Pros and cons in power training

[Rayyaun]

My training level is max, level 91 two seasons ago.
I have not deeply calculated the effect difference among world class drill and the others.

But I feel world class drill could save some greens.

Previously, my fast trained players always take 100 or slightly more greens upgraded from 100% to 120% (ie 6 stars to 7 stars)
Now, they take 100 or slightly less greens.
Extra position & 50 cone sa are similar. I spent within 50 greens.

Bascially, I don't think that my players are all the top fastest trained. Some should be very fast or moderate fast like previous seasons.

[nikolgiorgos]

you mean with the new training ?

[Al Svanberg]

Yeah!

But I am not at all sure how consistent this is. But I know that I have run large sessions where the greens lost where 3-4 less than what they should have been due to it.

[nikolgiorgos]

in my example, I 'm writing about extra ability and role.
Do you mean about those cases or development of skills ?
In that case, the level of the drills (high lv drills with 3 whistles or world class) probably matters.

[Al Svanberg]

in my example, I 'm writing about extra ability and role.
Do you mean about those cases or development of skills ?
In that case, the level of the drills (high lv drills with 3 whistles or world class) probably matters.

No both actually, likt its not unusual that I have run like a 15% session 20 times, and the actual conditioning loss has not been 20x15=300, but like 275 instead.

Like these sessions I ran:





The conditioning loss should have been 32x15=480. But instead it was 454 (the line at the bottom shows the conditioning loss for each session, and down to the right is the total conditioning loss shown). Not a big difference, like 30 rests instead of 32. I am not sure how much of a factor this is, if its random etc. The actual loss seem to more often be lower than the predicted loss with younger players. But I got no real track of this, just saying that it can be a factor.

[nikolgiorgos]

Ok, I 'm going to make a resume so far.
My friend Al and some other members making a lot of effort to understand and find the pros of the new training but I 'm not convinced that individual drills or improving some characteristics of our players, they can perform better in the games.
So
- I didn't see so far any clear example where a player after doing a specific program of drills, improved his quality and performance in the field.
- After a test using the new training, for getting a new role/position didn't find any advantage in the new training (but I 'm gonna repeat it the new season)
- New training in higher (3-4) level drill gives a little more gaining in older players (25-26-27 y.o.) - but I don't care about that.

So what I 'm doing is to make a daily training in the new version, a six pack of easy-very easy drills in 3 categories which gives me the 10% bonus (after dropping to 8%) with two X2 bonus.
If I won't find a second X2 (90% early in the morning, I can find at least one X2 bonus) I repeat the six pack with 8 players from my bench.
I read somewhere a comment of Moi, saying that he is trying to get this bonus every day so I believe it's useful to have.
Also I can "feel" in some games that oppo using one of his bonus.

I also do a repeat of the six pack late in the evening, if I don't want to waste some full condition few of my players have.

In the beginning of the season, usually the first or the second day, I do a power training to my young fast trainers, with the old method.
Maybe I 'm gonna need few reds too, but I don't want to spend all my day tabbing this boring new training system buttons.

So, I believe that besides the bonus, all this new system is a fancy but just a cosmetic upgrade of the game.
The same I believe about individual skills of the players.
It just the quality that matters, maybe in a way the three categories (attack, defense, M&P) and the "talent" (some internal programming).
The rest are for the realism the game want to have.
If some day, a dev make a statement and show us that all those above matters, I 'll fall from the sky (clouds we 're saying in Greece ) and I 'll apologize if I had a bad influence to some people.
I 'm not making some bad critics to the game saying those.
I still love playing it but I don't want to have illusions.
It's a program of 26 MB which I can download and open in a few min in my mobile

[Al Svanberg]

Nik- I am definitely not saying that the new version is better than the old, I don't know at all how the old works!

But to the other topic, which I think is extremely interesting. In light of the info Moi gave us, this is the summary I can put forth:

You have your 11 players in the pitch. Some of them add more contribution to the Defense rating than others, ie, strikers don't contribute at all, and defenders contribute the most.

Getting a 10% [bonus] increase in an area of the game won't mean your team qualifications for this area will go exactly 10% up, it means they will be "10% better" in relative terms.

You have your 11 players in the pitch. Some of them add more contribution to the Defense rating than others, ie, strikers don't contribute at all, and defenders contribute the most. So, considering everything, your defensive stats reach a certain value. The bonus makes this value go higher.

Somehow, we don't know how, the ability of our team -- besides factors like the formation we use, bonuses and what not -- affects the outcome of a game. That is a safe assumption, at least when Tactician is not around... Moi say that our players contribute to how our team perform, so its a fact.

Hence:
Confirmed fact 1: The total ability of your team matters.

What more?

We have also as a fact learned something more. Not only does the total ability of your team value, it also matters if this ability is for example defensive. We get a "defensive rating" like Moi put it or "qualifications for this area". For example, if someone just ran physical drills, his team would get a low defensive and offensive rating and a high physical rating, right? From this it must be safe to assume that a high offensive rating means that you perform better offensively. Right?

So does this mean that it actually that the individual creation of a player's ability matters when it comes to how that individual player performs? No, it does not confirm that, it don't confirm that that isn't the case either. It is still unclear, right? But, it confirms that the total offensive ability of a team impacts how the team will perform offensively, right? Correct me if I you think I am wrong!

Hence:
Confirmed fact 2: It matters if a players has high defensive/physical/offensive abilities. Maybe not on an individual level, but at least on a team level.


And this is not all, we learned a third thing too! High defensive ability on a defender has a bigger impact than high defensive ability on a striker or AMC and so forth. Right? Moi say that straight out.

So this adds another level. A team with a striker that has Defensive ability: 100; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability: 50; and a Central Defender that has Defensive ability: 50; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability 100 will -- perform worse -- than a team that has the opposite division, ie. a stirker with Defensive ability: 50; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability: 100; and a Central Defender that has Defensive ability: 100; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability 50. Right? The high offensive ability on the striker will matter more than the high offensive ability on the Central Defender. That must be the only conclusion, right?

So:
Confirmed fact 3: How the ability of a player is divided over the categories Defense, Physical and Offense does matters.

What I think is still unclear is two central questions:

(1) does it matter how ability within a category is divided? Like, will a team with for example two strikers that has the shooting ability 100 and the passing ability 50 score on more shots than a team with two strikers that has the shooting ability 50 and the passing ability 100)? We don't know, but I don't think its far fetched that that would be the case.

And to further complicate this, it should be pointed out that the answer to this question could be everything from No it does not matter to Yes it does matter but the impact in the end is marginal or even irrelevant because so many factors matters to Yes it does matter a lot.

(2) does it matter -- on an individual level -- how the ability of a team in a certain area is divided. Like in short, if a team has 3 Strikers, X, Y and Z, where striker X and Y has the ability 100 all over the board and striker Z has the ability 50 all over the board, will strikers X and Y perform better in games than striker Z? I have seen some say that it doesn't matter and some say that it does. I don't know. I am not at all sold that it does matter. I think its perfectly possible that all strikers would perform like if they had like 100+100+50/3=83.3 in ability.

What do you guys think about this?

[LeManiaque]

What do you guys think about this?

Looks like it was written by a lawyer, haha.


One example to consider about individual vs group or line rating (central question 2) - Some have shown that a limited number of low Q players can perform well with an otherwise good team, like the 1 star goalie. Also there are games when the opposing defense shows its highest rating on the lowest Q defender. This could mean the defense as a whole is playing poorly, but that's still a good showing for the low Q player.

[nikolgiorgos]

- Agree with the statements of Moi

Confirmed fact 1: The total ability of your team matters.

agree

Confirmed fact 2: It matters if a players has high defensive/physical/offensive abilities. Maybe not on an individual level, but at least on a team level.

agree

Confirmed fact 3: How the ability of a player is divided over the categories Defense, Physical and Offense does matters.

agree .. but how ?

A team with a striker that has Defensive ability: 100; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability: 50; and a Central Defender that has Defensive ability: 50; Physical ability: 50; Offensive ability 100 will -- perform worse

of course but there isn't such case

Here two examples.
The star-scorer of my team, Ronlado (today, day27),
If we see his stats (I don't know how he got those stats - lol), they 're really weird.
His highest attacking skill is Passing and the highest P&M is Fitness.
Maybe the most useless of all
But he has high q and "talent".


This is a player form a firend.
We are in the same FA group with RINOKEROS (for some period, I played with his team too as he was away for vacations).
Lewandovski bought as recommended player
* he isn't 10*, he is from levels above me.
His skills are almost equal as any newborn player (scouts, recommended, nordgen, academy players) and my friend keeps giving him equal skills.
But also L has q and "talent".



So, I 'm still not sure if adding more relative points/training to players position, makes any difference.

[Al Svanberg]

Niko- Yeah, I agree for sure too. Because like even if those facts are true, we still not know to what extent it matters.

But for me, that is a bit of a dreamer, it don't matter that much. I think its fun to pick up a kid, say a Croat CM, and think of him as the new Modric and develop him in that direction. And even if it does matter a lot, what is not to say that other abilities than shooting, dribbling and speed are like important for a striker too? Maybe positioning is by far the most important ability? I've seen plenty of strikers with a ton of speed, but never anyone with 250% positioning...

But we got to start somewhere if we are to figure this game out!!