I have heard the issue of wearing the joints used against 4G. I know players state this and I know it was an issue a few years back, but I honestly can't see how this can possibly be. There is good give and bounce in the surface - you are less likely to get your foot stuck and cause an injury IMO. If there is an issue, I'm sure it could be solved by wearing the correct boot for the surface. I would like to see some up to date research into this accusation! The only downside is the black rubber bits that get everywhere!
Moving on the debate how realistic is the option of a 4G or similar pitch at the Valley.
Currently banned by the FL but allowed in the Champions league and Scotland.
RD has had one laid at his first Belguim club.
What are the variety of pitches like?, how do they play? How much to they cost to install and to maintain? Can you use them 24/7 and if so what for?
A sensible option worth going to battle with the football league over OR an unnecessary gimmick not suitable for a major club aspiring to the Premeirship.
Discuss
Doesn't that make this a meaningless debate :S
In one sense yes - but in another no. Surely, if you disagree with the FL decision - you should debate it on a site like this.
But the artificial pitches are different than grass the ball will react different spin, bounce etc. Totally against the idea.
Yes, the ball will bounce consistently unlike the way it did during our last home game! The is quite a big variety in the way grass pitches behave and 4G pitches are within that spectrum so I can't see a problem. When I played football, they were not as good as they are now. My son plays on them from time to time - I wish boys would play on them all the time - some of the pitches he and his team mates and opponents have to play on do not encourage good football. He had his match called off today - and has had a fair number this season - on a 3G or 4G pitch they could have played on a terrific, consistent surface! I tried some keeping on one after he had played a game a few years back and it was a revelation to me after a few dives. I couldn't believe how much they had improved in a relatively short time. I was actually enjoying diving on the pitch, which is more than I can say for some of the grass and artificial pitches I used to play on. I think the people who support 4G are the ones who have experienced them - and are not dinosaurs of course - which is one of footballs biggest handicaps!
Yet you chose to ignore someone who has experienced them, you also seem to be basing your opinion on having a dive about on one?
I have heard the issue of wearing the joints used against 4G. I know players state this and I know it was an issue a few years back, but I honestly can't see how this can possibly be. There is good give and bounce in the surface - you are less likely to get your foot stuck and cause an injury IMO. If there is an issue, I'm sure it could be solved by wearing the correct boot for the surface. I would like to see some up to date research into this accusation! The only downside is the black rubber bits that get everywhere!
Trust me, having played on high quality grass pitches as well as numerous 4g and the give is very different between the both and that's me twisting and turning compared to a professional who will be doing it twice as fast/much.
I would still be having the debate as I was converted a couple of years back. I played a lot of football and didn't like artificial pitches in my day - but have a valid point of reference. I am talking about the very best artificial pitches btw - sometimes people get into arguments with me about the subject and I find that they are talking about good not great pitches which they have experienced. Just before Christmas my son played a match at Harlow Town's ground which is new 4G. It was very impressive and looked great from the stands. I'd say it played like a nice summer pitch in terms of characteristics and the boys certainly enjoyed it. All am saying is I want to see the results of some proper studies now - I suspect, of course, it isn't the issue some are making out but football is full of narrow minded resistance to the 21st century IMO. And that is from within the game!
Like a lot of the other old gits on here, I've played on astroturf since it was the first generation shit in the eighties. I can honestly say that despite there being an absolutely immense difference between the early aberrations (concrete painted green) and the new 3g/4g pitches, there's still a big difference between artificial and real grass. There's still a lot more stress on the knees and ankles - I find my knees especially suffer a lot more the day after a game down at goalsthan they do after a game on proper grass.
This isn't meant as a dig, but I find most of the people in favour of artificial grass are the younger generation, who haven't had twenty years playing on it.
It's a lot better than it used to be (a hell of a lot better in fact) but isn't quite there yet imo. I wonder if it might be the subsurface that's to blame? Maybe whatever these pitches are laid on can be improved?
Not sure if the water table argument is relevant here. It has only been speculated that this has added to our woes but I'm not sure the water table has risen to levels where out pitch would be affected any more than say surrounding gardens. Who has that data ? The only facts we have are that the drainage under The Valley pitch has collapsed. It has rained a lot. We have under invested in pitch maintenance for 17 years.
Like a lot of the other old gits on here, I've played on astroturf since it was the first generation shit in the eighties. I can honestly say that despite there being an absolutely immense difference between the early aberrations (concrete painted green) and the new 3g/4g pitches, there's still a big difference between artificial and real grass. There's still a lot more stress on the knees and ankles - I find my knees especially suffer a lot more the day after a game down at goalsthan they do after a game on proper grass.
This isn't meant as a dig, but I find most of the people in favour of artificial grass are the younger generation, who haven't had twenty years playing on it.
It's a lot better than it used to be (a hell of a lot better in fact) but isn't quite there yet imo. I wonder if it might be the subsurface that's to blame? Maybe whatever these pitches are laid on can be improved?
I see a lot of players using the wrong footware on 4G - Blades usually. You ideally want an astroboot with a bit of cushion. People will say that proves it is different from grass - and to an extent it does. On a really good grass pitch on the slightly hard side - an astroboot works well though. So I agree an artificial pitch does play slightly on the harder side- but there are grass pitches that play on the harder side. Then as the season progresses they can become soft, muddy, slippery, extra hard etc... but the artificial pitch largely maintains it's characteristics.
Having seen many games played on this type of pitch i have a idea what football is about.Sure you can play football 24hours per day 7 days aweek but you appear to be missing the point it still needs watering before and during half-time.Also some of the pitches are no better than what we had yesterday.Read up on ADO Den Haag pitch this season. FOOTBALL IS PLAYED ON GRASS,end of.
Would be interesting to read Dykes reply, although I can already tell you it will be a polite fudged one. The fact is, he can shoot his mouth off with talk of winning the world cup but to walk the walk you have to talk the talk! The problem is, you have to find somebody who gets it. Glenn Hoddle is such a person. Then you have to give him complete power to change things. This is where it gets harder - because a lot of feathers will be ruffled if that happens. Better to put him in charge with a diluted talking shop to make it look like you are interested - but basically every decision that matters will always be made by the premier league in the interest of premier league clubs - and what does it matter to them if their players are English or not?
Also a lot of people comparing their own experience at goals vs grass pitches won't be comparing like for like. Goals is 5 a side, and grass will typically be 11 a side. 5 a side is more intense, non-stop with a lot more twisting and turning. Personally speaking I've suffered fewer injuries in goals over the last 7 years than during my last 3 years of 11 a side.
Also a lot of people comparing their own experience at goals vs grass pitches won't be comparing like for like. Goals is 5 a side, and grass will typically be 11 a side. 5 a side is more intense, non-stop with a lot more twisting and turning. Personally speaking I've suffered fewer injuries in goals over the last 7 years than during my last 3 years of 11 a side.
I'm quite the opposite, apart from acl (which wasn't affected by the surface) and previous MCl (on Venue dance floor) all my knee and ankle ligament strains have occurred on 4g.
What I'm asking is, what is down to the surface, or was it down to the type of football being played?
The pitch that hurt my feet/ankles the most was the valley during the CL games a few years back, I foolishly wore boots (molds, but still studded) instead of astros and could barely walk at half time.
and the last I will say on the subject; presumably a 4g valley would be on a sand/composite base, where goals and similar are on a solid concrete base. Monaco play on grass, but on a concrete base, and I've heard ex-players back the same complaints regarding ankle/knee ache. So presumably a change of base to some with more give that concrete would solve the issues, whether the top surface is grass or plastic.
What I'm asking is, what is down to the surface, or was it down to the type of football being played?
The pitch that hurt my feet/ankles the most was the valley during the CL games a few years back, I foolishly wore boots (molds, but still studded) instead of astros and could barely walk at half time.
Honestly believe it was down to the surface, none were tackles, I struggle badly to play on them now with the my knee, also going back to something I mentioned earlier where Andy Hughes sat out due the surface in Spain. On a side note, I think a more unpredictable surface (due to weather) also makes for a more entertaining game, I firmly believe the premier league is the most entertaining league (Not the best) and wouldn't want anything to potentially change that.
Comments
It's a world away from the old astro at the Meridien and is amazing to play on.
The surface is impeccable 365 days a year and can be used 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In short, it's the way forward.
don't know if true but was told the cost was in the region of £500k (as per Mog above).
couldn't fault the pitch.
This isn't meant as a dig, but I find most of the people in favour of artificial grass are the younger generation, who haven't had twenty years playing on it.
It's a lot better than it used to be (a hell of a lot better in fact) but isn't quite there yet imo. I wonder if it might be the subsurface that's to blame? Maybe whatever these pitches are laid on can be improved?
http://maidstoneunited.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/speaking-up-for-our-national-game.html
FOOTBALL IS PLAYED ON GRASS,end of.
What I'm asking is, what is down to the surface, or was it down to the type of football being played?
The pitch that hurt my feet/ankles the most was the valley during the CL games a few years back, I foolishly wore boots (molds, but still studded) instead of astros and could barely walk at half time.
Make of that what you will