Rise of Astro Pitches

[SweeperDee]

Don't actually mind artificial pitches, if they are of a decent standard. Playing on new 4G/5G pitches is a pretty pleasant experience, but it'll never match a flat grass pitch which has just been freshly cut and watered. Ball just moves a certain way that can't really be replicated on artificial surfaces. Wouldn't ban them if it meant certain clubs ended up financially precarious because they had to install and tend to a new grass pitch. 

[harry94]

20 hours ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that artificial pitches cause more injuries. The difference is that when a player gets injured on one the pitch is put down as a contributing factor, but when they occur on grass pitches that is never raised as a potential cause. I suffered a serious knee injury when I was younger, while playing on a grass pitch. This was never blamed, if it had been an artificial one I'm sure people would have suggested that as a factor.

The problem is that when people say grass pitches are better they are assuming that by a grass pitch we are taking about the Emirates or Anfield. When in reality you are talking about ploughed fields like Stair Park, or rotten pitches from November to February even the top league in Scotland. If you ask a top flight player would they rather play on Kilmarnock/Hamilton/Livingston's pitch, or Stranrear's grass pitch, the vast majority would go for the artificial one.

The other thing is we have a whole generation of youngsters who have barely kicked a ball on a grass pitch before. If you're taken in by a pro club at 11/12 and go through the system until you are 18 you play almost entirely on artificial pitches. So if we are seriously saying that artificial pitches are an issue then we are in real trouble because we have an entire generation coming through who have done  nothing but play on these pitches. Similarly, Iceland's recent successes were built entirely on artificial pitches as their climate makes grass unsuitable, unless I've missed it I've not noticed their players having injury issues due to years of these pitches.

The 'argument' for grass pitches doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

I'm with you. It really doesn't help things that it's national news when someone slips on astroturf.

There's a debate to be had but I fear a lot of opposing view points are built on things that just aren't true or can be backed up by evidence.

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, SweeperDee said:

Don't actually mind artificial pitches, if they are of a decent standard. Playing on new 4G/5G pitches is a pretty pleasant experience, but it'll never match a flat grass pitch which has just been freshly cut and watered. Ball just moves a certain way that can't really be replicated on artificial surfaces. Wouldn't ban them if it meant certain clubs ended up financially precarious because they had to install and tend to a new grass pitch. 

What way is this? Which grass pitch does this happen on?

[SweeperDee]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

What way is this? Which grass pitch does this happen on?

I find that balls tend to bobble a bit more on artificial surfaces, even when you try to drive the ball flat, possibly because of the hard underlay used in most artificial pitches (Which when the ball bounces, it's exaggerated almost). Grass on the other hand, usually allows the ball to glide a bit more, especially when wet. 

[DA Baracus]

Bobble compared to what grass pitch(es)?

If this is an argument against artificial pitches then surely all grass pitches should be made to be of the exact same standard, given that balls tend to bounce differently and run differently on all grass pitches as no two are the same.

[sparky88]

The SPFL voted against using Europa and Champions League money to pay for all teams to play on grass , which is what happens in the dutch league. Clubs only have themselves to blame if they are really that bothered about plastic pitches.

[SweeperDee]

7 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Bobble compared to what grass pitch(es)?

If this is an argument against artificial pitches then surely all grass pitches should be made to be of the exact same standard, given that balls tend to bounce differently and run differently on all grass pitches as no two are the same.

I'm generalising. 

In my original post, I said that I wasn't against artificial pitches, if they are of a decent standard. 

The whole premise of this argument though is Grass vs Artificial, not Grass type 1 vs Grass type 2 vs Grass type 3, and so on. Obviously grass pitches will differ from each other, but they will exist with the same general traits and attributes, as brought about by the fact its grass. Those traits and attributes (the way the ball plays and moves IN GENERAL) are usually superior to the traits and attributes (hard bouncing due to USUALLY concrete/hard underlay) of artificial turfs. 

This is presuming conditions are ideal as well; I'm not arguing that Motherwell's grass pitch (more mire) from a few seasons back was better than a standard artificial pitch.

 

[DA Baracus]

29 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

I'm generalising. 

In my original post, I said that I wasn't against artificial pitches, if they are of a decent standard. 

The whole premise of this argument though is Grass vs Artificial, not Grass type 1 vs Grass type 2 vs Grass type 3, and so on. Obviously grass pitches will differ from each other, but they will exist with the same general traits and attributes, as brought about by the fact its grass. Those traits and attributes (the way the ball plays and moves IN GENERAL) are usually superior to the traits and attributes (hard bouncing due to USUALLY concrete/hard underlay) of artificial turfs. 

This is presuming conditions are ideal as well; I'm not arguing that Motherwell's grass pitch (more mire) from a few seasons back was better than a standard artificial pitch.

 

Aye I get what you mean, but the arguments against artificial pitches always seem to assume some sort of mad ideal of grass pitches, which simply isn't the case here, and can never be due to issues of resources and climate. They often come across as arguing for something that we've never had and never will as an opposition to artificial pitches.

A lot of pitches in Scotland, probably even most, will have spells of looking really good, but there will always be something that means that such condition cannot be sustained (unless that club was able to throw millions of pounds at it, which no club can). A quirk of the fixture list might see heavy usage over a short period of time, resulting in areas cutting up. This could (and usually does) coincide with winter where the pitches don't get enough time to recover, as for all the leagues under the Premiership December and January see 

[SweeperDee]

12 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye I get what you mean, but the arguments against artificial pitches always seem to assume some sort of mad ideal of grass pitches, which simply isn't the case here, and can never be due to issues of resources and climate.

What should be taken into account really is the economic reality of Scottish football, i.e. it's not comparable to English football, where most top level professional clubs can afford to tend to grass pitches all year-round regardless of climate and weather. Full-time, senior, professional (even less so with clubs further down the system) clubs up here simply can't do that, and maintain that standard due to the costs of doing so. 

Grass is the ideal surface to play on, but not because it's infallible as a surface, and that's why I don't think there should be some sort of sacrosanctity regarding grass as a playing surface. It's expensive to maintain a good standard grass pitch, and clubs up here can't justify that cost when they can get an average artificial pitch, with no real ongoing maintenance cost compared to grass. I don't blame the likes of Hamilton, and other clubs in trying to save money by opting for an artificial turf, because at the end of the day, Scottish football is financially poor and clubs need to save money when they can. Why should they run the risk of losing revenue through postponed games and the like because they've been forced to install a grass pitch that they can't maintain efficiently when artificial pitches do the job that's required?

Anyway, I'm ranting now. They shouldn't be banned, but artificial pitches should be kept to a certain standard.

[accies1874]

Dominic Ball in today's Evening Express...

 
Asked if artificial pitches should be banned in the top flight, Ball said: “That is why I signed the petition.
“The petition is hoping to do that (ban artificial pitches).
“I don’t mind them but my preference is grass pitches.
“I was brought up playing on them my whole life. But if you look at the Premier League in England every team has grass pitches.
“It reflects on Scottish football and grass pitches are the way to move forward.”
 

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/aberdeen-fc/donsnews/dons-defender-dom-ball-backs-ban-on-artificial-pitches/
So he actually doesn't mind artificial pitches and his reasoning seems to be purely "...cause in the English Premier League...".
This is fucking nonsense yet still more considered than the majority of arguments against artificial pitches.

[DA Baracus]

9 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

What should be taken into account really is the economic reality of Scottish football, i.e. it's not comparable to English football, where most top level professional clubs can afford to tend to grass pitches all year-round regardless of climate and weather. Full-time, senior, professional (even less so with clubs further down the system) clubs up here simply can't do that, and maintain that standard due to the costs of doing so. 

Grass is the ideal surface to play on, but not because it's infallible as a surface, and that's why I don't think there should be some sort of sacrosanctity regarding grass as a playing surface. It's expensive to maintain a good standard grass pitch, and clubs up here can't justify that cost when they can get an average artificial pitch, with no real ongoing maintenance cost compared to grass. I don't blame the likes of Hamilton, and other clubs in trying to save money by opting for an artificial turf, because at the end of the day, Scottish football is financially poor and clubs need to save money when they can. Why should they run the risk of losing revenue through postponed games and the like because they've been forced to install a grass pitch that they can't maintain efficiently when artificial pitches do the job that's required?

Anyway, I'm ranting now. They shouldn't be banned, but artificial pitches should be kept to a certain standard.

I'd argue that the community and youth aspects are more important that the financial ones when talking about artificial pitches.

As I mentioned before, if clubs are made to rip them up then that would result in thousands of folk being denied access to training facilities and a place to play.

[Burnie_man]

Fans who want them removed are the ones who probably think they look shite based on the view from their armchair. 3G doesn't look anywhere near as good as a grass pitch on the telly. Boo hoo.

As for that Aberdeen players opinion, well it sums it up really.

[LIVIFOREVER]

1 hour ago, accies1874 said:

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/aberdeen-fc/donsnews/dons-defender-dom-ball-backs-ban-on-artificial-pitches/
So he actually doesn't mind artificial pitches and his reasoning seems to be purely "...cause in the English Premier League...".
This is fucking nonsense yet still more considered than the majority of arguments against artificial pitches.

Does he not take a moment to think before coming out with such things as comparing our top flight to England's, one club in their Premiership gets more TV money than all 12 of ours combined. How the hell can you compare the two, complete nonsense.

 

Managers like McInnes coming out and saying you have to listen to players as the results are compelling, well not really Derek, not when their reasoning has no actual sense or facts backing them up. And we haven't seen what this survey actually asked them either. 

 

I like Steve Clarke's reply though, 

Quote

"I don't need to get involved in the discussion, same as our players weren't asked to be involved in it. Why should I get involved?"

 

[kennysmassiveego]

14 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Does he not take a moment to think before coming out with such things as comparing our top flight to England's, one club in their Premiership gets more TV money than all 12 of ours combined. How the hell can you compare the two, complete nonsense.

 

Managers like McInnes coming out and saying you have to listen to players as the results are compelling, well not really Derek, not when their reasoning has no actual sense or facts backing them up. And we haven't seen what this survey actually asked them either. 

 

I like Steve Clarke's reply though, 

 

That’s why SSC is treated like a god in Kilmarnock , he talks so much sense  

[Dindeleux]

All the clubs with players who signed the petition should act to look after their employees and forfeit all the away games on artificial pitches.  Unless they are putting points before player safety.

[Diamonds are Forever]

The PFA should be careful what they wish for. The only way that Scottish clubs would be able to maintain high quality grass pitches throughout the year is through significant investment from the clubs into higher quality pitches and maintenance. If the players are happy to have the squad sizes cut and wages reduced to fund this then fair to play to them. I'm not sure I'd be willing to make that sacrifice just because it looked better on TV (which again, is highly debatable).

[Diamonds are Forever]

23 hours ago, eez-eh said:

Have you asked them like?

Quote

Well no, that's why I used the word if...

Pure hyperbolic pish. Do a lot of people exaggerate how bad artificial pitches are? Aye, but that doesn’t mean there’s no argument whatsoever for using grass pitches. There’s plenty of benefits to artificial pitches, but having played on several there’s no doubt that you feel your feet “sticking” in the surface more than on a grasss pitch. It’s hardly a surprise that might be problematic for more injury prone players.

Artificial pitches have their uses and there’s no doubt they’re better than several poor grass pitches, but I’m also inclined to think that any top level club should be capable of maintaining a grass pitch of an acceptable standard.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but of course though you’ll get people on one side claiming that plastic pitches are the spawn of Satan and those on the other side declaring anyone who says a bad word about them as dinosaurs.

 

Eh, but they aren't though. This is the point, people just casually throw lines like that out there and expect people just to believe it. There is literally no evidence that they contribute to injuries more than grass does. A couple of managers claiming that their players can't play on artificial surfaces does not constitute evidence. The irony that those players (like Steven MacLean) developed injuries through a career of playing on grass pitches seems to be lost on them.

It's pretty obvious I wasn't arguing that grass pitches should never be used. By 'argument for grass pitches' I mean the argument that only grass pitches should be allowed, which is what was proposed yesterday. I couldn't care less which pitch is used. It should be up to each club to decide for themselves what pitch best suits their needs, provided they are safe, and all the evidence suggests they are equally so.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

I'd argue that the community and youth aspects are more important that the financial ones when talking about artificial pitches.

As I mentioned before, if clubs are made to rip them up then that would result in thousands of folk being denied access to training facilities and a place to play.

Agreed.

The financial benefits that do exist concern hiring out the facilities, not savings on maintenance or by avoiding postponements, as suggested by some of the dopier contributors to the debate.

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, lanky_ffc said:

teAmS tHAt plAy oN PlaSTiC hAve aN unFaiR aDvanTage

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa0020

Look, just because serious, academic research has established that artificial pitches don't contribute to injuries, or confer a playing advantage, doesn't mean the cretins coming out with received crap they can't support are wrong?

Does it?

[accies1874]

I think it's time for an "I've never seen a good game on an artificial pitch".