Would be interesting if you could group injuries by shoe sponsor, or even better, by boot model, if that info was available.
I would actually love to see that sort of data as well.
With all the sports science being applied to the modern-day footballer, that stat would be quite an interesting one along with footplate/sole used. Going back to my own personal findings, I did have Nike for many years both when playing football and rugby, yet move to Adidas Predators as Nike seemed to a) change their fit and b) (this is the boot tart speaking) came out with some godawful offerings that just looked horrendous (although Tiempo's always looked the biz)
Always have two different mouldies and varying stud lengths as well for whatever conditions are out there and at the age of 52 have never had any major tears, pulls or structural damage to my major joints, aside from a freak rabbit-hole injury many years ago.
On the same theme and as I mentioned in my previous post, would the fact that Melwood had more stable ground than the AXA also perhaps have something to do with it? New training pitches created from "made" ground rather than well bedded in turf? Weirdly, I was speaking to the old groundskeeper at Reading a few years back and he was telling me that a newly laid pitch does not have anywhere near the same grip than one that was freshly laid, as more established turf/grass was more reobust and also deeper rooted than newly laid thus giving more traction. To be honest, I was hugely surprised and taken aback at the amount of science that went into these things, as I thought all that was involved was spreading some seed on bare patches and cutting the grass constantly...
