Winter Sports Artificial Surfaces:
oday’s artificial turf systems are unrecognisable from the infamous pitches installed at Queens Park Rangers, Luton Town, Oldham Athletic and Preston North End in the 1980s, and the endorsement by FIFA of 3rd Generation ‘Football Turf ‘in top- level competition has done much to remove lingering concerns that artificial grass is not up to the task. Synthetic fibres are already being used
in Premier League pitches, within the Desso GrassMaster surfaces at clubs including Manchester City, Tottenham Hotspur, Liverpool and Arsenal. More importantly, in the precarious economic climate in which professional football finds itself mired, artificial surfaces have the potential to provide clubs with a much-needed revenue stream that could be the key to their long-term survival. However, there are also very real concerns about the move towards artificial surfaces, most notably among supporters struggling to see beyond the debacle of the 1980s, and also within the groundcare industry, with a number of groundsmen concerned both for their own livelihoods and for the future role of natural grass in football. In this article, I will examine the importance to the debate of people’s perceptions of artificial turf, as well as the work involved in ensuring that an
The saviour of the Football League? T
artificial surface can rival the quality of the best natural grass pitches, and the implications for groundsmen when it comes to the practicalities of artificial turf maintenance. Football is a highly emotive topic to debate, and the Football League is keen to consult as many ‘stakeholders’ as possible who hold a vested interest in the game. The proposed move to allow teams to play their matches on artificial turf will only go ahead with the approval of a majority of the League’s seventy-two member clubs, but the concerns and interests of other, non-voting bodies will also be carefully considered. Whilst it is clear that the Football League itself is of an open mind and ready to listen to arguments from all sides, it is significant to note that in their ‘Artificial Surfaces Consultation Document’, two of the four likely potential disadvantages to the use of artificial turf are rooted in perception: namely, the ‘perception’ of home advantage and the ‘perception’ of injury. As fans of football clubs at all levels are
aware, tactics are often employed to try and secure a home advantage, from narrowing the playing surface to the minimum permissible dimensions to counteract the wide play of the opposition, to bringing forward the advertising hoardings to combat the
threat of the long throw-in from the away team.
The idea persists that simply being ‘at home’ is in itself an advantage and, whilst visitors might feel at a disadvantage playing on artificial turf, it can just as easily be argued that teams face an equal, if not worse, situation when playing away fixtures on pitches whose condition is inconsistent throughout the season. It was reported recently that Wigan Athletic FC were forced to defend the quality of their natural grass pitch, which is also used by rugby league side Wigan Warriors. The club maintained that it was a poor excuse to blame the pitch for a bad result or player injury, and that visiting teams must simply learn to adapt to the playing conditions presented before them. The ‘perception of injury’, likewise, is based largely on people’s experiences with the ‘astroturf ’ pitches of old. FIFA has openly stated that the risk of injury on its Football Turf systems is no different from playing on a natural grass pitch, whilst the results of a five-year study recently published in the US found FieldTurf to be safer to play on than natural grass. ‘Perception’, in this instance, suggests a fear of change; in matters concerning football, a tendency towards nostalgia
3G Football Turf
FC Young Boys APRIL/MAY 2012 PC 83
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 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156