Comparison of Speed and Agility Performance of College Football Players on Field Turf and Natural Grass

Gains, GL, Swedenhjelm, AN, Mayhew, JL, Bird, HM, and Houser, JJ. Comparison of speed and agility performance of college football players on field turf and natural grass. J Strength Cond Res 24(10): 2613-2617, 2010-The purpose of this study was to determine the difference in 40-yd dash and proagility times performed on field turf (FT) and natural grass (NG). Red-shirt freshmen National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II college football players (n = 24) performed 2 trials each of a 40-yd dash and proagility run on each surface. Sprints were timed by an electronic timing system (ET) and by 2 hand timers (HTs). Agility was timed on each surface by 2 HTs. There was no significant difference in 40-yd dash times between FT and NG using ET (FT: 5.34 ± 0.30 seconds, NG: 5.33 ± 0.33 seconds) or HT (FT: 5.06 ± 0.31 seconds, NG: 5.11 ± 0.29 seconds). Hand timer 40-yd dashes were significantly faster than ET 40-yd dashes on both surfaces, with the difference between HT and ET on FT (−0.28 ± 0.11 seconds) significantly greater than the difference on NG (−0.22 ± 0.06 seconds). The time differences between surfaces were significantly correlated (r = 0.12, p = 0.56). Proagility times were significantly faster on FT (4.49 ± 0.28 seconds) than on grass (4.64 ± 0.33 seconds). Thus, it appears that straight-ahead sprint speed is similar between FT and NG, but change-of-direction speed may be significantly faster on FT.

[1]  T Timpka,et al.  Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study , 2006, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[2]  Kevin R Ford,et al.  Comparison of in-shoe foot loading patterns on natural grass and synthetic turf. , 2006, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[3]  L. Burkett,et al.  The National Football League Combine: A Reliable Predictor of Draft Status? , 2003, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[4]  B M Nigg,et al.  The Influence of Playing Surfaces on the Load on the Locomotor System and on Football and Tennis Injuries , 1988, Sports medicine.

[5]  J. Stockman,et al.  Incidence, Causes, and Severity of High School Football Injuries On FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass: A 5-Year Prospective Study , 2006 .

[6]  R. W. Higgins,et al.  Football Cleat Design and Its Effect on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  Physical and Performance Characteristics of Successful High School Football Players , 1994, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  M. Howard,et al.  Differences in Friction and Torsional Resistance in Athletic Shoe-Turf Surface Interfaces , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  D. Davis,et al.  PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT PREDICT FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE IN DIVISION I COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYERS , 2004, Journal of strength and conditioning research.

[10]  Eric A Nauman,et al.  Peak Torque and Rotational Stiffness Developed at the Shoe-Surface Interface , 2006, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  Pedro Pérez Soriano,et al.  BIOMECHANICAL FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT TO PREVENT INJURIES AND IMPROVE SPORTING PERFORMANCE ON ARTIFICIAL TURF , 2009 .

[12]  J. S. Keene,et al.  Tartan Turf® on trial , 1980, American Journal of Sports Medicine.

[13]  Thomas L. Milani,et al.  Actual and perceived running performance in soccer shoes: A series of eight studies , 2009 .