It is now available - https://images.mlssoccer.com/image/upload/v1754861192/assets/mls-next-resources/MLS_NEXT_HD_Technical_Standards_2025-26_Final_gjplo0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly i am not going to be able to convince you that letting AI, yes Taka, decide games is a horrible idea. Also, let’s be clear, this is an AI system deciding games. I am sure the software is fine, but come’on people. This is getting further away from why American soccer is far behind the rest of the world. I dont care, have a daughter who plays. However, as a traditionalist, this idea is bad. I give it a year or two to phase out. Other countries are embracing delaying 11v11 longer as their method to innovate and here we are trying to use software to tell us if our kid played well or not.

Taka, is an indictment on parents and coaches.

Coaches, because it’s clear that at the younger competitive ages, coaches can not be uniform enough in their POE to develop professional talent at an acceptable rate. Variety of reasons and incentives that make it hard for coaches, so this relieves pressure from them so they can focus on development.

Parents, because this stops the parental coaching that undermines coaches and teams and ultimately the individual player’s development because mom and dad like their videos of Chad being selfish and scoring goals at the expense of the team. Chad didn’t pass all game and kept losing the ball on the right touch line, but he score 2 goals…Taka says…Char sucks.

Ironically, Chad will move to ECNL, and mom and dad will be ECNL crazies. And Chad will make D2 and quit after 2 years.

Nailed it!

Anonymous wrote:Parents of players who’ve had Taka assess their play, what have you learned about the player that was different? Do you think their Taka highlights is an accurate representation of their abilities? Etc.?

I've found it to be pretty good, if a little uneven. From an individual highlight perspective, I think there are definitely things it misses. It provides the player with a set of positive and negative highlights based on video submitted by the home team. Sometimes I don't get a particular play included that I think was a highlight. And sometimes it even misidentifies a player. That said, I'd say its a useful tool. The analysis of team attacking and defending moves seems good, and when you watch it, you can see the names of individuals in the move and what the analysts are crediting in each one.

Also, it's a little inconsistent between games. From the taka website and the AI summary below, the actual analysis is done by people.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Raw footage analysis: Taka takes raw game footage and uploads it to their proprietary scoring software.
Expert analysts: Taka employs human analysts who are experts in reviewing sports footage.
Player identification: Analysts identify players based on their shirt numbers.
Scoring actions: They then assess every significant action, assigning positive or negative scores based on the impact of the action on the game.
Highlight generation: These scores are used to identify and create personalized highlights.
Dynamic CVs: The highlights are organized into dynamic youth soccer CVs, which can be used by athletes to showcase their skills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that mslN is also using AI to determine games for younger ages. No more scores. Sounds like a disaster.

It seems to be a success from the coaches - both club and neutral - that I’ve talked to in person. The only naysayers or skeptics are parents whose players aren’t being highlighted and can’t coast on just being part of teams that win.

I was talking to basketball parent about it and they thought it made so much sense and was wishing they had it for youth basketball too.

Sounds like participation awards

You should be embarrassed. It’s much harder to play well than to win, especially at younger ages.

Think about it. Nearly 50% of teams win. But how many play good soccer? That’s why “quality” is a better goal to shoot for if you’re serious about development. Sadly, too many parents prefer the win at 12 years old.

Nope, not saying that. AI determining winners and losers is absurd. Someone programmed it so there is an inherent bias already on what it good and bad. Teams will figure out how to game the AI and defeat the entire purpose. Learning how to come back after losing is one of the most important life skills anyone can have. Also, tournaments aren’t using this horrible idea so you would be the “best team based on AI” and not win a single tournament? Seems like a very confusing message for kids. Also, if MLSN is so premier, why do we need to change from what has worked for 100s of years?

Italy does not keep scores and records until U15. They produce more quality professionals than us.

The fact that you keep looking at the rankings is the problem. Stop looking at them and aiming to manufacture superiority for a 12 year old. Let the kids learn how to play.

Soccer is a game that you can manipulate to win in the younger ages that is counterproductive to development which manifests itself in our kids starting at age 14/15.

The kids will internally keep score. Every game no matter what. That is all that is needed to “come back.” The rest is parental drama. Go watch White Lotus if this does not sink in.

Parents of players who’ve had Taka assess their play, what have you learned about the player that was different? Do you think their Taka highlights is an accurate representation of their abilities? Etc.?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the 25-26 technical standards pls?

A google search just pulls up last year’s. I could have sworn I saw it posted on another thread and/or forum but can’t remember.

Thanks!

In Kitman Labs when you register your son.

Got it! Thank you!

Anonymous wrote:Clearly i am not going to be able to convince you that letting AI, yes Taka, decide games is a horrible idea. Also, let’s be clear, this is an AI system deciding games. I am sure the software is fine, but come’on people. This is getting further away from why American soccer is far behind the rest of the world. I dont care, have a daughter who plays. However, as a traditionalist, this idea is bad. I give it a year or two to phase out. Other countries are embracing delaying 11v11 longer as their method to innovate and here we are trying to use software to tell us if our kid played well or not.

Taka, is an indictment on parents and coaches.

Coaches, because it’s clear that at the younger competitive ages, coaches can not be uniform enough in their POE to develop professional talent at an acceptable rate. Variety of reasons and incentives that make it hard for coaches, so this relieves pressure from them so they can focus on development.

Parents, because this stops the parental coaching that undermines coaches and teams and ultimately the individual player’s development because mom and dad like their videos of Chad being selfish and scoring goals at the expense of the team. Chad didn’t pass all game and kept losing the ball on the right touch line, but he score 2 goals…Taka says…Char sucks.

Ironically, Chad will move to ECNL, and mom and dad will be ECNL crazies. And Chad will make D2 and quit after 2 years.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post the 25-26 technical standards pls?

A google search just pulls up last year’s. I could have sworn I saw it posted on another thread and/or forum but can’t remember.

Thanks!

In Kitman Labs when you register your son.

Can someone post the 25-26 technical standards pls?

A google search just pulls up last year’s. I could have sworn I saw it posted on another thread and/or forum but can’t remember.

Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:As much as overemphasis on wins and loses is a development killer, Taka seems like a creativity killer. So the kid who takes the shot and makes it when the Eastern European in a sweat shop watching his film thinks he should have passed it off gets dinged. Or the kid who takes the chance and dribbles that does or does not work out gets negative marks and a red light.
Where’s the fun and creativity? Practice is for learning and following the rules. Games should be where kids learn to read the field and try things. The USa doesn’t need bot players.

Or…you can not play to the scoreboard, wins, losses or Taka.

Your kid can become creative if you stop the uncreative act of trying to track and quantify creativity.

Ignore scoreboards, ignore Taka and just play freely. If the kid is talented, he will be found regardless of the naked Russian judges scores.

Anonymous wrote:Clearly i am not going to be able to convince you that letting AI, yes Taka, decide games is a horrible idea. Also, let’s be clear, this is an AI system deciding games. I am sure the software is fine, but come’on people. This is getting further away from why American soccer is far behind the rest of the world. I dont care, have a daughter who plays. However, as a traditionalist, this idea is bad. I give it a year or two to phase out. Other countries are embracing delaying 11v11 longer as their method to innovate and here we are trying to use software to tell us if our kid played well or not.

Who is this that keeps saying AI will decide winners and losers?

Only the amount of goals determines who wins or loses in soccer.
Choosing to track the scoreboard and making it important is something else.

Anonymous wrote:Is there a video explaining this

https://www.mlssoccer.com/mlsnext/qualityofplay/

Is there a video explaining this

Anonymous wrote:As much as overemphasis on wins and loses is a development killer, Taka seems like a creativity killer. So the kid who takes the shot and makes it when the Eastern European in a sweat shop watching his film thinks he should have passed it off gets dinged. Or the kid who takes the chance and dribbles that does or does not work out gets negative marks and a red light.
Where’s the fun and creativity? Practice is for learning and following the rules. Games should be where kids learn to read the field and try things. The USa doesn’t need bot players.

That is simply not true. My kid has gotten a lot of highlights from Taka including when the play doesn’t result in anything. Taka will highlight a player who does the following:

Dribble (even if only partially successful)
Take on 1v1s
Position themselves defensively even if they don’t get the ball.
Connect a few skills - eg, dribble, 1v1, shot, even if the shot sucks or doesn’t go in
Make a shot even if the shot doesn’t go in.
Jump up for a header
Connect a few passes with another player
Complete a pass
And so on and so forth

I mean the willingness to be creative or do a number of skills is likely why some teams score high on QoP even though they lose so very much.

As much as overemphasis on wins and loses is a development killer, Taka seems like a creativity killer. So the kid who takes the shot and makes it when the Eastern European in a sweat shop watching his film thinks he should have passed it off gets dinged. Or the kid who takes the chance and dribbles that does or does not work out gets negative marks and a red light.
Where’s the fun and creativity? Practice is for learning and following the rules. Games should be where kids learn to read the field and try things. The USa doesn’t need bot players.