CA and PA and what attributes should be improved in order to eventually have the best player?

[AndreasAust]

In this example we have a poacher with 14 finishing who has massive weaknesses in areas that are not mainly needed for his role.

1.) Would it take much longer to get from 14 to 15 since he already is fairly good than if he only was a striker with 10 in finishing?

2.) if I focused on the weaker areas that are not typically needed instead, could he improve there as easily and wouldn't this even be recommended since it eats up less of the potential ability? 

3.) since training the weaker foot also eats up some of the PA, same as training new roles, is it recommended to not train them?

 

Thanks very much! 

[HUNT3R]

30 minutes ago, AndreasAust said:

1.) Would it take much longer to get from 14 to 15 since he already is fairly good than if he only was a striker with 10 in finishing?

It's easier to go from 10 to 11 than 14 to 15, yes.

31 minutes ago, AndreasAust said:

2.) if I focused on the weaker areas that are not typically needed instead, could he improve there as easily and wouldn't this even be recommended since it eats up less of the potential ability? 

As above, but if you train other attributes, you're shaping him into a different player. That's not necessarily good, but it's not necessarily bad either. PA cannot change. If a player's attributes improve, it's his CA that improve.

34 minutes ago, AndreasAust said:

3.) since training the weaker foot also eats up some of the PA, same as training new roles, is it recommended to not train them?

Weak foot rating works as an attributes so it does "cost" CA (not PA). It's not something you can or can't recommend. It depends on what you want from the player.

Training roles does not "cost" any CA. Training a new position does rebalance the CA "cost" of attributes. If it's beneficial to retrain the player (either because he has the attributes for the position and role or you need someone in that position) then it just makes sense to do it. The rebalancing is not much if it's a similar position to what he is familiar with already, like training a player as a DM when he's already a MC.

[AndreasAust]

6 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

As above, but if you train other attributes, you're shaping him into a different player. That's not necessarily good, but it's not necessarily bad either. PA cannot change. If a player's attributes improve, it's his CA that improve.

thanks for your reply!

"PA cannot change. If a player's attributes improve, it's his CA that improve."
yes the CA increases but since there is a PA-cap, it's got to stay within this limit. At least this is my understanding and that's what I meant by "eat up PA".

So wouldn't it be recommended to improve "less costly" areas as well in order to have a more complete player. Because even if these attributes are not primarily used, they are still "on the field" and used during the match. But - and that's my question - that would be less recommended if those took way longer to develop for this striker. For example might a striker have a much harder time developing "marking" and "tackling". So thats the question I had.

Edited April 4, 2022 by AndreasAust

[DarJ]

25 minutes ago, AndreasAust said:

So wouldn't it be recommended to improve "less costly" areas as well in order to have a more complete player. Because even if these attributes are not primarily used, they are still "on the field" and used during the match. But - and that's my question

It depends on what you want. Lets say all you need from your striker is to run and shoot and you designed your tactic to work that way, is there any point improving the jumping reach of the striker? Probably not, it may be more useful to train him in those attributes he's going to need to be most efficient in the job you want him to do.

[AndreasAust]

8 minutes ago, DarJ said:

It depends on what you want. Lets say all you need from your striker is to run and shoot and you designed your tactic to work that way, is there any point improving the jumping reach of the striker? Probably not, it may be more useful to train him in those attributes he's going to need to be most efficient in the job you want him to do.

yes thats a decision you'd have to make from case to case .  But I cannot make a decision without knowing the answer to my questions.  For example, not knowing if it would take much longer to train not role-typical attributes.

Sorry but I have not played this game for long enough to know this from experience.

btw, in your particular example, I'd say jumping reach is very important in this game and especially for strikers  - regardless of it being marked as important for this role

Edited April 4, 2022 by AndreasAust

[CAE82]

6 hours ago, AndreasAust said:

For example might a striker have a much harder time developing "marking" and "tackling". So thats the question I had.

I expect this is true simply because a striker is unlikely to take part in training sessions that focus on ‘marking’. You’ll likely assign him a strikers individual role training and he’ll be in the attacking unit for other sessions. You could give him additional focus on defensive positioning to target marking but I’d bet my left testicle that he’d start complaining within a few weeks. 

Edited April 4, 2022 by CAE82
schedules -> sessions

[shadowraiden90]

9 hours ago, AndreasAust said:

yes thats a decision you'd have to make from case to case .  But I cannot make a decision without knowing the answer to my questions.  For example, not knowing if it would take much longer to train not role-typical attributes.

Sorry but I have not played this game for long enough to know this from experience.

btw, in your particular example, I'd say jumping reach is very important in this game and especially for strikers  - regardless of it being marked as important for this role

you have to remember even if you set individual training you have your general training each weak and players are in there different "units" which dictate what they get out of each training "block"

for example if you look at "chance conversion block" the attacking "unit" will be training [finishing,heading,long shots,technique,anticipation,composure] but the defensive "unit" will be focusing whatever their role/individual training is

 

a striker is going to improve all his finishing attributes over time just because he is also in the attacking "unit" which will also include some other attacking attributes - generally you want to give individual focus to improve an area so say i really want to push that 14 finishing striker into an elite finisher i can focus his "shooting" on individual which means he will do more training on that which will lead to a more likely increase(but not guarenteed sometimes you just get a player that will not increase) 

 

overall i would say you will never have a player where you only want 1 attribute to increase, you may see a few that could do with focusing and so you will use the individual to put a bit more emphasis on them likely improving. but also remember you are rarely going to be able to change say a poacher who is just pace and finishing into a complete forward as complete forwards are some of the most demanding roles in the game.

[Nacaw]

Even if you wanted to, you can't only train certain attributes. As such, there's no choice between 3 JR or 1 finishing for a striker. Instead the last 3 CA will likely be spent on 0.2 of 8 different attributes.  

I understand where you are coming from, but there's a reason that CA and PA are hidden and that there's no guidelines of specific weighting. FM isn't made for min/max'ing to this degree, it's likely that some of the questions you've already asked will never be answered in full. 

If you want more balanced players, you can absolutely buy more balanced players or train youngsters in different roles to achieve more balance. The game is already fairly good at that though, because training hits many attributes naturally. But for the most part, having a player focus on a couple of stand out attributes will be worth more than a balanced player. Especially lower down the leagues with acc and pace.

For me, managing a top club I'm fine with CB's with between 13-15 acc/spd/jr, because I prefer my players to have great mentals and good on the ball skills. Other people wouldn't go near players below 16 in those attributes. I might be wrong, and my teams might be better if I changed my criteria, but there's only trial and error (plus tweaking tactics) to find out, and even then results will likely be inconclusive. 

The reason I write like this is because you mention "recommended" several times. And that leads me to believe you want some sort of guide with hard yes and no answers to specific questions. No such thing exists in FM. 

[Prepper_Jack]

On 04/04/2022 at 16:03, CAE82 said:

I expect this is true simply because a striker is unlikely to take part in training sessions that focus on ‘marking’. You’ll likely assign him a strikers individual role training and he’ll be in the attacking unit for other sessions. You could give him additional focus on defensive positioning to target marking but I’d bet my left testicle that he’d start complaining within a few weeks. 

There are some training sessions that allow one to train a team in a holistic fashion, or that specifically focus defensive attributes for more offensive players. Under the generic sessions, "Defense" will train everyone in marking and tackling, regardless of their training group. Under technical skills, "Transition - Restrict" will train both attack and defense in defensive skills suitable to marking systems, while "Transition - Press" will train everyone for pressing. Your best bet, however, is under "Defense" and "Defending from the front", which focuses on the attacking group getting defensive training.

They don't seem to mind 1 or 2 of these sessions in a week. Growth in these can be relatively slow for attack minded players, as they need experience in performing it on the field to get better with it. For FM22, it's generally been weak on that front, as players have been reluctant to engage, but seems to have gotten somewhat better. It also greatly helps if the players have the physical and mental aptitudes for it. If they are weak or timid, their chance of being successful in applying what they have learned will be limited, and growth will be slow.

[santy001]

It's worth remembering that all attributes have potential to be a bit of a double-edged blade. So I generally try to blunt the edge off of weaknesses, or focus more on mental attributes which I feel are the delivery for technical/physical attributes.

There are limits over how much you can truly tunnel your players development, but even attributes like acceleration/pace can have some downsides. If you have a forward who is 20/20 in both attributes, but has poor off the ball, poor anticipation then that player is probably going to be a bit of a liability in causing attacking moves to break down because there's a risk he goes too soon and ends up offside. If paired with a PPM such as "likes to break offside trap" then its a probably a cursed existence to play him up front. Sticking that player a little deeper and putting them in a simple running role would work better.

If you've got a poacher, who fits most of the required attributes being utilised exactly as such I think my favoured 3 attributes would be anticipation, concentration and positioning. The last is definitely more of a defensive attribute, but if you can get him taking up the best positions possible through these mental attributes it should yield more effective performances.