Technical
Daniel Ratling BSc Hons., Head Groundsman at Whitgift School, has recently completed a year-long research project studying cricket loam compatibility. In this article, he outlines the issues around incompatibility, how the constituent parts affect the process and how this might be applied practically
Cricket Loams
Choosing a Compatible Cricket Loam
pitches we strive for. As cricket groundsmen, we are acutely aware of the importance of a homogeneous cricket square soil profile and the benefits this confers for playing characteristics and ease of management. This came to the fore recently when I was told that my loam distributor was closing and could not supply the materials required for our end of season renovations at Whitgift School, where I am Head Groundsman. The irony was not lost on me that this news came just six days after completing a year long research project studying cricket loam compatibility for the final year dissertation for my BSc (Hons.) with Myerscough College. The decision to change the loam used on a cricket
I
square should not be taken lightly due to the potential performance issues associated with layering incompatible materials. However, sometimes, one’s hand is forced, whether it be for pitch performance issues or a defunct loam manufacturer. The interactions between the constituent parts of
have worked in and around cricket pitches all of my professional life, and one thing that increasingly interests me is the way that the different constituent parts of a cricket loam interact to produce the hard, tightly bound
cricket loams are interesting and sometimes complex. Somewhat surprisingly, little research exists directly related to cricket loam compatibility. This article outlines issues around incompatibility and discusses how the loam constituents affect that process, as well as how this might be applied practically when selecting a compatible material.
Incompatibility and Testing:
For a loam soil to be used as a cricket loam, it must be strong enough not to deform on impact with a cricket ball. The ECB recommend clay contents of 25-35% and breaking strengths of 55-90kg, although we know, from analysis, that some commercial loams have slightly lower clay contents than this and provide adequate surfaces for lower level cricket. Consideration must be given to pitch performance characteristics and also to the resources a club has to manage their pitch preparation. Higher clay contents mean greater strength, but more management, especially in terms of drying rates and vertical cracking stability. Making the assumption that the loams tested for
compatibility are of sufficient strength to be used for cricket, it is the matching of shrinkage rates that is of paramount importance for compatibility. Incompatible materials can lead to problems, resulting in low or variable bounce. This is as a result of distinct layers becoming evident within the soil profile. Root breaks, which are horizontal fissures at the
interface between materials, impede root development and deaden ball bounce. This is due primarily to different shrinkage characteristics of the layered materials. To ascertain the suitability of a product for use as
a cricket loam, tests for strength and shrinkage should be carried out. Most reputable manufacturers will supply you with data sheets for their cricket loams with this information. However, if testing for compatibility, it is worth taking time to run a series of tests using the modified ASSB (Adams and Stewart Soil Binding) method combining halves of the native loam used on the square and the potential replacement loam. If two materials have vastly different shrinkage
Daniel Ratling BSc Hons. 138 I PC AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2015
rates, it is possible they will separate as the prepared composite motty dries. Assuming that the composite motties remain intact following drying, testing for strength using the ASSB method should
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 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164