The Artificial Pitch debate

As more artificial pitches are adopted there will increasing evidence that can't be ignored. What the PFA are saying is not scientific and whilst it should be investigated - it shouldn't be assumed they are right because they represent players.

I played on an 11 a side artificial pitch today...

It was really good. Played very well and made for a better game of football (most sunday league football pitches are truely dreadful)

Im not sure that they should be intoduced in the professional game though

There's no doubt that the modern artificial pitches make a lot of sense in many ways. My 'local' team FC Edmonton play on an artificial pitch that, as I understand it, doesn't meet the official FIFA standards as it was originally an American Football field. Even then, I can't say I notice any real difference in the way it plays to a grass pitch, maybe the ball runs through a little bit quicker but nothing that would make any discernible difference to the game IMHO. I would assume that the FIFA approved pitches are, therefore, even more like 'the real thing'.

It's hard to stay in the way of progress. The pitches play like real grass but require a fraction of the maintenance and are much more resistant to inclement weather. They may even raise the overall quality of football by being conducive to more teams playing passing football (mind you, the Valley aside, most pitches are like bowling greens compared to the old days). Taking all that into account they are probably a bit of a no brainer if looking at it objectively.

But that is where I have the problem. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think football is something that should be looked at purely in an objective, logical manner. Football is played on grass, it's the way it should be and the variability of a grass pitch with the time of year, weather and amount of use is all part of the game.

I'd be disappointed if we were the first to install one of these 4G pitches, but I guess I'd understand the decision.

3G pitches have the sand and rubber compound particles.

4G have no particles but a rubber shock pad underlay.

when our lads played on it this season we struggled to be fair, it ran a lot slower.

Redrobo said:

Man Utd played the final of the Champions League cup in Russia on plastic.

No they didn't.
A grass pitch was laid for the final.

What artificial might allow is other codes, but also other teams within the club to play at the ground, might save some costs, but also if played on a matchday might add to the matchday experience generally, some of which might bring in a decent amount of revenue (lots of mights though..)

The Saracens RFC 4g pitch is incredible and definitely the future. That one is designed especially for rugby with a 5 metre shock pad underneath, but I'm sure it would be easy enough to design one more suited to football. It's just like playing a summer pitch really, so while you do get a few burns, no more than you do on hard grass pitches.

Lincsaddick said:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/21/saracens-artificial-pitch-rugby-union
http://www.re-bounce.com/en/outdoor/football/why-a-shock-pad

That states a 10-16mm shockpad....not a 5m shock pad!

I find the 4G's still tough on the joints, most people agree with that, and in the rain, as VG stated above, the slickness makes it much more difficult to play.

At a professional football level there is no excuse not to have a fully functional grass surface.

Sounds like the 4G makes absolute sense, so bad news, the hierachy at the FA will never understand it.

Played on the old style with the sand, the newer astro pitches and 4G. The bounce is completely different to grass, in Wet conditions even mouldy's can't keep you up properly. That said the condition of the pitch should be consistent throughout the season. Its still a no for me, you can't beat playing on a proper grass pitch, provided we get the proper investment in ours and keep this cover thing then I reckon there's no need for the debate with a club of our size, maybe the League 2/ conference regulars it'll be worth allowing as it'll save those clubs a decent sum. A club in the top 2-3 leagues should be able to fund the upkeep of a grass pitch

Sparrows Lane Lion said:

Lincsaddick said:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/jan/21/saracens-artificial-pitch-rugby-union
http://www.re-bounce.com/en/outdoor/football/why-a-shock-pad

That states a 10-16mm shockpad....not a 5m shock pad!

I find the 4G's still tough on the joints, most people agree with that, and in the rain, as VG stated above, the slickness makes it much more difficult to play.

At a professional football level there is no excuse not to have a fully functional grass surface.

I think it is reasonable for there to be a scientific investigation about wear and tear of joints rather than go on peoples'/players' gut. The problem with 'professional' football is that it loses money outside of the top division. For the future of the game, smaller clubs need to be able to generate more revenue and having a 4G would allow them to do this. 4G is arguably now at a level where - whilst it may not compare with Arsenal's or Liverpools pitch, it is better than many in the lower divisions. If this is a scientifically proven fact, it is ridiculous to deprieve clubs that are struggling finanacially not to improve their pitch (and consequently their product) and potential lucrative revenue streams.

The main reason for this is the top clubs have power and are now a dictatorship, which is wrong on every level.

Saw it on tv and to me the ball didn't run true...