View Full Version : Anticipatory: The Pitch is a Disgrace! Thread
dcochran
25 Feb 2006, 09:14 AM
Unfortunately, the calendars didn't align properly so I couldn't raise this after we'd actually SEEN the Gillette pitch. (Oh, come on. Don't hijack it into a "If we'd played an actual HOME game last week, we could have whined about the pitch." thread quite yet.)
Did others see the Chelsea-Barca game at Stamford Bridge earlier this week? Was there a player on the pitch who made less in a week than what it would have taken to resod that travesty? Gillette in January after a Pats playoff game doesn't look that bad. Question: Was it Mourinho the fox, pulling a Belicheck to slow down Ronaldinho and friends or does a worldwide top 5 club really have such an appalling grounds crew? I'm assuming it's the former. Regardless, I'm surprised UEFA lets them get away with it.
Soccer Doc
25 Feb 2006, 09:34 AM
Did others see the Chelsea-Barca game at Stamford Bridge earlier this week? .
I saw that and wondered just what the "real Rev fans" would have to say if our pitch looks that way on 30 April ;)
peabrainedidiot
25 Feb 2006, 10:42 AM
I saw that and wondered just what the "real Rev fans" would have to say if our pitch looks that way on 30 April ;)
I'd ask who let those helmetball guys do that to our field? We're nice enough to let them use it once in a while you figured they'd treat it better.:p
thigpig
25 Feb 2006, 11:51 AM
it didn't look any worse than the razor. it actually reminded me of gillette, that's what gillette normally looks like
SirFozzie
25 Feb 2006, 01:22 PM
it didn't look any worse than the razor. it actually reminded me of gillette, that's what gillette normally looks like
They actually soaked it two hours before hand, there was standing puddles in some places
thigpig
25 Feb 2006, 01:54 PM
They actually soaked it two hours before hand, there was standing puddles in some places
no there wasn't
FoxBoro 143
25 Feb 2006, 02:16 PM
no there wasn't
If he's reffering to the Bridge's pitch on wednesday there were some standing puddles around midfield for at least the first half.
SirFozzie
25 Feb 2006, 07:17 PM
If he's reffering to the Bridge's pitch on wednesday there were some standing puddles around midfield for at least the first half.
yup. That's right
JMMUSA8
25 Feb 2006, 11:02 PM
If he's reffering to the Bridge's pitch on wednesday there were some standing puddles around midfield for at least the first half.
Actually there wasn't. It appeared that way because of the way the light came off the field.
thigpig
26 Feb 2006, 12:06 AM
Actually there wasn't. It appeared that way because of the way the light came off the field.
thank you, that's what i'm sayin. at first glance i thought that too but then i realized it wasn't a puddle. the anouncers were saying it was a choppy field but no puddles. and when you think about it a puddle in midfield would have stopped the ball at some point in 90 minutes. the ball moved fine.
SirFozzie
26 Feb 2006, 12:36 PM
Actually there wasn't. It appeared that way because of the way the light came off the field.
I was watching the Chelsea Stadium webcam.. there was standing puddles in it while they were watering the field two hours beforehand.
arak0r
26 Feb 2006, 02:01 PM
judging from the video of the barca chelsea game, that field was absolutely atrocious, worse than ive seen gillette at any rate
Chowda
26 Feb 2006, 05:58 PM
What does the Stamford Bridge pitch have to do with Gillette's?
Hopefully, the org took the spring '05 pitch condition personally and will do something about it.
They do have two more weeks than last year between the last Pats game and the first Revs game. Also, the field hasn't been covered with snow for stretches this winter. I don't know if that will make a difference, but hope is a wonderful thing.
dcochran
26 Feb 2006, 06:16 PM
What does the Stamford Bridge pitch have to do with Gillette's?
Directly, nothing. I raised the comparison because of the assertion last year that Gillette's condition was a travesty and, implicitly, a demonstration that the Revs are not a serious team. I found it interesting that the marquee matchup in arguably the most prestigious club competition world wide was played on a pitch in worse condition than any I've seen in MLS -- including Gillette at the beginning of last season.
I also hope that the mild winter and the extra two weeks without Pats result in a better pitch and a strong start to the season.
jokeefe80
27 Feb 2006, 12:29 PM
I also hope that the mild winter...
way to jinx it, now we are going to get 10 feet of snow in march.;)
jokeefe80
27 Feb 2006, 12:40 PM
What does the Stamford Bridge pitch have to do with Gillette's?
They actually have more in common than you think. see below...
Hopefully, the org took the spring '05 pitch condition personally and will do something about it.
Conspiracy theories aside, both Belichick and Kraft have mentioned in the past their desire to keep the fields at minimum playing quality. I tried to google the quotes from the 2003 season when Dungy and Bill Polian bitched all week leading up to the AFC championship game, and the comments that came after from Both Kraft and Belichick. I couldn't find them, but I remember Pete Shepherd playing them over and over again on sports flashes on WEEI the week after the AFC championship game. So I doubt they will do much more than they have in the past as far as field maintenance.
Similar can be said about Jose Moreno. He, and Kenyon, have both emphasized the ability to keep games close (which is the style of game moreno preaches), and how a less than perfect pitch can help take offensive elements out of the game.
Unless the NFL comes down on the Patriots, or the EPL or UEFA come down on Chelsea, I don't see either organization doing much to help change the quality of their respective pitch.
If the theory holds true, imagine what the score could have been in the Chelsea/Barca game last week. OUCH!!!! SEE YA Chelsea!!!!
Unless the NFL comes down on the Patriots, or the EPL or UEFA come down on Chelsea, I don't see either organization doing much to help change the quality of their respective pitch.
One thing about the NFL policy, if the league rules the field is unfit at any point during the season and orders it to be replaced or partially replaced, the league picks up the tab not the team. Because of that, it doesn't give the team any incentive to keep it up themselves. During the off-season any changes are paid for by the team, but I've never heard the NFL demanding it at that point. Any replacement done then would have to be done fairly close to the start of the Revs season just due to weather.
Chowda
27 Feb 2006, 06:49 PM
The NFL forced the Pats to replace the turf before the AFC championship game in 2004. They thought it would help Peyton Manning get to the Super Bowl, but he choked.
The Pats played the AFC championship game in Pittsburg in 2005 and didn't have to replace the field because the league made them do it mid-season.
This may explain the difference in pitch quality between the last two seasons.
jokeefe80
27 Feb 2006, 06:58 PM
[QUOTE=Chowda]The NFL forced the Pats to replace the turf before the AFC championship game in 2004. They thought it would help Peyton Manning get to the Super Bowl, but he choked. [QUOTE]
the NFL did not make them change the pitch, they made them remove the snow after a midweek snowstorm.
Chowda
27 Feb 2006, 07:07 PM
Why are you making me look this up?
The NFL forced them to change the field before the playoffs in the 2003-2004 season. It was leaked that Belichek let the field go to give the team an advantage against a team like the Colts. The league flipped out and made them change it.
The league was more proactive in 2004-2005 and made them change it earlier.
Is that clear enough for you?