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.
thepfa need to learn that the plural of anecdote isn't data (and that's true both for and against 4g pitches). I'd trust academic studies over footballer say so every time.
Obviously more research needs to be done, but as I alluded to above, in the majority of cases, the player isn't in a position to say whether an injury is due to the surface or not, apart from in the most clear cut of cases. And the most clear cut cases will always be on grass, i.e. ankle/knee injury due to a foot getting stuck in mud, etc.
Simply slips can happen on either surface, and research needs to be done into the long term effects of the possible hardness of the surface. Again though, the latest pitch technologies simply won't have been around long enough for any long term results to be available.
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.
Nike Hyper venom do a artificial grass boot and it works really well on a 3 or 4 g pitch
For passing football its superb we get a lot of stuff from southamptons academy and all of it is done on 4g and tbh I don't think you could coach kids aswell on grass as you can on an artificial pitch
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.
Having played on several 4G pitches in America, i don't really like them.
They are extremely practical of course, but the bounce and roll on the ball is different, especially in wet weather. If it rains in the slightest, expect to see plenty of goal kicks and throw ins.
Also, after a game it feels like you've played twice. Joints ache bad and this was nearly everyone i played with that experienced the same.
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.
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.
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
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.
I went to watch Saracens on Saturday, and was really impressed with the pitch. It seemed to play very true, and the players seemed to treat it just the same as if it was a grass pitch, with plenty of diving going on
Comments
Obviously more research needs to be done, but as I alluded to above, in the majority of cases, the player isn't in a position to say whether an injury is due to the surface or not, apart from in the most clear cut of cases. And the most clear cut cases will always be on grass, i.e. ankle/knee injury due to a foot getting stuck in mud, etc.
Simply slips can happen on either surface, and research needs to be done into the long term effects of the possible hardness of the surface. Again though, the latest pitch technologies simply won't have been around long enough for any long term results to be available.
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
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.
4G have no particles but a rubber shock pad underlay.
http://www.sportsandsafetysurfaces.co.uk/blog/5-a-side-football-pitch/difference-in-3g-4g-5g-6g-synthetic-artificial-pitches
For passing football its superb we get a lot of stuff from southamptons academy and all of it is done on 4g and tbh I don't think you could coach kids aswell on grass as you can on an artificial pitch
A grass pitch was laid for the final.
It's clearly working in Rugby Union where obviously the probability for injury is much higher.
They are extremely practical of course, but the bounce and roll on the ball is different, especially in wet weather. If it rains in the slightest, expect to see plenty of goal kicks and throw ins.
Also, after a game it feels like you've played twice. Joints ache bad and this was nearly everyone i played with that experienced the same.
http://www.re-bounce.com/en/outdoor/football/why-a-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.
you'll find that many professional clubs have this type of surface .. plastic 'ties' used to bind together bunches of grass
The main reason for this is the top clubs have power and are now a dictatorship, which is wrong on every level.