R ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THIRD - GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS AND PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE OF SOCCER PLAYERS Javier Sánchez-Sánchez & Leonor Gallardo Berlín, 2016
F RAMEWORK STUDY 1: I NFLUENCE OF THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE THIRD GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS ON THE PHYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE AND THE PLAYERS ’ PERCEPTION STUDY 2: P HYSICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF FOOTBALL PLAYERS IN THIRD GENERATION ARTIFICIAL TURF SYSTEMS DURING A SIMULATED GAME SITUATION C ONCLUSIONS
Evolution of the Artificial Turf Quantity Increase in the number of fields Qualitative improvement of the structural Quality components 1970s 1990s 1980s Present day Framework Study 1 Conclusions Study 2
A DVANTAGES 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 Conclusions Study 2
Burillo et al., 2012 Alcántara et al., 2009 Framework Study 1 Conclusions Study 2
P RE - FIBRILLATION I NFILL S AND D OBLE BACKING E LASTIC L AYER A SPHALT SUB - BASE G RADED AGGREGATE LAYER C OMPACTED GRAVEL Framework Study 1 Conclusions Study 2
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) Sprint and jump performance and subjective rating of the players are similar between artificial and natural turf (Nédélec 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) 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 Conclusions Study 2
18 amateur football players 22.44±1.72 years A GE 73.74±6.47 Kg M ASS 5 years of experience 174.7±6 cm H EIGHT Training 2 h/day 3-4 days/week 14.74±4.15 % % F AT 4 artificial turf systems L ACTATE S HOOT TO CMJ AND SJ WARM UP T EST 1 Y 3 R EPEATED S PRINT GOAL PRE JUMP TEST POST MIN A BILITY TEST 6 X VAS S HOOT TO CMJ*, SJ*, 15 S 20+20 M J UMP T EST GOAL POST *CMJ: Countermovement Jump; SJ: Squat Jump Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
M ECHANICAL P ROPERTIES E VALUATION Player-Surface Interaction Ball-Surface Interaction Force Vertical Ball Reduction Rebound Rotational Vertical Traction Deformation Ball Roll Framework Study 1 Conclusions Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION FR: Force Reduction M ECHANICAL P ROPERTIES StV: Vertical Deforma mation ER: Energy Restitution RT: Rotational Traction System1 (a) System 2 (b) System 3 (c) System 4 (d) F p 60.10 ± 2.04 b 48.07 ±3.67 a,b,c 451.63 < 0.001 FR (%) 51.30 ± 2.52 b,c 69.83 ± 1.18 6.56 ± 0.37 3.63 ± 0.43 b,c 4.68 ± 0.45 b 3.43 ± 0.48 b,c StV (mm) 326.92 < 0.001 42.63 ± 1.50 c,d 42.07 ± 1.46 c,d 43.90 ± 1.45 d ER (%) 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) Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
S TUDY V ARIABLES S HOOT TO T EST RSA J UMP T EST GOAL Total Time Height Speed Average Time Fatigue (%Dec) Microgate, Bolzano, Italy Best Time Power Stalker ATS, Radar Sales, Fatigue(%Dec y %Dif) Number of jump MN Speed P ERCEPTION Heart Rate Spi IQ, Optojump next, Microgate, GPSports, Bolzano Lactate Australia VAS survey Lactate Scout, SensLab GmbH, Leipzig Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION RSA T EST (Oliver, 2009; Pyne et al., 2008; Spencer et al., 2006) (Luo & Stefanyshyn, 2011) System 1 (a) System 2 (b) System 3 (c) System 4 (d) F p 7.93 ± 0.30 c 7.97 ± 0.26 c RSA MEAN (s) 8.24 ± 0.29 8.02 ± 0.25 4.214 0.009 RSA BEST (s) 7.38 ± 0.35 c 7.50 ± 0.26 7.74 ± 0.29 7.51 ± 0.32 4.002 0.011 47.55 ± 1.82 c 47.85 ± 1.59 c 49.46 ± 1.75 RSA TT (s) 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 Differences disappear as from the 5th sprint There are no differences among the four artificial turf systems on speed, fatigue and heart rate values Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION RSA T EST Absence of significant differences among blood lactate values Brito et al., 2012 Ford et al., 2006 Livesay, et al., 2006 Pérez-Soriano et al., 2009 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION Hughes et al., 2013 Significant performance degradation after RSA test CMJ Lower performance degradation in System 4 Significant performance degradation after RSA test V ERTICAL SJ J UMP Lower performance degradation in System 4 15 s Higher performance degradation on the hardest system (S4) in comparison with the softest system Test (S2) Brito et al., 2012; Hardin et al., 2004; Pinnington & Dawson, 2001; Pinnington et al., 2005 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION Brito et al., 2012 P ERCEPTION Hughes et al., 2013 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 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION I NDEPENDENT V ARIABLES Shock Absorption R² = 0.144 VAS 6: Comfort R² = 0.165 RSA mean time Rotational Traction and Energy RSA best time R² = 0.158 Restitution RSA total time R² = 0.165 Maximum average Energy restitution R² = 0.071 speed Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
20 amateur football players 21.65±3.10 years A GE 69.38±3.84 Kg Minimum experience of 5 year M ASS 176.5±4.8 cm H EIGHT Training 2 h/day 3-4 days/week 11.46±4.23 % % F AT Goalkeepers excluded from the analysis 1. Yo-Yo Test of intermittent recovery 20 m 5 m • Game of 45 min • Minimum recovery of 72 h between matches 2. Simulated Game situation • Supervised by a referee (FIFA rules) Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
S TUDY V ARIABLES E XTERNAL L OAD I NTERNAL LOAD P ERCEPTION Covered Distance Heart Rate VAS survey Intensity Categories Speed Work:rest rate Movement profile Polar Team System, Kempele, Finland Sprint actions Acceleration Impacts Spi IQ, GPSports, Australia Player load Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULT AND D ISCUSSION Kerdok et al., 2002 Arampatzis et al., 2004; Di Michele et al., 2009 E XTERNAL L OAD Total Distance (m) Work:RestRate Players Load (u.a/min) z V max Peak (km/h) Accelerations and impacts p >0.05 Randers et al., 2010 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION E XTERNAL L OAD Brito et al., 2012; Giatsis et al., 2004 Activity Profile 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) Mujika et al., 2009 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION High Intensity E XTERNAL L OAD 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 8.53±3.98 d 8.40±4.19 d Number of sprint (n) 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 24.48±0.77 a 24.43±0.73 a 25.26 ± 0.92 Average V max sprint (km/h) 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/s 2 ) 4.15±0.31 4.32±0.29 4.22±0.36 4.41±0.37 McGhie & Ettema, 2012; Increase of the impact forces or decrease of contact time Meijer et al., 2006 Miyama & Nosaka, 2004 Higher reuse of elastic energy or increase of reaction forces Bishop, 2003 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION I NTERNAL L OAD Hughes et al., 2013 Nédélec et al., 2013 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION P ERCEPTION Higher ball speed was perceived System 4 Andersson et al., 2008 + Glissade + Ball Control Difficulty System 2 Higher difficulty in tackle performance + Cushioning capacity - Glissade Stiles & Dixon, 2007 Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESULTS AND DISCUSSION I NDEPENDENT VARIABLES McGhie & Ettema, 2012; Schrier et al., 2014 High Speed running R² = 0.133 distance Energy Restitution Running sprint R² = 0.154 distance Rotational Traction Average V max sprint R² = 0.166 and Energy Restitution Average sprint R² = 0.103 Rotational Traction distance Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
R ESEARCH C ONCLUSIONS Framework Conclusions Study 1 Study 2
Recommend
More recommend
