Of course, thanks for the support!

Thank you for watching! Good question, I can only really think about this anecdotally, but it could definitely be a topic for a future experiment. I would hypothesize that overall coaching attributes are probably more important than the coaching roles (i.e., a bunch of coaches with 20 attributes would be better than a bunch of assistant coaches with 15 attributes), but after that I would say the balance of coaches, per se, might be better than the coaching roles. I think having a dedicated goalkeeping coach, fitness coach, set piece coach, and general coaches would probably be better than having all of them be assistant coaches. From my understanding, having coaches that work on specific areas seems to be slightly better, and I've seen a number of teams where players are happier and have a positive note in their information section that "the club has a dedicated goalkeeping coach, fitness coach, etc." So if I had to guess, I would say that maybe it's better to have coaches under specific roles and the balance of those coaches may be an added boost to the players.

I think these ideas definitely make sense for follow up experiments. It might even be interesting to see which sets of coaching attributes might be more important towards player development. I know those attributes all affect the star ratings for the coaching categories, but I'm not exactly sure how they are weighted in affecting them. Would definitely be an interesting follow up.

I think this can definitely be done! I'll have to check jayhuahua's video though, I know he did a similar concept so would just need to check and make sure I wouldn't be overlapping too much with his video

I think if we were looking to answer what is the best coaching at this level we would need to have done many more simulations, but since this video was looking at overall trends (i.e., better coaching attributes leads to better player development) then we had enough simulations to be able to see that. Overall, we saw what we expected and it was pretty clear that better coaching led to better player development, and while to unpack the nuances of that relationship we would need more simulations (in a more EBFM style), I think this was enough to see the trends we were looking for.

For the most part they were in similar divisions at similar times, although team 20 ended up in the championship in the final season. For this type of question, I think it's good to look at the first season, where they were all in the same division but the team 10 and team 20 coaches did the best.

Lol I don't think I could ever replicate what EBFM, he's a GOAT of the FM community!

From my understanding, it's a combination of league reputation and match ratings. For example, if you had a young player with high potential but a low current ability playing in the EPL with low match ratings, they would probably not develop as much as if that player was playing in league one (closer level to their current ability) and getting high match ratings.