The Artificial Turf Debate

Supporters of a certain age will remember watching football being played on the artificial astro-turf pitches at QPR, Luton Town, Oldham Athletic and Preston North End.  This was the old style astro-turf that was like playing on concrete, there was little (if any) cushioning if you happened to be on the end of a robust challenge and many a player woke up on a Sunday morning with an angry looking burn on knees and elbows.

The debate back in the late 80's when these pitches were in use by the clubs were that they gave the home team an advantage because the team were used to the bounce and roll of the ball, indeed in 1989 the Commission of Enquiry into Playing Surfaces identified negative issues with the performance of the pitches in terms of ball roll and ball bounce.  Why this quite required a commission is beyond me, having been unfortunate enough to have played football on the old style astro-turf myself, I can tell you 100% that the ball bounces is weird and wonderful ways compared to a grass pitch.  Anyways, the results of the commission recommended the total ban of artificial surfaces from the start of the 1990/91 season starting with the First Division and working down the league, with the last pitch finally being removed in 1994.

Since then, technological advances have led to the dawn of third generation (3G) pitches which are more like an artificial turf as opposed to the old astro.

In response to the growing use of artificial turf use around the world, the Football League has been researching the instigation of new rules which would allow the use of artificial turf by the 72 Football League teams.  The current phase of this is a consultation with fans, managers, players and directors about the use of artificial turf, they have prepared a consolation document and a questionnaire (the closing date of which is 30th April 2012) to facilitate this.

This shift has been helped by the commitment of FIFA to the development of the pitches, since the late 90's FIFA have been promoting the development and in 2001 they launched the 'Quality Concept for Football Turf' which awards ratings to types of artificial turf based on a number of criteria to signify what level they can be used for.  New turf must undergo a number of lab tests to achieve the FIFA certification to test composition, durability, strength, climatic resistance, player to surface interaction and ball to surface interaction.

Currently there are over 262 top rated FIFA approved pitches in the UEFA member nations with at least one pitch in the professional leagues of 21 UEFA nations including; Cesena and Novara in Serie A, Lorient and Nanacy in Ligue 1 and Heracles in the Eredivisie.

There are a number of pro's and con's to the implementation of artificial turf; reduced maintenance, surface quality, no separate pitch required for first/reserve/youth teams and increased rental potential in the pro column and; initial cost, culture and perceptions of home advantage and injuries caused on artificial pitches being the main cons.

The pro's speak for themselves, having spent the last couple of years playing exclusively on artificial pitches at local 5-a-side centres and then trying to adapt to the 11-a-side on grass was like trying to learn to walk all over again.  Instead of rolling directly into my path, passes where now bobbling over my foot, under my foot, in front of my foot...basically anywhere apart from finding my actual foot!  3G pitches in particular provide an immaculate surface to pass and dribble on.

The initial cost of these pitches is around £500,000 and have an estimated payback period of £100,000.  For the top clubs in the Championship this will be pocket money, but the further down the leagues you go, the less likely it is to find a team who can afford to install a pitch no mater what the payback period is.

The perception of home advantage and the injuries caused are the more important ones...and as such many a study has been carried out.  Prozone have performed analysis of the UEFA Cup tie (both legs) of Red Bull Salzburg vs Blackburn in 2006, the results of which showed that there was no marked difference in the pass completion rate between the two games.  Interestingly however, Blackburns winger Morten Gamst Pedersen had an 11% better pass completion rate on the artificial turf than on the grass...if you think logically about it, surely the use of artificial turf gives the home team no advantage because both teams are professional footballers...who wouldn't want to play on a carpet like surface with no bobbles, no divots and no unpredictable bounce.  Surely the home team would be at a disadvantage when the go on their travels since they aren't used to playing on a sometimes unpredictable surface.

Equally, studies on injuries has shown no major difference between artificial turf and grass, there are less muscle strains on the artificial turf, but more sprains...although I take this with a pinch of salt since the long term effects on the joints is still unknown.

The main problem will be changing attitudes and culture (just think about the media coverage of the plastic pitch for England's game against Russia), although the increase in football being played at small sided football centres on 3G surfaces and the understanding of the qualities of the turf may swing this round...after all, even Wembley has a hybrid surface...