Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89
Like Tree77Likes

Thread: Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System

  1. #21
    Greek Forum Moderator nikolgiorgos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    17,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Svanberg View Post
    Does anyone have a theory on the condition loss variation? I feel like John Nash lol when I am looking at those numbers...
    my experience from old training
    Even if the conditions are the same (training at 3 bars/practice match in old version or a set of drills in the new one), the effort and the result is not the same every time. There is also a "roll dice" in training. Successful or not. Meaning more gaining than previous "shot" but with more condition loss.
    In the old version it was more clear as we could see individual for every player, the gaining, the cond.loss and that blue bar which showing how much more needs for the next sp.
    Last edited by nikolgiorgos; 09-24-2016 at 05:01 PM.
    Al Svanberg likes this.
    Καλώς ήρθατε στο Ελληνικό φόρουμ
    http://forum.topeleven.com/%CE%93%CE...%B4%CE%B1.html

  2. #22
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    Hi guys!

    I ran a new research session. This time I am trying to understand the importance of the highlighted ability and I trained two 18 y/o DC/DMC/MC players (5 stars) in 12 sessions with these drills:
    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-12-drills.jpg

    A player with the roles DC, DMC and MC has FINISHING and CROSSING as grey/non-highlighted abilities, so with these drills those abilities constitutes app. 20.6% of the total session. A good impact should be seen on the result of those abilities.

    Since I trained 2 players 12 times, the data is based on 24 sessions which is decent. But 2x12 gives a bigger margin for error than 1x24, so it wasn't optimal.

    First when I looked at the numbers I thought my approach was flawed. I had not previously benched marked the kids to find out what their Training-Efficiency Factor (TEF) was while only training highlighted abilities, hence if the overall gain was less with this session than with a session with only highlighted abilities -- which I expected it to be! -- the negative deviation ratio for the grey abilities would be a bit off since they where based on a number of total gain instead of what the gain would be with only highlighted abilities. LOL, I am tired and I can imagine that how I put this sounds more complicated than it is. I hope you can follow me anyway!

    BUT instead I think I made a somewhat interesting discovery. Here are the numbers:

    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-12-studie-gr-.jpg

    What I noticed after a while of looking at the numbers was that while grey abilities were lower, the numbers that were up an abnorm amount -- was the other abilities trained in the same drill -- Fast Counter Attack -- IE, Passing and Creativity!

    So it does not seem like the total effect of a drill that covers say 50% highlighted abilities and 50% grey abilities on one player is less than if the same drill was run on a player on which it covered 100% highlighted abilities, the gains will just be divided differently.

    For example, lets say we run a large number of Fast Counter Attack drills (this drill improves Creativity, Crossing, Finishing and Passing) on a AMR (Creativity, Crossing, Finishing and Passing are all highlighted on a AMR), we could get the following result (plus minus only a few percent):
    Creativity +50%
    Crossing +50%
    Finishing +50%
    Passing +50%

    But if we instead runs the same amount of drills on a MC (Only Creativity and Passing are highlighted while Crossing and Finnsihing are grey). we should roughly get the following result:
    Creativity +75%
    Crossing +25%
    Finishing +25%
    Passing +75%

    What do you guys think about this? Does it make sense?

    I will think about it until tomorrow and then update the guide accordingly unless a nights sleep and/or the input from you guys makes me think otherwise!

    Lastly, notice how the previously spotted bigger gain in conditioning and lower gain in aggressiveness is -- not -- present. This is confusing me. It was so consistent in the large number of drills, with different mix of sessions etc, I ran before. Could be within the margin of error, but more testing certainly must be made. There can be a lot of different explanations to this...
    Last edited by Al Svanberg; 09-28-2016 at 11:46 PM.
    LeManiaque, Rautz, skrrr and 1 others like this.

  3. #23
    Famous
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    1,044
    Brilliant. Very, very practical results, Al!
    Al Svanberg likes this.

  4. #24
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    64
    It makes sense if you also think that the individual attributes don't matter as much as the total %
    Otherwise you could just manipulate the training to gain a lot of Finishing for example and not much of the others.

    Good job Al !
    Al Svanberg likes this.

  5. #25
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    Further to the test I ran above on two players for Al FC, I ran the exact same test for more or less an identical kid on HFF. 18 y/o, DC/DMC/MC, but he was just over 6 stars when I started. The result was more or less identical to the previous test, this time I got a bigger sample size (35 sessions).

    Here are the numbers:
    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-13-ny-studie-lika-som-tidigare.jpg

    The result are exactly the same as above.

    1. No other ability than those covered by Fast Counter Attack differs more than 1 from.

    2. The gain in gray abilities are 30% lower than expected, to an equal extent, the other abilities in the drill that covers the grey abilities are higher.

    3. There is -- NO -- higher increase in conditioning, and -- NO -- lower increase in aggression. Why is this? I am totally confused about this lol. Edit: Ok, looks like there are some errors in the previous tables I made. Will look into it later tonight and fix the tables!! Ops Result: There is no deviation in Conditioning/aggressiveness in any of the tests I have made. This error comes from the impact of the Slalom Dribble Drill on Fitness being booked on Aggressiveness instead of Fitness...
    Last edited by Al Svanberg; 09-29-2016 at 06:26 PM.
    Duncton and LeManiaque like this.

  6. #26
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    Hi guys, I have made several changes to the Guide in the OP and fixed the error I spotted.

  7. #27
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    Another test, this time a short sample when I pushed my 7 star 20 y/o attacker to 8 stars:

    Ran this session 12 times:
    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-15-vningar-test-7.jpg

    Got these results, the sample size was so small that it didn't really provide any good data on how much effect grey abilities have on the development and how the gain is redistributed.
    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-16varf-r.jpg

  8. #28
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    And another test. This time I pushed a fast trainer MC (only) I picked up this season towards 8 stars, ie all development was made in the 7 star range.

    I ran this session 32 times:

    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-17-vningar-test-8.jpg

    Since its a bit bigger sample size I will publish the results per session too in this one:

    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-18-resultat.png

    And this breaks down the result:

    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-19-varf-r.jpg

    This practice run shows more good data on how the grey abilities affect the impact of a drill and how the gain is redistributed. The grey abilities are down about a third, and in principle the non-grey abilities -- in the same drill as the grey abilities -- gets the gain instead.
    Last edited by Al Svanberg; 10-04-2016 at 09:36 AM.
    Duncton likes this.

  9. #29
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Posts
    466
    I am building a TEF table in the guide in the first post, this is how far I have come so far:
    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-20-tef.png

    I think its a bit interesting that a 18 y/o Fast-trainer as a 7 star has the same TEF as a 20 y/o Fast-trainer. I expected the TEF to drop more with age, but it seems to stay the same until at least 21 y/o. But I will check this next season. Maybe it even stays the same until 22 y/o?

    Do anyone have any questions on the TEF table? The first TEF number, like 0.28 for an 18 y/o 4 star fast trainer, is cleared from any impact of training levels. IE, its the TEF this kid would get if you only used level 1 drills. Then on the same drill I have just adjusted that number for Lvl 2/3/4 drills. Then follows the result of the TEF when adding a Special Ability (50 points) or New Position, I have based this number on having lvl 4 drills. They are easily adjustable. The formula is ((50*4)/TEF)/15. The last column is the cost in Rests to add 20%, to go from in this example 4 stars and 60% to 5 stars and 80%. This formula is also based on lvl 4 drills and can be adjusted in accordance with this ((20*15)/TEF)/15.

    I have sent out my spreadsheet to a few people, if anyone have done any crunching themselves, they are welcome to chip in with some numbers to this table! (and as I have said before, if anyone want to get a copy of the excel-sheet I am using, drop me a note and I will mail it to you!)
    Nudo74 likes this.

  10. #30
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    Hi folks, I m curious what is top level of training now among Managers? I'm personaly at lvl 42 and have maxed first attacking practise. How about others?

    Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System-screenshot_1.jpg

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast