Magazine - Have your say on natural grass
SEARCH
POPULAR ARTICLES
NEWS ALERTS
Want to get news alerts delivered direct to your inbox?
Edit your email preferences.
RECENT COMMENTS
By Dave Saltman in Editorial on 16th Nov 2004 17:00
The benefits of natural grass
By Dave Saltman
Following up on the second conference hosted by Stadia in Berlin I am putting together some of my thoughts following the attendance of seminars and the numerous conversations that I had with the many delegates who attended.
I have circulated a brief to about 60 industry representatives in the hope that they will add comments and any factual evidence that will support the benefits of natural grass. Hopefully together we can provide a united front. Looking at the advances in synthetic turf, we as an industry need to promote the benefits of natural turf. For me, the criteria that FIFA/UEFA have asked the synthetic industry to follow, is to emulate the playing characteristics of natural turf. Why then do they not provide funding to further improve natural turf? The sums of money being made available for funding synthetic installations is disproportionately high compared to the amount of money that would be required for research and development on new seed cultivars, rootzones, drainage etc.
On collection of everybody's comments I will re-write and re-circulate, again for comments prior to finalising a document that can be published and circulated to the trade press, the national press and international press. It will also be forwarded to FIFA, UEFA, all participating country FA's and other appropriate organisations.
At last year's conference the stance taken by FIFA was that the World Cup 2010 will be played in Africa, and therefore the climate would be inhospitable for natural grass.
Clearly, taking notes from Frank Boahene, a little bit of advice and direction showed that a combination of warm season grasses, water, nutrition and expertise, the African climate is very much suited towards natural grass. Indeed, as the Kenyan FA's president stated, hot temperatures do not make playing on artificial turf welcoming. It was also an interesting footnote to see that the synthetics require watering as well, particularly for the higher football standards, so the issue of water requirement is the same.
I understand why the football associations in countries such as Sweden and Norway, who have some clubs playing above the Arctic Circle, want to introduce synthetic surfaces. With the best will in the world, grass is not going to grow very well when there is 24 hours of darkness for six months of the year. I also understand that there are a few stadiums in the world that are extremely inhospitable and again do not lend themselves to growing grass effectively. However the improvements made in low level UV lighting systems have proved effective in low light conditions and there is no doubt that grass is encouraged to grow freely even in the darkest coldest areas under these lighting systems.
In Holland, the Amsterdam Arena is hell bent on installing an artificial carpet, just as soon as the Dutch FA give the go ahead. This is based on the fact that the pitch is currently re-turfed four to five times each year and the costs of installation would be recouped inside just one season. They currently host around 70 events and want to increase the event calendar to 125 uses of the stadium per year. On current statistics only 26 events are for football, which begs the question of the stadium's effective use for football.
More importantly for me though was that a similar type venue, the Parken stadium in Denmark, has only re-turfed their pitch once in five years. The FC Copenhagen pitch is a good example where an experienced Groundsman can liase well with his employer to allow multiple use and still provide an exceptional playing surface.
If there were a concerted effort to provide education, and a small amount of funding, all natural grass pitches would improve considerably.
It annoys me to see certain speakers include slides of kids and professionals alike playing on substandard surfaces. I could, like all of you take officials from FIFA and UEFA to countless playing facilities in the UK and abroad and show them excellent natural grass pitches that perform admirably week in and week out.
The statistics that were presented to us by one of the speakers at this years conference was that a club who installed a 3rd generation carpet would have to put aside approximately £15,000 per annum to cover the cost of this carpet being replaced at the end of it's useful life. This figure did not include annual maintenance costs and rejuvenation costs of the infill materials. Presumably this figure was arrived at, based on at least a ten-year life cycle.
The case argued by the Amsterdam Arena was that an event or concert or a number of events could be performed, with the staging and flooring then removed overnight for a football match the next day. However there is not one synthetic company that appears able to guarantee the integrity of their playing surfaces after 400 tonne staging structures have been placed on top. I'd also be keen to see what happens if a heavy object is dropped onto the surface, or a scaffold tube punctured the surface or if there were indentations created after the sheer weight of a stage, cherry picker or other heavy machine had been on the surface. Synthetic surfaces I presume cannot be forked to take out compaction or top dressed/turf doctored/re-turfed as a quick repair.
On the same tack, I replaced a piece of turf in between the football league games at the Millennium Stadium this May that had been badly burnt by a firework display. Obviously the damage was contained to the immediate area, because the grass isn't combustible, but this process wouldn't be so easy on a synthetic surface particularly at short notice and the chances of a larger area catching alight would be dramatically increased.
The artificial companies are selling their products based on the ability to play 24/7. However there are local issues with noise and light pollution from facilities wishing to host matches.
FIFA/UEFA cite hockey as a model that works very well, however hockey was and is a non-contact sport. If professional football is played on synthetic surfaces then most people believe that football will become a non-contact sport and will no longer be the game that everybody knows and loves.
Artificial pitches have great qualities in terms of bounce, ball speed and traction but they still burn and scar, forcing players to avoid sliding and committing themselves to important tackles.
In America the NFL had almost entirely gone over to synthetic surfaces but has reverted back to natural turf because of injuries and player preference as well as to provide a more natural game. If all professional soccer is to be played on artificial surfaces then we will also see the demise of our own FA Cup competition, because giant killing spectacles will be unlikely to occur again.
There are also a large number of environmental issues. How much energy is used in producing these carpets? Where will these surfaces be disposed of at the end of their useful life? It's easy for the artificial companies to say that they can be recycled, but the reality is the mix of rubber particulates and sand in a carpet pile will not be easily recyclable. A problem already found with rootzone soils and Desso re-inforcement.
As far as I am aware, the rubber used from shredded car tyres is actually carcinogenic and can cause respiratory problems. This is seen as a problem, particularly for players in hotter climates where the surface would warm up and release more unwelcome gases.
As we all know grass produces oxygen, and makes for a healthy environment. The bacteria and organisms that occur naturally in a grass sward and soil type profile readily break down and remove bodily fluids such as sweat, blood and saliva. On a synthetic pitch these fluids would not be broken down by bacteria and can lead to infection and the spread of disease.
A natural grass pitch cools down an environment even in hot weather; a synthetic surface will actually accentuate the temperatures.
Natural grass is the preferred choice, it is the product that UEFA and FIFA have asked the synthetic companies to emulate-so why haven't they just invested their money into improving the product that everyone knows and loves? It is a cop out driven by greed.
If stadiums are losing money then why isn't there a wage cap on players. If FIFA/UEFA are looking at ways to keep the game number one, then surely they should be tackling far more important issues that cost the game so much. Football has been the number one global sport because of its diversity. If the game is played on synthetic turf, it will become as sterile as the field of play.
If you would like to add your support to natural grass, please respond underneath or e-mail dave@pitchcare.com. We would like to send out the finalised paper with attached names of support, so don't delay
Read more articles in Editorial,
by Dave Saltman
or from November 2004.
There are 11 comments on this article
17 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Those effected by the introduction of un-natural grass playing surfaces include, Groundsmen, Turf Machinery Manufacturers, Turf Weed, Pest Disease chemical suppliers, Turf Seed Suppliers, Soil Suppliers, Turf Paint (lines, logo) Manufacturers, Oil and Petroleum Suppliers, Turf Education Institutions, Lecturers, Turf Lecturers and I am sure that I may have missed other groups.
And yet.. silence... so far.
I wonder why ?
Is it that there is some perceived threat of loss of advertising, or corporate sponsorship ?
Is it that television does not require an audience at the venue to see advertising air time and so the media remains in "observation mode" ?
Is it that as an industry, those directly involved or even acting in a support role, just don't care enough or are quite comfortable with allowing someone else to "take the risks" ?
Is it that by saying something, anything, there is a threat to ones income and so understandably a degree of silence from some sections.
There must be thoughts out there, be they one way or the other ?
In debate, there are generally two sides.
In this debate, there are those who strongly support the introduction of synthetic surfaces at the professional level of sports.
And then there are those who strongly support the retention of natural turf surfaces at the professional level of sports.
Having played Hockey (field) on natural surfaces I can only strongly support the use of synthetics for that sport, with all the proviso of course.
For football (any code) I am unsure, as I do not have sufficient information, as yet.
I have read and been part of many research projects dating back into the late 1980's on the potential for synthetics in sport.
I have as yet read any factual and credible paper of why a natural surface should be replaced with a sythetic surface for professional football other than as an improvement in the corporate bottom line.
While understandable in some ways, it does not answer the question of which surface is better for the players and spectators.
There are many articles written on the comparison of synthetics to natural.
Most, if not all, use words such as "almost" and "nearly" when suggesting that brand A or B synthetic surface is comparable to natural.
Surely if the product is that good, then why doesn't the synthetic industry just say.. "......brand A or B is better than natural turf."
The immediate question that comes to mind if that is to be the response is "..says who ?"
Can you imagine the improvement in natural turf playing surfaces if only half the amount of money spent on researching synthetics was to be used to fund natural turf research ?
One of the better examples of natural turf improvement research has to be the work undertaken by the U.S.G.A. and the supporting tertiary institutes in the country.
Yes, there are sythetic golf greens, have you even heard a mention of them being touted for use at the PGA level ?
I find it odd that many of the NFL teams in the USA who went down the path of the introduction of synthetics to that game, are now heading in the opposite direction and removing the synthetics and replacing with the improved natural surfaces. Well, in some cases they are.
This is a section of the world sports industry that recently signed a 10 year agreement with a media broadcaster for $10 billion. They don't seem to see any problem in having natural surfaces for their sport.
So, we have golf at the highest level and American football at their highest level, supporting turfgrass development institutions so that the use of the natural surface remains at the professional level in those sports.
Soccer (football) seems to be heading in the opposite direction. I wonder why that is so ?
Yes, there is a place for the use of synthetic surfaces.
Junior cricket, so that the future players learn the basic skills prior to moving onto the turf wicket. And if there are others then I am at a loss for the moment.
There surely must be subscribers who have an opinion, one way or the other ?
Not based on anger or emotion, but some very down to earth information as to why a synthetic surface for professional sport is an improvement ?
Well those are my thoughts and as you may have guessed, yes I strongly support Pitchcare's initiative in taking this very important topic forward and out into the open for discussion and debate.
19 Nov 2004 by Danny Thorogood
So what exactly is wrong with natural grass surfaces anyway that creates the need for a huge industry lobby to the major sporting organisations. Nothing really. The improvements through drainage, rootzone construction, grass variety improvement, pitch and part-pitch replacement practices and generally improved management practices has made mudbath pitches a thing of the past even in enclosed stadia. So the motivation would have to be the financial rewards of replacing the natural turfgrass and turf management industry with a new product regardless of whether customers want it or not. The motivation is so great that the artificial surfaces lobby has put a great deal of effort and presumably money into convincing sporting organisations that they have a better product even though the players, those people who know what's best to play on, don't like it and are being detrimentally affected by it.
Improvement in natural surfaces has occurred even with poor funding. With more financial support who knows what could be done.
There seems to be a good analogy with the Organic vs Industrial Agriculture debate. Organic groups and farmers complained of lack of funding for organic research which put them at a disadvantage. They used the 'environmental' aspect which has now helped to put organic agriculture into the mainstream and now its products are everywhere. The natural turf industry can also use the 'improved environment' card, which Peter alludes to above, to good affect.
19 Nov 2004 by Warren Boorman
I live in the USA and many of our major colleges have changed from artifical playing surfaces to natural grass. I know in my state , Texas, two of our universities Texas A & M university and the University of Texas both switched to natural grass. It might be a good idea to contact them and ask them what they like best. They do a great job with the management of those fields.
19 Nov 2004 by Petey O'Speede
Okay - so I'm biassed - I sell RanJac and Sisis machines as well as selling and operating Koro systems . . . . .
If the "climate in Africa is not conducive to natural grass", how do we have 50+ league pitches here in the Saudi Arabian desert? (as well as many non-league fields; schools, police, armed forces, oil companies, etc).
With Warm Season Grasses (mostly Bermudas, but some Paspalum) the main problems are the need for a Winter Over-seed or night-time cover in the higher, colder sites, and compaction (due to heavy "training" schedules). These problems are taken care of by conventional methods, as well as the rapidly more poplular annual renovation with the Koro Systems (which can leave a heavily compacted field feeling like a spring-matress!)
A couple of years ago, King Fahad Stadium in Riyadh hosted the Gulf Cup, a tournament between all of the Gulf countries. Before the match, we had the field covered with a canvass to protect it from several hundred feet performing traditional Arabic dances from each of the participating countries, as well as "CO2" smoke machines pouring over the side-lines. After the canvass was removed there was a fireworks display - which left Tony Hemmings (the stadium Turf manager at the time) and myself, together with the rest of the staff, rushing around collecting bits of burning cardboard fireworks (just a part of the Ransomes and Sisis "support package" out here!!)
FINALLY, they decided to play soccer, with an average of one or two matches per day over the following 2 weeks - the field quite happily put up with this (okay, with the application of a bit of green-dyed-sand in the worst areas!)
Don't know if the dancing and smoke machines would have hurt an artificial turf surface, but I suspect the fireworks would have had to be banned!
Just add sprigs, stolons, or sod to sand, add water (and a bit of nutrient) and you have a great soccer field
Why try to "improve on a winner" - just work to "improve the winner". Good turf management (as we try to promote) gives you the surface that has hosted soccer, cricket, golf, private gardens, as well as more applications. It looks better, feels better, it IS better!
There MAY be a few applications where artificial is a better product, but not that many, as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai and Abu-Dhabi prove.
Do I deserve a small "plug"? - www.turf-tech-me.org - the Middle east Turf Portal
Peetey O'Speede
19 Nov 2004 by Peter Leroy
Recent posts have reminded me of one or two venue's around the world that seem to manage with combinations of sport (and multiple codes) and entertainment.
To begin on the quick trip around the world...
Wembley - Soccer, Rugby, even cricket, and one or two concerts......
Reliant Stadium, Texas, USA.. retractable roof.. NFL.. and a Superbowl with its entertainment.....
Melbourne Cricket Ground, Australia... approximately 80 days of football, 30 days of cricket, 3 or 4 rock concerts , soccer and the odd Olympic games now and then.....
Sydney Football Stadium... 50 to 60 playing days of Rugby Union, Rugby League, Soccer.. religious festivals, rock concerts..and one or two outdoor operas.... its neighbour..
Sydney Cricket Ground... cricket, football, concerts..
Olympic Stadium, Greece
What do they have in common ?
Natural turf surfaces !!
And we are not talking of small out of the way stadiums in this short list
If the turf is damaged, replace it.
These days of portable pitches and "turf in a box", surely stadium architects can design a little better than a synthetic surface ?
As for "can't grow grass in Africa" ???
I am sure the South African Cricket authorities as well as Rugby, would argue that point, along with those in Kenya and even Zimbabwe.
A trip to Dubai would be worthwhile for those who think that natural surfaces in remote areas are difficult. An article posted here speaks volumes for the technology and success of the middle east sporting world.
I cannot imagine playing on an artificial surface in the middle east countires. Heat is the major drawback to synthetics. Yes, the play hocky..next time look at a synthetic hockey field.. water before the game and at half time. Now why do you suppose they do that ?
Have you ever seen turf irrigated with sea water ?
Well try going to Florida, USA and there you find a golf course that does just that. Wel, except when the tide is in, no need to irrigate then.
And then of course the arguement about the cold.
Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton, Canada... natural turf.. football, soccer, concerts and would you believe.. Ice Hockey on a special open-air arena.. So it can be chilly at minus 30 C. in winter, the plus 30 days of summer make up for that.
Just some thoughts
19 Nov 2004 by David Wall
Natural grass is best!! As a lonley natural turfgrass crusader in Canada I also have had significant experience with artifical sports surfaces. It gets extremely hot to run on in the summer, the silica sand vapourizes in the hot weather and asmatics can have attacks. the ball runs too fast. Football or soccer as we call it here in Canada is actually a completely different game. We haven't even begun to discuss injuries. Therefore we need to come up with a new name for soccer or football when played on artificial surfaces. Any ideas?
We have also had a major fire on an installed plastic field that was so hot that the the fencing material around it buckled.
If cows can't eat it, we shouldn't have our kids play on it!!
19 Nov 2004 by Warren Boorman
It is kind of strange that the enviromentalist don\'t object more to artifical surfaces. Just think of all the oxygen being lost. I think it is impossible to replace natural turf. The heat is raised about 20 degrees F on most artifical playing fields. Just think about how terrible that would be in Saudia Arabia during the day. The give and take and the natural cushion that natural turf provides can\'t be duplicated. I also think players should get dirty when they play sports. Players stay too clean when they play on artifical surfaces. It is great to watch an American football game when the players are covered in mud and blood. I am not sure you ever get dirty playing that sissy soccer. It makes it more fun to watch. No one can duplicate or make anything better that God makes.
22 Nov 2004 by peter farndale
I'm surprised that FIFA wants to reintroduce artificial playing surfaces after there abject failure in the seventies.Having watched a few football matces at that time with the ball bouncing at an unusual height and the players themselves found controling the ball was difficult to say the least especially on a windy day.There are some sports that can be played on an artificial surface but not football.
The fans of all football clubs should through their clubs magazines let the clubs chairmen know that we don't want these surfaces
22 Nov 2004 by dannyt
To be fair to artificial surfaces, the so-called third generation (long pile) pitches are apparently a lot better than those used in the 70s. But how good they are I don't know - are there any users out there who can comment? They are clearly not maintenance-free and with poor management can last as little as four years (?). So there will still be a job for a skilled groundsman or perhaps a maintenance contractor (like an industrial carpet cleaning contractor ;-) ?).
The arguments for and against artificials appear to fall into five areas - (1) playability (2) installation and maintenance costs (3) biological limitations (4) health and safety (5) environmental. Any hard facts on these individual areas I'm sure would be welcome.
25 Nov 2004 by Bob Copeman
These remarks are purely about Grass Pitches used to stage games between the best Club sides in the world so likely to attract the highest Pan European and World TV Audiences. 16 Champions League games have just be played watched by an average 36,000 in each Stadium but over X500 times that figure on Worldwide Television remembering that the UK currently has less than 5% of Global TV Households yet Sky has been prepared to pay one of the highest costs for FA Premier League TV Rights so that over the previous contract it was over X6 times what was received for each of the Overseas Broadcasting Rights ?
Yet no TV company [as far as I know] has so far laid down a minimum standard of Pitch Maintenance to justify what it is willing to pay for the relevant [UK] TV Rights ? Or to question the wisdom of Fireworks, Balloon Carcasses, Toilet Rolls or even Origami Birds remaining on the Pitch during Play ? Or excessive watering, or shaving of the grass below a certain height to "slick up" play ? So why no measurement of "rolling friction" to replicate ideal playing conditions ? So we had CSKA Moscow 0 FC Porto 1 played in temperatures dropping from -8* to -11*C during the match only watched by 21,500 because it was in the competing Lokomotiv Stadium because of its "larger" capacity despite RA's Sibneft beign their Sponsor ? Snow shovellers, hot air blowers and god knows what but it still took eleven frozen Portugeezers 25 minutes to come to terms with it all. And not much better for the Greeks during Rosenborg 2 Panathinaikos 2 in frozen Trondheim ?
My point ? It should not be up to the non profit organisations that are FIFA and UEFA to decide on the future of Synthetic Pitches for any event other than those that they organise leaving it up to the Clubs who employ the "Product" needed for them to succeed to decide whether they want to make them available and, more importantly for this Forum, that they have no excuse for not creating Playing Surfaces to the highest quality. So that it in itself never causes Injuries as allegedly happened to Henrik Larsson during Barcelona 3 Real Madrid 0 when he "heard a crack" and was carried off the Nou Camp pitch then sent back two minutes later after what must have been the most cursory examination only to suffer serious Collateral Ligament damage later on again when all by himself which may keep him out for the rest of the Season.
Clubs like Barcelona can afford to have the full range of medical diagnostics pitchside to prevent this happening but probably won't whilst (a) the pitch can be blamed (b) total equipment rentals can be as high as £1,500 per day [or the same as one of their top players currently costs them], (c) conditioning, warming up and diagnostics are still not preventing players getting injured in training. I for one will continue to believe that Marc-Vivien Foe's death on camera could have been prevented perhaps starting by questionign whether that FIFA tournament should ahve been staged both at that time of year and in that country ?
So regrettably it all comes down to the moneys which FIFA and UEFA are [or in this case are not] prepared to spend to do the job properly. Dave Saltman is the most experienced, intelligent and conscientious turfman with whom I have had the privilege to converse. But why should he or anyone else be expected to do this for love of Grass ? World Football is awash with money and since mid 1999 we have monitored over £2,500 Million of it wasted around just British Football by poor investment decisions. Few of us respect what we get for nothing so come on FIFA and UEFA - if you want to establish just what are [and what are not] the limits of Natural Turf for all levels of Football then put a proper budget together, employ the world experts both as individuals and as Companies - too many of the latter are fed up with dealing with Sports Associations with incomplete remits or even knowing who precisely is in charge - and do the job properly before the better Clubs take themselves off and form their own European Super League largely free of all the present commercial nonsenses.
28 Nov 2004 by Mick Lee
This is simple, playing rugby or soccer, when your studs bite into turf too well, the turf gives and the groundsman winces. On a synthetic surface when your studlets grip too well, the player winces or maybe looking at reconstructive knee surgery.
It was well reported in the US press and sports journals that synthetic grass was unsympathetic to players and the result is as recorded in previous messages. Seriously regular knee injuries!
I know from experience two things, number one playing on synthetic grass in hot climates (United Arab Emirates and Australia) the surface is stinking hot and ...well, stinking! The ingrained crud really does stink and we had regular hose downs and water-sweeping sessions.
It was in the clubhouse changing rooms that the reality was spelled out IF YOU HAVE AN ASTRO-BURN OR CUT SCRUB THE AREA IMMEDIATELY, CHECK YOUR INNOCULATIONS AND SEE THE DOCTOR IF SWELLING OCCURS!
Just a bit unnerving before you go out for a game of hockey or football.
Want to post a comment in response to this article?
Login now, or register if you are not a Pitchcare member.
