Workload Optimisation As A Key To Training Success

[The next Diaby]

Usually I do not start a discussion with quoting a thread almost completely, but this information posted by Kittipol simply has revolutionised my look at training schedules and helped to optimise my own schedules massively, especially regarding the overall workload. As far as I know, garyh also took many of these ideas on board for his schedules.

These principles can be a massive help in optimising your schedules, no matter where you put your training focus, be it physical, technical or individual specialisation. So I think it is worth highlighting them outside of the original thread.

As far as I can see now, none of the slider values has changed for FM 08 and these assumptions still should work perfectly.

My principles on Setting the schedule

Definitions :
x=number of weight of individual training session
leftest=0
rightest=25

1. by my experiments, the heighest point that can increase attritbute is x=19.
2. by my experiments,you shouldn't put any session too low(for me,it's x=6,7).
3. i order the importance among every session by Genie's scouting program.
4. beyond x=19(x>=20) will only increase speed of attribute raising.NOT number of attribute raising itself.
5. by faeron(on SI forum)'s word on training,the x=13 is lowest point to increase attribute in longterm.




look on pictures
A=the point that is on beginning of game so i assume it's the lowest point require to use on my schedule
B= "maintain" point (+0)
C="lowest point to increase attribute"(+1)
D="highest point we can incease the attribute"(+3)

What is training level exactly ?
It's the number of points increased in THAT session.Surely it's not explicit points coz
real equation should be :
increasing attribute points= Training Level+ coaching stars+other factors
other factors=morale,fitness,jadeness,reputation(club,league),club facility etc.

why should you not to lower slider below 6 or 7 ?
In training level screen,you will see discontinued lines that devide bar into 5 zones.
to reach 4th zone you require only x=7
but to reach 5th zone and maximum limit will require x=13 and x=19 respectively
so if you lower slider below x=7 the TL bar will drop too rapidly and it's not good value surely

Original Thread: maymay3(improved) Training Schedule

[edgy-11]

what exactly does this mean "x=number of weight of individual training session". maybe im being a bit thick but if you could explain it to me thern i would understand the original thread.

[The next Diaby]

what exactly does this mean "x=number of weight of individual training session". maybe im being a bit thick but if you could explain it to me thern i would understand the original thread.

This is simply the slider value. 25 = maximum training level, 0 = no training in that area.

[haos]

Could you share your youth training here? I tried to set one myself based on that thread, but still not sure of many things.

Thank you in advance.

[The next Diaby]

Could you share your youth training here? I tried to set one myself based on that thread, but still not sure of many things.

Thank you in advance.

It is already available in my TND Training 2.1.

[Wingless Angel]

What attributes will determine the endurance of a player in training?

Sometimes, I see my players complaint that they are unhappy with the schedule. Then I have to reduce their workload. But they only respond after few weeks. So I want to find out what attributes will determine the endurance of a player in training to tailor a special schedule for them.

[The next Diaby]

What attributes will determine the endurance of a player in training?

Sometimes, I see my players complaint that they are unhappy with the schedule. Then I have to reduce their workload. But they only respond after few weeks. So I want to find out what attributes will determine the endurance of a player in training to tailor a special schedule for them.

This seems to be controversial. I have never reacted to workload complaints, but other players seem to have seen improvements by reducing workload, but so far I really cannot see any link from my own experience. There may be more comments needed.

Regarding the players, it seems to be obviously professionalism and age to me, not sure if determination, ambition and work rate could play a role in this. Again, more feedback needed here.

[Rob]

by my experiments, the heighest point that can increase attritbute is x=19.

Based on this, is the original author implying that any higher than 19 has no effect? That seems a bit fishy to me.

A=the point that is on beginning of game so i assume it's the lowest point require to use on my schedule
B= "maintain" point (+0)
C="lowest point to increase attribute"(+1)
D="highest point we can incease the attribute"(+3)

Furthermore, if B is maintaining an attribute at its current level, then any lower than this, such as A is inadvisable surely? Yet its given in the example and is described as being the lowest point required, which one assumes means the lowest point we can set the setting to, but in my eyes, maintaining an attribute would be the lowest level I would wish to be working to anything less than that is going to produce negative effects.

I may be misunderstanding sections of this due to the grammatical discrepancies in the original post, but I don't think parts of it are particularly clear and could do with a few editorial amendments.

[The next Diaby]

Based on this, is the original author implying that any higher than 19 has no effect? That seems a bit fishy to me.

Above that point, attribute increasing only progressed faster for FM 2007. That does seem to make sense? However, the whole development of attributes in 08 seems much different and rather long-term and the latest results presented by fmfan.ru pose many questions, but at least they do confirm that workload optimisations make a lot of sense. But in contrast extremely high specialist training is quite doubtful now.

Furthermore, if B is maintaining an attribute at its current level, then any lower than this, such as A is inadvisable surely? Yet its given in the example and is described as being the lowest point required, which one assumes means the lowest point we can set the setting to, but in my eyes, maintaining an attribute would be the lowest level I would wish to be working to anything less than that is going to produce negative effects.

'A' is advisable for those areas where you simply want to train less and prevent the player from dropping beyond his level at start of game. Also, A is an important point to maintain the overall workload high for a specialised schedule. E.g. for a striker schedule, you should not drop defending below this point, even if you would like to increase shooting, attacking, tactics and set pieces even more.

You cannot design any specialised schedule except for some midfielders without reducing some categories to level A since there is not more room left unless you overextend the workload to heavy or very heavy.

[FMViking]

1) Why shouldn't I put my older fully developed players on a flat x=7 schedule for everything with a resulting light workload which will just maintain their skill and reduce chances of injury?
2) Can't I exploit the gaps between x=7 x=13 and x=19 to run for example strength and aerobic for 3 months with s=7 a=19 and then swap to s=19 a=7 to get maximum gains for minimum workload?

[Thanganh]

1) Why shouldn't I put my older fully developed players on a flat x=7 schedule for everything with a resulting light workload which will just maintain their skill and reduce chances of injury?
2) Can't I exploit the gaps between x=7 x=13 and x=19 to run for example strength and aerobic for 3 months with s=7 a=19 and then swap to s=19 a=7 to get maximum gains for minimum workload?

1) The 6-7 limit is NOT the "maintain level" but the "MINIMUM training level", if you give them that level of training, their stats are going to drop like flies, that is something I can guarantee you. If you want to MAINTAIN (providing that you will give them acceptable PLAYING time), the limit is 9 (first Medium level), the maintain point of 11 is for those that you want to maintain their skill but you CANNOT give them some PLAYING time.

Are you scared of injuries to your players, do you want maximum gains with minimum physical training??? Then you don't really have put it that low because there are plenty of workload to spare in that case. This is an example of a schedules I designed that the "Skills and Tactical" side is almost maximum. As you can see, heavy workload with next to none injury during the year.



2) Interesting theory that you suggest there. I recommend that you should try to run a few tests of your own with your training style and I will be very eager to hear your results. I myself use another theory of mine

With this theory, my magic numbers (Str+Aer) are :
- 18  which will ensure with last MEDIUM workload, the training progress OVERALL will be 1-2 notches higher than the last limit line no matter what kind of training orientation you give your players
- 22 which will ensure that with last MEDIUM workload, the TPO will reach exactly the last limit line.
- 26 (Physical heavy) and you will have to give them heavier workload than the MEDIUM level to achieve a satisfying TPO.
- 29 (Physical heavy) which will ensure that with LAST HEAVY workload, the TPO will reach EXACTLY the last progress limit line.

[Rodace]

Are you scared of injuries to your players, do you want maximum gains with minimum physical training??? Then you don't really have put it that low because there are plenty of workload to spare in that case. This is an example of a schedules I designed that the "Skills and Tactical" side is almost maximum. As you can see, heavy workload with next to none injury during the year.

Hi Thanganh,

I see your overall workload is heavy but you claim to have no injury. Does this means that its the physical workload that increases the chance of injury and not the overall work load? Then how about player's condition/fatigue? In this case, can I keep Str=Agi=9 while increasing other areas of training so that my overall workload reaches "very heavy" levels?

[Thanganh]

Hi Thanganh,

I see your overall workload is heavy but you claim to have no injury. Does this means that its the physical workload that increases the chance of injury and not the overall work load? Then how about player's condition/fatigue? In this case, can I keep Str=Agi=9 while increasing other areas of training so that my overall workload reaches "very heavy" levels?

You are deadly right on this matter as this is something that I should have mentioned earlier. As if you have come across my post on the other topic, I do personally believe that how "good" the training progress overall is "physicall level" dependance. The higher the physical level, the lower the training progress overall (you could easily come to this conclusion from my testing MAGIC NUMBERS) and it could also lead to higher injury risks. Yet, you should not give you players too low physical training because you will want to encourage your player to improve his physical aspects, not just strength, acceleration, pace like the name of the training area obviously stated but also stamina, Agility, balance, jumping...etc and choosing the right "physical" combination is also your key to training optimisation successful design. I will NEVER give the 18 physical level to Youth players nor will I EVER give 26-29 physical level to old players.

Personally, except for goalkeepers, I have never, ever, come across an outfield player who could take "very heavy" workload level. WIth the screen shot above, even if I try to increase the Set Pieces level by just 1 notch to reach "very heavy" workload, the test player will get unhappy. For me, the last heavy is the LAST training level that you should consider and no more than that. As for condition/fatigue, if you keep them "match fit" with playing time, I tend to see that the lesser the physical trainning (still at a certain degree), the better the player would recover after each match they attend.

[Rodace]

Thanks for the clarification.

[SFraser]

I realise this thread has been quiet for a few months but I wanted to raise a few points.

The key point is the relationship between Overall Training Level/Progress and Individual Category Training Level/Progress as well as exploring the assumptions made in this thread.

Assumption 1:
Maximising Overall Training Levels and Progress is a positive factor in Training.

Assumption 2:
Each bar height corresponds to a whole number increase in that Category over a period of time.


Interpretation of Overall Training Level/Progress 1:
Overall Training Level/Progress indicates a whole number of Attributes changed over a period time, therefore each Individual Category must indicate a fraction of that Overall Level/Progress in the same time period, therefore the Training Line Theory is false for either Overall Levels or Category Levels or both.


Interpretation of Overall Training Level/Progress 2:
Overall Training Level/Progress indicates the Average of Category changes in a period of time, therefore maximising Overall TL/P by maximising individual Categories maximises the quantity of CA being added to each Category in a period of time, which therefore reduces the actual level of redistribution.


Interpretation of Overall Training Level/Progress 3:
Increasing Overall Training Progress increases the quantity of Category changes in a period of time by a whole number according to the Line Theory,  therefore maximising Overall TL/P maximises the quantity of CA being redistributed through Training, but requires maximum Individual Categories which therefore reduces the actual level of redistribution.


As you can see none of these interpretations of what Overall Training Level/Progress indicates can satisfy both assumptions. It is safe to say that even if this Line Theory works for Individual Categories or it works for Overall Levels, it cannot work for both in exactly the same manner. It is equally safe to say that no matter the benefit of Optimising Overall Training Levels and Progress, achieving equivelant Training Levels and Training Progress in all Training Categories must inevitably strangle the redistribution of CA between Categories, and achieving near equivelant Levels in all Categories is the only way to maximise Overall Training Levels.

In other words Optimising Workload for Maximum Overall Training Levels produces an unknown and potentially non-existant benefit at the cost of reducing the effective quantity of CA redistribution between Individual Categories.

However there are further, highly significant points to deal with. Points that will not prove one way or another exactly what the benefits are of Maximising Overall Training Level/Progress but will provide support for another possible meaning for Overall Training Level/Progress that I am sure will be of great interest to many.

Several tests have been done on the mechanics of Training and CA gain and it is known that Training is a means of redistributing CA. CA is gained through Match Experience, and the rate of gain or indeed loss is modified by several factors of which the most important are Age, Professionalism and Ambition. Determination and Workrate also play a role. However not all CA gain is accounted for through Match Experience although the overwhelming majority of CA gained is dependant upon Match Experience. This minor additional CA that can be gained outside of Match Experience is gained through Training at high Overall Workloads. I shall have to fish out the threads and posts this information was detailed in.

Recently I stumbled upon this post:

I also looked at training schedules and which of these attributes would affect overall training performance if the players had exactly the same schedules. There was a slight difference in the Yth schedules but this was only for the first month until I signed them up to full time contracts where the training would reach exactly the last progression line (LPL). The only schedules that reached the LPL were those that had high professionalism (also had the highest CA gain!). When only one attribute was high determination came close to the LPL being a lighter shad of blue but not on the line. Ambition and WR were nowhere near the LPL. As I said before I am going to run more tests over the course of my next season and keep a stricter (sp??) eye over the proceedings and try and limit as many factors as I can to see whether they compare.

As you can see this is the clearest indication so far of where that additional but minor CA through Training is hiding. Large Overall Workloads are a requirement for high Overall Training Levels although you can produce low Overall Training Levels with large Overall Workloads. It is my suspicion that the relationship between Overall Training Level/Progress and Individual Category Level/Progress is much different to what is usually assumed, is rather counter-intuitive, and is quite powerful in it's function.

As I understand the Training system there is no overwhelming superior benefit from Optimising Workloads and Maximising Overall Training Levels, but there is a benefit to be considered. There is also a downside which must also be considered. Likewise there is no overwhelming flaw in Maximising the differences in Individual Categories at the expense of Overall Training Levels but there is a downside as well as a benefit.

Assumption 1:
Maximising Overall Training Levels and Progress has a positive factor and a negative factor in Training.

Assumption 2:
Maximising variations in Individual Categories has a positive factor and a negative factor in Training.

Interpretation of Overall Training Level/Progress:
Maximising Overall Training Level/Progress comes with the cost of Maximising each Individual Category or reducing the variation between Categories which reduces the overall effective redistribution of CA between Categories, but it comes with the benefit of increasing the CA gained from Training. Likewise reducing the Overall Training Level/Progress reduces the CA gained from Training but increases the difference in Category CA gain which increases the effective rate of CA redistribution.

This would imply that Overall Training Level/Progress represents the minor additional CA gained or lost through Training in a period of time.

As you can see this turns the thread on it's head somewhat while still supporting the basic premise, but it could very well be nothing more than a collection of inaccurate assumptions.