Steve Bruce on Humberside being very polite about it but basically saying the pitch has been **** since the rugby season started. Says we might have to change the way we play because of it. Mind you saying that it's the same for both teams I suppose.
He didn't say that at all. There's only been two rugby games on it and it has been documented that the RL does not damage it as much as football.He did not mention the rugby and neither did the interviewer. On a separate note, has anyone lost a carrier bag with some rugby souvenirs in? Found it under my seat. Some black and white shirts, photos, rosettes etc.
Well I thought he said it had got worse in the last month. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick then.
He did. But didn't speculate on cause, except to say it's 10 years old (even though it's been relaid twice(?)). Lack of sunlight, prolonged cold snap etc
He probably meant the design of the pitch, all the drainage systems and other built in stuff that helps maintain it. Relaying the pitch is probably a bit like upgrading Windows on your computer. It looks pretty to start with but it's still an antique underneath it. Either that or he meant the problem of us having a shared pitch is a 10 year old problem...
He said exactly what I keep saying which is that, regardless of how little damage rugby does in relation to football, the pitch gets **** at this time of year every season and it affects our football. I'm delighted he's actually going to address the problem instead of stubbornly persisting with the same way of playing. I think we should change back to 4-4-2 for the time being at least. We improved massively with that system tonight. Fathi or Rosenior can be the right back, Brady left (he did fine there tonight) and Elmo and Quinn can be the wingers (remember Quinn played there for Sheff Utd). We got men forward properly playing 4-4-2 whereas playing the 3-5-2 we just have the two strikers and no one else actually getting forward.
Do we do any of that UV light stuff? I remember coming into land and flying over Reading's ground on some dark winter morning and seeing masses of UV lights lighting up the pitch. They seem to be on mobile frames or something. Sounds like an expensive but worthwhile investment. Found a link, they are called UV growth lights, used by the more affluent clubs. If we don't have any let's do it http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jan/08/working-life-groundsman-crystal-palace
We need these on 7 days a week and the pitch heating on to maintain the growth temperatures. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2568/3904290575_c01dd25c3f.jpg Time to stop dicking around with it.
What he meant was, we need a new stadium, one that grass can grow freely in the knowledge that politics will not harm it and that the only thing it has to fear is the sharp blade and the long stud. Bollocks, he is saying some of our players cannot perform on damp soggy pitches and he will change the line up and coaching. Will we be playing a long high ball now? I have a feeling that Koren is one who's game suffers.
A return to playing 442 MIGHT be a blessing in disguise. We surely could not play 352 in the Premiership or we would beat Derby's record points total. That being said as far as this season is concerned, at this stage it is a high risk approach to suddenly start trying to use an unfamiliar way of playing. Something does need to be done about that pitch, though, looking forward. Reading and Wigan don't seem to have any issues. It's so frustrating to know we can play very attractive, proper football under the right conditions, but are not able to do so for large parts of the season due to something that is under our control.
I think the pitch condition is not helped by a basic flaw in the stadium design. The sun is at its highest and most effective in winter in the afternoons. But in the stadium the West Stand is higher than the East so the pitch stays in shadow. If it had been built the other way round the pitch would get more sunlight.
