For those wanting to know, yes this works in FM26 as well.
Just did a 3 year test with the test file, 20 Professionalism all phyiscal attributes started at 10 Using Quickness+Double Intensity+Rest with individual training set to quickness.
I've gotten as high as +4 in Acceleration and Pace and as low as +2 in things like agility and balance.
So it's safe to conclude that you can get the same improvements using the same training schedules.
was there a way to amend the general training schedules for the youth team? For the life of me I cannot work out how to do it after changing responsibilities for it to myself
theeneon said: For those wanting to know, yes this works in FM26 as well.
Just did a 3 year test with the test file, 20 Professionalism all phyiscal attributes started at 10 Using Quickness+Double Intensity+Rest with individual training set to quickness.
I've gotten as high as +4 in Acceleration and Pace and as low as +2 in things like agility and balance.
So it's safe to conclude that you can get the same improvements using the same training schedules. Expand
How did you import them into the game? So many issues with FM26!
Gerrard said: How did you import them into the game? So many issues with FM26! Expand
Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it.
johnconnerson said: Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it. Expand
Schneedler said: was there a way to amend the general training schedules for the youth team? For the life of me I cannot work out how to do it after changing responsibilities for it to myself Expand You have to access it through Squad>Overview, then first click the dots on training tile: first dot is 1st team, 2nd u21, 3rd u18 or however the club is structured (it doesn't actually tell you ). And only after you selected the dot you want, click on the whole tile to open it. Yes it's stupid but it's the only way right now that I know of.
Yarema said: You have to access it through Squad>Overview, then first click the dots on training tile: first dot is 1st team, 2nd u21, 3rd u18 or however the club is structured (it doesn't actually tell you ). And only after you selected the dot you want, click on the whole tile to open it. Yes it's stupid but it's the only way right now that I know of. Expand
This gets you to the Youth training pop-up window, but you can't change the schedules themselves. When you click the tile for the schedules it brings you to the First Team training calendar. You CAN change everything else though (individual training, rest, mentoring within the Youth squad, etc.)
johnconnerson said: Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it. Expand
I was flabbergasted when I tried this and my custom schedule didn't pop up.
If anyone else has the same problem, the issue on my end (in FM26) was that I was managing a Semi-Professional club. Somehow this affects the schedule you're allowed to select.
Further, the schedule I created in FM26 wouldn't work, and was not importable, however... my FM24 schedule was importable and worked like a charm.
harvestgreen22 said: All of these training schedules have a very low risk of injury, Even if you suffer three Match a week, don't worry about the impact of the lack of training, set all week rest, you lose nothing Expand
A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand).
Jolt said: A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction? Expand
I did a quick test:
match practice doesn't decrease condition 1 x match practice recovers condition same rate as all rest 1 x match practice doesn't boost match sharpness (identical to all rest)
2 x match practice + quickness on one day, is identical to full rest in regards to condition recovery & match sharpness
What you might not know is that condition recovery doesn't have a randomness factor, unlike many other FM mechanics, so there shouldn't be any need for a ton of tests.
Seems EBFM found this back in 2022, and additionally found that match practice actually negatively impacts match performances, even though it has no condition impact.
This is strange. Maybe the 'injury risk' and 'fatigue' labels are also falsehoods and the whole training meta needs a rethink if one is not looking solely for attribute gain.
match practice doesn't decrease condition 1 x match practice recovers condition same rate as all rest 1 x match practice doesn't boost match sharpness (identical to all rest)
2 x match practice + quickness on one day, is identical to full rest in regards to condition recovery & match sharpness
What you might not know is that condition recovery doesn't have a randomness factor, unlike many other FM mechanics, so there shouldn't be any need for a ton of tests.
Seems EBFM found this back in 2022, and additionally found that match practice actually negatively impacts match performances, even though it has no condition impact.
This is strange. Maybe the 'injury risk' and 'fatigue' labels are also falsehoods and the whole training meta needs a rethink if one is not looking solely for attribute gain. Expand
If corroborated, that's great to know.
I would presume (complete speculation though), that these heavier training sessions have a higher percentage RNG injury trigger roll than lighter ones, and that must be multiplied by the player's condition percentage when it's lower, increasing the risk of rolling a positive for injury for the player.
Hypothetically, instead of every training resolution there are injury rolls for every single player, a more simplistic system would be: First roll: Team-wide injury roll, that if triggered positively: Second roll: The game rolls who the injury will land on, with added weights for players with lower condition, higher injury proneness, and repeated injuries, and once it has selected a player. Third roll: Rolls the chance of which injury it's going to be, based on the training session being resolved, and if the user already is susceptible to a specific injury. Four roll: Rolls severity of injury, within injury type range. Then the game rolls again for another team-wide injury roll, as (if I remember correctly) on rare ocasions, it is possible to get two injuries while resolving a single training session.
In any case, if: 1. Lower individual player condition is indeed an added individual risk factor for that player getting an injury, and 2. The game rolls injuries on an individual basis, as opposed to a team basis (and AFAIK, there's no way of testing whether this is the case)
Basically we should always put rest sessions after the game, and put training sessions as far away from the previous game as possible, as long as it is within the same week, to ensure players have as high condition as possible before they start going through the training sessions.
EDIT: An extremely useful data point that can be tested is: 1. From an injury risk perspective, does stacking Attacking, Match Practice and Quickness training on the same training day (immediately before the game), leads to more, less, or equal amount of injuries during a season, as opposed to spreading one of each on different days. 2. From a player development perspective, is there a measurable difference in attribute growth between stacking all three on the same day, or spreading them out on different days?
The answers to this could basically lead to training sessions being stacking all three trainings on the day immediately before a match, using the rest of the days of the week for Rest and Recovery sessions.
Jolt said: A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand). Expand Basically unless you run 3x some sort of physical training (or similar) on double intensity you'll always recover more condition than it costs to run the training sessions from one day to another
I've been having a bit of a thinkle about training
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness 1 x Goalkeeping 1 x Resistance 1 x Shot Stopping 1 x Match Practice 1 x Handling 1 x Match Tactics 1 x Aerial Defence 1 x Chance Conversion 1 x Play From The Back 1 x Distribution Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA. Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA?
Optimal training + U18/U23 appearances vs Loaner club's training + First team appearances
Has anyone also crunched the numbers for progress between "optimized training" and "loaned players". When a player goes on loan (and let's say he is starter at the loaner club), you can't set his training for [Chosen training]+[Quickness]+[Double], but his progress is uncapped since he'll get many first team appearances.
My little-to-no-basis instinct would be that one should only loan a player if his attributes distribution is already optimal, but with high untapped PA. Any player with high PA and suboptimal attributes distribution should stay with our training to start skewing his attributes back the right way.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed Great write-up! One question tho, do you think GK impact on the overall result is worth four training sessions per week? Or do those sessions also greatly boost important outfield player attributes?
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness 1 x Goalkeeping 1 x Resistance 1 x Shot Stopping 1 x Match Practice 1 x Handling 1 x Match Tactics 1 x Aerial Defence 1 x Chance Conversion 1 x Play From The Back 1 x Distribution Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA. Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA? Expand These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy.
Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example.
BulldozerJokic said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Great write-up! One question tho, do you think GK impact on the overall result is worth four training sessions per week? Or do those sessions also greatly boost important outfield player attributes? Expand This was one of the surprising realizations I had reading EBFM's excel file, that the GK sessions are actually also very good for the outfield.
match practice = 0.05 drib DC, 1.15 con DC, 1.05 con DL/DR, 0.4 acc DC, 0.4 acc DL/DR, 0.65 pac DC, 0.6 pac DL/DR (2.05 physical) (4.3 key attributes) (12 CA). +0.2 agil/+0.6 aer/+0.3 ref for GK.
Handling does a lot for all positions too, not just defenders.
When I changed GK attributes in my 1 CA testing, it did make a difference, so GK has some significance. I'd say a fair bit more than I intuitively thought. Not sure exactly how much, but I'd guesstimate their worth is at least that of 1 of the 11 players.
What I didn't really mention in my post btw is that my thinking is that these sessions like handling that boost physicals moderately (~0.3) are perhaps particularly worthwhile because with a bunch of them maybe you could replace a whole quickness/resistance/physical session which gives you +1.2 but lowers a whole bunch of technicals and mentals.
Yarema said: These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy. Expand Yes, I would agree with you there.
Though, as I think about it now.. given it seems to show patterns accurately enough (i.e. aerial defense gives 1.25 con DC, 1.25 con DL/DR, 1.2 con DM, 0.8 con MC, 0.5 con AMC, 0.65 con AML/AMR, 0.5 con ST) maybe it is actually non-random. Maybe the 'random' variation between different players is simply their professionalism, matches played, CA-PA diff, etc. downscaling a set max amount, and then you have different boosts for different positions giving the appearance of each player progressing seemingly randomly compared to other players.
I suppose it's something I should try and test.
Yarema said: Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example. Expand I haven't got that far yet
I see now he has an excel file with combo sessions, with positional breakdown. I'll examine it to try and deduce what's going on
Panneton0 said: Optimal training + U18/U23 appearances vs Loaner club's training + First team appearances Expand
Since you can min-max players attribute development in your club, and you can't while they are on loan, you should generally only loan someone once playing time is crucial to keep developing (and match/league reputation is crucial to develop the player) to offset your optimized training.
Jolt said: Since you can min-max players attribute development in your club, and you can't while they are on loan, you should generally only loan someone once playing time is crucial to keep developing (and match/league reputation is crucial to develop the player) to offset your optimized training.
And that is 24+ aged players, IIRC. Expand
If You keep players 24+, who dont play in your first team, You do something wrong. Actually if a player 20+ doesn't play in a league adequate to his skill, his progress is weak-or-none-or-negative. But it's really hard to find him a club giving game time at a good level. Unless You have really great reputation - in that situation You have a long queue for Your youngsters.
And I would never ever let a player 18- to go to AI club. Especially if he has a high PA.
I was mistaken about HarvestGreen not including the breakdown of all attributes. I had actually seen it before but forgotten. However, it doesn't breakdown by each position. It would be good if this could be provided.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack) DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work DM +1 dec, +1 work AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was mistaken about HarvestGreen not including the breakdown of all attributes. I had actually seen it before but forgotten. However, it doesn't breakdown by each position. It would be good if this could be provided.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack) DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work DM +1 dec, +1 work AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24. Expand
FM24 I think someone said the training .jsb file is same in FM26, but I'm not sure if that's all that controls the training variables. I'd guess it does.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise Expand If it was only one try for each schedule I wouldn't bother results so much but: - seems strange, that 5 sessions a week gave 2.5x more injuries then 4 sessions a week - aerial defence has no effect on jumping reach, aerial reach nor heading. But no absurd or strange bug in this game will astonish me.
For those wanting to know, yes this works in FM26 as well.
Just did a 3 year test with the test file, 20 Professionalism all phyiscal attributes started at 10
Using Quickness+Double Intensity+Rest with individual training set to quickness.
I've gotten as high as +4 in Acceleration and Pace and as low as +2 in things like agility and balance.
So it's safe to conclude that you can get the same improvements using the same training schedules.
was there a way to amend the general training schedules for the youth team? For the life of me I cannot work out how to do it after changing responsibilities for it to myself
theeneon said: For those wanting to know, yes this works in FM26 as well.
Just did a 3 year test with the test file, 20 Professionalism all phyiscal attributes started at 10
Using Quickness+Double Intensity+Rest with individual training set to quickness.
I've gotten as high as +4 in Acceleration and Pace and as low as +2 in things like agility and balance.
So it's safe to conclude that you can get the same improvements using the same training schedules.
How did you import them into the game? So many issues with FM26!
Gerrard said: How did you import them into the game? So many issues with FM26!
Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it.
johnconnerson said: Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it.
Thanks
Schneedler said: was there a way to amend the general training schedules for the youth team? For the life of me I cannot work out how to do it after changing responsibilities for it to myself
). And only after you selected the dot you want, click on the whole tile to open it. Yes it's stupid but it's the only way right now that I know of.
You have to access it through Squad>Overview, then first click the dots on training tile: first dot is 1st team, 2nd u21, 3rd u18 or however the club is structured (it doesn't actually tell you
Yarema said: You have to access it through Squad>Overview, then first click the dots on training tile: first dot is 1st team, 2nd u21, 3rd u18 or however the club is structured (it doesn't actually tell you
). And only after you selected the dot you want, click on the whole tile to open it. Yes it's stupid but it's the only way right now that I know of.
This gets you to the Youth training pop-up window, but you can't change the schedules themselves. When you click the tile for the schedules it brings you to the First Team training calendar. You CAN change everything else though (individual training, rest, mentoring within the Youth squad, etc.)
johnconnerson said: Portal > Calendar > Training > In the far left column click on the name of the training schedule > Create New Schedule (bottom left of pop-up window)
This screen is where you would copy/import FM24 schedules.
When saved, go back to Calendar > Training > click the schedule name > change schedule type (top left button, may be labeled "Pre-Season" or "Tactical" > Custom Schedule > (your schedule).
As far as I'm aware you have to manually add the schedule for every week. You can't copy & paste it.
I was flabbergasted when I tried this and my custom schedule didn't pop up.
If anyone else has the same problem,
the issue on my end (in FM26) was that I was managing a Semi-Professional club.
Somehow this affects the schedule you're allowed to select.
Further, the schedule I created in FM26 wouldn't work, and was not importable,
however... my FM24 schedule was importable and worked like a charm.
I'm testing it on FM26
harvestgreen22 said: All of these training schedules have a very low risk of injury, Even if you suffer three Match a week, don't worry about the impact of the lack of training, set all week rest, you lose nothing
A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand).
Jolt said: A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
I did a quick test:
match practice doesn't decrease condition
1 x match practice recovers condition same rate as all rest
1 x match practice doesn't boost match sharpness (identical to all rest)
2 x match practice + quickness on one day, is identical to full rest in regards to condition recovery & match sharpness
What you might not know is that condition recovery doesn't have a randomness factor, unlike many other FM mechanics, so there shouldn't be any need for a ton of tests.
Seems EBFM found this back in 2022, and additionally found that match practice actually negatively impacts match performances, even though it has no condition impact.
This is strange. Maybe the 'injury risk' and 'fatigue' labels are also falsehoods and the whole training meta needs a rethink if one is not looking solely for attribute gain.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I did a quick test:
match practice doesn't decrease condition
1 x match practice recovers condition same rate as all rest
1 x match practice doesn't boost match sharpness (identical to all rest)
2 x match practice + quickness on one day, is identical to full rest in regards to condition recovery & match sharpness
What you might not know is that condition recovery doesn't have a randomness factor, unlike many other FM mechanics, so there shouldn't be any need for a ton of tests.
Seems EBFM found this back in 2022, and additionally found that match practice actually negatively impacts match performances, even though it has no condition impact.
This is strange. Maybe the 'injury risk' and 'fatigue' labels are also falsehoods and the whole training meta needs a rethink if one is not looking solely for attribute gain.
If corroborated, that's great to know.
I would presume (complete speculation though), that these heavier training sessions have a higher percentage RNG injury trigger roll than lighter ones, and that must be multiplied by the player's condition percentage when it's lower, increasing the risk of rolling a positive for injury for the player.
Hypothetically, instead of every training resolution there are injury rolls for every single player, a more simplistic system would be:
First roll: Team-wide injury roll, that if triggered positively:
Second roll: The game rolls who the injury will land on, with added weights for players with lower condition, higher injury proneness, and repeated injuries, and once it has selected a player.
Third roll: Rolls the chance of which injury it's going to be, based on the training session being resolved, and if the user already is susceptible to a specific injury.
Four roll: Rolls severity of injury, within injury type range.
Then the game rolls again for another team-wide injury roll, as (if I remember correctly) on rare ocasions, it is possible to get two injuries while resolving a single training session.
In any case, if:
1. Lower individual player condition is indeed an added individual risk factor for that player getting an injury, and
2. The game rolls injuries on an individual basis, as opposed to a team basis (and AFAIK, there's no way of testing whether this is the case)
Basically we should always put rest sessions after the game, and put training sessions as far away from the previous game as possible, as long as it is within the same week, to ensure players have as high condition as possible before they start going through the training sessions.
EDIT: An extremely useful data point that can be tested is:
1. From an injury risk perspective, does stacking Attacking, Match Practice and Quickness training on the same training day (immediately before the game), leads to more, less, or equal amount of injuries during a season, as opposed to spreading one of each on different days.
2. From a player development perspective, is there a measurable difference in attribute growth between stacking all three on the same day, or spreading them out on different days?
The answers to this could basically lead to training sessions being stacking all three trainings on the day immediately before a match, using the rest of the days of the week for Rest and Recovery sessions.
Jolt said: A couple of quick questions to harvestgreen22 or someone that knows.
The training sessions generally show lowering "Condition"
But from my observations, condition always improves after each day with just training, and only lowerswhen playing matches (or getting injured, but that's beside the point). So my question, has it ever been tested whether these trainings actually: 1. Lower condition? OR 2. Training sessions with heavier condition reduction don't allow the players to recover condition as much as training sessions with lighter condition reduction?
The reason why I'm asking is simple: I'm unsure whether I should schedule my training sessions like this:
or like this:
If trainings don't lower condition, then putting a rest day in between sessions makes no sense, and it is always ideal to put all rest sessions immediately after a game, and the training sessions as late as possible (like in the second case).
If they do lower condition, then adding a rest day in between training sessions to allow the players to recover, can make sense to lower risk of injuries.
Hopefully my question is understandable.
如果你看不懂我的意思，我也会中文，所以如果我必须写汉字，我可以。(This says that I can also write in Chinese in case harvestgreen22 doesn't understand).
Basically unless you run 3x some sort of physical training (or similar) on double intensity you'll always recover more condition than it costs to run the training sessions from one day to another
I've been having a bit of a thinkle about training
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness
1 x Goalkeeping
1 x Resistance
1 x Shot Stopping
1 x Match Practice
1 x Handling
1 x Match Tactics
1 x Aerial Defence
1 x Chance Conversion
1 x Play From The Back
1 x Distribution
Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA.
Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA?
He did test it in this thread, end of the first post, the screenshot shows how it impacts dribble, anticipation and concentration:
https://community.sports-interactive.com/forums/topic/598916-fm26-comprehensive-bug-missing-features-uiux-issues-megalist-updated/
Optimal training + U18/U23 appearances
vs
Loaner club's training + First team appearances
Has anyone also crunched the numbers for progress between "optimized training" and "loaned players". When a player goes on loan (and let's say he is starter at the loaner club), you can't set his training for [Chosen training]+[Quickness]+[Double], but his progress is uncapped since he'll get many first team appearances.
My little-to-no-basis instinct would be that one should only loan a player if his attributes distribution is already optimal, but with high untapped PA. Any player with high PA and suboptimal attributes distribution should stay with our training to start skewing his attributes back the right way.
Thoughts?
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed Great write-up! One question tho, do you think GK impact on the overall result is worth four training sessions per week? Or do those sessions also greatly boost important outfield player attributes?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've been having a bit of a thinkle about training
In trying to create the best performing 1 CA players, I found that all that seems solid is pace, acc, jump, dribbling, concentration and perhaps flair. And only pace & acc is needed in all positions. For GK, it's clear that agility + aerial reach + reflexes are the key three.
I also know that decisions, technique, tackling, marking, and some others are often highly weighted but make no significant difference to results.
I was looking at EBFM's more precise breakdown for training session effects by position, albeit it is for FM23. But I've created a schedule based on its info, and it seems to still work the same.
The schedule I've created is:
1 x Quickness
1 x Goalkeeping
1 x Resistance
1 x Shot Stopping
1 x Match Practice
1 x Handling
1 x Match Tactics
1 x Aerial Defence
1 x Chance Conversion
1 x Play From The Back
1 x Distribution
Quickness focus (Agility on GK)
This is a significant departure from HarvestGreen's recommendations.
I've analyzed each session, and have chosen ones that favor pace & acc, whilst retaining/boosting as much as possible drib in relevant positions + concentration in DC+DL/DR + minimize decisions & technique gain (to free up CA) + agil/aerial/reflexes for GK + some other lesser considerations.
In my initial 3-year test of it, I'm seeing the best improving players getting +5 to +6 pace/acc, +4 agil/aerial on GK, and lesser but positive movement in the other attributes I mentioned. Requires refinement, but seems to be working close to as intended. I'm testing using just the default Bournemouth starting players, put the knap tactic on, and just let things run for 3 years. I did a test of Quickness + Match Practice + 2 x Attack + Quickness focus to compare. My schedule was competitive with it, but fell a bit short. GKs improved significantly better though I think.
Here is my critique of HarvestGreen's training:
Combinations are assessed according to acc+pace+jump and overall team CA boost/cost.
If you go with minimal CA cost for max acc+pace+jump, you have to do a lot of rest which usually results in match sharpness becoming unsalvagable which significantly affects win rate. A lot of the other attributes decline, yet some of these attributes must matter to some extent as acc+pace+jump alone fails to win.
Additionally, match practice possibly impairs team performance and may be unnecessary. And there are still a lot of rest periods.
If you go for high acc+pace+jump and high CA boost, a lot of that CA could be junk attributes and it doesn't tell you how much of other important attributes such as dribbling & concentration and whether they are put in the right positions or not. For instance, it seems dribbling is good on DL/DR, but unnecessary on ST.
I'll compare 2 training sessions (using EBFM's FM23 excel file) to illustrate the issues:
Attacking - +0.74 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +11.46 CA.
Aerial defence - +0.47 drib, boosts to many stats with no declines, +10.3 CA.
Attacking seems like the logical choice here. However if you look at the differences:
Attacking - +0.8 drib AMC (position not used in knap tactic), +0.2 drib ST (unimportant), +0.05 drib DL/DR (important). +0.38 decisions, +0.26 technique (costly near useless attributes that should be minimized).
Aerial defence - +0.35 con DC (important), +0.3 con DL/DR (important). +0.32 ant (semi-important?), +0.31 cmp (semi-important?). +0.13 acc, +0.18 pace. For 1.16 less CA.
Now Aerial defence is the no-brainer choice. Perhaps moreso if you consider that CA growth is limited to only a dozen or so CA a year on average.
This is where I get confused though. Maybe someone can help me understand. I understand that HarvestGreen is showing us that as rest boosts physicals by default, training is essentially an allocation process. But if I do quickness (+4.61 CA) + match practice (+12.01 CA) + attacking (+11.46 CA) does that all get compressed proportionally into say 12 CA?
These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy.
Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example.
BulldozerJokic said: @GeorgeFloydOverdosed Great write-up! One question tho, do you think GK impact on the overall result is worth four training sessions per week? Or do those sessions also greatly boost important outfield player attributes?
This was one of the surprising realizations I had reading EBFM's excel file, that the GK sessions are actually also very good for the outfield.
handling = 0.05 drib DC, 0.05 drib DL/DR, 1.15 con DC, 1.1 con DL/DR, 0.45 acc DC, 0.4 acc DL/DR, 0.55 pac DC, 0.4 pac DL/DR --- (1.8 physical) (4.15 key attributes) (11.4 CA). +0.9 agil/+0.8 aer/+0.6 ref for GK.
match practice = 0.05 drib DC, 1.15 con DC, 1.05 con DL/DR, 0.4 acc DC, 0.4 acc DL/DR, 0.65 pac DC, 0.6 pac DL/DR (2.05 physical) (4.3 key attributes) (12 CA). +0.2 agil/+0.6 aer/+0.3 ref for GK.
Handling does a lot for all positions too, not just defenders.
When I changed GK attributes in my 1 CA testing, it did make a difference, so GK has some significance. I'd say a fair bit more than I intuitively thought. Not sure exactly how much, but I'd guesstimate their worth is at least that of 1 of the 11 players.
What I didn't really mention in my post btw is that my thinking is that these sessions like handling that boost physicals moderately (~0.3) are perhaps particularly worthwhile because with a bunch of them maybe you could replace a whole quickness/resistance/physical session which gives you +1.2 but lowers a whole bunch of technicals and mentals.
Yarema said: These tests really need a bigger number of data points. Doing one 3 season test can maybe point in the right direction but far from conclusive, you can easily get deceived by random chance. Even EBFM's training videos I'd say are underpowered and probably harvestgreen's too (to my knowledge).
Don't get me wrong they are a great start and eye opening in some cases but people make way too strong conclusions from them. None of those tests can differentiate between 0,35 and 0,31 with enough accuracy.
Yes, I would agree with you there.
Though, as I think about it now.. given it seems to show patterns accurately enough (i.e. aerial defense gives 1.25 con DC, 1.25 con DL/DR, 1.2 con DM, 0.8 con MC, 0.5 con AMC, 0.65 con AML/AMR, 0.5 con ST) maybe it is actually non-random. Maybe the 'random' variation between different players is simply their professionalism, matches played, CA-PA diff, etc. downscaling a set max amount, and then you have different boosts for different positions giving the appearance of each player progressing seemingly randomly compared to other players.
I suppose it's something I should try and test.
Yarema said: Also you can't add up different benefits with various sessions as it was already tested by EBFM for example.
I haven't got that far yet
I see now he has an excel file with combo sessions, with positional breakdown. I'll examine it to try and deduce what's going on
Panneton0 said: Optimal training + U18/U23 appearances
vs
Loaner club's training + First team appearances
Since you can min-max players attribute development in your club, and you can't while they are on loan, you should generally only loan someone once playing time is crucial to keep developing (and match/league reputation is crucial to develop the player) to offset your optimized training.
And that is 24+ aged players, IIRC.
Jolt said: Since you can min-max players attribute development in your club, and you can't while they are on loan, you should generally only loan someone once playing time is crucial to keep developing (and match/league reputation is crucial to develop the player) to offset your optimized training.
And that is 24+ aged players, IIRC.
If You keep players 24+, who dont play in your first team, You do something wrong.
Actually if a player 20+ doesn't play in a league adequate to his skill, his progress is weak-or-none-or-negative. But it's really hard to find him a club giving game time at a good level. Unless You have really great reputation - in that situation You have a long queue for Your youngsters.
And I would never ever let a player 18- to go to AI club. Especially if he has a high PA.
I was mistaken about HarvestGreen not including the breakdown of all attributes. I had actually seen it before but forgotten. However, it doesn't breakdown by each position. It would be good if this could be provided.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack)
DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work
DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work
DM +1 dec, +1 work
AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech
ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was mistaken about HarvestGreen not including the breakdown of all attributes. I had actually seen it before but forgotten. However, it doesn't breakdown by each position. It would be good if this could be provided.
Anyway, I've been having a crack at it, and the long and short of it is that quickness + match practice + 2xAttack is still king.
I think I found one combo that may edge it out slightly:
Quickness + Match Practice + Aerial Defence + Play From The Back + Handling
After 4 years:
GK +1 dec (compared to Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack)
DL/DR +1 pac, -2 flair, +1 work
DC +1 acc, -1 dec, -1 con, -1 work
DM +1 dec, +1 work
AML/AMR +1 pac, +1 dec, -1 tech
ST -2 acc, +1 pac, -1 dec, -2 tech, -1 flair, -2 finish, -2 drib
7 injuries (1 major, 1 moderate) vs 13 (2 major, 5 moderate) for Quickness + Match Practice + 2xAttack.
Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise, but overall it is +2 speed as well as 3 less of CA wasting attributes (basically another +3 speed). That's +0.45 speed per position after 4 years.
It seems at least some sessions, such as match practice and match tactics, changed for FM24.
was this in FM26 or ?
IlPadreMogens said: was this in FM26 or ?
FM24
I think someone said the training .jsb file is same in FM26, but I'm not sure if that's all that controls the training variables. I'd guess it does.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Hard to say if it's better, the results are so close it could be just statistical noise
If it was only one try for each schedule I wouldn't bother results so much but:
- seems strange, that 5 sessions a week gave 2.5x more injuries then 4 sessions a week
- aerial defence has no effect on jumping reach, aerial reach nor heading. But no absurd or strange bug in this game will astonish me.