Jump to content
IGNORED

Hamstring injuries and firm pitch at Ashton Gate


bcfcnick

Recommended Posts

I spoke with a friend who is a Forest supporter and he said that their TV channel mentioned Ashton Gate has a very hard pitch and they felt this could be the prime reason our squad has suffered so many hamstring injuries.

I assume the Club have investigated this as a reason as it really could be something as simple as this?  There are too many hamstring injuries for the spate of this specific injury to be a coincidence.   

That said, a lot of clubs have 4G pitches and they don't get the same level of injuries. Is our hybrid pitch harder than most? Forest observers seem to think so.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/10/hybrid-football-pitches-why-the-grass-is-always-greener/

"Harder surfaces, the argument goes, can lead to impact injuries in the legs and lower back. With less give in the surface, boots can get stuck in the turf, causing over-rotation in the lower limb, or a twisted ankle, if you’re speaking English.

 “[On harder pitches] players can reach peak velocities quicker and they don’t get dead legs like they used to on the old soggy pitches,” says Mike Davison, managing director of Isokinetic Medical Group, London, part of the FIFA Medical Centres of Excellence Network. “The pitches deliver back more reactive energy to the players, but players will feel the shock going through their bodies, in their joints, bones and tendons.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

I would predict it's more to do what we train on, and how we train, warm up and down on, and rest periods.

Has the rugby team had the same amount of problems?

What about our academy teams?

 

Good point-logically, the egg-chasers would have similar issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the causations I thought of too, but then I’ve heard no reports of hamstrings to opposition players. I assume they would be more vulnerable on a hard pitch, if they were used to soft ones. 
 

Just come to the conclusion that it is our training regimes and medics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, bcfcnick said:

I spoke with a friend who is a Forest supporter and he said that their TV channel mentioned Ashton Gate has a very hard pitch and they felt this could be the prime reason our squad has suffered so many hamstring injuries.

I assume the Club have investigated this as a reason as it really could be something as simple as this?  There are too many hamstring injuries for the spate of this specific injury to be a coincidence.   

That said, a lot of clubs have 4G pitches and they don't get the same level of injuries. Is our hybrid pitch harder than most? Forest observers seem to think so.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/10/hybrid-football-pitches-why-the-grass-is-always-greener/

"Harder surfaces, the argument goes, can lead to impact injuries in the legs and lower back. With less give in the surface, boots can get stuck in the turf, causing over-rotation in the lower limb, or a twisted ankle, if you’re speaking English.

 “[On harder pitches] players can reach peak velocities quicker and they don’t get dead legs like they used to on the old soggy pitches,” says Mike Davison, managing director of Isokinetic Medical Group, London, part of the FIFA Medical Centres of Excellence Network. “The pitches deliver back more reactive energy to the players, but players will feel the shock going through their bodies, in their joints, bones and tendons.”

 

 

And how many muscular injuries have the rugby lot had?

Forest talking out rubbish.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Slippin cider said:

That is interesting....Desso/Hybrid pitches have a certain amount of give in them , they’re not running on tarmac but just how firm they are I don’t know but we have had a lot of hamstring related injuries....:yawn:

Nowhere near the 4G pitches used by football and rugby clubs.

Ask the Bristol Bears players how they must dread going to Worcester and Newcastle with plastic pitches.

The number of injuries especially hamstring isn't caused by our pitch.

Didn't get many in years gone by, did we? Got to be due to training and physios/medical staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My un-Sports Science explanation is quite simple!

- our approach to both post-Covid mini-pre season, plus

- downtime between end of last season and start of this, plus

- this season’s pre-season in preparation for a condensed fixture list

was flawed in its design.  I’m quite pragmatic that this was a new scenario.  Football is pretty regimented in it’s close-season and pre-season, and perhaps needing to change our approach to cater for this season meant “we” got it wrong.

Would be interesting to compare approaches of different clubs?

I recall Thomas Frank saying he expected a slow-burner start to the season for The Bees because they’d not tried to cram pre-season into a condensed time-frame, preferring to use trued and tested pre-season schedule and come good in the end.  That stuck with me.

But, as I say, pure guesswork.  Not really accusing them either.  Unprecedented ?

What has become more concerning is:

- setbacks during rehab

- setbacks in initial games back

and then have we caused long-term affects on these players.

Might not just be the OOC players, but long term impacts to O’Dowda, Bell etc, who will remain our players.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, spudski said:

I would predict it's more to do what we train on, and how we train, warm up and down on, and rest periods.

Has the rugby team had the same amount of problems?

What about our academy teams?

 

In terms of the injuries for the bears most are rugby injuries (a sprained finger, shoulder injury etc) even Piutau who is notorious with his ankle injuries has probably played more because he is being looked after more off the pitch. 

I've linked this Article before in a different post. It seems the main issue is/was the medical team trying to rush players back. Some of the medical team are friends with MA much like the scouting network. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

My un-Sports Science explanation is quite simple!

- our approach to both post-Covid mini-pre season, plus

- downtime between end of last season and start of this, plus

- this season’s pre-season in preparation for a condensed fixture list

was flawed in its design.  I’m quite pragmatic that this was a new scenario.  Football is pretty regimented in it’s close-season and pre-season, and perhaps needing to change our approach to cater for this season meant “we” got it wrong.

Would be interesting to compare approaches of different clubs?

I recall Thomas Frank saying he expected a slow-burner start to the season for The Bees because they’d not tried to cram pre-season into a condensed time-frame, preferring to use trued and tested pre-season schedule and come good in the end.  That stuck with me.

But, as I say, pure guesswork.  Not really accusing them either.  Unprecedented ?

What has become more concerning is:

- setbacks during rehab

- setbacks in initial games back

and then have we caused long-term affects on these players.

Might not just be the OOC players, but long term impacts to O’Dowda, Bell etc, who will remain our players.

 

I just looked up when we first used the Desso pitch - August 2015.

I don't remember any big outbreak of hamstring or a lot of any other particular injury.

So, as I said earlier, it must be due to training, physios, medical team. Or just bad luck? My money would be on the first three causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...