Comparison between Natural Turf and Artificial Turf on Agility Performance of Rugby Union Players

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in agility performance with natural turf (NT) and artificial turf (AT) surface in rugby union players on the repeated sprint, cut and turn movements and if any differences exist between holding the ball or not in relation to agility performance. Twelve tertiary rugby union players (mean ± SD age, 21.2 ± 2.0 years) participated in the study. Players underwent measurements of anthropometry (height, body mass). Running tests investigated were 40-meter sprinting, change of direction, and "L" run, with all tests for agility measured in two sets with ball and without ball respectively. Results indicated that subjects showed significantly better overall agility performance (P < 0.05) in sprinting (NT: 6.40 ± 0.26 seconds, AT: 6.24 ± 0.26 seconds) and turning (NT: 6.40 ± 0.44 seconds, AT: 5.96 ± 0.38 seconds) on AT than NT. Although the time counted of cutting on AT was faster than on NT (NT: 13.85 ± 0.61 seconds, AT: 13.55 ± 0.68 seconds), the result was not significant. The findings also indicated that running with the ball for 40 meters would not slow the players down as there was a counter effect on the ground surface and ball carrying, while the turning movement was affected by both effects.

Effect of Natural Turf, Artificial Turf, and Sand Surfaces on Sprint Performance. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Also, differences in sprint performance on different surfaces could depend on the presence of a ball during movement [ 27 , 29 ]. This suggests that for movement with a ball, the surface can influence sprint speed, inducing proper adjustments of the players [ 39 ]; in particular, hard surfaces allow reaching higher peaks of speed than soft surfaces [ 40 , 41 ].…”

“…However, only the studies by Hughes et al [ 28 ] and Stone et al [ 31 ] indicated the accreditation of the pitches considered, which was FIFA 1 and 2 stars, respectively. Choi et al [ 27 ] provided a data sheet of the product but did not make any reference to the mechanical properties of the surface.…”

“…Full-text papers ( n = 23) were assessed for eligibility, with a further 12 of these being removed. Finally, 11 studies were included [ 11 , 12 , 18 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. In total, the sprint speed of 252 players was evaluated on natural turf, artificial turf, or sand.…”

The Influence of Time-dependent Surface Properties on Sprint Running Performance between Male and Female Athletes

“…A study involving young soccer players used sprints as a performance indicator and found the children (12 years) were significantly faster on AT compared to NG in both dribbling and non-dribbling trials, while the adolescents (14 years) were only significantly faster on AT without the inclusion of dribbling (Kanaras et al, 2014). Another study analyzing a group of rugby players performing sprints on NG and AT reported significantly different sprint times on the different surfaces (Choi et al, 2015). In contrast, a study investigating a group of American football players performing a 40 yard dash on NG and AT found no significant difference in sprint times on different fields (Gains et al, 2010).…”

“…Blood specimen studies provide useful insight into blood-substrate differences after sprinting on AT and NG, unfortunately, the influence of the MPs of the testing fields could not be correlated with the blood-substrate concentration since the test fields were not examined. Other studies using sprint times as a performance indicator on different surfaces (Hales & Johnson, 2019;Choi et al, 2015;Kanaras et al, 2014;Chan et al, 2014Gains et al, 2010 reported MPs did influence sprint speed. The increasing number of research studies in this area and the varying test protocols have produced information focusing on the athlete-surface relationship which is contradictory in many instances.…”