http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=315960&cc=5901 UEFA go-ahead for artificial pitches UEFA today opened the way for a pitch revolution in football by sanctioning the use of artificial turf in all European competitions, including internationals. After several years of lobbying, European football's governing have finally accepted that the latest synthetic pitches are a good enough alternative to natural grass to allow professional football to be played on them. UEFA spokesman Rob Faulkner told reporters: 'People in England have bad memories of the artificial pitches of Luton and QPR in the 1980s, but the latest generation are completely different and are much more like grass. 'We have sanctioned its use from the start of next season but only as long as it is the latest generation of artificial turf and meets a whole series of standards.' UEFA had ordered a two-year study into synthetic surfaces to monitor any differences from the bounce of the ball to the number of injuries suffered by players. Although European Championship qualifiers now will be allowed on synthetic pitches, UEFA will continue to insist that the finals are staged entirely on grass so that all teams in a tournament play on the same surface.
Livi have an artificial training surface that is 3/4 years old. It is quality and you cannot tell the difference. However, this technology is not the same as the ones that UEFA were looking at. Dunfermline have a UEFA artificial pitch and it is crap. There is a very big difference and players were getting burned when they slid into tackes. This is a shocking decision by UEFA. Perhaps they should take a quick trip to Almondvale to see how things should be done.
I agree. I have no idea why UEFA would make this decision to play actual games on this turf. I am sure after this experiment is over they will go back to grass.
Why? Until it becomes inexpensive and practical enough to keep the grass heated and in pristine condition year around in Russia and the Nordic countries, why shouldn't they use UEFA approved turf. Why shouldn't clubs be allowed to maximize their budgets in a way that apparently doesn't contribute to extra injuries? Ever played on the new stuff? I have. It's amazing. Hey, I'd like to see grass everywhere, north america, europe, africa, you name it, but its silly to write that you are "sure after this experiment is over they will go back to grass." Tony
They have FieldTurf or its fascimile at Saprissa. It looked a lot better than whatever "grass" they had there before. I think the only problem with the new turf is that the current generation of artificial pitches is still a tad too fast because they've been based to some extent on the US football requirements, which prefer faster surfaces for a more offensively oriented football. But, once they figure out the padding required for a softer bounce (most US pitches have 2", IIRC ... some can have as many as 5" and are much softer) and proper dimensions for the "grass blades", the artificial pitches will become the norm, if not the standard. Moreover, when you see teams like Liverpool and Everton seeking a new stadium but afraid to share it due to wear and tear of the natural grass, this offers a tremendous opportunity for several teams to share one large arena somewhat like the 1970s multipurpose stadiums in the US offered the same field for football and baseball. Those stadiums failed because the old Astroturf was a nightmare and the seating arrangements were awful as well. Neither will be a hindrance to soccer specific stadiums of this era. Welcome to the 21th Century.
Field-turf was developed in the Pacific Northwest of the U.S.A. and was developed specifically for areas with a high level of annual rainfall. So, it was meant to be installed for rain soaked fileds and for the clubs (american football and soccer) that tired of playing in mud pits. There have been variations made to the original design of the artificial turf and they all aren't of the same quality. Patent suits have also occured. The fields were meant to be wet, so with proper maintenance and a good watering before matches, the turf is absolutely perfect for soccer. Slide tackles, too.
I agree. After watching Metrostar games for the past two seasons, you just don't see any slide tackles at games at Giants Stadium. It just seems like there is something missing. Ball bounces a little too high as well. As for the speed, the ball will move no faster than on any finely manicured pitch.
Metros use the pitch made to the Giants/Jets specifications. It uses rubber infill and gets very hot during the sunny summer days. Some of the new designs have ameliorated that problem by introducing a cooling system underneath the field. I assume that once new artificial fields become more prevalent, more soccer friendly fields will become widely available with contingencies for any type of the weather.
i don't know much about all the technical crap behind the fields, but my high school install the stuff 3 years ago and it is the best surface I have ever played on. There was no problem slide tackling. I'd much rather slide tackle someone on field turf than a dried-out muddy field where the ground is rock hard and pretty damn sharp. The ball did bounce a little higher then normal, but that is something that I'd give up so that I could play on a premium pitch. Best field I have played on ever since I last played on it.
Unfortunatly it looks like we'll have to accept the reality of artificial fields in European stadiums. Three Swiss teams are thinking of installing one, and I expect it to be the same in other countries. What I don't get is why there isn't more interest in a grass/artificial mixture: http://www.dessodlw.com/sub.asp?fID=03080000&dID=index&sID=index&lID=en Real Madrid, Liverpool, and West Ham have it. Are they not satisfied with it?
Since the '80's and the plastic pitches of that era, there has been a very big improvement in the texture of 'astro turf'. What was once considered as a dangerous turf, as far a knee injuries were concerned, has now been 'ironed out', and even high schools are putting in the new synthetic turf. Believe me, in the USA, and California in particular, if there was even a hint of some kid being injured because of the synthetic turf, there is no way any schol district would allow the stuff to be anywhere near their schools. We are remember, the worlds capital for law suits. As for the actual playing field conditions...I played all my life on grass fields, both in England, until I was 26 years old, and in NY state and California. I have played in ankle deep mud, and frozed solid, hard as nails pitches. Some where the ball just couldn't bounce, and some where you couldn't control the ball because it wouldn't stop bouncing, as on a bumpy, fozen pitch. I'd take a perfectly groomed grass pitch anytime, but how often does that happen...very seldom. So, give me the new synthetic grass, that I know, rain of freezing will still give me a good surface to play on.
I just know that the Salzburg players (one of the Uefa testing grounds) weren't exactly thrilled with it. I don't think the players of the other testing grounds were raving about it either. If we have to go synthetic, I would prefer to go with the DD GrassMaster mixture...
The new stuff is really very good. It's almost exactly like a high quality grass surface execpt that it is softer and the ball tends to bounce wil backspin.
Could be, but as long as the pros don't say the same I'm not convinced. After all they are the ones who have to play on it.