LightningFlik said: Are there CA-hungry attributes that people feel don't really contribute to actual results (e.g. dual-footedness)?
I have a theory that a player's CA is a multiplier for all other attributes when it comes to determining their overall strength. So given two players whose only difference is CA + whatever inconsequential attribute bumps it takes to justify the increased CA, the player with the higher CA will perform better.
An entire team of such players should outperform the same team without boosted CA. That is, a team of 99 CA players should be consistently outperformed by a team of 100 CA players even if their attributes are almost 100% identical.
If I'm wrong then bumping a useless attribute to the point where it increases CA by 1 should make no difference. Expand Nah, I don't think this is the case because decisions has mid to high CA weight for all positions, but HarvestGreen found it has no positive effect.
Can say the same for almost all of the technical attributes.
We also see a player like Maeda, who has relatively low CA, finishes near the very top in a real performance test.
It stood out to me that in the Championship Manager era, CA did come into account, where certain attribute combos were not assessed until CA was 120+. It's possible something similar might have been inherited from CM into FM.
LightningFlik said: I was digging around in the simatch.fmf file and found the attributes which are used to determine how often a player succeeds at a given task. I don't know if this is useful to anybody but it does present the opportunity for a fun experiment where you mod the file to replace everything with something like "Flair" and then give yourself a bunch of Flair: 20 players to see if that makes you incredibly OP. (If not, then it probably means this data can't be trusted anyway).
Come to think of it, it's probably a good time to have a think about this again.
What the data seems to show is that even if we assume these combos are valid (which I think they probably are), they don't necessarily result in wins/losses from having them.
I suspect certain combos are a lot more consequential than others according to what tactic you use. Since only certain tactics actually win, that narrows down the attribute combos that matter, and consequently the attributes that matter.
For me, the most solid starting point are the attributes that matter. From that we can rule out some of those combos leaving us with:
| Fouls made | Dirtiness, Aggression | | Dribbles | Dribbling, Flair, Pace, Acceleration | | Offsides | Movement, Work Rate, Acceleration, Concentration | | Distance run | Work Rate, Stamina, Pace | | Sprints | Work Rate, Stamina | | Pressures attempted | Work Rate, Anticipation | | Pressure completion | Work Rate, Anticipation, Acceleration |
I've left dribbles & offsides in despite it having flair/movement listed, as perhaps the other attributes are doing the heavy lifting.
I have theories on why Knap's 424 tactic is the best, but what we can say for sure in general is that high intensity & pressing is essential to winning.
I guess though it would be interesting to see if positioning helps a team that is so inadequate that not even the Knap tactic can save it. For strong teams, they often get 0 goals against them anyway, but for a newly promoted team, perhaps the interceptions/blocks/clearances/headers from the high positioning would achieve more draws than the Knap tactic does wins. I think it would have to be a team worse than Luton.
When I was in the early stages of constructing my tactic, I found that things can get pretty wacky:
This isn't of much practical use to know, because the limits of tactics have been largely explored, but what it means is that you aren't really constrained by the quality of your players.. the tactic can make Luton score 4-6 goals week in, week out - even against Man City, and when losing overall.
And of course we see with the Knap tactic that it can make a bunch of duds win the Premier League, so it seems to me more like the tactic is pulling something out of a hat rather than squeezing the extra 10% out of your players.
In the opposite direction, a certain tactic results in Luton losing ~24-0 every match.
Edit: I guess one potential use is FM clownmaxxing?
Would be fun to play with 9-8 results and still end up finishing in the top half.
I would like to say I got 1st with Luton using my own tactic, but actually I used the Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC tactic (with 'Blue' set piece routines). However I did use it combination with team selection based on my FMSS weights and other little things that help such as having a lot of pre-season easy friendlies.
There were no transfers or anything like that, and everything was hands-off after day 1, so I consider this a default run, but obviously its different to a standard plug-and-play test.
The best result for a standard plug-and-play test, with Blue set pieces, has been 2nd with again Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
I haven't been able to replicate 1st since, so it's a bit of a fluke. I've come up with 2 strong variations of the Knap tactic of my own, I'll call them A1 and B1 here, and B1 was awfully close to achieving 1st:
I haven't been keeping the neatest data, but here's some of what I've got:
Luton A1 - 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, 7th, 6th, 7th, 10th = 6.875 position Sterling meta team fixed A1 - 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 13th, 12th = 8.666 position Man City A1 - 1st 107pts, 1st 99pts, 1st 86pts = 1st position
Luton Knap - 2nd, 7th, 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th, 4th = 5.286 position Sterling meta team fixed Knap = 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th = 6.375 position Man City Knap - Going by the tactic name, 101 pts? Luton Knap - (optimized team) - 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd = 3.3 position (note: samples beyond first three had a role adjustment or two)
Luton B1 - 11th, 5th, 8th, 6th = 7.5 position Sterling meta team fixed B1 - 6th = 6th position Man City B1 - 1st 98pts, 1st 95pts = 1st position Luton B1 (optimized team) - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 8th, 2nd = 4.333 position
So as you see, I haven't yet been able to top Knap's tactic. Observe also how the result becomes a lot more consistent when the team is pre-selected. The 'randomness' factor seems to only account for ~1-2 positions difference in the vast majority of cases; most of what is considered 'random' seems to actually just be different player selection. And you can't bring up injuries or whatnot, because that 1-2 position difference is inclusive of injuries, morale, and so on.
Here are some results of other tactics (Luton default):
PERFECT STRANGERS 42112 WIWBA P107 EF - 12th, 5th, 4th, 11th = 8th position HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC - 4th, 10th, 8th = 7.333 position FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS - 3rd, 6th = 4.5 position (1st 94pts for Man City) FM24.4KASHMIRKnap 4213 RPM RM P114 ECCC - 5th FM24.4EFKnap 4231 A MT MC P112 FA - 8th FM24.4OXFORDKnap 4141 RM P110ALLCUPS Luton - 9th FM24.4MADASAHATTERKnap 4132 PF2 RM P105FACC - 7th EF 424 MC P101 EC FA CC - 6th 424 Mountain King - 4th SPEARHEAD 4132 - 6th
I wouldn't ordinarily say you can take anything from a single sample, but I think what we can say at least is that it doesn't seem like there is an overlooked tactic out there that actually makes Luton miraculously finish 1st consistently.
HGF 4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS is a promising candidate though that could do with more testing.
Some observations from my testing:
- A single adjustment to a top tactic, whether it's attacking > positive, or setting 'work ball into box', will most likely ruin it. Usually the effects aren't even intuitive. Don't do it lads. - Adjustments to roles can be more forgiving or even work, but most of the time you're going to botch it - High intensity/pressing seems strictly essential. There are some cases however where 'positive' instead of 'attacking' say, and not going hard in tackles for certain positions, is viable or is even best for that particular formation. For Knap's best tactic though, 'attacking' and hard tackling on all players is simply what works best. - Alternative formations, even ridiculous ones, can work surprisingly well. The main aspect to consider seems to be position proficiency - you should choose the formation which is inclusive of your best player's positions. Certain formations such as 424 do seem to have an inherent edge though aside from position proficiency. I have speculative theories on as to why, but I can surmise it as 'ideal angles of attack'. - It does seem to me that 'roles' are simply half-blinded judgements for your staff to use when assessing players. To me this is reinforced by the 'pick roles & duties' dropdown option under 'quick pick', which actually changes the roles & duties in your tactic to what your assistant thinks is best. Attributes have nothing to do with roles; every outfield player performs according to the exact same attribute formula regardless of position let alone role. Yet changing the role does have an impact on results. How to square this fact? The assistant is essentially choosing between jumbled up lists, and what is probably happening is that some lists (i.e. AF ST) are less jumbled up than others (i.e. False Nine ST). If you preselect the players, it reduces the result variation a lot. And also if you then change the role, it does not seem to change the result much. Yet this is not always the case. Possible explanation: Some roles disallow or enforce certain player instructions, and even those that don't, may in theory change the positioning of the player.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed As part of your season-long experiments, would it be valuable to see at a glance all teams in a given league with the average rating of their players?
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% | | Liverpool | 83.60% | | Arsenal | 82.13% | | Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one. Expand Yes, I've been missing that feature a bit since every league became 'jupiler league' in Genie Scout.
I did a test before of the Premier League with 4 teams replaced with 80%, 78%, 76%, 74% players. I only did a few samples, but they all finished in the correct order at season's end.
Wail said: Can you do it automatically through the season ? or we have to do it week by week, its kinda boring copy pasting it. Expand You add it for every week straightaway, but I don't think there's a way around having to copy paste each week
bf3metro said: One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear. Expand I think there's an option in the settings to set matches to only be on 2 certain days? I don't use this though, so not sure.
I would do 2 days of [Physical][Attack]
I wish I could remember the details properly, but I can vaguely recall that where you place training doesn't matter like you would think it does. That you can put training straight after a match day, and it won't affect condition recovery rate or injury rate. And that it's actually calculated as a whole 2 week (not even 1 week) block of training.
Not 100% certain on the injury thing, because I would think that unrecovered condition would increase injury rate of training modules, but then again match sharpness (which decreases with time post-match) has a bigger influence on injury rate, so perhaps they cancel each other out.
I won't get into the details because it'll just be confusing, but the Sterling meta team vs. real Luton discrepancy should be fixed now, and you can discard the theory I came up with to try and explain the discrepancy (that roles do take attributes into account in some way).
But this leads me to new ideas.
We see that when position proficiency is equalized, a non-sensical assymetric tactic that I came up with performed equal to Knap's best tactic (5th vs 6th).
We also see that the random variation is subdued a lot with the meta team due it being composed of identical players. Consistent ~6th-7th with Knap tactic, compared to ~2nd-10th for real Luton. And it's unlikely to be mostly on account of injuries, morale, etc. because none of those are controlled with the meta team tests.
A theory I have is that when the assistant manager picks players to play at real Luton, he is choosing based on role rating. Roles are an average(?) of select highlighted attributes. Some of these roles are going to highlight more meta attributes than others.
Now let's take a look at some ST options:
trequartista ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil, bal false nine ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil*, bal advanced forward ST - drib*, fin*, ant, com*, work, acc*, agil, bal, pace, sta pressing forward ST - agg*, ant*, com, con, work*, acc*, agil, bal, pace*, sta*, str
* denotes its shown as a key attribute for the role.
I've highlighted attributes that contribute 25 or more weight, inferred from the real player testing I've done.
Guess which two of the four Knap's tactic employs.
Now if the assistant manager is selecting based on the role selected in your tactic, then we can suppose if I use AF STs, I will get ~2nd, but if I use False Nine STs maybe I will get ~16th. Not variations between 2nd and 10th. Consider however that because the assistant manager is effectively using a half-blinded assessment, a layer of inconsistency is being added. So for instance, your tactic has 2x AF ST, and your assistant picks 2xST that has very high acc & drib because they have the highest AF ST role score. However, you also have a False Nine ST that has very high det, con, vis, pace, work, and jump that your assistant overlooked, but may nonetheless get rotated in half the time as they are the close 2nd option.
I'll be doing some tests to see if this theory works at all or not.
First result for my tactic with default Man City w/ Blue routines, no player selection or anything. I do set the training intensity to 0-0-0-2x-2x though.
I'm thinking I'll run about 10 tests of Luton & Man City each to see how it goes against the Knap tactic.
I've done 2 tests so far of HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC, which I've seen Cardoni recommend:
Luton default = 4th, 10th
Another thing I'm thinking of doing is having a 3rd crack at player traits. We know that the tactic is very important, and that player instructions are part of this.. so maybe if we have a team given player traits that align perfectly with the Knap tactic, it will do better - even if its because its giving initial familiarity when normally there is zero starting familiarity. So we'll see if anything results from this approach.
LightningFlik said: With that in mind, how flexible a weighting system do you think is needed to really assess players? Is a simple Pace: 20, Acceleration: 19.2 system sufficient or do you need interdependence between attributes? Expand There isn't the data yet to confirm one way or the other, but my hunch is that there aren't many attribute interactions going on, simply because the evidence shows almost all the technicals don't matter no matter what.
However I believe there is an interaction between aggression and dirtiness for instance that is crucial. Not just because it's a hypothesis that sounds sensible, but because as I was playing around with the weightings, it just seems to make things work out better.
So it would be good if you could include the ability to create complex formulas as FMSS does, but I don't know how difficult that would be to implement.
A fair chunk of my earlier post on tactics is in error, as I changed position proficiency at some point for my meta team and forgot to change them back.. this only affects the statements about meta team vs. real Luton/Man City results. Everything else remains valid. I'll conduct fresh tests on the meta team to sort it out.
I've come up with my own variation of the 4-2-4 formation/Knap tactic that is quite unique I believe, based on a theory I have. Initial results are 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd as Luton and 6th, 7th as meta team after I've fixed it back up. So possibly equal to the Knap tactic, and perhaps a tweak or two can push it higher. I figure that I would probably only release a tactic if I can get 1st as Luton.
Does anyone know if 1st as Luton has been achieved with a tactic test? Obviously just the default test run, no managing the team throughout the season to achieve it.
LightningFlik said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Are you in the market for an FM 24 scouting tool with customisable weights? or do you have one already? Mine is nearly done but there's been so many released recently, I can't even keep track. Expand Yes, I'm still keen to see your go at it. The more options the better.
I guess with FM27 coming soon, its 50/50 whether people will move on entirely from FM24 or not. But if FM27 turns out to be crap 2.0, then I think these new tools will help keep FM24 alive by injecting a bit of novelty into it.
I've been making my first foray into tactic creation. Unfortunately I haven't been able to top Knap's EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC, but it did bring out some things worth mentioning. I know most of us are waiting now for FM27, and this stuff should apply to FM27 as well.
I started testing with my meta team + Sterling that always seemed to finish a rock solid ~6th.
It didn't take me long to come up with an unusual tactic that finished 5th. However when I tested this with real Luton, they only finished 8th-16th, whereas the Knap tactic can finished as high as 2nd (2nd-10th?). My tactic won with Man City, but only with 89 pts (Knap as high as ~100-110?).
And it's not just my tactic. 424 Mountain King did better than the Knap tactic with my test team from memory, but I didn't get 2nd with it for real Luton.
I tested a bunch more Knap tactics. The results in his spreadsheet don't line up with my results, whereas by contrast it seems that FM Arena's testing is accurate in spite of the methodology critiques I would have of it. Nonetheless all the ones I tried did well, at least 9th for real Luton and often better. But nothing got 2nd like EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
Of the alternatives I tested, FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS seemed the best. 3rd, 6th Luton. Man City 1st 94pts.
Curiously I could use my unusual tactic with several positions I had no player proficiency in at all across my meta team, and yet it still did well. Not quite as good, but it held up well.
Now here's the point we can take beyond FM24:
The results suggest that roles or player instructions are in fact dependent on the attributes of players in some respect.
Yet we also know from the meta team results that it's not what the roles highlight, nor combined team quality.
Injuries, differing player choices, etc. can account for the high variation in the real Luton results relative to the meta team test, but it doesn't explain why only the Knap tactic peaks far higher with real Luton.
One idea I have is that perhaps its not combined team quality, but how each player's attribute is relative to others in his team. In the official guide, they talk of 'absolute' vs 'relative' attributes, and most attributes are 'relative'; perhaps this is what they were actually talking about. There is some suggestive evidence that makes me think along these lines, such as that with finishing, you only need a player with ~7 finishing, but any figure can do the job really, and what happens is whoever in the team has the highest finishing is the one scores the most goals, even if they're a DL with 5 finishing. So we see here that a low attribute altered the tactical outcomes, because of how it was relative to others in the team.
So for instance in my meta team all my players have 8 passing and 13 dribbling, the tactic treats them as all equally likely distribute the task of passing and dribbling I suppose. Perhaps an attribute such as 'teamwork' even influences how well these tasks are evenly distributed throughout the team. But then also for each individual player, they would be more likely to dribble (13) than pass (8).
It's pure speculation, but it would explain why virtually every technical attribute matters zero percent. It would be that the tactic minimizes their influence, and that tactics which don't minimize their influence get beat anyway, whereas Knap's tactic wins almost every match. In other words it could be that just the tactics are broken, rather than that the attributes are also broken. 0 direct passes x 20 passing = effectively 0 passing. Or, 20 direct passes x 20 passing x 0% win rate = 0% win rate for 20 passing.
Torresinho said: what about playing time for young players ? Expand 18 or less = Don't need competitive matches, but do play in friendlies (u18s/reserves fine) mainly to keep their match sharpness up in order to avoid injury more than development 21+ = Need at least 15 full matches (1350 minutes) per season to develop adequately, 25-35 is ideal, so this is why loans typically become necessary 19-20 = Inbetween the two above
Don't bother bringing on young players for a few minutes at the end of a game. The game counts experience in terms of minutes not appearances, and I suspect it could also be counting it the same way it counts minutes for match sharpness, which is that it counts in precise 11 minute blocks (I think it was 11 minutes.. something near that anyway).
alexej said: Sorry if this has already been said but are these all at x2 training intensity? Expand I don't know what HarvestGreen tested them with, but he recommends 0-0-0-2x-2x, and I've played around with it myself before and found that to be best too.
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att 214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att 260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att 142 = 125% GK, 125% Def, 125% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
bf3metro said: If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use? Expand I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above
I've done most of the remaining training schedules in HarvestGreen's spreadsheet.
We have a new top one, that I've highlighted green. This one was actually suggested by tam1236 back in january. He took the HarvestGreen attribute test findings and did a calculation on it to find this as the best training schedule.
It even has pretty good efficiency, though I suspect the workload could be too high to be worth using with all those modules. Very impressive though given it also has one of the highest CA gains (37.75), so it's particularly good if you want to keep your players looking well rounded for aesthetic reasons without compromising on actual performance.
It turns out there are a lot of very high efficiency options above 1000 (so still ~85%+ of the absolute best), and the most efficient is now Recoveryx13. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's interesting there's a profound difference in training quality between rest and recovery on their own.
I've highlighted in yellow some schedules that stand out to me, but I haven't taken a close look yet.
I have a theory that a player's CA is a multiplier for all other attributes when it comes to determining their overall strength. So given two players whose only difference is CA + whatever inconsequential attribute bumps it takes to justify the increased CA, the player with the higher CA will perform better.
An entire team of such players should outperform the same team without boosted CA. That is, a team of 99 CA players should be consistently outperformed by a team of 100 CA players even if their attributes are almost 100% identical.
If I'm wrong then bumping a useless attribute to the point where it increases CA by 1 should make no difference.
Nah, I don't think this is the case because decisions has mid to high CA weight for all positions, but HarvestGreen found it has no positive effect.
Can say the same for almost all of the technical attributes.
We also see a player like Maeda, who has relatively low CA, finishes near the very top in a real performance test.
It stood out to me that in the Championship Manager era, CA did come into account, where certain attribute combos were not assessed until CA was 120+. It's possible something similar might have been inherited from CM into FM.
LightningFlik said: I was digging around in the simatch.fmf file and found the attributes which are used to determine how often a player succeeds at a given task. I don't know if this is useful to anybody but it does present the opportunity for a fun experiment where you mod the file to replace everything with something like "Flair" and then give yourself a bunch of Flair: 20 players to see if that makes you incredibly OP. (If not, then it probably means this data can't be trusted anyway).
| Statistic | Encoded attributes |
| --- | --- |
| Passes attempted | Passing, Work Rate |
| Pass completion | Passing, Decisions |
| Key passes | Passing, Vision |
| Crosses attempted | Crossing, Work Rate |
| Cross completion | Crossing, Vision, Technique |
| Tackles attempted | Tackling, Positioning, Work Rate |
| Tackle completion | Tackling, Positioning |
| Interceptions | Anticipation, Positioning |
| Blocks | Anticipation, Positioning, Bravery |
| Clearances | Positioning |
| Headers attempted | Positioning, Jumping |
| Header completion | Heading, Strength, Jumping |
| Fouls made | Dirtiness, Aggression |
| Dribbles | Dribbling, Flair, Pace, Acceleration |
| Offsides | Movement, Work Rate, Acceleration, Concentration |
| Distance run | Work Rate, Stamina, Pace |
| Sprints | Work Rate, Stamina |
| Pressures attempted | Work Rate, Anticipation |
| Pressure completion | Work Rate, Anticipation, Acceleration |
| Progressive passes | Passing, Vision |
HarvestGreen did a followup thread to the one Yarema linked.
Come to think of it, it's probably a good time to have a think about this again.
What the data seems to show is that even if we assume these combos are valid (which I think they probably are), they don't necessarily result in wins/losses from having them.
I suspect certain combos are a lot more consequential than others according to what tactic you use. Since only certain tactics actually win, that narrows down the attribute combos that matter, and consequently the attributes that matter.
For me, the most solid starting point are the attributes that matter. From that we can rule out some of those combos leaving us with:
| Fouls made | Dirtiness, Aggression |
| Dribbles | Dribbling, Flair, Pace, Acceleration |
| Offsides | Movement, Work Rate, Acceleration, Concentration |
| Distance run | Work Rate, Stamina, Pace |
| Sprints | Work Rate, Stamina |
| Pressures attempted | Work Rate, Anticipation |
| Pressure completion | Work Rate, Anticipation, Acceleration |
I've left dribbles & offsides in despite it having flair/movement listed, as perhaps the other attributes are doing the heavy lifting.
I have theories on why Knap's 424 tactic is the best, but what we can say for sure in general is that high intensity & pressing is essential to winning.
I guess though it would be interesting to see if positioning helps a team that is so inadequate that not even the Knap tactic can save it. For strong teams, they often get 0 goals against them anyway, but for a newly promoted team, perhaps the interceptions/blocks/clearances/headers from the high positioning would achieve more draws than the Knap tactic does wins. I think it would have to be a team worse than Luton.
This isn't of much practical use to know, because the limits of tactics have been largely explored, but what it means is that you aren't really constrained by the quality of your players.. the tactic can make Luton score 4-6 goals week in, week out - even against Man City, and when losing overall.
And of course we see with the Knap tactic that it can make a bunch of duds win the Premier League, so it seems to me more like the tactic is pulling something out of a hat rather than squeezing the extra 10% out of your players.
In the opposite direction, a certain tactic results in Luton losing ~24-0 every match.
Edit: I guess one potential use is FM clownmaxxing?
Would be fun to play with 9-8 results and still end up finishing in the top half.
There were no transfers or anything like that, and everything was hands-off after day 1, so I consider this a default run, but obviously its different to a standard plug-and-play test.
The best result for a standard plug-and-play test, with Blue set pieces, has been 2nd with again Knap EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
I haven't been able to replicate 1st since, so it's a bit of a fluke. I've come up with 2 strong variations of the Knap tactic of my own, I'll call them A1 and B1 here, and B1 was awfully close to achieving 1st:
I haven't been keeping the neatest data, but here's some of what I've got:
Luton A1 - 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd, 7th, 6th, 7th, 10th = 6.875 position
Sterling meta team fixed A1 - 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 13th, 12th = 8.666 position
Man City A1 - 1st 107pts, 1st 99pts, 1st 86pts = 1st position
Luton Knap - 2nd, 7th, 7th, 4th, 8th, 5th, 4th = 5.286 position
Sterling meta team fixed Knap = 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th = 6.375 position
Man City Knap - Going by the tactic name, 101 pts?
Luton Knap - (optimized team) - 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd = 3.3 position (note: samples beyond first three had a role adjustment or two)
Luton B1 - 11th, 5th, 8th, 6th = 7.5 position
Sterling meta team fixed B1 - 6th = 6th position
Man City B1 - 1st 98pts, 1st 95pts = 1st position
Luton B1 (optimized team) - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 8th, 2nd = 4.333 position
So as you see, I haven't yet been able to top Knap's tactic. Observe also how the result becomes a lot more consistent when the team is pre-selected. The 'randomness' factor seems to only account for ~1-2 positions difference in the vast majority of cases; most of what is considered 'random' seems to actually just be different player selection. And you can't bring up injuries or whatnot, because that 1-2 position difference is inclusive of injuries, morale, and so on.
Here are some results of other tactics (Luton default):
PERFECT STRANGERS 42112 WIWBA P107 EF - 12th, 5th, 4th, 11th = 8th position
HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC - 4th, 10th, 8th = 7.333 position
FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS - 3rd, 6th = 4.5 position (1st 94pts for Man City)
FM24.4KASHMIRKnap 4213 RPM RM P114 ECCC - 5th
FM24.4EFKnap 4231 A MT MC P112 FA - 8th
FM24.4OXFORDKnap 4141 RM P110ALLCUPS Luton - 9th
FM24.4MADASAHATTERKnap 4132 PF2 RM P105FACC - 7th
EF 424 MC P101 EC FA CC - 6th
424 Mountain King - 4th
SPEARHEAD 4132 - 6th
I wouldn't ordinarily say you can take anything from a single sample, but I think what we can say at least is that it doesn't seem like there is an overlooked tactic out there that actually makes Luton miraculously finish 1st consistently.
HGF 4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS is a promising candidate though that could do with more testing.
Some observations from my testing:
- A single adjustment to a top tactic, whether it's attacking > positive, or setting 'work ball into box', will most likely ruin it. Usually the effects aren't even intuitive. Don't do it lads.
- Adjustments to roles can be more forgiving or even work, but most of the time you're going to botch it
- High intensity/pressing seems strictly essential. There are some cases however where 'positive' instead of 'attacking' say, and not going hard in tackles for certain positions, is viable or is even best for that particular formation. For Knap's best tactic though, 'attacking' and hard tackling on all players is simply what works best.
- Alternative formations, even ridiculous ones, can work surprisingly well. The main aspect to consider seems to be position proficiency - you should choose the formation which is inclusive of your best player's positions. Certain formations such as 424 do seem to have an inherent edge though aside from position proficiency. I have speculative theories on as to why, but I can surmise it as 'ideal angles of attack'.
- It does seem to me that 'roles' are simply half-blinded judgements for your staff to use when assessing players. To me this is reinforced by the 'pick roles & duties' dropdown option under 'quick pick', which actually changes the roles & duties in your tactic to what your assistant thinks is best. Attributes have nothing to do with roles; every outfield player performs according to the exact same attribute formula regardless of position let alone role. Yet changing the role does have an impact on results. How to square this fact? The assistant is essentially choosing between jumbled up lists, and what is probably happening is that some lists (i.e. AF ST) are less jumbled up than others (i.e. False Nine ST). If you preselect the players, it reduces the result variation a lot. And also if you then change the role, it does not seem to change the result much. Yet this is not always the case. Possible explanation: Some roles disallow or enforce certain player instructions, and even those that don't, may in theory change the positioning of the player.
I'm thinking something like this:
| Man City | 84.75% |
| Liverpool | 83.60% |
| Arsenal | 82.13% |
| Chelsea | 80.44% |
And so on.
I'm not sure what your tests look like but I assume you'd expect the final order of computer-controlled teams in your leagues to roughly correlate to the ratings of the players inside? or else it would mean a tweak is needed to the ratings? Right now it seems like you're testing tactics but this way you could test your weights with all the teams in the league, not just one.
Yes, I've been missing that feature a bit since every league became 'jupiler league' in Genie Scout.
I did a test before of the Premier League with 4 teams replaced with 80%, 78%, 76%, 74% players. I only did a few samples, but they all finished in the correct order at season's end.
You add it for every week straightaway, but I don't think there's a way around having to copy paste each week
bf3metro said: One practical thing I’m still unsure about: where would you place the 2x Physical + 2x Attacking sessions during the week?
The issue I have is that in weeks with away games, Travel can automatically replace training slots, especially around the day before matches, so sometimes the intended 214 sessions disappear.
I think there's an option in the settings to set matches to only be on 2 certain days? I don't use this though, so not sure.
I would do 2 days of [Physical][Attack]
I wish I could remember the details properly, but I can vaguely recall that where you place training doesn't matter like you would think it does. That you can put training straight after a match day, and it won't affect condition recovery rate or injury rate. And that it's actually calculated as a whole 2 week (not even 1 week) block of training.
Not 100% certain on the injury thing, because I would think that unrecovered condition would increase injury rate of training modules, but then again match sharpness (which decreases with time post-match) has a bigger influence on injury rate, so perhaps they cancel each other out.
But this leads me to new ideas.
We see that when position proficiency is equalized, a non-sensical assymetric tactic that I came up with performed equal to Knap's best tactic (5th vs 6th).
We also see that the random variation is subdued a lot with the meta team due it being composed of identical players. Consistent ~6th-7th with Knap tactic, compared to ~2nd-10th for real Luton. And it's unlikely to be mostly on account of injuries, morale, etc. because none of those are controlled with the meta team tests.
A theory I have is that when the assistant manager picks players to play at real Luton, he is choosing based on role rating. Roles are an average(?) of select highlighted attributes. Some of these roles are going to highlight more meta attributes than others.
Now let's take a look at some ST options:
trequartista ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil, bal
false nine ST - drib*, fin, ant, com*, vis*, acc*, agil*, bal
advanced forward ST - drib*, fin*, ant, com*, work, acc*, agil, bal, pace, sta
pressing forward ST - agg*, ant*, com, con, work*, acc*, agil, bal, pace*, sta*, str
* denotes its shown as a key attribute for the role.
I've highlighted attributes that contribute 25 or more weight, inferred from the real player testing I've done.
Guess which two of the four Knap's tactic employs.
Now if the assistant manager is selecting based on the role selected in your tactic, then we can suppose if I use AF STs, I will get ~2nd, but if I use False Nine STs maybe I will get ~16th. Not variations between 2nd and 10th. Consider however that because the assistant manager is effectively using a half-blinded assessment, a layer of inconsistency is being added. So for instance, your tactic has 2x AF ST, and your assistant picks 2xST that has very high acc & drib because they have the highest AF ST role score. However, you also have a False Nine ST that has very high det, con, vis, pace, work, and jump that your assistant overlooked, but may nonetheless get rotated in half the time as they are the close 2nd option.
I'll be doing some tests to see if this theory works at all or not.
any news on trainings? which one came out on top?
My conclusion is here
My preferred training schedule remains 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus] has the best absolute attribute gain
Results: 8th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 7th = 5.8 position
Recall that default was ~6.3 I think it was, so I don't think the player traits are making any difference here.
iezzex said: Where i can find those trainings?
You just manually enter it in your training schedule
First, this is a great tactic. Still proving very difficult to beat.
I have a few questions:
1) Have you ever had a result with Luton (or the worst team) where they finished 1st?
2) What set piece routines do you recommend to use today? I see you recommended Azure before, but that was in 2024.
3) What do you think is the best overall tactic for default FM24 today? Particularly for an underdog team, if that's a necessary distinction
First result for my tactic with default Man City w/ Blue routines, no player selection or anything. I do set the training intensity to 0-0-0-2x-2x though.
I'm thinking I'll run about 10 tests of Luton & Man City each to see how it goes against the Knap tactic.
I've done 2 tests so far of HIGHWAY STAR 4231 P107 FC, which I've seen Cardoni recommend:
Luton default = 4th, 10th
Another thing I'm thinking of doing is having a 3rd crack at player traits. We know that the tactic is very important, and that player instructions are part of this.. so maybe if we have a team given player traits that align perfectly with the Knap tactic, it will do better - even if its because its giving initial familiarity when normally there is zero starting familiarity. So we'll see if anything results from this approach.
There isn't the data yet to confirm one way or the other, but my hunch is that there aren't many attribute interactions going on, simply because the evidence shows almost all the technicals don't matter no matter what.
However I believe there is an interaction between aggression and dirtiness for instance that is crucial. Not just because it's a hypothesis that sounds sensible, but because as I was playing around with the weightings, it just seems to make things work out better.
So it would be good if you could include the ability to create complex formulas as FMSS does, but I don't know how difficult that would be to implement.
I've come up with my own variation of the 4-2-4 formation/Knap tactic that is quite unique I believe, based on a theory I have. Initial results are 5th, 7th, 10th, 3rd as Luton and 6th, 7th as meta team after I've fixed it back up. So possibly equal to the Knap tactic, and perhaps a tweak or two can push it higher. I figure that I would probably only release a tactic if I can get 1st as Luton.
Does anyone know if 1st as Luton has been achieved with a tactic test? Obviously just the default test run, no managing the team throughout the season to achieve it.
Yes, I'm still keen to see your go at it. The more options the better.
I guess with FM27 coming soon, its 50/50 whether people will move on entirely from FM24 or not. But if FM27 turns out to be crap 2.0, then I think these new tools will help keep FM24 alive by injecting a bit of novelty into it.
I started testing with my meta team + Sterling that always seemed to finish a rock solid ~6th.
It didn't take me long to come up with an unusual tactic that finished 5th. However when I tested this with real Luton, they only finished 8th-16th, whereas the Knap tactic can finished as high as 2nd (2nd-10th?). My tactic won with Man City, but only with 89 pts (Knap as high as ~100-110?).
And it's not just my tactic. 424 Mountain King did better than the Knap tactic with my test team from memory, but I didn't get 2nd with it for real Luton.
I tested a bunch more Knap tactics. The results in his spreadsheet don't line up with my results, whereas by contrast it seems that FM Arena's testing is accurate in spite of the methodology critiques I would have of it. Nonetheless all the ones I tried did well, at least 9th for real Luton and often better. But nothing got 2nd like EF 424 IF HP V2 P101 AC.
Of the alternatives I tested, FM24.4HGF4231 V3X RM P107 ALL CUPS seemed the best. 3rd, 6th Luton. Man City 1st 94pts.
Curiously I could use my unusual tactic with several positions I had no player proficiency in at all across my meta team, and yet it still did well. Not quite as good, but it held up well.
Now here's the point we can take beyond FM24:
The results suggest that roles or player instructions are in fact dependent on the attributes of players in some respect.
Yet we also know from the meta team results that it's not what the roles highlight, nor combined team quality.
Injuries, differing player choices, etc. can account for the high variation in the real Luton results relative to the meta team test, but it doesn't explain why only the Knap tactic peaks far higher with real Luton.
One idea I have is that perhaps its not combined team quality, but how each player's attribute is relative to others in his team. In the official guide, they talk of 'absolute' vs 'relative' attributes, and most attributes are 'relative'; perhaps this is what they were actually talking about. There is some suggestive evidence that makes me think along these lines, such as that with finishing, you only need a player with ~7 finishing, but any figure can do the job really, and what happens is whoever in the team has the highest finishing is the one scores the most goals, even if they're a DL with 5 finishing. So we see here that a low attribute altered the tactical outcomes, because of how it was relative to others in the team.
So for instance in my meta team all my players have 8 passing and 13 dribbling, the tactic treats them as all equally likely distribute the task of passing and dribbling I suppose. Perhaps an attribute such as 'teamwork' even influences how well these tasks are evenly distributed throughout the team. But then also for each individual player, they would be more likely to dribble (13) than pass (8).
It's pure speculation, but it would explain why virtually every technical attribute matters zero percent. It would be that the tactic minimizes their influence, and that tactics which don't minimize their influence get beat anyway, whereas Knap's tactic wins almost every match. In other words it could be that just the tactics are broken, rather than that the attributes are also broken. 0 direct passes x 20 passing = effectively 0 passing. Or, 20 direct passes x 20 passing x 0% win rate = 0% win rate for 20 passing.
That's my thinking so far.
18 or less = Don't need competitive matches, but do play in friendlies (u18s/reserves fine) mainly to keep their match sharpness up in order to avoid injury more than development
21+ = Need at least 15 full matches (1350 minutes) per season to develop adequately, 25-35 is ideal, so this is why loans typically become necessary
19-20 = Inbetween the two above
Don't bother bringing on young players for a few minutes at the end of a game. The game counts experience in terms of minutes not appearances, and I suspect it could also be counting it the same way it counts minutes for match sharpness, which is that it counts in precise 11 minute blocks (I think it was 11 minutes.. something near that anyway).
I don't know what HarvestGreen tested them with, but he recommends 0-0-0-2x-2x, and I've played around with it myself before and found that to be best too.
211 = (((10x1182.2185) + 1000.59) / ((10x37.75) + 43.25)) / 0.977272 = 31.1847
331 = (((10x1202.567) + 1000) / ((10x39.62) + 43)) / 1.05 = 28.2454
260 = (((10x1156.35) + 965.23) / ((10x38.98) + 43.00)) / 1.05 = 27.5696
142 = (((10x1135.2835) + 1048.42) / ((10x36.43) + 42.33)) / 1.25 = 24.3981
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus]
211 [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Physical][Chance Conversion][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence] [Distribution][Quickness Focus]
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
142 GK - 1048.42 / 42.33 = 24.76643
211 GK - 1000.59 / 43.25 = 23.14023
260 GK - 965.23 / 43.00 = 22.44721
212 GK - 868.76 / 41.00 = 21.18927
214 GK - 805.20 / 39.33 = 20.45888
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att
214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att
260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att
142 = 125% GK, 125% Def, 125% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
bf3metro said: If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use?
I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above
We have a new top one, that I've highlighted green. This one was actually suggested by tam1236 back in january. He took the HarvestGreen attribute test findings and did a calculation on it to find this as the best training schedule.
It even has pretty good efficiency, though I suspect the workload could be too high to be worth using with all those modules. Very impressive though given it also has one of the highest CA gains (37.75), so it's particularly good if you want to keep your players looking well rounded for aesthetic reasons without compromising on actual performance.
It turns out there are a lot of very high efficiency options above 1000 (so still ~85%+ of the absolute best), and the most efficient is now Recoveryx13. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's interesting there's a profound difference in training quality between rest and recovery on their own.
I've highlighted in yellow some schedules that stand out to me, but I haven't taken a close look yet.
104 [Recovery]x13 = 1008.64 / 17.32 = 58.23557
85 [Match Review] = 1008.62 / 17.40 = 57.96667
100 [Match Review]x2 = 1005.48 / 17.72 = 56.74831
105 [Quickness][Attacking] = 1014.63 / 17.84 = 56.87276
52 [Match Tactics] = 1033.08 / 19.54 = 52.87001
124 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Recovery]x10 = 1001.86 / 21.70 = 46.16820
127 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Match Review] = 1002.89 / 22.92 = 43.75742
125 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence] = 1032.49 / 24.20 = 42.66488
126 [Quickness]x2[Aerial Defence] = 1013.15 / 23.92 = 42.35535
122 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence] = 1020.02 / 24.26 = 42.04700
116 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion] = 1022.72 / 24.57 = 41.61579
94 [Physical][Tactical][Recovery]x7 = 1053.14 / 25.88 = 40.69397
118 [Physical]x3[Tactical] = 1042.33 / 25.51 = 40.85927
138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical] = 1046.47 / 26.48 = 39.51926
93 [Physical][Tactical] = 1061.43 / 27.12 = 39.13827
215 [Physical]x3[Attacking] = 1018.42 / 25.91 = 39.30606
213 [Physical]x2[Attacking] = 1043.1425 / 27.79 = 37.53665
95 [Match Practice][Recovery]x7 = 1052.22 / 28.04 = 37.52568
106 [Quickness][Attacking][Overall] = 1051.52 / 28.96 = 36.31077
325 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending][Defending Engaged] = 1126.288 / 31.62 = 35.61379
321 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1081.229 / 31.46 = 34.36834
340 [Physical]x2[Attacking Wings][Attacking][All in Attack Group] = 1085.2745 / 31.27 = 34.73855
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking][All in Defend Group] = 1078.23 / 31.21 = 34.54758
317 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking][All in Attack Group] = 1070.2455 / 30.71 = 34.84811
186 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1074.0845 / 31.24 = 34.38555
53 [Match Practice] = 1038.74 / 30.02 = 34.60293
335 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence][Attacking][All in Defend Group] = 1103.957 / 32.56 = 33.90531
96 [Physical][Tactical][Match Practice][Recovery]x7 = 1112.92 / 32.98 = 33.74530
98 [Defending]x3[Attacking]x2[Physical]x3[Match Practice]x2[Ground Defence] = 1112.56 / 33.72 = 32.99525
91 [Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][No focus] = 1126.31 / 34.78 = 32.38384
338 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Recovery]x7 = 1117.508 / 34.99 = 31.93792
112 [Physical][Match Practice][Chance Conversion] = 1117.34 / 35.60 = 31.38596
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces = 1126.966 / 35.78 = 31.49709
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution = 1182.2185 / 37.75 = 31.317
149 [Match Practice][Attacking][Match Tactics]x2[Tactical]x2 = 1100.35 / 35.50 = 30.99577
205 Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2 = 1125.04 / 36.50 = 30.82301
97 [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the front][Quickness] = 1122.54 / 36.48 = 30.77138