Artificial pitch being considered for Murrayfield

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/top-rugby-stories/artificial-pitch-being-considered-for-murrayfield-1-2854627

Have to say when I first saw this I was quite disappointed, because Murrayfield is actually one of the best pitches out there! However when you read the significant savings in maintenance it does seem like a good shout, especially when a precedent has been set elsewhere and there has been a lot of positive feedback.

Interestingly they are also considering a fully plastic pitch for Scotstoun - the same type as the Allianz arena, Saracens ground has.

Have to say I have played on the 4G pitch on the Murrayfield back pitches, and although it is a fast surface it does rip your skin apart. I was running down the wing and was tackled and dragged into touch and it literally tore most of the skin off from my arm and leg! Still got the scars.

Apparently these new plastic pitches avoid that though so they sound much better.

So what do people think? Short term is the capital cost not worth it and the money better spent elsewhere?

With the extra money, Scotland could buy some snow making machines and a few wind generators. That always seems to give them their best hope of winning.

Call me a purist but I don't like these artificial pitches. Say what you like about the stadiums of NZ, their pitches are always immaculate. Some of the pitches in this year's 6N were a disgrace. I'd rather see the Stade de France, for example, do something about their pitch than Murrayfield. I know it comes down to money but if you'll excuse the pun it ain't cricket, which also is being dominated by artificial pitches.

Artificial turf allows the stadium to be used more regularly than real turf (I believe up to three times more often), so there is an argument from potential revenue angle. It also allows a stadium to be multi-purpose and support Gigs and what have you, since protecting the surface is not such an imperative.

In my view they should see how Sarries pitch goes for a wee bit longer and maybe look at what happens at New Zealand's Forsyth Barr before they leap in. It doesn't pay to be a leader when the costs of failure are so high.

To be fair Kia, the weather between the SH and Scotland isn't exactly comparable! We've had 1, 2 degrees and snow blizzards all week - and this is meant to be spring!

Yes but like you say Murrayfield usually is immaculate in terms of a playing surface.

Aye but the argument seems to be that costs a lot of money to maintain. Don't get my wrong the traditionalist in me wants to keep the grass pitch, but as a business if you can triple your usage and slice your running costs it has got to be worth considering.

Not denying that. Just wouldn't like to see it like the jersey manufacturer going to the cheapest bidder or sevens team axed. In these times I guess you have to see how your money is being spent and what value you get for your money. If you let the bean counters take too much control though you tend to lose value for your money because all that interests them is cost. Where does the line get drawn is what might worry me.

We have to move with the times here in the NH Kia, just like you Kiwis had to. Does the AIG Blacks ring any bells for you?

Yes it does. Not too happy about that choice hence my reservations.

Kia, just as the deal with AIG means you retain more quality players within NZ, so would better finance enable the Scotts to retain such talented Scottsmen as Sean Maitland and Tim Visser.

My guess is that to be resilient it needs to be pretty inflexible so it won't break. That inflexibility could cause serious injuries no?

As any one ever been seriously injured by a blade of plastic grass?

Alive - as a civil/structural engineer I can assure you that is not the case! Materials can be ductile yet strong.

I dont know much about polymers but they won't be unflexible

My issue is with AIG as opposed to the idea of a jersey sponsor. Money is our perennial problem and talent must be retained. Sometimes I feel that the short term outlook takes precedence over the long term.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Not denying that. Just wouldn't like to see it like the jersey manufacturer going to the cheapest bidder or sevens team axed. In these times I guess you have to see how your money is being spent and what value you get for your money. If you let the bean counters take too much control though you tend to lose value for your money because all that interests them is cost. Where does the line get drawn is what might worry me.

Fair comment Kia but I don't think we should assume that all cost saving should be construed as cutting back on quality.

Sarries looked at the options for a very long time before choosing their pitch and whilst Murrayfield is usually a lovely surface, it's not always and I think the priority should be players not getting injured - always a concern of mine on the farmers furrow at the Millenneum or the icerink that is the Stade de France.

Macron was desperate to get its teeth into a major sponsor in rugby, hence its good financial offer to the SRU for the international team and both clubs. However, I do happen to think that their stuff is styled very nicely and that their history in making kit for other sports is excellent and they deserve a chance. No less deserving than Puma for Ireland or Under Armour for Wales.

As for the Sevens, I am seriously considering advocating along the same lines as Ireland and just saving our money by pulling the team about. We lost to Portugal this week. Portugal. They probably select their team on the basis of a Hunger Games-esque ballot...

[quote="George Carlin"]

kiakahaaotearoa wrote: As for the Sevens, I am seriously considering advocating along the same lines as Ireland and just saving our money by pulling the team about. We lost to Portugal this week. Portugal. They probably select their team on the basis of a Hunger Games-esque ballot...

Ahhh, but we beat England this weekend. Swings and roundabouts...

RDW_Scotland wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/top-rugby-stories/artificial-pitch-being-considered-for-murrayfield-1-2854627

Have to say when I first saw this I was quite disappointed, because Murrayfield is actually one of the best pitches out there! However when you read the significant savings in maintenance it does seem like a good shout, especially when a precedent has been set elsewhere and there has been a lot of positive feedback.

Interestingly they are also considering a fully plastic pitch for Scotstoun - the same type as the Allianz arena, Saracens ground has.

Have to say I have played on the 4G pitch on the Murrayfield back pitches, and although it is a fast surface it does rip your skin apart. I was running down the wing and was tackled and dragged into touch and it literally tore most of the skin off from my arm and leg! Still got the scars.

Apparently these new plastic pitches avoid that though so they sound much better.

So what do people think? Short term is the capital cost not worth it and the money better spent elsewhere?

Tore skin from your arm and legs... Did you ever play football on those orange gravel pitches we're famous for using??? See that and you never have to question a man's bravery.

I remember playing wendyball on the astro turf pitches at school. It was a brave and/or foolish person who tried a slide tackle on those.

Although as mentioned, the new stuffs meant to be much better.

Methinks the turf sellers must prefer a turf that constantly comes up in square or oblong pieces to the one that knits quickly and doesn't need so much maintenance to get some good usage out of?

Meaning, I reckon the turf producers have a built-in income guaranteer in their ever-uplifting chunks of grass! Rather like the electric-kettle or refrigerator producers. There are always aspects designed to fail after a certain few years so that poor purchaser is required to purchase again.

You could blame a lot of rain for recent unsightly rugby fields but I'd prefer blame design and hold design accountable too (both stadium designs and turf producers).

Murrayfield turf is one of the best... It hardly comes up compared to others.

in essence I reckon it's due to the enclosed stadiums which are also very high and let in no sunlight...I.e. the grass dies very quickly/turns into mush.

Then they have to replace it often and it also gets no time to join together before it again dies... Continual process.

You could also check out how often said stadiums get used for other activities (concerts/other sports) and work out how frequency of use/frequency of re-turfing might be affecting uplift from one country to another or even Hemisphere wise.