Türkiye Profesyonel Futbol Liglerindeki Takımların Stadyum Çim Türlerinin Araştırılması

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye profesyonel futbol liglerindeki takımların stadyum çim türlerinin ve bu çim türlerinin ligler arasındaki dağılımının incelenmesidir. Çalışmada 2020-2021 sezonunda Türkiye profesyonel futbol liglerinde yer alan 145 takımın stadyumlarındaki çim tipleri araştırılmıştır. Stadyum çim tipi ile ilgili bilgilere Türkiye Futbol Federasyonu resmi sitesinden yararlanılarak ulaşılmıştır. Eksik bilgiler, kulüplerin web sitesinden ya da ilgili kulüplerle iletişime geçilerek tamamlanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, SPSS 23 paket programı tercih edilmiş ve tanımlayıcı istatistiklerden faydalanılmıştır. Takımların oynadığı çim yüzeyler değerlendirildiğinde; profesyonel liglerdeki takımların %74’ü (n: 108) doğal çim, %16'sı (n:23) sentetik çim ve %10'u ise (n:14) hibrit çim sahalarda maçlarını oynadığı belirlenmiştir. Lig seviyesine göre çim tipleri incelendiğinde; süper ligdeki takımların, %57’si (n:12) hibrit çim, %43’ü (n:9) doğal çim, birinci ligdeki takımların ise; %83’ü (n:15) doğal çim, %11’i (n:2) hibrit çim ve %6’sı (n:1) sentetik çim sahalarda maçlarını oynadığı belirlenmiştir. İkinci ve üçüncü liglerdeki takımların çim tipleri incelendiğinde ikinci ligdeki takımların; %87’si (n:34) doğal çim, %13’ü (n:5) sentetik çim, üçüncü ligdeki takımların ise %75’i (n:50) doğal çim ve %25’i (n:17) sentetik çim sahalarda maçlarını oynadığı tespit edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak profesyonel liglerde farklı oranlarda doğal, suni ve hibrit çim sahalar bulunmaktadır. Sporcu, antrenör ve sağlık ekibinin mücadele edeceği ligdeki zemin türlerini bilmesi hem sezon başı hem de maçlar oynanırken sporcuların sağlık ve performansına katkı sağlayacaktır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sentetik çim
• Hibrit çim
• Doğal çim

Investigation of The Stadium Turf Types of Teams In Turkey Professional Football Leagues

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the stadium turf types of teams in Turkish professional football leagues and the distribution of these turf types between leagues. In the study, turf types in the stadiums of 145 teams participating in the Turkish professional football leagues in the 2020-2021 season were investigated. Information about the type of stadium turf was accessed by using the official site of the Turkish Football Federation. Missing information was completed on the website of the clubs or by contacting the relevant clubs. In the analysis of the data, the SPSS 23 package program was preferred and descriptive statistics were used. When turf surfaces played by teams were evaluated, it was determined that 74% (n: 108) of the teams in the professional leagues played their matches on natural grass, 16% (N:23) on synthetic turf and 10% (N:14) on hybrid turf pitches. When the types of turf are examined according to the league level; it was determined that 57% of the teams in the super League (n:12) on hybrid turf, 43% (N:9) on natural grass, 83% of the teams in first league (n:15) on natural grass, 11% (n:2) on hybrid turf and 6% (n:1) on synthetic turf play their matches. When the turf types of the teams in the second and third leagues are examined; it was found that 87% (n: 34) of the teams in the second league are on natural grass, 13% (n: 5) are on synthetic turf, and 75% (n: 50) of the teams in the third league are on natural grass, 13% (n: 5) are on synthetic turf play their matches. As a result, there are natural, synthetic and hybrid turf pitches in different proportions in professional leagues. Knowing the types of turf in the leagues of athletes, trainers and health crew will contribute to the health and performance of the athletes both at the beginning of the season and while the matchs are played.

Keywords

• Synthetic turf
• hybrid turf
• natural grass

References

1. Ak, M. K. ve Ögçe, H. (2018). Hibrit çim uygulama yönteminin futbol sahası örneğinde incelenmesi. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 6(4), 1000–1009. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.437350.
2. Andersson, H., Ekblom, B. & Krustrup, P. (2008). Elite football on artificial turf versus natural grass: Movement patterns, technical standards, and player impressions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410701422076.
3. Bjørneboe, J., Bahr, R. & Andersen, T. E. (2010). Risk of injury on third-generation artificial turf in Norwegian professional football. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44(11), 794–798. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.073783.
4. Calloway, S. P., Hardin, D. M., Crawford, M. D., Hardin, J. M., Lemak, L. J., Giza, E., Forsythe, B., Lu, Y., Patel, B. H., Osbahr, D. C., Gerhardt, M. B., Mandelbaum, B. R. & Baldwin, W. W. (2019). Injury surveillance in major league soccer: A 4-year comparison of injury on natural grass versus artificial turf field. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(10), 2279–2286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519860522.
5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2006.027623.
6. Fleming, P. (2011). Artificial turf systems for sport surfaces: Current knowledge and research needs. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part P: Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, 225(2), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754337111401688.
7. Hughes, M. G., Birdsey, L. Meyers, R., Newcombe, D., Oliver, J. L., Smith, P. M., Stembridge, M., Stone, K., & Kerwin, D. G. (2013). Effects of playing surface on physiological responses and performance variables in a controlled football simulation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(8), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.757340.
8. Jones, A., Page, R., Brogden, C., Langley, B. & Greig, M. (2020). The influence of playing surface on the loading response to soccer-specific activity. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 29(8), 1166–1170. https://doi.org/10.1123/JSR.2019-0327.

9. NédéLec, M., McCall, A., Carling, C., Le Gall, F., Berthoin, S. & Dupont, G. (2013). Physical performance and subjective ratings after a soccer-specific exercise simulation: Comparison of natural grass versus artificial turf. Journal of Sports Sciences, 31(5), 529–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.738923.
10. Orchard, J. (2001). The AFL penetrometer study: Work in progress. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 4(2), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1440-2440(01)80032-3.
11. Rennie, D. J., Vanrenterghem, J., Littlewood, M. & Drust, B. (2016). Can the natural turf pitch be viewed as a risk factor for injury within sssociation football? Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 19, 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.07.009.
12. Roberts, J., Osei-Owusu, P., Harland, A., Owen, A. & Smith, A. (2014). Elite football players’ perceptions of football turf and natural grass surface properties. Procedia Engineering, 72, 907–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.150.
13. Stiles, V. H., Guisasola, I. N., James, I. T. & Dixon, S. J. (2011). Biomechanical response to changes in natural turf during running and turning. Journal of Applied Biomechanics, 27(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.27.1.54.
14. Strutzenberger, G., Cao, H. M., Koussev, J., Potthast, W. & Irwin, G. (2014). Effect of turf on the cutting movement of female football players. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 3(4), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2014.07.004.