I agree, but this option takes more time and "green". But is there a difference in the game? I compare the statistics of my players (upgraded skills according to the second option) with the opponent's players who were bought at the auction and not upgraded. And I don't see the difference.
If the game "decided" that you will lose, you will lose.
Sorry for the English. This is google translate.
In my opinion there is a difference between trained players and others, but it has become quite minimal overtime... I would not go for crazy white skills or mutants anymore in todays game, it is not worth when boost lab players are almost as effective.
But how old is the player you want to train? If he is still young, it is worth to go with a more expensive plan and raise as few grey skills as possible. It makes it easier later to keep his overall quality high when he gets older.
Yes, that's what I do. I buy 18 years old FT. I keep them for 1-2 seasons to reduce gray skills. And at 20 I raise whites.
When your striker has 200 (average) attack, you expect a little more from him. And he, then slipped, then not in the mood, then injured for 12 days (playing in his field)
. I understand - it's random, but still.
If the game "decided" that you will lose, you will lose.
Sorry for the English. This is google translate.
Before training please, always, test players to oversize the internal programming, so you dont waste resources in players that will have no developement.
2 equal players, same age same all, STs one with 5* and the 2nd with 8*, the one 5* can score 40 goals, and the 8* cal score only 3 goals in a season cause the internal programming settings, so always, oversize the internal players programming by testing players, and if he's well programmed, then, invest resources on him.
If the game "decided" that you will lose, you will lose.
Sorry for the English. This is google translate.
I never do test them for their performance... If there is one bad player in a game, the others step up for him everytime for me. I have never had a particularly bad player. One season my AML is a bit better, another season my AMR might be through the roof. However I have never had players who were generally bad. Every player has a bad game here and there, it is the decision of the manager to react and maybe sub him in a game.
Sorry for the question but could you explain what you mean when you talk about "test players to oversize the internal programming"?
I'm new to the game and decided to plough a load of resources into a ST and to be honest hes terrible! 19 league goals! His white stats are well over 200% in 3rd season.