Sure, there are some patches that look a little thin. To be expected in the winter.
But I still have no idea which part you equate to being a disgrace. The crux of your argument seems to be "bad pitches are bad, and this one is bad because I say so!"
Last year it was a disgrace after a events company that are now out of business made a hash of using the pitch for the worst music festival I have ever heard of.
There is a live webcam - so people can tune in and watch a new stand being built - or look at the pitch....
Oh dear. But I suppose it does explain some of the rather insular opinions of some on here. I mean, if watching a pitch grow gets you going, then its only to be expected that they might get excited about things like the exclusion of OTY from England...
Just using the empirical evidence available to me in order to answer a question accurately and with facts.
I appreciate it's an unusual concept on here sometimes...
I am a traditionalist. I prefer rugby played on a grass pitch.
Weather impacts and grass may become mud, puddles and sand banks.
Murrayfield had to be replaced because of a Nematode infestation which eats roots of grass (and as farmers and growers will testify)can ruin crops and soil for decades.
Surely being a WINTER sport we have to put up with the elements and does it not test players ability to play in such conditions.
Football is different. Footballers are delicate creatures who have evolved since the 1950's. They would not be able to play on such pitches as Molineaux was.
Bye the Bye the new hybrid pitch. Have I missed the "tech thing". Are we going 50/50% grass/all weather or are we going 100% all weather.
wellstiger wrote:I am a traditionalist. I prefer rugby played on a grass pitch.
Weather impacts and grass may become mud, puddles and sand banks.
Murrayfield had to be replaced because of a Nematode infestation which eats roots of grass (and as farmers and growers will testify)can ruin crops and soil for decades.
Surely being a WINTER sport we have to put up with the elements and does it not test players ability to play in such conditions.
Football is different. Footballers are delicate creatures who have evolved since the 1950's. They would not be able to play on such pitches as Molineaux was.
Bye the Bye the new hybrid pitch. Have I missed the "tech thing". Are we going 50/50% grass/all weather or are we going 100% all weather.
Apparently Slater's style of play doesn't suit a hybrid pitch.
We're doomed.
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
This is what I don't understand. If we have has a hybrid training pitch since the days of Pat Howard, all of our players should be well used to it, and if it were detrimental to their fitness, SURELY we would have replaced it with something else
For Wells Tiger I'm sure that most people would prefer to see rugby played on a grass pitch, however recent changes in climate whatever the cause has meant that in this country we receive more rainfall than we did in the past and this makes maintaining a grass pitch much more difficult. So cost wise and for practical reasons it makes sense to study the different types of artificial surfaces in depth and select the right one.
DCATsOLDMAN wrote:This is what I don't understand. If we have has a hybrid training pitch since the days of Pat Howard, all of our players should be well used to it, and if it were detrimental to their fitness, SURELY we would have replaced it with something else
I was being tongue in cheek about the injuries. AFAIK we have no issues with our training pitch, hence why they want to put one in at Welford Road.
It's not the same as an entirely artificial pitch that Saracens and Newcastle use.
Noddy555 wrote:For Wells Tiger I'm sure that most people would prefer to see rugby played on a grass pitch, however recent changes in climate whatever the cause has meant that in this country we receive more rainfall than we did in the past and this makes maintaining a grass pitch much more difficult.
Not sure that the long term trends support that. Certainly I think more of a driver is that rugby on a mudbath is less interesting from a viewing spectacle. What was acceptable 30 years ago, no longer is.
Wellstiger, if you look at the video on the page I posted earlier you will see that the artificial element is there to support and maintain a grass pitch. 20m artificial 'stems' create a frame work for grass roots to grip (like a trellis for the above ground part of a plant), and so improve drainage and the 'grip' of the root system in the soil. The above-ground element of the system is far less significant. Assuming a pitch 50m by 100m that works out at around 40 stands per 10cm by 10cm patch, by my reckoning far less than 50% of the number of blades of grass and likely nowhere near as long as the natural grass it is supporting.
So for all intents and purposes it's a natural surface, just one that doesn't degrade to the same extent as before. I agree that changes the winter game to some degree but it doesn't create the artificial bounces, the strange sensations of walking/running on the fully artificial surfaces of the sort at Sarries and Falcons (rubber crumb and sand mix I believe). For me that's a compromise I'm prepared to support in the interests of a better overall spectacle.
I have been on this style of pitch at Twickenham and it is brilliant..nothing like the fake pitches at Sarries or Falcons and I am very excited about seeing it at WR..
JackFlashJonny wrote:I have been on this style of pitch at Twickenham and it is brilliant..nothing like the fake pitches at Sarries or Falcons and I am very excited about seeing it at WR..
Another great decision by the club
Totally agree I have seen quite a few of these pitches over the past couple of years around the country they are superb, They are the ideal compromise.
events company that are now out of business made a hash of using the pitch for the worst music festival I have ever heard of.
