Scholarlink

Background <p>The 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.</p> Aim <p>This 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.</p> Methods <p>Eighty-four male amateur soccer players (age 17.1 ± 0.7 years) were randomly allocated to three groups (<i>n</i> = 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&#xa0;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.</p> Results <p>Significant group effects were observed for Received Ball (F = 4.02, <i>p</i> = 0.022, η²<i>p</i> = 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, <i>p</i> = 0.021, η²<i>p</i> = 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, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, η²<i>p</i> = 0.162), with HID consistently outperforming both AIID and CG across all cognitive subscales.</p> Conclusion <p>Human-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.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparing human-led reflective dialogue and AI-based tactical guidance as innovative training approaches in soccer: effects on tactical performance and problem-solving

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月15日

查看全文
  • Hajer Sahli,
  • Mohamed Mansour Bouzouraa,
  • Mahmoud Rebhi,
  • Halil İbrahim Ceylan,
  • Hasan Hüseyin Yılmaz,
  • Dragos Ovidiu,
  • Raul Ioan Muntean,
  • Wissem Dhahbi,
  • Abdallh Naima,
  • Makram Zghibi

摘要

Background

The 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.

Aim

This 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.

Methods

Eighty-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.

Results

Significant 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.

Conclusion

Human-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.