Play High School or Not?

End of the Line said:
This is like deja vu all over again. Per one study:

"The positive association between fatigue and injury risk was in accordance with results from research on elite soccer(15) and rugby(12) players. Accumulated minutes and a lack of rest days did not directly cause injuries, and researchers should examine the causal pathways linking fatigue to injuries, particularly given the variability in the estimated effects of these variables. In their investigation of knee injuries, Goitz et al(13) reported that knee-joint proprioception errors were greater during a state of fatigue and specifically suggested that the mechanism for ACL injuries is more likely to occur in fatigued states."​

But you should spend more time looking at this, which is a summary article that itself references some other solid studies, including one by MIT. https://fitforfutbol.com/2016/02/th...y-and-sleep-on-performance-injury-likelihood/ Below is an excerpt, since you apparently lacked time to read since the last time I posted it in this forum:

Schedule Density is positively correlated with injuries Schedule density has been linked with greater injuries and decreased quality of play. One study on soccer players found that the closer together games are played without adequate rest, the greater the likelihood for injury. Interestingly, this relationship DOES NOT seem to occur for younger athletes. Likewise, there is data out of the very trustworthy MIT Sloan conference that suggests that back-to-back games and game density do not predict injuries.

Minutes Played in a game are positively correlated with injuries. Injury rates rise proportional to the number of minutes played. Sometimes this one can be convoluted and obscured by the fact that many injuries occur in the first couple minutes are on the court or pitch. This is misleading though because all players who see game action MUST go through the early minutes of playing time before reaching longer durations of play. This same rationale is used to misrepresent the fact that more car accidents occur closer to home. Of course they do! You have to leave home before you can go anywhere else. Once we take this fact in to account though, the evidence clearly indicates that injury likelihoods go up exponentially with minutes played. This has been observed in soccer (1, 2), rugby and basketball.​

Your turn Doc. @Simisoccerfan couldn't find a study to refute this, all he could do is call me names, which is one reason I repeatedly mock him. I don't recommend that you continue making his same mistake, although I must say you've gotten off to a bad start calling me a clown when I've already provided some solid support for my position in this forum.
Click to expand...

Did you really just offer a single basketball study about back to back games as medical consensus that playing 75 minutes over three straight days of soccer games is healthier than playing 90 minutes over three games in four days? Medical consensus and one study? Those are the same? Come on joker. You ain't fooling anyone. Everyone knows that fatigue leads to increased injury risk. I called you out about your "medical consensus" claim regarding playing three games over three straight days for 75 minutes vs. 90 minutes over four days. Nothing. Nada. Under your logic (or lack thereof), playing 89 minutes over three straight days is healthier than playing three, 90 minute games over four days. Of course, we know that makes no sense and is categorically untrue. So I want the medical consensus that shows 75 minutes over three straight days is healthier. Heck, I'll even settle for a single study on point. I'll be waiting anxiously.
 
MarkM said:
Did you really just offer a single basketball study about back to back games as medical consensus that playing 75 minutes over three straight days of soccer games is healthier than playing 90 minutes over three games in four days? Medical consensus and one study? Those are the same? Come on joker. You ain't fooling anyone. Everyone knows that fatigue leads to increased injury risk. I called you out about your "medical consensus" claim regarding playing three games over three straight days for 75 minutes vs. 90 minutes over four days. Nothing. Nada. Under your logic (or lack thereof), playing 89 minutes over three straight days is healthier than playing three, 90 minute games over four days. Of course, we know that makes no sense and is categorically untrue. So I want the medical consensus that shows 75 minutes over three straight days is healthier. Heck, I'll even settle for a single study on point. I'll be waiting anxiously.
Click to expand...
Dude, didn’t we agree to not respond.:D
 
The increasing level of injury observed for youth players towards the end of the season supports the concerns expressed by the Football Association27 over the total number of games in which young players compete over the course of a season. It is expected therefore that the establishment of the football academies for young players at professional clubs, together with the standards set by the Football Association relating to the maximum number of matches played by youth players in a season, will go a long way towards addressing this issue.

This is one of the main conclusions from the study mentioned by End.

DA plays only about 30 to 35 games in a season. Some DA teams play 2-4 more games in outside tournaments.

ECNL plays about 25-30 games in a season. Plus alot more outside tournaments. Plus 20 to 25 HS games.

All other leagues play about 12 games in season. Maybe 18 to 35 outside games at tournaments. Plus 20 to 25 HS games.

So many non DA players play twice as many games as DA players.

See I can agree with this conclusion from the study you actually presented.
 
How does training load impact that study?
Less games but more training. Or more games but less training. Which is better/worse?
 
Well study showed a lot more injuries in games then training. The another main conclusion centered around being fit, maintaining fitness, and pre and post game warm ups and cool downs.
 
timbuck said:
How does training load impact that study?
Less games but more training. Or more games but less training. Which is better/worse?
Click to expand...
That really depends on the type of training they are getting, how the coach manages the work load week to week. I don’t mean to sound redundant but it really does depend on the coach. The good ones will navigate the season, change the level of intensity at practices throughout the season....no matter what league.
 
Coaches really do need to be versed in periodization.
I don’t have specifics for soccer- but I’m going to try and dig something up.
Coming back from a 3 week break and then playing a 4 game tournament is not a great idea.
 
Simisoccerfan said:
The increasing level of injury observed for youth players towards the end of the season supports the concerns expressed by the Football Association27 over the total number of games in which young players compete over the course of a season. It is expected therefore that the establishment of the football academies for young players at professional clubs, together with the standards set by the Football Association relating to the maximum number of matches played by youth players in a season, will go a long way towards addressing this issue.

This is one of the main conclusions from the study mentioned by End.

DA plays only about 30 to 35 games in a season. Some DA teams play 2-4 more games in outside tournaments.

ECNL plays about 25-30 games in a season. Plus alot more outside tournaments. Plus 20 to 25 HS games.

All other leagues play about 12 games in season. Maybe 18 to 35 outside games at tournaments. Plus 20 to 25 HS games.

So many non DA players play twice as many games as DA players.

See I can agree with this conclusion from the study you actually presented.
Click to expand...

Thank you for finally putting in some thought rather than reflexively being your usual self. You know what, I agree with you that playing too many games is likely to increase the injury risk, especially if you repeatedly play full HS games. In fact, I'll even add that the HS rule of having OT for non-playoff games is ludicrous. See, it isn't so hard to agree with the obvious. I think we can also agree that one way to reduce the risk of injury is to ensure that kids are in better shape physically and mentally. As some point, the benefit of increased training (including strength training and increasing stamina) no longer becomes a benefit and instead becomes an increased injury risk, and that perfect mix varies by kid in a way that you'll never be able to gauge exactly where that line must be drawn. But studies very clearly show that it should be drawn at forcing girls to play 90 minutes without sufficient rest.

But that still doesn't change the fact that 6 kids per game being forced to play 90 minutes has probably the most significant direct impact on the increased risk of a catastrophic knee injury than anything else, and there is no legitimate reason to have it in the first place. It also doesn't change the fact that kids can play a lot more games than GDA allows, so long as they properly manage it, but too many parents seem to think that this is something that is outside their scope of responsibility or even concern.

Where you and others go wrong, sir, is that you believe that there are two options that must be accepted as they are. You seem to think there is either GDA in its current format or there is non-GDA in its current format when, in fact, all of them can be improved. When kids decide to play HS, it is not because they think it will reduce the risk of knee injury. To the extent is a consideration at all, it is because they think HS and the higher injury risk still makes it a better option for them despite the risk to their knees. Which tells you a lot about how bad the GDA platform is and why it's failing.
 
MarkM said:
Did you really just offer a single basketball study about back to back games as medical consensus that playing 75 minutes over three straight days of soccer games is healthier than playing 90 minutes over three games in four days? Medical consensus and one study? Those are the same? Come on joker. You ain't fooling anyone. Everyone knows that fatigue leads to increased injury risk. I called you out about your "medical consensus" claim regarding playing three games over three straight days for 75 minutes vs. 90 minutes over four days. Nothing. Nada. Under your logic (or lack thereof), playing 89 minutes over three straight days is healthier than playing three, 90 minute games over four days. Of course, we know that makes no sense and is categorically untrue. So I want the medical consensus that shows 75 minutes over three straight days is healthier. Heck, I'll even settle for a single study on point. I'll be waiting anxiously.
Click to expand...

Actually no. The link relates specifically to soccer, and also cites other studies that relate specifically to soccer, as well as other sports including basketball. The first article I quoted is also soccer specific.

The studies I cited very clearly show that minutes played in a game substantially increases the injury risk in soccer players, whereas game density does not appear to have an impact on younger players. With respect to 75 minutes vs. 90 minutes specifically, I need to dumb things down for people by providing examples because the studies use technical terms like "game density" and utilize some pretty sophisticated analysis and graphs that are too much for people like yourself. In the end, I have identified a number of studies that support what I am saying, but you just don't care to read them. I am also still the only person to provide any medical studies at all, and all of them definitively state that a kid playing 90 minutes is stupid. As I said earlier (which you ignored), reasonable minds may differ with respect to playing 3 days in a row at 75 minutes (ECNL) vs. 2 in a row at 90 (GDA), but the studies I've cited suggest I'm right and you haven't shown anything to the contrary. You've just said "nuh uh" and misrepresented what is in the studies, which is fine because you aren't my audience. Anyone with a real interest will read the what I have posted and realize that I am providing medical information from MIT and PhDs, and you're MarkM. Unlike you, I'm not telling anyone to rely on what I am saying. You're the only one doing that.
 
Kicker4Life said:
They don’t.

And conversely you’ve provided information that has supported mine......you’re literally arguing against yourself now. #tailspin <zing>
Click to expand...

The interesting thing here is that you believe that these clubs left because of HS (and maybe cost), not the annoyance of having to play before finals. But wanting to play HS and not wanting to deal with the headache of dealing with being gone before finals week (at significant cost) are not mutually exclusive. All of the clubs that left did so because GDA hurt the bottom line and was risking running off many of consumers and revenue. And when many consumers were saying HS and another comp platform were a better option, why was that? In the end, it is because HS is more fun, and one of the things that makes it a better choice for them is that they don't need to deal with any of the headaches of GDA.

Why do you think USSF holds the winter showcase when it does? Not because it is the ideal time to hold it, that is for sure. USSF holds it when it does because it wants to put it as far into HS soccer season as possible as a deterrent to losing kids to HS. The only carrot GDA has is that mid-level players (or younger kids) get access to college coaches at its showcases. I thinks it can force them to give up HS because they (probably rightfully) believe it is the better option. But GDA's carrot doesn't have any weight for kids who've either already committed, alphas that don't need GDA to get recruited, or kids who don't have a 4.8 gpa or who are more committed to academics than a soccer tournament in Florida.
 
Kicker4Life said:
I take it your not continuing with your ACL argument because it actually isn’t the issue with DA as much as Elite Female atheletes and how COACHES can tend to exploit them (playing time)? Should we pull up the studies that show the longer you Drive in a day increases your risk of getting into a car accident to help you see the hole in your argument? ACL’s are no laughing matter, I’ve torn mine 3 times and guess what, I wasn’t playing DA (gasp), the sub rules didn’t exist, so it can happen regardless.
Click to expand...

Happy to oblige....

Coaches exploiting kids by playing too much is certainly a problem, and USSF should focus more effort on dealing with this serious issue instead of creating a platform that requires coaches to exploit them.

Your argument about studies showing that driving longer in a day increases your risk of getting into a car accident is addressed and refuted for its faulty logic in the article I posted earlier, so I refer you to that. But I can also add that you are wrong about that too. If you review commercial driving studies, you'll see that driving a lot of consecutive hours leads to a significant increase in the likelihood of an accident due to mental fatigue. Here's one. https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Commercial_Motor_Vehicle_Operations/download. It shows that there isn't a meaningful increased risk of an accident at first, just like in a soccer game, but once you past a certain point (the 10th hour of driving or around the 40th consecutive minute of soccer), you start to break down mentally and mental fatigue then because a leading cause for both motor vehicle accidents and soccer injuries. What is most fascinating, though, is that the study shows that taking breaks during the driving can be a great way to reduce the risk of an accident, just like a break during a soccer game is a great way to reduce the risk of injury.

As for your ACL tears, you are correct that they're no laughing matter, which is why I'm actually providing people with medical studies instead of suggesting to people that it's ok for their kids to play 90 minute games because they tore their ACL some other way. That said, your argument is no different than claiming that no one has an increased risk of getting STDs from hookers because you got yours from your girlfriend and not the hooker.

I would be interested in your explanation about how you incurred an ACL injury if you think it is helpful for others. Given that you've had three, however, I suspect you may be the last person anyone should listen to in a discussion about how to avoid ACL injuries.
 
MarkM said:
Did you really just offer a single basketball study about back to back games as medical consensus that playing 75 minutes over three straight days of soccer games is healthier than playing 90 minutes over three games in four days? Medical consensus and one study? Those are the same? Come on joker. You ain't fooling anyone. Everyone knows that fatigue leads to increased injury risk. I called you out about your "medical consensus" claim regarding playing three games over three straight days for 75 minutes vs. 90 minutes over four days. Nothing. Nada. Under your logic (or lack thereof), playing 89 minutes over three straight days is healthier than playing three, 90 minute games over four days. Of course, we know that makes no sense and is categorically untrue. So I want the medical consensus that shows 75 minutes over three straight days is healthier. Heck, I'll even settle for a single study on point. I'll be waiting anxiously.
Click to expand...

What I think is really funny is that GDA players/teams are supposed to be “the elite players” and supposedly in top physical shape, but are limited to playing one game a day. While, the SCDSL, CSL and Presidio/SDDA teams are looked on as being low level and not in great physical shape, especially Silver/Bronze/Tier 2/3, and they routinely play 2-3 games a day during tournaments. It seems to me that the GDA teams should be the ones playing multiple games in a day and the other “low level” teams only playing one game. Just an observation.
 
Surfref said:
What I think is really funny is that GDA players/teams are supposed to be “the elite players” and supposedly in top physical shape, but are limited to playing one game a day. While, the SCDSL, CSL and Presidio/SDDA teams are looked on as being low level and not in great physical shape, especially Silver/Bronze/Tier 2/3, and they routinely play 2-3 games a day during tournaments. It seems to me that the GDA teams should be the ones playing multiple games in a day and the other “low level” teams only playing one game. Just an observation.
Click to expand...
How many pro players or college players play more than one game a day? Are they not Elite Athletes?

Honestly....does having the ability to, but not playing 2 games in a day somehow exclude you from being an elite athelete?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top