However, instead of only seeing the negative aspects, practitioners should recognize and use the scientific literature to their advantage. An example: Since the scientific approach evaluates methods critically and statistically, it can improve the accuracy of risk assessments as to whether a method should be included in the daily training procedure or not. In order to make these assessments as accurate as possible, one must have completed years of scientific training, while additionally having a practical way of thinking and exchanging ideas with practitioners. It is precisely this combination that can ultimately lead to success, because one can profitably apply the latest scientific results in practice.

An example in the neuroscientific literature is a publication from 2018 on the training potential of cognitive training devices [5]. The study critically assessed the transfer of these cognitive training methods into competition. The authors concluded that such a transfer is unfortunately rather unrealistic for many cognitive training devices. Their main argument was that many training methods are not directly applicable on the pitch. It is precisely these studies that motivate us at neuro11 to carry out our training not in the laboratory but directly on the pitch. Through this practical way of thinking and application we increase the chance of transfer from training to competition. This is because we believe in training the athlete where he ultimately needs it most: Directly on the pitch.