Higher scores do not necessarily make smarter footballers
Technology can deliver more repetitions and faster feedback. Kenneth Cortsen questions what we really measure — and NST explores the implications for talent development in Norway.
<p><strong>A player can get faster at hitting an illuminated target without getting better at spotting the decisive pass. A new analysis by Kenneth Cortsen poses an important question for sportstech: does technology develop better footballers, or simply better scores in the exercises we have designed?</strong></p> <p>In an <a href="https://kennethcortsen.com/talentudvikling-fodbold-teknologi-kreativitet/">article published on 7 November</a>, Cortsen explores how technology, data and game mechanics might support creativity and independent decisions. He does not reject structure. His argument is that value depends on training design, coaching expertise and the connection to the game itself.</p> <p>For Norwegian clubs and technology companies, this goes beyond pedagogy. It also concerns what they buy, the outcomes they promise and how an investment should actually be evaluated.</p> <h2>From illuminated targets to real opponents</h2> <p>Cortsen uses the Danish training concept Goal Station to illustrate interactive practice involving performance recording, feedback and gamification. Here, gamification means game mechanics such as challenges, levels and visible progression, rather than replacing football practice with a video game.</p> <p>These environments can offer repeated practice with both feet, varying pace, receiving angles and visual cues. But responding to a light is not the same as reading an opponent’s movement or recognising that a teammate is creating space.</p> <p>Cortsen therefore argues for linking technology-supported practice to rondos, small-sided games and other activities involving real teammates and opponents. Technique, game understanding and creativity should develop together, not necessarily as a sequence in which players must master the technology before exploring the game.</p> <h2>Not a new effectiveness study</h2> <p>The discussion draws partly on work Cortsen conducted with Daniel Rascher. <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Interactive-Sports-Technologies-Performance-Participation-Safety/Tzankova-Filimowicz/p/book/9781032070490">Routledge’s contents listing</a> confirms their authorship of the chapter “The Relevance of a Gamified Football/Soccer Development Platform”.</p> <p>In his new article, Cortsen describes the research as a qualitative case study. He explicitly cautions that it does not demonstrate that Goal Station is automatically superior to other training methods, or that improved exercise results produce better match performance and greater creativity.</p> <p>This distinction matters. The article examines opportunities and conditions for use; it does not report a newly proven breakthrough for a particular product. NST’s coverage draws on the article and the publisher’s information, not an independent review of the complete book chapter.</p> <h2>When chasing points rewards the safe option</h2> <p>Fast feedback and new levels may make repetition more engaging. Cortsen also identifies a potential conflict: if a system rewards only speed, precision and avoiding mistakes, players may be encouraged to choose the safest solution.</p> <p>Creativity in football is not limited to spectacular tricks. It can involve an unexpected pass, a movement that opens space or a change of tempo that helps the team. These decisions can be valuable without producing the highest score in a standardised drill.</p> <p>The challenge is therefore not to choose between data and freedom. It is to create training environments in which measurements support learning without allowing the measurement to become the entire objective.</p> <h2>NST’s assessment: Test transfer, not just technology</h2> <p>For Norwegian academies and grassroots clubs, one practical implication is to start with a specific learning need rather than a product demonstration. Should the player scan earlier, use both feet or identify more options under pressure? The answer should shape both the exercise and its evaluation.</p> <p>One possible pilot would combine technology-supported drills with small-sided games, observe the same skill in both settings and track development over time. A comparison with ordinary training could offer a stronger basis for assessment than simply showing players improving their own system scores. This is NST’s proposal, not an existing Norwegian trial.</p> <p>Coaching time, players’ experiences and opportunities to experiment and make mistakes should also be considered. In children’s football, activities need to suit age and play rather than replicate senior performance demands. Individual data concerning minors also require clear purposes, an established lawful basis and control over access and storage.</p> <h2>The competitive advantage may lie with the coach</h2> <p>Cortsen also offers a management perspective: several clubs can purchase the same system. The difference may lie in how coaches combine it with expertise, individual support and a learning culture. Potential sporting and financial benefits remain possibilities, not demonstrated consequences of purchasing technology.</p> <p>For Norwegian sportstech suppliers, this suggests a clearer value proposition: not simply delivering more data points, but helping clubs investigate what players learn and carry into matches. The most interesting technology is not necessarily the one that makes the drill smartest. It is the technology used within an environment that helps players think for themselves.</p> <p><small>Source-based analysis. Sources checked on 7 November 2026 and linked in the text. The section labelled NST’s assessment contains our proposals and Norwegian perspectives. The hero is an illustrative image from NST’s image archive, not documentation of Goal Station.</small></p>