Welcome to ZaZ FC! It's great to have you here. As your guide, I'm responsible for your induction program, explaining the culture of our club, and how you can achieve maximum performance here.
Below is the type of manager I expect you to be. - Determination: Get what you want from board. - People Management: Increase morale with praise / warn. - Level Discipline: Less unhappy players. - Motivating: Team talks and shouts. - Training: Any 5 star and Working With Youngsters.
For training, I prefer if you avoid GK training and Fitness, because coaches for those positions can also train youth and reserve teams. Having you as a coach for Attacking, Defending and Mental can potentially give us one extra coach for youth and reserve teams.
Zippo said: Here're results for Age = 18 and Age = 21
It looks to develop 18 years old players also must participate in competitive matches and without the participation the development rate will be much smaller.
"Group_1" players gain +8.4 "CA" at the end the season.
"Group_2" players gain +1.2 "CA" at the end the season. ------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Age = 18 / Professionalism = 15 / Ambition = 15 / Potential Ability = 170 ]
"Group_1" players gain +7.1 "CA" at the end the season.
"Group_2" players gain +2.1 "CA" at the end the season. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Expand
That is without any match on group 2, which shows 18 yo gain more from training than 21 yo, and 21 yo gains more from matches. I would like to see the results for Group_3 and Group_4, with youth matches and friendlies, respectively, which is a common setup for players in development.
dzek said: @Zippo, I think there is another attribute which determine player growth instead all the above and this is Determination. If you can make more tests including Determination and then another tests to see which of the three attributes(Professionalism, Ambition and Determination) have more impact to each other.
Another idea with this crucial tests is to find the peak age of each position for player growth so we can know when a player cant grow more and it starts to downgrade his attributes due to age. I know maybe this will not be so accurate to find the peak age of each position for different players but we maybe find a general peak age +/-1.
Well done 👏 Expand
It was already tested. Determination has negligible effect, and professionalism is the most important for growth, and also for keeping attributes at peak for longer.
For age, there is a direct correlation between age and effect of training. The younger they are, the more training impact in attribute gains, and the older they are, the more match experience has impact. Around the age of 18, it's around 50-50, and around the age of 23, match experience counts way more than training. If I remember well, the growth "stops" around the age of 27 or 28.
OpticFawn said: @ZaZ whenever I sign youngsters, they barely improve with your training session, one of my players increased who was aged 18 at the time, +1 in a few attributes like 4 years, what am I doing wrong?
P.s. I setup the rest and everything. Expand
Just setting up the training schedule and rest is not enough, you also need to have good facilities, good coaches, and assign coaches to the best training (people often forget to assign coaches on youth teams).
Also, as a complement to what Mark and Lapidus said, training is just one of the components of development, but the more a player ages, the more it needs match time in higher leagues to keep their pace of growth. Below is a video from Max talking about it:
Khalvito said: Hello ZaZ, im curious about the use of Physical instead of Resistence blocks as Evidences points out its kinda better because its not as demanding but equally good in growth, wanted to know what are your thoughts about it. Cheers Expand
He is probably right about Resistance over Physical. However, the difference is marginal, and Physical is clearer than Resistance, because the description of Resistance doesn't match the results (most likely an unintended bug). If I used Resistance, there would be lots of people asking why I don't use anything to train quickness.
pixar said: Dear ZaZ, I think the old training system is better. I played with the new system for about 3 seasons and observed that my players were injured much more often. I think players need recovery training.
I still use it as attached. Expand
The new training is focused on attribute growth, so it indeed causes more injuries than the old one. However, paired with automatic resting, it shouldn't be too problematic during a season.
holav said: Sorry if this has been answered already but when it comes to the training schedule, should I leave the 'match preview' that gets put in automatically before each game or should I replace it with 'defending'? Thanks Expand
You can leave it. I mean, it's more effective if you replace, but it's also very annoying to do that every season, and when new matches are added to the calendar.
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ after this discussion with you and zippo about retraining, it's an absolute no brainer to retrain Ws and FBs to the opposite side because theres no negatives Expand
There are two negatives. First, you will have slightly less tactic familiarity (in only one of the fields), but in my tests that difference was not significant. The other negative is that FM22 keeps removing individual training for position when players get injured or after some unknown events, so you need to reassign it once or twice per season.
Anyway, even if there was a real negative in performance, it wouldn't be bigger than the benefit of having better players in the flanks. For example, if you have 2 DL and 2 DR trained in a single side, you are forced to use one of each position. However, if you have 4 players trained in both positions, then you can always use the best two, even if they are natural from the same side. That means your flanks will usually get stronger by training in both sides.
Middleweight165 said: Should I just change this in the tactical overview before each match? Expand
There is an option to change a tactic just for the next match, right before the match starts. Anyway, it's very easy to change it inside the match too, but I don't recommend changing in the tactic page because you can forget it on.
Evanscam97 said: Quick thought for you @Mark (and possibly @ZaZ ... when looking at IWB (i.e ZAZ Blue) Do you look at the ratings for DLR or WBLR? - Im assuming that either way you still look at the Position Rating (x/20) for DLR because that's where they're actually "playing" according to FM.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking. Expand
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
Middleweight165 said: Why does Current Ability change if the position value changes? I would assume the CA remained the same if you changed a players position in the editor. Why would that then mean losing potential ability points?
Is there a positional value you wouldnt go below when retraining a CM to ST? I'm assuming 1 would take too long. Is there a cutoff value? Expand
To explain in simple words, CA is not exactly related to performance, but to how close a player is to stop growing (reaching his PA). The performance is related to attributes, which in turn affect CA. However, you can have two players with the same CA, but completely different levels of performance.
Anyway, when you train a player in another position, it might increase the CA by a couple of points, but that doesn't change the attributes, so the performance will stay the same. In practice, he will just reach his maximum potential faster.
Keep in mind that, as Zippo said, a change in the weight of attributes can cause it to not "fit" into the CA value, and that may cause the player to slowly change attributes to fit the new CA. However, since the development to another position takes a couple of months, then your attributes won't exactly drop, but instead it will just grow slightly less during training until it matches your CA.
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ I would have to use the 1st option as I instant result most games and I would assume the assistant manager wouldnt solve it.
I wasn't aware there were different ratings, general and positional. Looking into this has just made me more confused I will continue my questions in @Mark thread because I think it's most suitable there
Is there a position value I shouldn’t go below because it will either take too long or it will cost too many attribute points, I’m assuming retraining position cost attribute points? Expand
No, it doesn't cost any points to retrain position. However, it seems to consider the CA from the most expensive position. If you go to the Editor and set a ST to have 20 in CM, it will keep the CA from ST, because it's higher. If you do the other way around (set a CM to 20 in ST), it changes the CA to that of a ST.
However, the difference isn't so big and the benefit of having Blue + Green far outweighs any loss of 3 or 5 in PA (having higher CA doesn't affect the current ability, it just means you reach PA faster).
About positional and general rating, the first is considering the ability on the position, while the second is considering only attributes.
Middleweight165 said: I think its the attribute distribution which is my concern. If I take my CM who's positional rating on GS is 83 and his FS rating is 73. Even if he trains in the ST position and gets accomplished his positional rating will still be the same won't it? So by moving him to ST position during the game, the overall quality of my team will drop by 10 pts Expand
Once they get at least accomplished, then the difference won't be so noticeable. The CM-AM will be fine, since attributes required are barely the same, and the CM-ST also have several attributes that are important for both. Even if your player is better at one position than the other, the difference will be too small when compared to the benefit of having an excellent tactic to attack and another excellent tactic to defend. For each team of 11 players, that would mean: GK DC DC DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DM CM/AM CM/ST AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) ST
Another option is to only train one CM as AM, and instead of retraining the other CM as ST, you can have both players available in your squad. That means having 12 players per team instead of 11, and bring the extra to the bench. For a bench with 7 players, they would look something like this: GK DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) DC DM CM-AM (trained in both positions) AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much) ST
Personally, I prefer to have a CM that can also play as ST, even if he isn't as good in one position as the other. In practice, we are talking about a single player performing 5% to 10% worse, from a team of 10 players (plus GK). It's not like you will lose 5 to 10% in performance. Also, since you use GS, you can probably find players that are almost equally good in both positions, if you check "General Rating" instead of "Positional Rating".
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ Thanks mate, I didn't realise that guy was also doing videos on other channels so I'll check them out.
I wanted to ask you more about the Blue/Green combo tactic. I'm going to start a new save today and try it. Obviously you think its worth doing but does the drop in quality of player not diminish the effectiveness of the tactic?
For example, in my previous save I was using @Geek Positive Tika Taka + your Green and Green Light and I could build a squad with quality players in each position. I think its rare to find a player with a high positional score for CM and ST (maybe 90 and 79 respectively), so does that not drop the quality of the team overall?
I tend to use Instant Result so I'm not able to sub in players if formation changes using a match plan Expand
It's not very practical to hire someone skilled in multiple positions, because the combination CM+ST is not very common. Instead, if you start training to a completely new position during pre-season, it usually takes five to ten official matches to reach accomplished rating (dark green color). I feel like it's fine to have this downtime in order to have an easy transition between Blue and Green, because those tactics complement each other and are useful in different situations.
Just check the quality of your wingback + winger. Same for your opponent. If your main winger broke your leg and you have to play a youngster with 16 years old, then your strong side is probably the opposite.
You can also check in the Data Hub to see where most goals come from. If one side clearly creates more goals than the others, that's a hint.
Below is the type of manager I expect you to be.
- Determination: Get what you want from board.
- People Management: Increase morale with praise / warn.
- Level Discipline: Less unhappy players.
- Motivating: Team talks and shouts.
- Training: Any 5 star and Working With Youngsters.
For training, I prefer if you avoid GK training and Fitness, because coaches for those positions can also train youth and reserve teams. Having you as a coach for Attacking, Defending and Mental can potentially give us one extra coach for youth and reserve teams.
It looks to develop 18 years old players also must participate in competitive matches and without the participation the development rate will be much smaller.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Age = 21 / Professionalism = 15 / Ambition = 15 / Potential Ability = 170 ]
"Group_1" players gain +8.4 "CA" at the end the season.
"Group_2" players gain +1.2 "CA" at the end the season.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Age = 18 / Professionalism = 15 / Ambition = 15 / Potential Ability = 170 ]
"Group_1" players gain +7.1 "CA" at the end the season.
"Group_2" players gain +2.1 "CA" at the end the season.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
That is without any match on group 2, which shows 18 yo gain more from training than 21 yo, and 21 yo gains more from matches. I would like to see the results for Group_3 and Group_4, with youth matches and friendlies, respectively, which is a common setup for players in development.
Another idea with this crucial tests is to find the peak age of each position for player growth so we can know when a player cant grow more and it starts to downgrade his attributes due to age. I know maybe this will not be so accurate to find the peak age of each position for different players but we maybe find a general peak age +/-1.
Well done 👏
It was already tested. Determination has negligible effect, and professionalism is the most important for growth, and also for keeping attributes at peak for longer.
For age, there is a direct correlation between age and effect of training. The younger they are, the more training impact in attribute gains, and the older they are, the more match experience has impact. Around the age of 18, it's around 50-50, and around the age of 23, match experience counts way more than training. If I remember well, the growth "stops" around the age of 27 or 28.
P.s. I setup the rest and everything.
Just setting up the training schedule and rest is not enough, you also need to have good facilities, good coaches, and assign coaches to the best training (people often forget to assign coaches on youth teams).
Also, as a complement to what Mark and Lapidus said, training is just one of the components of development, but the more a player ages, the more it needs match time in higher leagues to keep their pace of growth. Below is a video from Max talking about it:
He is probably right about Resistance over Physical. However, the difference is marginal, and Physical is clearer than Resistance, because the description of Resistance doesn't match the results (most likely an unintended bug). If I used Resistance, there would be lots of people asking why I don't use anything to train quickness.
I think the old training system is better. I played with the new system for about 3 seasons and observed that my players were injured much more often. I think players need recovery training.
I still use it as attached.
The new training is focused on attribute growth, so it indeed causes more injuries than the old one. However, paired with automatic resting, it shouldn't be too problematic during a season.
You can leave it. I mean, it's more effective if you replace, but it's also very annoying to do that every season, and when new matches are added to the calendar.
There are two negatives. First, you will have slightly less tactic familiarity (in only one of the fields), but in my tests that difference was not significant. The other negative is that FM22 keeps removing individual training for position when players get injured or after some unknown events, so you need to reassign it once or twice per season.
Anyway, even if there was a real negative in performance, it wouldn't be bigger than the benefit of having better players in the flanks. For example, if you have 2 DL and 2 DR trained in a single side, you are forced to use one of each position. However, if you have 4 players trained in both positions, then you can always use the best two, even if they are natural from the same side. That means your flanks will usually get stronger by training in both sides.
There is an option to change a tactic just for the next match, right before the match starts. Anyway, it's very easy to change it inside the match too, but I don't recommend changing in the tactic page because you can forget it on.
There doesn't seem like a huge difference in GS Ratings Weights between WB and D - but worth asking.
To be fair, I just look to the four attributes with the highest impact in that table. It's usually Acceleration, Pace, Stamina and Work Rating, with one or other different attribute for certain roles. Since I usually search using the scout centre, and I always retrain my wingbacks to play in both sides, then I just search both DL and DR positions, and select the best I find (it doesn't matter if I end up using two DR or two DL).
About WBR/L, I don't search for players natural in that position because it's harder to train a player in three positions (DR, DL and the one he was natural before).
Edit - I read this comment of yours in another thread (https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/13884/), It's clear now
Is there a positional value you wouldnt go below when retraining a CM to ST? I'm assuming 1 would take too long. Is there a cutoff value?
To explain in simple words, CA is not exactly related to performance, but to how close a player is to stop growing (reaching his PA). The performance is related to attributes, which in turn affect CA. However, you can have two players with the same CA, but completely different levels of performance.
Anyway, when you train a player in another position, it might increase the CA by a couple of points, but that doesn't change the attributes, so the performance will stay the same. In practice, he will just reach his maximum potential faster.
Keep in mind that, as Zippo said, a change in the weight of attributes can cause it to not "fit" into the CA value, and that may cause the player to slowly change attributes to fit the new CA. However, since the development to another position takes a couple of months, then your attributes won't exactly drop, but instead it will just grow slightly less during training until it matches your CA.
I wasn't aware there were different ratings, general and positional. Looking into this has just made me more confused
Is there a position value I shouldn’t go below because it will either take too long or it will cost too many attribute points, I’m assuming retraining position cost attribute points?
No, it doesn't cost any points to retrain position. However, it seems to consider the CA from the most expensive position. If you go to the Editor and set a ST to have 20 in CM, it will keep the CA from ST, because it's higher. If you do the other way around (set a CM to 20 in ST), it changes the CA to that of a ST.
However, the difference isn't so big and the benefit of having Blue + Green far outweighs any loss of 3 or 5 in PA (having higher CA doesn't affect the current ability, it just means you reach PA faster).
About positional and general rating, the first is considering the ability on the position, while the second is considering only attributes.
Once they get at least accomplished, then the difference won't be so noticeable. The CM-AM will be fine, since attributes required are barely the same, and the CM-ST also have several attributes that are important for both. Even if your player is better at one position than the other, the difference will be too small when compared to the benefit of having an excellent tactic to attack and another excellent tactic to defend. For each team of 11 players, that would mean:
GK
DC
DC
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DM
CM/AM
CM/ST
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
ST
Another option is to only train one CM as AM, and instead of retraining the other CM as ST, you can have both players available in your squad. That means having 12 players per team instead of 11, and bring the extra to the bench. For a bench with 7 players, they would look something like this:
GK
DL/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
DC
DM
CM-AM (trained in both positions)
AML/R (trained in both sides, since foot doesn't matter much)
ST
Personally, I prefer to have a CM that can also play as ST, even if he isn't as good in one position as the other. In practice, we are talking about a single player performing 5% to 10% worse, from a team of 10 players (plus GK). It's not like you will lose 5 to 10% in performance. Also, since you use GS, you can probably find players that are almost equally good in both positions, if you check "General Rating" instead of "Positional Rating".
I wanted to ask you more about the Blue/Green combo tactic. I'm going to start a new save today and try it. Obviously you think its worth doing but does the drop in quality of player not diminish the effectiveness of the tactic?
For example, in my previous save I was using @Geek Positive Tika Taka + your Green and Green Light and I could build a squad with quality players in each position. I think its rare to find a player with a high positional score for CM and ST (maybe 90 and 79 respectively), so does that not drop the quality of the team overall?
I tend to use Instant Result so I'm not able to sub in players if formation changes using a match plan
It's not very practical to hire someone skilled in multiple positions, because the combination CM+ST is not very common. Instead, if you start training to a completely new position during pre-season, it usually takes five to ten official matches to reach accomplished rating (dark green color). I feel like it's fine to have this downtime in order to have an easy transition between Blue and Green, because those tactics complement each other and are useful in different situations.
No, but you still need to rotate to avoid fatigue. Resting from training is focused on condition, not on fatigue.
Middleweight165 said: Is this an opposition instruction? Is this something you have tested @ZaZ ?
Max has tested it. I linked the video in the post to make clear where the claim comes from.
Zippo said: We've tested them and found that it's not worth bothering
Did you also test it in a team with a side stronger than the other?
Just check the quality of your wingback + winger. Same for your opponent. If your main winger broke your leg and you have to play a youngster with 16 years old, then your strong side is probably the opposite.
You can also check in the Data Hub to see where most goals come from. If one side clearly creates more goals than the others, that's a hint.
Yes. If you set up training and resting for youth and reserve, they grow much faster.