What is the coaching effect?

[El_Zigi]

I wonder if someone knows the answer to this query. I had a batsman improve his ability against pace bowling after I gave him plenty of coaching sessions. So his pref changed from spin specialist to slight spin pref. Fine. However, somewhere on this forum, maybe this thread, I remember someone suggested that when a players ability against pace improves his ability against spin will disimprove and vice versa. Is this the case? Cause if it is, it seems a bit silly.

If a spin specialist improves against pace to become slight spin pref, surely his ability against spin hasn't been adversely affected because he has got better against pace. I would hope it works like this. My batsman above was very good against spin and lets say average against pace hence the spin specialist pref. Now that he has improved against pace his pref changes to slight spin because now there isn't as much of a gap in his ability against the 2 types of bowling. I would hope that he is now good against pace and still very good against spin.

So which way does it work?

[Xeno]

I've got a question too regarding bowling training. In terms of technique training for batsman, it seems pretty darn straight forward, but when it comes to bowling, I'm slightly confused about something.

General technique is obviously there to improve the hidden rating attribute of bowlers. Easy. The rest are pretty self explanatory too. But Accuracy? Does that also improve rating? How do we know if a bowler is inaccurate?

[Imager36]

So which way does it work?

As far as I've gathered from my time on these forums, the Spin/Pace preference is a simple worded summary of the difference or ratio between the player's Spin playing attribute and the player's Pace playing attribute. The other one doesn't go up or down, but the difference or ratio between the two changes to the point where the wording changes, showing why some players can take forever to 'level up' in this way and others just a few days.

But Accuracy? Does that also improve rating? How do we know if a bowler is inaccurate?

This is more of a guess than the other one, but I'm pretty sure accuracy is exactly as it says, the bowler's ability to put the ball where you tell him to. Unless you have dodgy field settings on some of your bowlers, the easiest way to tell this would be via a bowler's economy rates.

[Xeno]

Economy rates, of course!! Duh. Thank you very much

[6ry4nj]

I've got a question too regarding bowling training. In terms of technique training for batsman, it seems pretty darn straight forward, but when it comes to bowling, I'm slightly confused about something.

General technique is obviously there to improve the hidden rating attribute of bowlers. Easy. The rest are pretty self explanatory too. But Accuracy? Does that also improve rating? How do we know if a bowler is inaccurate?

The way I understand it is this. Attacking technique improves their average (may harm their economy or it may not). Defensive technique improves economy (and may harm their average a la Harbhajan currently).

Then I distinguish between general technique and accuracy like this. General technique is for when neither their average or their economy rate is 'satisfactory'. Accuracy is for when both are satisfactory but you wish to 'gild the lily' eg. since the bowler is young you believe they can improve further.

It's an 'elegant' way of looking at it. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

[Xeno]

I always took Aggressive/Defensive bowling training as how effective said bowler is when asked to be Aggressive/Defensive. Make sense?

[6ry4nj]

I always took Aggressive/Defensive bowling training as how effective said bowler is when asked to be Aggressive/Defensive. Make sense?

It's a good theory. It's certainly likely that the difference in a bowler before and after improving for aggression/defence, is much less than the difference in that bowler between 0 and six bars aggression.

But I honestly/impartially think my theory is a bit more likely to be correct.
Bowlers have to use SOME aggression, even when you've instructed them to be very defensive. Accuracy and general technique both also contribute majorly to how effective their attacking and defensive bowling will be.

And what about when they're on three bars - neither aggressive or defensive (or half and half)?

No, I like your theory - I just like mine slightly better. We need an experiment to test them.

[Xeno]

I think your theory is what I'd LIKE it to be, but I'm not sure it actually is. I think the game is more basic than we all believe. Not an insult at all, just an observation.

Just like batting, when I think 'aggressive' just means how effective they play their aggressive shots, not how often they will do them. As with bowling, if aggressive, is how effective their aggressive deliveries are.

When a player is at three, I think it just means the balance between the bowler bowling aggressive deliveries and defensive ones is equal, and if he is an aggressive bowler, those deliveries are the more effective of the two. Just a theory, not basis to it, but it seems to be that way to me.

[enigma]

If a spin specialist improves against pace to become slight spin pref, surely his ability against spin hasn't been adversely affected because he has got better against pace. I would hope it works like this. My batsman above was very good against spin and lets say average against pace hence the spin specialist pref. Now that he has improved against pace his pref changes to slight spin because now there isn't as much of a gap in his ability against the 2 types of bowling. I would hope that he is now good against pace and still very good against spin.

So which way does it work?

I've traced most of the ratings on the player-page & I can safely say that there're no ratings to determine how good players are against pace & against spin, preferences just tell you who they're more likely to get out against, that's it.
What I mean is that, all things being equal, a spin specialist can score as ably against pace as he does against spin but he is more likely to get out against pacers than spinners. So don't worry, your batsman hasn't gotten worse off against spin, just that now he's less susceptible to getting out against pacers than he previously had been.

I usually try to train my batters to have no preference at all (except agression of course), meaning they are neither susceptible against pace nor spin but obviously, it's difficult to train everyone to lose their preferences by training them so one ought to make choices as to whom they'd rather train.

General technique is obviously there to improve the hidden rating attribute of bowlers. Easy. The rest are pretty self explanatory too. But Accuracy? Does that also improve rating? How do we know if a bowler is inaccurate?

Based on the fact that I've seen bowlers' average-ratings (ones in the excel-sheet) improve on accuracy-training, I could say that it does but I'm a little apprehensive as sometimes players' ratings tend to improve on their own without doing anything.

The way I understand it is this. Attacking technique improves their average (may harm their economy or it may not). Defensive technique improves economy (and may harm their average a la Harbhajan currently).

I'm afraid, based on my observations, I don't think this is true. There's a rating for economy-rate, when you train a player & get a message that they've improved their agressive-bowling, it means his economy-rate-rating has gone up, now he'll be more expensive & his strike-rate may improve but not the average (for example's sake, let's say he was previously going for 12-2-30-1 & now he'll be going for 10-2-30-1; average remains, accuracy falls, economy goes up & strike-rate is improved) On the other hand, when you get a message saying they've improved their defensive-bowling/accuracy, his economy-rate-rating will've decreased, now think about the opposite side of the above example.

General technique is for when neither their average or their economy rate is 'satisfactory'. Accuracy is for when both are satisfactory but you wish to 'gild the lily' eg. since the bowler is young you believe they can improve further.

Based on my observations, I'd just like to point out that if you think that General Technique improves accuracy then that is not true, I've trained some bowlers for years on General Technique & their economy-rate-rating hadn't improved at all.

Just like batting, when I think 'aggressive' just means how effective they play their aggressive shots, not how often they will do them. As with bowling, if aggressive, is how effective their aggressive deliveries are.

Come on, pal, that's not true. It's only too obvious that aggressive batsmen play shots (at least run-scoring ones) more frequently than those who're not agressive. It's possible though (& I'm not sure about this) that an agressive batsman with a rating of 1500 plays shots more frequently than someone with a lower rating as he can afford to take more risks as his rating is higher thus probabilities being on his side.

When a player is at three, I think it just means the balance between the bowler bowling aggressive deliveries and defensive ones is equal, and if he is an aggressive bowler, those deliveries are the more effective of the two. Just a theory, not basis to it, but it seems to be that way to me.

I don't think there're any special "agressive/defensive deliveries" as most of the game's aspects work on probabilities of all kinds, bowling a bowler aggressively or someone who's an aggressive bowler merely means that probabilities of him taking wickets at a faster rate are higher than otherwise & of course, he'd be giving away that many more runs so it's a simple trade-off as described earlier in this post.

[6ry4nj]

I've traced most of the ratings on the player-page & I can safely say that there're no ratings to determine how good players are against pace & against spin, preferences just tell you who they're more likely to get out against, that's it.
What I mean is that, all things being equal, a spin specialist can score as ably against pace as he does against spin but he is more likely to get out against pacers than spinners. So don't worry, your batsman hasn't gotten worse off against spin, just that now he's less susceptible to getting out against pacers than he previously had been.

I notice that Sureshot is still keeping mum about certain things. I infer that he still has secrets to keep, and that no-one yet is telling/can tell all there is to know about the database values.

There's obviously a "rating" (not necessarily quantitative) for strong/slight spin/pace preference (because we can see it in the interface). How do you know that it only effects dismissal probability, and not scoring rate? If there are as you say no other ratings relating to pace/spin proficiency, you can't possibly know.

I usually try to train my batters to have no preference at all (except agression of course), meaning they are neither susceptible against pace nor spin but obviously, it's difficult to train everyone to lose their preferences by training them so one ought to make choices as to whom they'd rather train.

Do you train your batsmen to be as aggressive as possible? Do you think that more aggressive batsmen are better on average? I can well believe it, although tbh I'd rather not (even if it's true). Not that I would ever train anyone to be less aggressive - even though, as it's in the game, you would hope it (ie. defensive training) was of some benefit.

There's a rating for economy-rate

That's interesting! What else ARE there ratings for (I mean that aren't visible in the UI)? Prior to this post, I do believe the general 'batting' and 'bowling' ratings were the only ones that anyone had referenced.

Based on my observations, I'd just like to point out that if you think that General Technique improves accuracy then that is not true, I've trained some bowlers for years on General Technique & their economy-rate-rating hadn't improved at all.

*shrugs* Firstly I said that I use general technique for those whose both visible stats are unsatisfactory. Even if it has no effect on economy-rate, I can't see anything wrong with this as a strategy. Secondly aren't you assuming a one-to-one correspondence between economy-rate and accuracy? By the way, what does it (ie. general technique training) affect?

Lastly a comment (or perhaps 'LAment'). I suppose it's true that coaches often have trouble finding the best strategy to improve the players in their charge. So perhaps all the secrecy serves a purpose re realism. I just hope that playing ('captaining' lol) experience counts for something, so that after I've racked up thirty game years or so (before I retire), I understand the way the 'world' ticks around better than I do now (got about 4 years to date, plus 13 or so one-off 50/50 World Cups). Can I have some reassurance on that score please?

[Xeno]

@Enigma. Maybe it's just the illusion the aggressive player creates. Sure, he'll hit more fours on replay, which makes you think he plays more shots. But maybe the Defensive player's aggressive shots just aren't making it highlight worthy.

[Sureshot]

I notice that Sureshot is still keeping mum about certain things. I infer that he still has secrets to keep, and that no-one yet is telling/can tell all there is to know about the database values.

We're not going to reveal the internal workings of the game or comment on the speculation on how it works. We don't mind you having these threads at all, just don't expect us to reveal all and remember that it is speculation. I'd like to think the reasons for us not revealing how it all works are obvious and understandable.

Would the likes of Football Manager (I guess quite a few of you play that as well) be any fun if you knew exactly what the various training parts did? It's probably the game I play the most after ICC and GT5, I don't think I'd play FM if I didn't have to constantly review every part of my management. Trial and error is good fun, it's what got me interested in ICC in the first place back in 99. I know there are things we need to explain and display better and this will come as we expand over the next several years.

Whilst from the POV of some I can see why they want to know how it all works, that will take the fun out of it for some ( in fact, I'd say the majority). I'm not saying with these threads we're ignoring them completely (far from it), if your feedback is showing an area where we can improve, then we will, that's the point of these forums, which is helping us immensely and I can't say it enough.

[El_Zigi]

Sureshot,

I understand why you don't want to reveal completely how the game works, however I still feel that how certain things work should be clarified to us gameplayers, and I simply can't see any reason why you wouldn't clarify these things. I honestly don't think there's anyone who plays ICC who wouldn't appreciate knowing just exactly what does each training thingy do for example, beyond what is known. If people understood I actually think they'd enjoy the game more, at least then they could allocate their sessions with a definite and clear purpose.

Do players have hidden attributes? Can't see why we can't get a yes or no answer to that question. Everyone who plays FM knows that their players have hidden attributes so why not us ICC gamers?

I could go on but it's late. I think what it all boils down to is this: there's too much speculation going around and that's not a good thing. I feel much of this speculation could and should be put to bed, a bit like me.

I suggest creating a Sticky for this issue. People can post what they're uncertain about and you can clarify where you see fit. As I said before, nobody is looking for tips to help them win, just some clarification on certain things. I'm sure you've seen all the speculation type posts on the forum and I truly feel that putting an end to much of that speculation would be a good thing for the game.

Or would it.

[enigma]

If there are as you say no other ratings relating to pace/spin proficiency, you can't possibly know.

Firstly, may be you should re-read that earlier comment of mine to realise exactly what I've said.

Secondly, I've made no assertions about being the Gospel of Truth, I've merely said that upon editing various things, this is what I've found out, people can take it or leave it, it's that simple but unfounded assertions like "you can't possibly know" are completely pointless since it can also be argued that you can't know what I can or can't know because you don't know how it all works.

And it seems you've already made up your mind about how the game works & you've your own theories (nothing wrong with that either) so I see little point in answering the rest of your queries.

@Enigma. Maybe it's just the illusion the aggressive player creates. Sure, he'll hit more fours on replay, which makes you think he plays more shots. But maybe the Defensive player's aggressive shots just aren't making it highlight worthy.

Well, I always play with highlights on "Every Ball" (I know some may think it's tedious but I think it helps create a life-like experience so I love it ) so I see every ball bowled in the matches that I play & thus, I know that a defensive batsman stonewalls or leaves a lot of deliveries & an aggressive batsman plays many more aggressive shots; if you really want to know then may be you should try it out some time.

We're not going to reveal the internal workings of the game or comment on the speculation on how it works. We don't mind you having these threads at all, just don't expect us to reveal all and remember that it is speculation. I'd like to think the reasons for us not revealing how it all works are obvious and understandable.

Would the likes of Football Manager (I guess quite a few of you play that as well) be any fun if you knew exactly what the various training parts did? It's probably the game I play the most after ICC and GT5, I don't think I'd play FM if I didn't have to constantly review every part of my management. Trial and error is good fun, it's what got me interested in ICC in the first place back in 99. I know there are things we need to explain and display better and this will come as we expand over the next several years.

Whilst from the POV of some I can see why they want to know how it all works, that will take the fun out of it for some ( in fact, I'd say the majority). I'm not saying with these threads we're ignoring them completely (far from it), if your feedback is showing an area where we can improve, then we will, that's the point of these forums, which is helping us immensely and I can't say it enough.

I'm glad that you've clarified that you guys don't mind threads like these & are using them as a guideline for future improvements.

[Xeno]

Cheers Enigma, fantastic to know. At least I've got something out of this thread!

But yea agree with a lot of the points here, especially regarding the fact that knowing how some of these things work would be far from a negative outcome. I can't imagine why people WOULDN'T want to know just what every individual training category does, it how knowing it would adversely effect the game etc.