Today Miles Robinson suffered what appeared to be a torn achilles in his left leg in Atlanta United's game vs Chicago Fire. Confirmation should come tomorrow with MRI scan. Looks like an opportunity for John Brooks. Soccer should not be played on artificial turf.
I really hope it's not as bad as it looked. After all, he wasn't screaming in agony and all the other full ACL ruptures I can remember left players in such a state. On the second part, before I dove into this a bit this morning I would have agreed with you that all the teams with artificial turf should replace it with a hybrid field. But then I read this (and a few other things) and have changed my mind as to the necessity of it. It's a recent article (2019) that is well-researched AND contains a specific look at MLS injuries. Grass does look nicer, however.
Unfortunately it really looks like Miles’ foot was a little too sticky on the turf. These studies on is turf more dangerous or not are never great. Most injuries are agnostic of surface. Long and Richards are more likely to fill his role than Brooks, but brooks should be on the team now as CB 4 for sure.
https://staging.stma.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Injury-Research-Review-FINAL.pdf "Within injury subgroups, overall ankle injury, Achilles injury, and ankle fracture were found to have a statistically higher incidence on artificial turf."
I think you are grouping Achilles injury where it doesn’t belong. Here’s what your report says on Achilles injury: besides, 44 cases is a pretty small sample size
No one seems to want to read through the link I posted. The analysis is very good, and is based on meta-data from a bunch of recent-ish studies on the subject (as opposed to just a single one), as well as the author's own limited and not scientific study (I believe it was 2 seasons) on MLS injuries. He also eliminated studies that involved American football as injuries in that sport have a lot more to do with collisions that aren't par for the course in soccer (of course). The tl:dr version is that most studies show negligible to no difference in injury rates on grass vs FieldTurf, and some of them show improvements in injury rates when games are played on FieldTurf. To be full and complete in my brief survey of studies, I did find one from Texas about high school injury rates on artificial turf which far exceeded grass surfaces. But, again, those are high school fields with, presumably, largely low-quality astroturf type fields which are very different from the high-tech, high-maintenance artificial fields of professional level.
I did read the link you shared and really wasn’t impressed with the analysis. It is rehashing older studies which may have their flaws, and importantly some of those may have been conducted during a time of older generations of field turf. Also the whole counting minutes/ games missed among players that play on turf versus grass is far too blunt, there are so many factors in play. At the end of the day it will be very hard to prove one way or the other because the sample size, fortunately, of players blowing their Achilles or ACL is very low. It really becomes qualitative in nature
Group Achilles injury where it doesn't belong? Full Achilles ruptures aren't that common, so it's hard to have large studies. Having played on both turf and grass for many years, the difference was obvious on the ankles and Achilles. When I played, artificial turf was harder on the knees, harder on the ankles, and harder on the Achilles. This manifests itself through Achilles tendonitis and sprains and ankle and knee pain. There is also the problem of turf toe. However, there are also the variables of different types of footwear, as well as all "turf" types not being the same. Additionally, turf is generally much better than it was 20-30 years ago, so that is in its favor. People will find the studies that support their preconceived notions, but there are many studies out there that display higher injury rates in the lower extremities with turf vs grass. https://www.healio.com/news/orthope...s-more-foot-ankle-injuries-on-artificial-turf Here's one article about it from the NFLPA: https://nflpa.com/posts/only-natural-grass-can-level-the-nfls-playing-field I think the problem is greater for soccer than football, as much more time is spent actually running on the field. I have not played on the latest generation of turf fields, so I leave that judgment to the study results.
Looks like he's out for the Cup https://www.espn.com/soccer/major-l...forts-while-montreal-cements-contender-status
I think you're not giving full consideration to the link I posted, which is an analysis of multiple studies that I suspect are probably much more recent than your own personal experience of artificial turf (AT, for short) and further on fields that are of much higher quality than you or I have ever played on.
Really awful news for Miles Robinson and the USMNT. He really had become a lock starter for us after his fantastic Gold Cup + steady play throughout WCQ. I also thought he'd be a great foil for John Brooks in tournament play given his speed and agility. What a bummer - here's hoping he can make a quick recovery and still have a chance at Qatar. If not, at least we have solid depth at CB, with Walker Zimmerman, John Brooks, Chris Richards, and Aaron Long (back into form this year). Not to mention Cameron Carter-Vickers, Mark McKenzie, Erik Palmer-Brown, Matt Miazga and James Sands as other options.
There is no question that artificial turf has gotten better over time. However, there are more many studies than what is listed in that article and from what I have seen before, I would characterize that most studies do show a difference in injury rates for grass vs turf, i.e., more lower extremity injuries on turf, despite what the article says. I do not trust someone else summarizing for me. Why did he pick some studies and not others? His MLS data is wholly insufficient to draw any conclusions, and yet he does so anyway, so he is a hack. As for the other referenced studies, I did read a couple of them, but I want to read some more of the others. I have read a number of studies long before this thread came up, so this subject is not new to me. As someone who used to do medical research, I know how studies can be poorly designed, I know how studies can conflict, and I do not trust summarizing articles on the internet. It is very common for medical studies to come to conflicting conclusions. I almost expect it. Some studies are baloney and are sponsored by turf companies, for example, while others are solid scientific studies, well designed and executed. Whatever the case, I don't get medical information from American Soccer Analysis, a site I have never even heard of. You should also note that the 2019 and 2022 Women’s World Cups are only hosted exclusively on natural grass fields. Why is that?
The author to the article (linked here again) is himself an epidemiologist, so I feel fairly comfortable with his understanding and interpretation of scientific studies. As for why he picked some and not others, he says: "First of all, I’m not %100 sure I found every study ever made on this topic. I did however find one group based out of the Sports Performance Research Institute of New Zealand (yes, their acronym is SPRINZ), who did exactly this systematic review in 2011, and I found more studies than they did, so there. In the end, I limited my search to peer-reviewed scientific journals and studies that compared turf vs grass for soccer specifically. There are lots of other studies about American football, but the scientific community agrees that soccer injuries and football injuries aren’t very comparable because of all the collision." I have no doubt that players prefer to play on very well-maintained grass. I do, too. It's a different feeling than artificial turf.
I feel so bad for Miles. He was locked into the roster and now he's going to miss the Cup. There's still a decent shot at 2026, but that's a long way away and a lot can change.
So sad for Miles. There's no way he will make it back in time. You're usually not right for at least 9 months. This is a huge opportunity for Chris Richards and John Brooks. Brooks is leaving Wolfsburg, and I hope he can get on with an Italian team. Who is better, Zimmerman and Richards, or Zimmerman and Brooks, and why?
The piece we lose with Miles out is quickness to recover in the back. Richards is better there than Brooks. Brooks is a better passer but Zimm is fine so I am using Zimm and Richards.
Zimmerman and Richards, and most likely Zimmerman and Long as well. Possibly even Zimmerman and a guy like EPB, who has not yet earned the spot. Unless, that is, we plan to radically change the way we play.