Artificial Pitches. . . .Need to go!

[Insert Amusing Pseudonym]

You will never find a player who prefers plastic to grass pitches.  They're great for kids development but at the top level they shouldn't be part of the game

[DA Baracus]

So if artifical pitches have to be removed will there then be a standard that all grass pitches must meet? Will the ball have to run in the exact same way on each pitch and bounce the exact same way on every single pitch for every single game? Will the grass have to be the exact same length for all games on all pitches? Will the pitch dimensions have to be the same for every ground?

[VincentGuerin]

47 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

So if artifical pitches have to be removed will there then be a standard that all grass pitches must meet? Will the ball have to run in the exact same way on each pitch and bounce the exact same way on every single pitch for every single game? Will the grass have to be the exact same length for all games on all pitches? Will the pitch dimensions have to be the same for every ground?

None of that is really relevant when some people's position is just that the game should be played on grass pitches. People do this all the time. The issue of whether grass pitches are all the same or not doesn't come into it. They're grass pitches, and the general view of opponents of artificial pitches is simply that football should be played on grass.

It's like saying you have a competition for dogs, but people arguing that since not all dogs are the same type of dog, then allowing cats to enter is ok. Different kinds of dogs are still dogs, and grass pitches are grass pitches.

A common view among players and coaches I've seen expressed (and heard) is that they prefer grass. And the top-end of the game certainly shows that it prefers grass by staying away from artificial pitches.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but posts like yours quoted are common as a criticism of the pro-grass side, but it's not really on-point.

Edited October 24, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[DA Baracus]

Scotland isn't the top end of the game.

I just fail to see the issue with artificial pitches, and given the numerous benefits clubs get from them can't see why they should be banned.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Scotland isn't the top end of the game.

I just fail to see the issue with artificial pitches, and given the numerous benefits clubs get from them can't see why they should be banned.

Scotland's not the top end of the game, but people against them have a fair point in the 'are they shite or not?' debate that if they were just as good as grass, we'd see them at the top end. We don't.

It's way down the list of things that bother me, but it's not really relevant whether all grass pitches are the same or not.

It's perfectly valid to believe football should be played on grass and that's it.

[LiviLion]

On 23/10/2022 at 12:18, PauloPerth said:

If the types of artificial pitches like the ones we have in our top league are so good, and as good as grass pitches, then why do so few of the top teams in the world have them?

Probably because they can afford to maintain a perfect grass pitch?

AFAIA no one has ever said they prefer plastic pitches over grass, but they're definitely preferable to a tatty field, and banning them because "ah jist dinny like how they look" will always be a weird stance.

Personally think if plastic pitches are getting banned, we should be getting giant spirit levels to make sure every pitch is perfectly flat and any sign of wear or the grass not being the perfect shade of green should lead to a postponement; not fair if certain teams are getting an unfair advantage and all that.

[VincentGuerin]

8 minutes ago, LiviLion said:

Personally think if plastic pitches are getting banned, we should be getting giant spirit levels to make sure every pitch is perfectly flat and any sign of wear or the grass not being the perfect shade of green should lead to a postponement; not fair if certain teams are getting an unfair advantage and all that.

Another example of what I just mentioned.

Absolutely nobody has ever said all grass pitches are the same. Nobody has ever even said that is desirable.

This is Sportsound-level arguing a point nobody is making.

[strichener]

2 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Another example of what I just mentioned.

Absolutely nobody has ever said all grass pitches are the same. Nobody has ever even said that is desirable.

This is Sportsound-level arguing a point nobody is making.

Or Sportsound level of ignoring the point, which is clearly what you are doing.

We have a very good grass pitch at Peterhead but if we decided to change it to artificial then so be it.  If you have a shit pitch like we sometimes see "at the top level" then artificial is clearly better regardless of player's personal preference.

I can't believe that there are many players who given the choice between the community park c/w dog shit all over it and an fenced-in artificial pitch are going to prefer the shitty grass pitch.

[VincentGuerin]

39 minutes ago, strichener said:

Or Sportsound level of ignoring the point, which is clearly what you are doing.

We have a very good grass pitch at Peterhead but if we decided to change it to artificial then so be it.  If you have a shit pitch like we sometimes see "at the top level" then artificial is clearly better regardless of player's personal preference.

I can't believe that there are many players who given the choice between the community park c/w dog shit all over it and an fenced-in artificial pitch are going to prefer the shitty grass pitch.

I'm not ignoring the point. I understand the argument fully that some artificial pitches are better than a really terrible grass pitch.

I just don't think that's the issue most people who argue against artificial pitches are bothered about. People (players, coaches, lots of fans) tend to think games should be played on grass. I've yet to speak to a pro who didn't think grass was better or who didn't think playing on artificial pitches was noticeably different.

The only people who stick up for artificial pitches are fans of teams who have them, and players and coaches of teams who have them. Arguing that they're as desirable as a grass pitch is obviously silly.

A bad grass pitch being bad doesn't mean people think artificial pitches are the answer. It means the grass pitch should be better maintained.

Like I said, I'm not hugely fussed. I can't think of a time it's ever bothered me. But this stuff about 'Oh, well I suppose you think all grass pitches are the same then'. is a poor argument that misses the point. Nobody is saying that.

Edited October 24, 2022 by VincentGuerin

[Squalor Vic]

As a killie fan, the amount our plastic piece of shit annoys fans of the OF especially gives me great pleasure. I fuckin hate it though, would have grass back tomorrow (or maybe after the next OF game)

[Clown Job]

I support the use of artificial surfaces 

Mostly because of the seethe it causes and I’ve seen us score some great goals on them 

[strichener]

1 hour ago, VincentGuerin said:

I'm not ignoring the point. I understand the argument fully that some artificial pitches are better than a really terrible grass pitch.

I just don't think that's the issue most people who argue against artificial pitches are bothered about. People (players, coaches, lots of fans) tend to think games should be played on grass. I've yet to speak to a pro who didn't think grass was better or who didn't think playing on artificial pitches was noticeably different.

The only people who stick up for artificial pitches are fans of teams who have them, and players and coaches of teams who have them. Arguing that they're as desirable as a grass pitch is obviously silly.

A bad grass pitch being bad doesn't mean people think artificial pitches are the answer. It means the grass pitch should be better maintained.

Like I said, I'm not hugely fussed. I can't think of a time it's ever bothered me. But this stuff about 'Oh, well I suppose you think all grass pitches are the same then'. is a poor argument that misses the point. Nobody is saying that.

I have just stuck up for artificial surfaces and my team doesn't have one.

You solution to the issue of poor grass pitches is to maintain them better which longer term can cost more money than artificial surfaces.  That's before we even go into utilisation and the ability of artificial surfaces to generate income.

[velo army]

For them to be banned here there would need to be something better than "players don't like them as much", or if that were the reason there would need to be a larger sample of data collected. If given the choice of playing on our tattie field of last season vs playing at Livi, would players really pick Firhill? 

 

 

[LIVIFOREVER]

6 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

None of that is really relevant when some people's position is just that the game should be played on grass pitches. People do this all the time. The issue of whether grass pitches are all the same or not doesn't come into it. They're grass pitches, and the general view of opponents of artificial pitches is simply that football should be played on grass.

It's like saying you have a competition for dogs, but people arguing that since not all dogs are the same type of dog, then allowing cats to enter is ok. Different kinds of dogs are still dogs, and grass pitches are grass pitches.

A common view among players and coaches I've seen expressed (and heard) is that they prefer grass. And the top-end of the game certainly shows that it prefers grass by staying away from artificial pitches.

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but posts like yours quoted are common as a criticism of the pro-grass side, but it's not really on-point.

Yes that's fine as an opinion on what players or fans prefer to see football played on, but it's pretty weak as a reason for getting rid of pitches that already have artificial surfaces. If they want them binned they should do some proper research on it and produce data backing it up. 

[VincentGuerin]

1 hour ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

Yes that's fine as an opinion on what players or fans prefer to see football played on, but it's pretty weak as a reason for getting rid of pitches that already have artificial surfaces. If they want them binned they should do some proper research on it and produce data backing it up. 

I'm not saying they should be binned. My issue is with this facile 'Are all grass pitches the same then?' argument.

[LIVIFOREVER]

13 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

I'm not saying they should be binned. My issue is with this facile 'Are all grass pitches the same then?' argument.

That is usually a counter argument to folk saying grass pitches are all better than plastic ones, and you don't get the same bounce etc. Yeah don't think any pitch is the same, grass or artificial.

Another is the unfair home advantage excuse teams with plastic get levelled at them, after opposition teams lose a game on them, that is also a lot of nonsense, that's what every team has playing on a familiar pitch, at home. You know the quirks of bounces, slopes, speed of the ball playing off the surface, when playing on your own grass pitches. Plus just feeling a lot more comfortable in your home surroundings.

Agree with you on why folk mostly don't like them though, and when you see them in televised games, they always look a lot worse.

[AJF]

I think the only valid reason for banning plastic pitches would be if there was any evidence of them resulting in a greater number of injuries, which is a claim often levelled at them. As far as I am aware though, I don't think there is. I think most football fans would like to see football played on grass but clubs have valid reasons for plastic pitches.

[Crawford Bridge]

Ahve nivur seen a guid game oan wan.

[gannonball]

On 25/10/2022 at 14:55, AJF said:

I think the only valid reason for banning plastic pitches would be if there was any evidence of them resulting in a greater number of injuries, which is a claim often levelled at them. As far as I am aware though, I don't think there is. I think most football fans would like to see football played on grass but clubs have valid reasons for plastic pitches.

I think the stats are slightly skewed by managers not playing players with a history of injuries on the pitches tbh. I can remember Rodgers avoiding playing Simunovic on it and Tommy Wright not playing Stevie McLean on them. Personally having played on them I do think you are more likely to pick up an injury as you feel it in your joints more after than a standard pitch but they are hardly ambulance traps at the same time.

[Moomintroll]

On 28/10/2022 at 00:33, ancientnoise said:

Nope.

It was amongst the best pitches anywhere for the greater part of 100+ years then they relayed it and for a couple of seasons it resembled the shambolic Fir Park.

All sandy and stuff.

Then they decided to cover it all of that in plastic.

Nope.

 

 

 

Did they not make a mess of it in the mid nineties because they used Industrial sand rather than Agricultural sand during preseason when they were supposed to be improving the drainage?