LaOstia.com

Sorry for my English, it's very poor. I'll try to explain myself the best I can.

I have a theory of individual, specific training as the best approach to get the best out of each player.

I begin my reasoning with this hypothesis: The potential ability of each player (the best he can get, that utopic maximum on his statistics) is reached by training his specific abilities as they should. Balancing each training category proporcionally to what they have presently at each category (their attribute numbers). I'm going to explain this better.

I'm gonna put this example: a player who has 10 in acceleration, 12 in agility, 13 in balance, 10 in jumping, 12 in pace... you don't need to waste a lot of your resources (aka the Aerobic bar, that influences the general workload bar) training that specific category the maximum. That's because you want to get the best out of that player. If your top at acceleration is 12, no matter how high you put the bar, the guy has reached his top. You probably need to put higher another bar (for example strength) because that guy has abilities in that category that needs to master to get to his best. By that logic, it's always going to be more difficult to get to an 18 that to a 12. More training needed, because to master some specific a lot of work is needed.

That relates to the theory that players shouldn't be adjusted to your tactics. You should adjust your tactics to the players you have, or hire the players you want for a specific tactic. But if you adjust a player to a determined tactic, that doesn't fit the role you're giving him, you're never going to see the best of this player. Of course you can hire superstar players, but his stats (his PA) won't never be the same as his CA.

A player aproaches his CA to his PA through matches and training. If he plays good matches he developes faster, but that depends on how you establish your tactic (player instructions) to his abilities.

I'm gonna establish a system of proportional variations, basing it on the 8 main areas of training: strength, aerobic, tactics, ball control, defending, attacking, shooting and set pieces. (I'll keep out goalkeeper)

Strength consists of: natural fitness, stamina, strength, work rate
Aerobic consists of: acceleration, agility, balance, jumping, pace
Tactics consists of: anticipation, decisions, off the ball, positioning, teamwork
....
....
and so on

I sum all the atributes of each category (Strength has 5) and divide it between the number. The result for the aerobic example would be: (10+12+13+10+12)/5=11.4; and the rest, for example these: strength= 10.4; tactics= 12; ball control= 13; defending= 9.9; attacking= 11.5; shooting= 11; set pieces= 8.5;

On the training screen you can slice each bar through 25 different positions (try it if you want). The position 25 would be very heavy, and we don't want to do that to our players, cause that would cause injuries. So I'm gonna put the limit in 20. So, what do we do to get the proportions? Our maximum should be the 20th position. We divide each category number between the highest so we get our coeficients: 11.4/13= 0.85 (for example); 13/13=1; and eventually we multiply that coeficients for 20 (our top). So we got our adjustments specific to the caracteristics of that player so we can get the best out of him.

aerobic = 1X20=20 (the highest of the bars)
strength= 0.85X20 = XXX (another value)

I hope I've explained myself. We also have to take into consideration that the variables that weight more in the workload are strengh and stamina, the rest weight a third of the first two (except set pieces, that weights a third of the previous 5).

With this method, you adjust each training schedule to your individual player characteristics, so if you have 25 players, you'll need 25 different schedules. But I believe that would get the best out of your players, as you're training more the abilities they are more prone to improve, developing their natural abilities in that proccess.

I believe that would be a very good approach. If you want a tactic, hire players for that tactic. But if you simplify your training, you're never gonna get the best out of them, because you're gonna waist resources training areas they can't improve anymore. For example a target striker can have 19 in creativity as potential but you're not training it the most, wasting resources in an area he can't improve, for example shooting, where he has 15.

What do you think of this? I need to test this one, but I have faith this theory could prove interesting.

The_Anecdotalist

Theoretically it could be interesting, but at the same time personally I prefer my striker having 18 finishing and composure and 4 marking (so weak in defence = heavier training in that department) than 14 finishing, composure AND marking...

Please report back when you've tested it, though as I think it could be most interesting for youth training...

rashidi1

Not a bad approach...in fact my training is slightly different than yours..I haven't had much time to elucidate but generally....

Training is an important component in the game and it depends on which league you're in and your priorities. If you're playin in the lower leagues and players are at a premium, get young players and work on fitness and strength. Pace is important too.

Defenders and midfielders should just concentrate on improving passing and defending skills and attackers concentrate purely on composure and finishing. You won't have the time nor the facilities to bring the best out, so concentrate on the skills you need to make you better than the league average.

If you are playin in the premiership...you need to structure your training based on your style of play. If you have a pressing formation, than make sure workrate, stamina are the ones everyone has equal emphasis on till the reach a quantum you feel is enough...for me its 14.

Now with the younger ones you need to target training based on positions and abilities. You may even need to tailor specific programmes, and I have been doing that with a few specific players and the results have been good.

You use a rather complicated mathematical model which I am reluctant to adopt, however the logic is the same.