THE RESEARCH PLAYBOOK
TABLE 2
Table 2. Athlete perceptions of field quality before and after performing drills. Athletes rated each field on a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 represents the best field they have ever seen and 1 the worst. Means followed by the same letter within the same row are not significantly different according to Fisher’ s protected least significant difference( LSD) test at = 0.05.
FIELD
Pre-Performance Average Field Quality Rating
Post-Performance Average Field Quality Rating
Low-usage natural turfgrass field
High-usage natural turfgrass field
Low-usage synthetic turf field
High-usage synthetic turf field
8.78 A |
8.57 A |
4.42 C |
4.14 D |
8.14 A |
7.53 B |
7.07 B |
6.71 C |
Overall, the synthetic turf fields, high-usage fields, and hard areas within fields exhibited higher average intensity values than natural turfgrass fields, low-usage fields, and softer areas. This pattern aligns with our surface hardness findings: synthetic turf fields were significantly harder than natural turfgrass fields on average, hard areas within synthetic turf were harder than those on natural turfgrass, and high-usage fields were harder than low-usage fields for both surface types. These results suggest that harder surfaces may contribute to the higher average intensity values recorded on the athletes’ lower limbs.
This trend is consistent with prior research showing that running on harder surfaces increases impact stress, which may contribute to lower limb injuries. However, all surface hardness values in this study were below 100 Gmax, the safety threshold defined by the NFL( Seifert, 2024; Sports Field Management Association, 2024) and FIFA( FIFA, 2022). Still, the observed positive correlation between surface hardness and ankle IMU intensity values indicates that higher surface hardness could elevate impact load. While further research is needed, surface conditions exceeding 100 Gmax could present a greater risk for injury over time due to increased impact loading. Establishing threshold values for ankle IMU metrics is also important for identifying impact levels that may lead to injury.
SURVEY / ATHLETE PERCEPTION DATA Athletes completed pre- and post-performance surveys to assess field quality and its impact on performance. Individual responses were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance( ANOVA) to assess statistical differences among fields. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using Fisher’ s protected least significant difference( LSD) test at = 0.05.
The low-usage natural turfgrass field received the highest quality rating on both pre- and post-performance surveys; while the highusage natural turfgrass field, hindered by weed encroachment and poor maintenance, scored the lowest. Synthetic turf fields ranked in between the two natural turfgrass fields, with the high- usage synthetic turf field rated lower than the low-usage synthetic turf field. These findings suggest a preference for synthetic surfaces over a poorly maintained natural turfgrass fields.
22 SportsField Management | August 2025 sportsfieldmanagementonline. com