retired_kellyk

As far as coaches/potential ability and all that other stuff...Seaborne has little potential to improve and is playing with a club called Gloucester which has bad facilities.

I took the worst and i think with better facilities...anything is possible

Andre I agree with vril and Buxton to a point. it depends on which low setting you use.. if you see the example of seaborne..he had low shooting training...yet his attributes did not decline..one of them actually improved.

liamashley

Yeah, i guess that's probably true, i usually just put them very low because i rather use those "points" to get the other areas near high.

I found a cool thing about training for youth that i don't think that was available on 2007, if you check on the training overview screen for one of your young players, the assman now recommends who he can learn from. I find that i get less personality clashes with this. (Then again this might have been there for 2007 and i never noticed it )

retired_knights1

I agree with you but I think a players Age is also an important factor.
Players older than 24 generally increase and decrease their attributes at a slower rate than younger players.

So if for example you have a training schedule with two players in it, one is 18 years old and the other is 27 years old.
Setting the "Tactics" slider to low could mean the 18 year old will decrease in this area where the 27 old will just remain on the same level. Just some basic trainig is enough for the 27 year old to remain at the same level.

So I thinks its important to think about the training level and to keep the players age in mind.

Just my thoughts

retired_kellyk

I'm now thinking of finetuning these training programmes...how important is considering age and which areas do you guys think are important?

I used to think for young players improving stamina/aerobics were a must..but like all other sports..too much too soon, and you get long term injuries.

Is everyone inclined to keep their training on medium in as far as ensuring there is a gradual increase or do you guys like to push them a bit more, and drop the other areas to accommodate this?

leftfoot

I tested this out on 07 where I took an attackng midfielder and set his defending/set pieces to none and increased others over an 8 month period. He was 25 and more or less at his potential and I wanted to see if I could actually reshape him.

I tracked his attributes using FM modifier as this gives a finer scale between 1 and 100 (assuming it is accurate). Basically what I found was that there appeared to be a lower limit with respect to how far an attribute could fall. His defending/set piece attributes plummeted very dramatically but the other areas whose training was increased only showed small gains in the first 3 months of the new schedule. After that the attribute values seemed to reach an equilibrium point.

What I did note was that the CA model possibly distributes points based on a player's favoured positions. I based this on the fact that there wasn't a one to one correspondence between the decreasing attributes and the increasing attributes.

That's as much as I can remember off the top of my head.

Whether or not the same thing applies in 08 I don't know. Also the player development model appears different to 07 as players seem to be gaining attributes more readily (in the non patched version anyway).

Since I do this myself anyway figured I'd post it for others to digest. This on a non patched game and this is how Doudin evolved as a player from the beginning of the game in 2007 to May 2011. He was left on the default training regime. I've included pics and CA/PA changes but since Doudin has a random PA and randomly assigned attributes this won't really be a spoiler. But for anyone that doesn't like to know these things then don't read on.

Doudin: Date CA/PA Profile

Aug 2007 110/177 http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3...0070714gb5.jpg
Aug 2008 136/177 http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6...0080802gn0.jpg
Aug 2009 154/177 http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3...0090801ov5.jpg
Aug 2010 165/177 http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/3...0100814aq3.jpg
May 2011 174/177 http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5...0110515zh3.jpg

Training Stars: Date Str/Aer/GK/Tac/BC/Def/Att/Shoot/Set Pieces

Aug 2007 2/2/7/3/3/2/3/2/2
Aug 2008 4/4/7/6/4/6/4/4/4
Aug 2009 4/4/7/4/7/7/4/4/4
Aug 2010 7/7/7/7/7/7/7/6/7
May 2011 7/7/7/7/7/7/7/6/7

Doudin Playing History
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2...historyex8.jpg

Doudin Injury History
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5...historymr2.jpg

So maybe people can compare the results of using the default schedule with their modified training schedules. Personally speaking I'd rather have a player available as often as possible than have an extra attribute point but miss a quarter of the season through injury. I guess it is just a case of finding a balance that suits you and the squad you have.

The one thing that pops out for me is that over the given time period the 'Shooting' schedule was kept at the same level. Yet the two attributes covered by those areas showed the following changes:-

Finishing: 15 to 18 +3
Composure: 12 to 17 +5

This seems strange but if you look at the key mental attributes for that position outside of the 'Shooting' schedule, decisions and anticipation, they also increased by 5 points. Maybe mental attributes require less to increase or maybe when combined with playing time a youngster with room to improve can gain substantially in mental attributes. Maybe player development is split between training and matches, and maybe the weighting assigned for mental attributes is higher for match based development?

For example: Mental Attributes = 70% Playing Time + 30% Training Time
So if a player makes no relevant appearances (maybe their age determines what level is determined relevant e.g. First Team, Reserve, U18. Maybe there is a secondary weighting applied to the match based benefit based on the level of the player and the level of the matches?) the most he can gain is 30% if his training is optimised and all other variables are held constant. To be honest the more I think about it the more complex I can imagine it is.

Even stranger was the three attributes covered by defending all changed by different amounts:-
Concentration +6
Marking +4
Tackling +2

Maybe this is evidence of the weighting of attributes relative to a position within the CA model as well as the weighting of different elements of a player's profile?

I know, more questions than answers but the number of variables involved makes it difficult to identify the optimal combination. After testing it out on 07 I came to this conclusion and decided to stick with generalisations, all of which have been mentioned by previous posters.

retired_dhana

Doudin is a too easy example imo.

Its a talented player who is ment to be growing fast imo.

Fe. I got Cabral, a talented defender, for free in the beginning of the game. I didn't take care of my training but, after 2 years he already reached his PA. This is because he's talented and grows much more easily than the average player in FM imo.

It's more challenging to get a youngster with like 60-70 CA to his fullest PA (above 100) in a few years. With regular training he won't develop to his PA unless he's as gifted as a talented player (like Doudin) imo.