Some initial thoughts on synthetic pitches

Saracens' new pitch at Hendon looks at first sight to be very good. The surface looks true and even.

No doubt there will be some problems along the way as the pitch succumbs to the inevitable wear and tear and varying weather conditions.

So as long as there aren't in due course an increase in injuries attributable to the fabric and any mends required.

The foot purchase allowed to scrums looks good in wet conditions although whilst collapses may decrease, refs may have to pay more attention to front rows 'popping up'.

All in all 9/10 for the new playing surface on first view from me.

The blue turf border looked a little funny.

After the match, Matt Stevens said he thought the pitch was fine except he thought it was "a little hard on the legs". The interviewer did not follow-up on the question, so there was no other comment. And Stevens was smiling and did not appear to be complaining. I wonder if his comments were because his legs were sore, had some real pain, or if he simply had lost some skin, as is common or the new artificial turfs.

I should add the pitch was 100% better after that match than the pitch at the Aviva Stadium in Dublin and especially Stade de France after the recent Six Nations matches.

doctor_grey wrote:The blue turf border looked a little funny.

After the match, Matt Stevens said he thought the pitch was fine except he thought it was "a little hard on the legs". The interviewer did not follow-up on the question, so there was no other comment. And Stevens was smiling and did not appear to be complaining. I wonder if his comments were because his legs were sore, had some real pain, or if he simply had lost some skin, as is common or the new artificial turfs.

I have no problem with the blue touchline margin. My guess is that things would be easier for spectators and TJs.
And regarding the way in which the pitch withstood the rigours of play compared with Lansdowne and S de P in your addendum, Hendon held up really well.

My only real concern is how player safety will pan out in the longer term.
How is the artificial pitch anchored? How are repairs effected? How durable is the surface? etc.. Are questions that come to mind.

I think it will take time for players to get confident with it, I imagine they'll be a bit hesitant about sliding on it at first.

I was a skeptic but after watching the game I was impressed. Wouldn't mind if Quins got one now, our backs would love it out there. Hhmmm have we played Sarries at theirs yet...

Did it effect the goal kickers?

Will it cause things like shin splints if it's harder then turf?

If part of it was to get torn (say a couple of yards) how difficult would the repair be and could they play on at the time?

There does seem to be some rubber crumble dressing in the surface which is presumably involved in allaying problems of problems like shin splintd and stress fractures.

In long, dry spells and possible hose pipe bans, will the pitch be watered and will it be effective? Turf retains some moisture in the surface - will this surface?

What a great game, and what a great pitch. It really speeded things up, made scrummaging easier and hopefully in 3 years' time most or all AP pitches with be 4G. Sides like Newcastle, Leeds and Bath would obviously benefit, and imagine seeing those English backs touched by genius like Wade, May and Eastmond playing on a firm surface every week. Mud and entertainment are incompatible at professional level.

DaveM wrote:What a great game, and what a great pitch. It really speeded things up, made scrummaging easier and hopefully in 3 years' time most or all AP pitches with be 4G. Sides like Newcastle, Leeds and Bath would obviously benefit, and imagine seeing those English backs touched by genius like Wade, May and Eastmond playing on a firm surface every week. Mud and entertainment are incompatible at professional level.

I suspect Iam in the minority, but i disagree. I love seeing teams try and cope with the different conditions a season can throw up. A full season spreading from late summer to Late Spring means teams have to be able to play and hard, fast surfaces and mud, when it is hot and cold, sunny and windy, dry and wet. Hell even snowy. I still feel that rugby is an all season, outdoor sport. If I want to watch a high scoring fast moving indoor sport I will watch basketball.

OK this is probablyt more a winge against a roof

I still think it would be a shame if we ended up with all artificial pitches.

I think a half and half split would be alright, the northern clubs should def look to get 4G pitches (maybe the RFU could help fund the initial outlay and then be reimbursed by the clubs?)

And then any other southern teams could have it if they choose.

Mud will still be around in the Int games and Europe, but the pro's do seem to outway the cons for 4G.

LondonTiger wrote:

DaveM wrote:What a great game, and what a great pitch. It really speeded things up, made scrummaging easier and hopefully in 3 years' time most or all AP pitches with be 4G. Sides like Newcastle, Leeds and Bath would obviously benefit, and imagine seeing those English backs touched by genius like Wade, May and Eastmond playing on a firm surface every week. Mud and entertainment are incompatible at professional level.

I suspect Iam in the minority, but i disagree. I love seeing teams try and cope with the different conditions a season can throw up. A full season spreading from late summer to Late Spring means teams have to be able to play and hard, fast surfaces and mud, when it is hot and cold, sunny and windy, dry and wet. Hell even snowy. I still feel that rugby is an all season, outdoor sport. If I want to watch a high scoring fast moving indoor sport I will watch basketball.

OK this is probablyt more a winge against a roof

I still think it would be a shame if we ended up with all artificial pitches.

Do you think it might actually be a benefit if we have a bit of a mix of surfaces in the Prem. Maybe we'd then see teams have to adopt different games for different surfaces and dependent on the weather. Might be good for the English game if a few winter games in awful weather can be played with fast 15 man rugby, but then equally useful maintaining the 10 man up-the-jumper stuff on other pitches. I guess as yousay, roofs would be the alternative, but maybe this is more realistic financially.

I prefer the idea of grass, but this might turn out really positive. Would be nice to see some Prem teams adopt a quicker tempo game.

yappysnap wrote:I think a half and half split would be alright, the northern clubs should def look to get 4G pitches (maybe the RFU could help fund the initial outlay and then be reimbursed by the clubs?)

And then any other southern teams could have it if they choose.

Mud will still be around in the Int games and Europe, but the pro's do seem to outway the cons for 4G.

Beat me to it, but I like the idea of that.