Subject: Pace Training

I have a 28yr old who is now Pace +15. I think he may never pop again...,

I'm hoping to prove that age has a bigger factor on pace training than it does other skills, in about 5 seasons time. Not really sure how to record pops where they cross over years...i think i will record them at the age they popped at. I think underestimating would be better than over. Cheers for the info

i proved this with some maths a while back already. Training pace at later ages adds time to the overall development of players. simple maths.

I believe that your whole argument was flawed.

Not sure if I proved it it my response though?

I remember it, but i doubt it was proven. You need to crunch lots of numbers to be able to actually prove it.

I think my response was something similar to that, although I believe I spotted a flaw in the initial assumptions which make the whole calculation pretty much pointless!

If we can find the proof again, I'm sure we can go over its merits.

All we would need (in my eyes) is about 1000 records each of pace training and one other training (say technique or passing) collated in the way i have laid it out on previous pages.

We should then be able work out (even by taking in to account we know that pace is slower than other training assuming everything else was equal) if pace takes even longer compared to say technique or passing as the player ages.

The fact people have different coaches etc and the odd record is inaccurate shouldn't matter as long as we get enough records.

So, when you've got a moment, an update to date list of your pace training if you don't mind good sir ;o)

I lose track of what I have already supplied, I don't want to repeat data!

I reckon we'll find it's the multiplier effect. i.e. the % change is no more, it's just more noticable when you wait ages at later years. 8 weeks for a pop versus 10 feels worse than 4 versus 5.

i.e. my gut feeling is that they will run a caclulation which takes a "raw" level increase per week and alter it depending on skill and age.

Here's my complete guess postulation:

lets assume for pace the standard increase is 0.5 of a level per week, and for others (e.g. tech) it's 0.6

i.e. 2 weeks per "pop" versus <2 weeks for other.

This is then altered depending on the level of the player.
e.g.

levels below average multiply. Lets assume tragic = 2x
levels above take away. Lets assume unearthly = 0.5x

now we have:

Pace:

Tragic = 1
Normal = 0.5
Unearthly = 0.25

tech / others

Tragic = 1.2
Normal = 0.6
Unearthly = 0.3

Now again, there is an age multiplier. Arbritrarily

Age 16 = 1
Age 20 = 0.8
Age 24 = 0.5
Age 26 = 0.2

We now get:

Pace 16yr old Tragic = 1 (i.e. 1 level per week)
Technique 16yr old Tragic = 1.2 (i.e. more than 1 level per week)

Pace 28yr old Unearthly = 0.05 (i.e. 20 weeks per level)
Technique 28yr old unearthly = 0.06 (i.e. 16 weeks per level)

so we end up seeing bigger differences at later stages.

Complete guess, but my belief.

But what do I know. My team is naff and I have made some of the worst transfer decisions ever over the past 2 seasons...

I will digest that at a later date. Looks conceivable, but i could do with some more data guys!

that was exactly what i showed with my calcs last time. simple maths & logic dictates.

my gut feeling is that they will run a caclulation which takes a "raw" level increase per week and alter it depending on skill and age.

Now that's what I call thinking with your stomach.

isn't that exactly what I have suggested?

:/

It was an exact copy and paste. I think he's trying to be witty

I wanted to agree, but my keyboard was borked. I've had a few computer issues lately.