Well, it's seems that Wycombe and Accrington are at least two clubs who are going to seek permission to have them
Their argument is that it will considerably cut expenditure and generate further revenue by hiring out the playing surface for all kind of events as well as to local football teams etc.
Personally I hope this idea get's kicked into touch by 'the powers that be'......and ASAP!
Comments
If they play like a grass pitch then can't seem a problem.
I don't see a problem with it. The 4G pitches these days don't diminish the standard of football because they aren't like the rock hard pitches that QPR and Luton had in the 80's.
Russia and one of the Moscow teams play on one of these pitches and indeed many clubs train indoors on them in the winter so there isnt a massive advantage for the home side. If it is in the best interests of the clubs involved then let them go plastic. I still prefer real grass for The Valley but if it became an economic decision then I wouldn't be against an artificial pitch at all.
One of my partners at work has just had his back garden re-laid using artificial turf, it looks like grass and feels like grass, it does not feel like "plastic" at all.
It is soft to the touch and you can stripe it as if it has just been cut.
They had it done due to their two very large dogs digging the old grass up however the dogs dont touch this new stuff.
Very expensive though, I would not say their garden is big and it cost them £4,000
Seriously, other than tradition what are your objections?
I am with SoundAs on this one. The weather and ground conditions can add another variable to the game which makes for the fun, this would disappear with artificial pitches.
I remember the attrocious ones around back in the 80's....I think they give a significant advantage to teams that are used to playing on them.
But as you say, technology has no doubt moved on apace......but nah.....for me it should be grass.
The interesting thing is that Spartak Moscow have been using a 4G pitch in the Champions League, and have been hammered on it on a regular basis, where as in the days of going to play in Moscow on a rutted frozen pitch they did well
From a quality of play and cost stand-point, the artificial surfaces are fine, if not better than grass. As has been said, most top clubs have a hybrid of grass and plastic already, and from the stands they're almost indistinguishable from grass.
I really can't see any objection that could hold them up from mass adoption. Smaller clubs just can't afford to run an expensive stadium that's only used once a fortnight. If they can get a lot more use out of the pitch, then they can use it everyday and greatly improve their cash-flow situation.
The Valley playing surface has always been a source of great pride to the club, and is an important part of the club's identity. Covering the Valley in plastic would be a travesty.
Would these astroturf pitches all be the same size, or could they vary like their grass counterparts? Could you buy two for the price of one?
League football should be played on grass. If clubs can't afford to maintain a grass playing surface they should become semi-professional.