Missed training

I have recently noticed a big raise in clubs opting to miss training with some 15-16 yrs to try and hoodwink potential buyers who do not thoroughly check the players training page this distorts training averages if a player misses a training session it should be marked with zero xp for that missed session .

I disagree.

If you're buying a player, it does not take much effort to do your due diligence to check a few things before placing a bid.

And if you force it to be a 0, then you are just distorting the average anyway and if anything that just causes more hassle as a buying team.

If i am buying someone, i'd much rather see how they trained in their last 10 completed sessions, than have to work out what their average is if i remove the 0's.

the fact is its hoodwinking extreme trains without paying for boosts , the only reason clubs opt not to train is to hoodwink other less knowledgeable or observant clubs of this oblivious flaw within the game . .By marking zero xp for missed training it would discourage clubs from this underhand method and a more true average xp will be displayed

I get that you don't like the "practice/method", which is fair enough, even though its easy to guard against as a buyer. And to be honest, 1 training is unlikely to drastically alter their average and even more unlikely to affect the potential rating a scout would give.

But marking as 0% doesn't solve a problem, its just creates more problems and confusion for everyone.

I'd imagine there are far more players that don't train because the club didn't log on for 1 day, that it will affect, than clubs not training due to auctions.

However there is fundamental flaw in your argument if club trains one squad in a missed day and omits the other you cannot say I forgot to login its by design .

Yeah, i am talking about clubs that don't login and train either squad - i think there are more clubs that miss a day entirely than there are don't train because of a player on auction.

Ultimately, its not a big issue and doesn't warrant a 0%.

Its really easy to spot when someone hasn't trained and failing that the average across 10 trainings is highly unlikely to change significantly.

As you properly know it does influence scout reports and definitely boosts training averages in the short term, as I said the less diligent clubs are being hoodwinked and pay over the odds otherwise clubs would not operate this strategy .

Mission accomplished , I have successfully drawn attention to this issue for the less experienced clubs who read this that there are sharks within the game who lurk within the game who practice a very questionable strategy.

We'll agree to disagree, as i don't think many get unknowingly hoodwinked at all.

I'd also argue that regardless of any strategies, most 15/16 year olds sell for more than they are worth in the long run.

Returning today with a bunch of cheap players, I wasn't aware that this was a thing.One solution would be show a blank day in the training history but not to include it in the average. I don't actually use the average, I use the frequency of the highs and lows but it would be nice to see how many rest days players are getting.