Robbo84FM said: I always thought if an attribute had grown it showed an upwards arrow to indicate it had grown? Expand
The "arrow" indicates whether there is an increase or decrease, but the decimal part cannot be seen (so specific testing leagues need to be used for testing).
Robbo84FM said: I'm still not sure i really understand reading the excel sheet, i will use 186 as an example, it says dribbling grew 1.06, concentration 1.93, positioning 2.13, does that mean every player in the squad grew these attributes by that amount or is that just an average across the squad, some grew them attributes more some grew them less but that was the average? i'm wondering because Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't? Expand
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct. Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1. The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups? This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]" In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic. For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot". for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones". If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones", Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team.
Mark said: Looking at the table and thinking about my training schedule, I think removing Defending and Change Creation to remove the Decisions growth and bringing Physical and Distribution might work better.
Any chance you could test that - Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution. Seems more balance but with good growth Expand
OK, I'll take note of it. Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution I'll try when I'm free.
Eddie said: Would the overall training be structured like this, in a one-match scenario and in a two-match scenario?
Also, the screen shows a high risk of injury. If I add recovery, this bar decreases. So, should I keep the rest period or add some recovery (7x)? Expand
I think it's fine. You can do it this way.
My thought: Currently, we actually don't know for sure whether "Recovery" will truly have the effect of "reducing injuries" (I haven't conducted any tests, and it seems no one has either for FM24/26)
However, compared to "rest", "Recovery" can slow down the decline in "Match Sharpness".And more "Match Sharpness" has been shown through tests conducted by another player previously to be effective in reducing injuries. That's all right then.
Regarding "Recovery" itself, it only makes very minor adjustments to the distribution of attributes. Therefore, the aspect of attribute distribution can be disregarded.
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
roles trained —— Are you referring to choosing a new position to train on the player's personal page? I think if there is a need to train on a new position, then choosing it is fine.
Once it is selected, there will be a slight adjustment to the distribution of attributes (I think this is a bad thing because he will definitely waste some attributes on relatively "useless" ones), this is not good. At the same time, it can also improve the proficiency in the new position, this is useful. There are both good and bad
" - 2x Physical + Match Practice " Excel 3 , sequence 110 , It should be fine. You can take a look at the others and compare them. " - 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces " I haven't tested this yet. I'll give it a try later.
Then, I have never tried to mix different training schedules (in the tests, the same one is always used), but based on speculation, it might be the weighted average of the two.
" 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 " ————I'm not sure about this either. I haven't tried it, and it's also difficult to quantify (we haven't found the statistical item "goals scored from free kicks". I think it might be impossible to test it forever.
" I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine " ————-- If it's just "1 season", then you can find the corresponding page in my Excel file, for example, - 2x Physical + Match Practice His serial number in excel is 110. You should be able to find a "110" sub-page in "Excel 2".
Inside, at the top are the initial attributes and CA. The middle section , contains All attributes and CA of all 11 players after each test. At the bottom, the average values of these players are calculated.
These data should be sufficient, but if they are to be recorded in the form of pictures, it would be very troublesome.
Then you can see that the initial conditions of this test were deliberately set in a certain way. It was set up with a high growth rate condition to highlight the differences between the training sessions: the players were 18 years old, very young, the training facilities and coaches were excellent, Professionalism had 12 points above the average, and the difference between CA and PA was quite significant. All of this will widen the differences in the effects.
" 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 "
Your idea is fine. Here's how my idea of solve :
1. Open Excel 3, look at "Number 117", "Number 171, 172, 173,... 176". These are different "Additional Focus" items. By choosing different "Additional Focus", it significantly boosts the growth of the corresponding options. This "Additional Focus" is a mandatory attribute allocator. Therefore, it is possible to selectively supplement a player's weaknesses at certain stages, or strengthen his Advantageous (other than pace/acceleration).
2. look at "Number 176" - "Number 177, 178, 179, 180" "Number 186" - "Number 191, 192, 193, 194" This thing is suitable for different ages. You will see that when players are younger, their total growth is greater. As one gets older, the number of negative items increases.
3. "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184" If there is no "Additional Focus", this portion of the allocation will be distributed to all attributes.
My idea is, 4. If you play in the high-level league and have good enough players available for training without the urgency to sell, then choose a training program that will allow all attributes to increase slightly.
For example, "No. 186", his Decision is low, Technique is low, First touch is low, and he doesn't waste too much CA. Meanwhile, attributes such as Dribbling, Finishing, Concentration, and Jumping reach are all increasing at a decent rate.
As the players' age increases, the aforementioned growth will gradually decrease as shown in the " "sequence number 176" - sequence number 177, 178, 179, 180"" of the table. And this remaining margin is sufficient to ensure that these attributes of the players do not fall below zero (decrease) or continue to rise slightly.
When the "Additional Focus" of this player has reached an adequate level, for example, if you think a pace of 18 is sufficient, then change to a different "Additional Focus". After that, the growth rate of the pace will significantly decrease but it will still continue to grow.
This way, it aligns with what you said. While the player gains considerable Advantageous, they can also make up for their weaknesses. Then, throughout the entire career of the player, the allocation of "No. 186" has sufficient room for the player to maintain their attributes without being too wasteful of them.
When you believe that a player's situation makes it appropriate not to use "Additional Focus", you can choose to remove "Additional Focus" as in "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184", and allow the distribution to be evenly distributed.
I think the effect of this method should be the same as the one you require. The drawback might be that from time to time you need to check what "Additional Focus" the players should use.
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed? Expand
[Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the front][Quickness] it is in Serial 97
Its effect is similar to Serial 145 "[Attacking] x2"
Balance, However, the number of invalid attributes such as "Decision" has increased significantly.
Robbo84FM said: Are some attributes growth linked to others even if the other isn't being trained?
Example the "Transition-Restrict" in game description says it trains (Passing/Tackling/Anticipation/Concentration/Marking/Positioning/Teamwork) and it's an equal 40% split of Defending/Attacking units.
In the Excel sheet row 31 it shows good growth in (Anticipation/Concentration/Positioning) but it also shows good growth in (Decisions) even tho presumably it doesn't train it? as well as some other attributes like (vision/Long shots)
Or does other attribute growth simply happen due to playing matches even if those attributes aren't actually being trained? Expand
juliius said: So this might just be me, however when using this kind of schedule, aiming to improve the meta attributes with additional focus on quickness, i find mostly my players aged 24 and above don't really improve their Acc and Pace. In these instances would it perhaps be an option to then move the focus to something like ball control, to try and improve dribbling? Considering it's still one of the more important attributes, but also more likely to improve than the physical ones? I could be chatting out my ass here, but it make sense in my head. Expand
lucailvotto said: What can be considered “meta” today in FM24? For the first team and especially for youth players. I mostly do Youth Academy careers and I’d like to find the ideal training setup for my young players. Expand
Serial 186-190 It is the version that I now consider to be an improved version of the[Quickness] [Attacking] [Match Practice]
186 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking] 187 [Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking] 188 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking] 189 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] 190 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence][Attacking] There are also some highlighted colors indicating the alternatives.
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed? Expand
" a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) " ————You can check in the Excel that I just updated , if there is any (or something very similar) . If there isn't any (I will check it later), I will test it when I have time.
" Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? " ————Yes，Check Serial 117 ,177-184 They are 18, 22, 25, 28 and 32 years old respectively. They demonstrated a very obvious disparity.
Or,Serial 117, 171 - 176, They show how "additional Focus " "forced to assign attributes".
" the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect " ignore it. This is a deceptive comment that tricks players in game. I often come across it, and at the same time, the players' speed is improving.
Robbo84FM said: So i am trying to do something a bit different with my training and my thinking is that most senior/older players just don't grow their physicals much more so i don't want to waste any time having any physical training on my first team and just try and focus on more important attributes like Concentration/Anticipation/Positioning/Composure/Dribbling/Finishing, of course i know it's not easy to simply target specific attributes without growth in others which i am fine with.
Most of my first team is full of senior players i only have a few 22/23yo players and the rest are older, i try to keep all my top youth players in the youth teams for as long as possible no matter how good they are but they also get picked in my first team squad and made unavailable for the youth teams. My U18 is all about physical growth and U21 and combo of continued physical growth and now growth in other areas, my thinking is i want these youth prospects to get as much of this specific training as possible while getting 1st team experience.
So that being said what would possibly be the best training session or combo of sessions for the first team to try and attain growth in those specific attributes? i look at the spreadsheets you have posted and while i sort of understand some of it i can't lie i suck at charts and numbers and figuring it all out haha
Hope this makes sense haha Expand
[Attacking]x2 with "Addtional Focus Quickness" with "[Double Intensity]"==“Training Intensity Scheduling”set："no pitch，no pitch，no pitch，Double Intensity，Double Intensity""
It is a very balanced schedule. It can be said that a balance has been achieved among the three major categories of attributes. However, this balance also means that it is not "Meta" enough.
It perfectly meets all of your requirements, great for Concentration/Anticipation/Positioning/Composure/Dribbling/Finishing , but at the cost of increasing "Decision , Technique , First touch" , which is useless , and cost a lot of CA
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus) -8.3% Reflexes (-0.2) +25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3 play from the back 6.23 attacking 6.16 aerial defense 6.15 one on ones 6.09 chance creation 6.04 transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576 play from the back 6.475 attacking 6.407 aerial defense 6.31 one on ones 6.243 chance creation 6.24 transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009 aerial defense 6.675 (haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense defending from the front chance creation defending wide ground defense attacking overlap match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either. Expand
I forgot to say, My idea is tominimize "Decision" as much as possible.
"The 'Characteristics' of '[Attacking]' (appearing in columns 47 and 4 respectively) is itself quite good, but the drawbacks are very obvious. The 'Decision' has a high weight."
After it has been repeated several times, for example in the "89th" column, with "[Attacking]" x3 , this drawback is further magnified (and of course, the weight of its advantages is also further increased)
So, I made random combinations in an attempt to achieve the goal of introducing other elements to reduce its "Decision".
Introducing "additional Focus" (comparing "4" and "47" has significantly reduced its "Decision". But this is not enough. My idea is to select those entries from "44" to "86" where the "Decision" value is low in order to balance the weight of "Decision". At the same time, try to minimize the addition of new disadvantages while maintaining the original advantages.
For the time being, Column 130 and Column 121 have achieved the expected results. Let's see if there are any better ones later.
Robbo84FM said: Was it correct it's better not to use recovery sessions for youth players and just use rest or does it not really matter? Expand
Robbo84FM said: When you did these tests in FM26 how many sessions did you have in a week for each schedule, example when testing the "Attacking" schedule how many attacking sessions in a week? when testing "Attacking direct" how many sessions in a week? when testing "Chance creation" how many sessions in a week ect ect? Expand
Robbo84FM said: This doesn't seem to work in FM26, when i create a new training schedule i select Match day and nothing else appears in the schedule, no generated recovery session. Expand
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
Robbo84FM said: It does appear to be difficult to grow Concentration (important attribute) without also growing Decisions (useless attribute) as well. Also something i was think if you put every player in the same training unit would that then make training not work as you wouldn't have 2 units against each other or would it not make a difference? Expand
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus) -8.3% Reflexes (-0.2) +25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3 play from the back 6.23 attacking 6.16 aerial defense 6.15 one on ones 6.09 chance creation 6.04 transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576 play from the back 6.475 attacking 6.407 aerial defense 6.31 one on ones 6.243 chance creation 6.24 transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009 aerial defense 6.675 (haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense defending from the front chance creation defending wide ground defense attacking overlap match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either. Expand
Was it correct it's better not to use recovery sessions for youth players and just use rest or does it not really matter? ————They ("recovery" and "rest" can be consider the same. You can take a look at the Excel file in the link.
these tests in FM26 how many sessions ————I conducted the test using FM24. I examined the training file directory of FM26 and compared the changes before and after. I found that the training files of the two games were the same. Therefore, I believe the conclusion of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
Then, In Excel, there are comment test conditions. That state that the test last for 12 months, during which 2 matches each week, totaling 100 matches. In fact, these 100 games are far more than the maximum number of games required for normal growth. So you can simply consider this as already being the maximum growth possible under these testing conditions.
This doesn't seem to work in FM26, when i create a new training schedule i select Match day and nothing else appears in the schedule, no generated recovery session. ————It might have failed in FM26. If it's impossible to create 21 recovery, then the 7 recovery that are normally usable are actually fine.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Defending, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation, Chance Conversion It's in the Excel part 2 , 129 rows
At first glance compare to "[Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice][Recovery] x7"] New: column 130 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence]x2 And Column 121 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence]
Pretty good. Better than before. Advantages ： It has fewer "Decision, Technique, First touch", a slightly higher number of "Jumping reach, Acceleration, Pace, Work rate", Disadvantages： "Dribbling, Anticipation, Composure" being slightly reduced.
If you have any sudden whim ideas, you can mention the schedule which you think it might good.
Bradjc94 said: Hi guys, what's the best training schedule for FM26? Expand
The majority of the powerful attributes in FM24 remain powerful in FM26. Meanwhile, Some of the attributes in FM26 have become more effective. -- Therefore, theoretically, we need to make some adjustments to the training schedule of FM24 to accommodate the "new and more effective attributes" introduced in FM26.
I only conducted a preliminary attribute test on the beta version of FM26 and then refund. You can see the FM26 test results in my another post.
If you don't want to spend time, using the training schedule of FM24 is fine.
If you want to spend time, you might need to make your own estimated adjustments by referring to the excel file I just uploaded and the attribute table of FM26.
tam1236 said: How do you get 18x recovery? Do You paste a schedule with recovery unitson to already planned recovery? By the way - Stupid AI tries to change your training from time to time but quite often - do You have any way to deal with it? Expand
Robbo84FM said: That's interesting and it still got some of your players excellent physical growth just like the full rest schedule does but not decreasing other attributes? did you also have additional focus quickness and double intensity? Also how do you do the hack to get the extra recovery sessions i remember i did it on FM24 but i can't remember how to do it? thanks. Expand
The general process is as follows:
First, select "Match Day" in the schedule. Then it will automatically generate a "recovery" on the next day.
This "recovery" will not exceed the "maximum 7" limit of the "normal restrictions".
So, move this generated "recovery" to another cell. Continue to schedule the "Match Day", generate sufficient unrestricted "recovery" , and finally fill the remaining spaces with normal "recovery" .
Then, if the weekly schedule is altered due to an accident, the AI will randomly arrange your schedule. I haven't found a way to solve this problem either. The only solution is to manually re-arrange it when it occurs.
If you have time, I suggest you directly go to the Excel file and look for the column related to this attribute. It's quite easy to find the exact information you need.
I'll post more detailed results sometime later, but basically in EBFM test league using the following schedule I found was roughly ~10% better than meta:
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility & Balance for GK)
You'll note the lack of match practice. I didn't just select different combos to test randomly. This combo is based on HarvestGreen22's training result data. Initially I had used EBFM's data, which I thought would be better to use because it was broken down by position precisely and every training option was listed, but I've found that it can't be applied to FM24.
I found in training meta vs full rest, that the technical/mental losses are difficult to recover, so really you just want to grow everything as much as possible, ideally while limiting the worst useless CA growth such as 'decisions'.
If you look at the different options for pace/acc boosts, whether it's the physical modules or simply using rest, they give a lot of -1 to technicals/mentals. So I figure pace/acc boost should be the priority in assessing the various other training modules. Basically between a module that gives +13 CA and +4.9 pace/acc, and one that gives +8 CA and +5.1 pace/acc, I'm going to choose the latter one.
For reasons I'm yet to understand, 'quickness' and 'attacking' remain an essential part of the recipe, and so they've been kept in after failing without them. Yes, even if you have quickness individual focus, it doesn't work.
If you look at HarvestGreen22's data you'll see things modules don't simply add or multiply together in the way one would intuit, so I just worked off what we do know (thankfully HarvestGreen actually tested several actual combos not just individual modules, this turned out to be crucial information) and tried a few theoretically promising combinations.
So I thought I had come up with the winning combination, but when I tested this in my realistic Luton save, I got unexpectedly poor results compared to meta.
It seemed to me it must probably be because of the lower professionalism, and surprisingly that turned out to be true. It is surprising because although one would expect somewhat lower professionalism might slow progress generally, it shouldn't stunt progress entirely or haphazardly. One strange thing about it was that acc was better than meta, but pace was a lot worse, whereas in the EBFM league test both acc & pace were better. Even stranger, meta results were not hampered for some unknown reason.
But the data indeed says lower professionalism is the underlying cause (probably in concert with certain other factors no doubt):
Meta (Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus) test:
Agility & balance focus is used for goalkeepers, not quickness.
I suspected maybe low CA-PA gap was the problem rather than low professionalism, but I checked and there's typically about 20-30 CA-PA gap left after the 4 years, so it's not that. And when I checked low professionalism players individually, it seemed to line up with professionalism being the problem - the low professionalism players were the ones with the largest differences such as 16 vs 20 pace.
I haven't measured attributes on the finer scale of 1-100, and there I may have even skipped over a player or two. Some variables were also not properly controlled. Margin of error is probably around -/+ 0.2 for each attribute. Overall it's definitely good enough in my opinion, and the reality is that there is a random element in player progress anyway - the player might get injured for example.
An advantage of my training regime isn't just the increased pace/acc, but the lower decisions growth. In my view, you should count this as equal to pace/acc in the inverse, because it occupies a lot of CA but is useless. I found quite a few combos that matched meta, except that they had significantly higher decisions growth, which made me discount them. Also some regimes had poor GK growth, a lesser consideration, whereas in this regime GK growth is excellent and slightly better than meta.
Because I can only demonstrate it works with 20 professionalism players so far, I recommend sticking with the meta for now unless you just buy very high professionalism players (which isn't a bad idea anyway). I think it won't take long to solve this though. I'm not sure what the reason is that meta works with lower professionalism players, the only idea I have right now is that maybe match practice is treated like a match rather than a training session and that you don't need professionalism for match gains but you need it for training module gains. Expand
BulldozerJokic said: I can share my experience trying out different training schedules for different teams. I ended up with one physical, one match practice and one attacking per week, with the rest of the slots filled with recovery through an exploit. For every team including u-18. Most of my promising academy players (I usually play w/o knowing hidden attributes) reached 19-20 pace/acc without losing any technical attributes, but actually gaining in dribbling. Expand
Mark said: If you look at the training detail and split. Here are Aerial Defence, Chance Completion and GK Handling breakups:
There main focus is 60% with the secondary and tertiary 40% and all individual focus. Expand
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save. The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them, “97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them, “99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests).
CBP87 said: Can I ask please mate, if you're using Genie Scout (GS) how would you search for players using these attributes, what value would you assign to say Jumping Reach? Sorry little confused with you saying 6 for work rate as a the minimum, would this mean the secondary attributes can be 6 or less?
Thanks Expand
1. Genie Scout: I haven't used this thing before, so I have no idea at all about his scoring criteria (I'm behind the age and haven't used these automated software in FM).
2. If I were to assign a "value" level, I would probably give "Jumping Reach" a value ranging from "1/3 (33%)" to "1/4 (25%)" for "Acceleration".
The reason is simple: Its effect in the table is roughly "Acceleration" or "Pace" at "1/3 (33%)" to "1/4 (25%)".
Then, if it is a long-term training process, the value of this "Jumping Reach" can be greater (including things like Dribbling and Concentration ). This is because their improvement rate during training is relatively lower (Unless players specifically set the corresponding options for their improvement , The cost is sacrificing some of the "Acceleration/Pace" growth. ).
3. Work rate: This attribute was specifically tested and it is a unique property.
Between "1 and 6", the difference in effect (winning rate/net goals scored) is extremely significant, accounting for the majority of his contribution in the table. Between "6 and 10", the effect decreases to low. "Above 10", the effect is decreases to very low.
As for the other attributes, I only tested a portion of them and did not test all of them. So far, I haven't found any changes with values contributed mainly by "1-6" like "Work rate".
Therefore, there is no need to set a lower limit of "6" for other attributes.
The other attributes only need to be approximately regarded as attributes that uniformly increase/decrease efficiency (although they are not completely linear, but it is fine to consider them as linear in general)
Eddie said: The setting is for automatic rest (no field or gym) when the player is tired.
In that sense, wouldn't it be redundant to schedule rest after a match? This is because the starters will already be resting due to the setting, while the substitutes who need match fitness or training will also be resting. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to schedule a match practice the day after a game so that the substitutes can train? Expand
I didn't think about it that much. In fact, all of those options are acceptable.
Because the training schedule usually consists of only 0-4 sessions per week, there is usually plenty of room to accommodate these 4 activities (with actual training intensity to make Possible injure). All that's needed is to schedule them at times when there are no match.
It's better not to schedule sessions on the day after match, as to will minimize the risk of injury .
Make a schedule of 2x match practice, then apply it to a week with a match in it. Then copy & paste that week to an empty week, the match will be replaced with match practice (total 3x match practice). Then you can just fill it up with as many as you want.
I tested 21x match practice with my realistic Luton test for most of a season. Tremendous amounts of injuries, but in the few who escaped largely unscathed, their attribute increases were mediocre or even declined slightly.
I then tested it with the EBFM test file. Surprisingly hardly any injuries at all over an entire season; '1' injury proneness has a greater protective effect than I realized. Looking at attribute gains of one player that had no injuries, gains were good but not unusually great.
I'm still thinking of the implications here, but one thing is that these players have 20 professionalism. Could it be that professionalism alone accounts for why players in the EBFM league develop significantly while those in my Luton save do not.. Expand
I conducted a rough "injury susceptibility" test months ago.
The second row of the table is "injury susceptibility", The team consists of 25 members. They play 2 matches each week, and there are a total of 100 matches throughout the season. Then, without any training, I calculated the average number of injuries suffered in match.
The last 4 lines, from top to bottom, are the least severe injury and the most severe injury.
Overall, it can be seen that the "injury susceptibility" of 20 is twice injury compare to 10, the "injury susceptibility" of 10 is twice injury compare to 1,
The approximate proportions of the four types of injuries are: (from mild to severe) 40% : 15% : 35% : 10%
Then this is the test conducted under “the maximum tactical intensity”.
Reducing the intensity of the tactics can slightly reduce the number of injuries, but not by much.
Chris said: So, if I play a team which play champions league (so I usually play 2x week) and I have a lot of youngsters between 17-23 years, which training schedule do you recommend for perform and grow better? Choose just 1 or 2 if possible. Thank you guys for the tests and information u provide. Expand
Chris said: So, if I play a team which play champions league (so I usually play 2x week) and I have a lot of youngsters between 17-23 years, which training schedule do you recommend for perform and grow better? Choose just 1 or 2 if possible. Thank you guys for the tests and information u provide. Expand
1. From what you said, I infer that your players' level is quite high. Then, if you are not "challenging the limits", then you can take a look at the “274th floor” above, Download that " 【身体】+【练习赛】+【攻击】+【恢复】x7+【双倍强度】+【额外重点速度】.fmf "
It mainly involves the same three training sessions per week, but the training intensity is further reduced (less injure). Then, the training effects are very similar.
Remember to make the change of "[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]"
2. Once you feel that the attributes are high enough (although I suggest increasing Acceleration and Pace to 19 or 20 before making any changes), you can replace Additional Focus with whatever else you need.
3. If your goal is to "challenge the limits", try to win the Champions League in the shortest possible time Then I would suggest using "21恢复.fmf"
Robbo84FM said: Ok thanks, i wonder why Attacking session is part of the "meta" training schedule and not a Defending session? with an Attacking session it only prioritises Dribbling from the 2nd group of "meta" attributes and both Finishing & Composure from the 3rd group while a Defending session prioritises Work Rate from the 1st group off "meta" attributes and Anticipation & Concentration from the 2nd group and Positioning from the 3rd group so this would seem that Defending would be a better choice, no? Expand
Defending session: Most importantly, in terms of "weight", It adds a much greater number of "Decision", but "Decision" are of no use and consume a large amount of CA.
In general, you can consider that the "effects" described in the game may not be exactly the same as what they "actually increase that much", or the increase may not be as significant as described .
To "Anticipation", Defending session is It is slightly better than Attacking session, but the difference is very small. So it can be concluded that they are the same.
To "Concentration ",Attacking session increase better
To "Finishing", "Composure",Attacking session increase better
Using the default database, I've cleared out Luton's players (20th in Premier League) and replaced them with 88 players. That's overloading the squad a bit too much (29.33 per 1st/u21/u18 team), but coach workload was light to average, and I don't know about others but I tend to buy too many players anyway - in any case, it shouldn't change the results too much.
The players I choose were young players, age 16-23 (average ~19), who were pretty cheap to buy and met a lenient search filter criteria (i.e. for ST, ~11 pace/acc + 6 work rate). I would try to pick players with high CA-PA gap. So it's meant to be represent what you'd realistically be able to sign in game. Luton staff were kept the same, knap tactic used.
4 years meta (Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness/Agility focus):
GK - 4.75 agil, 1.25 aer, (-0.25) ref DL/DR - 2.14 acc, 3.69 pace, 0.07 drib DC - 2.85 acc, 3.69 pace, 0.5 drib DM - 2 acc, 3 pace AML/AMR - 1.71 acc, 2.76 pace ST - 1.58 acc, 3.25 pace
2 years full rest then 2 years meta:
DL/DR - (-1.81) drib AML/AMR - 3.2 acc, 4.4 pace ST - 3.8 acc, 5 pace
4 years meta with 5 weeks full rest at start of each season:
ST - 2.47 acc, 3.67 pace
I'll just cut to the chase about this. It's pretty clear to me that even full rest for just 5 weeks each season sucked too much due to the loss in mentals/technicals. But with meta, only 36 of 83 outfield players got to 16/16 and none got 19/19 or higher. I think at least 17/17 is necessary to dominate in premier league, and given there's a trade off in going for full rest, 18/18 I reckon is the sweet spot. With 5 weeks rest, 1 player reached 20 pace, 6 reached 18/18. I think ~3 weeks rest per season is probably best, and done in the pre-season so it doesn't result in poor performing players due to low match fitness during the competitive matches.
Now after I did these three tests, I used the EBFM test league to test different training schedules to try and find something superior. Eventually I did find a combo that works noticeably better than the meta, but then when I tested it in my Luton realistic test, it failed horribly with 1.87 acc, 2.2 pace and even significant losses in technicals/mentals. I noticed the EBFM file is using FM23 database, maybe this is the cause, but I doubt it, as it should still use the FM24 training values. Another reason I figured is that it could be that the number of matches effects it, so I tried a reduced training schedule that also worked about as good as meta - again I got 1.93 acc, 2.07 pace. Now neither of these employed match practice notably, so that could be the key factor here. It could also tie into the fact that the Luton players have less CA-PA headroom, worse personalities, and so on.. maybe the CA gain limit is too low to absorb all those gains, or maybe the low CA gain limit or poor professionalism changes the actual distribution of attribute gains (i.e. maybe poor professionalism player can only gain physicals, very little mentals/technicals). It could even be the coaches. Who knows.
So the main takeaway from that is that the EBFM test league, and probably all other artificial test leagues, will give different results to realistic gameplay when it comes to assessing training schedules.
Another reason why not to use full rest is because it's clear, albeit in EBFM test league tests, that those lost technicals/mentals are too difficult to recover even if you use 2 years rest then 2 years meta.
So I'm still working on trying to find a better schedule than the meta. Expand
I haven't continued with the test for the time being. Right now, my mind is a bit confused and I'm not sure if you can understand this explanation:
1. First of all, I haven't tried to see what the outcome would be if I combined different training schedules within a single season. Then,
It is obvious that the testing conditions were under the most ideal circumstances, being even better than normal conditions.
However, this is necessary because we need to highlight the differences in the training results of various types of training programs. Otherwise, the degree of distinction would be insufficient.
And the players need to be designed to "grow rapidly", so that the effects of different training programs can be distinguished.
2. So, in the test, the "professional level" of the players was set to be high. The difference between potential (PA) and current ability (CA) is significant (this has a very significant impact on the actual growth rate). The training facilities are the best. The initial ability won't be that high (if set too high, each level-up will require more effort).
3. In this way, after the test, the training program derived from it is a roughly optimal solution.
Then, for the "actual" players, it is obvious that they usually grow more slowly than player in test league (because the PA-CA value is usually small) and are more affected by randomness.
In this situation, my idea is to create better conditions for their subsequent growth.
The main point is toensure that the "difference between PA and CA" remains sufficiently large for a certain period of time. in this way can Acceleration and Pace maintain the fastest growth.
4. The advantage brought by this "difference between PA and CA" is that it can to some extent make up for the deficiencies in "professional attributes", training facilities, and other aspects.
The disadvantage is that there is definitely a risk of not being able to fully achieve the PA target.
I think I can accept this risk. and , those lost technicals/mentals was worth it .
those lost technicals/mentals was worth it , Because the attributes of these losses actually do not contribute as much to the winning rate as the attributes of the gains do.
5.
That above is for players at the middle and lower levels. This effectively ensures that everyone can reach the value of 19/20 Acceleration and Pace as soon as possible.
I don't fully agree with the view that 18/18 is sufficient and balance . I think it's still worthwhile to further improve to 20/20.
Of course, this is just my personal opinion. And I might be wrong. My practical experience is also not sufficient.
For high-level/high-potential players, I don't have any well-developed ideas either. they have a lot of PA. If we consider the long term, high-level players may not necessarily need "total rest". However, if short-term performance is required, I think it is worth taking the risk to use "total rest".
Robbo84FM said: Sorry i not looked through here in long time could someone remind me what the best "meta" attributes was again i think i remember Pace, Acceleration, Jumping Reach, Dribbling, Work Rate and maybe Concentration? Expand
Importance priority (Briefly, it can be seen from the table "3":
table 1: Increase the attribute from its initial value to 18, table 2: Reduce the attribute from its initial value to 1, table 3: Subtract Table 2 from Table 1 to obtain the overall importance.
1. Acceleration 、 Pace 、 Work Rate (The Work Rate minimum is 6 . below 6 will result in severe penalties, but above 6 will result in a small increase.)
Due to language barriers, I haven't translated some of my test into English These results should be able to relieve the concerns of some players
1.Meta ,Gegenpress In the test The initial values of Flair, Work rate, Leadership, Aggression, Teamwork and Determination are 10 The initial values of other attributes are 12
Table 1 Change this attribute to 18, the change value of the win rate
Table 2 Change this attribute to 1, the change value of the winning rate
Table 3 Subtracting Table 2 from Table 1, we can obtain the difference in win rates between attribute 18 and attribute 1, which can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
I Did an attribute importance test, and this test was based on meta tactics, that is, tactics developed from Gegenpress
What if it's not Gegenpress?
2.non Gegenpress , Preset - Control Possession 4231 In the test The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2 Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3 Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
3.non Gegenpress , Preset - Tiki-Taka 433 In the test The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2 Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3 Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
4.non Gegenpress , Preset - Wing Play 442 In the test The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2 Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3 Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
5.non Gegenpress , Preset - Route One 433 In the test The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2 Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3 Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
6.non Gegenpress , Preset - Route One 433 In the test The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2 Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3 Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
8.You can notice that their eigenvalues are very similar
Those most important attributes remain significant in other preset tactics. And those attributes with minimal impact remain the least important in other preset tactics. Only some of the "medium" attributes between them will change
This actually denies what some of our players think, for instance, " Gegenpress does not require Passing But Tiki-Taka requires Passing " No, they basically adopted the same set of logic
9."Position/Role/Duty" "Key Attributes" Next, do some tests based on Preset Wing Play 442
Find Central Defender (De) in the tactics His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Marking, Tackling, Heading, Positioning +5 ( to 18) Add His Work Rate, Concentration, Decisions, Aggression, Bravery, Anticipation, Composure +2 ( to 15)
According to the game's rating, he is already a five-star top league player. If you look at the key attributes in the game, you would think he is very strong. These enhancements cost him approximately 30 to 40 CA points more
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1 These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Marking, Tackling, Heading, Positioning +5 ( to 18) Add His Work Rate, Concentration, Decisions, Aggression, Bravery, Anticipation, Composure +2 ( to 15) Win Rate +2.1% cost 30 to 40 CA points
B. Acceleration +1 Win Rate +3.0% cost 2 CA points
10.Box to Box Midfielder (Su) Preset Wing Play 442 , Box to Box Midfielder (Su) , His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Passing, Technique, Tackling, Finishing, First Touch, Long Shots, Positioning, Decisions, Aggression, Teamwork +5 ( to 18) Add His Work Rate, Anticipation, Composure , Dribbling +2 ( to 15) These enhancements cost him 40+ CA
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1 These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Passing, Technique, Tackling, Finishing, First Touch, Long Shots, Positioning, Decisions, Aggression, Teamwork +5 ( to 18) Add His Work Rate, Anticipation, Composure , Dribbling +2 ( to 15) Win Rate +4.0% cost 40 to 50 CA points
B. Acceleration +1 Win Rate +5.8% cost 2 CA points
11.Ball Winning Midfielder (De) Preset Wing Play 442 , His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Marking, Tackling, Positioning, Work Rate, Concentration , Aggression , Teamwork , Bravery , Anticipation +5 ( to 18) These enhancements cost him about 40 CA
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1 These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Marking, Tackling, Positioning, Work Rate, Concentration , Aggression , Teamwork , Bravery , Anticipation +5 ( to 18)
Win Rate +2.3% cost about 40 CA
B. Acceleration +1 Win Rate +4.4% cost 2 CA points
12.Repeat the statement , I won't look at the players' ratings; I only look at the team's winning rate
You can see that players who consumed a large amount of CA on key attributes were defeated by +1 Acceleration as a result. Moreover, the CA spent is not at the same level at all
This conclusion is also the same in other preset tactics, those with lower Tempo and lower Mentality
13.Some players in our community said:
Why does your test increase/decrease all "Finishing" at once? In the entire team, only two or three players frequently take shots.
——So, logically , the differences in the Finishing attributes of these two or three players should contribute to the overall difference in win rate/goal difference Such tests would underestimate the importance of Finishing
Now , take Preset Wing Play 442 's two ST for example , They completed the majority of the shots in the team
What if we change the Finishing of these two players separately?
14. First, change all players Finishing -10 The result is as shown in the table, with a winning rate of -6.7%
Then，change the Finishing of these two players separately , -10 Finishing The winning rate -1.2%
-1.2%/-6.7% ≈ 18%
This is what I said before. Logically, STs, Wings, contributed almost all the shots If all attributes increase together, it seems that the effect of Finishing is underestimated But in fact, it is not.
In fact, the Finishing of players who hardly shoot, The Crossing of players who never do Crossing ... also taking effect on the entire team
This is why I adopted the approach of adding or removing attributes together as a team to measure the importance of attributes
15.Players in our community have pointed out that such tests all involve "test dummies" with the same attributes. In actual play, it's players with different attributes. Does this conclusion mean it's incorrect?
I found such a league where players are divided into 4 groups, from strong to weak, all of which are players with real attributes in the game Then verification was conducted and it was found to be consistent, indicating that there was no problem
16.
Fix 29/12/2025: I noticed that several loaned players were not locked attributes by FMRTE. Therefore, this coach's test was interfered with and the results were not accurate.
Other content, I remade a league. Out of curiosity, I tested the intensity of 20 AI famous coaches using preset Gegenpress 433
This time, only one tactic was used to measure the result, which may not fully reflect the intensity, but it can be roughly referred to Note: The "strength" of the coach (whether it is good for the game engine) has nothing to do with the "strength" of the players at all. Strong players can also be paired with weak coaches
Gerhard·Struber from FC Red Bull Salzburg is the best-performing one
Dino·Toppmöller from Eintracht Frankfurt is the second best
Luis Enrique·Martínez García from Paris Saint-Germain F.C. is the second worse
Pep·Guardiola from Manchester City F.C. is the The worst
helioserebus said: So what is your recommendation then? I feel like having a full day of Rest after a match makes more sense than having Recovery. Expand talcxxv said: Probably a case of me being blind, but any schedule file for download? Expand
attachments
each of these methods has its own advantages ( having a full day of Rest after a match ). It may depend on whether your player is extremely tired or just a little tired.
I uploaded several schedules that I had posted before, which have been downloaded over 50,000 times in our community . You can try all of them based on your actual preferences and see which one you like. It's all about choosing according to the actual situation
If it were me: In medium and low-level leagues (low-level players), I would choose "21 recoveries"/" 7 recoveries "/" full rest ". For High-level leagues will switch to other schedules at an appropriate time (the schedule good for increase CA like quickness + match practice + attacking .
The first one is "21 recoveries + double Intensity + additional focus qucikness", which was created by taking advantage of some kind of bug. The effect is basically the same as a full rest. but lose less "condition" and "March sharpness" , If you don't want to be bothered by these troublesome mico-operations, I recommend using it
The "arrow" indicates whether there is an increase or decrease, but the decimal part cannot be seen (so specific testing leagues need to be used for testing).
Robbo84FM said: I'm still not sure i really understand reading the excel sheet, i will use 186 as an example, it says dribbling grew 1.06, concentration 1.93, positioning 2.13, does that mean every player in the squad grew these attributes by that amount or is that just an average across the squad, some grew them attributes more some grew them less but that was the average? i'm wondering because Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct.
Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1.
The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups?
This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]"
In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic.
For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot".
for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones".
If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones",
Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team.
Any chance you could test that - Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution. Seems more balance but with good growth
OK, I'll take note of it.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
I'll try when I'm free.
Eddie said: Would the overall training be structured like this, in a one-match scenario and in a two-match scenario?
Also, the screen shows a high risk of injury. If I add recovery, this bar decreases. So, should I keep the rest period or add some recovery (7x)?
I think it's fine. You can do it this way.
My thought:
Currently, we actually don't know for sure whether "Recovery" will truly have the effect of "reducing injuries" (I haven't conducted any tests, and it seems no one has either for FM24/26)
However, compared to "rest", "Recovery" can slow down the decline in "Match Sharpness".And more "Match Sharpness" has been shown through tests conducted by another player previously to be effective in reducing injuries. That's all right then.
Regarding "Recovery" itself, it only makes very minor adjustments to the distribution of attributes. Therefore, the aspect of attribute distribution can be disregarded.
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.
roles trained
—— Are you referring to choosing a new position to train on the player's personal page?
I think if there is a need to train on a new position, then choosing it is fine.
Once it is selected, there will be a slight adjustment to the distribution of attributes (I think this is a bad thing because he will definitely waste some attributes on relatively "useless" ones), this is not good.
At the same time, it can also improve the proficiency in the new position, this is useful.
There are both good and bad
"
- 2x Physical + Match Practice
"
Excel 3 , sequence 110 , It should be fine. You can take a look at the others and compare them.
"
- 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
"
I haven't tested this yet. I'll give it a try later.
Then, I have never tried to mix different training schedules (in the tests, the same one is always used),
but based on speculation, it might be the weighted average of the two.
"
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
"
————I'm not sure about this either. I haven't tried it, and it's also difficult to quantify
(we haven't found the statistical item "goals scored from free kicks"
I think it might be impossible to test it forever.
"
I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine
"
————-- If it's just "1 season", then you can find the corresponding page in my Excel file,
for example, - 2x Physical + Match Practice
His serial number in excel is 110.
You should be able to find a "110" sub-page in "Excel 2".
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, the newest , update a lot)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
Inside, at the top are the initial attributes and CA.
The middle section , contains All attributes and CA of all 11 players after each test.
At the bottom, the average values of these players are calculated.
These data should be sufficient,
but if they are to be recorded in the form of pictures, it would be very troublesome.
Then you can see that the initial conditions of this test were deliberately set in a certain way.
It was set up with a high growth rate condition to highlight the differences between the training sessions:
the players were 18 years old, very young, the training facilities and coaches were excellent, Professionalism had 12 points above the average, and the difference between CA and PA was quite significant.
All of this will widen the differences in the effects.
And, if you mean to observe the continuous effect over "multiple seasons", this requires replacing with other test leagues.
I had done it in another earlier test:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/14015-under-preset-conditions-training-for-4-years-with-a-specified-growth-strategy-and-then-watching-the-player-s-attributes-and-ca-growth/
I haven't gotten any good ideas from this test yet
"
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
"
Your idea is fine. Here's how my idea of solve :
1.
Open Excel 3,
look at "Number 117", "Number 171, 172, 173,... 176".
These are different "Additional Focus" items.
By choosing different "Additional Focus", it significantly boosts the growth of the corresponding options.
This "Additional Focus" is a mandatory attribute allocator.
Therefore, it is possible to selectively supplement a player's weaknesses at certain stages, or strengthen his Advantageous (other than pace/acceleration).
2.
look at "Number 176" - "Number 177, 178, 179, 180"
"Number 186" - "Number 191, 192, 193, 194"
This thing is suitable for different ages.
You will see that when players are younger, their total growth is greater.
As one gets older, the number of negative items increases.
3.
"Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184"
If there is no "Additional Focus", this portion of the allocation will be distributed to all attributes.
My idea is,
4.
If you play in the high-level league and have good enough players available for training without the urgency to sell,
then choose a training program that will allow all attributes to increase slightly.
For example, "No. 186",
his Decision is low, Technique is low, First touch is low, and he doesn't waste too much CA.
Meanwhile, attributes such as Dribbling, Finishing, Concentration, and Jumping reach are all increasing at a decent rate.
As the players' age increases, the aforementioned growth will gradually decrease as shown in the " "sequence number 176" - sequence number 177, 178, 179, 180"" of the table.
And this remaining margin is sufficient to ensure that these attributes of the players do not fall below zero (decrease) or continue to rise slightly.
When the "Additional Focus" of this player has reached an adequate level, for example, if you think a pace of 18 is sufficient, then change to a different "Additional Focus". After that, the growth rate of the pace will significantly decrease but it will still continue to grow.
This way, it aligns with what you said. While the player gains considerable Advantageous, they can also make up for their weaknesses.
Then, throughout the entire career of the player, the allocation of "No. 186" has sufficient room for the player to maintain their attributes without being too wasteful of them.
When you believe that a player's situation makes it appropriate not to use "Additional Focus", you can choose to remove "Additional Focus" as in "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184", and allow the distribution to be evenly distributed.
I think the effect of this method should be the same as the one you require. The drawback might be that from time to time you need to check what "Additional Focus" the players should use.
I checked there too, and I'll repeat it here.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
[Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the front][Quickness]
it is in Serial 97
Its effect is similar to Serial 145 "[Attacking] x2"
Balance, However, the number of invalid attributes such as "Decision" has increased significantly.
Example the "Transition-Restrict" in game description says it trains (Passing/Tackling/Anticipation/Concentration/Marking/Positioning/Teamwork) and it's an equal 40% split of Defending/Attacking units.
In the Excel sheet row 31 it shows good growth in (Anticipation/Concentration/Positioning) but it also shows good growth in (Decisions) even tho presumably it doesn't train it? as well as some other attributes like (vision/Long shots)
Or does other attribute growth simply happen due to playing matches even if those attributes aren't actually being trained?
juliius said: So this might just be me, however when using this kind of schedule, aiming to improve the meta attributes with additional focus on quickness, i find mostly my players aged 24 and above don't really improve their Acc and Pace. In these instances would it perhaps be an option to then move the focus to something like ball control, to try and improve dribbling? Considering it's still one of the more important attributes, but also more likely to improve than the physical ones? I could be chatting out my ass here, but it make sense in my head.
lucailvotto said: What can be considered “meta” today in FM24? For the first team and especially for youth players. I mostly do Youth Academy careers and I’d like to find the ideal training setup for my young players.
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, the newest , update a lot)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
Serial 186-190 It is the version that I now consider to be an improved version of the[Quickness] [Attacking] [Match Practice]
186 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking]
187 [Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]
188 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking]
189 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking]
190 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence][Attacking]
There are also some highlighted colors indicating the alternatives.
Eddie said: Is this the right topic? https://fm-arena.com/thread/15934-summary-of-recent-findings-for-optimal-play-in-fm24-amp-fm26/page-4/
I checked there too, and I'll repeat it here.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
"
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK)
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK)
"
————You can check in the Excel that I just updated , if there is any (or something very similar) .
If there isn't any (I will check it later), I will test it when I have time.
"
Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24?
"
————Yes，Check Serial 117 ,177-184
They are 18, 22, 25, 28 and 32 years old respectively.
They demonstrated a very obvious disparity.
Or,Serial 117, 171 - 176,
They show how "additional Focus " "forced to assign attributes".
"
the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect
"
ignore it. This is a deceptive comment that tricks players in game.
I often come across it, and at the same time, the players' speed is improving.
Most of my first team is full of senior players i only have a few 22/23yo players and the rest are older, i try to keep all my top youth players in the youth teams for as long as possible no matter how good they are but they also get picked in my first team squad and made unavailable for the youth teams. My U18 is all about physical growth and U21 and combo of continued physical growth and now growth in other areas, my thinking is i want these youth prospects to get as much of this specific training as possible while getting 1st team experience.
So that being said what would possibly be the best training session or combo of sessions for the first team to try and attain growth in those specific attributes? i look at the spreadsheets you have posted and while i sort of understand some of it i can't lie i suck at charts and numbers and figuring it all out haha
Hope this makes sense haha
[Attacking]x2
with "Addtional Focus Quickness"
with "[Double Intensity]"==“Training Intensity Scheduling”set："no pitch，no pitch，no pitch，Double Intensity，Double Intensity""
It is a very balanced schedule.
It can be said that a balance has been achieved among the three major categories of attributes. However, this balance also means that it is not "Meta" enough.
It perfectly meets all of your requirements,
great for Concentration/Anticipation/Positioning/Composure/Dribbling/Finishing
, but at the cost of increasing "Decision , Technique , First touch" , which is useless , and cost a lot of CA
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+9.14% CA (+3.16)
+4.5% Anticipation (+0.1)
+20.7% Concentration (+0.46)
+26.8% Dribbling (+0.3)
+1.7% Decisions (+0.04)
+0.7% Acceleration (+0.02)
+0.7% Pace (+0.02)
And for GK:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus)
-8.3% Reflexes (-0.2)
+25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3
play from the back 6.23
attacking 6.16
aerial defense 6.15
one on ones 6.09
chance creation 6.04
transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576
play from the back 6.475
attacking 6.407
aerial defense 6.31
one on ones 6.243
chance creation 6.24
transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009
aerial defense 6.675
(haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense
defending from the front
chance creation
defending wide
ground defense
attacking overlap
match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.
I forgot to say,
My idea is tominimize "Decision" as much as possible.
"The 'Characteristics' of '[Attacking]' (appearing in columns 47 and 4 respectively) is itself quite good,
but the drawbacks are very obvious. The 'Decision' has a high weight."
After it has been repeated several times, for example in the "89th" column,
with "[Attacking]" x3 , this drawback is further magnified (and of course, the weight of its advantages is also further increased)
So, I made random combinations in an attempt to achieve the goal of introducing other elements to reduce its "Decision".
Introducing "additional Focus" (comparing "4" and "47"
But this is not enough. My idea is to select those entries from "44" to "86" where the "Decision" value is low in order to balance the weight of "Decision".
At the same time, try to minimize the addition of new disadvantages while maintaining the original advantages.
For the time being, Column 130 and Column 121 have achieved the expected results. Let's see if there are any better ones later.
Robbo84FM said: When you did these tests in FM26 how many sessions did you have in a week for each schedule, example when testing the "Attacking" schedule how many attacking sessions in a week? when testing "Attacking direct" how many sessions in a week? when testing "Chance creation" how many sessions in a week ect ect?
Robbo84FM said: This doesn't seem to work in FM26, when i create a new training schedule i select Match day and nothing else appears in the schedule, no generated recovery session.
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
Robbo84FM said: It does appear to be difficult to grow Concentration (important attribute) without also growing Decisions (useless attribute) as well. Also something i was think if you put every player in the same training unit would that then make training not work as you wouldn't have 2 units against each other or would it not make a difference?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Very nice
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+9.14% CA (+3.16)
+4.5% Anticipation (+0.1)
+20.7% Concentration (+0.46)
+26.8% Dribbling (+0.3)
+1.7% Decisions (+0.04)
+0.7% Acceleration (+0.02)
+0.7% Pace (+0.02)
And for GK:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus)
-8.3% Reflexes (-0.2)
+25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3
play from the back 6.23
attacking 6.16
aerial defense 6.15
one on ones 6.09
chance creation 6.04
transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576
play from the back 6.475
attacking 6.407
aerial defense 6.31
one on ones 6.243
chance creation 6.24
transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009
aerial defense 6.675
(haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense
defending from the front
chance creation
defending wide
ground defense
attacking overlap
match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.
Was it correct it's better not to use recovery sessions for youth players and just use rest or does it not really matter?
————They ("recovery" and "rest"
these tests in FM26 how many sessions
————I conducted the test using FM24. I examined the training file directory of FM26 and compared the changes before and after. I found that the training files of the two games were the same. Therefore, I believe the conclusion of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
Then,
In Excel, there are comment test conditions. That state that the test last for 12 months, during which 2 matches each week, totaling 100 matches.
In fact, these 100 games are far more than the maximum number of games required for normal growth.
So you can simply consider this as already being the maximum growth possible under these testing conditions.
This doesn't seem to work in FM26, when i create a new training schedule i select Match day and nothing else appears in the schedule, no generated recovery session.
————It might have failed in FM26. If it's impossible to create 21 recovery, then the 7 recovery that are normally usable are actually fine.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Defending, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation, Chance Conversion It's in the Excel part 2 , 129 rows
excel(part 1)
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2, the newest)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
At first glance
compare to "[Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice][Recovery] x7"]
New:
column 130
[Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence]x2
And Column 121
[Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence]
Pretty good. Better than before.
Advantages ：
It has fewer "Decision, Technique, First touch", a slightly higher number of "Jumping reach, Acceleration, Pace, Work rate",
Disadvantages：
"Dribbling, Anticipation, Composure" being slightly reduced.
If you have any sudden whim ideas, you can mention the schedule which you think it might good.
The majority of the powerful attributes in FM24 remain powerful in FM26.
Meanwhile,
Some of the attributes in FM26 have become more effective.
-- Therefore, theoretically, we need to make some adjustments to the training schedule of FM24 to accommodate the "new and more effective attributes" introduced in FM26.
I only conducted a preliminary attribute test on the beta version of FM26 and then refund. You can see the FM26 test results in my another post.
If you don't want to spend time, using the training schedule of FM24 is fine.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
If you want to spend time, you might need to make your own estimated adjustments by referring to the excel file I just uploaded and the attribute table of FM26.
By the way - Stupid AI tries to change your training from time to time but quite often - do You have any way to deal with it?
Robbo84FM said: That's interesting and it still got some of your players excellent physical growth just like the full rest schedule does but not decreasing other attributes? did you also have additional focus quickness and double intensity? Also how do you do the hack to get the extra recovery sessions i remember i did it on FM24 but i can't remember how to do it? thanks.
The general process is as follows:
First, select "Match Day" in the schedule.
Then it will automatically generate a "recovery" on the next day.
This "recovery" will not exceed the "maximum 7" limit of the "normal restrictions".
So, move this generated "recovery" to another cell.
Continue to schedule the "Match Day", generate sufficient unrestricted "recovery" , and finally fill the remaining spaces with normal "recovery" .
Then, if the weekly schedule is altered due to an accident, the AI will randomly arrange your schedule. I haven't found a way to solve this problem either. The only solution is to manually re-arrange it when it occurs.
new Excel：
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
It's [Tactical]
If you have time, I suggest you directly go to the Excel file and look for the column related to this attribute.
It's quite easy to find the exact information you need.
I'll post more detailed results sometime later, but basically in EBFM test league using the following schedule I found was roughly ~10% better than meta:
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility & Balance for GK)
You'll note the lack of match practice. I didn't just select different combos to test randomly. This combo is based on HarvestGreen22's training result data. Initially I had used EBFM's data, which I thought would be better to use because it was broken down by position precisely and every training option was listed, but I've found that it can't be applied to FM24.
I found in training meta vs full rest, that the technical/mental losses are difficult to recover, so really you just want to grow everything as much as possible, ideally while limiting the worst useless CA growth such as 'decisions'.
If you look at the different options for pace/acc boosts, whether it's the physical modules or simply using rest, they give a lot of -1 to technicals/mentals. So I figure pace/acc boost should be the priority in assessing the various other training modules. Basically between a module that gives +13 CA and +4.9 pace/acc, and one that gives +8 CA and +5.1 pace/acc, I'm going to choose the latter one.
For reasons I'm yet to understand, 'quickness' and 'attacking' remain an essential part of the recipe, and so they've been kept in after failing without them. Yes, even if you have quickness individual focus, it doesn't work.
If you look at HarvestGreen22's data you'll see things modules don't simply add or multiply together in the way one would intuit, so I just worked off what we do know (thankfully HarvestGreen actually tested several actual combos not just individual modules, this turned out to be crucial information) and tried a few theoretically promising combinations.
So I thought I had come up with the winning combination, but when I tested this in my realistic Luton save, I got unexpectedly poor results compared to meta.
It seemed to me it must probably be because of the lower professionalism, and surprisingly that turned out to be true. It is surprising because although one would expect somewhat lower professionalism might slow progress generally, it shouldn't stunt progress entirely or haphazardly. One strange thing about it was that acc was better than meta, but pace was a lot worse, whereas in the EBFM league test both acc & pace were better. Even stranger, meta results were not hampered for some unknown reason.
But the data indeed says lower professionalism is the underlying cause (probably in concert with certain other factors no doubt):
Meta (Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus) test:
ST:
acc - 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4 = 1.58
pace - 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4 = 3.25
DL/DR:
drib - 0, -2, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0, -2, 1, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = 0.07
GK:
agil - 3, 5, 5, 6 = 4.75
aer - 0, 1, 2, 2 = 1.25
ref - 0, 0, 0, -1 = -0.25
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus:
ST:
acc - -1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 1, 3 = 1.87
pace - 0, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3 = 2.2
Meta 20 pro + 1 injury prone (4 years):
ST:
acc - 1, 1, 0, 3, 0, 2, 4, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1 = 2
pace - 1, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5 = 3.27
dec - 5, 1, -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, -1, 0, -1 = 0.267
DL/DR:
drib - 2, -1, 2, 1, 1, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, -1, 2, 1, 1, 2 = 1
GK:
agil - 7, 5, 7, 5, 4 = 5.6
aer - 3, 2, 0, 1, 1 = 1.4
ref - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0
8 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (20 pro, 1 injury prone, 4 years):
ST:
acc - 3, 0, 3, 0, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 0, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3 = 2.4
pace - 4, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3, 6, 7, 4, 6, 6 = 3.93
dec - 0, 0, 1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -2, 0, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = -0.333
DL/DR:
drib - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, -1, 1, 0, -1, 1, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 0.529
GK:
agil - 7, 6, 5, 5, 4 = 5.4
aer - 5, 2, 1, 1, 1 = 2
ref - 1, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0.2
15 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (20 pro, 1 injury prone, 3 years):
ST:
acc - 3, 1, 3, 0, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 0, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 2.33
pace - 4, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 6, 6, 3, 5, 5 = 3.47
dec - 0, 0, 1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = -0.267
DL/DR:
drib - 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 2, 1, 2 = 0.6875
GK:
agil - 7, 4, 5, 4, 4 = 4.8
aer - 5, 1, 2, 1, 1 = 2
ref - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0
11 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Extra notes:
Agility & balance focus is used for goalkeepers, not quickness.
I suspected maybe low CA-PA gap was the problem rather than low professionalism, but I checked and there's typically about 20-30 CA-PA gap left after the 4 years, so it's not that. And when I checked low professionalism players individually, it seemed to line up with professionalism being the problem - the low professionalism players were the ones with the largest differences such as 16 vs 20 pace.
I haven't measured attributes on the finer scale of 1-100, and there I may have even skipped over a player or two. Some variables were also not properly controlled. Margin of error is probably around -/+ 0.2 for each attribute. Overall it's definitely good enough in my opinion, and the reality is that there is a random element in player progress anyway - the player might get injured for example.
An advantage of my training regime isn't just the increased pace/acc, but the lower decisions growth. In my view, you should count this as equal to pace/acc in the inverse, because it occupies a lot of CA but is useless. I found quite a few combos that matched meta, except that they had significantly higher decisions growth, which made me discount them. Also some regimes had poor GK growth, a lesser consideration, whereas in this regime GK growth is excellent and slightly better than meta.
Because I can only demonstrate it works with 20 professionalism players so far, I recommend sticking with the meta for now unless you just buy very high professionalism players (which isn't a bad idea anyway). I think it won't take long to solve this though. I'm not sure what the reason is that meta works with lower professionalism players, the only idea I have right now is that maybe match practice is treated like a match rather than a training session and that you don't need professionalism for match gains but you need it for training module gains.
BulldozerJokic said: I can share my experience trying out different training schedules for different teams. I ended up with one physical, one match practice and one attacking per week, with the rest of the slots filled with recovery through an exploit. For every team including u-18. Most of my promising academy players (I usually play w/o knowing hidden attributes) reached 19-20 pace/acc without losing any technical attributes, but actually gaining in dribbling.
Mark said: If you look at the training detail and split. Here are Aerial Defence, Chance Completion and GK Handling breakups:
There main focus is 60% with the secondary and tertiary 40% and all individual focus.
new Excel：
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
This new Excel file might be helpful to you.
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save.
The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them,
“97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them,
“99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests).
Thanks
1.
Genie Scout: I haven't used this thing before, so I have no idea at all about his scoring criteria
(I'm behind the age and haven't used these automated software in FM).
2.
If I were to assign a "value" level, I would probably give "Jumping Reach" a value ranging from "1/3 (33%)" to "1/4 (25%)" for "Acceleration".
The reason is simple: Its effect in the table is roughly "Acceleration" or "Pace" at "1/3 (33%)" to "1/4 (25%)".
Then, if it is a long-term training process, the value of this "Jumping Reach" can be greater (including things like Dribbling and Concentration ).
This is because their improvement rate during training is relatively lower (Unless players specifically set the corresponding options for their improvement , The cost is sacrificing some of the "Acceleration/Pace" growth. ).
3.
Work rate:
This attribute was specifically tested and it is a unique property.
Between "1 and 6", the difference in effect (winning rate/net goals scored) is extremely significant, accounting for the majority of his contribution in the table.
Between "6 and 10", the effect decreases to low.
"Above 10", the effect is decreases to very low.
As for the other attributes, I only tested a portion of them and did not test all of them.
So far, I haven't found any changes with values contributed mainly by "1-6" like "Work rate".
Therefore, there is no need to set a lower limit of "6" for other attributes.
The other attributes only need to be approximately regarded as attributes that uniformly increase/decrease efficiency (although they are not completely linear, but it is fine to consider them as linear in general)
In that sense, wouldn't it be redundant to schedule rest after a match? This is because the starters will already be resting due to the setting, while the substitutes who need match fitness or training will also be resting. Therefore, wouldn't it be better to schedule a match practice the day after a game so that the substitutes can train?
I didn't think about it that much. In fact, all of those options are acceptable.
Because the training schedule usually consists of only 0-4 sessions per week, there is usually plenty of room to accommodate these 4 activities (with actual training intensity to make Possible injure). All that's needed is to schedule them at times when there are no match.
It's better not to schedule sessions on the day after match, as to will minimize the risk of injury .
How to get more than 2 match practice:
Make a schedule of 2x match practice, then apply it to a week with a match in it. Then copy & paste that week to an empty week, the match will be replaced with match practice (total 3x match practice). Then you can just fill it up with as many as you want.
I tested 21x match practice with my realistic Luton test for most of a season. Tremendous amounts of injuries, but in the few who escaped largely unscathed, their attribute increases were mediocre or even declined slightly.
I then tested it with the EBFM test file. Surprisingly hardly any injuries at all over an entire season; '1' injury proneness has a greater protective effect than I realized. Looking at attribute gains of one player that had no injuries, gains were good but not unusually great.
I'm still thinking of the implications here, but one thing is that these players have 20 professionalism. Could it be that professionalism alone accounts for why players in the EBFM league develop significantly while those in my Luton save do not..
I conducted a rough "injury susceptibility" test months ago.
The second row of the table is "injury susceptibility", The team consists of 25 members. They play 2 matches each week, and there are a total of 100 matches throughout the season.
Then, without any training, I calculated the average number of injuries suffered in match.
The last 4 lines, from top to bottom, are the least severe injury and the most severe injury.
Overall, it can be seen that the "injury susceptibility" of 20 is twice injury compare to 10,
the "injury susceptibility" of 10 is twice injury compare to 1,
The approximate proportions of the four types of injuries are: (from mild to severe)
40% : 15% : 35% : 10%
Then this is the test conducted under “the maximum tactical intensity”.
Reducing the intensity of the tactics can slightly reduce the number of injuries, but not by much.
Chris said: So, if I play a team which play champions league (so I usually play 2x week) and I have a lot of youngsters between 17-23 years, which training schedule do you recommend for perform and grow better? Choose just 1 or 2 if possible. Thank you guys for the tests and information u provide.
1.
From what you said, I infer that your players' level is quite high.
Then, if you are not "challenging the limits", then you can take a look at the “274th floor” above,
Download that
" 【身体】+【练习赛】+【攻击】+【恢复】x7+【双倍强度】+【额外重点速度】.fmf "
it's
[Physical]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7
It mainly involves the same three training sessions per week, but the training intensity is further reduced (less injure). Then, the training effects are very similar.
Remember to make the change of "[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]"
2.
Once you feel that the attributes are high enough (although I suggest increasing Acceleration and Pace to 19 or 20 before making any changes), you can replace Additional Focus with whatever else you need.
3.
If your goal is to "challenge the limits", try to win the Champions League in the shortest possible time
Then I would suggest using
"21恢复.fmf"
Defending session: Most importantly, in terms of "weight", It adds a much greater number of "Decision", but "Decision" are of no use and consume a large amount of CA.
In general, you can consider that the "effects" described in the game may not be exactly the same as what they "actually increase that much", or the increase may not be as significant as described .
To "Anticipation", Defending session is It is slightly better than Attacking session, but the difference is very small. So it can be concluded that they are the same.
To "Concentration ",Attacking session increase better
To "Finishing", "Composure",Attacking session increase better
To "Positioning", They are the same.
Using the default database, I've cleared out Luton's players (20th in Premier League) and replaced them with 88 players. That's overloading the squad a bit too much (29.33 per 1st/u21/u18 team), but coach workload was light to average, and I don't know about others but I tend to buy too many players anyway - in any case, it shouldn't change the results too much.
The players I choose were young players, age 16-23 (average ~19), who were pretty cheap to buy and met a lenient search filter criteria (i.e. for ST, ~11 pace/acc + 6 work rate). I would try to pick players with high CA-PA gap. So it's meant to be represent what you'd realistically be able to sign in game. Luton staff were kept the same, knap tactic used.
4 years meta (Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness/Agility focus):
GK - 4.75 agil, 1.25 aer, (-0.25) ref
DL/DR - 2.14 acc, 3.69 pace, 0.07 drib
DC - 2.85 acc, 3.69 pace, 0.5 drib
DM - 2 acc, 3 pace
AML/AMR - 1.71 acc, 2.76 pace
ST - 1.58 acc, 3.25 pace
2 years full rest then 2 years meta:
DL/DR - (-1.81) drib
AML/AMR - 3.2 acc, 4.4 pace
ST - 3.8 acc, 5 pace
4 years meta with 5 weeks full rest at start of each season:
ST - 2.47 acc, 3.67 pace
I'll just cut to the chase about this. It's pretty clear to me that even full rest for just 5 weeks each season sucked too much due to the loss in mentals/technicals. But with meta, only 36 of 83 outfield players got to 16/16 and none got 19/19 or higher. I think at least 17/17 is necessary to dominate in premier league, and given there's a trade off in going for full rest, 18/18 I reckon is the sweet spot. With 5 weeks rest, 1 player reached 20 pace, 6 reached 18/18. I think ~3 weeks rest per season is probably best, and done in the pre-season so it doesn't result in poor performing players due to low match fitness during the competitive matches.
Now after I did these three tests, I used the EBFM test league to test different training schedules to try and find something superior. Eventually I did find a combo that works noticeably better than the meta, but then when I tested it in my Luton realistic test, it failed horribly with 1.87 acc, 2.2 pace and even significant losses in technicals/mentals. I noticed the EBFM file is using FM23 database, maybe this is the cause, but I doubt it, as it should still use the FM24 training values. Another reason I figured is that it could be that the number of matches effects it, so I tried a reduced training schedule that also worked about as good as meta - again I got 1.93 acc, 2.07 pace. Now neither of these employed match practice notably, so that could be the key factor here. It could also tie into the fact that the Luton players have less CA-PA headroom, worse personalities, and so on.. maybe the CA gain limit is too low to absorb all those gains, or maybe the low CA gain limit or poor professionalism changes the actual distribution of attribute gains (i.e. maybe poor professionalism player can only gain physicals, very little mentals/technicals). It could even be the coaches. Who knows.
So the main takeaway from that is that the EBFM test league, and probably all other artificial test leagues, will give different results to realistic gameplay when it comes to assessing training schedules.
Another reason why not to use full rest is because it's clear, albeit in EBFM test league tests, that those lost technicals/mentals are too difficult to recover even if you use 2 years rest then 2 years meta.
So I'm still working on trying to find a better schedule than the meta.
I haven't continued with the test for the time being. Right now, my mind is a bit confused and I'm not sure if you can understand this explanation:
1.
First of all, I haven't tried to see what the outcome would be if I combined different training schedules within a single season. Then,
It is obvious that the testing conditions were under the most ideal circumstances, being even better than normal conditions.
However, this is necessary because we need to highlight the differences in the training results of various types of training programs.
Otherwise, the degree of distinction would be insufficient.
And the players need to be designed to "grow rapidly", so that the effects of different training programs can be distinguished.
2.
So, in the test, the "professional level" of the players was set to be high.
The difference between potential (PA) and current ability (CA) is significant (this has a very significant impact on the actual growth rate).
The training facilities are the best.
The initial ability won't be that high (if set too high, each level-up will require more effort).
3.
In this way, after the test, the training program derived from it is a roughly optimal solution.
Then, for the "actual" players, it is obvious that they usually grow more slowly than player in test league (because the PA-CA value is usually small) and are more affected by randomness.
In this situation, my idea is to create better conditions for their subsequent growth.
The main point is toensure that the "difference between PA and CA" remains sufficiently large for a certain period of time. in this way can Acceleration and Pace maintain the fastest growth.
4.
The advantage brought by this "difference between PA and CA" is that it can to some extent make up for the deficiencies in "professional attributes", training facilities, and other aspects.
The disadvantage is that there is definitely a risk of not being able to fully achieve the PA target.
I think I can accept this risk. and , those lost technicals/mentals was worth it .
those lost technicals/mentals was worth it , Because the attributes of these losses actually do not contribute as much to the winning rate as the attributes of the gains do.
5.
That above is for players at the middle and lower levels. This effectively ensures that everyone can reach the value of 19/20 Acceleration and Pace as soon as possible.
I don't fully agree with the view that 18/18 is sufficient and balance . I think it's still worthwhile to further improve to 20/20.
Of course, this is just my personal opinion. And I might be wrong. My practical experience is also not sufficient.
For high-level/high-potential players,
I don't have any well-developed ideas either.
they have a lot of PA. If we consider the long term, high-level players may not necessarily need "total rest". However, if short-term performance is required, I think it is worth taking the risk to use "total rest".
Importance priority (Briefly, it can be seen from the table "3"
table 1: Increase the attribute from its initial value to 18,
table 2: Reduce the attribute from its initial value to 1,
table 3: Subtract Table 2 from Table 1 to obtain the overall importance.
1.
Acceleration 、 Pace 、
Work Rate (The Work Rate minimum is 6 . below 6 will result in severe penalties, but above 6 will result in a small increase.)
2.
Jumping Reach 、 Dribbling 、 Concentration 、 Anticipation 、Stamina 、Agility 、 Balance
3.
Composure 、 Finishing 、 Strength 、Aggression 、 Positioning
4.
The influence of other attributes has become relatively insignificant.
These results should be able to relieve the concerns of some players
1.Meta ,Gegenpress
In the test
The initial values of Flair, Work rate, Leadership, Aggression, Teamwork and Determination are 10
The initial values of other attributes are 12
Table 1
Change this attribute to 18, the change value of the win rate
Table 2
Change this attribute to 1, the change value of the winning rate
Table 3
Subtracting Table 2 from Table 1, we can obtain the difference in win rates between attribute 18 and attribute 1, which can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
I Did an attribute importance test, and this test was based on meta tactics, that is, tactics developed from Gegenpress
What if it's not Gegenpress?
2.non Gegenpress , Preset - Control Possession 4231
In the test
The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2
Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3
Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
3.non Gegenpress , Preset - Tiki-Taka 433
In the test
The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2
Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3
Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
4.non Gegenpress , Preset - Wing Play 442
In the test
The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2
Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3
Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
5.non Gegenpress , Preset - Route One 433
In the test
The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2
Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3
Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
6.non Gegenpress , Preset - Route One 433
In the test
The initial value of all attributes is 13
Table 2
Change this attribute to 3, the change value of the win rate
Table 3
Taking the opposite of the values in Table 2 can roughly represent the importance of this attribute
Note: The number of samples tested is relatively small. To save time
8.You can notice that their eigenvalues are very similar
Those most important attributes remain significant in other preset tactics. And those attributes with minimal impact remain the least important in other preset tactics. Only some of the "medium" attributes between them will change
This actually denies what some of our players think, for instance,
"
Gegenpress does not require Passing
But Tiki-Taka requires Passing
"
No, they basically adopted the same set of logic
9."Position/Role/Duty" "Key Attributes"
Next, do some tests based on Preset Wing Play 442
Find Central Defender (De) in the tactics
His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Marking, Tackling, Heading, Positioning +5 ( to 18)
Add His Work Rate, Concentration, Decisions, Aggression, Bravery, Anticipation, Composure +2 ( to 15)
According to the game's rating, he is already a five-star top league player. If you look at the key attributes in the game, you would think he is very strong.
These enhancements cost him approximately 30 to 40 CA points more
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1
These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Marking, Tackling, Heading, Positioning +5 ( to 18)
Add His Work Rate, Concentration, Decisions, Aggression, Bravery, Anticipation, Composure +2 ( to 15)
Win Rate +2.1%
cost 30 to 40 CA points
B. Acceleration +1
Win Rate +3.0%
cost 2 CA points
10.Box to Box Midfielder (Su)
Preset Wing Play 442 ,
Box to Box Midfielder (Su) , His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Passing, Technique, Tackling, Finishing, First Touch, Long Shots, Positioning, Decisions, Aggression, Teamwork +5 ( to 18)
Add His Work Rate, Anticipation, Composure , Dribbling +2 ( to 15)
These enhancements cost him 40+ CA
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1
These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Passing, Technique, Tackling, Finishing, First Touch, Long Shots, Positioning, Decisions, Aggression, Teamwork +5 ( to 18)
Add His Work Rate, Anticipation, Composure , Dribbling +2 ( to 15)
Win Rate +4.0%
cost 40 to 50 CA points
B. Acceleration +1
Win Rate +5.8%
cost 2 CA points
11.Ball Winning Midfielder (De)
Preset Wing Play 442 , His key attribute is the highlighted parts along the way
Add His Marking, Tackling, Positioning, Work Rate, Concentration , Aggression , Teamwork , Bravery , Anticipation +5 ( to 18)
These enhancements cost him about 40 CA
The other group only increased Acceleration by +1
These enhancements cost him approximately 2 CA points
A. Add His Marking, Tackling, Positioning, Work Rate, Concentration , Aggression , Teamwork , Bravery , Anticipation +5 ( to 18)
Win Rate +2.3%
cost about 40 CA
B. Acceleration +1
Win Rate +4.4%
cost 2 CA points
12.Repeat the statement , I won't look at the players' ratings; I only look at the team's winning rate
You can see that players who consumed a large amount of CA on key attributes were defeated by +1 Acceleration as a result.
Moreover, the CA spent is not at the same level at all
This conclusion is also the same in other preset tactics, those with lower Tempo and lower Mentality
13.Some players in our community said:
Why does your test increase/decrease all "Finishing" at once?
In the entire team, only two or three players frequently take shots.
——So, logically , the differences in the Finishing attributes of these two or three players should contribute to the overall difference in win rate/goal difference
Such tests would underestimate the importance of Finishing
Now , take Preset Wing Play 442 's two ST for example ,
They completed the majority of the shots in the team
What if we change the Finishing of these two players separately?
14.
First, change all players Finishing -10
The result is as shown in the table, with a winning rate of -6.7%
Then，change the Finishing of these two players separately , -10 Finishing
The winning rate -1.2%
-1.2%/-6.7% ≈ 18%
This is what I said before.
Logically,
STs, Wings, contributed almost all the shots
If all attributes increase together, it seems that the effect of Finishing is underestimated
But in fact, it is not.
In fact, the Finishing of players who hardly shoot, The Crossing of players who never do Crossing ... also taking effect on the entire team
This is why I adopted the approach of adding or removing attributes together as a team to measure the importance of attributes
15.Players in our community have pointed out that such tests all involve "test dummies" with the same attributes. In actual play, it's players with different attributes. Does this conclusion mean it's incorrect?
I found such a league where players are divided into 4 groups, from strong to weak, all of which are players with real attributes in the game
Then verification was conducted and it was found to be consistent, indicating that there was no problem
16.
Fix 29/12/2025:
I noticed that several loaned players were not locked attributes by FMRTE. Therefore, this coach's test was interfered with and the results were not accurate.
Other content, I remade a league. Out of curiosity, I tested the intensity of 20 AI famous coaches using preset Gegenpress 433
This time, only one tactic was used to measure the result, which may not fully reflect the intensity, but it can be roughly referred to
Note: The "strength" of the coach (whether it is good for the game engine) has nothing to do with the "strength" of the players at all. Strong players can also be paired with weak coaches
Gerhard·Struber
from FC Red Bull Salzburg
is the best-performing one
Dino·Toppmöller
from Eintracht Frankfurt
is the second best
Luis Enrique·Martínez García
from Paris Saint-Germain F.C.
is the second worse
Pep·Guardiola
from Manchester City F.C.
is the The worst
talcxxv said: Probably a case of me being blind, but any schedule file for download?
attachments
each of these methods has its own advantages ( having a full day of Rest after a match ).
It may depend on whether your player is extremely tired or just a little tired.
I uploaded several schedules that I had posted before, which have been downloaded over 50,000 times in our community .
You can try all of them based on your actual preferences and see which one you like.
It's all about choosing according to the actual situation
If it were me: In medium and low-level leagues (low-level players), I would choose "21 recoveries"/" 7 recoveries "/" full rest ".
For High-level leagues will switch to other schedules at an appropriate time (the schedule good for increase CA like quickness + match practice + attacking .
The first one is "21 recoveries + double Intensity + additional focus qucikness", which was created by taking advantage of some kind of bug.
The effect is basically the same as a full rest. but lose less "condition" and "March sharpness" , If you don't want to be bothered by these troublesome mico-operations, I recommend using it