"Have times changed?"

LinkedIn article

In football, one of the hottest topics nowadays is injuries epidemiology and their influence in sports results. The overall consensus is that, in fact, the occurrence of injury has a lot to do with many factors already identified... But is that all? Can we really agree that today's mantra of prevention is enough to... Prevent?

Let's start with some facts:

1 - Data Record in now infinitely more accurate than before, whether for injuries or any other playing dimension;

2 - Today there are infinitely more studies about injuries epidemiology, prevention and training methodology than it did in 1970.

3 - FIFA's regulations only started allowing on-pitch substitutions in 1958 (1970 for World Cup final stages).

4 - Referees nowadays are more sensitive to the fact that injuries may occur due to inapproppriate behaviour on the field, and rules protect players against dangerous tackling and uncautious playing.

Considering these simple facts, let's think about the state of art around sports injuries. In studies in the area, many indicators are used to assess if a team has a high or low injury incidence (no. of injuries, time lost/player, time lost/ injury, etc.) and these injuries may be considered "contact" - on field - or "non-contact" - due to fatigue and or altered biomechanics. This might be important to reflect in a while.

Now, let's look at football history and analyse the likes of such players as Pelé, Eusébio, Puskas, Di Stéphano, etc. How could they perform, especially as brilliantly as they did, and as often as they did, when the "injury factor" was so unlooked at?

Of course, there is a number of arguments here:

B - "Schedule" : nowadays, a fundamental player in a team has to play about 60 matches in a season. Back then, considering the 20 match-season plus Domestic and European Cups, seasons would go around approximately 40 matches. Allied to the fact of less competitive matches and opponents, this means that such players would spend less time on the pitch, playing less competitive matches, and having larger resting times.

Good points; now let's take a look at the other side:

II - "Training Lab and Medical Post Research" : think about the "schedule" argument for a second again. Now, think about the millions studies we're ahead of that time. The context now should avoid more injuries now despite the 20 matches difference than the 20 matches difference should avoid with the ignorance of those times. Other than that, there were no superb athletes as Cristiano Ronaldo or longevity case-studies as Javier Zanetti's (especially as often as this cases happen nowadays).

With all this being said, are there factors we're overloooking when comparing times?

- Player's psychologic dimension: Lack of resilience? "Fear of success"?

- Player's habbits : seated for too long? Longer trips? Jet-lag? The fact that football players can't live their lives anymore since everything is monitored and controlled?

- Live to play or play to live : Since today's football players rely on football to bring food to the table (and cars to the garage), do they have higher pressure and increased fear of injury, because that means they won't be able to sustain for some time?

So... Are players more prone to injury today, or is the football player a really fragile product nowadays?

So many arguments, so many factors, so many players, so many injuries... And unfortunately, so much time.

Can we answer these questions anytime soon?