Subject: Pace Training

got 2 questions:

1: whats wrong in including trainess who have been injured for a week?
injuries are straight forward to deal with. They give no training (not even general training) for that week.

2: Is general training included in this research?
If not, you need to make sure that all these lads submitting their training pops do not have general training in between pops.
Anyone like me who changes training types on a regular basis would only be able to contribute where a full pop has occured in an extended round of pace training.
(edited)

17 3 2
17 4 2
17 8 2
17 9 4
18 6 3
18 7 2
18 8 3
18 8 3
18 9 3
18 9 4
18 9 4
18 10 5
18 10 5
18 12 5
19 9 4
19 10 5
19 10 5
20 7 3
20 12 6
20 12 6
20 13 6
21 9 5
21 10 5
22 11 6
22 12 7

No season crossovers, no missed weeks with general training and no injuries in this sample.
EDIT: and no switching training, only constant training of a skill :)
(edited)

and no switching training only constant training of a skill.

I agree with your points, but it's going to be impossible to verify all this data. I think we've just got to take it that there are a few caveats when we look at it!

1 > nothing wrong with including trainees who have been injured...just prefer it if that was taken in to account when giving me this data. The idea of the data is for it to be an idea on average pop length for different skill levels on pace over age. I've assumed everybody that has posted so far has either accounted for injured players or omitted them entirely.

2 > again, i (perhaps wrongly) have assumed that people have only supplied me their data if they have been training pace for a considerable time. I think the majority - especially when training pace - usually do it in stints and don't change weekly. I thought this would be fairly obvious that we can't include your type of data due to general training; when you take in to account what output i am trying to achieve.

So, to clarify, please only supply data here that does not include general training, nor weeks where the player was injured

Thanks for pointing this out suttie.

1: whats wrong in including trainess who have been injured for a week?
injuries are straight forward to deal with. They give no training (not even general training) for that week.

I don't log in every day. Therefore someone injured and not replaced who shows as "slightly injured" may or may not have received training, as I have no way of tracking that.

18 7 3
18 12 3

19 6 4
19 8 4
(edited)

Cheers, updated

And up.

21 11 4
21 12 5
21 13 4

18 7 2
18 8 4

19 9 2
19 10 3
19 11 3

Thanks, the 19 and 21yo look talented :o)

They all look freakishly talented I would say.

I've trained pace for two seasons and i may give you some confirmed data about most of my players as you are doing the average talent table any result matters not only the most talented:
17 4 3
17 5 3
17 6 3
17 7 4
18 5 3
18 6 3
18 7 4
18 7 4
18 8 4
18 11 6
18 10 5
19 9 4
19 8 4
19 7 4
19 9 3
19 8 4
19 7 3
19 6 3
19 8 4
19 7 5
20 5 4
20 6 3
20 5 3
20 6 3
20 7 4
21 6 4
21 7 4
21 6 4
21 7 4
21 8 5
21 6 4
21 7 4

That's great thanks...this is obviously separate to the data you posted on the previous page isn't it?

yes that one contains my own experience and it has nothing to do with the previous which was a record results statistic.

there seems to be a lack of data on 16yr olds... is 2wks to Solid considered talented? i'm thinking yes but want confirmation please

from hopeless, yes. from brilliant, no.