How many non-contact knee injuries have occurred at Gilette? The players association should look into this. The surface may very well be unsafe to play on. You certainly can't play proper soccer on it.
what are the odds they sign another forward before roster freeze? Slim and none. Probably 9 months of recovery. That puts him back around May give or take. Do they sign a forward during the off season or will they take the sit and wait attitude like they did with Twellman? Gut tells me the later. Less effort by the FO
So, Sene will be named Revs Player of the Year for 2012, then not re-signed for 2013. Where have I heard that before? Hint: It rhymes with Marko Perovic....
This was a non-contact injury at Gillette in 09 or something, right? basically ended his career? Brendan Schimmel wrote a pretty comprehensive article on the turf at Gillette on TBM This is a very good point. This also means that we won't really know what Sene is capable of until after next season, when he is 100% and the league has seen what he brings to the table & adapted.
That's the thing. He's probably made his last appearance for the Revo. Thanks Saer, you provided most of the entertainment for the '12 season.
What a tough break! He made Rev games very exciting! Hopefully he has a speedy recovery( a la Omar Gonzales).
It might be better news as it's not his plant foot. Which I would think is more likely to receive damage, although you land a lot on your kicking foot, so... maybe not...
It's not comprehensive at all - it's anecdotal. I had the opposite experience - tore mine on grass and have had no problems on turf. What does that prove? Nothing. OTOH, there have been many standards-based studies that show no significant differences in major injuries of different types (including ACL tears).
Is it really worth it for a young player to attempt to play in NE on field turf knowing the possibility of a career ending injury is a higher percentage? Pretty risky IMO.
ACL tears are no longer career ending injuries in any sport. Also does the field turf suck, yep. It is bad for the game itself yes But roughly 7000 (between both sports)players have played on the turf since 2007. And about 12-15 guys have torn their ACL on the field. So I think it is a little blown out of proportion.
interesting... http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/38/4/687.full.pdf CONCLUSION Although similarities did exist between FieldTurf and natural grass over the 3-year period of competitive play, there were significant differences in injury incidence, severity of injury, injury time loss, injury situation, grade of injury, injuries under various field conditions, and temperature. No significant differences in head, knee, or shoulder trauma were observed between playing surfaces. Both surfaces, from a statistical and clinical standpoint, exhibited unique injury mechanisms that need to be addressed to reduce the number of game-related collegiate football injuries. The hypothesis that collegiate athletes would not experience any difference in the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of game-related injury between FieldTurf and natural grass was not supported. FieldTurf is in many cases safer than natural grass. However, the findings of this study are generalizable to only this level of competition. Because this study is still in the early stages, investigation is ongoing. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was funded by FieldTurf, Montreal, Canada
There were a number of problems with this study as it pertains to professional soccer. Already mentioned: One or more authors has declared a potential conflict of interest: "Research was funded by FieldTurf, Montreal, Quebec, Canada". I wondered about some oddities like the fact that twice as many heat-related injuries occurred on natural grass as occurred on FieldTurf. This led me to wonder if the comparison was legitimate. The study was about American football, not soccer, which means that the natural grass surfaces were much more torn up in the football games than they would have been in the soccer games. The condition of the fields can not have been addressed as a factor, because (particularly in a retrospective study), there was no way to quantify it. The destruction of the natural grass surface might reasonably be thought to increase the likelihood of injuries. The vast majorities of the injuries are very football-related. The leading two categories of injury causes were blocking and tackling American football is played on frozen ground, which would be more likely to be conducive to injury on a natural surface. The authors talked about trying to avoid game days with precipitation, but scant details are given (e.g. the authors distinguish between hot days > 70°, and cold days < 69°). Specific knee injuries are alluded to ("No significant differences in head, knee, or shoulder trauma were observed between playing surfaces."), and anatomically quantified in the appendix (which was good), but the method of injury (turn, fall, contact, etc) was described in terms of: "Player-to-player collision, Player-to-turf collision, Shoe surface (contact), Shoe surface (non-contact), and Muscle-tendon overload". The latter is the one we would be most interested in, and is not described further. In short, the study doesn't have much to say to us.
Well said Jon. The study probably doesn't provide many details about muscle-tendon overload because that would not have helped the argument of a turf study by a vendor with a vested interest in the survey results. I played on the turf at WPI. Painful doesn't even do justice If you fall on that stuff.
Does WPI have Field Turf now? When I went there (a LONG time ago), the base was sand, not the rubber pellets that Field Turf uses. Not fun.
I played at Clark and hurt myself every single time I played on that godforsaken turf that WPI had. I hope it is FieldTurf now - that would be miles better than that old school crap, even if it sucks compared to a beautiful grass field.
Yes. I found this aspect of the article the most damaging. Love how it's footnoted at the end after leading the reader to believe it's non-biased. Not many articles out there on the soccer front...more research needs to happen. Perhaps it's because the sport isn't as popular as American football and just doesn't garner the public's attention? Also turf is not used as much abroad? Who knows. This article speaks a bit more to the issue, but again..more research is needed. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120093523.htm The old WPI field brings back very fond memories for me...played on it once when we won the MIAA Soccer Div. II State Championship. Worth every turf burn!