Printable View
I suppose this is particularly for Dundalk fans
But do many other clubs train on this??
Anyway, my question is do you see a lot more injuries as a result?? Is there any evidence linking astroturf and injuries??
We seem to be getting a LOT of niggling knee, ankle and groin problems with our players this season, just wondering is it pure coincidence or could there be some connection.
I read a report from FIFA that (as far as I recall) indicated that while the pattern of injuries may be slightly different on an artificial pitch that there wasn't actually any more of them. Will see if I can dig it out.
Edit: The report was published in 2006. there is some evidence of more ankle injuries but not very strong. Here's the summary-
Full report is here: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/12/975.fullQuote:
Objective: To compare injury risk in elite football played on artificial turf compared with natural grass.
Design: Prospective two-cohort study.
Setting: Male European elite football leagues.
Participants: 290 players from 10 elite European clubs that had installed third-generation artificial turf
surfaces in 2003–4, and 202 players from the Swedish Premier League acting as a control group.
Main outcome measure: Injury incidence.
Results: The incidence of injury during training and match play did not differ between surfaces for the
teams in the artificial turf cohort: 2.42 v 2.94 injuries/1000 training hours and 19.60 v 21.48 injuries/
1000 match hours for artificial turf and grass respectively. The risk of ankle sprain was increased in
matches on artificial turf compared with grass (4.83 v 2.66 injuries/1000 match hours; rate ratio 1.81,
95% confidence interval 1.00 to 3.28). No difference in injury severity was seen between surfaces.
Compared with the control cohort who played home games on natural grass, teams in the artificial turf
cohort had a lower injury incidence during match play (15.26 v 23.08 injuries/1000 match hours; rate
ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.91).
Conclusions: No evidence of a greater risk of injury was found when football was played on artificial turf
compared with natural grass. The higher incidence of ankle sprain on artificial turf warrants further
attention, although this result should be interpreted with caution as the number of ankle sprains was low.
Several previous threads exploring this question!
I don't know about the comparisons on injuries between Astroturf and Grass.
If your question actually relates to 3G pitches (like at Dundalk or Cliftonville) you will find loads of info here, including the FIFA study which concluded there was no evidence of higher incidents of injury on Field Turf 3G pitches versus grass:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...ts_1_11166.pdf
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...r-2112604.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...em/8607191.stm
http://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/...Risk_of_Injury
http://www.hss.edu/conditions_artifi...prevention.asp
We've had a lot of injuries this season. Two of the most serious occued in Tallaght.
Aye, alot of our injuries where sustained away from home this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by White Horse
Also a lot of Dundalk players were injured in Tallaght too !Quote:
Originally Posted by White Horse
This was discussed before, but a possible flaw in various reports is that stats do not necessarily include the change in playing surface for players and a possible correlation to injury! So playing on grass and playing on 3g surface make no significant difference. But in, for example, Dundalk's case playing away on grass on a Monday, then training Tuesday to Thursday on 3g, and back to grass on a Friday - the mix of playing surface may be an issue. There seems to be a lack of research on this. (Hmmm potential dissertation!) Playing exclusively on 3g isnt an issue, but one day on 3g then another on grass especially if the grass pitch is uneven, rutted or 'rolls(Dalymount eg) or hard and unwatered. Not sure if it would be the same visa versa but i'd imagine the impact is less going from grass to 3g rather than 3g to grass.
Phew...that was a fair old ramble trying to explaing what i meant there:confused:
Do Dundalk train on their pitch too?
Yes but Hiney Park is used too. Still thinking about the hours the main pitch is in use and therefore its expiry date dodge or just a question out of interest on the topic in question?
A bit of both tbh.
On a performance side I’ve always wondered if it is any real advantage to playing home games on astro/3g/whatever. My thinking being that most players could adapt easily to most grass surfaces as, obviously, they’ve played on them their whole lives. Competitive football on astro/3g is still relatively new here so you’d think that Dundalk would have some advantage here. (Perhaps only mentally from a from a perceived actual advantage – if that makes sense). Them training on the pitch would help this (or help perpetuate the myth…)
On the hours of use etc, I know that a large part of Pats thinking on installing a pitch is to make savings on their current outlay on training facilities. I wasn’t sure how Dundalk approached this as I had read that they rent the pitch out etc. I realise they can do both, but as I said, just curious.
Thanks for the reply
Didn't know St Pats were going to change their pitch, is there a timescale on that?
Good info here on the merits of astroturf vs grass.
Pitch is available for rental when the various Dundalk teams are not using it from youth teams, ladies to senior side. The amount the club trains on it may change when the YDC finally opens. The return on the initial outlay is as you say savings on training facilities, grass pitch maintentance savings which is significantly less for 3g and then of course rental income. Intangible factors are also there like having schools up training improving the clubs profile locally.
As for the percieved or otherwise advantage to Dundalk playing in Oriel it is arguably negated by playing on grass away. Tbh lack of knowledge is the main 'advantage' to Dundalk - the more the media, managers et al talk astroturf (of Kenilworth\ Loftus Rd vintage), a strange bounce, plastic pitch related injury, and so on then our pitch will remain a predominantly psychological advantage. I have played on it and the main difference to grass is that it is more unforgiving to an overhit pass or poor first touch etc. If anything it shows up players with lesser technique. The surface allows the ball to be zipped about so a passing team would have no major problem. On the down side for us mere mortals it is a damn fast surface so it is shattering to play 90mins....
Very Good osarusan ha!
Hasn’t been decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Some on the board are very much for it as they see it as investment for the future. Others within the club aren’t so sure.
Their options were a top end surface that would be suitable for European football, and only 8 hours of use a week.
Or a lower grade which could be used all the time (making Richmond a focal point for all the community) but not being able to host European games
Club haven’t said anything about it since before the start of the season so don’t know where they are now.
Personally, I prefer grass but I can see the benefits of astro/3g
I noticed we installed sprinkler systems on the pitch this season and these are in use before all first team matches, I would imagine this gives the pitch a good boost on dry days and makes for better passing. A year too late for Hatswell who was banging on about this all summer last.