ZaZ said: Yeah, I train to get the position rating, because that has high influence on performance. Dark green is good enough to play matches without hindering the team but becoming natural (light green) will increase performance further. Expand
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
Do you have any tips for keeping match load/fatigue down? I'm using you rest recommendations and your training but my players are getting injured because the match load is Heavy. I am playing 2 matches a week and rotating every player but the match load, fatigue and injury risk is always high
ZaZ said: In my experiments, there was barely any change on win rate when training players in different positions. I tested with wingbacks and wingers in opposite sides, and two CMs training as AM and ST. I also didn't notice any difference in performance for those players training in different position. It is also easier to build a squad when you don't need to worry about what side your winger or wingback plays. The main advantage, however, is that Green is better than Solid Blue, allowing you to use two very strong tactics for different situations. Expand
Thanks for the reply. So as long as there positional circle indicator is at least dark green I'm ok? I read in another of your replies, you train your CMs in AM and ST, is that simply to get the positional rating to dark green? If the players are already green in both positions is it irrelevant which position they train in?
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. Expand
@ZaZ why do you say the effect of tactical familiarity for pos/role/duty is minimal? Doesn't it lower the effectiveness of the tactic?
Xeno94 said: Having a lot of fun with the 433 DM CM(A) tactic. Changed the IF -> IW and had them stay wider which seemed to help. F9 really involved in link up whilst still being a top scorer.
I'm sure there could be a better tweak with one of the CM roles, or perhaps the mentality of IWB Expand
Do you think this change is better than the original?
Mark said: I have a couple of things to note. FM Arena said that their previous testing had a margin of error and that their new testing regime removed most of this. I don't think the results above is outside the previous testing. FM Genie Scout did have a small adjustment for position that was their attempt to allow for positional unfamiliarity.
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps. Expand
I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once
If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance
@Mark Do you know what the GS potential rating is based on? I signed some young players whose potential rating was over 90% but now this has dropped. Looking at it more closely it seems to fluctuate. Why is this?
ZaZ said: I just watched after reading your message. His results are very similar to mine, so there is nothing to change in my training schedule right now. Keep in mind that players taking longer time to recover with training doesn't make a difference since I recommend setting players to "no pitch or gym work". Expand
Yeah thats what I thought the conclusion would be. Interesting you came to the same conclusions before he has done the further testing
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. Expand
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. Expand
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. Expand
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. Expand
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. Expand
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
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. Expand
Hey @Zippo is there an order of importance to these?
Thanks, I'll give it a try.
Do you have any tips for keeping match load/fatigue down? I'm using you rest recommendations and your training but my players are getting injured because the match load is Heavy. I am playing 2 matches a week and rotating every player but the match load, fatigue and injury risk is always high
Thanks for the reply. So as long as there positional circle indicator is at least dark green I'm ok? I read in another of your replies, you train your CMs in AM and ST, is that simply to get the positional rating to dark green? If the players are already green in both positions is it irrelevant which position they train in?
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.
@ZaZ why do you say the effect of tactical familiarity for pos/role/duty is minimal? Doesn't it lower the effectiveness of the tactic?
I'm sure there could be a better tweak with one of the CM roles, or perhaps the mentality of IWB
Do you think this change is better than the original?
I took off LW, got beaten 3-0 so it was the start of a process of elimination
What about False 9?
I worked with the proportional differences from the last 2 years and the impacts identified in testing and came up with a formula for giving the real rating for position.
So here goes. In the formula A1 is the location of the rating you want to manipulate and B1 is the location of the position score out of 20. It seems to work out very close to the testing numbers that FM Arena came up with.
Download the data for the player or players you are interested in to excel and then enter the positional score out of 20 for each position and then use this formula to give you their real positional rating:
=A1*(1-(20-B1)/46)
This is about 2.17% reduction for each point under 20.
Hope this helps.
I'm catching up on this thread so lots of questions all at once
If I have 2 players, A with a rating of 80% and a positional score of 20 and B with a rating of 85% and a positional rating of 18. Player B's adjusted scorer rating is around 80.5%, on paper he would perform better? I know the margins are very small so might not result in real world better performance
Yeah thats what I thought the conclusion would be. Interesting you came to the same conclusions before he has done the further testing
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
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?
Do you have a link to the video?
Thanks and what made you change from your previous schedule?
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
This guy did it https://www.thehighertempopress.com/2016/09/taste-the-feeling-fc-coca-cola-1-0/
My personal favourite FM story
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?