juliius said: I just ran 6 seasons to test my injury hypothesis.
3 Seasons with: No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity 27 injuries on average
3 Seasons with: No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity, Double intensity 45 injuries on average
And the development was roughly the same, even slightly better for the one with less injuries, which i would guess is just from being injured less, so getting more games and training.
Obviously not necessarily a big enough sample size to determine anything. However i do think it might be worth to only train when the players are fully fit. Expand
harvestgreen22 said: https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H for： no schedule x3, double intensity x2 no schedule x4, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8". Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed. All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option. Expand
For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery).
CBP87 said: Could it be being impacted by the cross from byline instruction? IMO the defensive line being higher leaves space in behind and if you're full backs are further up the field then you're more susceptible to a fast counter, especially with a ball over the top or to the flanks but with that much lower defenisve line at least that space isn't really there Expand
My observation inside the game is that low crosses work fundamentally different than whipping crosses and floating crosses, and I am not talking about height or strength here. When players do low crosses, they don't simply run to the byline and cross to the penalty area, but instead they run to the end of the field, then turn their body around, move a bit diagonally inside the box, then do the low cross. My guess is that since there is a break of pace when doing low crosses, then the advantage of "step up more" is lost, and you are left with only the disadvantage of leaving yourself exposed.
Such a gap caused by the synergy between two instructions (low crosses + balanced defensive line behavior). The worst part is that I cannot grasp the relationship between the two.
max 737 said: @ZaZ There is a theory that SP's don't add goals they only make goals in a different way and the total goals scored remain the same. Also, SP's alter the tactic so shouldn't be use. What's your take on this? Expand
Fake. It is easy to test it, just get any good set pieces, and one intentionally bad (like sending everyone to attack in defending corners), and you will see that it makes a difference. Most decent set pieces are also noticeably better than default, scoring more points by the end of the season, and that is also easy to test.
Just doing a path relinking between Autumn and Barbie. At this point, I start to think some instructions have just the same performance, and difference in results are just caused by statistical noise.
Just doing a path relinking between Autumn and Barbie. At this point, I start to think some instructions have just the same performance, and difference in results are just caused by statistical noise.
juliius said: When the first season came in with 16 i really wanted it to continue, because it's teh kind of thing i would want training to actually impact Expand
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
juliius said: So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
Expand
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
juliius said: Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense. Expand
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is: - Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces) - Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness) - Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA) - Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
max 737 said: Just want to confirm that we train the players only in their playing roles and not IP or OOP also what do you train the GK's for? Expand
There are people more qualified than me to talk about training in this forum, but personally I am training players in the same role and position they play (IP and OOP), because I don't think it has any effect in the growth of my training schedules.
I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session.
3 Seasons with:
No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity
27 injuries on average
3 Seasons with:
No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity, Double intensity
45 injuries on average
And the development was roughly the same, even slightly better for the one with less injuries, which i would guess is just from being injured less, so getting more games and training.
Obviously not necessarily a big enough sample size to determine anything. However i do think it might be worth to only train when the players are fully fit.
harvestgreen22 said: https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H
for：
no schedule x3, double intensity x2
no schedule x4, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8".
Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed.
All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery).
My observation inside the game is that low crosses work fundamentally different than whipping crosses and floating crosses, and I am not talking about height or strength here. When players do low crosses, they don't simply run to the byline and cross to the penalty area, but instead they run to the end of the field, then turn their body around, move a bit diagonally inside the box, then do the low cross. My guess is that since there is a break of pace when doing low crosses, then the advantage of "step up more" is lost, and you are left with only the disadvantage of leaving yourself exposed.
Fake. It is easy to test it, just get any good set pieces, and one intentionally bad (like sending everyone to attack in defending corners), and you will see that it makes a difference. Most decent set pieces are also noticeably better than default, scoring more points by the end of the season, and that is also easy to test.
Around 15-20.
P.S.: I usually play with underdogs. Can probably score much more with top teams.
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
Reflexes or Agility, whichever is lower.
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is:
- Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces)
- Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness)
- Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA)
- Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
There are people more qualified than me to talk about training in this forum, but personally I am training players in the same role and position they play (IP and OOP), because I don't think it has any effect in the growth of my training schedules.
Thanks!
treiblebe said: Might not be the post for it, but why Endurance training instead of quickness?
Based on results found by other people.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/13508-training-is-fake-it-just-assigns-attributes-not-grows-attributes-results-based-on-a-large-number-of-tests/