Alternative training sessions using data from EBFM's Fm23 training spreadsheet. Part 1: Physical Training. Physical General training is still most likely the best.
Looking through the EBFM Training Session Gains Spreadsheet, I was wondering if tried to change some of the value of the results if that would change any of the results of best training sessions. Even though the results are from FM23, it's the best data we have and should be close to FM24. In my thread here, I outlined some of the problems I saw with the results of EBFM's conclusions. So, I used his data and changed some of the scoring numbers to see if anything changes.
Scoring(very rudimentary)
I used this post of attributes to create scores for training gain. The 1st score used any score above 45 and was added to the calculations multiplied by its weight times .01 in the spreadsheet. I calculated a 2nd score by dividing the 1st score by it's CA attribute weight for each attribute used for the position. I will refer to them as non-CA weighted and CA weighted. I started with Physical training as its less trainings to go through and less attributes to go through. I also changed some of the weights for some of the positions to fit the tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table, Box Levante x Pirate 2.
For more details on how I changed the weights below under the post.
Results
There were only 4 trainings I looked at and the scores only look at Physical weights + Work Rate. Physical, the general training, Resistance, Quickness, and Endurance.
Quickness and Endurance had Non-CA weight scores of 3.05 and 2.33 respectively and CA Weighted scores of .6 and .55 which were the lowest by far. Quickness didn't work on Strength and Stamina enough and Endurance didn't work on Pace and Acceleration enough.
Physical and Resistance had the 2 best scores of 4.02 and 3.93 for non-CA weighted scores respectively and 0.92 and 0.91 for CA-Weighted scores respectively.
But it wasn't all lopsided towards Physical training, FB, DM, and ST all had better scores when doing resistance training. In the tactic, that is actually a majority of the team.
TL;DR All in all, I believe that for physical training, using both Physical, the general training, and Resistance training due to their all around physical growth could be a way to boost your team's physical growth.
Link to my very much unpresentable spreadsheet here
Weight Changes for the top 24.2.0 tactic GK/DC/ST/AMC were unchanged.
W used AMC's weights as the AMR - IF(A) I felt like functioned similarly to the AMC in the tactic looking their similar XA and XG numbers on my team. These weights could be changed as the AMR is more dribbly and AMC is more passy, however I felt that the weights weren't far off for both roles.
The FBs were changed as they perform the role of FB and winger not an IWB from Zaz's tactic
DMs were changed as they are a lot more active in the tactic. Same amount of distance covered per 90, same amount of sprints per 90, and same amount of pressures attempted as the AMC and AMR with some of possession recycling as normal. Gave them similar physical weights to the AMC.
ta2199 said: Hi, can we have a download link for the training schedule since I can't import fm 23 training to fm 24. Thanks a lto Expand
This isn't a training schedule. Just an analysis of Physical training sessions. If I ever felt confident enough to create one, I would need to do more analysis on the other attributes first.
I think it’s important to remember that players 21+ are not improving with training, and if they are playing regularly you only need enough training to avoid an attribute loss. So you need to be careful about using heavier training sessions in your main squad that will benefit only a minority of players while increasing injury risk for all players.
An unanswered question is whether the attribute increases that are directly caused by playing time occur in areas that are influenced by what the player is training? So for example if I have a 23 year old that hasn’t maxed his CA I know that training quickness does not itself increase his CA, but does it direct the CA gain from playing into pace? I would tend to say yes, but I haven’t seen any objective evidence.
Players still need training to grow after 21, just as much as before. The difference is only that they won't grow without sufficient game time whereas a 17 year old would.
Looking through the EBFM Training Session Gains Spreadsheet, I was wondering if tried to change some of the value of the results if that would change any of the results of best training sessions. Even though the results are from FM23, it's the best data we have and should be close to FM24. In my thread here, I outlined some of the problems I saw with the results of EBFM's conclusions. So, I used his data and changed some of the scoring numbers to see if anything changes.
Scoring(very rudimentary)
I used this post of attributes to create scores for training gain. The 1st score used any score above 45 and was added to the calculations multiplied by its weight times .01 in the spreadsheet. I calculated a 2nd score by dividing the 1st score by it's CA attribute weight for each attribute used for the position. I will refer to them as non-CA weighted and CA weighted. I started with Physical training as its less trainings to go through and less attributes to go through. I also changed some of the weights for some of the positions to fit the tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table, Box Levante x Pirate 2.
For more details on how I changed the weights below under the post.
Results
There were only 4 trainings I looked at and the scores only look at Physical weights + Work Rate. Physical, the general training, Resistance, Quickness, and Endurance.
Quickness and Endurance had Non-CA weight scores of 3.05 and 2.33 respectively and CA Weighted scores of .6 and .55 which were the lowest by far. Quickness didn't work on Strength and Stamina enough and Endurance didn't work on Pace and Acceleration enough.
Physical and Resistance had the 2 best scores of 4.02 and 3.93 for non-CA weighted scores respectively and 0.92 and 0.91 for CA-Weighted scores respectively.
But it wasn't all lopsided towards Physical training, FB, DM, and ST all had better scores when doing resistance training. In the tactic, that is actually a majority of the team.
TL;DR All in all, I believe that for physical training, using both Physical, the general training, and Resistance training due to their all around physical growth could be a way to boost your team's physical growth.
Link to my very much unpresentable spreadsheet here
Weight Changes for the top 24.2.0 tactic
GK/DC/ST/AMC were unchanged.
W used AMC's weights as the AMR - IF(A) I felt like functioned similarly to the AMC in the tactic looking their similar XA and XG numbers on my team. These weights could be changed as the AMR is more dribbly and AMC is more passy, however I felt that the weights weren't far off for both roles.
The FBs were changed as they perform the role of FB and winger not an IWB from Zaz's tactic
DMs were changed as they are a lot more active in the tactic. Same amount of distance covered per 90, same amount of sprints per 90, and same amount of pressures attempted as the AMC and AMR with some of possession recycling as normal. Gave them similar physical weights to the AMC.
Hi, can we have a download link for the training schedule since I can't import fm 23 training to fm 24. Thanks a lto
ta2199 said: Hi, can we have a download link for the training schedule since I can't import fm 23 training to fm 24. Thanks a lto
This isn't a training schedule. Just an analysis of Physical training sessions. If I ever felt confident enough to create one, I would need to do more analysis on the other attributes first.
This is great, looking forward to a training schedule using this data.
I think it’s important to remember that players 21+ are not improving with training, and if they are playing regularly you only need enough training to avoid an attribute loss. So you need to be careful about using heavier training sessions in your main squad that will benefit only a minority of players while increasing injury risk for all players.
An unanswered question is whether the attribute increases that are directly caused by playing time occur in areas that are influenced by what the player is training? So for example if I have a 23 year old that hasn’t maxed his CA I know that training quickness does not itself increase his CA, but does it direct the CA gain from playing into pace? I would tend to say yes, but I haven’t seen any objective evidence.
Players still need training to grow after 21, just as much as before. The difference is only that they won't grow without sufficient game time whereas a 17 year old would.