[Kevin in Louisiana]

I've been thinking about this. Let's say you're training playmaking. You can expect, even as a player just starting out, to get two levels of increase in a season (it'll move slightly slower for older trainees, but it still should get two in a season). So let's say you have a 17-year-old inadequate at the beginning of the season. At year's end he'll be solid. At the end of his 18-year-old season he'll be formidable. At the end of his 19-year-old season he'll be brilliant. And at the end of his 20-year-old season he should be world-class, or at leats high magnificent. If you'd started out with an 18-year-old you'd need him to be solid at the beginning of the season to equal a 17-year-old inadequate. A 19-year-old would need to be formidable to equal the same 17-year-old.

Or, to put it another way, a 19-year-old passable playmaker is equal to a 17-year-old wretched. (And for something like winger that trains even faster, you could be looking at an even greater difference).

Am I missing something here? It seems like overall people place far too much emphasis on the quality of trainees and not enough on age. A player just starting out in Hattrick is, for the most part, better off with 17-year-olds almost totally regardless of skill level. 17-year-old inadequates can be had for almost nothing, which is much less than an 18-year-old solid. Sure the younger you start the longer you have to train. But I don't see why it's not worth it.

Thoughts?

[Helghallen]

I never really gave it that much thought, but what you say makes sense. What do the veterans think of this?

I have begun the process of finding 17 yos in the hopes of lowering the overall age of my trainees. I found a 17 inad PM right after I started playing and he popped first week. Not great but OK. I took a 17 yo pass at the beginning of the season and he popped to solid in three weeks or so. I'd have to check to confirm, but either way he is going to be excellent in about 6 weeks. It would be even better if my coach were passable or solid.

I hope to someday be able to afford an excellent 17 yo and put him in the U20, but with my plan right now: 17 yo inad/pass PM at the beginning of the season, I will certainly be able to compete and certainly make myself a nice bit of change.

[ArsenalTexan3]

Yeah the younger the better in most cases. I try and find 17 or 18 yrs to train, but if i find a solid 19 yr, I figure they are better than my inads.

[Helghallen]

Originally Posted by ArsenalTexan3

Yeah the younger the better in most cases. I try and find 17 or 18 yrs to train, but if i find a solid 19 yr, I figure they are better than my inads.

I think Kevin's point is this, while the 19 yr may be better now, the 17 yr has much more potential. If a 17yo inad and 19yo solid are bought first week of season, the 17 yo will go higher faster and farther than the 19 solid. In fact, after one season, the 17 yo will be a solid himself.

[johno]

This is helpful... taking notes...

[AAGunner3]

That is the way I've looked at it too. A 17 yo inad is better in the long run than a 18 yo passable. But we all have to weigh our needs now, vs the future. I hope to graduate to DIV IV someday, and I will likely need older 'trainees' to compete. Why? Because I won't survive long in Div IV if all I have are solids. I'll likely need an older player or two that are above the XL/trainee ceiling.

Also, a 19 yo solid, will hit formidable sooner than a 17 passable. Can you compete with 17 yo passables in your series? I can't. So I'm training the guys I have now. When I cash in, I'll be definitely looking to maximize my value by going for a combination of 'young', skilled trainees.

[Kevin in Louisiana]

AA-true, it's a matter of weighing now vs. the future. But it seems to me that so many people don't really care about winning anyway (an attitude which so often I can't understand--in real life some clubs may have an attitude of planning for the future even if it weakens the squad in the present, so I can understand HT'ers doing that, but throwing games because you want to play a qualifier or you don't want to promote? That seems smelly to me). Anyway, end of digression. If you can stick with a regimen for a long enough time you might have a scenario where you have a few 19-year-olds who you've been training since 17 who have gone from inadequate to brilliant and a few 17-year-olds who are, hopefully, better than inadequate since you should have some cash now. That way you can have your older trainees playing your league matches and the younger trainees in friendlies.

[junjunforever]

but think about it in opportunity cost terms. You are thinking about 3 season trainees. although 17 year old inadequates will train faster, 18 year old passables will reach the brilliant stage faster (point where return on training levels off significantly). oops. i have to go play soccer with some buddies. i'm sorry if i made a dumb comment without thinking thoroughly.

[Kevin in Louisiana]

Well if it's the case that you only need to get players to brilliant then you'd have an excellent point. Not knowing enough about dealing with players that expensive, I can't really comment.

[Craig P]

There's a trade-off. Yes, the 17-yo may have a higher ceiling if you plan to stop training at a certain age, but that's not what really matters. What really matters is how much resale value you earn per week of training. Both age and starting skill level play into that, since it's driven by the marginal increase in resale value for an added level of skill. For anything below formidable, that marginal increase is pretty low, and it's practically nonexistent below passable.