GabBau said: I almost always have two matches a week. Will I be able to fit six attacking training sessions in? I've scheduled speed training for all players (except goalkeepers). Should youth team training sessions be scheduled like this? Expand
Two matches per week are four busy days (match day, and following day for rest). That leaves 3 days a week that can do 2x attacking each.
Keep in mind there are very similar training schedules presented by the author of this thread, or even better for your needs. Some of them might be even easier to fit in the calendar.
GabBau said: Hi. So you just alternate these three workouts? 1-2-3-1-2-3? Thanks. Expand
Something like that. I am actually using 1-2-1-2-1-2 now, but results are barely the same. Keep in mind that assumes double intensity at high condition, and focus on quickness. Also, should remove recovery sessions. The idea is "1x endurance", then "6x attacking", with full rest after matches.
Note: Check their table if you want to customize your training for some specific goal.
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks Expand
Try combining different routines to get what you want. For example, 79 (Endurance x1) gives a good boost in Pace and Acceleration, with very low Decisions gain, for very little CA. If you mix both equally, results might average to values you want.
I made some quick tests alternating three different routines (79, 150 and 159) with quickness focus and double intensity, and results were pretty good. First is Rebalance (Endurance x1), then Growth (Attacking x6), then Focus (Physical + Resistance + Quickness + Transition - Restrict), alternating them so they get equal time during the season. I think I will settle for that since it allows me to max speed of initially fast players, while getting a good CA for transfers and using those players.
P.S.: Made some extra tests with just Rebalance + Growth, and results were very similar, so I will keep just those two for simplicity.
Testing some asymmetry. BCB protects the back of CHM, which supports the movements of IF by the left. In the right side, OCB and IW support the infiltration of AM.
harvestgreen22 said: Some updates . This week is my very busy working day week, I'll sort out the previous Excel file and send it out, then I'll go to sleep. and didn't have time to reply the new thing.
Thank you for testing my routine, now I have a better idea of what I will be testing based on the table. My plan is to try 79 [Endurance] for pre-season (during something between three and six months), followed by either 138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical], 159 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Transition Restrict] or 150 [Attacking]x6 in the remaining season. The goal is to use 79 to rebalance attributes, followed by another routine to achieve a focused CA growth to reach top speed with high CA.
Snsnnsjsjs said: is this the best fm tactic rn?, also does this works for every team Expand
You can find a table in the top of the page. The best tactic is probably the one in the top. Keep in mind that, due to statistical noise, any tactic with 90+ points can be the best.
vmtvmtvmt said: Trying to maximize clean sheets and being defensive solid. (any suggestions appreciated)
Did the double with league and cup. Expand
IWs usually allow you to concede less than IFs, at the cost of less scored goals. GD is often the same, so it is fair to use one defensively, and another in offense.
Play with this tactic most season, mainly half season until the end, with SLBenfica in 1st season (25/26) and won all 5 titles. Champions League final won against Arsenal 5-3.
To be fair, there is no statistical difference between most tactics at the top, even those separated by 1 or 2 points, and any of them could very well come on top with a lucky run. At least it was a good try.
harvestgreen22 said: The "arrow" indicates whether there is an increase or decrease, but the decimal part cannot be seen (so specific testing leagues need to be used for testing).
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct. Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1. The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups? This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]" In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic. For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot". for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones". If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones", Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team. Expand
Defenders take shots often after corners or other set pieces, so when they shoot, they are often in a good position to score.
I've scheduled speed training for all players (except goalkeepers).
Should youth team training sessions be scheduled like this?
Two matches per week are four busy days (match day, and following day for rest). That leaves 3 days a week that can do 2x attacking each.
Keep in mind there are very similar training schedules presented by the author of this thread, or even better for your needs. Some of them might be even easier to fit in the calendar.
Something like that. I am actually using 1-2-1-2-1-2 now, but results are barely the same. Keep in mind that assumes double intensity at high condition, and focus on quickness. Also, should remove recovery sessions. The idea is "1x endurance", then "6x attacking", with full rest after matches.
Note: Check their table if you want to customize your training for some specific goal.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks
Try combining different routines to get what you want. For example, 79 (Endurance x1) gives a good boost in Pace and Acceleration, with very low Decisions gain, for very little CA. If you mix both equally, results might average to values you want.
P.S.: Made some extra tests with just Rebalance + Growth, and results were very similar, so I will keep just those two for simplicity.
excel(part 1 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, old)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
excel(part 5, the newest )
https://mega.nz/file/dAMBTTAD#qJSvz7gwU0o-Yo3ecffCsMEBLiOesQe_7bwiCR_DGXw
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcYTkHrZ
excel 5:
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
243 [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
Thank you for testing my routine, now I have a better idea of what I will be testing based on the table. My plan is to try 79 [Endurance] for pre-season (during something between three and six months), followed by either 138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical], 159 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Transition Restrict] or 150 [Attacking]x6 in the remaining season. The goal is to use 79 to rebalance attributes, followed by another routine to achieve a focused CA growth to reach top speed with high CA.
You can find a table in the top of the page. The best tactic is probably the one in the top. Keep in mind that, due to statistical noise, any tactic with 90+ points can be the best.
Did the double with league and cup.
IWs usually allow you to concede less than IFs, at the cost of less scored goals. GD is often the same, so it is fair to use one defensively, and another in offense.
Excelent tactic...
Play with this tactic most season, mainly half season until the end, with SLBenfica in 1st season (25/26) and won all 5 titles.
Champions League final won against Arsenal 5-3.
Congrats @ZaZ
Cheers
Gratz, and thanks for testing the tactic!
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/47235/
To be fair, there is no statistical difference between most tactics at the top, even those separated by 1 or 2 points, and any of them could very well come on top with a lucky run. At least it was a good try.
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct.
Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1.
The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups?
This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]"
In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic.
For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot".
for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones".
If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones",
Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team.
Defenders take shots often after corners or other set pieces, so when they shoot, they are often in a good position to score.