Juicebat said: I've been setting my U-20 training schedules to full rest double intensity and my first team schedules to v7. Is this ideal for overall growth?
Also do you recommend loaning out prospects for game time at the cost of not having control over training? Expand
Depends on the save and how much you need/want to optimize PA into physicals. The bottleneck is first team minutes to reach PA so realistically you’ll need to loan guys out to consistently hit it. Even if you have reserves there is limited minutes there too.
In my experience managing in Germany, players who seem to have a decent amount of PA/professionalism hit at least 15+ acc/pac just doing V7 by 18-20 and usually get to at least 17s before maxing out. The 30 ca gain is not realistic in a real save unless you have a ton of first team minutes to give and someone with really high professionalism but the acc/pac usually gets priority.
I would only bother with no training if I was trying to do something that actually required like 90 PA players with 20/20 pac/acc. Which is intake only saves, winning ACL with like an Indian team, club WC with a MLS team (salary capped), etc Basically in any European save, you eventually get rich enough to buy/keep high PA regens because of UCL money.
Seems to support the hypothesis that some of the attributes are good when on a limited number of players and/or role specific. Back half he starts editing attributes.
Doesn’t really change the fact that signing Fast players is best but I did find it interesting.
Rhumble said: Yep , im lost tbh , it could just be me or something is missing somewhere but i just dont see the information in laymans terms, i read and reread the opening post but whether the translation from Chinese to English isnt quite getting through i dont know, if we could know the attributes needed from important down for each position then it might start to make sense. Expand
Having high amount of attributes like Decisions across the board makes a teams perform worse but having high on certain positions is an increase in team performance. They think this is due players being more likely to take an action if certain attributes are high and it becomes counterproductive. (Decisions is good on DCs but not good when it’s high everywhere.)
The 2nd point: Higher Player performance Ratings also don’t necessarily lead to more wins. Increasing attributes will increase the individual player rating but team performance will go down. I think the example given is passing on AMC made his rating go up but the gd went down and the ratings were in Chinese.
The meta attributes are ones that don’t cause players to counter act each other and are additive.
TBH, I’m fairly convinced we are just slowly recreating the AI weightings from a couple years ago.
RikersFlesh said: The importance of athleticism isn't that horribly unrealistic IMO (are clubs with poor athleticism winning top leagues regularly?) and I'm not sure it's even that unbalanced. I think you can win big leagues with good but not elite pace/acceleration (12-13) in a lot of positions. With some meta tactics, even good speed is optional - with one of the better 4-2-3-1 tactics I had Isco rack up assists with his 11/11 or whatever.
If I'm going to object to something about the game it's how quickly athleticism falls off for players over 31 and how nothing in the game (hidden attribute, trait, natural fitness) exists to counteract that. Expand
It's pretty unrealistic imo, I think IRL that the actual physical speed of players is a lot closer together across professional leagues than what's represented in game. The biggest difference is how fast the best players can process information and react while keeping their technique. I always assumed SI juiced the physical stats of top players so they would be clearly better in the engine.
Maybe I've just watched a lot of bad super athletic soccer players following US Men's teams and MLS. It cracks me up that the best stragegy in FM is to just recreate US Soccer's strategy in the 90s-2000s.
Yarema said: Like I said maybe in another thread. Issue with such B teams is that they are semipro. So players don't train full time and they will hardly develop. Expand
My example is Stuttgart II (indivual team is professional) that plays in the Regionalliga. It's not viewable/loadable. There are no standings/individual games, but you can see your players season stats. You can also manipulate who starts by moving them up to the first team.
It may be classified as a Semi-Pro league, I think IRL there are Pro- Semi and Amateur that play in those leagues.
juliius said: I hope some of you guys know this, because i don't. How much value do the u18 and u21 games have in comparison to first team football, in terms of generating player growth? I seem to remember first team football being more valuable. Am i wrong? Expand
In my experience it's a lot more. I'm surprised the league rep didn't matter in HG's testing.
B teams not in loadable leagues(like German Regional) usually do not develop much after 18 even if you micro manage the roster to make sure guys get phantom games. This may be CA dependent because the especially bad players that I move to the 2nd team to prevent them taking time from better prospects in the youth team tend get up arrows for a year or so before stopping.
Getting consistent 20-30 minutes of game time in blowouts for the first team gets more development than youth teams.
This may be selection bias since I'm more likely to force game time for high PA players.
azsumnasko said: Have there been a discussion on how to optimize the effect of having fast players - e.g. A tactic probably more direct one with standard block. What are your experiences with this (I know all tactics will benefit fast players, but I'd like to have the most fit for low CA and max result) Expand
In lower leagues where you can reasonably get a 2+ ACC/PAC across the board against the entire league. Just put trigger press all the way up /run a high press/high line then put your fastest players in their natural position in a semi-coherent formation.
Graz said: So the next question is how to maximise youth intake? If the first 3/4 years (15-19) are the most important for growth and maximising physicals, what are the best ways to increase our RNG for youth candidate?
1. Head of Youth Development 20-20 Judging Potential, Working with youngsters 2. HoYD very strong personality with high Professionalism, Ambition & determination (Model Citizen/Perfectionist) 3. "Exceptional youth recruitment" 4. Feeder clubs with Exceptional youth recruitment and "may send academy players to train at..."
(FWIW, I have all these with my current Brighton Save and I've only had 1 "A" rated youth in 4 seasons)
Anything else I've missed or overlooked?
Also what would be the ideal strategy, send them on loan ASAP to increase their overall development or keep them in this specific training structure until they're 19 and then send them out on loan? I suppose it would depend if they max Pace/Acc before they're 19? Expand
I don't think 1 matters. Just #2, #3 + maxed Junior Coaching and Facilities and maybe feeder clubs. For #4, Has it been proven that this doesn't just change the nationality of your own intake?
idek0k said: I started a save to test this out, in a real club in real conditions. Im the dominant club in the league and we've been doing pretty well. Im in January now, and almost none of my players improved. Most of them had a decline in a lot of attributes with no growth. Is there a reason for this? I followed everything precisely.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one [Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness] Expand
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
AIK said: Could be that most tactics are playing with low crosses as well.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play. Expand
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
kvasir said: For most attributes, you can figure out if they’re defensive or offensive based on goals for/goals against, but jumping reach isn’t as clear. Do the +14 goals come mainly from set pieces or open play? It’s probably set pieces, right? This just reinforces how jumping reach doesn’t matter much for strikers, like the ykykyk findings from a few years ago, especially since most top tactics rely on low crosses. Having 2-3 defensive players with good jumping reach should be plenty to score from set pieces and defend them effectively.
If my thinking is off here, let me know. Expand
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
At this point it would be more interesting to test position rating systems to see if it can consistently produce winners against a + 2 or + 4 acc/pac team with the secondary meta attributes + stamina/wr set to 10 & the rest of the worthless attributes set to 1. ie A team with of 14 acc/pac with anything goes vs 16/16 acc/pac or 18 acc/pac team.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling.
In the control group did you lower their technique? By default nearly all the Man City players have over 10 technique so you wouldn't be able to raise it by 10.
In the Machine Learning weights technique was only moderately weighted high on DM(RPM), AMC, ST. One theory is it's bad to have defenders with high technique/flair. The attribute table from 2022 is basically the same as today.
Or another is technique (decisions/vision/passing?) is related to the success of certain traits like tries killer passes/curls ball/round the keeper/shoots with power/places shots/etc. And you would need said traits to get any benefit. But that doesn't explain why it's negative as you would expect it to be neutral. In the Man City example Haaland only has "tries first time shots" related to technique. This is the only thing I can think of.
The most likely scenario is technique was good at some point in previous editions but other changes made in the engine over the years has unintentionally made it bad.
Also do you recommend loaning out prospects for game time at the cost of not having control over training?
Depends on the save and how much you need/want to optimize PA into physicals. The bottleneck is first team minutes to reach PA so realistically you’ll need to loan guys out to consistently hit it. Even if you have reserves there is limited minutes there too.
In my experience managing in Germany, players who seem to have a decent amount of PA/professionalism hit at least 15+ acc/pac just doing V7 by 18-20 and usually get to at least 17s before maxing out. The 30 ca gain is not realistic in a real save unless you have a ton of first team minutes to give and someone with really high professionalism but the acc/pac usually gets priority.
I would only bother with no training if I was trying to do something that actually required like 90 PA players with 20/20 pac/acc. Which is intake only saves, winning ACL with like an Indian team, club WC with a MLS team (salary capped), etc Basically in any European save, you eventually get rich enough to buy/keep high PA regens because of UCL money.
I also think you would get the same results just blanking setting acc/pac/jr to 20.
Seems to support the hypothesis that some of the attributes are good when on a limited number of players and/or role specific. Back half he starts editing attributes.
Doesn’t really change the fact that signing Fast players is best but I did find it interesting.
Having high amount of attributes like Decisions across the board makes a teams perform worse but having high on certain positions is an increase in team performance. They think this is due players being more likely to take an action if certain attributes are high and it becomes counterproductive. (Decisions is good on DCs but not good when it’s high everywhere.)
The 2nd point:
Higher Player performance Ratings also don’t necessarily lead to more wins. Increasing attributes will increase the individual player rating but team performance will go down. I think the example given is passing on AMC made his rating go up but the gd went down and the ratings were in Chinese.
The meta attributes are ones that don’t cause players to counter act each other and are additive.
TBH, I’m fairly convinced we are just slowly recreating the AI weightings from a couple years ago.
If I'm going to object to something about the game it's how quickly athleticism falls off for players over 31 and how nothing in the game (hidden attribute, trait, natural fitness) exists to counteract that.
It's pretty unrealistic imo, I think IRL that the actual physical speed of players is a lot closer together across professional leagues than what's represented in game. The biggest difference is how fast the best players can process information and react while keeping their technique. I always assumed SI juiced the physical stats of top players so they would be clearly better in the engine.
Maybe I've just watched a lot of bad super athletic soccer players following US Men's teams and MLS. It cracks me up that the best stragegy in FM is to just recreate US Soccer's strategy in the 90s-2000s.
My example is Stuttgart II (indivual team is professional) that plays in the Regionalliga. It's not viewable/loadable. There are no standings/individual games, but you can see your players season stats. You can also manipulate who starts by moving them up to the first team.
It may be classified as a Semi-Pro league, I think IRL there are Pro- Semi and Amateur that play in those leagues.
How much value do the u18 and u21 games have in comparison to first team football, in terms of generating player growth? I seem to remember first team football being more valuable. Am i wrong?
In my experience it's a lot more. I'm surprised the league rep didn't matter in HG's testing.
B teams not in loadable leagues(like German Regional) usually do not develop much after 18 even if you micro manage the roster to make sure guys get phantom games. This may be CA dependent because the especially bad players that I move to the 2nd team to prevent them taking time from better prospects in the youth team tend get up arrows for a year or so before stopping.
Getting consistent 20-30 minutes of game time in blowouts for the first team gets more development than youth teams.
This may be selection bias since I'm more likely to force game time for high PA players.
In lower leagues where you can reasonably get a 2+ ACC/PAC across the board against the entire league. Just put trigger press all the way up /run a high press/high line then put your fastest players in their natural position in a semi-coherent formation.
1. Head of Youth Development 20-20 Judging Potential, Working with youngsters
2. HoYD very strong personality with high Professionalism, Ambition & determination (Model Citizen/Perfectionist)
3. "Exceptional youth recruitment"
4. Feeder clubs with Exceptional youth recruitment and "may send academy players to train at..."
(FWIW, I have all these with my current Brighton Save and I've only had 1 "A" rated youth in 4 seasons)
Anything else I've missed or overlooked?
Also what would be the ideal strategy, send them on loan ASAP to increase their overall development or keep them in this specific training structure until they're 19 and then send them out on loan? I suppose it would depend if they max Pace/Acc before they're 19?
I don't think 1 matters. Just #2, #3 + maxed Junior Coaching and Facilities and maybe feeder clubs. For #4, Has it been proven that this doesn't just change the nationality of your own intake?
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one
[Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play.
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
If my thinking is off here, let me know.
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling.
In the Machine Learning weights technique was only moderately weighted high on DM(RPM), AMC, ST. One theory is it's bad to have defenders with high technique/flair. The attribute table from 2022 is basically the same as today.
Or another is technique (decisions/vision/passing?) is related to the success of certain traits like tries killer passes/curls ball/round the keeper/shoots with power/places shots/etc. And you would need said traits to get any benefit. But that doesn't explain why it's negative as you would expect it to be neutral. In the Man City example Haaland only has "tries first time shots" related to technique. This is the only thing I can think of.
The most likely scenario is technique was good at some point in previous editions but other changes made in the engine over the years has unintentionally made it bad.