Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Asunto: Future personal Youth Camp for NT
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.
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.
No, it can't be they won't reach NT as you say. It just happened.
Infact, 70% of my actual NT players were turnovered at least slightly in advanced training. Even those who are observed by most populated NT.
It depends by each situation about roles, talent and player features. For example turnovered is not very suitable for strikers, needing to maximize three primary skill. Personally I train full speed until 29yo, if needed. I prepare long cycles each time.
It's just about each trainer own mentality. This is respectfully my one, I don't pretend being yours.
Infact, 70% of my actual NT players were turnovered at least slightly in advanced training. Even those who are observed by most populated NT.
It depends by each situation about roles, talent and player features. For example turnovered is not very suitable for strikers, needing to maximize three primary skill. Personally I train full speed until 29yo, if needed. I prepare long cycles each time.
It's just about each trainer own mentality. This is respectfully my one, I don't pretend being yours.
PREMISE: I’m just exposing my ideas, based on my personal experience and their datas. This from the start of this thread. So please be respectful.
Scenario 1:
10 trainees in advanced training starting from 16yo until 29yo - 13 season each for 169 weeks total.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 3 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 270 to 360 for 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
My most injuried player, who played 100% minutage for most of the weeks, collected 9 weeks injury in 92 total weeks, so let’s suppose a 9-10% percentage of injury when weekly minutage is nearly so intense.
When playing so much each week, injuries prediction is around a whole season, so it’s estimable as at least 13 weeks in total on 169 weeks. This means a 7,7% percentage and an average of 1 week injury each season.
Let’s calculate the remaining advanced training efficience. 100%-7,7% = 92,3%
So it means a reduction from 100% to 92,3% effective training for advanced training.
The loss is full also for general training, who is 15% of full training in all other skills.
13 weeks of general training means 0,15x5(all other movement skill)x13(weeks)= 9,75 full trainings
9 + 9,75 = 22,75 training weeks total loss
169 weeks minus 22.75 weeks means 146,25 effective weeks of training, let’s round up to 147 then.
147/169 = 0,869
The total training loss drops the final effective training to 0,869%
Scenario 2:
10 for 10 advanced training slots, starting from 20+ age when starting playing in championship/cup are added up to 3 players to turnover them.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 1 and 1/2 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 207 to 297 minutes for quite 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
The turnover of 13 players for 10 advanced slots reduces training efficience this way:
10x1+3x0.28 = 10,84 instead of 13,00
So 10,84/13 = 0,833
This 0,833 affects just latest 10 season than 13 total, as in Scenario 1.
Also considering the progressivity of age influence, so top quickness when training U19 yo, the effective reduction is around halved. Maybe.
Let’s try to calculate the influence of the training 16yo – 19yo more precisely:
From 16yo to 19yo training difficulty and amount: 1,10+1,21+1,33+1,46 = 5,1 x 76 (4 season)
5,1 / 4 (seasons) = 1.275 (average pop difficulty)
76 weeks (4 seasons) / 1,275 = 59,6 average pops at zero level skill
From 20yo to 29yo training difficulty and amount: 1,6+1,76+1,94+2,13+2,35+2,58+2,84+3,12+3,44= 21,76
21,76 / 9 (seasons) = 2.41 (average pop difficulty)
117 weeks (9 seasons) / 2,41 = 48,54 average pops at zero level skill
Let’s compare the amount of two range of trainings: 59,6/48,54 = 54,07%
So the full training from 16yo to 19yo should be subtracted from the total reduction:
1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 54% and then: 0,167 x 0,46 = 0,076 So 1-0,076 = 0,924
This means the effective reduction by turnover since 20+ yo age is down to 0,924, considered no reduction at all in the period from 16yo to 19yo.
Moreover, since general training is always 100% also in this case, this means the total reduction should be lowered again. Considering each week of general training adds 15% full training on all other skill, let’s consider just the other five of movement. 5x0,15= 0,75 total equivalent of full training.
So let’s reapply the last reduction, but at 75%: 0,54 x 0,75 = 0,40 (another 40% of initial reduction)
Let’s calculate then: 1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 40% So let’s do 0,167 x 0,60 = 0,1002
Let’s multiply it for the value of 59,6 who refers to the 16yo-19yo amount of training: 0,1 x 0,596 = 0,0596
At last, let’s subtract again 1-0,924 = 0,076 So subtracting the last value 0,076 - 0,0596 = 0,0164
So effective reduction becomes 1 – 0,0164 = 0,983 (effective training efficience reduction on the whole period 16yo to 29yo in 13 training seasons)
Then, the reduced risk of injuries is at least 207/270 minutes , this means 76% than Scenario 1.
This means a reduction of at least 0,76/1 injury weeks. I say at least because the behaviour seems progressively, so for higher reduction.
Comparing to Scenario 1, this means not 13+9 for 22 weeks total of lost training for each player, but 24% less, at least. So the reduction is to 16,72 weeks.
169 weeks minus 16,72 weeks means 152,28 effective weeks of training. 152,28/169 = 0,901
At last, the reduction will be 0,901 (total injury weeks) * 0,983 (total training efficience lost) = 0,885
Final comparation Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 about total training efficiency on 13 season of training
Scenario 1: 0,869% each player Scenario 2: 0,885%
Here to explain why is applyable proficiently without too many risks, It could be even better than normal, considering the higher amount of trained players, practically at the same level.
Obviously, it’s mine, adequate to my exigence to manage my club efficiently, this means also the needs to form slowly a roster at similar level about age, skill, and overall quality of their players.
This could even produce more quality players for NT team, 13 instead of 10 and, as you can see, it can tend to ensure at least the same minimum quality.
Other managers could prefer to use just 10 player for advanced slots, integrating turnover with older players or whatever else, but that’s just personal choice and need.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
This just because they can grant 30% better form when on the field, not last the higher choice among their personal feature.
I apologize if it couldn’t be easiest to read, for this reason I didi it just now. All formulas seems to me logical without mistakes. There even could be marginally, wouldn’t be a drama, but seems to me it’s all ok.
Said that. I respect every waythinking, same should for mine. Here’s the mathemathic you asked for, by the way it’s just my personal behavour on managing my player. Please consider I’m an expert player too.
This turnovering method well works in optical NT when it’s about to produce as much Senior NT from scratches of youngest picks, but with minimal on no turnover until 19yo it worked also for develop player suitable for their U21 NT.
By the way it’s just my method, applied with my own team, now with many NT player born from zero skill and market value. That’s all, I’m not pretending anything else.
:)
(editado)
Scenario 1:
10 trainees in advanced training starting from 16yo until 29yo - 13 season each for 169 weeks total.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 3 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 270 to 360 for 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
My most injuried player, who played 100% minutage for most of the weeks, collected 9 weeks injury in 92 total weeks, so let’s suppose a 9-10% percentage of injury when weekly minutage is nearly so intense.
When playing so much each week, injuries prediction is around a whole season, so it’s estimable as at least 13 weeks in total on 169 weeks. This means a 7,7% percentage and an average of 1 week injury each season.
Let’s calculate the remaining advanced training efficience. 100%-7,7% = 92,3%
So it means a reduction from 100% to 92,3% effective training for advanced training.
The loss is full also for general training, who is 15% of full training in all other skills.
13 weeks of general training means 0,15x5(all other movement skill)x13(weeks)= 9,75 full trainings
9 + 9,75 = 22,75 training weeks total loss
169 weeks minus 22.75 weeks means 146,25 effective weeks of training, let’s round up to 147 then.
147/169 = 0,869
The total training loss drops the final effective training to 0,869%
Scenario 2:
10 for 10 advanced training slots, starting from 20+ age when starting playing in championship/cup are added up to 3 players to turnover them.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 1 and 1/2 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 207 to 297 minutes for quite 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
The turnover of 13 players for 10 advanced slots reduces training efficience this way:
10x1+3x0.28 = 10,84 instead of 13,00
So 10,84/13 = 0,833
This 0,833 affects just latest 10 season than 13 total, as in Scenario 1.
Also considering the progressivity of age influence, so top quickness when training U19 yo, the effective reduction is around halved. Maybe.
Let’s try to calculate the influence of the training 16yo – 19yo more precisely:
From 16yo to 19yo training difficulty and amount: 1,10+1,21+1,33+1,46 = 5,1 x 76 (4 season)
5,1 / 4 (seasons) = 1.275 (average pop difficulty)
76 weeks (4 seasons) / 1,275 = 59,6 average pops at zero level skill
From 20yo to 29yo training difficulty and amount: 1,6+1,76+1,94+2,13+2,35+2,58+2,84+3,12+3,44= 21,76
21,76 / 9 (seasons) = 2.41 (average pop difficulty)
117 weeks (9 seasons) / 2,41 = 48,54 average pops at zero level skill
Let’s compare the amount of two range of trainings: 59,6/48,54 = 54,07%
So the full training from 16yo to 19yo should be subtracted from the total reduction:
1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 54% and then: 0,167 x 0,46 = 0,076 So 1-0,076 = 0,924
This means the effective reduction by turnover since 20+ yo age is down to 0,924, considered no reduction at all in the period from 16yo to 19yo.
Moreover, since general training is always 100% also in this case, this means the total reduction should be lowered again. Considering each week of general training adds 15% full training on all other skill, let’s consider just the other five of movement. 5x0,15= 0,75 total equivalent of full training.
So let’s reapply the last reduction, but at 75%: 0,54 x 0,75 = 0,40 (another 40% of initial reduction)
Let’s calculate then: 1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 40% So let’s do 0,167 x 0,60 = 0,1002
Let’s multiply it for the value of 59,6 who refers to the 16yo-19yo amount of training: 0,1 x 0,596 = 0,0596
At last, let’s subtract again 1-0,924 = 0,076 So subtracting the last value 0,076 - 0,0596 = 0,0164
So effective reduction becomes 1 – 0,0164 = 0,983 (effective training efficience reduction on the whole period 16yo to 29yo in 13 training seasons)
Then, the reduced risk of injuries is at least 207/270 minutes , this means 76% than Scenario 1.
This means a reduction of at least 0,76/1 injury weeks. I say at least because the behaviour seems progressively, so for higher reduction.
Comparing to Scenario 1, this means not 13+9 for 22 weeks total of lost training for each player, but 24% less, at least. So the reduction is to 16,72 weeks.
169 weeks minus 16,72 weeks means 152,28 effective weeks of training. 152,28/169 = 0,901
At last, the reduction will be 0,901 (total injury weeks) * 0,983 (total training efficience lost) = 0,885
Final comparation Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 about total training efficiency on 13 season of training
Scenario 1: 0,869% each player Scenario 2: 0,885%
Here to explain why is applyable proficiently without too many risks, It could be even better than normal, considering the higher amount of trained players, practically at the same level.
Obviously, it’s mine, adequate to my exigence to manage my club efficiently, this means also the needs to form slowly a roster at similar level about age, skill, and overall quality of their players.
This could even produce more quality players for NT team, 13 instead of 10 and, as you can see, it can tend to ensure at least the same minimum quality.
Other managers could prefer to use just 10 player for advanced slots, integrating turnover with older players or whatever else, but that’s just personal choice and need.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
This just because they can grant 30% better form when on the field, not last the higher choice among their personal feature.
I apologize if it couldn’t be easiest to read, for this reason I didi it just now. All formulas seems to me logical without mistakes. There even could be marginally, wouldn’t be a drama, but seems to me it’s all ok.
Said that. I respect every waythinking, same should for mine. Here’s the mathemathic you asked for, by the way it’s just my personal behavour on managing my player. Please consider I’m an expert player too.
This turnovering method well works in optical NT when it’s about to produce as much Senior NT from scratches of youngest picks, but with minimal on no turnover until 19yo it worked also for develop player suitable for their U21 NT.
By the way it’s just my method, applied with my own team, now with many NT player born from zero skill and market value. That’s all, I’m not pretending anything else.
:)
(editado)
You can train your players how you want, I'm just saying it's not good for any NT because you don't maximise the player's potential, you intentionally limit it.
If a player goes to a club where he will get normal 96-97%, then he will reach higher level than training in your team. Which is the only important thing for NT.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
well this is just a mathematical manipulation, you are NOT comparing 10 players reaching 100% potential vs 13 players reaching 99% potential, the difference will be much bigger than 1%.
(editado)
If a player goes to a club where he will get normal 96-97%, then he will reach higher level than training in your team. Which is the only important thing for NT.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
well this is just a mathematical manipulation, you are NOT comparing 10 players reaching 100% potential vs 13 players reaching 99% potential, the difference will be much bigger than 1%.
(editado)
You can train your players how you want, I'm just saying it's not good for any NT because you don't maximise the player's potential, you intentionally limit it.
No it's impossible, I repeat. I have by now most of my NT player regularly turnovered, some of them were grew since 16yo. It's just a matter of when and how starting to do turnover, within whose limits.
And mathematics does not manipulate anything, I explained here. Maybe it's not easy to estimate precisely injury risks playing matches every week, that's another matter.
Moreover, there's not a written rule about that, every NT is managed at his own and has its own needs, strategies and mentality. I'm not discussing about it.
No it's impossible, I repeat. I have by now most of my NT player regularly turnovered, some of them were grew since 16yo. It's just a matter of when and how starting to do turnover, within whose limits.
And mathematics does not manipulate anything, I explained here. Maybe it's not easy to estimate precisely injury risks playing matches every week, that's another matter.
Moreover, there's not a written rule about that, every NT is managed at his own and has its own needs, strategies and mentality. I'm not discussing about it.
I will write it again. You are wrong with your Scenario 1 math. You are counting the loss of general training TWICE.
If someone gets 156/169 FULL 100% TRAININGS then he gets 156/169 of the total possible training, that is 92.3%, period. No need to substract anything from that number.
I'm not reading the rest :P
If someone gets 156/169 FULL 100% TRAININGS then he gets 156/169 of the total possible training, that is 92.3%, period. No need to substract anything from that number.
I'm not reading the rest :P
Thanks for joking, now more seriously.
:)
I didn't count twice, first reduction considerated just advanced training loss in Scenario 1. Then adding also loss for total amount of general training due to injuries.
Please read the full explaination, should be more precise:
PREMISE: I’m just exposing my ideas, based on my personal experience and their datas. This from the start of this thread. So please be respectful.
Scenario 1:
10 trainees in advanced training starting from 16yo until 29yo - 13 season each for 169 weeks total.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 3 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 270 to 360 for 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
My most injuried player, who played 100% minutage for most of the weeks, collected 9 weeks injury in 92 total weeks, so let’s suppose a 9-10% percentage of injury when weekly minutage is nearly so intense.
When playing so much each week, injuries prediction is around a whole season, so it’s estimable as at least 13 weeks in total on 169 weeks. This means a 7,7% percentage and an average of 1 week injury each season.
Let’s calculate the remaining advanced training efficience. 100%-7,7% = 92,3%
So it means a reduction from 100% to 92,3% effective training for advanced training.
The loss is full also for general training, who is 15% of full training in all other skills.
13 weeks of general training means 0,15x5(all other movement skill)x13(weeks)= 9,75 full trainings
9 + 9,75 = 22,75 training weeks total loss
169 weeks minus 22.75 weeks means 146,25 effective weeks of training, let’s round up to 147 then.
147/169 = 0,869
The total training loss drops the final effective training to 0,869%
Scenario 2:
10 for 10 advanced training slots, starting from 20+ age when starting playing in championship/cup are added up to 3 players to turnover them.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 1 and 1/2 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 207 to 297 minutes for quite 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
The turnover of 13 players for 10 advanced slots reduces training efficience this way:
10x1+3x0.28 = 10,84 instead of 13,00
So 10,84/13 = 0,833
This 0,833 affects just latest 10 season than 13 total, as in Scenario 1.
Also considering the progressivity of age influence, so top quickness when training U19 yo, the effective reduction is around halved. Maybe.
Let’s try to calculate the influence of the training 16yo – 19yo more precisely:
From 16yo to 19yo training difficulty and amount: 1,10+1,21+1,33+1,46 = 5,1 x 76 (4 season)
5,1 / 4 (seasons) = 1.275 (average pop difficulty)
76 weeks (4 seasons) / 1,275 = 59,6 average pops at zero level skill
From 20yo to 29yo training difficulty and amount: 1,6+1,76+1,94+2,13+2,35+2,58+2,84+3,12+3,44= 21,76
21,76 / 9 (seasons) = 2.41 (average pop difficulty)
117 weeks (9 seasons) / 2,41 = 48,54 average pops at zero level skill
Let’s compare the amount of two range of trainings: 59,6/48,54 = 54,07%
So the full training from 16yo to 19yo should be subtracted from the total reduction:
1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 54% and then: 0,167 x 0,46 = 0,076 So 1-0,076 = 0,924
This means the effective reduction by turnover since 20+ yo age is down to 0,924, considered no reduction at all in the period from 16yo to 19yo.
Moreover, since general training is always 100% also in this case, this means the total reduction should be lowered again. Considering each week of general training adds 15% full training on all other skill, let’s consider just the other five of movement. 5x0,15= 0,75 total equivalent of full training.
So let’s reapply the last reduction, but at 75%: 0,54 x 0,75 = 0,40 (another 40% of initial reduction)
Let’s calculate then: 1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 40% So let’s do 0,167 x 0,60 = 0,1002
Let’s multiply it for the value of 59,6 who refers to the 16yo-19yo amount of training: 0,1 x 0,596 = 0,0596
At last, let’s subtract again 1-0,924 = 0,076 So subtracting the last value 0,076 - 0,0596 = 0,0164
So effective reduction becomes 1 – 0,0164 = 0,983 (effective training efficience reduction on the whole period 16yo to 29yo in 13 training seasons)
Then, the reduced risk of injuries is at least 207/270 minutes , this means 76% than Scenario 1.
This means a reduction of at least 0,76/1 injury weeks. I say at least because the behaviour seems progressively, so for higher reduction.
Comparing to Scenario 1, this means not 13+9 for 22 weeks total of lost training for each player, but 24% less, at least. So the reduction is to 16,72 weeks.
169 weeks minus 16,72 weeks means 152,28 effective weeks of training. 152,28/169 = 0,901
At last, the reduction will be 0,901 (total injury weeks) * 0,983 (total training efficience lost) = 0,885
Final comparation Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 about total training efficiency on 13 season of training
Scenario 1: 0,869% each player Scenario 2: 0,885%
Here to explain why is applyable proficiently without too many risks, It could be even better than normal, considering the higher amount of trained players, practically at the same level.
Obviously, it’s mine, adequate to my exigence to manage my club efficiently, this means also the needs to form slowly a roster at similar level about age, skill, and overall quality of their players.
This could even produce more quality players for NT team, 13 instead of 10 and, as you can see, it can tend to ensure at least the same minimum quality.
Other managers could prefer to use just 10 player for advanced slots, integrating turnover with older players or whatever else, but that’s just personal choice and need.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
This just because they can grant 30% better form when on the field, not last the higher choice among their personal feature.
I apologize if it couldn’t be easiest to read, for this reason I didi it just now. All formulas seems to me logical without mistakes. There even could be marginally, wouldn’t be a drama, but seems to me it’s all ok.
Said that. I respect every waythinking, same should for mine. Here’s the mathemathic you asked for, by the way it’s just my personal behavour on managing my player. Please consider I’m an expert player too.
This turnovering method well works in optical NT when it’s about to produce as much Senior NT from scratches of youngest picks, but with minimal on no turnover until 19yo it worked also for develop player suitable for their U21 NT.
By the way it’s just my method, applied with my own team, now with many NT player born from zero skill and market value. That’s all, I’m not pretending anything else.
:)
:)
I didn't count twice, first reduction considerated just advanced training loss in Scenario 1. Then adding also loss for total amount of general training due to injuries.
Please read the full explaination, should be more precise:
PREMISE: I’m just exposing my ideas, based on my personal experience and their datas. This from the start of this thread. So please be respectful.
Scenario 1:
10 trainees in advanced training starting from 16yo until 29yo - 13 season each for 169 weeks total.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 3 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 270 to 360 for 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
My most injuried player, who played 100% minutage for most of the weeks, collected 9 weeks injury in 92 total weeks, so let’s suppose a 9-10% percentage of injury when weekly minutage is nearly so intense.
When playing so much each week, injuries prediction is around a whole season, so it’s estimable as at least 13 weeks in total on 169 weeks. This means a 7,7% percentage and an average of 1 week injury each season.
Let’s calculate the remaining advanced training efficience. 100%-7,7% = 92,3%
So it means a reduction from 100% to 92,3% effective training for advanced training.
The loss is full also for general training, who is 15% of full training in all other skills.
13 weeks of general training means 0,15x5(all other movement skill)x13(weeks)= 9,75 full trainings
9 + 9,75 = 22,75 training weeks total loss
169 weeks minus 22.75 weeks means 146,25 effective weeks of training, let’s round up to 147 then.
147/169 = 0,869
The total training loss drops the final effective training to 0,869%
Scenario 2:
10 for 10 advanced training slots, starting from 20+ age when starting playing in championship/cup are added up to 3 players to turnover them.
When 20+ yo, each player plays 1 and 1/2 weekly matches + NT match, so minutage is in total from 207 to 297 minutes for quite 100% efficiency on a base of 100% advanced training.
The turnover of 13 players for 10 advanced slots reduces training efficience this way:
10x1+3x0.28 = 10,84 instead of 13,00
So 10,84/13 = 0,833
This 0,833 affects just latest 10 season than 13 total, as in Scenario 1.
Also considering the progressivity of age influence, so top quickness when training U19 yo, the effective reduction is around halved. Maybe.
Let’s try to calculate the influence of the training 16yo – 19yo more precisely:
From 16yo to 19yo training difficulty and amount: 1,10+1,21+1,33+1,46 = 5,1 x 76 (4 season)
5,1 / 4 (seasons) = 1.275 (average pop difficulty)
76 weeks (4 seasons) / 1,275 = 59,6 average pops at zero level skill
From 20yo to 29yo training difficulty and amount: 1,6+1,76+1,94+2,13+2,35+2,58+2,84+3,12+3,44= 21,76
21,76 / 9 (seasons) = 2.41 (average pop difficulty)
117 weeks (9 seasons) / 2,41 = 48,54 average pops at zero level skill
Let’s compare the amount of two range of trainings: 59,6/48,54 = 54,07%
So the full training from 16yo to 19yo should be subtracted from the total reduction:
1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 54% and then: 0,167 x 0,46 = 0,076 So 1-0,076 = 0,924
This means the effective reduction by turnover since 20+ yo age is down to 0,924, considered no reduction at all in the period from 16yo to 19yo.
Moreover, since general training is always 100% also in this case, this means the total reduction should be lowered again. Considering each week of general training adds 15% full training on all other skill, let’s consider just the other five of movement. 5x0,15= 0,75 total equivalent of full training.
So let’s reapply the last reduction, but at 75%: 0,54 x 0,75 = 0,40 (another 40% of initial reduction)
Let’s calculate then: 1-0,833 = 0,167 Then let’s subtract 40% So let’s do 0,167 x 0,60 = 0,1002
Let’s multiply it for the value of 59,6 who refers to the 16yo-19yo amount of training: 0,1 x 0,596 = 0,0596
At last, let’s subtract again 1-0,924 = 0,076 So subtracting the last value 0,076 - 0,0596 = 0,0164
So effective reduction becomes 1 – 0,0164 = 0,983 (effective training efficience reduction on the whole period 16yo to 29yo in 13 training seasons)
Then, the reduced risk of injuries is at least 207/270 minutes , this means 76% than Scenario 1.
This means a reduction of at least 0,76/1 injury weeks. I say at least because the behaviour seems progressively, so for higher reduction.
Comparing to Scenario 1, this means not 13+9 for 22 weeks total of lost training for each player, but 24% less, at least. So the reduction is to 16,72 weeks.
169 weeks minus 16,72 weeks means 152,28 effective weeks of training. 152,28/169 = 0,901
At last, the reduction will be 0,901 (total injury weeks) * 0,983 (total training efficience lost) = 0,885
Final comparation Scenario 1 to Scenario 2 about total training efficiency on 13 season of training
Scenario 1: 0,869% each player Scenario 2: 0,885%
Here to explain why is applyable proficiently without too many risks, It could be even better than normal, considering the higher amount of trained players, practically at the same level.
Obviously, it’s mine, adequate to my exigence to manage my club efficiently, this means also the needs to form slowly a roster at similar level about age, skill, and overall quality of their players.
This could even produce more quality players for NT team, 13 instead of 10 and, as you can see, it can tend to ensure at least the same minimum quality.
Other managers could prefer to use just 10 player for advanced slots, integrating turnover with older players or whatever else, but that’s just personal choice and need.
I repeat since having just managed succesfully a small NT, personally I prefer to develop 13 players tending to 99% same quality than 10 tending to 100%, better managing injury risk on each of them.
This just because they can grant 30% better form when on the field, not last the higher choice among their personal feature.
I apologize if it couldn’t be easiest to read, for this reason I didi it just now. All formulas seems to me logical without mistakes. There even could be marginally, wouldn’t be a drama, but seems to me it’s all ok.
Said that. I respect every waythinking, same should for mine. Here’s the mathemathic you asked for, by the way it’s just my personal behavour on managing my player. Please consider I’m an expert player too.
This turnovering method well works in optical NT when it’s about to produce as much Senior NT from scratches of youngest picks, but with minimal on no turnover until 19yo it worked also for develop player suitable for their U21 NT.
By the way it’s just my method, applied with my own team, now with many NT player born from zero skill and market value. That’s all, I’m not pretending anything else.
:)
All this writing and still: a player who gets 96-97% weekly while playing MAX 110 / 126 minutes weekly will be much better than in your scenario. So this is not a good proposition for NT prospects, it's AT MOST a good proposition for your club, but I still highly doubt it because of some number that you assume (and it depends on the kind of players you get).
Tell my, why would Australian NT coach want you to train a NT prospect in your system, when the same player can be trained my a system giving him 96-97% while playing under 130 minutes weekly? What is the point? I honestly see no advantage to that, it seems like an unneeded overcomplication of a simple thing.
Tell my, why would Australian NT coach want you to train a NT prospect in your system, when the same player can be trained my a system giving him 96-97% while playing under 130 minutes weekly? What is the point? I honestly see no advantage to that, it seems like an unneeded overcomplication of a simple thing.
Ok, you are right on this. But i'm not proposing my team as becoming strictly a boot camp for NT of any country, so to be shaped due to their needs. Or instead, I would have sold every player to make room to grant full speed training and efficience.
Each manager has his own goals and management style. I presented my style of growing player, respectfully appliable mainly on those young players with absolutely no appeal and often wasted.
So in my intentions, it would be all done with any good wills. And plans can be changed a bit. For example, first two season 10 players selected by best talent, when 20yo adding one player, when 24yo adding another one, and so on.
Turnover impact would be minimal, once minutage is near 100% for everybody (usually at least 98% in my team).
Infact, my friend just started training Austrialian young players at their best and with no turnover, as I proposed him. This could be particularly appreciable for NT coaches by first, and the whole community.
Each manager has his own goals and management style. I presented my style of growing player, respectfully appliable mainly on those young players with absolutely no appeal and often wasted.
So in my intentions, it would be all done with any good wills. And plans can be changed a bit. For example, first two season 10 players selected by best talent, when 20yo adding one player, when 24yo adding another one, and so on.
Turnover impact would be minimal, once minutage is near 100% for everybody (usually at least 98% in my team).
Infact, my friend just started training Austrialian young players at their best and with no turnover, as I proposed him. This could be particularly appreciable for NT coaches by first, and the whole community.
One consideration more, perspecting possible advantages:
Option 1) 10 players trained 100% in advanced training slot since 16yo 96-97% minutage efficiency.
Means 96,5 efficiency each one (in advanced training)
Option 2) 11 players trained turnovered in 10 training slot since 16yo with 98-100% minutage efficiency.
Means 93,4% efficiency (in advanced training) plus 1,5% for better minutage in general training, less 1% for average minutage 99%. So total training efficience is 94,9%
What's the final result?
10 player trained 96,5% total training efficience vs 11 player trained 94,9% total training efficience.
Personally, considering 13 season of training, I would always prefer the second option. Even for NT needs. especially if each pick was absolutely normal youngest players.
Option 1) 10 players trained 100% in advanced training slot since 16yo 96-97% minutage efficiency.
Means 96,5 efficiency each one (in advanced training)
Option 2) 11 players trained turnovered in 10 training slot since 16yo with 98-100% minutage efficiency.
Means 93,4% efficiency (in advanced training) plus 1,5% for better minutage in general training, less 1% for average minutage 99%. So total training efficience is 94,9%
What's the final result?
10 player trained 96,5% total training efficience vs 11 player trained 94,9% total training efficience.
Personally, considering 13 season of training, I would always prefer the second option. Even for NT needs. especially if each pick was absolutely normal youngest players.
That's all theory based on what you think will happen, not on data. You gave an example of your player getting many injuries. I've shown you 3 example of my players who in total lost 1 training (so each of them lost 0.3 training...) while training from 17/18 to 23/24. So 1 training lost in 6-7 seasons x3 = 18-21 seasons. Their average training efficiency is well over 97%, they have almost max possible general training etc.
In recent years I barely had situations when trained youngsters got injuries. And that's what your system is based on.
Personally, considering 13 season of training, I would always prefer the second option. Even for NT needs.
Why for NT...? It doesn't make any sense. There is no limit of clubs/training slots for NT players. They can always get the possible max / best possible scenario.
This scenario, in terms of NT, makes sense ONLY if you concentrate on players that nobody would want to train seriously.
If there's a player X and team Y decides that it wants to buy that player and give him regular 97%, then it's better that team Y buys this player, not your team (with your rotation scenario).
(editado)
In recent years I barely had situations when trained youngsters got injuries. And that's what your system is based on.
Personally, considering 13 season of training, I would always prefer the second option. Even for NT needs.
Why for NT...? It doesn't make any sense. There is no limit of clubs/training slots for NT players. They can always get the possible max / best possible scenario.
This scenario, in terms of NT, makes sense ONLY if you concentrate on players that nobody would want to train seriously.
If there's a player X and team Y decides that it wants to buy that player and give him regular 97%, then it's better that team Y buys this player, not your team (with your rotation scenario).
(editado)
This scenario, in terms of NT, makes sense ONLY if you concentrate on players that nobody would want to train seriously.
That's exactly what I just said, confirming it more than one time. My actual NT player, or observed it, were normal pick with unkown talent, usually wasted or forgotten.
Confirmed that, as for my personal strategy and experience in NT management, I would ever prefer to have 11 players trained until 29yo by a communicative, expert and reliable owner, than having less player spreaded everywhere or immediately forgotten by their zero market value.
If the price is to lose 1,5% of potential about the final quality of each player, no problem at all. Even more would be welcomed.
I repeat, I think this due to my personal experience and waythinking in NT management, but every NT coach would prefer at least 10% more player available with no significant quality loss, just due to better improve form on the field this way.
This is particularly important in smaller communities, where all human resources are limitated.
(editado)
That's exactly what I just said, confirming it more than one time. My actual NT player, or observed it, were normal pick with unkown talent, usually wasted or forgotten.
Confirmed that, as for my personal strategy and experience in NT management, I would ever prefer to have 11 players trained until 29yo by a communicative, expert and reliable owner, than having less player spreaded everywhere or immediately forgotten by their zero market value.
If the price is to lose 1,5% of potential about the final quality of each player, no problem at all. Even more would be welcomed.
I repeat, I think this due to my personal experience and waythinking in NT management, but every NT coach would prefer at least 10% more player available with no significant quality loss, just due to better improve form on the field this way.
This is particularly important in smaller communities, where all human resources are limitated.
(editado)