Middleweight165
ZaZ said: Green is very similar to this tactic, which scored 6.4. It's nearly as good as Blue, but worse in attack and better in defense. I believe Green is better than Solid Blue, but the difference shouldn't matter much if your team is very strong. In my experiments, Solid Blue conceded as little as Green, but Green had higher win rate.

I think due to the tactical familiarity I'll stick with the Blues. I do like the Green formation more though, most realistic in my opinion. The videos on the channel of the video you linked are really interesting, thanks again
ZaZ said: Added a variant of Green for easy transition from/to Blue.

Green 5.0 (Blue Transition) is an alternative to Solid Blue 4.0 to hold a score. It changes the left AF and the SS to CM, becoming very efficient once you train those players on that position (don't worry with tactical familiarity for position/role/duty, the effect is minimum). A good strategy is to start matches with Blue, then switch to Green when you have a one goal lead. The other strategy is to start with Green, then switch to Blue if you concede a one goal lead, or if you have a draw after half time. Either of those strategies allow you to make full use of the advantages of Blue (high attack) and Green (high defense), maximizing your chance of winning.


Is Green superior to Blue @ZaZ ? I'm currently running Blue - Solid Blue - Light Blue combo. Is there a reason I would change this?
ZaZ said: Saw a video talking about what attributes each training session improves, then I did my own experiments for attribute gain and for win rates, and that one was superior.

Do you have a link to the video?
ZaZ said: I just use the same for the entire year. It was made with similar daily schedules so it doesn't matter much what day the matches are played. You can use when there are more than one match, since players that participate in the match won't be training for two or three days after the match, anyway.

Thanks and what made you change from your previous schedule?
ZaZ said: It's hard for me to judge without much information, but you could have been just unlucky, or you might have some players with high injury proneness. I have tested this schedule for several seasons and the slight increase in injury was too small compared to the noticeable increase in attributes. In fact, it has always been below average in injuries when compared to the league.

I guess we can always summon the legendary @Mark to see if he can test the schedule and say how it compares to the other schedules he has tested before, because he has way more experience testing training sessions. He can probably also suggest other training schedules more suited to different situations, like the one that gives more attribute gain, the one with least injuries and the one with higher win rate (I believe his test table has data for all of those).

P.S.: As a note, most players that actually go to the matches lose most of their training sessions resting, so its effects are mostly for the players that didn't participate in the match, or for weeks with only one match.

P.S.2: Just got this message while playing with the training schedule and set to rest players under excellent condition. Our team has a 30% reduction from expected injuries, and 17th place in injuries on the league.


Do you change anything in the schedule for 2 matches per week? I'm assuming 1 match per week replaces the saturday but everything else stays the same?

How did you come to the conclusion this was a better schedule? Just interested in your process
ArsenalHighbury said: Has anyone done their own versions of Manchester’s city group or the red bull empire. If so how do you go about it?

This guy did it https://www.thehighertempopress.com/2016/09/taste-the-feeling-fc-coca-cola-1-0/

My personal favourite FM story
Zippo said: @Mark, @ZaZ

I remember we did some tests trying to figure out what factors(except the attributes) make players to develop faster and we found the following factors had the most influence:

- The intensity of the training. The higher intensity, the higher development rate.
- The quality of the training facility.
- The quality of the coaches.
- The amount of competitive matches a player participates during a season.
- The quality of competitive matches (the competition reputation).
- The ratings a player gets in matches.

Different training schedules didn't have any significant influences on the development rate, they just were responsible for the distribution of points between the attributes.


Hey @Zippo is there an order of importance to these?
Mark said: Testing wasn't a huge sample. I think if you believe in the machine learning work then you go with their total results. I had a lot of faith in my original ratings and these seem to be slightly better. So I continue to use the ykykyky one successfully.

Thanks for the reply, I was just curious from reading back through the thread
Mark said: You have 4 strikers in your side and Huanca would be your 5th. I have run the ratings against all 5 strikers using each of the ratings files. I would be tempted to buy him. He doesn't rate well in my MDW ratings file but goes well in the Y50 and even the ykykyk files.

I think from the analysis I have, done that the machine learning works. I personally will be using the full ykykyk ratings file as I think it will be more stable longer term. I will now balance that ratings file and derive the unrated positions as best I can.

@ZaZ  prefers the chopped down versions because you get better value players. I prefer to try and get players you can keep as you progress. And I certainly move between the approaches and value what ZaZ does immensely.

My focus beyond changing my ratings file is to upgrade my approach to individual training focus. There were some notes in the machine learning example relating to that. I am exploring how I improve on that aspect in my games. At some stage I will provide my learnings on that front.


@Mark Why did you come to the choice of using the ykykyk file? Didn't the ZaZ under minus 25 score higher when you did your test? I understand that ZaZs gives more value but why do you think ykykyk is more stable longer term?
Lampochka97 said: ME22.4HOLYGHOSTFIREKnap451MUP103

Where can I find this?
@ZaZ How do you test your tactics? Just reading the parapgraph in the opening post. You use an edited database. Do you set your tactic for all 8 teams you listed and then holiday the 1st season 3 times?
Why hasn't this been tested?
This looks like Guardiolas real life tactics
Falbravv said: Hi all, i have a simple question.

I've read it all, many times, here and on other sites, I'm passionate about the work done by the members here, but I have a simple request.
My way of looking for players on Genie Scout is as follows: I use the 50 minus 25 zaz balanced by Mark, as I much prefer a filter that maximizes important attributes rather than a balance that can lead to misinformation.
Now I encounter a problem with this magnificent filter: I would like to have the raw rating (general rating) which does not modify the rating according to the affinity with the position.
Because I want to be able to manage this problem on my side and decide to teach the player the new position. But I would like the general note to come out directly, I find it easier to find players who can stick to several positions.
I hope my request is clear, and if this filter already exists, I apologize, I'm not English and I may have missed a subtlety.

thank you again for the exceptional and exciting work done here.


Why do you think the balanced filter leads to misinformation?
Mark said: @Middleweight165 and @Enok sorry for the delay I have been away. These are calculated using the attribute costs as well as most important.

No need to apologise Mark ;) Is there an attribute cost list anywhere?
Mark said: After the machine learning results I applied the same logic and now use:

Position    Focus
GK    GK Reactions
DC    Quickness
DRL    Endurance
DM    Passing
MRL    Quickness
AMRL    Quickness
MC    Passing
AMC    Quickness
ST    Ball Control


I think the quickness is obvious but can I ask why you came to the conclusion endurance for FBs, passing for DMs and ball control for STs?
ZaZ said: Mark is a huge asset to FM community. =)

Agreed! and yourself!
Mark said: I have also redone my assessment of attributes that can be be improved for each position through training for this year. And the winners are (drum roll please):



These are in order. You should check each of your players to see where the best improvements can be made and then set their individual training focus. These attributes are not always easily identifiable. In individual training focus they are sometimes hidden eg Decisions for a DC is Defensive Positioning. Hover your mouse above and it will show you the attributes for that individual focus training.

This is based on the cost and importance of each attribute. I am not convinced about the Acc for GKs but time will tell.


Is this still applicable @Mark? I know it was published before the chinese results were published
Mark said: If you want to compare your team with other teams in your league you can open the dialog box for your team and go to Tactics (as per the method in my last post), you can see your teams rating. by pressing the left or right arrow on your keyboard you will move through the teams that are on the list page and be able to see their ratings for comparison.

I did a thread on training a while back and tested a few well renowned training routines.

Training thread

Have a read, it might give you some ideas.


Thanks for the link, interesting read and thanks for all your efforts here. Really enhancing the experience :)
@Mark Do you know how Team Rating is calculated in GS? It doesn't seem to change if I load a different ratings file

Mark said: I have always had a problem with the Club ratings. I calculate my own. If you select the club and bring up the dialog box and go to Tactics it will show you the team rating. You can select different formations or select the best 5 formations for your side. These ratings are based on the ratings file. I do disagree with their calculations where there is such a minor adjustment for not being Natural for a position. This is why I calculate my own.

Thanks, I only wanted to compare my team with others but its just a curiosity. If it requires work, its not that important :)

Whats your thoughts on training? Ive always subscribed to the quickness and reflexes approach, but i think there might be a better way now we have this info