3G Pitches

As I’m sure we are all aware, Mr Swan wants to install a 3G pitch. As far as I’m aware, this is to be a secondary pitch adjacent to the club, rather than the main pitch.

As things stand at the moment, installing a 3G pitch (as our main pitch) would prevent us from playing home games in The FA Cup and most importantly, prevent us from being promoted any higher than we are now. For me, that is a non starter.

But it seems as though the rules could possibly change. The Football League are starting a consultation process. These pitches are approved by FIFA and UEFA. They are used throughout Europe. Even England have played a European Championship Qualifier on such a pitch in Moscow.

At best, the FA and Football Authorities in England have been slow to keep up. At worst, they have been ‘burying their heads in the sand’.

Given the choice, I’d always prefer to see football played on a good quality grass pitch. But when that is not practical, I’d prefer football on an artificial 3G pitch to a poor quality grass pitch. I’m 100% behind the introduction of these pitches in the Football League and the higher levels of Non-League. I regularly play on Studleys 3G pitch. To anyone who has never seen a 3G pitch up close, they are a world away from the sand covered ‘Astroturf’s’ from the ‘80’s & 90’s.

As part of the consultation process, the Football League are asking for feedback. If the club see this as a viable option, they should reply!

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/89/9d/0,,10794~171401,00.pdf

Any opinions on having the main pitch converted to a 3G pitch at the Valley Stadium?

I still feel that a 3g pitch should be a training facility and income stream for the club.

You ask most reds fans what they'd like and they'll say "a good cup run" now, say this does happen, we get to the first round propper and draw a big club at home, say Charlton, Sheffield etc, we'll lose the one chance we'd ever have to fill the valley and get us on the map before the draw has even finished being announced with a 3g pitch replacing the grass one. It's sad that the one chance would go for the sake of a plastic pitch.

However, these pitches would mean no home league games called off, they require little maintenance and can be used for alot of things.

I struggle to see any more positives other than what i've stated above, they are also very expensive, and, like grass pitches, overuse of them can cause them to rip up and shred a little... i can imagine a 3g pitch being harder and more expensive to repair compared to a bag of grass seed and a watering can. They also provide an untrue bounce and allow very little "Give".. i use the one at Stratford Town 4 times a week and it's an absolute bugger for goalkeepers and players who like a slide tackle.

Grass pitches all the way for me. If you're willing to put the same amount of money into a grass pitch as you would a 3g pitch then the results for grass would be much, much better. Excellent training facility and income stream...nothing more for me i'm afraid.

rawlings09 wrote:

You ask most reds fans what they'd like and they'll say "a good cup run" now, say this does happen, we get to the first round propper and draw a big club at home, say Charlton, Sheffield etc, we'll lose the one chance we'd ever have to fill the valley and get us on the map before the draw has even finished being announced with a 3g pitch replacing the grass one. It's sad that the one chance would go for the sake of a plastic pitch.

As the rules are now, then I’d agree. But if the rules change, then such an argument becomes irrelevant.
Whenever I’ve played on a 3G pitch, I have always felt hesitant to slide tackle. I put that down to past experience of playing on an old fashioned ‘plastic pitch’. At Studley, I’ve tried diving headers, overhead scissor kicks, sprawling saves (none of which had much success!). I’ve been tripped over and been sent sliding across the ground. Not once have I been injured. Not once have I suffered any cuts, bruises or grazes. That said, I admit that I still remain hesitant with sliding tackles. People are often hesitant and reluctant to accept change and try new things. I really believe that most people against 3G pitches are thinking of 80's style plastic pitches...they aren't!!

3G pitches are the way forward for non league & lower league clubs. It may take a while to become accepted, but the introduction of modern artificial surfaces is inevitable. RUFC should embrace this opportunity.

If there the future what's the rush? I like to see football played on grass but if it ment the club getting more income I would tollorate it just but not before the fa changed the rules to allow it at higher levels and cup games!

del boy wrote:

rawlings09 wrote:

You ask most reds fans what they'd like and they'll say "a good cup run" now, say this does happen, we get to the first round propper and draw a big club at home, say Charlton, Sheffield etc, we'll lose the one chance we'd ever have to fill the valley and get us on the map before the draw has even finished being announced with a 3g pitch replacing the grass one. It's sad that the one chance would go for the sake of a plastic pitch.

As the rules are now, then I’d agree. But if the rules change, then such an argument becomes irrelevant.
Whenever I’ve played on a 3G pitch, I have always felt hesitant to slide tackle. I put that down to past experience of playing on an old fashioned ‘plastic pitch’. At Studley, I’ve tried diving headers, overhead scissor kicks, sprawling saves (none of which had much success!). I’ve been tripped over and been sent sliding across the ground. Not once have I been injured. Not once have I suffered any cuts, bruises or grazes. That said, I admit that I still remain hesitant with sliding tackles. People are often hesitant and reluctant to accept change and try new things. I really believe that most people against 3G pitches are thinking of 80's style plastic pitches...they aren't!!

3G pitches are the way forward for non league & lower league clubs. It may take a while to become accepted, but the introduction of modern artificial surfaces is inevitable. RUFC should embrace this opportunity.

That's because Studleys is a very good quality 3g pitch, the length of the plastic turf is longer and they have the right amount of rubber bits down. However, the one at stratford is a different story, one of my mates skinned the back of his thigh and his arse by sliding on it...

Although the argument is it would be a good income stream and less games called off, these pitches still get covered in ice and snow and some even flood... so if the club is going to build one, it needs to be a top quality one, which by the looks of that FA report, it could be a 500k+ job... and that would take 3-6 years to pay for itself and start generating income, if Chris wants us to be in the Conference premier in 5 years or whatever, and these rules don't change for whatever reason, then we'll be left to rot in the Southern League Premier and the story will be the same in 5 years as it is today.. but we'll have a 3g pitch.

The club really do need to think about this carefully, if it's going to happen because it could end up being an expensive, unnecessary risk.

Personally, i think Studley and Stratford have got it right, Good clubhouse, Main grass pitch and a 3g pitch all on one sight...

I have watched at least 4 Sutton Games and about 3 Romulus games on the 3g this season and I have to say on all the occasions the football has been good to watch. I dont agree about the bounce of the ball not being true if anything its very true.

Players also have no problem with sliding tackles on it from the games I have watched. I dont know the ins and outs but I would guess that a pitch at your level would cost over a season between £25k - £30k to lay and maintain and for that you get 50 games if your lucky. On the one occasion I watched Sutton play the pitch was being used right up to when the teams came out for the warm up and then again straight after.

I have been to watch in recent weeks Chasetown, Rushall, Daventry and Redditch and all of these games have had one common denominator an awfull playing surface that had ruined all the games.

For me being a football fan I would rather watch good football on a 3g than awful football on Grass / Sand / Mud and lets be honest the chances of getting to the first round of the FA Cup are at best slim and surely if you were to get a big club you would want it away in order to make a lot more revenue.

What Trigger said.

Vs Earlswood- great football, to feet. lovely to watch.
Vs Chesham - First half- APPALLING. Second half - Average.

I would rather see us lose 1-0 and play football than draw 1-1 playing hoofball.

I'd rather see us win 1-0 every week with hoofball than lose 1-0 every week playing pretty football with crowds of 100 watching because we've been relegated countless times trying to play football

Seriously grass wins for me every time, if it's well looked after and maintained to a high standard.

You'd still get games called off on a 3g if we had the same amount of snow as we did earlier this year. It's still the surrounding area's that will be affected.

Maybe we could use the same pitches as the top clubs use Mainly grass with some artificial mixed in!

Football has been played on grass for decades... why change now?

When we had the snow we had earlier this year only games played north of London in non league were Sutton Town, Durham and Fleetwood 2 have 3g the other a lot of money.

For non league clubs its a no brainer constant revenue and community inclusion.

I believe Accrington Stanley are pushing to get one for 2013-2014 season in the football league.

I feel a poll coming on.
Lose 1-0 and play passing football on the deck or win 1-0 hoofball to 2ft 3" striker up front all game.

You decide.

AS the football season now enters the "business end" many teams have suffered due to fixture backlogs at all levels.



Is it worth considering up-to-date 3G pitches for teams in Step 3 and below?



It could well be, unless the club has ambitions of going further up the non league ladder because the Football Conference and Football League do not allow artificial surfaces. Maybe those leagues should look at changing their rules given the climate change and likelihood of unpredictable winters causing yet more havoc with pitches.



After all, a Champions League final has been played on an artificial pitch at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow between Manchester United and Chelsea so if it is good enough for club football's showpiece match, surely it could be good enough for a Southern league Premier?



Even if natural turf is fine, you don't use it 52 weeks of the year.



You can play on football turf 52 weeks of the year because you don't have to maintain and prepare it over the summer.



Players can train on it over the summer and knees don't get knackered on the old ground so you can have a more limited squad and the local professional teams are not reluctant to send you their young stars because they know they won't get injured.



It's really important that the FA and leagues set standards and make sure that they are maintained, it is a no brainer if it is done properly.

Well so far we've played hoofball and we're fifth from bottom, so where these 1-0 wins are coming from I don't know.
Until the rules are revised as Del pointed out, it won't benefit us either way.

If we have a 3G it could hinder any chance of promotion (eventually/hopefully) and we'd lose our FA Cup rights which are another major income stream with prize money.

Personally I think we should look at improving the pitch we have now, and get it re-done in close season properly.

The 3G pitch was to be placed at the one end (temp stand end) with a view to extendig the concrete boundary. Whether this can be done or not I don't know but I heard this was the original idea.
This would keep all non matchday traffic off the pitch and generate income at the same time.

if we were top of the league would we be talking about the pitch?of course not.

if we were mid table would we be talking about the pitch?of course not.

the problem isn't the pitch

Ideally, I’d like to see a new 3G pitch adjacent to the clubhouse. This could be used for under 21 matches, ladies matches, training and community hire etc. This would then give the grass pitch at the Valley plenty of time to recover between matches. With a proper rest period, the pitch should be so much better for the first team to play football on.

But what if the council refuses permission to build a 3G pitch next to the ground? In that scenario, the only other option is the main pitch itself. If the FA, the Football League & Conference relax their rules, then I think it becomes a viable and attractive option. It may even become a more attractive option for the club, having the maintenance costs of only one pitch instead of two. To not have a 3G pitch installed at all would be a huge blow for the club.

I definitely don’t want to see it happen if it prevents promotion and cup games. But I honesty think that rules will be relaxed. To me, it’s simply common sense.

[quote="del boy"]Ideally, I’d like to see a new 3G pitch adjacent to the clubhouse. This could be used for under 21 matches, ladies matches, training and community hire etc. This would then give the grass pitch at the Valley plenty of time to recover between matches. With a proper rest period, the pitch should be so much better for the first team to play football on.

The problem we have at the moment Del Boy, is and I'm sure if I am wrong there will be many people correcting me, is the pitch has one day rest yes one day, and that i believe is a monday.

There's no way the council will allow a 3G pitch to be built on Terry's Field, and if they did it will be owned by the council themselves I'd imagine.

del boy wrote:Ideally, I’d like to see a new 3G pitch adjacent to the clubhouse. This could be used for under 21 matches, ladies matches, training and community hire etc. This would then give the grass pitch at the Valley plenty of time to recover between matches. With a proper rest period, the pitch should be so much better for the first team to play football on.

But what if the council refuses permission to build a 3G pitch next to the ground? In that scenario, the only other option is the main pitch itself. If the FA, the Football League & Conference relax their rules, then I think it becomes a viable and attractive option. It may even become a more attractive option for the club, having the maintenance costs of only one pitch instead of two. To not have a 3G pitch installed at all would be a huge blow for the club.

I definitely don’t want to see it happen if it prevents promotion and cup games. But I honesty think that rules will be relaxed. To me, it’s simply common sense.

Totally agree with this Del. I believe the rules will be relaxed and if it does not happen in the next few years it is just a matter of time. If Russia are allowed to play international matches on a 3G pitch then why the fook can a team at Step 3 of the English Pyramid not do so? Ludicrous.

Yes I have grown up watching football played on grass but football is at a turning point financially at all levels, financially it is a no brainier for clubs to consider. I watched an interview with the Accrington Stanley (Accrington Stanley? Who are they!) where they are pushing for it.

I have just read the newsletter that has a section on the pitch, my concern is that the club spent a fair bit of money on it in the summer and by not having a groundsmen they IMO have wasted that investment. The pitch at Studley is in a better state and that probably has more traffic on it. I am not having a go at the people who are taking care of it, far from it. My point here's that a decent pitch helps to ensure that you can play decent football. Having invested that money at the start of the season and not having a groundsmen now it has wasted that investment so was there any point spending that money?

Leethall wrote:
If Russia are allowed to play international matches on a 3G pitch then why the fook can a team at Step 3 of the English Pyramid not do so? Ludicrous.

because russia play constantly in frozen conditions up to -15 so there is clear need for it... i don't think it gets that cold in accrington?

If you have a good, well looked after, grass pitch, then why replace it with an expensive and unnecesary plastic pitch? Fair enough if england plunged into the iceage, but for the sake of 2 months winter a year, is it worth it?

The pitch is used 6 times a week. I doubt studleys pitch is used that much? They train on the 3g? But i have to say the set up there is brilliant!!

I like the debates though, some good points.

Sorry guys, the Champions league final in Russia was on grass not artificial pitch.

porrohman wrote:Sorry guys, the Champions league final in Russia was on grass not artificial pitch.

Yes, you're quite correct; and it's a common mistake to make. But the same stadium hosts Russian international games and Champions League group stage and knock out games on a 3G pitch. FIFA and UEFA don't allow their showpiece finals to be held on a 3G pitch. However other games such as international European Championship Qualifiers, Champions League games, Europa League games, various national professional leagues etc play on 3G pitches.

This isn't a recent & experimental concept looking for guinea pig clubs to see if it is viable or not!!! The FA are so far up their own arse that we have already been been left years behind.

rawlings09 wrote:

because russia play constantly in frozen conditions up to -15 so there is clear need for it... i don't think it gets that cold in accrington?

If you have a good, well looked after, grass pitch, then why replace it with an expensive and unnecesary plastic pitch? Fair enough if england plunged into the iceage, but for the sake of 2 months winter a year, is it worth it?

The pitch is used 6 times a week. I doubt studleys pitch is used that much? They train on the 3g? But i have to say the set up there is brilliant!!

I like the debates though, some good points.

What about the Welsh League the Irish League and of course the Scottish league ? They all have 3g pitches allowed in their leagues. Its even in Rugby League now I believe too.

rawlings09 wrote:

Leethall wrote:
If Russia are allowed to play international matches on a 3G pitch then why the fook can a team at Step 3 of the English Pyramid not do so? Ludicrous.

because russia play constantly in frozen conditions up to -15 so there is clear need for it.

Think you are missing the point mate, FIFA, Russia & International Tournament Games may give you a clue

Leethall wrote:

rawlings09 wrote:

Leethall wrote:
If Russia are allowed to play international matches on a 3G pitch then why the fook can a team at Step 3 of the English Pyramid not do so? Ludicrous.

because russia play constantly in frozen conditions up to -15 so there is clear need for it.

Think you are missing the point mate, FIFA, Russia & International Tournament Games may give you a clue

ohh yeah!

I am beginning to warm to the idea of 3g pitches, only if it's a top quality one.

There's also a pitch called "cellsystem" where, i don't know how it works, but basically its real grass ontop of 3g so the water drains through, the surface stays even and true, and the water drained can be stored in underground tanks for the sprinkler... it sounds confusing and expensive but it does seem good!

Also the new 4g pitches are designed to be like real grass, the blades of 'grass' return to their upright position after being stepped on so apparantly it's as close to real grass as you can get.

Quite a few options to consider for the club, options that i'm sure they will take some time in selecting, and i know i'm not allowed to back the Redditch United because people complain about fans sticking by the club , but any conclusion will be the best for the future of RUFC.

Side Note: the pitch is being used 9 times in 8 days.

We used to play on pitches the other side of Kidderminster that were 'built' on a sand foundation.....they used to test tanks there during the war.

It didn't matter what the weather, the pitches were perfect...the best at non league level....real gems (remember Porrohman?).

I prefer to rebuild the Valley pitch correctly and keep grass.

The council must relent and help develop the Terry fields into all weather solutions....benefitting all of the community.
I believe most of the council are OK with it except a couple who still need to be convinced....keep going Mr Swan.

Bob Marley wrote:We used to play on pitches the other side of Kidderminster that were 'built' on a sand foundation.....they used to test tanks there during the war.

It didn't matter what the weather, the pitches were perfect...the best at non league level....real gems (remember Porrohman?).

I prefer to rebuild the Valley pitch correctly and keep grass.

The council must relent and help develop the Terry fields into all weather solutions....benefitting all of the community.
I believe most of the council are OK with it except a couple who still need to be convinced....keep going Mr Swan.

i agree with what you said sir bob, the only stumbling block is if the terry fields are made into all weather the council will want the money, also werent the fields left for the people of redditch therefore we cant charge people to use the fields