Front Office Football Central - View Single Post

daahdeedaa · 04-03-2016, 09:06 AM

I decided to test out the possibility that top ranked players get poor practices by examining FOFC tennis hero, Anil Mehul.

I looked at his most recent 7 weeks of practice, which consisted of 24 singles practice matches and 25 doubles practice matches.

For the trainer comparison I used a 5.2 trainer on a player who has 3.7 endurance (Mehul has 3.6). My 3.8 endurance player achieved a 0.63 xp/fatigue ratio, my 3.7 endurance player achieved a 0.62 ratio, I don't think it's crazy to estimate that Mehul would have an 0.61.

The Maths
---------------

0.61 xp/fatigue from trainer
0.69 xp/fatigue from practice matches

0.73 Singles xp/fatigue
0.59 Doubles xp/fatigue

0% matches noticeably less efficient than trainer in singles
48% matches noticeably less efficient than trainer in doubles

---------------------------------------------------

Mehul was pretty consistent in singles practices over these few weeks. Maybe because he's always playing the top players but he never destroyed anyone so badly he didn't get decent experience. He literally had 3 matches out of 24 that were below the trainer ratio and they barely under that ratio (0.59 and 2 matches that were 0.60).

Mehul likely suffers from the similar fate that my doubles player does except in reverse. He's an unranked doubles player but his true doubles skill level is greater than that. I think the effect isn't as bad because he has a partner to drag down his performance so he doesn't kill the opposition in practice as often. Overall he didn't lose much over this 7 week period by not skipping doubles practice and using a non-existent trainer.

He had a great doubles practice week in Great Britain as he was placed in the first doubles group despite usually being in one of the worst doubles groups. No prominent doubles players practiced there that week and he got a randomly decently ranked partner.

As a side note, these are the scores in terms of points that produced poor xp (they were all doubles wins):
48-20, 51-18, 51-27, 52-27, 55-30, 48-19, 48-14, 48-23, 49-13, 57-29, 48-13, 52-16.

I think everyone knew it already but to reiterate you can achieve good xp by losing by any score, barely winning, or even handily winning. You just can't completely demoralize the other player

.

04-03-2016, 09:06 AM	#139
daahdeedaa n00b Join Date: Apr 2016	I decided to test out the possibility that top ranked players get poor practices by examining FOFC tennis hero, Anil Mehul. I looked at his most recent 7 weeks of practice, which consisted of 24 singles practice matches and 25 doubles practice matches. For the trainer comparison I used a 5.2 trainer on a player who has 3.7 endurance (Mehul has 3.6). My 3.8 endurance player achieved a 0.63 xp/fatigue ratio, my 3.7 endurance player achieved a 0.62 ratio, I don't think it's crazy to estimate that Mehul would have an 0.61. The Maths --------------- 0.61 xp/fatigue from trainer 0.69 xp/fatigue from practice matches 0.73 Singles xp/fatigue 0.59 Doubles xp/fatigue 0% matches noticeably less efficient than trainer in singles 48% matches noticeably less efficient than trainer in doubles --------------------------------------------------- Mehul was pretty consistent in singles practices over these few weeks. Maybe because he's always playing the top players but he never destroyed anyone so badly he didn't get decent experience. He literally had 3 matches out of 24 that were below the trainer ratio and they barely under that ratio (0.59 and 2 matches that were 0.60). Mehul likely suffers from the similar fate that my doubles player does except in reverse. He's an unranked doubles player but his true doubles skill level is greater than that. I think the effect isn't as bad because he has a partner to drag down his performance so he doesn't kill the opposition in practice as often. Overall he didn't lose much over this 7 week period by not skipping doubles practice and using a non-existent trainer. He had a great doubles practice week in Great Britain as he was placed in the first doubles group despite usually being in one of the worst doubles groups. No prominent doubles players practiced there that week and he got a randomly decently ranked partner. As a side note, these are the scores in terms of points that produced poor xp (they were all doubles wins): 48-20, 51-18, 51-27, 52-27, 55-30, 48-19, 48-14, 48-23, 49-13, 57-29, 48-13, 52-16. I think everyone knew it already but to reiterate you can achieve good xp by losing by any score, barely winning, or even handily winning. You just can't completely demoralize the other player . Last edited by daahdeedaa : 04-03-2016 at 09:24 AM.