SELECT YOUR LANGUAGE >
ENGLISH
NEWS
Analysis: FIFA Turf Study
Prozone has worked alongside FIFA with on-going scientific investigations and to deliver bespoke analysis into the possible effects of artificial surfaces on player performance.
Since artificial turf was first approved for use at football’s elite level by both FIFA and UEFA in 2004, synthetic surfaces have become a regular feature of many of the game’s premier competitions. However, despite their brisk proliferation, such pitches have consistently attracted critics who claim that they strongly favour the home side and have a marked effect on the physical and technical performances of players.
In order to dispel any concerns and to guarantee that artificial surfaces are of the highest possible standard, FIFA has both supported and conducted a number of medical, biomechanical and psychological studies with the aim of ensuring player safety and providing a comprehensive assessment of performances on both grass and synthetic turf.
With our expertise in technical consultancy and strong commitment to applied research within football, Prozone has worked alongside FIFA in order to assist with on-going scientific investigations and to deliver bespoke analysis projects in several areas of interest. This partnership has included detailed enquiries into the possible effects of artificial surfaces on player performance, a field which the business has been at the forefront of for some time.
In 2011 Prozone installed our leading player tracking system, PROZONE3, at two stadia in Moscow, the Luzhniki Stadium (artificial turf) and the Khimki Arena (natural grass), comparing and contrasting the performances of players at the two grounds over the course of the Russian Premier League season. In order to eliminate the perceived factor of home bias, only data from the players of visiting teams who completed ninety minutes was collected as fifteen games at each arena were analysed in order to provide a thorough statistical overview.
The findings of the study revealed that no major differences could be observed between the physical data collected on natural grass and that captured from games played on synthetic turf. While the average total distance covered during a match on grass was found to be 112.1km, teams at the Luzhniki Stadium typically ran 113.9km and so demonstrated that there is little by way of discrepancy between the athletic performances of players on the two surfaces. Although sides cover more ground through high intensity running on grass (12.13km compared to 11.81km), the average distance of sprints at both arenas remained remarkably similar; figures which suggest that the players had confidence in the pitches and were able to accelerate and decelerate normally on both grass and artificial turf.
Variance in Total Distance and High Intensity Distance between games played on football turf and natural grass
In terms of the technical quality of games, the data taken from the Russian Premier League again shows few disparities between performances on the different surfaces. Critics of artificial turf often hold that players are not comfortable in possession on artificial pitches, yet the average number of touches per player remained steady (2.06 on grass, 2.01 on synthetics) to denote that teams are confident to play very similar styles on the two types of turf.
With regard to passing at the two grounds, the study found that teams attempted more passes on grass (316 per game as opposed to 273 on the synthetic surface), a finding inconsistent with previous research and a statistic which goes against those who claim that football turf encourages players to keep the ball down and play a possession-based game. Perhaps more telling is that the quality of passing on grass was of a higher standard, teams completing 80.7% of passes while falling to 77.5% at the Luzhniki Stadium. While, at least superficially, this may appear detrimental to the reputation of football turf, when the figures are broken down we can see that a greater percentage of passes are played forwards on artificial surfaces than they are on grass, something that arguably makes for a more offensive game and a more entertaining spectacle.
Looking at the issues around player safety, the fact that the average number of tackles per player per game only rises by 0.70 – a very minor change – when playing on artificial surfaces illustrates that players are not at a greatly increased risk of injury from the perceived changes in teams’ defensive approaches that many cite as a negative aspect of artificial surfaces.
Although the two grounds used were located in the same city in order to reduce any potential climatic differences, the changes in the weather which may have taken place from game to game could not be controlled and may have had an influence on the results of the research. Furthermore, other variables such as the tactical approach of the various teams and the interpretations of different officials could well have made a difference to the outcome of the investigation.
Overall, however, Prozone’s turf study represents one of the leading pieces of research into the effects of artificial surfaces on the physical and technical performance of professional athletes. Working in association with FIFA in order to benefit players and more fully ensure their safety, such investigations provide a valuable insight into an area that has been the subject of much debate and speculation in recent years.
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
Click the link below to receive our monthly newsletter packed with all the latest information from Prozone