CL 23 May 2013 - Wolfsburg v. Lyon

Laetitia Tonazzi will miss the Final on Lyon's side because an injury. That's all.

On Wolfsburg's side, it's much more annoying since there are three injured players already missing for sure (Rebecca Smith, Zsanett Jakabfi and Selina Wagner) and maybe/likely Alexandra Popp who got injured last sunday and will miss the German Cup Final at the end of this week. Plus another very important player missing the C1 Final due to a suspension, Viola Ödebrecht.

With a complete Wolfsburg, I would have had a tendency to answer : "Yes, they could beat Lyon, even if the French team will be high favourite". But in thoses conditions... it will be very, very hard for the Germans...

 

You're right. Last year, for the Final I can remember (if I'm not mistaken) that Lyon played without Thomis and Frankfurt without Angerer, Krieger, Bajramaj and Kulig.

 

I'm going to the final - so excited!

This is only semi-related but I find it peculiar that the Germans are suffering from so many injuries. The season is long and their regular matches are tougher than Lyon's, but there still seems to be a difference between France and other countries. There's an interview with Lotta where they discuss the differences in injuries between Sweden and France (thinking about it I haven't published that interview yet [on olfeminines.tumblr.com] but I will later tonight). Lotta says ACL injuries are uncommon in France, whereas in Sweden there were 20 just last year.

I have heard the reports about how turf causes more injuries than natural grass, and turf has become incredibly common in Sweden so I'm beginning to wonder if that is part of the explanation because it seems as if almost all pitches in France have natural grass (Sussargues being the only exception I've heard). What's it like in Germany - do they play on turf or grass? Does anyone know?

 

Here is a great, comprehensive analysis of the two teams heading to the Finals (in French):
http://cahiersdufootball.net/blogs/ni-buts-ni-soumises/2013/05/15/des-louves-contres-les-lionnes/

 

It's right that the level of ACL is more important in Sweden and Germany than in France. There were different medical studies (in Usa and in Sweden) that demonstrated that women are much more at risk than men, as far as ACL are concerned. And those studies concluded (I don't know if they are right or wrong) that 15 minutes of dedicated exercise a day could prevent those ACL.

I think that the much more physical way of playing in North Europe (Sweden or Germany, then) increases the risk.

 

You need to be aware of what type of Turf fields you are talking about when you see such reports. Older style fields are proving to be much more injury prone that the new FIFA rated pitches. And you need to find out if the injuries can be attributed to play on Turf, and if so, what kind.

There really isn't much difference between Sweden and France in terms of the number FIFA one star and two star pitches.

Sweden has 12 one star and 8 two star pitches registered.
France has 15 one star and 3 two star pitches listed in the FIFA registry.
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organ...urf/pitchesproducts/search.html?cf=27275&st=2

Two first division French teams ( Nancy and Lorient) host matches on FIFA two star turf. Several second division teams host on turf also, but not two star rated.


FIFA rated fields include specifications for criteria to reduce injuries. I have no idea how many pitches are played on in competition that are not rated. In the United States, for example, there is currently only ONE FIFA two star pitch in men's and women's first division (Portland), although several teams host games on some sort of a turf. One second division team and one university can also claim two star pitches. The rest cannot.
Some pitches are quite bad.

Both UEFA countries have many more fields that are not registered of varying quality, and almost every French team has Turf fields available for training. I believe OLY even played a couple early season matches on their training pitch because it was easier to remove snow.

 

That's very interesting, thank you. What I've been reading in Swedish press (this has been written about quite a bit lately), is that players are suffering from more injuries because of turfs, and now the men in the highest division in Sweden have begun to complain about it. Apparently, it is the switch from artificial to natural surfaces that cause the actual injuries. As it is, it's half and half. Some arenas have turf, some have grass, and it's the constant changes playing on different pitches that causes the injuries. Or at least that's what the experts are saying. This obviously makes it sound as if it would be a solution to simply turn all pitches into turfs, but none of the players want that because none of them like turfs, they all prefer natural grass.

I checked the website that you linked to above by the way, and all turf pitches in the men's highest division have two stars except one, and that arena is being rebuilt this year. In the women's division it's different obviously, I can only spot three of the turf arenas among those with two stars.

 

I'm sure if you polled players the choice is always grass over Turf.

I'd be more interested in a poll where the choice is mud or frozen mud over Turf.



Let you think that's an aberration:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...lackpool-poor-shape-You-look-little-lot-.html

 

Haha yes of course, but mud vs injuries? I think they would choose mud, don't you? Unless we're talking the 1970's pictures then god knows, but I don't see a match being played in those kinds of conditions today.

 

Fantastic pictures
I perfectly remember the 1970 Cup Final, the first one I saw (on French TV and in B&W), I still have in mind the dantesque conditions !
Ah, nothing like English weather and its legendary well-kept lawns !

 

I had kind of a warped mind. I loved playing in those conditions.

And data I have seen on the latest FIFA two star pitches doesn't show more injuries, just the type, and not what you would expect. It seems two star Turf has more upper body and bruise injuries, and actually Fewer ACL -type injuries than grass. When properly watered, the Tuf is actually less likely to catch cleats. In Portland, the pitch is watered before each half. The latest Turf fields have foam under them to cut down on the bruising.


But in Portland before the Turf went in, those conditions were all too common. The pitch serves a men's and women's pro team, an American football college team, up to five local high school American football teams, sundry State Championships, some club and an occasional College soccer game, and other events. There were years where the old grass pitch was not recognizable as such.

 

Here is a somewhat old study comparing Turf and Grass injuries done for FIFA in Sweden in 2006. FIFA two star specs have changed since then to adress some of the issues. Here is what they concluded back then.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afd..._artificial_turf_versus_natural_grass_343.pdf

Newer grass has a higher percentage of slippery grass fibers that are included to prevent the sticking that caused ankle injuries, and modern Two star pitches are softer to prevent the upper body injuries.

 

That's interesting. A new Swedish study that was published just a few months ago similarly states that ankle injuries are more common on turf while muscle injuries are less common, but they come to the conclusion that alternating between grass and turf is causing injuries. They also say that after practising or playing on turf, players complain of leg and back problems. Problems that don't cause them to miss any training, but that still obviously affects their play. I might also add that the Swedish national team only practise on turf once ahead of playing a competitive match on turf, because they say that the turf makes the players more tired, the turf causes them pain which grass doesn't, and the turf makes them develop stress injuries.

 

Er.. isn't this turf talk a bit out of topic (Wolfsburg-Lyon) ?
It seems to me that this discussion exists already somewhere else on BS or have I dreamed it ?

 

Haha yes that ocurred to me earlier today but I didn't know there was a turf discussion someplace else. Anyway let's more on to the CL final. Who's going?

 

After reading through this thread, I now realise that you're using"turf" to mean "artificial turf". Ny brain is more relaxed now.

(And I'm going to the final.)

 

Turf is artificial ( capitalized)

turf ( lower case) is grass.

FIFA officially calls the plastic stuff Football Turf ( both worlds capitalized).
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...1/19/03/fifaqualityconceptforfootballturf.pdf

But confusion is rampant even in FIFA, as seen by these paragraphs currently on the FIFA website where capitalization seems random.:

 

As you note, not even FIFA distinguishes between "Turf" and "turf"; the capitalisation in "Football Turf" is often lacking and at no point have I read a FIFA text that only refers to "Turf" as the artificial surface. Then again, I don't make it a habit to read every FIFA text. Maybe it's a US thing... but I don't see myself adopting a mere capitalisation to express the difference. Just how do you formulate the difference in speech? "Yes, they're considering putting in capital turf"?

 

Well, if you read the paragraphs I quoted above from FIFA, you have read the word turf used alone as a designator for the artificial stuff when describing the folks who manufacture and test it.

The same way the French do...with our hands. We wave imaginary quote marks in the air

 

Cliveworshipper, why don(t you open a dedicated topic to the problem of Turf/turf/ground/lawn/pelouse/terrain ? You really seem a specialist and it could be interesting. And that would free this topic