Plastic Fantastic?

[Newbornbairn]

From the SFA -

"On the question of available research, a report in the British Medical Journal in 2010, entitled risk of injury on 3G artificial turf in Norwegian professional football, determined no significant difference in injury location, type or severity between turf types: 17.1 injuries per 1000 match hours on natural grass and 17.6 injuries per 1000 match hours on artificial turf.

"A similar piece of research in 2007 - comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 1: match injuries - again showed no major differences.

"However, the severity of non-season ending injuries was 7.1 days on (artificial turf) versus 8.4 days on grass."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35565379

Pesky facts

[Jan Vojáček]

I think games are totally different on plastic pitches, more sticky and unpredictable, ruins games a bit at times. Would prefer it if clubs could just invested jn keeping their pitches in a semi decent state, which would surely be a much lower expense.

Grass > plastic always.

Eta: surely people that play on them here feel the difference to their bodies after playing a competitive game on plastic too? Like a tin man for days. Joints take a beating.

Absolutely, I basically chucked playing because I couldn't play on astro (couldn't play anyway, eh?) I ended up out of action for near enough 8 months with niggly injuries that I blamed on astro. I'm 18 and my can barely walk the day after I play on it nowadays, it's ruined my knees and - I don't know if this is just me - my back. There just isn't enough give on it for it to be good for your joints. I've also broken quite a few fingers landing on it, which is unpleasant. The worst being at school where I changed direction, slipped, put my hand out and saw my pinkie snap right back. Horrible, and wouldn't have happened on grass imo.

I said it when I was about 15, and I'll stand by it. Our generation - by that I mean those of us who grew up training/playing on astro from 1g onwards - will be in a lot more pain earlier in our life than the older generations who played on grass. Paranoid? Perhaps, but it's what I genuinely believe.

[1320Lichtie]

Rubbish!!!!!!!!!! 73% probably would love to play on an acceptable grass pitch and I accept that at the current time. But but you are missing the point, the players should be paid and allowed to play to the best of their skills, not get bogged down in mud, splash through water or have the ball bouncing out of reach on a rock hard surface. The fans are the important people who pay to watch FOOTBALL, not what is being served up by Clubs who can't or won't pay to keep their grass pitch in an acceptable condition.

It's not rubbish. That was the result of a survey. And the fans aren't the most important people, the players putting their bodies on the line every single week are. What a ridiculous statement.

[SpoonTon]

Absolutely, I basically chucked playing because I couldn't play on astro (couldn't play anyway, eh?) I ended up out of action for near enough 8 months with niggly injuries that I blamed on astro. I'm 18 and my can barely walk the day after I play on it nowadays, it's ruined my knees and - I don't know if this is just me - my back. There just isn't enough give on it for it to be good for your joints. I've also broken quite a few fingers landing on it, which is unpleasant. The worst being at school where I changed direction, slipped, put my hand out and saw my pinkie snap right back. Horrible, and wouldn't have happened on grass imo.

I said it when I was about 15, and I'll stand by it. Our generation - by that I mean those of us who grew up training/playing on astro from 1g onwards - will be in a lot more pain earlier in our life than the older generations who played on grass. Paranoid? Perhaps, but it's what I genuinely believe.

Bring back blaze.

[Newbornbairn]

It's not rubbish. That was the result of a survey. And the fans aren't the most important people, the players putting their bodies on the line every single week are. What a ridiculous statement.

Calm doon - it's a game of football, not the Battle of the Somme.

[Wilky1878]

Absolutely, I basically chucked playing because I couldn't play on astro (couldn't play anyway, eh?) I ended up out of action for near enough 8 months with niggly injuries that I blamed on astro. I'm 18 and my can barely walk the day after I play on it nowadays, it's ruined my knees and - I don't know if this is just me - my back. There just isn't enough give on it for it to be good for your joints. I've also broken quite a few fingers landing on it, which is unpleasant. The worst being at school where I changed direction, slipped, put my hand out and saw my pinkie snap right back. Horrible, and wouldn't have happened on grass imo.

I said it when I was about 15, and I'll stand by it. Our generation - by that I mean those of us who grew up training/playing on astro from 1g onwards - will be in a lot more pain earlier in our life than the older generations who played on grass. Paranoid? Perhaps, but it's what I genuinely believe.

Similarly I was out for 6 months from an injury on a bad Grass pitch then had niggly injuries for the following 6 months because of it...

[Burnie_man]

Absolutely, I basically chucked playing because I couldn't play on astro (couldn't play anyway, eh?) I ended up out of action for near enough 8 months with niggly injuries that I blamed on astro. I'm 18 and my can barely walk the day after I play on it nowadays, it's ruined my knees and - I don't know if this is just me - my back. There just isn't enough give on it for it to be good for your joints. I've also broken quite a few fingers landing on it, which is unpleasant. The worst being at school where I changed direction, slipped, put my hand out and saw my pinkie snap right back. Horrible, and wouldn't have happened on grass imo.

I said it when I was about 15, and I'll stand by it. Our generation - by that I mean those of us who grew up training/playing on astro from 1g onwards - will be in a lot more pain earlier in our life than the older generations who played on grass. Paranoid? Perhaps, but it's what I genuinely believe.

Be careful not to mix-up modern 3G surfaces with what went before.

[1320Lichtie]

Calm doon - it's a game of football, not the Battle of the Somme.

And players can still get injuries that affect their livelihood. Especially at part time level. Which TT supports.

[DA Baracus]

It's not rubbish. That was the result of a survey. And the fans aren't the most important people, the players putting their bodies on the line every single week are. What a ridiculous statement.

That's clearly nonsense. The fans are much more important, since they are the ones putting the most money in to clubs.

[RandomGuy.]

EDIT: Don't mean to be dismissive but I do think a lot of it is just in the head. Steven MacLean has come out and given his views on it and how he wants to avoid playing on it but I think a lot of it is to do with his age. Since he's in his 30s, he'll have grown up with the really bad stuff and probably played quite a few games on it when he was younger. Combine that with his injury issues and you can see why he'd be naturally wary but I suspect that he'd be OK (although he's totally correct to be cautious since it's his own career).

MacLeans against it as it created, then aggravated an injury which kept him out for 3/4 months in both 2013/14 and 2014/15. He also struggles to train during the week after a game on it due to pain.

[1320Lichtie]

That's clearly nonsense. The fans are much more important, since they are the ones putting the most money in to clubs.

Without players there wouldn't be a game. Clubs can exist without paid players.

Eta: clubs can pay players through other means and finance too.

EtaII: and when it comes to deciding what playing surfaces are better then the players themselves are obviously the most important people to decide?

[Sergeant Wilson]

Without players there wouldn't be a game. Clubs can exist without paid players.

Eta: clubs can pay players through other means and finance too.

EtaII: and when it comes to deciding what playing surfaces are better then the players themselves are obviously the most important people to decide?

Do you seriously believe professional clubs give much weight to the opinion of temporary employees?

[Jan Vojáček]

Bring back blaze.

I played in goals on blaze once. I think I'm still picking bits of the stuff out my knees!

Similarly I was out for 6 months from an injury on a bad Grass pitch then had niggly injuries for the following 6 months because of it...

Of course, it can happen, Christ you could get injured playing on the bowling greens at the Bernabeu or Old Trafford, but from a personal view I think the likelihood of getting an injury is far higher on Astro.

Be careful not to mix-up modern 3G surfaces with what went before.

I know man, I think I might have been one of the first generations to do a decent amount of time on 3G. I played on 3G first when I was in P6 IIRC, about 2008 at St Helens in Bishopbriggs. That was the first 'real' Astro pitches I'd seen.

I'm coaching now (this morning we had a game abandoned on Astro because the snow couldn't drain into the ground) so I've seen and trained on plenty. There are a few decent ones - Donald Dewar in Drumchapel isn't too bad on the joints - likewise there's some horrible ones, Petershill Park for example is like concrete in the goalmouth.

In an ideal world we'd play on grass, but I know that we don't live in that. Perhaps grasstroturf hybrids like they use in Rugby might be the answer. I hate rugby though, so I've never had a shot on it.

We'll know in 20yrs time how big - or otherwise - an affect it's had on players. Most of the players I know however aren't fond of the stuff at all.

[WILLIEA]

Bring back blaze.

Aye! You can get it in grey or red!

( I'm assuming this is the same as we called an ash park? )

[DA Baracus]

Without players there wouldn't be a game. Clubs can exist without paid players.

Eta: clubs can pay players through other means and finance too.

EtaII: and when it comes to deciding what playing surfaces are better then the players themselves are obviously the most important people to decide?

If players don't want to play for a club because they have an artificial pitch, there will be plenty of others who will.

Clubs can pay some costs through other means, but in Scotland the vast majority of money comes from the fans.

So no, the players are not the most important people to decide what surface they play on. If the club benefits from having an artificial pitch, they are hardly likely to place much credence in the views of a load of players who probably won't be there in a year or two whilst the club still has to pay running costs.

[1320Lichtie]

If players don't want to play for a club because they have an artificial pitch, there will be plenty of others who will.

Clubs can pay some costs through other means, but in Scotland the vast majority of money comes from the fans.

So no, the players are not the most important people to decide what surface they play on. If the club benefits from having an artificial pitch, they are hardly likely to place much credence in the views of a load of players who probably won't be there in a year or two whilst the club still has to pay running costs.

They are in regards to deciding which surface is best to play on, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Not to decide what clubs do. They can either get on with it or not. But I think it's telling that 73% of them said what they did, after all they're the best judge.

[1320Lichtie]

Do you seriously believe professional clubs give much weight to the opinion of temporary employees?

No.

[Sergeant Wilson]

They are in regards to deciding which surface is best to play on, which is the point I'm trying to make.

Not to decide what clubs do. They can either get on with it or not. But I think it's telling that 73% of them said what they did, after all they're the best judge.

They aren't deciding anything, they are expressing an opinion.

[lionel hutz]

I only played on 3G for the first time this year, having played either on grass (that Rugby had been played on), our school's hockey astro or(old) Gussie Park. Now grass is always preferable but how many places is there where the grass is "good" - not many. If I were a professional football player, I would much rather play on Hamilton's 3G than Dens's mudbath this season. So for the juniors and other non-league clubs it's much more advisable to play on 3G than some of the farm fields you get at lower levels.

FWIW, I'm currently out with a knee injury after playing on 3G. Nothing to do with the surface though. Me being an idiot and clashing knees with someone.

[SpoonTon]

Aye! You can get it in grey or red!

( I'm assuming this is the same as we called an ash park? )

Yeah, that's the stuff. Brutal.

I played on some horrific pitches as a kid. Once ripped my knee open on a stone in a grass pitch. We're lucky to have so many astro pitches now. My local pitches were either flooded, frozen, or too muddy most of the year (and in July they took the goalposts away). At school we played on a blaze pitch. There's now so much access to good artificial surfaces, it's a good thing.

We'd all prefer grass surfaces like at Cappielow everywhere, but it's not always possible (until we find the technology to clone Mark Farrell). We do need a higher level of standards of what counts as an acceptable artificial pitch at the top levels though.