As a performance coach, one of the most important factors to consider when training athletes, particularly in fast-paced sports like soccer, is how different surfaces impact movement, performance, and injury risk. Among these surfaces, natural grass and artificial turf are the most commonly encountered in both training and competition. While they may seem similar on the surface, the differences in ground reaction forces (GRF) between the two can significantly influence not only how athletes perform but also their risk of injury.
Understanding these forces is critical for any athlete or coach looking to optimize performance and reduce injury risks. In this article, we'll dive into the biomechanical differences between natural and artificial grass, focusing on how ground reaction forces interact with speed, agility, fatigue, and long-term athletic health. Backed by research, we’ll explore how playing on these surfaces influences injury rates, with practical takeaways on optimizing performance based on surface type.
Ground Reaction Forces Explained in an Overview
Ground reaction force (GRF) refers to the force exerted by the ground on a body in contact with it. In sports, this is most evident during running, jumping, or cutting movements. Every time an athlete's foot strikes the ground, the ground exerts a reactive force back. These forces influence acceleration, deceleration, agility, and stability—key components in athletic performance.
The magnitude and direction of GRF are determined by factors like surface stiffness, footwear, and the athlete's biomechanics. While GRF is necessary for propulsion and movement, excessive or poorly absorbed GRF can lead to increased stress on joints and muscles, elevating the risk of injury. Therefore, understanding how different surfaces interact with these forces is essential for designing training programs, footwear selection, and injury prevention strategies.
Ground Reaction Forces on Natural Grass vs. Artificial Turf
The main difference between natural and artificial grass lies in the way they absorb and return forces to the athlete's body. Let's take a detailed look at the characteristics of each surface:
1. Natural Grass
Natural grass has a softer, more deformable surface due to the soil and root structure underneath. This means that when an athlete steps or lands on grass, the surface gives slightly, dissipating a portion of the force generated during foot contact. As a result, natural grass tends to generate lower peak GRF, which can reduce the stress on the athlete's lower limbs, particularly the knees and ankles.
The surface variability of natural grass also plays a role in how ground reaction forces are distributed. Natural grass fields are subject to environmental factors such as moisture, temperature, and grass thickness, all of which can affect traction and force absorption. For example, wet or muddy fields tend to absorb more energy, reducing the impact on the athlete’s body but potentially compromising speed and stability. On the other hand, well-maintained grass offers a balance between energy absorption and return, allowing athletes to perform explosively without the same level of risk seen on artificial surfaces.
Advantages of Natural Grass:
Lower peak GRF: Helps reduce stress on joints and muscles. Variable surface: Encourages a more balanced use of muscles and reduces repetitive strain. Enhanced shock absorption: Ideal for movements involving deceleration, jumping, and cutting.
Disadvantages:
Inconsistency: Uneven surfaces or wet conditions can increase the risk of slips or sprains.
Reduced energy return: Less push-off power compared to artificial surfaces, potentially limiting sprint speed.
2. Artificial Turf
Artificial turf is made from synthetic materials that are designed to mimic the look and feel of natural grass. However, because the surface is firmer and less deformable, artificial turf typically produces higher peak GRF. This is because the surface doesn’t absorb as much energy, returning more force to the athlete’s body during foot strikes.
One key difference between modern artificial surfaces and their earlier versions is the introduction of infill systems (rubber granules, sand, etc.), which are meant to cushion the surface and reduce the stiffness of older turf designs. While this has helped reduce some of the risks associated with high GRF, studies show that artificial turf still produces higher force loads on the body compared to natural grass, especially in explosive movements like sprinting or sudden changes in direction.
The uniformity of artificial grass can be both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, the consistent surface allows for predictable movements, which can enhance performance, particularly in high-speed actions. On the other hand, this lack of variability means that the same muscle groups are used repetitively, increasing the risk of overuse injuries.
Advantages of Artificial Turf:
Higher energy return: More force is returned to the athlete, enhancing sprint speed and agility.
Uniform surface: Consistent grip and texture improve predictability in movements.
Durability: Artificial turf can withstand heavy use and adverse weather conditions without deterioration.
Disadvantages:
Higher peak GRF: Leads to greater stress on muscles, tendons, and joints.
Increased injury risk: Particularly for non-contact injuries like ACL tears and ankle sprains due to the higher forces and grip (foot fixation).
Fatigue: The increased load on muscles can cause greater fatigue over time.
Impact on Speed, Agility, and Fatigue
Speed and Agility
Athletes often report feeling faster on artificial turf due to the higher energy return. The stiff surface allows for greater propulsion during the push-off phase of running, enabling quicker acceleration and higher sprint speeds. A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research showed that athletes running on artificial turf produced significantly faster sprint times compared to natural grass, primarily due to the reduced surface deformation and increased ground reaction forces .
However, this increase in speed comes with a trade-off. The lack of surface give can place more stress on the body's musculoskeletal system, particularly during deceleration or cutting movements. Sports like soccer involve frequent changes in direction, and the higher GRF on artificial turf means that each cut or pivot places a greater load on the athlete's ligaments and tendons. This heightened stress has been linked to an increased risk of non-contact injuries, especially ACL tears .
In contrast, natural grass provides more shock absorption, which can reduce the load on muscles and joints during sudden stops or changes in direction. Athletes may not reach the same top speeds as on artificial turf, but the softer surface offers a buffer that helps protect against injury, particularly in the knees and ankles.
Fatigue Management
Playing on artificial turf can lead to greater muscular fatigue over time, particularly in the lower limbs. The stiffer surface increases the cumulative load on the body during prolonged activity, which can result in earlier onset of fatigue. A study published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine found that athletes who trained and competed on artificial turf reported higher levels of muscle soreness and fatigue compared to those on natural grass . This fatigue is largely due to the repetitive stress on the same muscle groups, as the uniform surface doesn’t allow for the natural variability that occurs on grass.
Natural grass, on the other hand, tends to reduce overall muscle fatigue because it absorbs more force during each foot strike. While athletes may experience slightly slower movements, the softer surface can extend their ability to perform at a high level over a longer period. For this reason, natural grass may be more suitable for endurance-based sports or multi-day competitions where long-term muscle recovery is critical.
Injury Risk and Surface Type
The differences in ground reaction forces between natural grass and artificial turf directly correlate to injury risks. Research has consistently shown that the risk of non-contact injuries, particularly ACL tears, is higher on artificial turf due to the greater forces transmitted through the body.
A study by Dragoo et al. (2010) found that athletes playing on artificial turf were significantly more likely to suffer ACL injuries compared to those on natural grass . The firmer surface, combined with the greater traction of artificial grass, leads to higher torsional forces on the knee during quick directional changes, increasing the risk of ligament damage.
Additionally, foot fixation—where the foot grips too tightly to the surface—occurs more frequently on artificial turf. This phenomenon can prevent natural foot rotation during pivots or sharp cuts, resulting in increased rotational stress on the knee joint. On natural grass, the foot is more likely to slip or adjust under similar conditions, reducing the chance of foot fixation and thus lowering injury risk.
While newer artificial turf designs aim to mitigate these risks by improving surface flexibility and grip, natural grass remains the preferred choice for injury prevention in many sports, particularly those involving frequent cutting and pivoting.
Performance vs. Safety
The choice between natural grass and artificial turf comes down to a balance between performance and safety. While artificial turf can offer athletes the advantage of speed and agility due to higher ground reaction forces and a consistent playing surface, it also brings with it a higher risk of injury and fatigue. On the other hand, natural grass may be slightly slower but offers superior shock absorption, reducing the risk of overuse injuries and prolonging an athlete's performance over time.
For athletes looking to maximize their performance while minimizing injury risk, it's crucial to tailor training and conditioning to the specific surface they play on. That’s where expert guidance can make a difference.
Whether you're playing on natural grass or artificial turf, understanding how these surfaces affect your body can be the key to optimizing your training and performance. At FULL90, we specialize in soccer-specific strength and conditioning programs that are customized to your needs. Our team of experienced performance coaches will guide you through personalized training programs that take surface type into account, ensuring you develop the right strength, stability, and agility to perform at your best while minimizing injury risks.
With FULL90, you’ll have access to our Sports Rehab and Prehab Library, featuring over 50 workouts designed to improve mobility, stability, and overall performance. Whether you're recovering from an injury or preparing for the next season, we’re here to help you dominate the field—no matter what surface you're playing on.
Download FULL90 today and work with our performance coaches to elevate your game, stay injury-free, and maximize your potential on the field.
Download Access to the App Here.
References:
Dragoo, J. L., Braun, H. J., & Harris, A. H. (2012). The effect of playing surface on the incidence of ACL injuries in National Collegiate Athletic Association American Football. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 26(11), 3220-3224.
Meyers, M. C. (2013). Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate soccer injuries on FieldTurf and natural grass surfaces: A 5-year prospective study. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(10), 2409-2420.
Severn, K. A., Fleming, P. R., Trewartha, G., & Mitchell, I. H. (2010). A comparison of lower extremity ground reaction forces during running on different playing surfaces. Journal of Sports Science, 28(7), 724-730.
Williams, S., Hume, P. A., & Kara, S. (2011). A review of football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs compared with natural turf. Sports Medicine, 41(11), 903-923.
McNitt, A. S., Petrunak, D. M., & Serensits, T. J. (2008). A survey of injuries on natural and artificial playing surfaces in professional soccer players. Journal of Sports Turf Research Institute, 84(4), 263-272.
Orchard, J., Chivers, I., Aldous, D., Bennell, K., & Seward, H. (2005). Ryegrass is associated with fewer non-contact ACL injuries than bermuda grass. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39(10), 704-709.
Ekstrand, J., Timpka, T., & Hägglund, M. (2006). Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: A prospective two-cohort study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(12), 975-980.
Nedelec, M., McCall, A., Carling, C., Legall, F., Berthoin, S., & Dupont, G. (2013). Recovery in soccer: Part I—Post-match fatigue and time course of recovery. Sports Medicine, 43(9), 909-931.
Comments