Artificial pitches could be on their way back to lower-league football.
There is a fair bit of support from a decent number of clubs in Leagues 1 and 2, notably from Accrington Stanley and our friends at Wycombe, for the installation. They eradicate the necessity of a full-time groundsman, and mean fewer games are postponed. Both these things would mean more money for the clubs. They also create an even playing surface, allowing more flowing football to be played.
The last time artificial pitches were used was back in the eighties, when clubs such as Luton and QPR used them. They made for impressive home records for those teams who had them, with some claiming they gave an unfair advantage to said teams. However, that argument holds little water. It's hardly an unfair advantage - all teams would be allowed to have artificial pitches so it's only a disadvantage in they weren't to have them.
Another issue is the fact that players have historically suffered more injuries on artificial pitches than real ones. However, it is hard to judge as it's been so many years since English games were played on them. From past experience, I can say that the new 4G pitches which feel like grass with a thick layer of mud underneath (and so boots can be worn) are very nice to play on. It's also possible to slide on them thanks to the little bits of rubber crumb scattered all over the surface (although they do get EVERYWHERE!) and so they do make a good substitute. However, they just don't feel the same. They just don't feel right.
Read more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17064905
Have your say here: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22ERJWUK6Y6
The reason this is on the Brizzle board (in case any of you are wondering) is that your board is fairly busy, and also that you'll be non-league next year so will need to save all the money you can.
There is a fair bit of support from a decent number of clubs in Leagues 1 and 2, notably from Accrington Stanley and our friends at Wycombe, for the installation. They eradicate the necessity of a full-time groundsman, and mean fewer games are postponed. Both these things would mean more money for the clubs. They also create an even playing surface, allowing more flowing football to be played.
The last time artificial pitches were used was back in the eighties, when clubs such as Luton and QPR used them. They made for impressive home records for those teams who had them, with some claiming they gave an unfair advantage to said teams. However, that argument holds little water. It's hardly an unfair advantage - all teams would be allowed to have artificial pitches so it's only a disadvantage in they weren't to have them.
Another issue is the fact that players have historically suffered more injuries on artificial pitches than real ones. However, it is hard to judge as it's been so many years since English games were played on them. From past experience, I can say that the new 4G pitches which feel like grass with a thick layer of mud underneath (and so boots can be worn) are very nice to play on. It's also possible to slide on them thanks to the little bits of rubber crumb scattered all over the surface (although they do get EVERYWHERE!) and so they do make a good substitute. However, they just don't feel the same. They just don't feel right.
Read more at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17064905
Have your say here: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22ERJWUK6Y6
The reason this is on the Brizzle board (in case any of you are wondering) is that your board is fairly busy, and also that you'll be non-league next year so will need to save all the money you can.
