retired_mdambros

In November 2006 Cleon posted this:-

"But lets not forget set pieces work both ways and as well as setting up the attacking side you also need to set up the defensive part of your side’s set piece strategy. You can also focus on this in training and for this you need to choose the set piece (defending) activity. In this schedule both your goalkeepers and out field players will practise the defending set pieces scenarios that occur in a game. This will improve their anticipation, marking and positioning skills. Its worth having at least one of these in your weekly schedule as it helps you defend set pieces as a unit and is the only real way you can work on defending them."

Benoit 2 commented:-

"What training are you talking about? FM05?

There is no attacking and defensive set piece training in the game. You just have set piece training, which does nothing more then just improve how good someone is at taking set pieces. You only need to train this for players that will take your set pieces".

And Cleon intriguingly replies:-

....."Principles still the exact same though....

Set piece training doesn't only learn how good someone is at set pieces btw, its a bit more than that"

Sorry to take issue with our esteemed guru and moderator, but I'm wondering why he belives that Set Piece training is BOTH a 'how to do it' and 'how to defend it' option.

I'm confused and I wondering if other relative newcomers to FM 07 are having the same doubts in setting up their training schedules. In some threads I've noticed a recommendation that Keepers train for set pieces. Clearly there are a number of people that believe it is a 'dual' function.

If so, then the game engine must logically have a way of dealing with the following apparent anomalies.

Let's say we're training an AM to take corners. All well and dandy becasue crossing, free kicks and penalties will be part of the armoury. But a Striker may never be a corner taker, have relatively low crossing stats (set to rarely!) but you might want him to take spot kicks.

A Keeper will 99% of the time be interested in saving them not taking them. It's very unlikely he will train to take corners!

A Centre back will be very unlikely to practice taking corners or be in positions to cross from wide. But will certainly wish to defend them.

A Wing Back could well be a good free kick taker, cross, take corners and penalties whilst also needing training to defend set peices.

A diminutive winger won't be much good in a wall or at man marking when defending a free kick and could be set to 'stay forward' as a better option. But, 'Concentration' is one of three factors associated with Defenders training. If the winger has a low or poor concentration atrribute and is getting no 'defensive' training, does this mean we are obliged to let him wander around without being able to improve his capacity to follow tactical instructions?

Similarly, 'Composure' is an attribute needed by Attackers and is part of their training. But it 'aint in the Defenders training plan. So does this mean we have no ability to improve a player who is always 'putting it into row' Z? A defender's composure under pressure is essential but it looks as if we can't train for it unless we train a defender with some 'attacking/shooting' training.

In the tactics settings, it is very likely a tall center back will attack corners becasue of height and heading etc, but is the training for him both defensive and offensive? (or maybe the results of attacking corners are purely based only on attributes here)

In the Training Screens a Keepers Aerobic Training includes 'Reflexes', but unless I'm missing something (probable) it is not part of the Aerobic training for other players. But surely a players reflexes are important everywhere. How on earth do you anticipate or position yourself for a rebound in a three player scramble for the ball?

If, as Cleon suggests, training for set pieces is both offensive and defensive, the user has no capacity to set up a specific training schedule to match the mixture of attributes some players offer and that form an essential element of the game playability. Wing Backs being the perfect example where the only option is to train with a mixture of slider settings and hope to find an acceptable mix. The same will be true for a number of roles and attributes becasue so many variables are at work. I suspect there must be a limitation of the number/desirability of programmable/playable scenarios that the game can handle without it needing a PHd.

Cleon also indicates that (defensive) 'Set Pieces' training will improve 'anticpation' 'marking' and 'postioning'. The last time I looked, NONE of these attributes can be influenced by any element in Set Piece training. 'Defensive' or otherwise. No, these are elsewhere!

So how does the game compromise and is there really a 'defensive' subroutine for set peice training invisible in the game booklet, the training screens to the user?

If there is, as Cleon suggests, I can only surmise that the game looks at a low attribute rating and figures the attribute is not required, whilst it also checks a relationship to the players role/instructions/matches played and to other strengths, then filters out 'unnecessary' training unbeknown to us mortals. If this is true, by default we are in the position of having no ability to target training effectively without compromising other areas or strenghts we want to develop. This is a common source of frustration to many posters.

On the the other hand. If there is no 'defensive' set peice training, then we are wasting our time making Keepers practice corner taking.

And, by the way, if there is a hidden algorithm at work here, won't it have a negative effect from a positively intended use of Set Piece Training.

Yep, I want my boy to be a good corner taker, but he turns to jelly since at the thought of a penalty, but I can't 'stop' him from being trained to take them.

There have been a number of posts commenting on the level of detail and flexibilty to train players. FM07 is better, but it seems there are irrantionalities brought about the ambition of the game designers to improve it. It's a hard thing to get right and we can forgive the compromises should they be there. But it would be a lot better if we KNEW the reality of how the training schedules really work, warts n all!

Perhaps the truth is that so many Training Schedules are being built on sand. I reckon Benoit 2 is right. There is no directly applicabe defensive set piece training.

A more concerning aspect of this, if it's true, is that thousands of people have wasted their virtual lives building training schedules that have no relevance or value for the purpose they were intended.

I'm obviously no expert in the realms of FM, but it does seem to me a clear and factual statement is needed, even if it is a toal rubbishing of this post. If so good! It will resolve a question I think is troubling a lot of people. If I'm not taken to task, the oportunity is to debate the thread and see if greater minds and experience can resolve the question.

Mike McG

retired_luizast

I dont have a clue but Im intrigued and thought this thread might be more widely read if it had a reply!

retired_rjw13838

Havent read the entire post, but at that time Cleon was reposting old articles of him to bring them under attention again. They werent initially made for FM07, but for 05 and 06 instead. This one was for 05 (because thats how the training worked back than) and he forget to update it. It simply doesnt apply to 07 anymore.

The way I see training in 06 and 07, is that training categories change attributes and nothing more. There is no training of defensive set pieces or what so ever. Attributes that are needed for that like anticipation etc can be trained one way or the other, but there is no focus on defensive set pieces or anything.

My view anyway..

retired_mdambros

Thanks for the responses.Phonicsdude and Benoit2

I'm encouraged that Benoit2 seems to agree.

Perhaps the 'older' postings have more influence than 'newcomers' like me should give them,
but the more I experince and test 07 and read so many postings and questions and sugestions about training and tactics, the more I think we need to get to the heart of the issue. Which I think is this:-

There is no 'defensive' set piece training in 07 that works to give Keepers, defenders or others specific training in defending set pieces. The set of attributes it influences are all in the 'taking' of rather than in the 'defending of'.

Beyond that, there seems to be a hive of industry with people building and posting training schedules that could be equated to a virus. If you like, a kind of delusion that replicates itself in the minds of well intentioned people who pass on the infection untinentionally. It screwed me up for a month trying to get attribiute improvements using inappropriate schedules.

Ok, it's a harsh analogy, but is it true?

If Phonicsdude ( bless you for the encouragement) can stimulate more discussion, perhaps others will address this point.

I think I'm in danger of slightly confusing the issue by making reference to some obvious 'defects'in the logic of training in general.

The game cannot permit a 'dual' functionality for a training set without it first having been programmed and noted in the game booklet, help tool and within the game itself. Or did the designers deliberately hide this pretty important featrure? I doubt it and so I doubt it is there. But mostly it's because the whole notion is counter intuitve.

As I mentioned in my post, a defender needs 'concentration' and gets training for it in the 'defending' trainig set. A forward or AM needs 'composure' to improve his strike rate etc. Within the training sets pre programmed by the game designers, these are mutually exclusive and do not feature as attributes accross more than one set of training elements. The effect of this mutually exclusive condition would be that anybody wishing to build a defenders 'composure' (related to him not losing it in a tight situation) would necessarily have to also have that same defender train to shoot better. No problem in theory, but within the game it will have the impact of increasing unwanted attributes for the wrong reason.

There are a number of other 'anomalies' which I might get into another time. But for now I just refer to them as evidence of a high probability that the game engine is limited by pre-set trainiong relationship routines that prevent any reasonable prospect that users 'inuition' can beat the system.

We are working in a world of maths stats and differentials that rule the possibilities. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't waste time inferring that things are otherwise.

If Cleon or other moderators can be drawn on the point it would be useful.

So to confirm: there is no evidence FOR the suggestion that Set Piece training has 'dual' function. There is evidence AGAINST the idea. First why would a game developer fail to point out an important function of 'playabilty' if it's there? And how come the attributes pre-programmed exclude such a possibility BY DESIGN?

retired_glix

Set-piece training works on 5 attributes: Corners, Crossing, Free-kicks, Long-Throws and Penalties, all of which are attacking attributes. Imagine this: You're attackers take set-pieces. Your defenders defend them. So you're attackers sharpen up on set-pieces, while you're defenders work on defending. So what I'm saying is, set-pieces train set-piece taking. Defending against set-pieces is worked on through defensive training and tactics, if you like.

retired_jblockso

I have a question.
What does GOAL KICK belongs to?
Maybe it belongs to Set-Pieces?

retired_liliana

You're completely correct. I don't know where that came from, probably FM05's annoying training system.

retired_mdambros

Yes, this makes perefect sense.

The Goal Kick question would, I think, relate to the Goal Keepers 'Kicking' element in the training set for the position.

Cheers!

Mike McG