http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/29894478 A psychological edge? A nightmare to play on? Increasing risk of injury? A potential cash cow for lower-league clubs? In what could have been a game-changing moment for English football, League One and Two club chairmen voted on Thursday on whether to bring back artificial pitches. The vote was tied, which rules out the prospect of plastic pitches being used in the lower leagues next season. However, Football League chief executive Shaun Harvey hinted that discussions will continue and did not rule out another vote further down the line. Four clubs in England - QPR, Luton, Preston and Oldham - installed a plastic playing surface in the 1980s. Those who remember the bouncing ball and diving goalies wearing long trousers to avoid suffering carpet burns may groan at the prospect of a return to those days. But with the technology involved in making artificial pitches much improved since then, is it really such a bad thing? BBC Sport examines the pros and cons of the plastic pitch. Just what is a plastic pitch? You want the exact description? Well, it isn't the sexiest sentence you are ever going to read. But artificial turf is a surface made up of synthetic fibres made to look like natural grass. A bit like the Beatles and going to the moon, it became popular in the 1960s when an American chap called David Chaney, helped by a team of researchers, created the first artificial piece of turf. By the early 1970s there were plastic pitches at baseball and football grounds throughout the US and Canada. Four English clubs had it in the 1980s, didn't they? Indeed. QPR were the first to install one in 1981, followed by Luton, Preston and, most famously, Oldham Athletic, who rose to the top flight using a plastic pitch at Boundary Park. Joe Royle, Latics manager back then, remembers it well. "I always thought, psychologically, that it gave us an edge," said the 65-year-old. "I made a point of watching the opposition's reaction when they arrived. If they stuck their heels in and shook their heads, I knew we had the upper hand." Oldham's plastic pitch was quite advanced for its time, based on a model used in Europe. But Royle says QPR's was very different. "It was a nightmare, basically a layer of Astro Turf on top of concrete," he said. "I once saw a keeper take a goal kick and it bounced so high that it flew over the crossbar at the other end." So why are clubs considering having them back? Because today's modern 3G pitches are miles better. Oh and they're cheap to maintain and can be hired out, making them an attractive proposition to cash-strapped clubs lower down the footballing pyramid. "They have a place in the game, all the early taboos have been laid to rest," said Royle, now overseeing the development of under-21 players at Everton. "It makes sense for clubs who are struggling and it certainly saves on training facilities. "I have seen so many grass pitches that aren't a patch on synthetic pitches, so I don't see what the problem is with bringing them in at clubs outside the Premier League." Why don't they go ahead and do it then? Price and tradition. Over to Matt Williams, chief executive at Shrewsbury Town. "We'll be voting no for quite simple reasons, because we believe football should be played on grass," he said. "The Football League should instead encourage lower league clubs to get their dressing rooms and floodlights up to scratch because some of the facilities are barely of a professional standard." Williams also has an issue with the cost. "We've been told they are about £400,000 to install," he said. "Now if I said to my manager, 'I am taking £400,000 out of your transfer budget to pay for a plastic pitch', he would think I was mad." There are other downsides. It doesn't last forever so will need replacing. It also requires regular cleaning. How exactly do today's artificial pitches differ from the 1980s? Back in the day it is generally agreed that the standard of football suffered as the ball pinged around and bounced high. It also smarted, with players who fell on the surface often suffering carpet burns. It is why goalkeepers playing on plastic pitches always wore long trousers. But technology has moved on and today's 3G pitches are, the experts tell us, so like real grass it is hard to spot the difference. Billy Martin, the managing director of Kestrel Contractors, a firm that installs both artificial and natural grass pitches, said: "3G pitches, which feature rubber-crumb granules, are akin to organic grass in terms of their performance and the main advantage is you can play on them 24/7. "On grass, in the winter months, you might only be able to use them once or twice a week before they start to deteriorate. "An artificial pitch can be a cash cow for a lot of lower league clubs because they can rent out the pitches, whereas a club like Arsenal don't have to maximise their revenue in that way." And on the claims artificial pitches cause more injuries? Martin said: "You will get injuries on any type of surface. The injuries aren't as problematic as with the older synthetic pitches - you will still get the burns but not to any extent. It's nothing worse than you might get on some dry pitches in the summer months." They are already allowed in the FA Cup and, from next season, in all three Conference divisions too. Uefa, European football's governing body, certainly doesn't seem to have a problem with them. As well as allowing Champions League and Europa League clubs to use artificial surfaces, international teams such as Andorra play their home Euro 2016 qualifiers on a 3G pitch. Wales and Real Madrid forward Gareth Bale, however, is clearly not a fan. He described it as the worst pitch he had played on after the visitors' 2-1 win in September.
"But with the technology involved in making artificial pitches much improved since then, is it really such a bad thing? " i used to play footie in the early 2000's and i hated playing on them. anyone used these supposed newer versions more recently and are they actually better and not as bad as made out?
I played on the old astroturf and I liked it but can see why they wouldn't be suitable for footy at a high level. Those burns though! Ouch! My son now plays on 3G pitches most weeks with his academy and I've had a run out on the pitch a few times the 3G pitches are a hell of a lot better and I would say much superior to the grass pitches at lower level clubs outside of the PL. Put it this way if we drew a lower level club in the FA Cup I'd rather us play them on a 3G pitch than some crap grass pitch.
I play on those 'old fashioned' astro pitches every week and yes it stings when you fall, part of identity of a Hockey player is scarred knuckles and knees. But even we are starting to move away from those, water based and hybrid pitches are whats being built now. Easier to fall on and fast to play on. On the 3G pitches I can see the advantage for training pitches, youth and non-league level. As for League teams suppose its more cost effective for struggling (financially) clubs, but would you want to see it in the top leagues? I always thought football was meant to be played on grass. Also from a personal note, I hate them. Not because of how they play, but because they steal our astro pitches. Places are replacing the old astro pitch with 3G as they can make more money from them and the FA gives them a grant to replace the pitch. We're down to 6 pitches (that I know of) in Sheffield to support 4 clubs and Hallam and Sheffield Uni Bankers have 2 pitches each (big clubs with alot of teams). There is a worry that unless the club owns the pitch they could lose their home pitch.
Until few years ago I played on indoor artificial turf. If you fell would still scrape you up bad. Sliding tackles were out as a result (banned anyway in our league). They completely knackered my knees though. I'd hobble during the week and when I finally started getting better it would be game night again and pain would start anew. Not had problems with my knees since stopped playing indoor. So many other people had to quit for similar reasons. Not sure how new tech the pitches I used was. Started playing indor around 2008/2009. Ended 2012. Same style turf used throughout that period.
The newer versions are fantastic, you can even still wear studs if you like. Obviously still get burns but if you make a technically correct slide tackle you won't get burnt, I do it every week! other than that, I can't see a problem. I actually prefer them.
I agree if it's a pitch suitable for the purpose and I certainly don't think 3G should invade the higher levels of football. I think it should though at grass roots level where kids are playing on a bumpy cow field that is simply not suitable for football, how are kids supposed to learn on the surfaces that they have to use at the moment?
thats a good point, see a lot of local area parks where you get sat and sun footie, and you can tell the fecking pitch is wonky as feck lol. no wonder kids lump the damn thing, easiest way sadly. do these new astro pitches keep their shape ok when built? ie not prone to pot holes,divets,bumps etc.
I think it's a great idea. If you still get carpet burns when you go down (so to speak), it would stop all these prima donnas diving all over the place and rolling round all the time.
There are a few 3G pitches around here that have been installed for about right years or more, they're all still like new
i found concrete was the best surface of all... plus f you think on it today. artificial turf isn;t the best for kids to learn the skills of todays games. 1. diving... will our kids learn how to flop if they play on artificial pitch? 2. tackling... not a good skill to learn. far better to learn how to block. go off your feet these days and you give a free away... so i think a mix of concrete and sand seem ideal. perhaps sand in the pen areas and concrete outside it...
