The astroturf is always greener on the other side

Following last months takeover at Maidstone United, plans for the club’s long awaited return to the county town have gathered speed, with the new £1m stadium at James Whatman Way earmarked to open in time for Christmas 2011. New owners Oliver Ash and Terry Casey are adamant that any return to Maidstone is dependent on a new state of the art 3G artificial pitch being installed at the new ground. Ash claims that such a surface is the only way that the new stadium could fulfil its role as a facility for all of the club’s teams as it could be used seven days a week, something that would not be possible on a traditional pitch. The 3G artificial pitches proposed by Maidstone United, and those used by a number of clubs across Europe, are vastly different to the ‘plastic’ pitches used by QPR and Luton Town in the 1980s that were so maligned, but scepticism of synthetic turf remains widespread within football. Clubs and supporters have long rejected the idea that football could be played on anything but natural grass, but has the technology advanced enough for critics to reassess their view and recognise the benefits of artificial pitches?

In 1981, Queens Park Rangers believed that they were changing football for the better when they installed an artificial pitch at Loftus Road and three other clubs, Oldham Athletic, Preston North End and Luton Town followed their lead. The pitches however, were hated by opposition players and managers who believed that they were unsafe and gave the home team an unfair advantage as they were used to the oddities of the surface. Jim Smith, the QPR manager between 1985 and 1988, acknowledged as much when he recalled his memories of the pitch, "It was a false game, I knew exactly when we were going to score. It was like robots playing. You got carpet burns and very bad backs if you played on them long enough. The likes of ourselves who played on it regularly had a big advantage”. The pitches were banned in 1988 and the hostilities towards them have been sustained since then.

The advantages that those ‘pioneering’ clubs saw in artificial pitches are still recognised today and FIFA has been active in researching and testing the new generation of synthetic surfaces. In 2001, they launched a licensing programme for artificial pitches and in 2004 they ruled that any FIFA approved pitch could be used for competition. This programme, entitled the FIFA Quality Concept, tests pitches for durability, joint strength, climatic resistance, player-to-surface interaction and ball-to-surface interaction. Tests are also carried out to see if the pitch causes any irritations to the players, such as the carpet burns that affected those who played on the pitches in the 1980s. Pitches that pass these tests are awarded a one or two star recommendation; the first is mainly for community and municipal pitches while the second is awarded to pitches that are suitable for professional football.

The benefits of these pitches are clear; lower maintenance costs, a longer lifespan and an increased resistance to adverse weather conditions. This may appeal to chairmen, but fans, players and managers remain hostile, believing that despite the improvements, teams that play on artificial pitches still hold a crucial advantage. The first competitive international on artificial turf in Europe was the Euro 2008 qualifier between Russia and England and the Luzhniki stadium. The pitch was manufactured by Fieldturf, a company whose surfaces David Beckham criticised after playing on one when he joined Los Angeles Galaxy. Before the game, many were alarmed at the possibility of England not playing on grass, believing it definitely gave the home team an advantage. It was also suggested that the watering of the pitch increased the England players’ unfamiliarity with the pitch and contributed to the 2-1 defeat.

As in Russia, the Swiss winter can be cold and the weather damaging to pitches and as such, some Swiss Super League Clubs have installed artificial surfaces in order to reap the benefits that their advocates stress.  Young Boys Bern and Neuchatel Xamax are two of the Super League clubs who have done this when they reconstructed their grounds. YB’s pitch at the Stade de Suisse (sadly no longer the Wankdorf) came under particular scrutiny after their Champions League qualifier with Tottenham earlier this season. Manager Harry Redknapp had just watched his team come back from 3-0 down to salvage a respectable 3-2 first leg defeat and declared "I played on Astroturf myself and hated every minute of it. We don't have it in England anymore and I don't think it should be used in a competition like this”. UEFA rejected these claims, arguing that a thorough pitch inspection had taken place and that UEFA regulations permitted the use of FIFA 2 star rated artificial pitches at all levels of European competition except for the Champions League final. Supporters are also against artificial pitches as demonstrated when FC Luzern, another Swiss Super League side, announced that they were going to install an artificial pitch at their brand new swissporarena. Fans were outraged, believing that grass was to be the new victim of modern football, following in the steps of standing areas although, fortunately for the fans of FCL, the decision was reversed a few months later.

Football is notoriously resistant to change and in the current era of corporate boxes, all-seater stadia and high ticket prices perhaps many fans believe that artificial pitches are one step too far. At the highest level, grass should always remain the first option as clubs have the resources to relay the pitch and have other facilities that the community could use. However, at lower league and non league level this is not always the case and therefore artificial pitches are an attractive option. In the winter of 2009, Maidstone United did not have a home game in six weeks, something that caused extreme financial pressure on the club and could be prevented again if the plans for the 3G pitch go ahead. The community aspect of the stadium has been integral to the plans for the new ground and if it is necessary to have an artificial surface, then I’m sure that the fans would rather have it than not return in Maidstone. The jury is still out on artificial pitches, but research should be received with an open mind rather than a Luddite refusal to hear any argument in their favour. Grass will always be the ideal situation but not even that guarantees a perfect surface as the problems with Wembley have proved.