Letters to the Editor Artificial versus Natural Turf
Following Dave Saltman’s article on ‘Artificial versus Natural Turf’, our editor received a number of ‘letters’ in his inbox. Here’s a selection
Maintenance ignorance
Having read Dave Saltman’s article in the Pitchcare Magazine, December/January 2015 edition, I felt it necessary to add some comments to the debate.
Firstly, Dave’s analysis on the costing out of an artificial versus a natural turf has some substance in that grassroots football pitches are a lot cheaper to maintain than an artificial, although an artificial pitch does have a place in the community for those shift workers who have time on their hands outside the 9 to 5 job.
But, does the maintenance of these synthetic surfaces ever achieve its objectives, as there are many complaints about the quality of such surfaces provided by schools, universities and sports complexes that charge an arm and a leg for hire and which raises health and safety issues during use?
An artificial surface will be played on for up to four hours an evening, five nights a week, in all weathers (yes, I know that’s what it’s for), often with improper footwear. But no surface can sustain that sort of hammering on a constant basis without proper professional management, and I think there is ignorance here.
I was asked to assess a local school’s artificial pitch and, when I inspected the facilities and spoke to the maintenance staff, they said they only had time to deliver a certain amount of hours because it was over used - school children during the day, juniors and adults by night. They also lacked knowledge and qualification in its maintenance practices and only had basic machinery. The cost of installation wasn’t cheap and it was only a few years into its lifespan.
Having played club football on a natural turf pitch on a Saturday/Sunday, we then had to train on an artificial pitch in mid week, which didn’t help, as the hard surface left me with aching joints.
I have worked on both types of surfaces and found the maintenance of artificial, sand based pitches boring to manage, and lacking motivation and inspiration, due to the limited
8 I PC FEBRUARY/MARCH 2015
operations that are required; brushing, brushing and more brushing. Whereas a natural turf pitch is a joy, having various tractor-mounted and pedestrian equipment available, along with different cultural practices to test your skills; with the finished article at the end of it being complimented by all, players and spectators alike.
The mathematics for the maintenance of both these surfaces supports the need for natural turf to be the dominant facility because this is mostly perceived as the only surface to play the game on, either in a professional capacity or as an aspiring amateur.
Local councils have a difficult job balancing maintenance budgets; they have their premier pitches that receive a higher degree of attention than others which, in my book, is counter productive, as those pitches receiving less attention to detail, will be out of action for longer than those played on with higher maintenance, losing revenue and denying members of the public to utilise the facility that they are paying council tax for.
Finally, by not wanting to step on the toes of the Premier League and the well to do Championship and Football League clubs, Greg Dyke seems to be blinkered in his idealism by developing centres of excellence in the community, providing an alternative to natural turf for the prospects of tomorrow’s aspiring superstars.
School playing fields, private and recreational facilities are vastly diminishing, local junior clubs struggle to find pitches to play on, often waiting for one game to finish before another starts, sometimes hosting two or three games on the trot at a time.
Investment in these grassroots facilities will be better served than spending £660 million on a playing surface that can only accommodate selected times for use, often over priced and poorly managed.
Bob Stretton, Head Groundsman, Massey Ferguson Sports Club
From a referee’s perspective
As a local league referee for over twenty years, I have seen how local pitches have deteriorated over time. This, and the cost of hiring a pitch from the local council, have been prohibitive for some local clubs to get started.
I referee a lot in the Leeds area. The cost of hiring a pitch from the local council is now £735 per year. For this, they get the use of the pitch for their fifteen home games a season, with it cut irregularly and marked out for their games only if they send a letter to the pitch supervisor fourteen days in advance. If they don’t send a letter, it doesn’t get marked.
Some of the pitches have had the lines burnt in, using creosote at the start of the season, so that the grass does not regrown and the lines stay in. Most of the council pitches need to have the posts re- socketed to enable them to be upright, the majority of parks pitches have a slant on a ball width (10 inches) from base to bar.
One team, because their pitch was unplayable, went to the council to hire a pitch for a short term period. To play their first game on
Investment a concern
Excellent article. I agree that 3G has its place and there are some very good models about where the facility is hugely successful.
A lot of people have no idea of the real costs of 3G. I’m sure this
debate will rumble on for a few years yet, but lack of investment in natural grass pitches could be bad news for all.
Phil Kime, Head Groundsman, Lincoln City FC
BASIS Points for Pitchcare Mag
*BASIS awards two CPD points for ‘paid for’ subscribers to the hard copy version of Pitchcare magazine, due to the “diverse range of content that relates to the control, management and use of pesticides”.
Subscribers can now obtain a further two valuable CPD points for their Professional register, simply by paying for a subscription to the ‘hard copy’ version of the Pitchcare magazine.
Anyone wishing to claim their points should email their full name, BASIS membership number, date of birth and postcode to
editor@pitchcare.com.
*BASIS is an independent standards setting and auditing organisation for the pesticide, fertiliser and allied industries.
the council pitch, the charge was initially going to be £185; after considerable negotiation it was dropped to £145.
The pitch in question has drainage marks running across it. On one side of the ground, the drainage system does not work effectively and, on wet days, the ground is almost unplayable in that area of the pitch.
A lot of local grounds may even have a roller which only compacts the soil.
Very few local clubs have any machine that will aerate the surface which, as we know, leads to lots of games being cancelled due to poor weather conditions.
All weather pitches are also spoiling our national game. Players would rather turn up for a small sided 30/40 minute game once a week as this takes up less time. Some of the players who play the small sided game give up 11 a side to play for convenience.
Rant over
Regards Ian Brown
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