sapca comment
Artificial pitch debate continues
Synthetic surfaces are back in the headlines following Manchester United’s recent visit to Switzerland. SAPCA’s technical consultant Alastair Cox discusses their use in elite sport.
MANCHESTER United’s recent visit to the Stade de Suisse in Bern – where the club faced Swiss team BSC Young Boys in a UEFA Champions League game – re-ignited the debate about the use of synthetic pitches in top-level football. The build-up to the fixture was dominated by discussions regarding the stadium’s pitch – a synthetic surface provided by German company Polytan. A long line of pundits, including former players, suggested that playing on synthetic surfaces “simply isn’t the same” as playing on natural grass. Meanwhile, United manager Jose Mourinho claimed his decision to leave out defender Antonio Valencia, back from a recent knee injury, was down to Valencia’s knee being one which “doesn’t need an artificial pitch at this time”.
myth busting
But how much of the “it’s simply not the same” attitude or the fear of injuries are based on myths and false beliefs? After all, the technology used in modern 3G pitches has been designed for it to perform just like natural grass. There is also an argument that, especially in wet weather, a 3G surface provides a much more consistent experience than a muddy grass pitch that has the potential to ‘cut up’. “The world governing body FIFA and the
European body UEFA, with their medical committees, have conducted many studies into
injuries and found that there is no difference in the risk of injury picked up on natural and synthetic turf,” says Alastair Cox, technical consultant for the Sports and Play Construction Association (SAPCA). “They’ve also said that if there were evidence of an increase in injury profiles, they wouldn't allow synthetic surfaces to be used. “Yet, despite all this research on injuries showing that synthetic grass is no different, there’s still a perception among many players that the synthetic surfaces aren't as good as natural grass.
there’s still a perception among many players that the synthetic surfaces aren't as good as natural grass
“Interestingly, FIFA has also done some psychological testing to try to ascertain whether the negative experience is simply in the players’ heads. They’ve done tests with blindfolded players wearing nose plugs – so players can’t see or smell – to see whether the players can determine whether they are
running, turning and twisting on natural grass or synthetic turf. And all of the testing has shown that synthetic surfaces play in a same way to grass.”
support from the top Despite footballers – former and current – seemingly viewing synthetic surfaces with scepticism, the pitches have the full support of governing bodies. Europe’s administrative body UEFA has allowed the use of synthetic pitches at all competition levels since 2004. FIFA sees synthetic pitches as a viable alternative to natural grass, especially in parts of the world where maintaining good quality grass is not achievable.
In the UK, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern
Irish football associations have sanctioned the use of synthetic pitches at all levels – including top flight competition. The English FA has, so far, let professional clubs decide for themselves through voting. As a result, the top four tiers of professional football are ‘grass only’.
transforming a sport But while elite level football seems to struggle with its relationship with synthetic surfaces, there are other sports which have embraced alternatives to natural grass. Take hockey, which views synthetic fields as the optimal surface to play.
pactfacilities.co.uk 39
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
