Rise of Astro Pitches

[crispy]

1 hour ago, LiviLion said:

You honestly think the ball bounces the exact same on every single grass pitch? It really does not.

I’m willing to bet that, out of say 100, you’d get more consistent bounces (height, direction) on Astro than grass. However, until someone comes up with numbers for any of this then it’s just going to rumble on.

Injuries wise I guess we’d be looking for minutes per injury; type of injury; and short/long term impacts?

I prefer the aesthetic of a grass pitch. I wonder if kids will be as loyal to grass given how much Astro they have to endure nowadays.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, ATLIS said:

Saw this on another thread Class

We're allowing someone who can't choose properly between "done" and "did" to somehow shape an agenda here.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Good players and teams adjust to conditions whether it is artificial, grass, the weather or a slope. If you were shite and the best excuse you have is the surface then you're not that good. If you get injured it's bad luck, or again not taking account of the conditions.

[pandarilla]

The bounce is weird? On what artificial pitches? What areas? And compared to what grass pitch?
Also can you give an example or two?
 
I've seen 'weird' bounces on loads of pitches. 

I've watched football for a long time, and we've had them for years. Airdrie and forfar were ones that were pretty noticeable last season. And watching the highlights of Killie games, despite my clear bias.


The argument about every grass pitch being different is not a valid one. Grass is like that. It always has been, and everyone who's ever played football will know that some grass pitches are better than others. That's always been an issue, and always will be.

It's clear that artificial pitches have benefits in the winter months, not to mention the financial argument.

But the point is it's still grass, and players (and I would say fans) prefer it to artificial pitches. It's softer underfoot, and you don't get that unnatural, firm bounce.

When folk get into the "be specific" internet argument mode it becomes exhausting. It's the p&b hipster mentality where a few posters police the issue and the level of debate falls rapidly as most folk just switch off and avoid it.

The post I made was reasonably balanced. I'm not saying pitches should be banned, I just prefer to watch football played on grass.

[Bairnardo]

I've watched football for a long time, and we've had them for years. Airdrie and forfar were ones that were pretty noticeable last season. And watching the highlights of Killie games, despite my clear bias.


The argument about every grass pitch being different is not a valid one. Grass is like that. It always has been, and everyone who's ever played football will know that some grass pitches are better than others. That's always been an issue, and always will be.

It's clear that artificial pitches have benefits in the winter months, not to mention the financial argument.

But the point is it's still grass, and players (and I would say fans) prefer it to artificial pitches. It's softer underfoot, and you don't get that unnatural, firm bounce.

When folk get into the "be specific" internet argument mode it becomes exhausting. It's the p&b hipster mentality where a few posters police the issue and the level of debate falls rapidly as most folk just switch off and avoid it.

The post I made was reasonably balanced. I'm not saying pitches should be banned, I just prefer to watch football played on grass.

Last paragraph is fair and I think probably represents the consensus. It appeared early on this thread. Good grass>Good astro>Shit grass>Shit astro.

Its not difficult. The problems comes when people use inconsistent, vague and unsubstantiated arguements as a reason to not allow them, despite teams having installed them at expense to themselves and within the laws of the league. This debate is getting oxygen and it is not based in any tangible fact. Yours or my opinion doesnt have to be supported by fact, but the gathering wave of support against these pitches needs to be. And its not. Thats the issue for me

[pandarilla]

Last paragraph is fair and I think probably represents the consensus. It appeared early on this thread. Good grass>Good astro>Shit grass>Shit astro.

Its not difficult. The problems comes when people use inconsistent, vague and unsubstantiated arguements as a reason to not allow them, despite teams having installed them at expense to themselves and within the laws of the league. This debate is getting oxygen and it is not based in any tangible fact. Yours or my opinion doesnt have to be supported by fact, but the gathering wave of support against these pitches needs to be. And its not. Thats the issue for me

There's definitely an agenda.

I don't get newspapers anymore so I'm not subjected to as much of the guff that gets printed about Scottish football.

But like I said in my original post, it's about balance. You have to balance out the needs and wants of players and fans, with the financial constraints of teams like Hamilton and livi.

Killie, on the other hand, should be hauled in front of the beeks for subjecting us all to their disgrace of a pitch / club / town (delete as applicable).

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

Last paragraph is fair and I think probably represents the consensus. It appeared early on this thread. Good grass>Good astro>Shit grass>Shit astro.

Its not difficult. The problems comes when people use inconsistent, vague and unsubstantiated arguements as a reason to not allow them, despite teams having installed them at expense to themselves and within the laws of the league. This debate is getting oxygen and it is not based in any tangible fact. Yours or my opinion doesnt have to be supported by fact, but the gathering wave of support against these pitches needs to be. And its not. Thats the issue for me

That's a good post.

The current nonsense about it, is driven by bone headed Gerrard comments and mindless media prattling.  The fact that so much of what's getting publicity bears literally no scrutiny has maybe polarised things a bit, whereby those of us who don't buy the crap of that players' survey and the like, can wind up sounding strident in response.

The onus to provide evidence is surely on those pressing for a departure from what's in place.   The fact that all the actual evidence points in the other direction, is serving to piss some of us off.

[Bairnardo]

That's a good post.
The current nonsense about it, is driven by bone headed Gerrard comments and mindless media prattling.  The fact that so much of what's getting publicity bears literally no scrutiny has maybe polarised things a bit, whereby those of us who don't buy the crap of that players' survey and the like, can wind up sounding strident in response.
The onus to provide evidence is surely on those pressing for a departure from what's in place.   The fact that all the actual evidence points in the other direction, is serving to piss some of us off.

Precisely.

Whats annoying me isnt because of some bizzarre loyalty to any particular surface. I would rather Falkirk had good grass, but failing that I once again refer to the sinple flowchart.

Whats annoying me is that media bootlickers are now putting pressure on clubs that have astro because one of the arsecheek managers opened his mouth. And worse than that, the SPFL appear to be taking action. This is in effect victimising these clubs, who have done nothing wrong. Its fucking shite and embarrassing. The correct course would have been a polite but firm STFU to Mr Gerrard, with maybe a "we continue to monitor any data available regarding artificial grass surfaces".

Anytging other than that is a scandalous betrayal of member clubs

[bennett]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Precisely.

Whats annoying me isnt because of some bizzarre loyalty to any particular surface. I would rather Falkirk had good grass, but failing that I once again refer to the sinple flowchart.

Whats annoying me is that media bootlickers are now putting pressure on clubs that have astro because one of the arsecheek managers opened his mouth. And worse than that, the SPFL appear to be taking action. This is in effect victimising these clubs, who have done nothing wrong. Its fucking shite and embarrassing. The correct course would have been a polite but firm STFU to Mr Gerrard, with maybe a "we continue to monitor any data available regarding artificial grass surfaces".

Anytging other than that is a scandalous betrayal of member clubs

Interesting that you've singled out one old firm manager and ignored the other one who as been more vocal on the subject...

" 

RENDAN RODGERS has slammed Livingston’s dreaded plastic pitch as dire for the Premiership’s credibility.

And the Celtic boss called on the Scottish Government to help find a solution to ensure all top-flight clubs who use an artificial surface — Hamilton and Kilmarnock included — are able to revert back to grass"

 

" 

BRENDAN RODGERS claims it’s impossible to be fantastic on Kilmarnock’s plastic.

And the Celtic boss branded Rugby Park’s artificial surface WORSE than any he has ever experienced before"

 

" 

eltic manager Brendan Rodgers believes artificial surfaces affect the quality of football played on them.

Rodgers accepts the reasons clubs in Scotland - such as Hamilton Academical, who host his side on Saturday - opt for 3G pitches rather than natural grass"

 

 

 

 

[Bairnardo]

Interesting that you've singled out one old firm manager and ignored the other one who as been more vocal on the subject...
" 

RENDAN RODGERS has slammed Livingston’s dreaded plastic pitch as dire for the Premiership’s credibility.

And the Celtic boss called on the Scottish Government to help find a solution to ensure all top-flight clubs who use an artificial surface — Hamilton and Kilmarnock included — are able to revert back to grass"

 

" 

BRENDAN RODGERS claims it’s impossible to be fantastic on Kilmarnock’s plastic.

And the Celtic boss branded Rugby Park’s artificial surface WORSE than any he has ever experienced before"

 

" 

eltic manager Brendan Rodgers believes artificial surfaces affect the quality of football played on them.

Rodgers accepts the reasons clubs in Scotland - such as Hamilton Academical, who host his side on Saturday - opt for 3G pitches rather than natural grass"

 

 

 

 

I know you would love that to be for a reason, but I only became aware of this stupid survey and Gerrards comments the other day at the same time. I dont read papers. Brendan is of course also talking absolute shite.

But as ever, Rogers and Gerrard are essentially the same thing so its of little consequence which one get blamed.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

I know you would love that to be for a reason, but I only became aware of this stupid survey and Gerrards comments the other day at the same time. I dont read papers. Brendan is of course also talking absolute shite.

But as ever, Rogers and Gerrard are essentially the same thing so its of little consequence which one get blamed.

Exactly.

The rest of us don't distinguish between them that much.  In fact I sometimes forget which one Bennett supports. 

The point is, that ludicrous weight is given to the words of certain individuals because they're part of the OF.  The dispiriting bit this time is the cretinous backing they're receiving.

[blackislekillie]

Pat Bonnar has just informed the nation that grass grows and plastic doesn't.

[pandarilla]

That's a good post.
The current nonsense about it, is driven by bone headed Gerrard comments and mindless media prattling.  The fact that so much of what's getting publicity bears literally no scrutiny has maybe polarised things a bit, whereby those of us who don't buy the crap of that players' survey and the like, can wind up sounding strident in response.
The onus to provide evidence is surely on those pressing for a departure from what's in place.   The fact that all the actual evidence points in the other direction, is serving to piss some of us off.

Has there been any study done which shows the impact on players joints? Genuine question.

And is it not the case that most players and managers don't like these pitches (not just the old firm), but they get less publicity when they moan to the media.

[blackislekillie]

I don't like our pitch and never have. I'd much rather we played on grass and had built a training facility rather than a hotel. Too late now though, what's done is done. Its a pretty poor reflection on our football that we have nothing better to talk about than playing surfaces. If our clubs had been doing well in Europe and the national team had been qualifying for tournaments this would, in all likelihood, be a non-story.

[Mark Connolly]

I've found myself wondering how long it will be before the manufacturers of the artificial pitches start challenging the arguments.

It's absolutely ok for people to prefer playing or watching games on grass, but some of the "arguments" against artificial surfaces are laughable.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, pandarilla said:

Has there been any study done which shows the impact on players joints? Genuine question.

And is it not the case that most players and managers don't like these pitches (not just the old firm), but they get less publicity when they moan to the media.
 

There have been studies quoted on here that point to no appreciable difference in the frequency or nature of injuries.

As regards impact on players' joints, I don't know.  Even if such a connection were proved though, it would surely raise much bigger questions about training regimes, even for children, than it would about asking some players to play on them for the odd couple of hours, here and there.

If the issue is long term damage, then the actual fixtures represent the least of anyone's worries.

[Guest Moomintroll]

Pat Bonnar has just informed the nation that grass grows and plastic doesn't.

To be honest, that is quite intelligent for him.

[Scotty Tunbridge]

Pat Bonnar has just informed the nation that grass grows and plastic doesn't.

Interesting if true.

[SweeperDee]

There have been studies quoted on here that point to no appreciable difference in the frequency or nature of injuries.

As regards impact on players' joints, I don't know.  Even if such a connection were proved though, it would surely raise much bigger questions about training regimes, even for children, than it would about asking some players to play on them for the odd couple of hours, here and there.

If the issue is long term damage, then the actual fixtures represent the least of anyone's worries.

 

There have been studies carried out on the women’s game (where most top level matches are played on artificial turf) and it was found that there was a slightly higher incidence of ligamental injuries in knees, but I can’t remember if it was then attributed to the structural difference in females and the way their weight is distributed or the pitch itself.

 

ETA: here’s a BBC report on it from a wee while ago

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/29505871

[Nowhereman]

Not quite, but the point still stands.
QPR installed their pitch in 1981 and it survived until 1988.
I'm intrigued by Johnstone's recollections, mind.  Any fixture he played there must have been a friendly.  He was at Chelsea during the relevant years, but only played 4 times, none of them against QPR. 
 
If I ever find myself on the same side as Johnstone, in any debate ever, I'll urgently re-assess.

Sorry, I misremembered the decade. Maybe Johnstone misremembered playing on it.