Asunto: Future personal Youth Camp for NT

I guess the big thing here is, it is beneficial for the players that would otherwise not be trained.

The individual player will not be better off, but the overall number of players will be better off

Despite injuries how they are, I do think for your method 13 is too many, you will have more success with 11, but that's fine, it is a management game and everyone is free to try whatever method they would like.

I think also the best 16-17yos will still be picked up by the regular trainers of Aus youths, and in that case, would not be suitable for Saturner anyway because as he mentions,, its for the cheaper players, not the high priced ones.

I look forward to see what kind of talent you develop for the Aus NT Saturner :) and I will let you know if we would prefer a player to be sold off

Thank you so much for welcoming.

:)

Please wait a bit, i'm going to male an examples about why starting from 20+ aged trainees, up to a 13 to 10 turnover can still be practically even, buy more proficient as final result. Just some minutes.

Here it is, answering also to Comet, I syntethized it to make it easily readable for everybody.

Scenario 1:
In this scenario, 10 trainees engage in advanced training from ages 16 to 29, with 13 seasons each for a total of 169 weeks. When players aged 20 or older, each participates in 3 weekly matches plus an NT match, accumulating 270 to 360 minutes for 100% efficiency in advanced training. However, due to the high playing frequency, injuries are predicted to cause a season-long absence over the total 169 weeks. This results in an effective training reduction from 100% to 92.3%. The overall loss for general training equals around 1.5 weeks for 6 movement skills, resulting in other 9 weeks of wasted training, for a total of 22.

Subtracting these injury weeks from the total, we get 147 effective weeks of training, corresponding to 86.9% efficiency.

Scenario 2:
In this scenario, 10 players are designated for 10 advanced training slots since 16yoi, but starting from age 20+ when they begin playing in the championship/cup. and additional 3 players join to provide turnover. When players aged 20 or older, each participates in 1.5 weekly matches plus an NT match, accumulating 207 to 297 minutes for nearly 100% efficiency in advanced training. The turnover of 13 players for 10 advanced slots results in a reduction in advanced training efficiency to 83.3%. Important, general training is still 100% instead. Considering the progressivity of age influence and a 45% reduction in general training, the overall efficiency reduction is around 95.5%. The reduced risk of injuries is at least 24% less compared to Scenario 1, totaling 16.72 weeks. Subtracting this from the total weeks yields 152.28 effective weeks of training, corresponding to 90.1% efficiency.

So, each reduction 95,5% * 90,1% makes a total reduction of 86,1%. So 86.1% This last is the total efficiency of Scenario 2 on the whole 13 season.

Comparison:
In the final comparison between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 regarding total training efficiency over 13 seasons, Scenario 1 achieves 86.9%, while Scenario 2 achieves 86.1%.
The latter seems applicable proficiently with potentially fewer risks. This approach, tailored to my club management needs, ensures the gradual development of a roster with similar age, skill, and overall quality. It could even produce more quality players for the NT team, specifically 13 instead of 10, and tends to ensure at least the same minimum quality. While other managers may prefer different methods, such as using only 10 players for advanced slots and integrating turnover with older players, personal choice and need play a significant role.

Having successfully managed a small senior NT,I personally prefer developing 13 players aiming for 98-99% quality over 10 players aiming for 100% quality, considering the advantages they bring on the field, including 30% better form and a wider selection among their personal features.

I believe you might agree particularly with this last consideration as well.

p.s.

Infact, you are absolutely right about U21 training, where a turnover should be avoided or limited to no more of 11 player for 10 advanced slots, if they can really aim for U21 NT and they're just receiveing quite 100% minutage.

Instead, they could slowly become suitable for NT Senior just when around 28-29yo, if normally talented.
(editado)

I'll look at this in more detail when I'm less tired but I'm not sure where you pull the 9 weeks from in the first case. Will look at it again later.

A lot of numbers and percentages produced here without explaining where the numbers come from. Makes it harder to digest when I'm not in a thinking mode :).

Biggest problem I see is 270+ minutes for 100% efficiency in first approach

In this scenario, 10 trainees engage in advanced training from ages 16 to 29, with 13 seasons each for a total of 169 weeks. When players aged 20 or older, each participates in 3 weekly matches plus an NT match, accumulating 270 to 360 minutes for 100% efficiency in advanced training. However, due to the high playing frequency, injuries are predicted to cause a season-long absence over the total 169 weeks. This results in an effective training reduction from 100% to 92.3%. The overall loss for general training equals around 1.5 weeks for 6 movement skills, resulting in other 9 weeks of wasted training, for a total of 22.

Subtracting these injury weeks from the total, we get 147 effective weeks of training, corresponding to 86.9% efficiency.

I don't understand the math here, they get 100% training in all weeks that they don't have injury, but due to injuries they lose 13 out of 169 trainings, that's where 92.3% comes from, this makes sense (but could be optimised with less minutes played, 180 minutes in official matches is enough for 100% training). But then you talk about "overall loss for general training" - can you explain that? If they get 100% training for 156/169 weeks then I don't see where this additional loss is.

---

How I train my players: When possible I give them full friendly match (in corner with corner tactic) and about 22-23 minutes official match, preferably in DEF because there is lower chance of injuries there. This gives them 96.5% advanced training effectiveness. I haven't lost a single training due to injuries in the whole 2023 year (but I need to admit I got a bit lucky with that, I would expect on average few trainings lost in a year). The rest of my squad for league matches is build with some cheap old players, I don't care if they get injuries or not.

But important thing to add here - I train players for profit (with one exception), so I don't care about their current form or experience gain (which is quite low with my style of training).

As just said, I needed to be clear synthetizing concept and formulas. I will be glad to be more accurate producing formulas, if you need them.

Another important consideration I didn't included:

90 minutes in a single match or 45 minutes in each of two matches, are not the same. Injury are more frequent when players are tired and in diffculty on the field.

Infact, in 10 season most turnovered players suffered an average of 2 weeks of total injury, so quite nothing. I
nstead, one of the most skilled midfielder has been demolished with a triple injury in a single season, for 9 weeks total. He was playing often 3 full matches a week and has lost 9 weeks of adv training + the equivalent of 1,4 weeks on each of other 5 movement skills, for a total of other 7 weeks.

This means turnover protects player even much more about injuries, than a reduction comparable to lesser minutage, as in my explaination.

90 minutes in a single match or 45 minutes in each of two matches, are not the same. Injury are more frequent when players are tired and in diffculty on the field.

show me the data, that's just a wild theory that you came up with...

I don't understand the math here, they get 100% training in all weeks that they don't have injury, but due to injuries they lose 13 out of 169 trainings, that's where 92.3% comes from, this makes sense (but could be optimised with less minutes played, 180 minutes in official matches is enough for 100% training). But then you talk about "overall loss for general training" - can you explain that? If they get 100% training for 156/169 weeks then I don't see where this additional loss is.


Ah good I'm not the only one that was lost at that part. 13 weeks injured for no training at all is also probably a bit high for most scenarios too. Really what one should do is work out the % chance of injury before plugging an artificial number in here. Otherwise it's all speculation and assumptions. I think they're trying to say that when you lose advanced training you also lose general training and then they've tried to convert that general training loss to advanced training somehow (which is where I get confused and lost as those numbers seem plucked out of thin air).

Biggest problem I see is 270+ minutes for 100% efficiency in first approach

It just means that each player plays three matches a week. So 270 minutes total.

With turnover a 13 to 10 adv slots, average minutage can drop to 76,9% for each player. So from 270 minutes to 207 minutes. These are still sufficient for 100% training efficiency, since just 179 minutes are enough to reach it.

In a competitive team, also Cup matches are important, so best player tend to play in every of each three weekly matches.

13 weeks injured for no training at all is also probably a bit high for most scenarios too.

Yup, I checked some long-term players that I have. All of them receive 96-100% training every week, usually 97-98%.

Edvar Ruivo - data since 12.2022, 1 injury (slight) - 0 lost trainings
Ignacy Murawa - data since 01.2023, 0 injuries - 0 lost trainings
Edward Drewek - data since 01.2023, 3 injuries - 1 lost training

So in total 3 players trained since 17/18 to 23/24, together they lost 1 training.
13 trainings lost by one player is a totally over the top estimation.

Again, you don't need another 16yo to do a rotation. You can just use an old player or a player worth 1 euro, whatever you want.

When I have 10 trainees I rarely make them play more than 126, never more than 180 minutes.
It's usually 90 in friendly + 36 in league [97%] or 90 in league + 20 in league [also 97%]

In a competitive team, also Cup matches are important, so best player tend to play in every of each three weekly matches.

we are talking about young trainees, not "best players"...
(editado)

Ah good I'm not the only one that was lost at that part. 13 weeks injured for no training at all is also probably a bit high for most scenarios too. Really what one should do is work out the % chance of injury before plugging an artificial number in here. Otherwise it's all speculation and assumptions. I think they're trying to say that when you lose advanced training you also lose general training and then they've tried to convert that general training loss to advanced training somehow (which is where I get confused and lost as those numbers seem plucked out of thin air).

I wouldn't be tireful for readers. Maybe some prejudices, but it happens.

:)

Infact, 13 weeks in 13 season is a minimal estimation for total injuries of a player who always plays 270 minutes each week.
Considering that my player with a minutage of 100% for the most, collected 9 weeks injury in 92 weeks in the club. So it's about 9% injury time, this makes a lowered estimation of total 13 weeks of injury in 13 season. It probably would be a lot more, playing so much.

Nobody can pretend or pretend by me the access to analyze the full database of players, so to produce this data more precisely, but I can start estimate from my player's experience, being managing them from a lot of seasons.

By the way, gimme some minutes to prepare the explaination for the applied mathematics. I explained nothing illogical.
(editado)

Again, you don't need another 16yo to do a rotation. You can just use an old player or a player worth 1 euro, whatever you want.

I just answered to Achmid about that, in my final consideration. 11/10 of 16-17yo then from 20+ up to 13/10 turnovered.

Can produce on long period 13 Senior NT player instead of 10, around the same level. I prefer that and I explained why, also for NT needs, as experienced.

When I have 10 trainees I rarely make them play more than 126, never more than 180 minutes.
It's usually 90 in friendly + 36 in league [97%] or 90 in league + 20 in league [also 97%]

we are talking about young trainees, not "best players"...

That's your method, and that's simply different than mine.

Each manager has its own method for his team, as obvious.

Can produce on long period 13 Senior NT player instead of 10

again, if 3 of your 13 trainees will regularly not receive advanced training, then they either won't reach NT even though they had the potential for it, or they won't be as good as they possibly could've been if trained by someone who ALWAYS gave them advanced training.

other scenario is that more of your 13 trainees won't reach close to their max potential because sometimes they will get the advanced training and sometimes they won't even get 1/3 of max training [28%]

none of this is good for NT

That's your method, and that's simply different than mine.

Each manager has its own method for his team, as obvious.

No. It's not about managers or methods. You are making GENERAL claims so that they support your theory.

Nobody has to play their youths for 270 or 360 minutes weekly so their risk of injuries is not as big as you claim - 110 or 126 minutes is enough and gives regular 97% every week.

So the risk in such scenario is the same as in your scenario.
It's even lower, because while 110 minutes in official games give 97% of advanced training, they will give you only 94% of position training which equals to around 23.5% of advanced training.

There's no business for a National Team to have their NT prospect be trained in a rotational manner. Unless you talk about training C-tier prospects that probably won't make it, but in such a manner of training the chance of them reaching a good enough level is even lower than normally.
(editado)

Nobody can pretend or pretend by me the access to analyze the full database of players, so to produce this data more precisely, but I can start estimate from my player's experience, being managing them from a lot of seasons.

I already did the calculations in the past with quite a lot of data collected.

About 1% chance of injury for DEF in a match, about 2% chance of injury for GK or MID, about 3% chance of injury for ATT (of course it's averages, it depends on tactics, for example if someone plays a single attacker than he is going to be injured more often compared to attackers in tactic with 3 attackers). On average it's a bit less than 2% per player.

Let's take the 2% for calculations, playing 22 league +, let's say, 6 cup games in a season that's expected 28 * 0.02 = 0.56 injury / season / player. On average injury takes less than 1 training (many injuries are slight injuries or short enough for the player to not lose the training, losing 1 training is common, losing more than 1 training is uncommon as longer injuries are rarer than short ones). I estimate expected value of trainings lost due to a single injury as about 0.9, that gives 0.56 * 0.9 = 0.51 weeks of training / season lost when playing all official games (for a single player). Much lower than 1 week you use in your calculations.

Of course that number goes up if you torture your players with another 10+ friendlies played with normal tactic, but there is no reason to do that.