Role training and general training

[ozilthegunner]

 I am curious about the exact relationship between general training and role training. Generally, how does role training affect attribute focus relative to general training? a few observations :

1. setting role training, rather than just leaving it to the default natural position, never increases player workload. This seems to suggest that role training does not *increase* focus on the particular attributes highlighted by the role training.

2. so one possibility is that role training on an individual works sort of like choosing a specific focus for team training ( i.e., ball control, tactics) where it increases emphasis on the highlighted attributes *at the expense* of the rest of the attributes.

So an example: you set team training to balanced, which trains all attributes equally. you then choose (for instance) box to box midfielder for a specific player. that player will now spend 3/4 of his time on the b2b attributes, leaving only 1/4 time for rest (the fractions are just illustrations)

 

3. So what does a player's training look like with no role training? would a natural striker train identically to a natural central defender? Both follow team training in the same way? So if you do balanced team training your striker focuses on (for example) positioning just as much as finishing? And your central defender vice versa?

Or does their natural position influence what they are emphasizing in some unclear way?

 

I've seen some other training threads that seem to hint towards certain answers to these and related questions but thought it valuable to try to establish the relationship clearly in its own thread. Hope others have some insights

[Cleon]

Quote

1. setting role training, rather than just leaving it to the default natural position, never increases player workload. This seems to suggest that role training does not *increase* focus on the particular attributes highlighted by the role training.

2. so one possibility is that role training on an individual works sort of like choosing a specific focus for team training ( i.e., ball control, tactics) where it increases emphasis on the highlighted attributes *at the expense* of the rest of the attributes.

The first is wrong but you corrected yourself with number 2 anyway. 2 is correct. Role training works on the attributes it lists more than the others, so yeah it has a higher emphasis on them. The first is wrong because default is already added to the workload, changing it to a role isn't changing the workload as the player i already being trained, you're just altering what is being trained as I'll explain below.

Quote

3. So what does a player's training look like with no role training? would a natural striker train identically to a natural central defender? Both follow team training in the same way? So if you do balanced team training your striker focuses on (for example) positioning just as much as finishing? And your central defender vice versa?

Or does their natural position influence what they are emphasizing in some unclear way?

The game knows underneath the hood what a players natural position is. So if you select any role training under the hood the player is still doing role training albeit in a limited capacity. He will work on his basic attributes for his natural position. So for a striker it would be something like composure, finishing off the ball. For a defender positioning, marking, tackling. And that's it. So the player is never not training a role as he is always doing either the basics if you don't select a role or a role if you do select one.

[phnompenhandy]

Using your example, if you leave a midfielder on generic 'central midfielder' training, 16 attributes are highlighted to be focused on. If you specify box-to-box midfielder, 18 attributes are identified. For a defender, 'Defensive Centre Back' (which was "limited" last year) only focuses on 8 key defensive attributes whereas 'central defender' trains 14 with many more mental ones getting attention. This doesn't increase workload - the 'Limited' defender will find those 8 attributes will rise more quickly (twice as fast?) as they would with the 'Central Defender', but of course the ones not focused on will rise very slowly.

[ozilthegunner]

12 hours ago, phnompenhandy said:

Using your example, if you leave a midfielder on generic 'central midfielder' training, 16 attributes are highlighted to be focused on. If you specify box-to-box midfielder, 18 attributes are identified. For a defender, 'Defensive Centre Back' (which was "limited" last year) only focuses on 8 key defensive attributes whereas 'central defender' trains 14 with many more mental ones getting attention. This doesn't increase workload - the 'Limited' defender will find those 8 attributes will rise more quickly (twice as fast?) as they would with the 'Central Defender', but of course the ones not focused on will rise very slowly.

Yeah I am aware of all that. 

What I was most curious about was when you don't set any role training at all. the game suggests the player is then training in his natural position, and it'll tell you what that position is. but it is just 'midfielder (center)' which is not the sane as setting the 'central midfielder' role.

So what cleon said is clear and as I thought (which is why my #1 wasn't incorrect, it was a denial of what was incorrect ). But this opens some questions about optimizing training.

So, for instance, one approach I had been taking to youth training, a result of some of rashidi's ideas (not to say it is what he does though) was to set my u19 team training on a focused regiment (like ball control) to develop my 'club DNA'. I would leave it on 'average' intensity and not do any individual role or focused training. players training work level was this medium. I would also do ppm training during this time.

But since role training doesn't trade off with general team training, and not setting role training just does a very generic role training in effect, there seems no good reason not to always set role training no matter what. Does that seem right?

[Cleon]

29 minutes ago, ozilthegunner said:

Yeah I am aware of all that. 

What I was most curious about was when you don't set any role training at all. the game suggests the player is then training in his natural position, and it'll tell you what that position is. but it is just 'midfielder (center)' which is not the sane as setting the 'central midfielder' role.

So what cleon said is clear and as I thought (which is why my #1 wasn't incorrect, it was a denial of what was incorrect ). But this opens some questions about optimizing training.

So, for instance, one approach I had been taking to youth training, a result of some of rashidi's ideas (not to say it is what he does though) was to set my u19 team training on a focused regiment (like ball control) to develop my 'club DNA'. I would leave it on 'average' intensity and not do any individual role or focused training. players training work level was this medium. I would also do ppm training during this time.

But since role training doesn't trade off with general team training, and not setting role training just does a very generic role training in effect, there seems no good reason not to always set role training no matter what. Does that seem right?

Almost the exact same discussion was had yesterday so rather than just repeat that, have a read of the latter replies in this thread