I'm for changing to the 4g pitches. All for the above but also the feeling that 4g pitches help prevent injuries most notably in the ankle, knee and lower back (so i've read).
Not even the most gifted and imaginative scientist could come up with grass: a surface that adapts to its climate, that breaks the fall of those who fall on it, and allows players to slide and turn on it without undue damage to skin, muscles and joints. Grass has the ability to change in quality and condition, and sorts out those plays who have ability from those who don't. Such variety makes the football season a rich and diverse spectacle, and gives us fans plenty to talk about. In this respect grass has much in common with human referees and human football players.
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.
What a load of rubbish. Have you played on a 4g surface? It fulfils your "breaks the fall of those who fall on it, and allows players to slide and turn on it without undue damage to skin, muscles and joints" tests, and every single club in the world is working as hard as possible to ensure the quality of the surface doesn't deteriorate with weather, so by your logic they should all stop and return to the mud-baths of yester-year as that is somehow better.
In fact, I play 5 and 7 aside every week at goals, a 4g surface. It's superb, and I've never had an injury on it, I have however done both ankles and one achilles on grass pitches over the years, and only 1 of those 3 injuries was completely unrelated to the surface (Millwall centre back went straight through me as I scored).
Player's, especially those of quality, want to play on the best surface possible. They don't want the pitch being an obstacle to good play, and nor does anybody watching the game. The only people who would ever want a dodgy pitch are a team greatly outclassed by their opponents and hoping for an unfair advantage from the surface.
For all those against 4g surfaces, please, just have a kick about on one, get to goals, or somewhere else that has a similar surface, bounce a ball, and you'll see how impressive they are.
Pitches have never been so good as they are now and i certainly think it should be resisted, at least in the top two divisions and although i agree that the 4G pitches are a world away from the old astro turf, they are not the same and are what i'd call heavier. The ball doesn't move so quickly on them and they take more of a toll on your legs (in my opnion)
Having played on both I think the standard of artificial these days is superb, however I have to say it should be a last resort. My preference is that the game should be played on grass unless the clubs in question can show they really do have no other alternative.
Does anyone know what the upkeep of a football pitch would be for a club, I assume you have to pay ground staff, buy a mower, pay for new turf every so often etc. Would it be that much of a saving for small clubs?
But how does a grass pitch play? The reason I ask that is that I played on hundreds of them over the years and many were totally different -many wer downright dangerous and didn't promote skillful football- so to say a 4G pitch is slower or heavier - slower or heavier than what? The difference is that a 4G pitch will play more consistently in different conditions. Consistently! Is that a bad thing.
Fair enough if you have experience of both but if you haven't i would say you are not qualified to have an opinion until you do. Football is probably one of the most conservative games in terms of progress- look at the way other sports embrace technology when it doesn't. Arguments are based on tradition - why change what isn't broken? Well one big reason to change is that 4G offers a top quality surface and on top of that, in a industry where debts are rampant, it would enable clubs to increase revenues from one of their biggest assests- their ground -which is criminally underused because the pitch has to be protected! 4G is the future.
I hear the 5G is something special. Apparently it has been fitted with nanoscale photovaics capable of harnessing the suns power, which gives the turf the ability to refresh itself every few weeks.
We have a couple of new generation artificial pitches here in Bermuda. Nothing like the old QPR style pitch, like chalk & cheese. You could easily forget you are not playing on grass (a surface which is not consistant or necessarily safe anyway) so can't see problem with them. Played on all sorts of dodgy surfaces back in the day in SE London and would loved to have played on these new pitches regularly. No burns, you can still slide & wear regular boots. I think this is the way fwd for lower league teams looking to get maximum usage of their facilities. They have been used in Internationals. England played in Russia in a Euro qualifier a few years back. Seems odd that their use is allowed in International fixtures, various UK cup competitions and lower leagues, but not premier league. Would make more sense if their use was sanctioned at all levels as it would bring consistancy and probably reduce injuries also. Not sure Colin Powell would agree with me though!.
Damn, with the way the grass grows here in the summer, may get the yard resurfaced with some 4G...............
Having made my, erm ............... 'debut' back in 1974, I've played God only knows how many matches on grass/mud, training on 'redgrass' sand/grit all weather pitches (they were a horror).
And then came the time my team had to play some away matches on early Astroturf pitches - hard, unyielding and unforgiving. It's not even that they were so bad, just that they were so different from playing on grass - the ball behaved differently compared to grass, and could that ball bounce! - but it did encourage you to play the game God's way, on the floor. And you made a point of not 'going to ground', slide tackles, etc - the skin burns weren't worth it.
The big point said at that time, it gave an unfair advantage to the team who trained and played at home on Astro (although nobody seemed to complain that they still had to play on grass every other week!).
Home teams with Astroturf often ran up some big scores playing teams that couldn't adjust to playing on plastic.
But these days, each week I play 5-a-side at Goals in Plymouth, on the rubber crumbs stuff - and as others have said, it's light years away from the Astro Turf pitches of the late 70s & 80s. There is just no comparison. The ball runs true and it's a pleasure to play on.
Terry Venables wrote a novel around 30 years ago, entitled "They used to play on grass". Maybe that title will come to fruition after all.
Certainly think these surfaces would be ideal in third world countries (such as many of the African nations) which are trying to establish the sport on a bigger scale. The climate makes growing and maintaining a decent grass surface a challenge I would imagine.
The cost of keeping a pitch lush all year round must be a financial burden on many of the lower league teams over here. Gone are the days of the groundsman seeding the pitch in the summer before watching it turn into a mud bath in the winter months. This is due to the turf they buy at huge cost, which is alot more durable than your average grass.
As I said earlier, I've walked on it and kicked and bounced a ball on it but never played on it. I was very impressed by how natural it looked and felt. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of professional players though.
I played at Luton on the artificial surface many a time and it had serious impact on the joints and on boots/training shoes.
The first time I played my trainers exploded as I turned ... there was no 'give' in the surface, so all the energy is dissipated in the shoes or the joints.
If the modern versions of artificial pitches overcome that, I'm in favour. But I doubt that they will overcome the increased potential for injury to the joints in the forseeable future.
Yes, I played on the the early astroturf and remember the puddles that could form on the pitch which meants the ball could get left behind as you went on a run. I remember one game where it was like playing onn ice due to the wet. A sight I will never forget is my team mate scoring a doal from the edge of the box but not being able to stop his forward momentum and sliding into the goal and only being stopped by the net.
I remember getting caught out as a ball you run forward to head bounced 10 feet over your head! It was pretty terrible but I also remember playing on a grass pitch so muddy I lost my boot in it as I was running. Or trying to run may be nearer the truth. As I went to retrieve it I did question why the hell I was doing this!
I wish the new stuff was around in my day. I have played on it and my son plays a lot on it and I am truely converted. It is better than grass- not the Valley pitch today but definitely just as good in the way it plays. There is absolutely no reason all clubs do not play on it now other than tradition.
Maybe I'm biased because I dislocated my knee cap playing football on old fashioned astroturf. That was the end of my less than promising career as the knee went again in the next game I played (that time on real grass).
The people who've played on 4g seem to think they are OK. The financial benefits are obvious once you've made the huge initial outlay. But yes it would be good to hear from some top level pro's who've played on the surface.
Was the Man U v Chelsea European Cup final played on 3/4G?
Comments
I'm for changing to the 4g pitches. All for the above but also the feeling that 4g pitches help prevent injuries most notably in the ankle, knee and lower back (so i've read).
I bet JJ and BWP would support this.
turn on it without undue damage to skin, muscles and joints" tests, and every single club in the world is working as hard as possible to ensure the quality of the surface doesn't deteriorate with weather, so by your logic they should all stop and return to the mud-baths of yester-year as that is somehow better.
In fact, I play 5 and 7 aside every week at goals, a 4g surface. It's superb, and I've never had an injury on it, I have however done both ankles and one achilles on grass pitches over the years, and only 1 of those 3 injuries was completely unrelated to the surface (Millwall centre back went straight through me as I scored).
Player's, especially those of quality, want to play on the best surface possible. They don't want the pitch being an obstacle to good play, and nor does anybody watching the game. The only people who would ever want a dodgy pitch are a team greatly outclassed by their opponents and hoping for an unfair advantage from the surface.
For all those against 4g surfaces, please, just have a kick about on one, get to goals, or somewhere else that has a similar surface, bounce a ball, and you'll see how impressive they are.
Fair enough if you have experience of both but if you haven't i would say you are not qualified to have an opinion until you do. Football is probably one of the most conservative games in terms of progress- look at the way other sports embrace technology when it doesn't. Arguments are based on tradition - why change what isn't broken? Well one big reason to change is that 4G offers a top quality surface and on top of that, in a industry where debts are rampant, it would enable clubs to increase revenues from one of their biggest assests- their ground -which is criminally underused because the pitch has to be protected! 4G is the future.
I love the smell of going to football on a damp cold night under the lights
I am well in the no camp
We have a couple of new generation artificial pitches here in Bermuda. Nothing like the old QPR style pitch, like chalk & cheese. You could easily forget you are not playing on grass (a surface which is not consistant or necessarily safe anyway) so can't see problem with them. Played on all sorts of dodgy surfaces back in the day in SE London and would loved to have played on these new pitches regularly. No burns, you can still slide & wear regular boots. I think this is the way fwd for lower league teams looking to get maximum usage of their facilities. They have been used in Internationals. England played in Russia in a Euro qualifier a few years back. Seems odd that their use is allowed in International fixtures, various UK cup competitions and lower leagues, but not premier league. Would make more sense if their use was sanctioned at all levels as it would bring consistancy and probably reduce injuries also. Not sure Colin Powell would agree with me though!.
Damn, with the way the grass grows here in the summer, may get the yard resurfaced with some 4G...............
Having made my, erm ............... 'debut' back in 1974, I've played God only knows how many matches on grass/mud, training on 'redgrass' sand/grit all weather pitches (they were a horror).
And then came the time my team had to play some away matches on early Astroturf pitches - hard, unyielding and unforgiving. It's not even that they were so bad, just that they were so different from playing on grass - the ball behaved differently compared to grass, and could that ball bounce! - but it did encourage you to play the game God's way, on the floor. And you made a point of not 'going to ground', slide tackles, etc - the skin burns weren't worth it.
The big point said at that time, it gave an unfair advantage to the team who trained and played at home on Astro (although nobody seemed to complain that they still had to play on grass every other week!).
Home teams with Astroturf often ran up some big scores playing teams that couldn't adjust to playing on plastic.
But these days, each week I play 5-a-side at Goals in Plymouth, on the rubber crumbs stuff - and as others have said, it's light years away from the Astro Turf pitches of the late 70s & 80s. There is just no comparison. The ball runs true and it's a pleasure to play on.
Terry Venables wrote a novel around 30 years ago, entitled "They used to play on grass". Maybe that title will come to fruition after all.
The cost of keeping a pitch lush all year round must be a financial burden on many of the lower league teams over here. Gone are the days of the groundsman seeding the pitch in the summer before watching it turn into a mud bath in the winter months. This is due to the turf they buy at huge cost, which is alot more durable than your average grass.
As I said earlier, I've walked on it and kicked and bounced a ball on it but never played on it. I was very impressed by how natural it looked and felt. It would be interesting to hear the opinions of professional players though.
I played at Luton on the artificial surface many a time and it had serious impact on the joints and on boots/training shoes.
The first time I played my trainers exploded as I turned ... there was no 'give' in the surface, so all the energy is dissipated in the shoes or the joints.
If the modern versions of artificial pitches overcome that, I'm in favour. But I doubt that they will overcome the increased potential for injury to the joints in the forseeable future.
Being a traditionalist I have to say that anything that prevents cuts and brings back team baths can only be a good thing in my eyes
I remember getting caught out as a ball you run forward to head bounced 10 feet over your head! It was pretty terrible but I also remember playing on a grass pitch so muddy I lost my boot in it as I was running. Or trying to run may be nearer the truth. As I went to retrieve it I did question why the hell I was doing this!
I wish the new stuff was around in my day. I have played on it and my son plays a lot on it and I am truely converted. It is better than grass- not the Valley pitch today but definitely just as good in the way it plays. There is absolutely no reason all clubs do not play on it now other than tradition.
The people who've played on 4g seem to think they are OK. The financial benefits are obvious once you've made the huge initial outlay. But yes it would be good to hear from some top level pro's who've played on the surface.
Was the Man U v Chelsea European Cup final played on 3/4G?