With the away game against Arsenal imminent, and Shearer's comment that QPR are useless away because the pitches are too big for their style of football still ringing in my ear, I set out below an article published in The Guardian a couple of months ago. It's clear we have the smallest pitch in the Prem (a position shared with Stoke). The comparison with Arsenal's pitch for example: Loftus Road 100m x 66m The Emirates 105m x 68m Question - Are these extra metres going to make the difference in our performance on Boxing Day? QUOTE Football managers are accustomed to shifting the blame following defeats, with referees the usual target of their ire. Mauricio Pochettino, however, blamed the White Hart Lane pitch in the wake of Tottenham’s surprise 2-1 defeat against Newcastle on Sunday. “Our style means we need a bigger space to play because we play a positional game,” the Argentinian coach said. “It’s true that White Hart Lane is a little bit tight and it’s better for the opponent when they play deep.” Pochettino’s specific problem is against opponents who defend with a ‘low block’, sitting on the edge of the penalty box. “On Sunday there were two shots from Newcastle – it was unlucky for us. And they play deep. West Bromwich play deep, Liverpool the same, they play very deep and it was difficult for us. We need time to adapt to our new set-up and to understand better our position on the pitch.” Two years ago the Premier League attempted to standardise pitch size. “Unless otherwise permitted by the board, in league matches the length of the pitch shall be 105 metres and its breadth 68 metres,” read rule K21. The next rule, however, states that exceptions are allowed “if it is impossible to comply with rule K21 due to the nature of the construction of the ground”. Ten Premier League clubs comply perfectly with the 105m x 68m regulations – Arsenal, Aston Villa, Hull, Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle, Southampton, Sunderland, Swansea and West Bromwich Albion – although there are only minor differences elsewhere. White Hart Lane is 100m x 67m, with Stoke’s Britannia Stadium and Queens Park Rangers’ Loftus Road the smallest, at 100m x 66m. Finding space remains a key attacking concept, but the difference here is minimal. Such small variations should not have a significant impact upon play, although it’s obvious that expansive, attacking sides thrive on large pitches, and more defensive teams, and long-ball teams, favour smaller playing surfaces. It is interesting that Pochettino is so concerned about the dimensions – his coaching idol, his former Argentina manager Marcelo Bielsa, often used to pace out an opposition pitch pre-match, checking it matched the dimensions provided by the club. Perhaps Bielsa had heard of Graeme Souness. In 1987 Souness, then Rangers manager, was scouting their upcoming European Cup opponents Dynamo Kiev, and realised the Ukrainian side had two particularly dangerous wingers. The night before the game, the Ibrox groundsman worked his magic at the manager’s command. “The pitch didn’t have to be a fixed width as long as it was above a certain minimum, so I thought: ‘Right, I’ll make it the absolute minimum,’” Souness said. “On the Tuesday afternoon the Kiev players trained on the pitch when it was the normal size. On Wednesday night they came out for the match and must have been shocked to discover that, after 15 paces, they were on the touchline … it wasn’t purist stuff, but it was within the rules.” Having lost the first leg 1-0 in Kiev, Rangers turned the tie around, and triumphed 2-1 on aggregate. Arsène Wenger once blamed the small pitch at Highbury for Arsenal’s disciplinary problems. “There is something about the size of the pitch at home,” he said in 2002. “It’s tight and, of course, we have a dynamic way of playing, everybody defends well and we are a team who put opponents under pressure, so there is more physical contact. On a bigger pitch, you have less contact. It is certainly linked with that. Highbury is very compact.” Stoke, considered the anti-Arsenal under their former coach Tony Pulis, are also an interesting case. They set their pitch size at the minimum possible, which meant their long-ball game was more effective. It also – literally – played into the hands of their former long-throw expert Rory Delap. When Stoke qualified for the Europa League in 2011-12, Uefa’s pitch regulations were larger than that of the Premier League, which meant the Britannia briefly had two separate pitch markings visible throughout games, which confused their right-back Ryan Shotton, who took a quick throw from the wrong touchline in a league game. Ultimately, Premier League pitches are all roughly the same size. However, the Laws of the Game state pitches can be between 90 and 120 metres long, and drastically different in width – between 50 and 100 metres, although they must be longer than they are wide. With such variations allowed at amateur level, it is Sunday League sides, rather than Premier League teams, who can be particularly tactical with the dimensions of their pitch. UNQUOTE
(105 x 2) - two metres more width for every metre of pitch length = 210 square metres (68 x 5) - 5 metres more pitch length for every metre of pitch width = 340 square metres* So Arsenal's pitch is 550 square metres bigger than ours, which sounds a lot to me, certainly enough to influence tactics and playing style. It always amuses me when QPR fans get all defensive about having a small pitch. It's not how big it is, it's how you use it. Or so I'm told...... * Maths is not my strong point, this calculation may be complete garbage.
Agree. As the article says, different sized pitches have to be accommodated due to historically differing size of grounds - but it's really not satisfactory and must result in fluctuations of team performances. Surely, the same would not be tolerated for, say, tennis courts or snooker tables
It's not the size of the ground but the way you use it that matters. The closeness to the hoarding makes the pitch smaller, people tend to slow closer to the edges of the pitch rather than one step face plant the front row.
It's actually 540 square metres bigger, Stan, which is just over 8%. The penalty area is roughly 665 square metres, so Arsenal have about 4/5ths of a penalty area more than us.
And how many grounds have a death trap of a hole 1 metre from the edge of the pitch. I'm sure Van Persie remembers it fondly!
Slight adjustment Stan to measurments, it's 540 sq metres in total. You're right about the 210 part, but the other measurement should be based on 66m width as you have already included the additional 10 sq metres when calculating the length of the pitch so the 2nd part of the calc should be 330 sq metres otherwise you are counting the same part of the pitch twice..... Whichever way you look at it the additional space is a little over 8% of the Loftus Road pitch.....roughly draw a line across the pitch side to side from goal line to penalty spot and that is approximately the additional space there is on Arsenals pitch compared to ours..... More space for Clint to exploit on the overlap!!!!!! EDIT; Sorry Strolls just saw your post, it took me about 20 mins to do my post due to interuptions....
Pretty close for an amateur though! So does it give us an advantage at home and/or (loathe as I am to provide another excuse for Redknapp) a disadvantage away? What size pitch do we train on/ Do we vary it according to who we are playing next? Personally I think the crowd and our proximity to the pitch give us more at home than the small playing surface.
I agree that it's the crowd more than the pitch size that gives us the advantage at home. Perhaps it is a contributory factor to our poor away form, though.
The size of the penalty area is the same at all grounds! The dimensions don't change & unless my memory is totally shot to pieces each would be 48x18 - 864 square yards. Having a smaller overall playing surface means that we have to be more accurate in our passing than those sides with a bigger area. They can overhit the pass & have more chance of the receiver being able to catch up with the ball. Therefore this proves that these clubs struggle at Loftus Road as their players are not as good as ours!
Agree about the proximity of the crowd giving the impression of being hemmed in, opposition players would not be used to that. I'm not really sure that pitch size matters that much, we are only talking about 1 metre on each side and the length of the pitch shouldn't be that material. Players should be good enough to be able to adjust to these differentials..... Can't for the life of me imagine that we have a small pitch and a large pitch at Harlington, but I stand to be corrected......
I think Stroller was just using the penalty area to help us picture the difference in pitch size terry, not saying the Gooners have bigger penaty areas! I like your point about passing, though ultimately thats down to the quality of the players. My next point is so obvious I won't write it.
I know for a fact that some clubs will adjust the size of their traing pitch to reflect what they will be playing the next match on. Makes perfect sense to me, you don't need more than one pitch to do it.
I didn't say that is wasn't, Terry. It's 792 sq yds (18 x 44) or 664.95 sq mtrs (16.5 x 40.3). As Stan pointed out, I was just trying give an idea of the difference in overall pitch size.
