taking Technique Corners Long Throw Dribbling Tackling Free Kick Taking Finishing First touch Heading Longshot Flair Positioning Work rate Concentration Decision Leadership Aggression Vision Teamwork Off the ball Determination Bravery Anticipation Composure Acceleration Jumping reach Agility Stamina Balance Strengh Pace Natual fitness
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Could you run a test where the schedule is: 1xQuickness and the additional focus on Strength? Expand
As shown in the table I mentioned this in my previous post. Height determines the maximum limit of Jumping reach growth that can be allocated (for each season)
That is to say, theoretically, any player of any height can train to achieve 20 jumps.
for taller players, the amount of time allowed for distribution is greater (if your training schedule allows for the allocation of "Jumping Reach" and theoretically, it is easier for them to reach 20
For players with a shorter height, if their initial "Jumping Reach" is low and they are older when you sign them, having missed out on the early growth period, it becomes much more difficult for them to reach 20
1. I decided to follow the same approach as in the comments and give each training schedule a Score.
check excel 9, First of all, I found the data that I tested. There are several such tables.
Table 1 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is increased to "18" from basic value. Table 2 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is reduced to "1" from basic value.
By "Table 1 - Table 2", we obtain "If this attribute is increased from 1 to 18, what changes will occur in the winning rate?"
This can serve as a weight to measure the importance of each attribute, and then multiply it by the improvement value of each attribute in the training schedule. This will result in a score representing the improvement. Finally, by summing up all the scores, the total score can be obtained.
2. However, there is a problem. Generally speaking, our players do not start training from attribute "1", so I found the table for "attribute 6".
Table 4 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is reduced to "6". By Table 1 - Table 4, we obtain "If this attribute is increased from 6 to 18, what changes will occur in the winning rate?"
This is more in line with the starting point of the usual players' training.
3. I calculated the score for each training schedule and placed it in the "Score" column. Then, in order to calculate the increase in score for each point of CA, I obtained "Quality" by dividing "Score" by "CA".
So: "Score" refers to how much victory the training schedule can bring you. "Quality" refers to the efficiency of the CA conversions you consume. "CA" symbolizes the approximate potential required.
PaulCustus said: Hi all, great work @harvestgreen22. Just so I understand this correctly, would it be worthwhile—if you have a First Team, Under 21s, and Under 18s—to use the following schedules:
First Team / Under 21s: Schedule 331 Under 18s: Schedule 43
If anyone has experience using these schedules, I’d really appreciate you sharing what has worked well for you. It would be great to hear some success stories and learn from how others have approached this.
Thanks in advance. Expand
I think there's nothing wrong with this. you might want to take a look at the latest results.
Basically it's the strategy for the 403 floor. I might make some minor adjustments based on the latest results (I just finished it but haven't checked yet).
Eddie said: Is 276 basically that? Is there no difference between rest and recovery? Expand
yes, There is a slight difference between "rest" and "recovery". To put it simply, if there are not many injuries or illnesses, there is no need to use the word "recovery". If there are many injuries or a lack of match sharpness, then use "recovery"
lucailvotto said: In all the tests I’ve done with training sessions, I’ve always felt good in terms of development and player growth, but terribly bad on the pitch in terms of match results. The team doesn’t play well — it never plays well with these training sessions. Ideally, I’d like to find a mix between training that works, training that’s ‘bugged’ the way I’d want it to be, and strong performances on the pitch. Any ideas? Expand
The attributes of the players are part of the victory, and training makes attributes better (this takes time) Then, if you need more immediate feedback, you might need to adopt some meta tactic in https://fm-arena.com/tables/. tactic are also an important part of achieving victory.
for FM24 and FM26. I took into account the required attributes of them, and then adjusted the proportion of each attribute that I thought was necessary based on a relatively simple intuition. This might not be the best training schedule.
If you need to target FM24 or FM26 (Because my consideration of mixture is bound to result in something that is not optimal for any of them.) , you can try to calculate it in your own way using that Excel.
One more word: I didn't pay attention to the training results of the goalkeepers, but the training outcomes of the goalkeepers have been recorded in the Excel file (check the "Goalkeepers" page)
For the majority of the tests, I use [Additional Focus Agility and Balance] for goalkeepers . Because Agility is one of the most effective attributes.
Veertien said: Hi! I've tried to read all the thread, but I stumble to understand the majority of it. Also English is not my first language, maybe it has something to do with that I'm trying to understand which are the best training for players already over 20 without expliting too much of the physical attributes. If I say that the W-Z19 are good for that, am I understanding it correctly? Another question: in a not professional club, unavailable session counts as rests or not?
Thank you in advance! Expand
BrushlessPlaymaker said: Note that some attributes are going up. So CA points are not decreasing, just being redistributed. In a real world scenario it'd be ideal that player just improve and not rebalance the skills.
Personally what I'm trying to do is use this training on the youth squad and when time comes to promote the players, they'll do a more balanced training schedule
I'd need verification on this but, on a random save (not controlled conditions), some players on a team play more games than others. As such there might be some less than homogeneous results overall. Expand
Methodology: I took the data from the attribute test and converted them into a value based upon how much an increase by one would affect the team's points.
I then took this attribute value and multiplied it with how much the respective training schedules raise or decrease said values. So if a schedule increases Speed by 2, it will get the value of 10,66 as ten players are affected, whereas an increase of 1 in Reflexes would only increase the value by 0,66 as I haven't found an exploit to play with two goalkeepers
This I labelled "Effective Growth", i.e. growth that will affect results and not just fluff up numbers. If we divide the CA growth from this effective growth, we also get an efficiency value -- how much does an increase in CA generate in value.
A few outstanding results under these metrics were:
I personally use N17 when I have a Wednesday game as it fits quite well into the week; for general use I like my recovery sessions too much as it feels like I get injured less with them. Which is why before running the numbers I played the 3-7 meta training as a 3-5 with two days of super rest. This gave my players plenty of regeneration while still developing quite well. I won the CL and had two games each "free week" and yet never had one player in need of a rest.
Now I mostly play Y19, often as a 4-4 variation, especially after rows of congested weeks. I think it could be beneficial to replace [overall] with [attacking] though as Dribbling is a high-value attribute and you can keep your goalie happy if you sprinkle in an O17 every once in a while.
Funnily enough, the most efficient schedule that does not reduce any relevant attributes? The humble [Defending from the Front]. Alas, I don't know how to set up the training groups to get the most effect from this...
One column is red as I do not know if the goalkeeper raises his physical (and with it the high value Agility) and his mentals at the same level as the outfield players.
-------------------
If we look at the meta training, there are some interesting data points to consider
1) Full rest is amazing for both youth players that need to grow their physicals and for old players that need to retain their effective strength. 2) For players age 23 to 26 the rest schedule takes a considerable dip as apparently players in their prime do in fact "need" proper training and guidance to reach their potential before their growth rate drops considerably. 3) Old players that do train lose a lot of physicals that are not compensated by other increases; while full rest loses CA early, players stay close to their effective prime longer, whereas regular training has a longer strong growth period for young-ish players and keeps transfer values up for prime-players.
I personally take the following approach:
1) My main team trains the best schedules, for me N17 and Y19. Most players have room to grow and it gives good gains. 2) My youth team is full of high potential players. Unless they severely lack physicals (then they train with the reserves), they too play the good schedules. 3) My reserve team is mostly a holding pen for less talented youth players and some less-balanced older players with CA left to spare. They train the full rest schedule as it gets the youth players to a good base to be valuable team members and creates specialists out of the older members that, just as a bonus, might have good personalities to mentor the young ones.
----------------
Note: For the raw values for the meta training comparison, there is a minor error in the efficiency: A negative "Effective Growth" should result in a negative "per CA" value whereas a negative CA with positive effective growth should yield high positive effects. This means at 25 years the Rest schedule is the most insanely effective as it still has a great effective growth while decreasing CA. And that at 35 years old players should not even bother showing up for training...
Expand
Nabu said: can someone post the latest version of the spreadsheet with the trainings that were tested? none of the links works Expand
BLS122 said: Should you move all of your players into the “attacking” group or leave some in the defending one? Expand
276 - 313: Divided into players operating in two separate groups, the "attack group" and the "defense group"
I recently got back into FM24 and read about this training schedules / techniques. However, I tried to understand your deep concepts of the trainings in the last few pages and couldn't really figure it out - probably I'm too "fresh" in the scene plus the lack of native tongue.
I am interested, which is considered the "best" schedule for FM24 right now? I read about v7, but I cannot find it.
Could someone kindly provide me screenshots, instructions or schedule files of the, currently regarded most efficient, training schedule - meta attributes or well rounded, both is okay. Ideally for Wed/Sat + U18.
Thanks in advance and thank you all for doing this much of research! Hope you all had a great weekend! Expand
This is my current selected and conclusion (2026 . January 20th): It might not be the final version. If you have any good ideas feel free to share. I just took a two-day break, but then the next two weeks will very busy, so I may not have time to reply.
The larger the amount of CA that is increased, the more inefficient attributes there will be. Therefore, increasing the CA will lead to a relatively poorer quality .
from excel 7 (1) Least growth but highest quality:
85 [回顾录像] [Match Review] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low CA growth: 17.40
43 （休息）无训练 [Rest] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low CA growth: 17.53
82 [恢复] [Recovery] Desired to use "85 or 43", but upon discovering a high incidence of injuries , as an alternative to the first two options. arranged several "[Recovery]" CA growth: 17.76
(2) Moderate growth, high quality:
317 [身体]x2[把握机会][攻击] [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking] A balanced training (not in a hurry to enhance CA) CA growth: 30.71 Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
276 [边路进攻] [Attacking Wings] as an alternative if discovering a high incidence of injuries CA growth: 29.17 Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
(3) High growth, medium-high quality:
339 [速度][练习赛][攻击] [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] A balanced training (with a certain requirement for rapid improvement in CA) CA growth: 35.72 Note: If there are many injuries or the player lacks of March-Sharpness, add several "[Recovery]". (This is the one we recommended before.)
(4) very High growth , moderate quality:
331 [身体][练习赛][攻击][防守] [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] If you need to increase the CA value as quickly as possible, use this . CA growth: 39.62
Be sure not to forget the additional focus.
Robbo84FM said: Hello i know im being completely lazy here but i just haven't got the time atm to read back through the post has anyone done any testing yet or found the best training schedule to use FM26? so far i have just been using the Quickness/Physical - MP x2 - Attacking - Recovery x7 from FM24 Expand For FM26, I still need some time. Its attribute chart has undergone certain changes, so the training schedule also needs to be adjusted accordingly based on it.
But I haven't figured out what kind of weights should be used to measure each attribute.
276 - 313: Divided into players operating in two separate groups, the "attack group" and the "defense group"
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks Expand
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Out of interest could you run some tests where there is quickness in the actual schedule, for example the the recent quickness, match practice, 2xattacking. But instead of quickness as the individual focus have it on aerial? i would like to see how much jumping reach can potentially be gained in comparison with how much acc and pace you lose Expand
tam1236 said: Yes, exactly. Simple match score ranking is good if You have loads of youngsters with great potential and big PA-CA. That is You play as something like Barcelona. On the other hand the problem with just Quickness schedule is , that it leaves unused big part of PA if You have better newgens.
And that's why : B. There is a factor to use: CA gain divided by match score (the less the better) which tells us how effectively PA is changed into match score . For example Quickness (alone) training has this factor quite low (11.68 after *10k), but Resistance and Endurance lower. And lowest (=most effective using PA-CA points) is Match Review training which, by the way, gives biggest acceleration+pace gain (AP=7.18) what is strange to me Using this factor You can decide how fast You want to gain CA and also how efficiently to change PA into match score. For example [Physical][Tactical] has decent Match Score grow and decent change effectiveness (14.55) but only good acc+pace (AP=6.04) grow so I would rather choose [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] (14.18, AP=6.50)
But if one : C. calculates match score for GK table and make a mark on general table, it turns out, that [Physical][Tactical] is quite a bad schedule for goalkeepers. (But still better than just Quickness). All becomes very complicate but if you care about GK - [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Aerial Defence] is nice for GK and fairly effective in PA match score conversion (14.07, AP 6.09). or similar [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion] (14.04, 6.19)
326 Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones 327 [Quickness][Match Practice][Attacking]x2
This is my current selected and conclusion:
The larger the amount of CA that is increased, the more inefficient attributes there will be. Therefore, increasing the CA will lead to a relatively poorer quality .
(1) Least growth but highest quality:
85 [回顾录像] [Match Review] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low CA growth: 17.40
43 （休息）无训练 [Rest] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low CA growth: 17.53
82 [恢复] [Recovery] Desired to use "85 or 43", but upon discovering a high incidence of injuries , as an alternative to the first two options. arranged several "[Recovery]" CA growth: 17.76
(2) Moderate growth, high quality:
317 [身体]x2[把握机会][攻击] [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking] A balanced training (not in a hurry to enhance CA) CA growth: 30.71 Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
276 [边路进攻] [Attacking Wings] as an alternative if discovering a high incidence of injuries CA growth: 29.17 Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
(3) High growth, medium-high quality:
339 [速度][练习赛][攻击] [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] A balanced training (with a certain requirement for rapid improvement in CA) CA growth: 35.72 Note: If there are many injuries or the player lacks of March-Sharpness, add several "[Recovery]". (This is the one we recommended before.)
(4) very High growth , moderate quality:
331 [身体][练习赛][攻击][防守] [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] If you need to increase the CA value as quickly as possible, use this . CA growth: 39.62
tam1236 said: What is "Game preset training 1" in this xls sheet?
I connected all attributes (not only main but even not important) with level of importance , using https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/ - just took 0,1 of grow 1-20 as 1 point (I know it's not linear), make some excel magic and most effective, when all attributes weighted, are (all quickness focus): 1. Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution 2. Game preset training 1 - I don't know what it is 3. [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 4. [Quickness][Attacking][Transition Restrict] 5. [Physical][Match Practice][Chance Conversion]
Not so easy. As far as I know You get just best coach level and work level and that's all . If you have 100 coaches with 4 stars you are worse then one four-and-half star coach assisted by one-star nobody. Expand
The "205 Game preset training 1" is [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2
Recently, I have been busy , For this 205, I haven't have time completed its testing (with a small sample size), so it might be either better or worse than it actually is.
Your idea is very good. Multiply (the degree of influence of the attribute) by (the growth value of each attribute), and then add them up. This will give you a total Score that measures the improvement in "maximizing player". Sort this score to obtain "the best training schedule for maximizing player in the short term".
You will see the list sorted by Scores. The ones selected are all training schedules with significant improvements in CA.
Its advantages are: 1. It maximizes the CA (Competitive Advantage) of the players in the short term, making their market value higher. 2. It maximizes the "combat effectiveness" of the players in the short term. This is very effective if there is an urgent need for game results. 3. It quickly fills the PA, avoiding the situation where the full potential cannot be realized.
Its disadvantages are: The difference between "PA" and "current CA" has a significant impact on growth. 2. That is, a faster increase in CA will also deplete this difference more quickly, leading to a significant decline in growth in subsequent years. 3. When a player is proficient in multiple positions simultaneously, this depletion process will occur more rapidly (I can't think of an immediate explanation right now, but if you can roughly understand it, that would be great).
Due to these limitations, I am very hesitant about how to choose a "universal" training schedule that can accommodate all kinds of situations.
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks Expand
OK. I'll do it when I have some free time next time. Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Out of interest could you run some tests where there is quickness in the actual schedule, for example the the recent quickness, match practice, 2xattacking. But instead of quickness as the individual focus have it on aerial? i would like to see how much jumping reach can potentially be gained in comparison with how much acc and pace you lose Expand
My translator couldn't translate what you said, and then I tried to read it, but I also couldn't understand it. Do you mean this? "quickness, match practice, 2 x attacking "+ [Addtional Focus Strengh (Strengh,Jumping reach)]
Alternatively, you could simply list the "conditions" + the "training schedule" . Then I can copy it directly and test it.
It looks like maybe the best schedule for all the team (!) is 1xGK unit : One on Ones or Distribution (problem with reflexes) great pace, acc, good aerial reach and dribbling>0 That's little bit strange, because a description of this unit, like all GK units, is: GK do 1-on-1 and the rest of the team do role_specific_schedule. But maybe I'm wrong and this one has other system, and of course "reality" is not equal FM description .
Did You set roles for players for this tests ? Or left it empy (from position) Expand
Some updates . This week is my very busy working day week, I'll sort out the previous Excel file and send it out, then I'll go to sleep. and didn't have time to reply the new thing.
Mark said: Could you try Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Defending, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation, Chance Conversion.
This is my latest Training Schedule and I am getting good improvement.
Thanks Expand
ZaZ said: Have you tried optimizing the roles trained? Sometimes I need to train players to a new position, and it is possible to pick roles that focus on the desirable attributes since they are only used to define attributes trained.
Personally, my training schedule is: - 2x Physical + Match Practice (for two matches a week) - 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces (one match in the week) - Quickness focus - Everyone trains roles with good highlighted attributes for their position
I don't know exactly how that compares to the ones in the list. Probably worse pace and acceleration potential, but I usually prefer to profit more on sales to be able to afford more high quality fast young players, allowing me to reach 18-20 pace and acceleration anyway. I add set pieces because I believe (and that might be just my fantasy) that players score more from set pieces when they train that session (again, I didn't test this, it is just my observation, which might be very wrong).
Anyway, I would like to know if someone can test if Set Pieces actually have any influence in goals from set pieces (using some quality set piece routine, obviously). I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine, starting from a fast young player (like 12 pace and acceleration at the age of 16, or 14 of each at 18, which is pretty realistic). I think it would be good because, sometimes, having a player with 19 in pace and acceleration and good values in other attributes can be better than a speedster with 20 pace and acceleration and 1 in the rest, making many of the training schedules judged "inferior" become viable instead. Expand
dor said: Your tests are always incredibly helpful in planning my training. Thank you so much. I'm curious to see how effective this plan is: [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2 + [Double Intensity] + [Additional Focus Quickness]. I can't find the training plan I suggested in Excel. Thank you as always. Expand
excel 5:
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
https://pixeldrain.com/u/xGxzmjoe
The differences from the previous old test league are as follows:
Previously, it was a test between a single opponent and player coach against player coach.
The new test league is a test between players and AI. The opponents have 15 different AI coaches, using the tactical tendencies from the original game.
In order to save time, I didn't conduct the tests in the usual segmented manner.
This time, the test conditions were to set all the attributes of the goalkeeper to 20, and then reduce them to 1, to observe the change in the winning rate.
Each condition is tested approximately 2,000 to 7,000 match.
The player is 180 cm tall and weighs 70 kg. Increase by 10cm, 20cm, and 30 cm Separately, and the winning rate changes minimally (less than 1%).
At the same time, you can see that the effect of Jumping Reach is small.
1.
The most important: Reflexes(12.8%) , Agility(8.0%)
The second level of important : Acceleration(4.7%) , Aerial Reach(3.4%) ,pressure(4.1%) , Pace(3.5%)
2.The goalkeeper is the least important person among the 11 players.
The verification method is to select any one of the player on the field, change the given attribute, and observe the extent of the impact on the winning rate.
The impact of the goalkeeper on the winning rate is roughly only one quarter or one fifth of that of the any one players on the field.
3.Training suggestion , additional focus : Reflexes
4.
This is a table. I used the test data to give "scores" to goalkeepers and non-goalkeeper players
(Kind of like "Genie Scout". )
(On my computer, Genie Scout couldn't be used and it kept reporting errors without knowing why.)
I didn't translate it into English, but you can have a general idea of what it is.
I'm still quite busy and don't have time to reply to all the private messages and comments.
Wish everyone a great time playing
https://pixeldrain.com/u/YLm94B5p
I'm currently in a very busy period with all kinds of daily chores, so I don't have time to reply to comments and private messages .
Here are some of my test results from a while ago to share:
1.The hidden attributes of...
consistency
important Matches
pressure
2.How to develop position proficiency
1.Based on the previous testing conditions, I further test 3 hidden attributes.
From attribute 1 to attribute 18, the test condition is the regular league, and the change in winning rate:
Consistency: 5.2%
Important Matches: 5.7%
Pressure: 27.1%
The influence of pressure is the greatest, far exceeding that of the other two.
From attribute 6 to attribute 18
Consistency: 4.7%
Important Matches: 3.4%
Pressure: 8.9%
From attribute 1 to attribute 6
Consistency: 0.5%
Important Matches: 2.2%
Pressure: 18.2%
The influence of pressure mainly focuses on 1-6. That is, similar to Work Rate, when the pressure is lower than 6, the players will face severe penalties (18.2%).
However, when it is above 6, there are benefits, but the benefits are not as significant (8.9%).
2.position proficiency
This picture is FM24. It adjusting the proficiency of all players'
When the proficiency level drops from 20 to 4, the winning rate will decrease from 50.9% to 24.9%.
This picture is FM26.
It only changed the stats of two of the players.
When their "with-ball Phase" position proficiency is 20 and their "without-ball Phase" position position is also 20, the winning rate is 46.4%.
When their "with-ball Phase" position proficiency is 20 and their "without-ball Phase" position position is also 4, the winning rate is 40.9%.
Test conditions:
2 matches per week
Adopting a certain fixed training schedule (which was later proven to be independent of the training schedule)
The player already has two positions that are fully mastered, and is now practicing a new position.
The evaluation criteria are:
50 players, practicing in new positions.
If more than 90% of the players have mastered the new position (with a proficiency level between 18 and 20), it is considered that they have successfully learned the new position.
Each branch condition and the corresponding result (how many match is needed to learned the new position):
Age=16 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 40 match
Age=18 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 35 match
Age=19 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 40 match
Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match
Age=24 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match
Age=25 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 100+ match
Result: It is the easiest to learn a new position at the age of 16 to 19.
It becomes extremely difficult at the age of 25 and beyond.
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+60 , 55 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+5 , 55 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=18 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=6 , PA=CA+30 , 60 match
"The remaining potential (=PA-CA)" has a very small or no impact at all.
Professionalism has a certain impact
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match (League reputation =200)
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match (League reputation =50)
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 55 match (League reputation =1)
Little or no impact
Replace the competition with friendly matches:
Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 match
Age=20 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 , 50 friendly matches
no impact
Replace with Different training schedules :no impact
For FM26, it is particularly unique:
The part of FM26 was tested by a friend, and it was found that you need to set the position in the tactics accordingly. "with-ball Phase" position and "without-ball Phase" position All must be kept consistent in order to enable the players to improve their proficiency in different positions.
That is, I want to enhance the players' proficiency in a specific position. Therefore, I need to specially design a "practice-specific tactic". In this tactic, the position cannot change between the two phases. Then, I will have the players use this tactic to play a large number of friendly matches (or normal match).
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 ,Versatility = 10 , 55 match
Age=22 , Professionalism=12 , PA=CA+30 ,Versatility = 20 , 50 match
a certain impact for Versatility
If you don't worry about injuries, you can arrange 3 friendly matches/matches per week.
For 1 month (4 weeks), that would be 12 matches.
For 5 months, that would be 60 matches, allowing you to progress from no proficiency to full proficiency.
But usually it's not necessary to do it this way. 2 matches per week is a reasonable balance.
Could you test a schedule of:
[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
466:[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
excel
https://mega.nz/file/NNsQ0QaC#tudRNF9uhPed_1ZYrFoesMZofeHD1Odt3E3rerqej_U
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZU6qjh58
Windth said: Hi, I’m new to this thread so I don’t understand much yet. Which training is the most meta in FM 26? I’d like to try it in one of my saves.
To put it simply:
331
[Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason?
During the preseason, use the same training (it is highly recommended to arrange some friendly matches)
There's no need to worry about the GKs. They can also grow. This post didn't focus on the GKs, but you can download the Excel file to see how much the GKs have grown.
excel 11
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
For both the first team and the youth team, I will use the same training (and make adjustments if there are any special requirements).
Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H
for：
no schedule x3, double intensity x2
no schedule x4, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8".
Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed.
All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
Rain said: So is it more optimal to use Double intensity on both excellent and good condition or just on excellent?
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
I would like to see these schedules tested with that:
Match practice, Physcial, Attacking, Defending, Additional focus quickness
Physical, Additional focus quickness
Attacking x 6, Additional focus quickness
When just doing small tests myself i get significantly less injuries in seasons when i only train when they have a full heart.
I would like to see how much if any impact it has on development
no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity
——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%.
This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule".
Just a guess,
It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
I haven't kept the previous test data. They were tested over about a year or more ago. The details of the tests at that time were much less compared to now. Many attributes were not recorded (at that time, I wasn't familiar with how to export the data)
You might consider downloading this newer one.
excel (part 11):
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
Its testing conditions are "100 matches".“Season duration: For 12 months, 100 matchs played”
You don't actually need to play 100 games to achieve the desired effect under the given conditions. Generally, we believe that around 30-40 games would be sufficient to reach 100% growth. For young players, its requirements will be even lower. This "100" merely serves as a guarantee that the players will be able to achieve full growth.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
For the time being, I am inclined to...
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
And
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] All member in defend group
And
86 “rest”
Formulate three different types of growth requirements (high, medium, and low) to be used in the training schedule for the entire quarter
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical?
2xPhysical and 3xPhysical
It's in excel "B1" , 339,400 .
They are very close.
ZaZ said: @harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain.
The situation is something like this (I might not have fully understood your meaning. If what I tested was not what you needed say it in a different way):
1.The "Position/Role/Duty" of the player remains set to the default value (Selected as "Playing position"
This is the set of conditions used during the normal test.
2.Select one of the Role/Duty , which The position that the player is already familiar with
Example: The player is a center back (DC) , with a position proficiency level of 20. (the position proficiency level ranges from 1 to 20 ) Select "Ball-playing defender - Defend"
Result:
Some "green highlighted" attributes have appeared on the screen.
A small portion of the CA will be assigned to these "green highlighted" attributes.
This result has been mentioned before. I'm just repeating it here for clarity.
The growth of CA has been changed (in some cases it has increased, and in some cases it has decreased)
3.The player selects a completely new position with no position proficiency.
Example: The player is a center back (DC) .
Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result:
The training effect nearly unchange.
The growth of CA nearly unchange.
The new position was train to at a proficiency level of approximately 10-12 after one year .
4.The player selects a completely new position with some position proficiency.
Example: The player is a center back (DC) .
He has 10 position proficiency of "Midfielder (centre)"
Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result:
The growth of CA change.
The training effect change. (lower growth)
The new position was train to at a position proficiency level of approximately 18-20 after one year
Reason: The player has mastered an additional position.
When the position proficiency is low, it basically doesn't occupy the CA.
When the position proficiency increases to around 12-14, he will suddenly occupy the CA.
This resulted in a discrepancy between "Recommended Current Ability" and "Current Ability".
The player's attributes will be forcibly reduced to match "Current Ability".
EmreBJK said: Could you please visually add the training program that maximizes acceleration and speed?I don't understand any of the terms.
This table is too extensive.
In fact, all you need to do is set "Training Intensity Scheduling" and "Additional Focus" properly. The "acceleration and speed" of Any training will increase significantly.
If you are aiming for the ultimate "acceleration and speed" level, use "all Rest"
If you want something simpler, use the [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] mentioned above.
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
Kriek said: I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken).
I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration.
What are the "con" of this training?
Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again
He doesn't need to move player in the attacking unit. (because there is no indication in Excel)
JW said: Hi @harvestgreen22,
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Thanks in advance!
1. Yes.
Off-topic. If we take it to the extreme, by testing various combinations of training schedules, it could potentially increase the CA by a little bit more - perhaps around 2-3%. However, the cost would be an increased likelihood of injuries due to more training, or the allocation of attributes to less efficient ones. So, roughly speaking, this is the best option.
2.That's fine
The options listed here are already quite good and have different growth tendencies for the purpose.
If you want to pay more attention to the details (because there are too many projects and it's impossible to explain each one one by one), then you'll have to spend time looking at the Excel table to see what attributes each item has been added with.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
If they have grown sufficiently (for example, by reaching 19)
You can choose to modify them. The effect of Addtional Focus will be to force a portion of the growth to be allocated to the thing you have chosen.
If they have reached their maximum (by reaching 20)
You should change them. Avoid having the growth continue to be forcibly allocated to an attribute that is already full.
5.You can take a look at the content I wrote above (right in this reply )
6.In simple :
If you think the players have already had enough match time, you don't need to arrange friendly matches.
If you think the players haven't had enough match , then arrange friendly matches. They are beneficial and harmless, except that there is a certain risk of injury.
Complex say:
The match is not a training .
Enough match can give you 100% growth.
As players grow older, they will start to require more formal match (around after the age of 22) and a certain level of reputation for them to achieve 100% growth.
Some hidden attributes also affect whether one can achieve 100% growth.
When the players are still young, they only need a relatively fewer number of friendly matches (or U18 U20 formal match ) to achieve 100% of their growth.
7.friendly matches , 2-3 for a week
8.The goalkeeper, you can choose Addtional Focus Agility and Balance .
Or other options are also possible, because many attributes of the goalkeeper are valid.
For example, Vision, Aerial Reach, Anticipation, and Pace are also effective attributes for a goalkeeper.
Any additional focus that can enhance them is good.
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it?
rotate with [Endurance] And [Attacking]x6.xlsx
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1QV8Ph2a
or
https://mega.nz/file/YZMSDQzB#VU2H8rBQkSLo04xNRmdN4oZnE5WyH1GJhbnLMoZoLcM
The effect is indeed a mixture of the two , like :
Endurance , Marking +0.17
Attacking x6 , Marking +2.45
rotate with Endurance and Attacking x6 , Marking +1.2 ( ≈{(2.45+0.17)/2} , )
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical?
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 243 [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus]: 2.86958 + 3.125 + 0.4666 + 0.66 + 0.330416 + 0.2375 - 0.7875 = 6.9016 | 115-115-115
That places it 2nd according to my formula
113 [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus]: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this:
Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ......
"358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling:
It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
There is a sub-page 243 .
Falbravv said: @harvestgreen22
First of all, thanks a lot, really, for all the work made here.
I've a demand. I like the table which compare 6 to 18 attributes. Do you think it's possible to do the same thing with 6 to 12 ?
Keep the good work, thanks !
excel (part 10)
https://pixeldrain.com/u/xK3jnvTp
I haven't tested 6 to 12.
Now there is:
1 to 18
6 to 18
1 to 6
Alexandru said: Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle.
(Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond.
I don't know how the PS5 will perform. Will it have the same mechanism?
From the table, the simplest one is "[Match Practice]" for every week.
Pun said: Thanks @harvestgreen22 for all your amazing work. May I ask if you could add score for fm26 as well?
I think the basic features of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
The main difference between them is probably as follows:
FM26
Agility, Strength, Composure, Long Shots, Finishing
should be a little More important.
FM26
Passing, Marking, Technique, Positioning, Stamina
should be a little Less important.
So all you need to do is make some adjustments to the original coefficients, or simply visually estimate which training schedule is appropriate.
rmerino216 said: Is there a good schedule for preseason training?
Unless you have specific requirements, I think there is no need for any difference. Just use the same throughout the entire season.
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
Acceleration 0.97
Pace 1.0
Dribbling (DC/DL/DR/AML/AMR) 0.28
Concentration (DC/DL/DR) 0.22
Anticipation 0.13
Composure 0.1
Decisions -0.3
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
Results:
113: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
284: 3.17675 + 3.375 + 0.056 + 0.385 + 0.156 + 0.115 - 0.39 = 6.874 | 5-15-5
282: 3.32225 + 3.325 + 0.056 + 0.22 + 0.04875 + 0.015 - 0.12 = 6.867 | 15-15-15
306: 3.0555 + 3.425 + 0.048 + 0.396 + 0.1495 + 0.125 - 0.36 = 6.839 | 5-5-15
276: 3.019125 + 3.175 + 0.238 + 0.473 + 0.17225 + 0.1625 - 0.45 = 6.79 | 20-15-15
150: 2.91 + 3.0625 + 0.443 + 0.605 + 0.39 + 0.275 - 0.9 = 6.7855 | 90-90-90
260: 3.0009 + 2.875 + 0.42 + 0.605 + 0.365625 + 0.23125 - 0.759375 = 6.7384 | 105-105-105
90: 2.829 + 3.0625 + 0.466 + 0.568 + 0.349 + 0.266 - 0.81 = 6.7305 | 45-45-45
97: 2.813 + 3.125 + 0.373 + 0.583 + 0.3055 + 0.24 - 0.7125 = 6.727 | 105-100-100 (what I previously suggested)
129: 2.78875 + 2.925 + 0.52266 + 0.682 + 0.39975 + 0.245 - 0.87 = 6.693 | 100-80-80
331: 2.8009 + 3.025 + 0.39666 + 0.704 + 0.391625 + 0.23 - 0.855 = 6.693 | 105-105-105
123: 2.86958 + 3.1 + 0.24266 + 0.561 + 0.289 + 0.20333 - 0.64125 = 6.624 | 65-75-75
121: 2.93425 + 3.125 + 0.084 + 0.5005 + 0.099 + 0.07375 - 0.25125 = 6.565 | 85-95-85
99: 2.9827 + 3.1 + 0.12 + 0.418 + 0.1495 + 0.105 - 0.3675 = 6.5077 | 10-10-20
328: 2.7645 + 3.05 + 0.20533 + 0.396 + 0.221 + 0.1675 - 0.465 = 6.33933
188: 2.776625 + 2.925 + 0.252 + 0.396 + 0.212875 + 0.18375 - 0.54 = 6.206 | 90-90-100
The last figure is the total % intensity for GK-Defending-Attacking groups.
Raw performance Top 5:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.867
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79
High Dribbling:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019, 0.27 dribbling
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855, 0.443 dribbling
90: [Attackingx3][Quickness focus] - 6.7305, 0.466 dribbling
129: [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Defending][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence][Chance Creation][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 6.693, 0.523 dribbling
Best overall (subjective):
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
It is on row 280 of the table.
CA Passing Crossing Marking Penalty taking Technique Corners Long Throw Dribbling Tackling Free Kick Taking Finishing First touch Heading Longshot Flair Positioning Work rate Concentration Decision Leadership Aggression Vision Teamwork Off the ball Determination Bravery Anticipation Composure Acceleration Jumping reach Agility Stamina Balance Strengh Pace Natual fitness
243 [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2 [Addtional Focus Quickness] 速度 37.93 1.48 1.65 2.08 0.85 1.42 -0.62 0.13 1.63 0.95 -0.57 1.48 1.60 1.50 1.60 1.33 2.08 0.52 2.17 2.60 1.92 0.00 2.18 0.88 2.43 0.08 0.22 2.57 2.35 2.93 1.07 2.48 1.35 2.17 1.57 3.10 0.65
Could you run a test where the schedule is:
1xQuickness and the additional focus on Strength?
As shown in the table
I mentioned this in my previous post.
Height determines the maximum limit of Jumping reach growth that can be allocated (for each season)
That is to say, theoretically, any player of any height can train to achieve 20 jumps.
for taller players, the amount of time allowed for distribution is greater (if your training schedule allows for the allocation of "Jumping Reach"
For players with a shorter height, if their initial "Jumping Reach" is low and they are older when you sign them, having missed out on the early growth period, it becomes much more difficult for them to reach 20
https://mega.nz/file/1IcmhKCK#cu14MjkFF8dT9CzYAN3XGEsBAV0HM1oMBc0BhS4MOLM
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/TAGi8qnQ
excel (part 9)
https://mega.nz/file/VQVQFb6D#qLdgX0zI1yzVY_6lFvJA1hHEVATleYgXYQD2p3KJmSA
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/frdBZ1g8
1.
I decided to follow the same approach as in the comments
and give each training schedule a Score.
check excel 9,
First of all, I found the data that I tested.
There are several such tables.
Table 1 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is increased to "18" from basic value.
Table 2 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is reduced to "1" from basic value.
By "Table 1 - Table 2", we obtain "If this attribute is increased from 1 to 18, what changes will occur in the winning rate?"
This can serve as a weight to measure the importance of each attribute, and then multiply it by the improvement value of each attribute in the training schedule. This will result in a score representing the improvement.
Finally, by summing up all the scores, the total score can be obtained.
2.
However, there is a problem. Generally speaking, our players do not start training from attribute "1", so I found the table for "attribute 6".
Table 4 shows the changes in winning rate when each attribute is reduced to "6".
By Table 1 - Table 4, we obtain "If this attribute is increased from 6 to 18, what changes will occur in the winning rate?"
This is more in line with the starting point of the usual players' training.
3.
I calculated the score for each training schedule and placed it in the "Score" column.
Then, in order to calculate the increase in score for each point of CA, I obtained "Quality" by dividing "Score" by "CA".
So:
"Score" refers to how much victory the training schedule can bring you.
"Quality" refers to the efficiency of the CA conversions you consume.
"CA" symbolizes the approximate potential required.
PaulCustus said: Hi all, great work @harvestgreen22. Just so I understand this correctly, would it be worthwhile—if you have a First Team, Under 21s, and Under 18s—to use the following schedules:
First Team / Under 21s: Schedule 331
Under 18s: Schedule 43
If anyone has experience using these schedules, I’d really appreciate you sharing what has worked well for you. It would be great to hear some success stories and learn from how others have approached this.
Thanks in advance.
I think there's nothing wrong with this. you might want to take a look at the latest results.
lucailvotto said: @harvestgreen22 with this training, how tactics you use?
Basically it's the strategy for the 403 floor.
I might make some minor adjustments based on the latest results
(I just finished it but haven't checked yet).
Eddie said: Is 276 basically that? Is there no difference between rest and recovery?
yes,
There is a slight difference between "rest" and "recovery". To put it simply, if there are not many injuries or illnesses, there is no need to use the word "recovery".
If there are many injuries or a lack of match sharpness, then use "recovery"
lucailvotto said: In all the tests I’ve done with training sessions, I’ve always felt good in terms of development and player growth, but terribly bad on the pitch in terms of match results. The team doesn’t play well — it never plays well with these training sessions. Ideally, I’d like to find a mix between training that works, training that’s ‘bugged’ the way I’d want it to be, and strong performances on the pitch. Any ideas?
The attributes of the players are part of the victory, and training makes attributes better (this takes time)
Then, if you need more immediate feedback, you might need to adopt some meta tactic in https://fm-arena.com/tables/.
tactic are also an important part of achieving victory.
for FM24 and FM26.
I took into account the required attributes of them, and then adjusted the proportion of each attribute that I thought was necessary based on a relatively simple intuition.
This might not be the best training schedule.
If you need to target FM24 or FM26
(Because my consideration of mixture is bound to result in something that is not optimal for any of them.)
, you can try to calculate it in your own way using that Excel.
I didn't pay attention to the training results of the goalkeepers,
but the training outcomes of the goalkeepers have been recorded in the Excel file (check the "Goalkeepers" page)
For the majority of the tests, I use [Additional Focus Agility and Balance] for goalkeepers .
Because Agility is one of the most effective attributes.
Also English is not my first language, maybe it has something to do with that
I'm trying to understand which are the best training for players already over 20 without expliting too much of the physical attributes. If I say that the W-Z19 are good for that, am I understanding it correctly?
Another question: in a not professional club, unavailable session counts as rests or not?
Thank you in advance!
BrushlessPlaymaker said: Note that some attributes are going up. So CA points are not decreasing, just being redistributed. In a real world scenario it'd be ideal that player just improve and not rebalance the skills.
Personally what I'm trying to do is use this training on the youth squad and when time comes to promote the players, they'll do a more balanced training schedule
I'd need verification on this but, on a random save (not controlled conditions), some players on a team play more games than others. As such there might be some less than homogeneous results overall.
Piperita said: I played around with the data a bit.
Methodology: I took the data from the attribute test and converted them into a value based upon how much an increase by one would affect the team's points.
I then took this attribute value and multiplied it with how much the respective training schedules raise or decrease said values. So if a schedule increases Speed by 2, it will get the value of 10,66 as ten players are affected, whereas an increase of 1 in Reflexes would only increase the value by 0,66 as I haven't found an exploit to play with two goalkeepers
This I labelled "Effective Growth", i.e. growth that will affect results and not just fluff up numbers. If we divide the CA growth from this effective growth, we also get an efficiency value -- how much does an increase in CA generate in value.
A few outstanding results under these metrics were:
I personally use N17 when I have a Wednesday game as it fits quite well into the week; for general use I like my recovery sessions too much as it feels like I get injured less with them. Which is why before running the numbers I played the 3-7 meta training as a 3-5 with two days of super rest. This gave my players plenty of regeneration while still developing quite well. I won the CL and had two games each "free week" and yet never had one player in need of a rest.
Now I mostly play Y19, often as a 4-4 variation, especially after rows of congested weeks. I think it could be beneficial to replace [overall] with [attacking] though as Dribbling is a high-value attribute and you can keep your goalie happy if you sprinkle in an O17 every once in a while.
Funnily enough, the most efficient schedule that does not reduce any relevant attributes? The humble [Defending from the Front]. Alas, I don't know how to set up the training groups to get the most effect from this...
One column is red as I do not know if the goalkeeper raises his physical (and with it the high value Agility) and his mentals at the same level as the outfield players.
-------------------
If we look at the meta training, there are some interesting data points to consider
1) Full rest is amazing for both youth players that need to grow their physicals and for old players that need to retain their effective strength.
2) For players age 23 to 26 the rest schedule takes a considerable dip as apparently players in their prime do in fact "need" proper training and guidance to reach their potential before their growth rate drops considerably.
3) Old players that do train lose a lot of physicals that are not compensated by other increases; while full rest loses CA early, players stay close to their effective prime longer, whereas regular training has a longer strong growth period for young-ish players and keeps transfer values up for prime-players.
I personally take the following approach:
1) My main team trains the best schedules, for me N17 and Y19. Most players have room to grow and it gives good gains.
2) My youth team is full of high potential players. Unless they severely lack physicals (then they train with the reserves), they too play the good schedules.
3) My reserve team is mostly a holding pen for less talented youth players and some less-balanced older players with CA left to spare. They train the full rest schedule as it gets the youth players to a good base to be valuable team members and creates specialists out of the older members that, just as a bonus, might have good personalities to mentor the young ones.
----------------
Note: For the raw values for the meta training comparison, there is a minor error in the efficiency: A negative "Effective Growth" should result in a negative "per CA" value whereas a negative CA with positive effective growth should yield high positive effects. This means at 25 years the Rest schedule is the most insanely effective as it still has a great effective growth while decreasing CA. And that at 35 years old players should not even bother showing up for training...
Nabu said: can someone post the latest version of the spreadsheet with the trainings that were tested? none of the links works
BLS122 said: Should you move all of your players into the “attacking” group or leave some in the defending one?
276 - 313: Divided into players operating in two separate groups, the "attack group" and the "defense group"
DiePetrischale said: Hello dear FM-Arena Community and FM researchers!
I recently got back into FM24 and read about this training schedules / techniques. However, I tried to understand your deep concepts of the trainings in the last few pages and couldn't really figure it out - probably I'm too "fresh" in the scene plus the lack of native tongue.
I am interested, which is considered the "best" schedule for FM24 right now? I read about v7, but I cannot find it.
Could someone kindly provide me screenshots, instructions or schedule files of the, currently regarded most efficient, training schedule - meta attributes or well rounded, both is okay. Ideally for Wed/Sat + U18.
Thanks in advance and thank you all for doing this much of research!
Hope you all had a great weekend!
excel(part 1 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, old)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
excel(part 5, old )
https://mega.nz/file/dAMBTTAD#qJSvz7gwU0o-Yo3ecffCsMEBLiOesQe_7bwiCR_DGXw
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcYTkHrZ
excel(part 6, old )
https://mega.nz/file/ABNjyJLa#5dnATFyZJzx1kpgvL_XzK5G1oiEtPUCAcuglbwL_G-8
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/5uJ576BD
excel(part 7, the newest )
https://mega.nz/file/xEVGgToB#wlfXt8z6fdoXOez8N8Wk4-Qv3e1rq2Miv1p_0xU5t5A
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/4mTPSyTD
This is my current selected and conclusion (2026 . January 20th):
It might not be the final version. If you have any good ideas feel free to share. I just took a two-day break, but then the next two weeks will very busy, so I may not have time to reply.
The larger the amount of CA that is increased, the more inefficient attributes there will be.
Therefore, increasing the CA will lead to a relatively poorer quality .
from excel 7
(1) Least growth but highest quality:
85 [回顾录像] [Match Review] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low
CA growth: 17.40
43 （休息）无训练 [Rest] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low
CA growth: 17.53
82 [恢复] [Recovery] Desired to use "85 or 43", but upon discovering a high incidence of injuries , as an alternative to the first two options. arranged several "[Recovery]"
CA growth: 17.76
(2) Moderate growth, high quality:
317 [身体]x2[把握机会][攻击] [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking] A balanced training (not in a hurry to enhance CA)
CA growth: 30.71
Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
276 [边路进攻] [Attacking Wings] as an alternative if discovering a high incidence of injuries
CA growth: 29.17
Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
(3) High growth, medium-high quality:
339 [速度][练习赛][攻击] [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] A balanced training (with a certain requirement for rapid improvement in CA)
CA growth: 35.72
Note: If there are many injuries or the player lacks of March-Sharpness, add several "[Recovery]".
(This is the one we recommended before.)
(4) very High growth , moderate quality:
331 [身体][练习赛][攻击][防守] [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] If you need to increase the CA value as quickly as possible, use this .
CA growth: 39.62
Be sure not to forget the additional focus.
Robbo84FM said: Hello i know im being completely lazy here but i just haven't got the time atm to read back through the post has anyone done any testing yet or found the best training schedule to use FM26? so far i have just been using the Quickness/Physical - MP x2 - Attacking - Recovery x7 from FM24
For FM26, I still need some time. Its attribute chart has undergone certain changes, so the training schedule also needs to be adjusted accordingly based on it.
But I haven't figured out what kind of weights should be used to measure each attribute.
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, old)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
excel(part 5, old )
https://mega.nz/file/dAMBTTAD#qJSvz7gwU0o-Yo3ecffCsMEBLiOesQe_7bwiCR_DGXw
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcYTkHrZ
excel(part 6, old )
https://mega.nz/file/ABNjyJLa#5dnATFyZJzx1kpgvL_XzK5G1oiEtPUCAcuglbwL_G-8
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/5uJ576BD
excel(part 7, the newest )
https://mega.nz/file/xEVGgToB#wlfXt8z6fdoXOez8N8Wk4-Qv3e1rq2Miv1p_0xU5t5A
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/4mTPSyTD
276 - 313: Divided into players operating in two separate groups, the "attack group" and the "defense group"
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Out of interest could you run some tests where there is quickness in the actual schedule, for example the the recent quickness, match practice, 2xattacking. But instead of quickness as the individual focus have it on aerial? i would like to see how much jumping reach can potentially be gained in comparison with how much acc and pace you lose
tam1236 said: Yes, exactly. Simple match score ranking is good if You have loads of youngsters with great potential and big PA-CA. That is You play as something like Barcelona. On the other hand the problem with just Quickness schedule is , that it leaves unused big part of PA if You have better newgens.
And that's why :
B. There is a factor to use: CA gain divided by match score (the less the better) which tells us how effectively PA is changed into match score . For example Quickness (alone) training has this factor quite low (11.68 after *10k), but Resistance and Endurance lower. And lowest (=most effective using PA-CA points) is Match Review training which, by the way, gives biggest acceleration+pace gain (AP=7.18) what is strange to me
But if one :
C. calculates match score for GK table and make a mark on general table, it turns out, that [Physical][Tactical] is quite a bad schedule for goalkeepers. (But still better than just Quickness). All becomes very complicate but if you care about GK - [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Aerial Defence] is nice for GK and fairly effective in PA match score conversion (14.07, AP 6.09). or similar [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion] (14.04, 6.19)
xls with table
excel(part 7, the newest )
326 Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
327 [Quickness][Match Practice][Attacking]x2
This is my current selected and conclusion:
The larger the amount of CA that is increased, the more inefficient attributes there will be.
Therefore, increasing the CA will lead to a relatively poorer quality .
(1) Least growth but highest quality:
85 [回顾录像] [Match Review] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low
CA growth: 17.40
43 （休息）无训练 [Rest] The maximum increase in Acceleration Pace, or if the overall potential of the players is low
CA growth: 17.53
82 [恢复] [Recovery] Desired to use "85 or 43", but upon discovering a high incidence of injuries , as an alternative to the first two options. arranged several "[Recovery]"
CA growth: 17.76
(2) Moderate growth, high quality:
317 [身体]x2[把握机会][攻击] [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking] A balanced training (not in a hurry to enhance CA)
CA growth: 30.71
Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
276 [边路进攻] [Attacking Wings] as an alternative if discovering a high incidence of injuries
CA growth: 29.17
Special note: "攻击组 All member in attack group", all non-goalkeeper players should be placed in the attack group.
(3) High growth, medium-high quality:
339 [速度][练习赛][攻击] [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] A balanced training (with a certain requirement for rapid improvement in CA)
CA growth: 35.72
Note: If there are many injuries or the player lacks of March-Sharpness, add several "[Recovery]".
(This is the one we recommended before.)
(4) very High growth , moderate quality:
331 [身体][练习赛][攻击][防守] [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] If you need to increase the CA value as quickly as possible, use this .
CA growth: 39.62
Be sure not to forget the additional focus.
I connected all attributes (not only main but even not important) with level of importance , using https://fm-arena.com/thread/13685-current-24-4-latest-version-full-attribute-test-52000-match-samples/ - just took 0,1 of grow 1-20 as 1 point (I know it's not linear), make some excel magic and most effective, when all attributes weighted, are (all quickness focus):
1. Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
2. Game preset training 1 - I don't know what it is
3. [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3
4. [Quickness][Attacking][Transition Restrict]
5. [Physical][Match Practice][Chance Conversion]
Not so easy. As far as I know You get just best coach level and work level and that's all . If you have 100 coaches with 4 stars you are worse then one four-and-half star coach assisted by one-star nobody.
The "205 Game preset training 1" is
[Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2
Recently, I have been busy , For this 205, I haven't have time completed its testing (with a small sample size), so it might be either better or worse than it actually is.
Your idea is very good.
Multiply (the degree of influence of the attribute) by (the growth value of each attribute),
and then add them up.
This will give you a total Score that measures the improvement in "maximizing player".
Sort this score to obtain "the best training schedule for maximizing player in the short term".
You will see the list sorted by Scores. The ones selected are all training schedules with significant improvements in CA.
Its advantages are:
1. It maximizes the CA (Competitive Advantage) of the players in the short term, making their market value higher.
2. It maximizes the "combat effectiveness" of the players in the short term. This is very effective if there is an urgent need for game results.
3. It quickly fills the PA, avoiding the situation where the full potential cannot be realized.
Its disadvantages are:
The difference between "PA" and "current CA" has a significant impact on growth.
2. That is, a faster increase in CA will also deplete this difference more quickly, leading to a significant decline in growth in subsequent years.
3. When a player is proficient in multiple positions simultaneously, this depletion process will occur more rapidly (I can't think of an immediate explanation right now, but if you can roughly understand it, that would be great).
Due to these limitations, I am very hesitant about how to choose a "universal" training schedule that can accommodate all kinds of situations.
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks
OK. I'll do it when I have some free time next time.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Out of interest could you run some tests where there is quickness in the actual schedule, for example the the recent quickness, match practice, 2xattacking. But instead of quickness as the individual focus have it on aerial? i would like to see how much jumping reach can potentially be gained in comparison with how much acc and pace you lose
My translator couldn't translate what you said, and then I tried to read it, but I also couldn't understand it.
Do you mean this?
"quickness, match practice, 2 x attacking "+ [Addtional Focus Strengh (Strengh,Jumping reach)]
Alternatively, you could simply list the "conditions" + the "training schedule" . Then I can copy it directly and test it.
tam1236 said: Thank You again for Your work.
It looks like maybe the best schedule for all the team (!) is 1xGK unit : One on Ones or Distribution (problem with reflexes)
That's little bit strange, because a description of this unit, like all GK units, is: GK do 1-on-1 and the rest of the team do role_specific_schedule. But maybe I'm wrong and this one has other system, and of course "reality" is not equal FM description .
Did You set roles for players for this tests ? Or left it empy (from position)
left it empy (from position)
excel(part 1 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, old)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
excel(part 5, the newest )
https://mega.nz/file/dAMBTTAD#qJSvz7gwU0o-Yo3ecffCsMEBLiOesQe_7bwiCR_DGXw
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcYTkHrZ
Mark said: Could you try Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Defending, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation, Chance Conversion.
This is my latest Training Schedule and I am getting good improvement.
Thanks
ZaZ said: Have you tried optimizing the roles trained? Sometimes I need to train players to a new position, and it is possible to pick roles that focus on the desirable attributes since they are only used to define attributes trained.
Personally, my training schedule is:
- 2x Physical + Match Practice (for two matches a week)
- 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces (one match in the week)
- Quickness focus
- Everyone trains roles with good highlighted attributes for their position
I don't know exactly how that compares to the ones in the list. Probably worse pace and acceleration potential, but I usually prefer to profit more on sales to be able to afford more high quality fast young players, allowing me to reach 18-20 pace and acceleration anyway. I add set pieces because I believe (and that might be just my fantasy) that players score more from set pieces when they train that session (again, I didn't test this, it is just my observation, which might be very wrong).
Anyway, I would like to know if someone can test if Set Pieces actually have any influence in goals from set pieces (using some quality set piece routine, obviously). I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine, starting from a fast young player (like 12 pace and acceleration at the age of 16, or 14 of each at 18, which is pretty realistic). I think it would be good because, sometimes, having a player with 19 in pace and acceleration and good values in other attributes can be better than a speedster with 20 pace and acceleration and 1 in the rest, making many of the training schedules judged "inferior" become viable instead.
dor said: Your tests are always incredibly helpful in planning my training.
Thank you so much.
I'm curious to see how effective this plan is: [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2 + [Double Intensity] + [Additional Focus Quickness].
I can't find the training plan I suggested in Excel.
Thank you as always.
excel 5:
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
243 [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
In the training schedule, If you can't find it, I'll then set the game to English and take screenshots.