Next Article in Journal
High Performance GaSb-Based DBR Laser with On-Chip Integrated Power Amplifier via Gain-Match Design
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Simulation Analysis of Different Excavation Parameters for TBM 3D Disc Cutters Based on the Discrete Element Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/app15010040
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women’s Soccer

by
Manca Kutnjak
1,2,
Vladimir Pavlinovic
3 and
Toni Modric
3,4,*
1
Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Football Association of Slovenia, 4000 Kranj, Slovenia
3
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
4
High Performance Sport Center, Croatian Olympic Committee, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010040
Submission received: 4 December 2024 / Revised: 18 December 2024 / Accepted: 20 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Applied Biosciences and Bioengineering)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to identify differences in match running performance (MRP) on artificial turf (AT) and natural grass (NG) among female football players. The players’ MRPs (AT; 96 observations, NG; 80 observations) were obtained from all matches (n = 22) of the First Slovenian women’s football league in the season 2023/24 using a global positioning system. Data were categorized into four subsets according to the players’ tactical roles: central defensive player (CD), wide defensive player (FB), midfield player (CM), and offensive player (OF). The variables included total distance (TD), high-intensity running (HIR), high-intensity accelerations (HIA), and decelerations (HID). Results indicated that (i) CDs (Cohen’s d (d) = 0.93) and CMs (d = 1.07) covered significantly greater TD on AT compared to NG, with (ii) no significant differences in TD among FBs and OFs. Additionally, (iii) similar HIR, HIA, and HID values were found for players on all playing positions, irrespective of the pitch surface. These findings suggest that overall match intensity remains consistent between surfaces, but that AT may impose a higher physical demand regarding match volume for CDs and CMs. Therefore, the physical condition of these players should be a major consideration when playing on AT.

1. Introduction

As the popularity and professionalism of women’s soccer continue to rise globally [1,2], the need to understand the physical demands the players face has become extremely important [3]. The analysis of physical demands is usually performed by quantifying match running performance (MRP), such as total distance, high-intensity running, sprints, accelerations, and decelerations [4,5,6]. In women’s soccer, players typically cover between 9 and 11 km per match, of which approximately 350–650 m is high-speed running and 50–250 m is sprinting [7,8,9,10,11]. Understanding these demands is crucial in decision-making processes for structuring the elements of training and subsequent match preparation [12].
High-intensity variables, such as high-intensity running (HIR), high-intensity accelerations (HIA), and high-intensity decelerations (HID), are particularly relevant when assessing physical demands [13]. These variables provide deeper insights into the physiological and biomechanical stresses players experience during match play. Specifically, HIR reflects periods when players are required to sustain speeds that challenge aerobic and anaerobic systems [14]. HIA and HID, on the other hand, quantify rapid changes in velocity, which results in heightened physiological and neuromuscular demands [15]. These metrics are not only important for understanding soccer-specific demands but are also valuable for bioengineering efforts to optimize training load monitoring and surface technology design.
Empirical evidence demonstrated that physical demands are dependent on myriad factors [16], including pitch type [13]. Whether playing on NG or AT, each environment presents unique challenges and benefits, impacting player movement patterns, fatigue levels, and overall game dynamics [17]. Countries are increasingly choosing to build new playgrounds with AT, as they require less maintenance and respond better to weather conditions, especially in areas with wet and cold weather [13]. In 2004, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) approved using third-generation artificial grass for official tournaments [18]. Since then, many teams have combined playing on AT and NG, especially in regions with challenging weather conditions (e.g., Scandinavian countries). Moreover, AT is frequently utilized in specific contexts, such as youth competitions and women’s leagues [19]. However, AT still provides different operating conditions compared to NG. Specifically, AT is a consistent and firm surface that allows more predictable and stable footing, which can facilitate quicker movements [20]. On the other hand, NG has a softer composition and variable texture, which provides better shock absorption [13,21]. Consequently, athletes encounter variations in the physical demands placed upon them, which underscores the importance of exploring the interaction between pitch surface characteristics. These insights can guide the development of surface technologies, aimed at optimizing player performance, while mitigating injury risks.
Although interest in analyzing physical demands in soccer has grown over the past years [22], there is still limited knowledge about how pitch surface affects physical demands during match play [23]. To the best of our knowledge, there were only three studies in this field [13,24,25]. Briefly, Modric et al. [13] compared the MRP of elite soccer players on AT and NG, and reported that playing on AT is physically more demanding for defensive and midfield players than on NG. Brito et al. [24] analyzed displacement variability patterns of the players and their spatial distribution on different surfaces. Results suggested that the running activity of young players can be influenced by different surfaces. Andersson et al. [25] examined movement patterns, ball skills, and impressions of elite soccer players, comparing AT to NG. Contrary to the results of previous studies, their research did not show any differences in low and high-intensity actions during the match.
Evident inconsistencies in these findings are almost certainly the result of different methodologies utilized. Specifically, Modric et al. [13] and Brito et al. [24] used global positioning systems, while on the other hand Andersson et al. [25] used optical tracking systems. In addition, it should be noted that no study so far has compared physical demands exclusively among female football players on AT versus NG. As the physical demands of football differ significantly between the sexes [26,27,28], the findings from studies that investigated male players cannot be generalized to female players. Finally, studies rarely examined differences in acceleration and deceleration efforts on AT and NG, which are valid indicators of physical demands in soccer [29]. Understanding these nuances is not only critical for informing training practices but also for advancing surface engineering to better align with the unique physiological demands of athletes.
For the above-mentioned reasons, we believe that new research analyzing MRP on AT versus NG among female professional soccer players is warranted. Such findings may assist football coaches in identifying the physical demands associated with different playing surfaces and inform players of the expected efforts in women’s football. More importantly, the results could extend the understanding of how pitch conditions shape game dynamics and player efficiency, contributing to broader advancements in soccer performance science, such as tailoring surface-specific training protocols and optimizing player workload management. Beyond practical coaching applications, the findings could inform bioengineering efforts in surface design by identifying specific characteristics of AT that influence performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the MRP of female football players during matches played on AT and NG. We hypothesized that MRP would be significantly greater for players across all playing positions on AT than on NG.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Match Data

In this observational study, the MRP data were collected using a 10 Hz global positioning system (GPS) (Apex, STATSports, Newry, Northern Ireland, firmware 4.30). The system includes a 3-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer. Previous studies have confirmed the system’s validity and reliability in reporting distance and speed data [30]. To prevent inter-unit variability, players consistently used the same device for each match. In compliance with the manufacturer’s guidelines, all devices were activated approximately 30 min before the pre-match warm-up to ensure adequate satellite signal acquisition. Following each match, raw data files were exported using software specific to the system (STATSports Sonra version 3.0, Newry, Northern Ireland). These files were individually trimmed to retain only the data relevant to each specific match for further analysis. The MRP variables included total distance covered (TD) (m), high-intensity running (HIR) (≥5.5 m/s) (m), number of high-intensity accelerations (HIA) (>3 m/s2), and number of high-intensity decelerations (HID) (less than −3 m/s2) [31].

2.2. Match Analysis and Players’ Data

The data were obtained from all matches (n = 22) of the First Slovenian women’s football league in the season 2023/24. Matches were categorized by pitch surface as either NG (n = 8) or AT (n = 14). Players’ individual observations were included if a minimum of 60 min of play was recorded, as this duration can be extrapolated to the standard 90 min match, in accordance with previously established guidelines [32]. Goalkeepers were excluded from the analysis due to the unique demands and characteristics of their position. Consequently, the final sample comprised 176 match observations (AT; 96 observations, NG; 80 observations), which were categorized into four subsets according to the players’ tactical roles within the 4-3-3 formation that the team implemented in each match: central defensive player (CD; n = 33), wide defensive player (FB; n = 41), midfield player (CM; n = 40), and offensive player (OF; n = 62). Given that the data analyzed in this study were collected from routinely measured in-season activities, obtaining written informed consent was not necessary [33]. To ensure confidentiality, players’ identities were anonymized in accordance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study received approval from the local university’s ethics committee.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The normality of the distributions was evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and the data are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD). The homoscedasticity of all variables was verified through Levene’s test. To examine the effect of pitch type on MRP, four separate linear mixed models (LMM) were constructed. This approach was chosen for its ability to account for the nested structure of the data, where repeated observations of players across matches are non-independent. Thus, the LMMs included “player identity” as a random effect to control for inter-individual variability. Fixed effect included pitch surface (AT vs. NG). For this purpose, a dummy variable named “pitch” was created, coded as “0” for matches played on artificial turf and “1” for matches on natural grass, and introduced into the model. Due to the limited sample, contextual factors were not considered. The model fit was assessed through the use of residuals vs. fitted plots and Q-Q plots. The t-statistics from the mixed models were converted to effect sizes (ES) (Cohen’s d), and interpreted as follows: <0.2, trivial; 0.2–0.5, small; 0.5–0.8, medium; >0.8, large (8). To confirm results, differences in MRP on AT and NG were additionally tested by t-test for independent samples. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25.0 for Windows (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), with a significance level set at 0.05.

3. Results

Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 present descriptive statistics and differences in MRP when playing on AT versus NG. CDs covered significantly greater TD on AT than on NG (9303 vs. 8326 m, respectively; Cohen’s d (d) = 0.93, statistical power = 0.9). Additionally, significantly greater TD on AT compared to the NG was covered by CMs (10,164 vs. 9455 m, respectively; d = 1.07, statistical power = 0.95). No significant differences in TD were found, irrespective of the playing on AT or NG, for FBs (10,307 vs. 10,088 m, respectively) and OFs (10,062 vs. 9759 m, respectively).
Also, no significant differences in HIR were observed among players across all playing positions, regardless of playing on AT or NG (CDs: 111 vs. 150 m, respectively; FBs: 240 vs. 254 m, respectively; CMs: 180 vs. 214 m, respectively; OFs: 269 and 257 m, respectively).
A similar number of HIA were found, irrespective of the playing on AT or NG, for players on all playing positions (CDs: 38 vs. 36, respectively; FBs: 36 vs. 36, respectively; CMs: 35 vs. 34, respectively; OFs: 47 vs. 47, respectively). In addition, a similar number of HID were observed among players across all positions, regardless of whether they played on AT or NG (CDs: 45 vs. 45, respectively; FBs: 48 vs. 50, respectively; CMs: 48 vs. 49, respectively; OFs: 52 vs. 53, respectively).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to identify differences in MRP on AT and NG among female football players. Results indicated greater match volume on AT compared to NG for players in specific playing positions, while match intensity was similar for players on all playing positions, irrespective of playing on AT or NG. Therefore, the hypothesis that MRP will be significantly greater for players across all playing positions on AT than on NG was partially accepted.
The match volume in soccer is typically analyzed by quantification of TD [34]. Analysis of TD on AT and NG may therefore indicate a difference in match volume when playing on different surfaces. Results of such analysis from the current study showed that TD was significantly higher on AT than on NG among the CDs and CMs (both large ES), indicating increased match volume for these players on AT. Contrary to this, TD was similar on AT and NG among FBs and OFs, showing their equal match volume, irrespective of the pitch surface. This finding could be attributed to how each position adapts to the mechanics of the soccer ball, which may vary between different pitch surfaces [13]. Specifically, a soccer ball travels faster and with more bounces on AT compared to NG [24]. This is crucial when taking into account the distinct technical–tactical responsibilities associated with each playing position. For instance, CDs and CMs typically execute a greater number of passes during the match compared to players in all other playing positions [35]. Such greater activity with the ball of CDs and CMs, due to the elevated activity of the soccer ball on AT, possibly resulted in their increased overall activity on the pitch (i.e., TD).
Given that TD is recognized as an indicator of the overall physical demands during soccer competitions [8,36,37], it is important to note that our findings suggest that playing on AT may impose a higher degree of physical demand on CDs and CMs compared to FBs and OFs. Such considerations are generally in line with previous studies which investigated male players. Specifically, Modric et al. analyzed the MRP of elite male soccer players on different pitch surfaces, and revealed that TD was significantly higher on AT than on NG among the CDs, CMs, and FBs [13]. In the current study, although no significant differences in TD between pitch surfaces were found for FBs, descriptive parameters show their slightly greater values of TD when played on AT compared to NG (10,307 vs. 10,088 m, respectively). Therefore, it seems that increased match volume for defensive and midfielder players when playing on AT can be expected for both male and female players.
Further analysis focusing on high-intensity activities, which are typically used to assess match intensity [38], revealed that female players in all playing positions performed similar HIR both on AT and NG. Taking into account previous considerations on the mechanics of the soccer ball (i.e., travels faster and with more bounces on AT compared to NG), increased HIR would be expected for those players who experienced greater TD on AT than on NG (i.e., CDs and CMs). Moreover, such findings were demonstrated in very recent research among male players [13]. As our findings are quite the opposite, they may look controversial. However, the possible explanation could be attributed to the capabilities of female players to execute high-intensity activities. Specifically, in contrast to TD, which is not limited by players’ physical capacities, high-intensity activities may be limited by players’ anaerobic, power, and/or speed qualities [39]. As female soccer players, in general, have lower levels of these capacities compared to male players [26], executing high-intensity activities during the match is more challenging for them [27]. For this reason, despite the ball being faster and bouncing more on AT than on NG, female players most likely were not able to perform additional intensive efforts, explaining their equal HIR regardless of the type of pitch surface. Also, the lack of significant differences in HIR between surfaces may also be influenced by contextual and environmental factors. However, as players physical capacities, contextual (i.e., match outcome, opponent quality, etc.), and environmental (i.e., temperature, humidity, etc.) factors were not controlled due to the limited sample, such an assertion should be considered a limitation.
Irrespective of causality, it seems that increased match intensity when playing on AT cannot be expected for female players, as was demonstrated among male players [13]. This can be additionally supported by analysis of other high-intensity activities, such as HIA and HID. Thus, our results showed no differences in HIA and HID values for players on all playing positions irrespective of the pitch surface, confirming similar match intensity for female players both on AT and NG. In general, variables assessing match intensity (i.e., HIR, HIA, and HID) may be more suitable markers of the physical demands, due to their relationship with training status, compared to the variables assessing match volume (i.e., TD) [14,37,38,40,41]. As match intensity was similar both on AT and NG, it can be concluded that playing on AT was not more physically demanding for players in all playing positions, as shown among male professional [13] and youth [24] players. However, a huge increase in TD when playing matches on AT compared to NG among CDs and CMs (both large ES) should be taken into account as it can still to some extent present a higher degree of physical demand to them. As this may result in increased fatigue over a season if such matches are frequent, practitioners could implement targeted recovery strategies, such as tailored recovery sessions or load monitoring, to mitigate cumulative fatigue. Additionally, training on both surfaces may help players adapt to surface-specific demands, improving overall performance resilience. Finally, beyond training, the findings could guide advancements in surface and footwear design. For example, footwear engineered to provide enhanced grip and shock absorption may help players maintain performance and reduce injury risk on AT. Furthermore, modifications in AT characteristics, such as altering ball rebound or surface stiffness, could better accommodate the physiological and technical demands placed on players.
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this research. The data presented are indicative of the prevailing paradigms and practices within the club, as well as the training status of the players analyzed. Consequently, the results are generalizable only to cohorts with comparable characteristics and levels of competition. Also, a relatively small number of matches were analyzed, with a limited sample of players within certain playing positions. For example, all offensively ordinated players (i.e., wingers and forwards) were categorized into one group. Given their distinct roles on the pitch, which may result in different MRPs, further studies are needed to confirm the present findings for these players. Future research could investigate how contextual factors, such as match outcome, location, and opponent quality, influence MRP on different surfaces. Additionally, environmental conditions, including temperature, humidity, and weather, should be analyzed to assess their potential impact on MRP on different surfaces. Finally, for a more comprehensive understanding of physical demands on different pitch surfaces, there should be some attempt to analyze distances and accelerations in all speed zones.

5. Conclusions

This study is the first to analyze the differences in position-specific MRP on AT and NG exclusively among elite female football players. The findings suggest that overall match intensity remains consistent between surfaces, but that AT may impose a higher physical demand regarding match volume for CDs and CMs. Therefore, the physical condition of these players should be a major consideration when playing on AT.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.; methodology, M.K.; software, V.P.; validation, T.M.; formal analysis, M.K.; investigation, M.K.; resources, V.P.; data curation, V.P.; writing—original draft, M.K.; writing—review and editing, M.K., T.M. and V.P.; supervision, T.M.; project administration, T.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Split, Faculty of Kinesiology (approval number: 2181-205-02-05-19-0020, 1 September 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

As the data analyzed in this study were derived from routinely measured activities over the course of the competitive season, obtaining written informed consent was not required; therefore, informed consent was waived by the Ethical Board of the University of Split, Faculty of Kinesiology.

Data Availability Statement

Dataset available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hernandez-Martinez, J.; Perez-Carcamo, J.; Canales-Canales, S.; Coñapi-Union, B.; Cid-Calfucura, I.; Herrera-Valenzuela, T.; Branco, B.H.M.; Valdés-Badilla, P. Body Composition and Physical Performance by Playing Position in Amateur Female Soccer Players. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Trombiero, D.S.; Praça, G.M.; Borges, E.d.P.A.; de Lira, C.A.B.; Leonardi, T.J.; Laporta, L.; Castro, H.d.O.; Costa, G.D.C.T. Analysis of Physiological, Physical, and Tactical Responses in Small-Sided Games in Women’s Soccer: The Effect of Numerical Superiority. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Michaildis, Y.; Bagkos, T.; Kaldaras, V.; Gissis, I.; Metaxas, T.Ι. The Profile of the Internal Load of Amateur Soccer Players during Official Matches with Formation 1-4-3-3 and Relationships with Indexes of External Load. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Villaseca-Vicuña, R.; Perez-Contreras, J.; Zabaloy, S.; Merino-Muñoz, P.; Valenzuela, L.; Burboa, J.; Gonzalez-Jurado, J.A. Comparison of Match Load and Wellness between Friendly and World Cup Matches in Elite Female Soccer Players. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kunzmann, E.; Ford, K.R.; Sugimoto, D.; Baca, A.; Hank, M.; Bujnovsky, D.; Mala, L.; Zahalka, F.; Maly, T. Differences in External and Internal Load in Elite Youth Soccer Players within Different Match Timing Zones. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 7230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Christaras, M.; Michailidis, Y.; Mandroukas, A.; Vardakis, L.; Christoulas, K.; Metaxas, T. Effects of a Short Half-Time Re-Warm-Up Program on Matches Running Performance and Fitness Test Performance of Male Elite Youth Soccer Players. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mäkiniemi, J.K.; Savolainen, E.H.; Finni, T.; Ihalainen, J.K. Position specific physical demands in different phases of competitive matches in national level women’s football. Biol. Sport. 2023, 40, 629–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Krustrup, P.; Mohr, M.; Ellingsgaard, H.; Bangsbo, J. Physical demands during an elite female soccer game: Importance of training status. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2005, 37, 1242–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mohr, M.; Krustrup, P.; Andersson, H.; Kirkendal, D.; Bangsbo, J. Match activities of elite women soccer players at different performance levels. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2008, 22, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Andersson, H.A.; Randers, M.B.; Heiner-Møller, A.; Krustrup, P.; Mohr, M. Elite female soccer players perform more high-intensity running when playing in international games compared with domestic league games. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 912–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Vescovi, J.D.; Favero, T.G. Motion characteristics of women’s college soccer matches: Female Athletes in Motion (FAiM) study. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2014, 9, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kammoun, M.M.; Trabelsi, O.; Gharbi, A.; Masmoudi, L.; Ghorbel, S.; Tabka, Z.; Chamari, K. Anthropometric and physical fitness profiles of tunisian female soccer players: Associations with field position. Acta Gymnica 2020, 50, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Modric, T.; Esco, M.; Perkovic, S.; Basic, Z.; Versic, S.; Morgans, R.; Sekulic, D. Artificial Turf Increases the Physical Demand of Soccer by Heightening Match Running Performance Compared with Natural Grass. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 2222–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Modric, T.; Versic, S.; Sekulic, D. Does aerobic performance define match running performance among professional soccer players? A position-specific analysis. Res. Sports Med. 2021, 29, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Akenhead, R.; Harley, J.A.; Tweddle, S.P. Examining the external training load of an English Premier League football team with special reference to acceleration. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2016, 30, 2424–2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Trewin, J.; Meylan, C.; Varley, M.C.; Cronin, J. The influence of situational and environmental factors on match-running in soccer: A systematic review. Sci. Med. Footb. 2017, 1, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Williams, J.H.; Akogyrem, E.; Williams, J.R. A Meta-Analysis of Soccer Injuries on Artificial Turf and Natural Grass. J. Sports Med. 2013, 2013, 380523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Meyers, M.C.; Barnhill, B.S. Incidence, causes, and severity of high school football injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass: A 5-year prospective study. Am. J. Sports Med. 2004, 32, 1626–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Garcia-Unanue, J.; Fernandez-Luna, A.; Burillo, P.; Gallardo, L.; Sanchez-Sanchez, J.; Manzano-Carrasco, S.; Felipe, J.L. Key performance indicators at FIFA Women’s World Cup in different playing surfaces. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0241385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sassi, A.; Stefanescu, A.; Menaspa, P.; Bosio, A.; Riggio, M.; Rampinini, E. The cost of running on natural grass and artificial turf surfaces. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Kanaras, V.; Metaxas, T.I.; Mandroukas, A.; Gissis, I.; Zafeiridis, A.; Riganas, C.S.; Manolopoulos, E.; Paschalis, V.; Vrabas, I.S. The effect of natural and artificial grass on sprinting performance in young soccer players. Am. J. Sports Sci. 2014, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gollan, S.; Bellenger, C.; Norton, K. Contextual Factors Impact Styles of Play in the English Premier League. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2020, 19, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Okholm Kryger, K.; Wang, A.; Mehta, R.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Massey, A.; McCall, A. Research on women’s football: A scoping review. Sci. Med. Footb. 2022, 6, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brito, Â.; Roriz, P.; Silva, P.; Duarte, R.; Garganta, J. Effects of pitch surface and playing position on external load activity profiles and technical demands of young soccer players in match play. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport. 2017, 17, 902–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersson, H.; Ekblom, B.; Krustrup, P. Elite football on artificial turf versus natural grass: Movement patterns, technical standards, and player impressions. J. Sports Sci. 2008, 26, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pedersen, A.V.; Aksdal, I.M.; Stalsberg, R. Scaling Demands of Soccer According to Anthropometric and Physiological Sex Differences: A Fairer Comparison of Men’s and Women’s Soccer. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cardoso de Araújo, M.; Baumgart, C.; Jansen, C.T.; Freiwald, J.; Hoppe, M.W. Sex Differences in Physical Capacities of German Bundesliga Soccer Players. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 2329–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Meier, H.E.; Konjer, M.; Leinwather, M. The demand for women’s league soccer in Germany. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2016, 16, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vescovi, J.D.; Fernandes, E.; Klas, A. Physical demands of women’s soccer matches: A perspective across the developmental spectrum. Front. Sports Act. Living 2021, 3, 634696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Beato, M.; Coratella, G.; Stiff, A.; Iacono, A.D. The Validity and Between-Unit Variability of GNSS Units (STATSports Apex 10 and 18 Hz) for Measuring Distance and Peak Speed in Team Sports. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rampinini, E.; Alberti, G.; Fiorenza, M.; Riggio, M.; Sassi, R.; Borges, T.; Coutts, A. Accuracy of GPS devices for measuring high-intensity running in field-based team sports. Int. J. Sports Med. 2015, 36, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Stevens, T.G.; de Ruiter, C.J.; Twisk, J.W.; Savelsbergh, G.J.; Beek, P.J. Quantification of in-season training load relative to match load in professional Dutch Eredivisie football players. Sci. Med. Footb. 2017, 1, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Vladovic, J.; Versic, S.; Foretic, N.; Morgans, R.; Modric, T. Quantification of External Training Load among Elite-Level Goalkeepers within Competitive Microcycle. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baptista, I.; Johansen, D.; Seabra, A.; Pettersen, S.A. Position specific player load during match-play in a professional football club. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Konefał, M.; Chmura, P.; Zając, T.; Chmura, J.; Kowalczuk, E.; Andrzejewski, M. Evolution of technical activity in various playing positions, in relation to match outcomes in professional soccer. Biol. Sport 2019, 36, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rampinini, E.; Bishop, D.; Marcora, S.M.; Ferrari Bravo, D.; Sassi, R.; Impellizzeri, F.M. Validity of simple field tests as indicators of match-related physical performance in top-level professional soccer players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2007, 28, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rey, E.; Costa, P.B.; Corredoira, F.J.; Sal de Rellán Guerra, A. Effects of Age on Physical Match Performance in Professional Soccer Players. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2023, 37, 1244–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Bradley, P.S.; Sheldon, W.; Wooster, B.; Olsen, P.; Boanas, P.; Krustrup, P. High-intensity running in English FA Premier League soccer matches. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 27, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. McCormack, W.P.; Stout, J.R.; Wells, A.J.; Gonzalez, A.M.; Mangine, G.T.; Fragala, M.S.; Hoffman, J.R. Predictors of high-intensity running capacity in collegiate women during a soccer game. J. Strength. Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 964–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mohr, M.; Krustrup, P.; Bangsbo, J. Match performance of high-standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue. J. Sports Sci. 2003, 21, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Varley, M.C.; Aughey, R.J. Acceleration profiles in elite Australian soccer. Int. J. Sports Med. 2013, 34, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and differences for match running performances when playing on AT and NG (data are given as mean ± SE).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and differences for match running performances when playing on AT and NG (data are given as mean ± SE).
CDFBCMOF
ATNGATNGATNGATNG
TD (m)9303 ± 5358326 ± 54710,307 ± 51110,088 ± 51910,164 ± 5139455 ± 51410,062 ± 3829759 ± 391
HIR (m)111 ± 43150 ± 43240 ± 43254 ± 44180 ± 63214 ± 63269 ± 33257 ± 34
HIA (#)38 ± 736 ± 736 ± 236 ± 335 ± 334 ± 347 ± 647 ± 6
HID (#)45 ± 545 ± 548 ± 550 ± 548 ± 449 ± 452 ± 353 ± 3
CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players, AT—artificial turf, NG—natural grass; TD—total distance, HIR—high-intensity running, HIA—high-intensity accelerations, HID—high-intensity decelerations; bold text denotes significant differences at p < 0.05 tested by t-test for independent samples.
Table 2. The effect of different pitch surfaces on total distance covered in women’s soccer.
Table 2. The effect of different pitch surfaces on total distance covered in women’s soccer.
CDFB
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept8326 (547)4538–12,11415.22 (1.37)10,088 (519)8129–12,04719.43 (2.33)
Pitch: AT977 (383)195–17602.55 (30.07)219 (269)−326–7650.82 (36.3)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals1,194,232 (308,349)3.87 (<0.01)678,154 (159,913)4.24 (<0.01)
Player438,893 (724,196)0.60 (0.54)689,117 (749,595)0.92 (0.36)
CMOF
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept9455 (514)7857–11,05218.39 (3.13)9759 (391)8658–10,86124.99 (3.85)
Pitch: AT709 (220)263–11563.22 (36.04)302 (256)−210–8151.18 (57.24)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals479,676 (113,320)4.23 (<0.01)987,530 (185,084)5.33 (<0.01)
Player947,485 (844,530)1.12 (0.26)455,275 (438,499)1.03 (0.23)
Coef—coefficient, SE—standard error, CI—confidence interval, AT—artificial turf, CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players.
Table 3. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity running covered in women’s soccer.
Table 3. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity running covered in women’s soccer.
CDFB
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept150 (43)−214–5153.47 (1.22)254 (44)94–4155.83 (2.41)
Pitch: AT−40 (25)−90–10−1.62 (30.04)−14 (23)−61–33−0.62 (36.36)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals4894 (1264)3.87 (<0.01)5041 (1188)4.24 (<0.01)
Player3107 (4817)0.65 (0.52)4826 (5205)0.93 (0.35)
CMOF
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept214 (63)23–4063.4 (3.29)257 (34)164–3517.55 (4.1)
Pitch: AT−34 (28)−91–22−1.23 (36.17)12 (25)−39–620.46 (57.27)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals7721 (1821)4.24 (<0.01)9637 (1807)5.33 (<0.01)
Player14,164 (12,424)1.14 (0.25)3144 (3232)0.97 (0.33)
Coef—coefficient, SE—standard error, CI—confidence interval, AT—artificial turf, CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players.
Table 4. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity accelerations in women’s soccer.
Table 4. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity accelerations in women’s soccer.
CDFB
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept36 (7.29)−34.03–106.54.98 (1.13)36 (2.5)29.64–41.5314.22 (6.85)
Pitch: AT2 (3.32)−4.9–8.660.57 (30.03)0 (3.23)−6.51–6.570.01 (37.96)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals90 (23)3.87 (<0.01)103 (24)4.26 (<0.01)
Player94 (141)0.67 (0.5)2 (9)0.17 (0.87)
CMOF
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept34 (2.79)25.11–42.0212.02 (3.29)47 (6.29)27.89–65.167.4 (3.44)
Pitch: AT2 (2.56)−3.61–6.760.62 (35.98)1 (2.86)−4.88–6.570.3 (57.17)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals65 (16)4.17 (<0.01)123 (23)5.34 (<0.01)
Player17 (24)0.69 (0.49)139 (121)1.15 (0.25)
Coef—coefficient, SE—standard error, CI—confidence interval, AT—artificial turf, CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players.
Table 5. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity decelerations in women’s soccer.
Table 5. The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity decelerations in women’s soccer.
CDFB
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept45.29 (5.37)20.64–69.948.43 (1.88)49.98 (5.05)34.26–65.79.91 (3.12)
Pitch: AT−0.09 (5.16)−10.62–10.45−0.02 (30.14)−1.86 (4)−9.97–6.24−0.47 (36.85)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals217 (56)3.87 (<0.01)151 (36)4.25 (<0.01)
Player29 (60)0.48 (0.63)50 (61)0.82 (0.41)
CMOF
Fixed effectCoef (SE)95% CIt (df)Coef (SE)95% CIt (df)
Intercept48.82 (4.38)36.45–61.1911.14 (3.84)52.51 (2.9)45.26–59.7518.08 (5.55)
Pitch: AT−0.65 (3.03)−6.8–5.5−0.21 (36.49)−0.72 (3.15)−7.03–5.59−0.23 (57.27)
Random effectCoef (SE)z (p)Coef (SE)z (p)
Residuals91 (22)4.24 (<0.01)150 (28)5.31 (<0.01)
Player56 (55)1.02 (0.31)11 (20)0.54 (0.59)
Coef—coefficient, SE—standard error, CI—confidence interval, AT—artificial turf, CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kutnjak, M.; Pavlinovic, V.; Modric, T. The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women’s Soccer. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010040

AMA Style

Kutnjak M, Pavlinovic V, Modric T. The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women’s Soccer. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(1):40. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010040

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kutnjak, Manca, Vladimir Pavlinovic, and Toni Modric. 2025. "The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women’s Soccer" Applied Sciences 15, no. 1: 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010040

APA Style

Kutnjak, M., Pavlinovic, V., & Modric, T. (2025). The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women’s Soccer. Applied Sciences, 15(1), 40. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15010040

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop