Azərbaycan dili Bahasa Indonesia Bosanski Català Čeština Dansk Deutsch Eesti English Español Français Galego Hrvatski Italiano Latviešu Lietuvių Magyar Malti Mакедонски Nederlands Norsk Polski Português Português BR Românã Slovenčina Srpski Suomi Svenska Tiếng Việt Türkçe Ελληνικά Български Русский Українська Հայերեն ქართული ენა 中文
Subpage under development, new version coming soon!

Subject: Changing training every week?

  • 1
  • 2
2014-02-23 01:09:48
Couldn't really find the answers I was after from previous threads.

Has anyone tried or still currently change training every week or doing 2 week blocks?

This way your not really training a position, but a team.

So say you have 22 players 23yo and under, you train 1/2 week blocks of say passing, pace, technique, defending or if your more attacking orientated pace, passing, playmaking, tech, shooting. This way you are collecting general training, but also passive training in all side skills.

Does this make sense?
2014-02-23 01:26:08
Doesn't make any sense.
The numbers of positions you can train vary for each type of training, so you would waste too many talent (e.g. when training the shooting skill).
2014-02-23 01:53:14
True, but the training the player receives is still exactly the same. In theory the team around that player should improve from passive training.






2014-02-23 09:59:13
Well if he decides to train mids and switches from pass/tec/play/def/pace training than it is ok with numbers of training positions, only it is shame to train 10 players instead od 22 when training pace
2014-02-23 11:11:44
This what I call passive training, this would be higher than general training. No one knows the exact figures people guess between 20-30% and general training is anything between 12weeks-15weeks for 1 full training, so possibly 8.33% a week.

You may not get the lovely talent graphs if your constantly switching, but in theory you should get a more all round squad.

Anyone got any idea on figures that they believe passive training to be for each position? In the rules it suggests with passing everyone gets equal passive training, unlike striker training where it suggests it goes ATT, MID, DEF, GK

Strikers (ATT position) train most effectively, a bit slower the midfielders (MID) and to a little extent, defenders (DEF) and goalkeepers (GK).

Training of passing

Passing is most effectively trained by midfielders (MID), the remaining positions train slower. If you want to enhance the effect of training passing for other positions, you can do so. However, it will result in decreasing the effect of training for midfielders.

(edited)
2014-02-24 19:21:52
GK get higher passive training in defender. i have no idea why. i had something like an 8 week defender pop in a keeper before :S

in my opinion your system doesnt make sense from a training perspective.
you have 11 first team players. 5 get training. the other 6 passive/general
11 second team players. 5 get training. the other 6 passive/general

thats 5 players more than the likes of me that get general training (i have one backup defender)
i bought 6 decent players to get passive training instead of 12. i will make a small loss on each one usually so 6x small loss. you will make a small loss on 12 guys..and probably a higher small loss than me since i am getting 100% passive and general training for my guys and you get 75-85%
passive training isnt profitable from what iv seen. it also doesnt exist for quite a lot of skills or if it does it only exists in certain positions e.g training passing for mids. defenders might get 10% passive training, strikers get 0% etc... passive training was put there for strikers. to fix the imbalance in only being able to train 6 players. i reckon the other missing 400% training is divided among the 10 mid trainees possible.

i would be interested to see the numbers you could come up with at the end of the day for your theory, but since you are switching training the whole time i dont think you will have any conclusions.

if you want to get free training. get U21 players. you could probably do very well out of 45 minutes game time + U21 game. so thats 8 players trained every game. (5 players +3 subs per game)

i already suggested this to someone before and they were supposed to do it for keepers (4 keepers possible to train) they never returned to forum :(
2014-02-24 19:49:07
The figures you are giving I don't think it would really be worth it like you say :(

I was hoping for higher around 20%.

It was that thread I see your image of the GK popping in defending that got me thinking. Shame it's just keepers that seem to benefit?

According to the rules passive training exists in all skills other than keeper, pace and stamina.

For figures I would have to bite the bullet and see what happens.

Has anyone tried playmaker training in the def order and training 20 players? I know there was a lot of talk about it at one point


(edited)
2014-02-24 22:34:27
there is other positions that benefit sure.
im just saying i have never seen it being huge in other players.
and it depends on the skill being trained.
there is definitely passive training. the %, who gets it, etc though is nigh impossible to say.


general idea of training that i have:

tech, defender, striker all train same speed
passing, playmaker train 10% faster
pace trains 25% slower.

two full games in a week, same position = 100% training
1 league game, cup game 85%
1 friendly = 75%
1 nt game = 45%

general training =1/8th a normal training (assistants have big influence?)
passive training = completely dependant on what is being trained and by who. it is a whole topic to itself.

what do assistants do? I honestly cannot say.
i had 0 before and had no general training pops.
i had 6 before and had no training pops or general training pops. i cannot remember which.
i had 4 before and got training.
all of this i did for 1 week each. not longterm so this is not fact. maybe just a week i had no skill due to increase!
what i did think when i had weak assistants. general/passive training was very slow in skills higher than general appraisal of assistants. e.g. so i have 3x solid assistants. general training seemed very slow for skills like very good/formiddable etc.. skills above levels of assistants. below this level skills increased at almost similar level as people who had top top coaches at the time i felt.
2014-02-24 23:08:07
Interesting borkos said that there's no 100% training and because it's not linear.

When searching through previous threads there was a lot of other mangers suggesting this as well?

Would you say it's worth having 3 magical assistants? I have 3 brilliants at the moment would the change be really that noticible?

Obviously I am now bringing in younger players, but I would have to hold back say 500k just to take the hit every week atm
2014-02-24 23:26:58
Because it's not linear I don't think it's worth to change 3x brilliant into 3x magical.
2014-02-24 23:31:54
?

If training is not linear it's impossible to reach 100%, from previous long standing managers they believe it to be 90-95% for league game. I was shocked though regarding the friendly %
(edited)
2014-02-25 00:18:03
Interesting borkos said that there's no 100% training and because it's not linear.

what did they say was max? because the max is 100%...
max is achieved with 2 full games. 2 or 4 games a week is same % = 100% of possible training.

and % from gametime is not linear you are correct. that was given fact by greg as far as i know.
2014-02-25 00:50:28
because I know that 100% is impossible

well, ok, you can achieve 100% of possible training

but let's assume that training is 0-100 points, not %

league gives you 90 pts
friendly 70pts
NT 45 pts

league + friendly gives ~97 pts
league + friendly + Nt gives ~99pts

something like that

it's not a linear function

it's the same as coaches etc...the higher the 'level' you have, the harder it is to improve


It was a reply to your post lol
2014-02-25 00:55:37
why deal in points.
what use are points.
in that case league + friendly + Nt gives ~99pts = 100% of training possible.
i remember the comment about it and dont want to argue over trivial math when everyone can look at it different it seems.

greg has already stated numerous times that 2 full games is max training. i even had it asked if NT + friendly is max and answer was yes. two full games is max
(edited)
2014-02-25 01:05:03
Max training is not 100% though I think that was the argument I found some posts that loop posted a few years back. Didn't mean to cause offence it's just what a lot of other managers have stated also, you can still look at it as 100% I guess


Some of you might have missed it so I will repeat what greg said:

For a player to receive full training he has to play 2x90 minutes.
The training percentage degenerates per played minute!
90 minutes + 10 minutes is therefore not 100%.

For instance:
Playing 2x45 minutes is more training percentage than playing 1x90.
Noone knows how it is calculated though :(
(edited)


As said:
Training percentage degenerates per played minute in a match.

Lets make numbers up:
He plays 20 minutes in the league match = 20%
He plays 40 minutes in the league match = 38% (no 40% because it degenerates)
He plays 45 minutes in the league match = 42%
He plays 60 minutes in the league match = 52%
He plays 80 minutes in the league match = 70%
He plays 90 minutes in the league match = 75%


So two matches each 45 minutes are more than one match 90 minutes.
I made up this numbers to show you what degeneration means.
They are pure fiction only based on what greg said would be the case.

/edit
I don't know how it can be possible that the player has to play 2x90 minutes to have 100%, I don't get any close to this regardless how I calculate.
(edited)

(edited)
2014-02-25 01:19:28
no offence taken. tis only a game. there is always comments or arguments over training. in the end only greg knows and likes to keep it quiet

So two matches each 45 minutes are more than one match 90 minutes.

there was never evidence to back this up. this argument would be:

He plays 20 minutes in the league match = 20%
He plays 40 minutes in the league match = 38% (no 40% because it degenerates)
He plays 45 minutes in the league match = 42%
He plays 20 minutes in the friendly match = 20%
He plays 40 minutes in the friendly match = 38% (no 40% because it degenerates)
He plays 45 minutes in the friendly match = 42%
total 84% if playing 45 league and 45 min friendly instead of 75 with just 1 game.

there is no reason to suggest it adds both games. more likely the second game (friendly) calculates similar to the second half of the league game and is degenerated training. gregs quote does state.
The training percentage degenerates per played minute! just because friendly is new game it does not mean that you dont have degenerated training. what if it considers 45 minutes already played from previous game so first 20 minutes in friendly thinks it is 45-65 min
so bottom three lines if already had played 45 mins league game and 40% training so far.
He plays 20 minutes in the friendly match = 15%
He plays 40 minutes in the friendly match = 28%
He plays 45 minutes in the friendly match = 30%
total maybe 70%.

if playing only a friendly it would be higher because there is less degeneration effect
He plays 20 minutes in the friendly match = 18%
He plays 40 minutes in the friendly match = 34%
He plays 45 minutes in the friendly match = 38%
90 mins = 65%

i think because you already played 45 mins, the second game will have slower training benefit (degeneration is more). of course all this is speculation similar to the previous comment you suggested. i have seen lots of recommendations and even originally passed on the recommendations myself to play games like that..
in above suggested case the only benefit would be that instead of 75% training for league game for one player and 65% for friendly for another you can train 2 players 70% by playing 45 min of both games so it splits equally the training.
not really a benefit. we got way off your original topic.. my scroll bar isnt working either and iv work tmw so night. ill take up the arguing again tmw
(edited)
(edited)
  • 1
  • 2