http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/inverness/1342582-ross-draper-i-may-not-have-signed-new-deal-if-ict-had-plastic-pitch/

 

Well said Ross it's about time someone spoke out regarding this nonsense, think I speak for the majority of ICT fans regarding this subject;

ICT must never lay an artificial surface they play on grass and they will continue to do so, there is enough plasticity as it is without adding to it

Ok the surfaces have vastly improved since the QPR or Luton days back in the 80s but the surface is still highly dangerous and players don't want to play on it as the chance of injury increases ten fold

Leave it for the MLS  where disney characters etc can dance about on it, the only clubs that have introduced it in this country are those that try and get an unfair advantage on their opponents

Dougal

 

 

Yip we always preferred a bit of grass old buddy

4 hours ago, dougal said:

Leave it for the MLS  where disney characters etc can dance about on it, the only clubs that have introduced it in this country are those that try and get an unfair advantage on their opponents

whilst I do agree with the sentiment, and don't like plastic pitches either - especially after seeing it at BMO Field in Toronto for a couple of seasons until Rangers actually paid for it to be replaced with grass courtesy of the Maurice Edu transfer fee - I do want to take issue with your last paragraph which displays your usual lack of knowledge and misplaced superiority complex about MLS. 

lets look at the facts here rather than your assumptions:

• Scotland - 12 of 42 pitches are 'artificial' (I make that 28.5%). This is a better article on the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/35551542
• MLS - 5 of 20 are artificial (25%) and only 1 of those stadia is a single use stadium (Providence Park in Portland). The others are multi-use facilities like BC Place in Vancouver which was used for the winter Olympics in 2010 and houses the BC Lions Canadian football team, the Citrus Bowl in Orlando which is a college football stadium, the stadiums in Seattle and New England house the Seahawks and Patriots from the NFL   

No problems with artificial pitches.

SFA released info:-

"On the question of available research, a report in the British Medical Journal in 2010, entitled risk of injury on 3G artificial turf in Norwegian professional football, determined no significant difference in injury location, type or severity between turf types: 17.1 injuries per 1000 match hours on natural grass and 17.6 injuries per 1000 match hours on artificial turf.

"A similar piece of research in 2007 - comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 1: match injuries - again showed no major differences.

"However, the severity of non-season ending injuries was 7.1 days on (artificial turf) versus 8.4 days on grass."

 

 

Always wondered why few teams in Scotland have looked into hybrid pitches like they have now at Murrayfield and Arsenal, City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Leicester.

From what I gather only Rangers and Hibs use it up here. 

"Desso GrassMaster is a sportsplaying field surface composed of naturalgrass combined with artificial fibres. The artificial grass fibres are injected 20 centimetres (7.9 in) deep, and cover about 3% of the surface. While the grass is growing, the roots intertwine with the artificial fibres. The designers claim this anchors the field to create a solid, even structure with good drainage and 'playing comfort'."

The artificial turf injection shortens the recovery time for the grass. And it also makes it more durable. 

You'd think that this might be worth looking into in a league where many teams struggle to maintain their pitch over a long winter (usually Motherwell) 

New 4g pitches are a dream to play footie on I'd love for us to have one

 

 

Neksor.

 3 pm weather today in Oslo  0°c 

Night time -5°c.

When I was younger and fitter you could feel the difference landing on your heel when running on different terrain, these days the heel doesn't make contact as its more the front of the foot and that's just skimming the surface travelling in the same direction.

It's a lot more physical on a pitch.

I also know of players coming back from injury, training on artificial as that's what the next match is on and it aggravated the problem too much to play.

However I would agree that in poor weather it would be better to train on artificial than to not train at all or train on frozen ground.

Edited February 13, 201610 yr by 12th Man

I don't like them either, but anybody who gets around the various grades of football, visits community clubs etc can see how that 28% will soon  be over 50%.

As a Northern nation our weather has more in common with Iceland and Norway and the Faroes where these things are ten a penny.

Whitehill Welfare have played ONE game since October 24th while other teams like Spartans get their fixture played then let another club use their pitch afterwards, and charge them for the privilege.

20 minutes ago, iamthecaptain1 said:

Always wondered why few teams in Scotland have looked into hybrid pitches like they have now at Murrayfield and Arsenal, City, United, Liverpool, Everton, Leicester.

From what I gather only Rangers and Hibs use it up here. 

"Desso GrassMaster is a sportsplaying field surface composed of naturalgrass combined with artificial fibres. The artificial grass fibres are injected 20 centimetres (7.9 in) deep, and cover about 3% of the surface. While the grass is growing, the roots intertwine with the artificial fibres. The designers claim this anchors the field to create a solid, even structure with good drainage and 'playing comfort'."

The artificial turf injection shortens the recovery time for the grass. And it also makes it more durable. 

You'd think that this might be worth looking into in a league where many teams struggle to maintain their pitch over a long winter (usually Motherwell) 

These hybrid pitches are seriously expensive I.e. Nearly £1m against £0.5m for 4g type . They also have a high maintenance cost so think it is out of our league and everyone else's until we can get crowds in excess of 25000 week in week out . Only one in Scotland I believe is Murrayfield.

The above 2 posts make good points, posted before I could reply, if they can play at Murrayfield on it then I'm assuming it must be good.

I'm too slow in replying again.

Edited February 13, 201610 yr by 12th Man

Ooooh, this is a tricky one! I don't think any club should be criticised for going plastic. The financial benefits are obvious: Regular use for training, concerts, other sports makes it a no-brainer in a country where winter weather leads to fixture disruption. Use of artificial pitches is encouraged for youth football, meaning that installation of an artificial main pitch can negate the need for training facilities and pitches for youth teams.

All of that said, and despite massive improvements, I still prefer to watch and play football on grass! The bounce is still different and I sense a reluctance to slide tackle - it just feels somehow too "sterile". There's also the risk that footballing authorities reverse their decision and insist on reverting to grass, which would be expensive.

On balance, I would prefer ICT to retain grass, but would understand if the business case required us to go plastic!

Why not - then we would be a plastic club playing on a plastic pitch.

Sand -Clay- Concrete - 3ft of water - Grass - Cowpoo - who cares lets just play football !

Born not manufactured

 

Dougal

Considering most of us grew up with grass pitches and inferior plastic ones then the consensus of opinion would be NO

However lets leave the choice to the players of today. It is them that should have the say.

3 hours ago, bughtmaster said:

Considering most of us grew up with grass pitches and inferior plastic ones then the consensus of opinion would be NO

However lets leave the choice to the players of today. It is them that should have the say.

If that's the case then I believe in general theyre not that impressed with the ones that are affordable.

53 minutes ago, 12th Man said:

If that's the case then I believe in general theyre not that impressed with the ones that are affordable.

That's ok for me then. It is their careers their limbs and should be their choice. they have a hard enough life with being traded like horses by agents, dictated to by the whims of the Media and money as to when and where games should be played as well as being at the beck and call of the Management, some, it would appear quite unscrupulous at least give them a say on the safety aspect

If football is to be made more attractive to the younger generation, something  which we need to encourage into the game then let them see they have some rights. 

Quote

They have a hard enough life with being traded like horses by agents, dictated to by the whims of the Media and money as to when and where games should be played as well as being at the beck and call of the Management.