ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Comparing human-led reflective dialogue and AI-based tactical guidance as innovative training approaches in soccer: effects on tactical performance and problem-solving.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe integration of human-led reflective dialogue and artificial intelligence represents two emerging, contrasting approaches to tactical training in soccer. However, the comparative effectiveness of these approaches within applied training environments remains insufficiently examined.
aimThis study evaluated the differential effects of structured human idea-debate sessions versus AI-generated tactical guidance on tactical performance and problem-solving competencies during soccer training.
methodsEighty-four male amateur soccer players (age 17.1 ± 0.7 years) were randomly allocated to three groups (n = 28 each): Human Idea-Debate (HID), employing a play-discuss-play training model in which players collectively analyzed tactical problems and formulated solutions; AI-Ideation Delivery (AIID), implementing ChatGPT-generated tactical action plans as an AI-based training intervention; and a passive Control Group (CG). The intervention comprised eight small-sided game sessions (7v7 format, 50 × 40 m pitch), delivered twice per week over four weeks. Tactical performance was assessed using the Team Sport Assessment Procedure, while problem-solving competencies were evaluated using the validated Arabic Problem-Solving Inventory administered before and after the intervention.
resultsSignificant group effects were observed for Received Ball (F = 4.02, p = 0.022, η²p = 0.043), with HID showing a 9.4% improvement compared with 7.0% in AIID and 3.8% in CG from Session 1 to Session 8. Performance Score demonstrated superior gains in HID (F = 4.12, p = 0.021, η²p = 0.045), increasing by 6.2% versus 4.1% in AIID. The Efficiency Index exhibited the largest improvement in HID (+ 70.5%), compared with + 18.7% in AIID. Problem-Solving Confidence differed significantly between groups (F = 14.82, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.162), with HID consistently outperforming both AIID and CG across all cognitive subscales.
conclusionHuman-led reflective dialogue represents a more effective, innovative training approach than AI-generated tactical prescriptions for enhancing tactical performance and problem-solving in soccer. These findings highlight the critical role of social interaction, collective reasoning, and reflective learning processes in supporting adaptive decision-making and performance development in applied soccer training contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.