Applied Bionics and Biomechanics / 2017 / Article / Tab 3

Review Article

Influence of Cleats-Surface Interaction on the Performance and Risk of Injury in Soccer: A Systematic Review

Table 3

Studies regarding the cleat-surface interaction on performance.

AuthorSampleGround and cleat typeMethods and instrumentsVariablesConclusionsQuality index score (%)

Sterzing and Hennig [26]20 male experienced soccer players:
25.4 ± 3.3 years
75.1 ± 7.1 Kg
177.6 ± 5.3 cm
Ground:
(i) Artificial grass
Footwear condition:
(i) FG (0%, 50%,100% stud length)
(ii) SG (100% stud length)
(iii) Own soccer shoe
(iv) Two premium cleat models
Tasks:
6 maximum kicks per shoe condition
Instruments:
(i) Stalker Pro radar gun
(ii) Force platform
(i) Peak ball velocity
(ii) erceived ball velocity
(iii) Peak resultant shear force of the stance leg
Traction in the standing limb is partly influenced by the stud height, which in turn influences the kicking movement and ball velocity.
The shoe weight and outsole stiffness had any effect on resultant ball velocity.
Different shoe models alter the resultant ball velocity.
56,25%

Sterzing et al. [11]52 male amateur or subelite soccer players:
24.5 ± 4.2 years
73.2 ± 7.0 Kg
177.9 ± 4.8 cm divided by 8 studies
Ground:
(i) Dry and wet artificial grass
(ii) Dry and snow natural grass
Footwear condition:
(i) HG
(ii) FG rounded and bladed
(iii) SG
(iv) FG (0% stud length)
(v) FG (50% stud length)
Tasks:
(i) Straight line sprints
(ii) Slalom
Instruments:
(i) Photovoltaic cells
(i) Running time
(ii) Running time perception (given by a cleats ranking)
SG cleats with high studs’ worse performance in synthetic.
The behavior of the cleats on dry and wet ground was similar.
Bladed studs improve performance compared with the elliptical ones in the slalom test, under dry and ice/snow conditions.
Performance was gradually reduced with the reduction of stud height (50% and 0% of its original size).
The increase of 70 g in shoes and the heel contour comfort does not seem to interfere with performance.
The model defined by the manufacturers as indicated for synthetic turf favored performance compared to design model for natural grass, and it was perceived by athletes.
59,38%

Hennig et al. [27](i) 1st study—24 male subjects
(ii) 2nd study—20 male subjects
Ground:
(i) Not mentioned
Footwear condition:
1st study—five different shoe modifications
2nd study—two shoes with significantly different accuracy in the 1st study
Tasks:
(i) 20 repetitive inside and instep kicks towards a target
Instruments:
(i) Circular electronic target
(ii) Plantar pressure insoles
(i) Mean ball deviation (cm) from the target
(ii) Pressure distribution pattern
Although most soccer players are not aware of it, kicking speed and accuracy can be influenced by footwear design.31,25%

Clarke and Carré [13]A mechanical testing device was used instead of a soccer player sample.Ground:
(i) Artificial grass
(ii) Natural grass
Footwear conditions:
(i) Six models of cleats with different studs’ dimensions and geometry
Tasks:
(i) Three trials of simulated sprints startInstruments:
(i) Mechanical testing device with hydraulic system
(i)Penetration capacity
(ii) Horizontal traction force
In natural grass, only highest and cylindrical studs do not fully penetrate, which may explain the lack of traction.
The conical studs demonstrate better penetration.
The average horizontal traction increases with the studs’ cross-sectional area, but the opposite happens if the stud does not fully penetrate.
Comparing two models of conical studs, in artificial turf, the lowest showed higher traction.
59,38%

Muller et al. [15]25 male subelite soccer players:22.9 ± 4.1 years
71.5 ± 6.3 Kg
177.9 ± 4 cm
A mechanical device was used to simulate sprint starts.
Ground:
(i) Artificial grass
Footwear conditions:
(i) HG
(ii) FG
(iii) SG
(iv) Prototype
Tasks:
(i) Straight line sprints
(ii) Slalom
(iii) 45° and 180° changes of direction
(iv) Simulation of sprints starts
Instruments:
(i) Photovoltaic cells
(ii) Force platform
(iii) Mechanical traction device
(i) Running time
and their perception
(ii) Peak vertical force
(iii) Vertical force rate
(iv) Peak shear force
(v) Shear force rate
(vi) Coefficient of traction
Athletes present worse performance with SG model compared to other models. The SG seems unable to fully penetrate into the artificial grass causing instability mechanisms.56,25%

Sterzing et al. [14]47 male experienced soccer players:
23.0 ± 3.2 years
71.4 ± 5.9 Kg
177.3 ± 4.4 cm divided into 3 phases of the study
Ground:
(i) Artificial grass
Footwear conditions:
(i) HG
(ii) FG
(iii) SG
(iv) Prototype
(v) 4 variations of prototype
Tasks:
(i) Straight line sprints
(ii) Slalom
(iii) 45° and 180° changes of direction
Instruments:
(i) Photovoltaic cells
(ii) Force platform
(i) Running time and their perception
(ii) Traction suitability perception
(iii) Peak vertical force
(iv) Peak a-p and m-l shear force
(v) Peak resultant shear force
(vi) Perceived ratios
The sole of the cleat developed was proved to be more suitable for synthetic compared to the 3 already commercialized models. Shoes with high studs (SG) do not seem to be the most suitable for artificial grass.71,88%

Sterzing et al. [28]19 male experienced soccer players:
24.0 ± 3.6 years
72.1 ± 3.1 Kg
178.3 ± 1.9 cm
Ground:
(i) Artificial grass
Footwear conditions:
(i) FG rounded
(ii) FG bladed
Tasks:
(i) Dribbling
(ii) One touch passes of rolling balls
(iii) Lofted passes
(iv) Reception passes
(v) Passes from aerial
(vi) Juggling
Instruments:
(1) 0–10 mm scale for handling suitability perception
(i) Ball handling suitability
(ii) Dribbling (time and ball contacts)
(iii) Juggling (ball contacts)
(iv) Passes (cm)
Dribbling: FG bladed showed faster dribbling times compared to FG rounded model.
Passes: no differences were found between footwear conditions.
59,38%

McGhie and Ettema [18]22 male soccer players:
23.1 ± 2.8 years
77.5 ± 6.0 Kg
1.81 ± 0.1 meters
Ground:
(i) 3 different artificial grass field heights: (42; 50; 60 mm)
Footwear conditions:
(i) TF
(ii) FG rounded
(iii) FG bladed
Tasks:
(i) 5 short sprints with a 90°change of direction
Instruments:
(i) Force platform
(ii) Motion capture system
(iii) Photovoltaic cameras
(i) Peak impact
(ii) Traction
(iii) Total change in velocity
(iv) Sliding velocity traction coefficient
The traction coefficient appears to be homogeneous as regards different combinations of cleats-ground, suggesting that individuals can adjust the gesture so as to maintain the desired level of traction in the task of changing direction.71,88%

De Clercq et al. [25]12 male soccer players:
16 ± 1 years
67.3 ± 8.1 Kg
1.76 ± 8.8 meters
Ground:
(i) Dry and wet artificial grass
Footwear conditions:
(i) TF
(ii) AG
(iii) FG
Tasks:
(i) 10 × 5 shuttle run tests with a 180°change of direction
Instruments:
(i) Force platform
(ii) Perception of performance questionnaire
(i) Traction
(ii) Time to finish the shuttle run test
(iii) Players perception
Players perceived small differences in performance and traction.
On dry artificial grass, the three tested stud designs do not affect performance or traction.
On wet condition, the TF showed a larger shuttle run time.
AG and FG fulfil the traction needs in both conditions.
62,50%