Immediately apologize about my English, all my text will be from a translator.
I came across @harvestgreen22's post. And decided that all the characteristics of players are important for the game, not just speed/agility/acceleration.
Went to see the original source where he got his information from:
by Evidence Based Football Manager.
His chart has stats for all types of drills and what the best ones are, he wrote them out as well: Attacking Defendinng Possession Overall (workouts that give more than 0.5 PA increase).
For goalkeepers: Ground defense Attacking overlap Chance creation
Based on this data, I decided to compose a training that should realize the potential of a player at 100% or close to these values. The results are sterile because there are no 2 matches per week, no 3 matches per week. Players do not leave for national teams.
Below are the variations of the training on which the tests were done: 1 2 2.1 3 4 5 5.1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
As well as which individualized training sessions for the players:
Training intensity:
6 tests were done for ages 15-20.
Test 1-4. Initially each player has professionalism 20 and ambition 20 all other attributes 10. All indicators are also 10 CA 82\PA 200
The results were quite mediocre (in my opinion) at both ages, because I was looking for tactics that should realize the potential of the squad and not a particular player around 85-90%. The only optimal tactics were 2 and 5.
Test 5. Everything is the same as in test 1-4 for the players. I decided to refer to that blogger's table again to see where I went wrong and came up with a new tactic that should utilize all players and pump up their potential, which was tactic 13.
Training assignment: Team 1: only 13 tactics
2 team: only 2.1 tactics (it differs from 2 only by the load in the training week, so that the speed training is spread over the whole week and not on 1 day).
3 team: 2, 13 with alternating each week
4 team: 5.1, 2 with alternating each week (5.1 minor change to practice with goalie)
Logically, the best tactic is the 2nd tactic, because it realizes 93%, but in addition to the realization of potential, it was important to me that there was not too much slippage in some players, and others have too much growth. I would also like to point out that the player with the lowest number of matches has the lowest PA realization (AMC played only 2 games in the 4th team and 8 games in the 3rd team). For myself, I highlighted 13 and 2.1 as the best tactics,,but this is all under ideal conditions and with the professionalism of 20 and ambition of 20, I had to check how it would be when the attributes are all 10. And also how it works on players from 20-25 years old with professionalism 20 and ambition 20 and also when the same attributes are 10.
Test 6.
1 team 15-20 (20 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 2.1, 2 years - tactics 13, 1 year - tactics 2.1.
2 team 15-20 (10 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 13, 2 years - tactics 2.1, 1 year - tactics 13.
3 team 20-25 (20 prof/amb): alternate each year tactics 13\2.1.
4 team 20-25 (10 prof/amb): alternate every 4 weeks with tactic 13\2.1.
From the tests I have concluded that the realization of potential is affected quite strongly by professionalism and ambition, I can assume even if a player will have CA = 200, but his ambition and professionalism will be below 10, then this you will not be able to fully realize his performance even at least 60-70%.
I think the best tactics from tests 13 and 2.1 they can be varied under those players. which you have, and also under the game week.
Immediately apologize about my English, all my text will be from a translator.
I came across @harvestgreen22's post. And decided that all the characteristics of players are important for the game, not just speed/agility/acceleration.
Went to see the original source where he got his information from:
by Evidence Based Football Manager.
His chart has stats for all types of drills and what the best ones are, he wrote them out as well: Attacking Defendinng Possession Overall (workouts that give more than 0.5 PA increase).
For goalkeepers: Ground defense Attacking overlap Chance creation
Based on this data, I decided to compose a training that should realize the potential of a player at 100% or close to these values. The results are sterile because there are no 2 matches per week, no 3 matches per week. Players do not leave for national teams.
Below are the variations of the training on which the tests were done: 1 2 2.1 3 4 5 5.1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
As well as which individualized training sessions for the players:
Training intensity:
6 tests were done for ages 15-20.
Test 1-4. Initially each player has professionalism 20 and ambition 20 all other attributes 10. All indicators are also 10 CA 82\PA 200
The results were quite mediocre (in my opinion) at both ages, because I was looking for tactics that should realize the potential of the squad and not a particular player around 85-90%. The only optimal tactics were 2 and 5.
Test 5. Everything is the same as in test 1-4 for the players. I decided to refer to that blogger's table again to see where I went wrong and came up with a new tactic that should utilize all players and pump up their potential, which was tactic 13.
Training assignment: Team 1: only 13 tactics
2 team: only 2.1 tactics (it differs from 2 only by the load in the training week, so that the speed training is spread over the whole week and not on 1 day).
3 team: 2, 13 with alternating each week
4 team: 5.1, 2 with alternating each week (5.1 minor change to practice with goalie)
Logically, the best tactic is the 2nd tactic, because it realizes 93%, but in addition to the realization of potential, it was important to me that there was not too much slippage in some players, and others have too much growth. I would also like to point out that the player with the lowest number of matches has the lowest PA realization (AMC played only 2 games in the 4th team and 8 games in the 3rd team). For myself, I highlighted 13 and 2.1 as the best tactics,,but this is all under ideal conditions and with the professionalism of 20 and ambition of 20, I had to check how it would be when the attributes are all 10. And also how it works on players from 20-25 years old with professionalism 20 and ambition 20 and also when the same attributes are 10.
Test 6.
1 team 15-20 (20 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 2.1, 2 years - tactics 13, 1 year - tactics 2.1.
2 team 15-20 (10 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 13, 2 years - tactics 2.1, 1 year - tactics 13.
3 team 20-25 (20 prof/amb): alternate each year tactics 13\2.1.
4 team 20-25 (10 prof/amb): alternate every 4 weeks with tactic 13\2.1.
From the tests I have concluded that the realization of potential is affected quite strongly by professionalism and ambition, I can assume even if a player will have CA = 200, but his ambition and professionalism will be below 10, then this you will not be able to fully realize his performance even at least 60-70%.
I think the best tactics from tests 13 and 2.1 they can be varied under those players. which you have, and also under the game week.
I tested 13 and 2.1 , check it in H21 and I21 above The "Training intensity" and [Addtional Focus nn] of this test are based on the way you mentioned You can see the effect of each property directly
If you look through the entire table, you can see very clearly that the training is assigned CA due to their weight, but not "each training" give "a certain number of CA" corresponding of attribute
Among other things:
The H21 uses 12 training programs and provided CA of 34.7 The I21 uses 6 training programs and provides CA of 31.4 while The I20, uses only 3 training programs, also provides CA of 31
This is because the CA is assigned to the body class attribute under the default allocation, and the body class attribute has a "hard-coded upper limit", and this part of the extra allocation is wasted. Some training actually takes this "wasted weight" and pulls it back into the technical and mental class stats.
So, why does 34.7CA appear? Looking at the table H21, you can see that CA are allocated to some attributes such as "Decision", and they "occupy" more CA per 1 attribute, so the phenomenon is that CA increases
In other words, the idea of "Evidence Based Football Manager" is wrong If you like the technical and mental attributes, I can actually use 3-4 training, To achieve the effect of the 12 training of H21,
I maintain my view that there are some technical and mental attributes that take up a lot of CA and don't have much in-game effect, so I try to avoid assigning them growth weights as much as possible
Hello everyone!
Immediately apologize about my English, all my text will be from a translator.
I came across @harvestgreen22's post.
And decided that all the characteristics of players are important for the game, not just speed/agility/acceleration.
Went to see the original source where he got his information from:
by Evidence Based Football Manager.
His chart has stats for all types of drills and what the best ones are, he wrote them out as well:
Attacking
Defendinng
Possession
Overall
(workouts that give more than 0.5 PA increase).
For goalkeepers:
Ground defense
Attacking overlap
Chance creation
Based on this data, I decided to compose a training that should realize the potential of a player at 100% or close to these values.
The results are sterile because there are no 2 matches per week, no 3 matches per week. Players do not leave for national teams.
Below are the variations of the training on which the tests were done:
1
2
2.1
3
4
5
5.1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
As well as which individualized training sessions for the players:
Training intensity:
6 tests were done for ages 15-20.
Test 1-4. Initially each player has professionalism 20 and ambition 20 all other attributes 10. All indicators are also 10
CA 82\PA 200
The results were quite mediocre (in my opinion) at both ages, because I was looking for tactics that should realize the potential of the squad and not a particular player around 85-90%.
The only optimal tactics were 2 and 5.
Test 5. Everything is the same as in test 1-4 for the players. I decided to refer to that blogger's table again to see where I went wrong and came up with a new tactic that should utilize all players and pump up their potential, which was tactic 13.
Training assignment:
Team 1: only 13 tactics
2 team: only 2.1 tactics (it differs from 2 only by the load in the training week, so that the speed training is spread over the whole week and not on 1 day).
3 team: 2, 13 with alternating each week
4 team: 5.1, 2 with alternating each week (5.1 minor change to practice with goalie)
1 team:
GK - 195
DCR - 194
DCL - 193
WBR - 175
WBL - 175
DM - 175
MC - 175
WL - 189
WR - 198
ACM - 156
ST - 192
Realization of potential = 91.5%
2 team:
GK - 175
DCR - 182
DCL - 191
WBR - 188
WBL - 185
DM - 191
MC - 195
WL - 175
WR - 175
AMC - 196
ST - 198
Realization of potential = 93%
3 team:
GK - 175
DCR - 189
DCL - 186
WBR - 193
WBL - 195
DM - 190
MC - 189
WL - 189
WR - 175
AMC - 164 (8 games)
ST - 175
Realization of potential = 91.5%
4 team:
GK - 185
DCR - 191
DCL - 187
WBR - 187
WBL - 195
DM - 199
MC - 199
WL - 176
WR - 192
AMC - 156 (2 games)
ST - 175
Realization of potential = 92.5%
Logically, the best tactic is the 2nd tactic, because it realizes 93%, but in addition to the realization of potential, it was important to me that there was not too much slippage in some players, and others have too much growth. I would also like to point out that the player with the lowest number of matches has the lowest PA realization (AMC played only 2 games in the 4th team and 8 games in the 3rd team).
For myself, I highlighted 13 and 2.1 as the best tactics,,but this is all under ideal conditions and with the professionalism of 20 and ambition of 20, I had to check how it would be
when the attributes are all 10.
And also how it works on players from 20-25 years old with professionalism 20 and ambition 20 and also when the same attributes are 10.
Test 6.
1 team 15-20 (20 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 2.1, 2 years - tactics 13, 1 year - tactics 2.1.
2 team 15-20 (10 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 13, 2 years - tactics 2.1, 1 year - tactics 13.
3 team 20-25 (20 prof/amb): alternate each year tactics 13\2.1.
4 team 20-25 (10 prof/amb): alternate every 4 weeks with tactic 13\2.1.
1 team:
GK - 184
DCR - 190
DCL - 187
WBR - 175
WBL - 175
DM - 175
MC - 175
WL - 189
WR - 199
AMC - 189
ST - 192
CA realization = 92%
2 team:
GK - 144
DCR - 164
DCL - 151
WBR - 164
WBL - 150
DM - 177
MC - 160
WL - 169
WR - 157
AMC - 166
ST - 166
CA realization = 80%
3 team:
GK - 171
DCR - 169
DCL - 170
WBR - 177
WRL - 174
DM - 180
MC - 183
WL - 178
WR - 176
AMC - 179
ST - 179
CA realization = 88%
4 team:
GK - 145
DCR - 155
DCL - 150
WBR - 149
WBL - 161
DM - 160
MC - 150
WL - 162
WR - 156
AMC - 161
ST - 164
CA realization = 77.5%
From the tests I have concluded that the realization of potential is affected quite strongly by professionalism and ambition, I can assume even if a player will have CA = 200, but his ambition and professionalism will be below 10, then this you will not be able to fully realize his performance even at least 60-70%.
I think the best tactics from tests 13 and 2.1 they can be varied under those players. which you have, and also under the game week.
I throw a folder with files here changes in the players (not all players) on the tests of training 1-4 and 5, as well as saving (1-6) of these tests FM24, where you can personally see how the players have progressed in each tactic:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mwjIa36Jg9CCrZnr0c5-58aHt_0H7CfY?usp=drive_link
nn said: Hello everyone!
Immediately apologize about my English, all my text will be from a translator.
I came across @harvestgreen22's post.
And decided that all the characteristics of players are important for the game, not just speed/agility/acceleration.
Went to see the original source where he got his information from:
by Evidence Based Football Manager.
His chart has stats for all types of drills and what the best ones are, he wrote them out as well:
Attacking
Defendinng
Possession
Overall
(workouts that give more than 0.5 PA increase).
For goalkeepers:
Ground defense
Attacking overlap
Chance creation
Based on this data, I decided to compose a training that should realize the potential of a player at 100% or close to these values.
The results are sterile because there are no 2 matches per week, no 3 matches per week. Players do not leave for national teams.
Below are the variations of the training on which the tests were done:
1
2
2.1
3
4
5
5.1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
As well as which individualized training sessions for the players:
Training intensity:
6 tests were done for ages 15-20.
Test 1-4. Initially each player has professionalism 20 and ambition 20 all other attributes 10. All indicators are also 10
CA 82\PA 200
The results were quite mediocre (in my opinion) at both ages, because I was looking for tactics that should realize the potential of the squad and not a particular player around 85-90%.
The only optimal tactics were 2 and 5.
Test 5. Everything is the same as in test 1-4 for the players. I decided to refer to that blogger's table again to see where I went wrong and came up with a new tactic that should utilize all players and pump up their potential, which was tactic 13.
Training assignment:
Team 1: only 13 tactics
2 team: only 2.1 tactics (it differs from 2 only by the load in the training week, so that the speed training is spread over the whole week and not on 1 day).
3 team: 2, 13 with alternating each week
4 team: 5.1, 2 with alternating each week (5.1 minor change to practice with goalie)
1 team:
GK - 195
DCR - 194
DCL - 193
WBR - 175
WBL - 175
DM - 175
MC - 175
WL - 189
WR - 198
ACM - 156
ST - 192
Realization of potential = 91.5%
2 team:
GK - 175
DCR - 182
DCL - 191
WBR - 188
WBL - 185
DM - 191
MC - 195
WL - 175
WR - 175
AMC - 196
ST - 198
Realization of potential = 93%
3 team:
GK - 175
DCR - 189
DCL - 186
WBR - 193
WBL - 195
DM - 190
MC - 189
WL - 189
WR - 175
AMC - 164 (8 games)
ST - 175
Realization of potential = 91.5%
4 team:
GK - 185
DCR - 191
DCL - 187
WBR - 187
WBL - 195
DM - 199
MC - 199
WL - 176
WR - 192
AMC - 156 (2 games)
ST - 175
Realization of potential = 92.5%
Logically, the best tactic is the 2nd tactic, because it realizes 93%, but in addition to the realization of potential, it was important to me that there was not too much slippage in some players, and others have too much growth. I would also like to point out that the player with the lowest number of matches has the lowest PA realization (AMC played only 2 games in the 4th team and 8 games in the 3rd team).
For myself, I highlighted 13 and 2.1 as the best tactics,,but this is all under ideal conditions and with the professionalism of 20 and ambition of 20, I had to check how it would be
when the attributes are all 10.
And also how it works on players from 20-25 years old with professionalism 20 and ambition 20 and also when the same attributes are 10.
Test 6.
1 team 15-20 (20 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 2.1, 2 years - tactics 13, 1 year - tactics 2.1.
2 team 15-20 (10 prof/amb): 2 years - tactics 13, 2 years - tactics 2.1, 1 year - tactics 13.
3 team 20-25 (20 prof/amb): alternate each year tactics 13\2.1.
4 team 20-25 (10 prof/amb): alternate every 4 weeks with tactic 13\2.1.
1 team:
GK - 184
DCR - 190
DCL - 187
WBR - 175
WBL - 175
DM - 175
MC - 175
WL - 189
WR - 199
AMC - 189
ST - 192
CA realization = 92%
2 team:
GK - 144
DCR - 164
DCL - 151
WBR - 164
WBL - 150
DM - 177
MC - 160
WL - 169
WR - 157
AMC - 166
ST - 166
CA realization = 80%
3 team:
GK - 171
DCR - 169
DCL - 170
WBR - 177
WRL - 174
DM - 180
MC - 183
WL - 178
WR - 176
AMC - 179
ST - 179
CA realization = 88%
4 team:
GK - 145
DCR - 155
DCL - 150
WBR - 149
WBL - 161
DM - 160
MC - 150
WL - 162
WR - 156
AMC - 161
ST - 164
CA realization = 77.5%
From the tests I have concluded that the realization of potential is affected quite strongly by professionalism and ambition, I can assume even if a player will have CA = 200, but his ambition and professionalism will be below 10, then this you will not be able to fully realize his performance even at least 60-70%.
I think the best tactics from tests 13 and 2.1 they can be varied under those players. which you have, and also under the game week.
I throw a folder with files here changes in the players (not all players) on the tests of training 1-4 and 5, as well as saving (1-6) of these tests FM24, where you can personally see how the players have progressed in each tactic:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mwjIa36Jg9CCrZnr0c5-58aHt_0H7CfY?usp=drive_link
https://pixeldrain.com/u/2vaLuuU2
I tested 13 and 2.1 , check it in H21 and I21 above
The "Training intensity" and [Addtional Focus nn] of this test are based on the way you mentioned
You can see the effect of each property directly
If you look through the entire table, you can see very clearly that
the training is assigned CA due to their weight,
but not "each training" give "a certain number of CA" corresponding of attribute
Among other things:
The H21 uses 12 training programs and provided CA of 34.7
The I21 uses 6 training programs and provides CA of 31.4
while
The I20, uses only 3 training programs, also provides CA of 31
This is because the CA is assigned to the body class attribute under the default allocation, and the body class attribute has a "hard-coded upper limit", and this part of the extra allocation is wasted.
Some training actually takes this "wasted weight" and pulls it back into the technical and mental class stats.
So, why does 34.7CA appear?
Looking at the table H21, you can see that CA are allocated to some attributes such as "Decision", and they "occupy" more CA per 1 attribute, so the phenomenon is that CA increases
In other words, the idea of "Evidence Based Football Manager" is wrong
If you like the technical and mental attributes, I can actually use 3-4 training, To achieve the effect of the 12 training of H21,
I maintain my view that there are some technical and mental attributes that take up a lot of CA and don't have much in-game effect, so I try to avoid assigning them growth weights as much as possible