3.8 Article

Different stud configurations cause movement adaptations during a soccer turning movement

Journal

FOOTWEAR SCIENCE
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 21-28

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19424281003685702

Keywords

football; soccer; soccer boot; traction; kinematics; kinetics

Categories

Funding

  1. Puma(R) Inc., Germany

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Player-surface interaction is a key factor for soccer performance and the loads experienced by the human body in soccer. Thereby, the outsoles of soccer boots play an influencing role on traction properties. In this study, the influence of sole stud configuration on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics during a turning movement was investigated. Methods: Fifteen experienced soccer players performed five repetitive trials in four different sole configurations: soccer boot with removed studs, artificial turf design, firm ground and soft ground natural grass design. Subjects performed a 135 degrees turning movement as quickly as possible in a laboratory environment. Lower leg kinematics and kinetics were collected by a motion analysis system and two force plates. Repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc tests were used to discriminate between shoe conditions (P < 0.05). Results: Movement patterns of subjects were influenced by sole configurations. The soccer boot with removed studs provoked a more vertical alignment of the shank at touchdown accompanied by lower ankle and knee joint moments in the stance phase. The soft ground design showed decreased foot translation in combination with increased ankle moments compared to the other studded boot conditions. Conclusion: Movement adaptations were primarily found in the distal part of the lower extremities. The soccer boot with removed studs increased the risk of slipping whereas the soft ground sole configuration induced relatively high loads acting on the player.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available