MichaelNevo Posted June 23 Share Posted June 23 (edited) The Nail in the Coffin - The experiment to end dispute (if there is any...) It is well known that physical attributes are the dominant factor in how well players perform in Football Manager 2024, specifically Pace and arguably acceleration. However, if you combine those 2 with the rest, you get something special! The following experiment was devised based on a youtube video by Jayhuahua around 1 month ago, where he decided to experiment what would happen with a team of wonderkids that had zero training throughout their career, before moving onto the Saudi League in 2045. The results were remarkable to say the least! As requested... (please note there are two seperate experiments running) I've set up a team of real players and I will look to simulate this alongside the other experiment. Here are the changes that I've made... As I was selecting players based on CA, I also tried to make sure their PA was in and around -85 which would give us a good mix of mediocre future players. They most likely wont set the world alight, with the exception of 1 or 2, but they have potential to become decent premier league players. I decided that I didn't want anybody below 150 PA at the start of the game, so anybody who loaded in with less has been boosted up to 150. I made sure that regardless of where they were born, they were classed as home grown in England. What would be the point of the experiment if we couldn't use them? They have a future transfers to the Saudi League in 2045. I chose Wealdstone as the club, so I changed them to full time, rather than part time. Other than their CA and PA, I chose the players completely at random. Whatever their personality traits will be or their consistency, I've no idea. This test will first be run with the No Training approach Here is the squad... ............................................................................................................... And so the experiment begins... Edited June 24 by MichaelNevo 2 Experiments Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineCloudNine Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Quote They have Model Citizen personalities, 1 for Injury Proneness, 20 Consistency, 20 Important Matches and 20 Determination. You don’t think this might just influence the results a bit? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Someone with 20 professionalisme, 20 determination and 200 PA is going to get good, no mather what. From a certain point players development comes from playing matches. And since they are super consistent, play well in big matches and probarbly will never be injured they are gonna play well. And so they will develop perfectly fine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 36 minutes ago, NineCloudNine said: You don’t think this might just influence the results a bit? 5 minutes ago, Feddo said: Someone with 20 professionalisme, 20 determination and 200 PA is going to get good, no mather what. From a certain point players development comes from playing matches. And since they are super consistent, play well in big matches and probarbly will never be injured they are gonna play well. And so they will develop perfectly fine I will run a test with normal players as well, but the current one isn't completely useless as you seem to think. If you havent seen the video I mentioned, keep a close eye on the zero training team. I want the other team to train well and improve, as the training program is a special one designed to improved their physicals. The whole point is to show what physicals do to the game. At the same time, I've no idea what this training program will do, other than what I expect it to do, thus its and experiment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NineCloudNine Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 11 minutes ago, MichaelNevo said: I will run a test with normal players as well, but the current one isn't completely useless as you seem to think. If you havent seen the video I mentioned, keep a close eye on the zero training team. I want the other team to train well and improve, as the training program is a special one designed to improved their physicals. The whole point is to show what physicals do to the game. At the same time, I've no idea what this training program will do, other than what I expect it to do, thus its and experiment. There’s no way to know if you are uncovering something about physical attributes or something about players who never get injured, never underperform, don’t feel pressure and never give up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, NineCloudNine said: There’s no way to know if you are uncovering something about physical attributes or something about players who never get injured, never underperform, don’t feel pressure and never give up. As I said, I will do an experiment with real players as well, but the current one is set up like it is to get the players to boost those physicals. As mentioned, keep a close eye on the no training team, despite what you've mentioned, they should never achieve what they do achieve with the stats they've got. Even if its not to do with their physicals, you could also question why having their personality traits and consistency as they are carries so much weight. Edited June 24 by MichaelNevo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lied90 Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 I'm expecting the players with no training sessions to do rather well in terms of development. Just from personal experience, bursts in attribute growth are often concurrent with the player have lots of playing time, and playing well. It looks kinda stupid when players get better with zero training, but it's just how SI set it up I guess. Just goes to show that very few things we do in FM actually matter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, lied90 said: I'm expecting the players with no training sessions to do rather well in terms of development. Just from personal experience, bursts in attribute growth are often concurrent with the player have lots of playing time, and playing well. It looks kinda stupid when players get better with zero training, but it's just how SI set it up I guess. Just goes to show that very few things we do in FM actually matter. If we look at the evidence from the first 2 seasons, just looking at CA, the no training team isn't going to grow their stats very well, except for physicals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, lied90 said: It looks kinda stupid when players get better with zero training, but it's just how SI set it up I guess. Just goes to show that very few things we do in FM actually matter. I think in real life you also need matches to improve. You can train all you want, but the presurre you get from playing something real will increase your learning curve. Thats at least how it works in my life and with the people i'm surrounded with. Theory is fine but you need to be put to the test. I havent done experiments on larger scale, but from my experiments training does benefit the development. At least it puts the focus on attribute groups. And it might be that the game mecanics work like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, MichaelNevo said: If we look at the evidence from the first 2 seasons, just looking at CA, the no training team isn't going to grow their stats very well, except for physicals. Whats the age distribution from the no training group? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 3 hours ago, Feddo said: Whats the age distribution from the no training group? I'm either being stupid, or you want to know their ages, they all started at 17 years old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 3 hours ago, Feddo said: I think in real life you also need matches to improve. You can train all you want, but the presurre you get from playing something real will increase your learning curve. Thats at least how it works in my life and with the people i'm surrounded with. Theory is fine but you need to be put to the test. I havent done experiments on larger scale, but from my experiments training does benefit the development. At least it puts the focus on attribute groups. And it might be that the game mecanics work like that. Yeah exactly that. It's weird though as matches seem to favour physical stats mostly, whilst the other areas don't really improve. You'd think it would be more rounded, probably still an advantage for physicals, but still more rounded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 The reason why I asked about their ages has to do with how development in general works. Below 18 years old and for some "slow students" below 19 years old training is favoured over match time. When a player is 23 years or older he needs matches to develop, no matches means no significant growth of attributes. And I think we need competitive matches, but i'm not to sure about that. The bulk of our fysical development will happen naturaly in the early years when your body forms. That too happens in fm. After a certain age you need to specific training to boost fysicals. So I'm not really surprised by the results you got so far. These tests are fun to do and it is interesting to see how a scenario like this plays out. I'm interested to see how a test with real football players works out, if you'll get a different result. I dont think though that your putting a nail in any coffin yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 3 minutes ago, Feddo said: The reason why I asked about their ages has to do with how development in general works. Below 18 years old and for some "slow students" below 19 years old training is favoured over match time. When a player is 23 years or older he needs matches to develop, no matches means no significant growth of attributes. And I think we need competitive matches, but i'm not to sure about that. The bulk of our fysical development will happen naturaly in the early years when your body forms. That too happens in fm. After a certain age you need to specific training to boost fysicals. So I'm not really surprised by the results you got so far. These tests are fun to do and it is interesting to see how a scenario like this plays out. I'm interested to see how a test with real football players works out, if you'll get a different result. I dont think though that your putting a nail in any coffin yet. Yeah, I just wasn't sure I was reading it correctly, but thankfully I did I've actually run the test for 5 seasons so far, I'll be posting more later, I'm personally very surprised at the comparison, despite already knowing beforehand what would happen with a No Training team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 Do you have a link to the video from Jayhuahua? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 5 minutes ago, Feddo said: Do you have a link to the video from Jayhuahua? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 As requested... I've set up a team of real players and I will look to simulate this alongside the other experiment. Here are the changes that I've made... As I was selecting players based on CA, I also tried to make sure their PA was in and around -85 which would give us a good mix of mediocre future players. They most likely wont set the world alight, with the exception of 1 or 2, but they have potential to become decent premier league players. I decided that I didn't want anybody below 150 PA at the start of the game, so anybody who loaded in with less has been boosted up to 150. I made sure that regardless of where they were born, they were classed as home grown in England. What would be the point of the experiment if we couldn't use them? They have a future transfers to the Saudi League in 2045. I chose Wealdstone as the club, so I changed them to full time, rather than part time. Other than their CA and PA, I chose the players completely at random. Whatever their personality traits will be or their consistency, I've no idea. This test will first be run with the No Training approach Here is the squad... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 12 hours ago, NineCloudNine said: You don’t think this might just influence the results a bit? 12 hours ago, Feddo said: Someone with 20 professionalisme, 20 determination and 200 PA is going to get good, no mather what. From a certain point players development comes from playing matches. And since they are super consistent, play well in big matches and probarbly will never be injured they are gonna play well. And so they will develop perfectly fine You both may have laughed at my initial experiment, but (and I could be wrong) I think you will find the second experiment's findings very interesting. I will be posting up shortly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 I have decided to scrap the initial experiment in favour of a much more realistic style, scrapping the whole idea of the perfect player to fit the experiment, instead in favour of random stats across the board. I have run my first experiment with the new idea and I think the findings are very revealing. What are the aims of this experiment? To shed light on the apparent usefulness of Zero Training. To show the physicals do matter above all else. To see how far we can go with what is considered to be a really poor squad. I will also be running a separate experiment after posting my findings, which I hope will delve deeper into the Physicals universe! Starting Stats Season One Conclusion - Please click the spoiler... Spoiler Season One Conclusion For me personally, I expected this regardless of the experiment. Complete domination, nothing much to report. Season Two Conclusion - Please click the spoiler... Spoiler Season Two Conclusion Again, with the quality of the team, I expected them to do well and they definitely delivered. Again not much to say. Season Three Conclusion - Please click the spoiler... Spoiler Season Three Conclusion Now this was very interesting for me. The players are no longer the best in the league and due to limited growth in the first 2 seasons, most likely due to the leagues they were playing in, they struggled off the bat. However they rose up the table, eventually landing a play-off spot and carrying on their surge in the play-offs against Derby and then Wycombe. Onto the Championship! Will that be their ceiling??? Great start to the experiment! I do have 2 more seasons worth of content to share, so that will come later this evening! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feddo Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 But it looks like your disproving your own statement. I have checked a couple of players and see that a number of them developed, mostly those that play as the starting 11. Some who didnt play or had a low number of games didnt develop at all. I've got no clue on what CA should peform well on the levels you've played. But a quick qoogle search told me the following thats below this. Which tells me you where far better then your competition up to leaque 2, and one of the better teams of league 1. I cant see your attributes so i say this purely based on CA. So i might be wrong here CHAMPIONSHIP Star - 130 Good - 120 Decent - 110 LEAGUE 1 Star - 110 Good - 100 Decent - 90 LEAGUE 2 Star - 90 Good - 80 Decent - 70 Source: https://www.fmscout.com/q-8159-Current-Ability-Levels.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 40 minutes ago, Feddo said: But it looks like your disproving your own statement. I have checked a couple of players and see that a number of them developed, mostly those that play as the starting 11. Some who didnt play or had a low number of games didnt develop at all. I've got no clue on what CA should peform well on the levels you've played. But a quick qoogle search told me the following thats below this. Which tells me you where far better then your competition up to leaque 2, and one of the better teams of league 1. I cant see your attributes so i say this purely based on CA. So i might be wrong here CHAMPIONSHIP Star - 130 Good - 120 Decent - 110 LEAGUE 1 Star - 110 Good - 100 Decent - 90 LEAGUE 2 Star - 90 Good - 80 Decent - 70 Source: https://www.fmscout.com/q-8159-Current-Ability-Levels.html I haven't given you all the information as of yet, that is why you may think that. My plan was to throw out the first 3 seasons, and then follow up with a more detailed final 2 seasons. In this experiment it would be fickle to focus just on the CA of the players. I will quickly throw up an image to show you what I mean... This is a poor example in terms of Physical growth compared to some others that I could throw up, but I chose this player as he seems to be the star striker. These are his overall stat changes since the start of the experiment. As I've mentioned in the experiment post, the first two seasons I expected us to dominate flat out. However I do feel we are at a stage now where we're no longer the best team in the league, but having said that, I didn't say we were the worst either. I think you should humour me considering what I know has happened for season 4 and season 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 Here is an example of a player who barely plays any matches and hasn't changed in CA at all throughout the experiment so far... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 (edited) Season Four Conclusion Now this is where things got really interesting in my eyes! We go back to last season and the team struggled early on before picking it up and struggling their way to a play-off spot, eventually winning promotion. We move to season 4 and they some how now become a powerhouse within a higher division! Popovic smashed the first two seasons, but struggled a little bit last season. Now he's back on form and still only 116 CA, which he has been since season the conclusion of season 1! However, as we've seen his physicals have been greatly improving, whilst his more important striking stats have been heavily declining. The only thing that he's improving in that could possibly help as a striker is his Long Shots. That stat particularly baffles me a bit... Why with no training at all is that stat rising rapidly? The question now is, what can this team who on paper look dreadful, do in the best league in the world? Edited June 24 by MichaelNevo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 24 Author Share Posted June 24 Season Five Conclusion Now I feel justified in saying, that is the nail in the coffin! You can't tell me that this team deserves to be anywhere near this league, especially considering what I've mentioned about stat losses in areas that should be way more important than they appear to be! I was told that I was influencing the experiment too much, so I listened and I changed it based on that feedback. There has been very little influence on my part, if any at all. I changed the PA of players below 150 to exactly 150 and considering these players haven't reached anywhere near these numbers, I'd say I influenced nothing. If you boost their physicals, they will become better players regardless of what happens elsewhere. My aims were... To shed light on the apparent usefulness of Zero Training. I feel I achieved this as the team performed spectacularly. To show the physicals do matter above all else. They really do! To see how far we can go with what is considered to be a really poor squad. We went beyond what I expected, considering the players we selected. The question is now, should we do a season six? Also if there is anything you'd like to look at, just let me know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelNevo Posted June 25 Author Share Posted June 25 I have now set up the second experiment. I will go into more detail later this evening and post up my first set of findings, but this will be run with 2 teams. Team 1 will be Wealdstone again, same setup except for training. They will now use my Physical Beast training program. Team 2 will be Harrogate Town in League 2. I have selected players purely based on Pace with a slightly wider perimeter with CA and PA. Essentially this team looks worse on a CA standpoint that Wealdstone. They will be taking over the No Training program. One other little change is I've given both teams tactics to use and set pieces. If you guys would rather, I can revert this back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now