Evolution of the Artificial Turf Quantity Increase in the number of - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Oct 09, 2023 578 likes •889 views

R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THIRD - GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS AND PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF SOCCER PLAYERS Javier Snchez-Snchez & Leonor Gallardo Berln, 2016 F RAMEWORK STUDY 1: I NFLUENCE

SLIDE 1

Javier Sánchez-Sánchez & Leonor Gallardo Berlín, 2016

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

OF THIRD-GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS AND PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF SOCCER PLAYERS

SLIDE 2

FRAMEWORK

STUDY 1: INFLUENCE

OF THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE THIRD GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS ON THE PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE AND THE PLAYERS’ PERCEPTION

STUDY 2: PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF FOOTBALL PLAYERS IN THIRD

GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS DURING A SIMULATED GAME SITUATION

CONCLUSIONS

SLIDE 3

Framework Study 1 Study 2

Evolution of the Artificial Turf Quantity Quality

Increase in the number of fields Qualitative improvement of the structural components

Conclusions

1980s 1990s Present day 1970s

SLIDE 4

ADVANTAGES OF ARTIFICIAL TURF

Minimizes maintenance’s cost Increases rental incomes Reduces cost per hour of usage

1º Generation 2º Generation 3º Generation Natural grass Average of usage (hours per year) 2000 2220 2220 150 Cost per hour (€) 62 52 35 262 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 5

Burillo et al., 2012 Alcántara et al., 2009

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 6

PRE-FIBRILLATION INFILL SAND DOBLE BACKING ELASTIC LAYER ASPHALT SUB-BASE GRADED AGGREGATE

LAYER

COMPACTED GRAVEL

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 7

Same speed between artificial and natural turf in sprint (Gains et al., 2010) Fatigue and physiological response does not differ between both surfaces (Hughes et al., 2013) Absence of differences between both surfaces in technical parameters and running actions, except in the amount of tackles and short passes

(Andersson et al., 2008)

Sprint and jump performance and subjective rating of the players are similar between artificial and natural turf (Nédélec

et al., 2013)

Contact time in cutting does not differ between 3G turf and grass, whereas new studies suggest that this parameter varies between different 3G turf systems

(McGhie & Ettema, 2012)

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 8

18 amateur football players 5 years of experience Training 2 h/day 3-4 days/week 4 artificial turf systems

AGE

22.44±1.72 years

MASS

73.74±6.47 Kg

HEIGHT

174.7±6 cm

% FAT

14.74±4.15 %

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

WARM UP CMJ*, SJ*, 15 S JUMP TEST

REPEATED SPRINT ABILITY TEST 6 X 20+20 M

SHOOT TO

GOAL PRE

CMJ AND SJ

JUMP TEST POST

SHOOT TO

GOAL POST

LACTATE TEST 1 Y 3

MIN

VAS

*CMJ: Countermovement Jump; SJ: Squat Jump

SLIDE 9

MECHANICALPROPERTIESEVALUATION Force Reduction Rotational Traction Vertical Deformation

Player-Surface Interaction

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

Ball-Surface Interaction

Vertical Ball Rebound Ball Roll

SLIDE 10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

System1 (a) System 2 (b) System 3 (c) System 4 (d) F p FR (%) 51.30 ± 2.52 b,c 69.83 ± 1.18 60.10 ± 2.04 b 48.07 ±3.67 a,b,c 451.63 < 0.001 StV (mm) 3.63 ± 0.43 b,c 6.56 ± 0.37 4.68 ± 0.45 b 3.43 ± 0.48 b,c 326.92 < 0.001 ER (%) 42.63 ± 1.50 c,d 42.07 ± 1.46 c,d 43.90 ± 1.45 d 50.50 ± 2.19 161.26 < 0.001 RT (N·m) 45.56 ± 2.84 b,c,d 42.44 ± 3.14 a,d 41.72 ± 2.81 a,d 54.60 ± 4 83.81 < 0.001

(McGhie & Ettema, 2012)

MECHANICALPROPERTIES

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

FR: Force Reduction StV: Vertical Deforma mation ER: Energy Restitution RT: Rotational Traction

SLIDE 11

Number of jump

STUDY VARIABLES

Total Time

TEST RSA

Average Time Fatigue(%Dec y %Dif) Speed

JUMP TEST

Height Fatigue (%Dec)

SHOOT TO

GOAL

Speed Best Time

Spi IQ, GPSports, Australia Microgate, Bolzano, Italy

Power Heart Rate

Optojump next, Microgate, Bolzano Stalker ATS, Radar Sales, MN

Lactate

Lactate Scout, SensLab GmbH, Leipzig

PERCEPTION

VAS survey

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

System 1 (a) System 2 (b) System 3 (c) System 4 (d) F p RSAMEAN (s) 7.93 ± 0.30 c 7.97 ± 0.26 c 8.24 ± 0.29 8.02 ± 0.25 4.214 0.009 RSABEST (s) 7.38 ± 0.35 c 7.50 ± 0.26 7.74 ± 0.29 7.51 ± 0.32 4.002 0.011 RSATT (s) 47.55 ± 1.82 c 47.85 ± 1.59 c 49.46 ± 1.75 48.14 ± 1.48 4.216 0.009 % Dec Sprint 40 m 7.44 ± 1.74 6.40 ± 2.45 6.53 ± 2.10 6.90 ± 2.85 0.681 0.567 % Dif Sprint 40 m 13.42 ± 2.99 12.20 ± 4.63 11.37 ± 3.87 12.08 ± 4.03 0.782 0.508 There are no differences among the four artificial turf systems on speed, fatigue and heart rate values

RSA TEST

(Oliver, 2009; Pyne et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2006) (Luo & Stefanyshyn, 2011) Differences disappear as from the 5th sprint

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 13

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION RSA TEST

Absence of significant differences among blood lactate values

Ford et al., 2006 Livesay, et al., 2006 Pérez-Soriano et al., 2009 Brito et al., 2012

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 14

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CMJ SJ 15 s Test

VERTICAL JUMP

Significant performance degradation after RSA test Lower performance degradation in System 4 Significant performance degradation after RSA test Lower performance degradation in System 4 Higher performance degradation on the hardest system (S4) in comparison with the softest system (S2)

Hughes et al., 2013 Brito et al., 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Pinnington & Dawson, 2001; Pinnington et al., 2005

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 15

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PERCEPTION

Brito et al., 2012 Hughes et al., 2013

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

VAS 1: Effort during the session VAS 2: Fatigue VAS 3: Difficult in change change direction VAS 4: Jump mp test Performa mance VAS 5: Running Performa mance VAS 6: Comf mfort

SLIDE 16

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION INDEPENDENTVARIABLES

Shock Absorption Rotational Traction and Energy Restitution Energy restitution

VAS 6: Comfort

RSA mean time

R² = 0.144

RSA best time RSA total time Maximum average speed

R² = 0.165 R² = 0.158 R² = 0.165 R² = 0.071

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 17

20 amateur football players Minimum experience of 5 year Training 2 h/day 3-4 days/week Goalkeepers excluded from the analysis

AGE

21.65±3.10 years

MASS

69.38±3.84 Kg

HEIGHT

176.5±4.8 cm

% FAT

11.46±4.23 %

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

1. Yo-Yo Test of intermittent recovery
2. Simulated Game situation
Game of 45 min
Minimum recovery of 72 h between matches
Supervised by a referee (FIFA rules)

20 m 5 m

SLIDE 18

Covered Distance

STUDY VARIABLES EXTERNAL LOAD

Speed Movement profile Sprint actions Acceleration Impacts Player load

INTERNAL LOAD

Heart Rate Intensity Categories

PERCEPTION

VAS survey

Spi IQ, GPSports, Australia Polar Team System, Kempele, Finland

Work:rest rate

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 19

RESULT AND DISCUSSION EXTERNAL LOAD

Total Distance (m) Work:RestRate Players Load (u.a/min) Vmax Peak (km/h)

z

p>0.05

Accelerations and impacts

Randers et al., 2010 Kerdok et al., 2002 Arampatzis et al., 2004; Di Michele et al., 2009 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 20

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION EXTERNAL LOAD

Activity Profile

Brito et al., 2012; Giatsis et al., 2004 Mujika et al., 2009 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions St: standing (0-2 km/h) W: walking (2-7 km/h) ER: easy running (7-13 km/h) FR: fast running (13-18 km/h) HSR: high-speed running (18-21 km/h) Sp: sprinting (>21 km/h)

SLIDE 21

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION EXTERNAL LOAD

High Intensity Actions

System 1 (a) System2 (b) System3 (c) System4 (d)

High Intensity Distance (% Total Distance)

23.15±5.69 24.02±4.04 24.85±4.39 27.17±5.46

High Intensity Distance (m)

1167.70±356.05 1184.55±267.28 1217.03±293.10 1382.10±354.86

Number of sprint (n)

8.53±3.98d 8.40±4.19 d 9.25±4.10 12.65±5.67

Sprint Duration (s)

2.69±0.67 2.44±0.30 2.37±0.50 2.71±0.49

Average Vmax sprint (km/h)

25.26±0.92 24.48±0.77 a 24.43±0.73a 25.04±0.87

Average distance sprint (m)

17.91±4.87 15.77±2.21 15.38±3.24 17.94±3.64

Maximum acceleration Peak (m/s2)

4.15±0.31 4.32±0.29 4.22±0.36 4.41±0.37

Increase of the impact forces or decrease of contact time

McGhie & Ettema, 2012; Meijer et al., 2006

Higher reuse of elastic energy or increase of reaction forces

Miyama & Nosaka, 2004 Bishop, 2003 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 22

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION INTERNALLOAD

Hughes et al., 2013 Nédélec et al., 2013 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 23

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PERCEPTION

Higher ball speed was perceived System 4 Higher difficulty in tackle performance System 2 + Cushioning capacity - Glissade + Glissade + Ball Control Difficulty

Andersson et al., 2008 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions Stiles & Dixon, 2007

SLIDE 24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Energy Restitution Rotational Traction and Energy Restitution Rotational Traction

High Speed running distance Running sprint distance

R² = 0.133

Average Vmax sprint Average sprint distance

R² = 0.154 R² = 0.166 R² = 0.103

McGhie & Ettema, 2012; Schrier et al., 2014 Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 25

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 26

CONCLUSIONS

1. The mechanical heterogeneity of artificial turf systems does not affect the physiological response of the players in a repeated sprint test.

2. High level of rotational traction, within normative ranges, improves sprint time and

change of direction in repeated actions.

3. Playersnoted higher level of comfort on systems with lower shock absoprtion rates.

The mechanical properties of the playing surface have proved to be a determining variablein the performance test, regarding the actions of play during football practice.

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 27

CONCLUSIONS

1. Systems with higher force reduction levels and lower rotational traction reported

lower maximum speed peaks in the final split of the match.

2. The distance covered at high-speed running and sprint was higher on the system with

lower force reduction and higher rotational traction.

3. The physiological response of the players revealed non-significant changes among the

four artificial turf systems. High levels of hardness, stiffness and resistance to rotation show benefits in high- intensity actions performance during a simulated football game.

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 28

FINAL CONCLUSION

The structural heterogeneity of the artificial turf football fields leads to a variability in the mechanical behavior and sport functionality that alters the performance of players.

Framework Study 1 Study 2 Conclusions

SLIDE 29