RANGERS ST
Following trials by the STRI, Newcastle United and Bristol City installed new Fibrelastic pitches. Now, Glasgow Rangers and Llanelli RUFC have followed suit.
W
hen Newcastle United and Bristol City were considering pitch options at the end of the
2006/7 season, they were made aware of the excellent results of a two year trials programme that had been carried out by The Sports Turf Research Institute (STRI) to investigate the effects of using modified polyurethane fibres, in addition to polypropylene fibres, to further improve the playing characteristics of their existing Fibreturf surface. The STRI trials had demonstrated that the beneficial effects were threefold: Firstly, a significant reduction in surface hardness resulting in less jarring of a player’s limbs and a lower risk of injury in falls. Secondly, an increase in surface resilience leading to higher energy feedback to the player’s feet, i.e. a less tiring surface, and also a lower ball bounce. Thirdly, improved traction offering greater resistance to disruption of the pitch surface, creating fewer and smaller divots.
In the light of these results both clubs chose to install Fibrelastic turf pitches and, subsequently, during mid May 2007, 1,300 tonnes of totally premixed Fibrelastic Turf Rootzone (FETRZ) was
delivered to Newcastle and 1,200 tonnes to Bristol City.
Both pitches had the existing 100mm deep upper Fibreturf rootzone removed and replaced with the FETRZ. Final finishing and seeding of both pitches was then carried out during late May and early June, respectively.
A further similarity between the two clubs was that both held a single, close- season, pop concert on their new surfaces. Although these concerts were certainly not part of the recommended treatment for recently sown surfaces, no significant setbacks were suffered and both pitches were in prime condition for the start of the 2007/8 season. The initial feedback, as reported in earlier issues of this magazine, was excellent. To briefly recap, Newcastle Stadium Manager, Eddie Rutherford, reported that, for the first time in many years, he had not had any negative comments from players about the pitch being on the ‘hard side’, whilst, at Bristol City, Head Groundsman, Craig Richardson, was pleasantly surprised to receive praise for the pitch from the visiting players on the quality of the surface. Even England U21 Manager,
Stuart Pearce, praised the Ashton Gate surface for the match against Poland U21s.
This initial ‘good start’ to both pitches was to be maintained throughout the season with positive feedback in terms of surface condition, ease of maintenance and, perhaps most important of all, the players reaction to the surfaces including frequent comments about the ‘more forgiving’ nature, particularly when compared to typical fibre-reinforced, sand-dominant pitches. It appears that a ‘more player friendly’ surface, as indicated by the STRI research results, has indeed been achieved judging by the first full season’s experiences on the two pitches. In order to monitor and record the condition of the two pitches as closely as possible the STRI’s Dr. Steve Baker undertook four visits per pitch throughout the season to carry out their standard tests for hardness, traction, grass cover, volumetric water content and root depth. The most recent of these visits was in April of this year. The individual visit reports, plus the final summary report, have, effectively, ‘rubber-stamped’ the feedback from the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140