What did the experts think of the condition of Murryfield and Twickenham
8 Feb 2010 by tonybolton Last edited 8 Feb 2010
You can go on with this Old Trafford doesn't look great other football league pitches have had to cancel games, the weather has not been totally conducive to good surfaces, but both Murrayfield and Twickenham played well although certainly showed a lack of grass cover. You've also got to bear in mind that GP games are now being played at Twickenham, come on Rugby Union's a winter sport.
A Freudian slip is when you say one thing but mean your mother
9 Feb 2010 by Leeboy
Who cares? Got my own pitch to worry about without worrying about others.
9 Feb 2010 by Parken
S.omeG.rassL.ost???
9 Feb 2010 by Parken
http://sport.scotsman.com/sru/SRU-turns-to-flower-power.5437372.jp
Rugby Union might be a winter sport, but if you look at the condition of Croke Park which is the most played stadium pitch in europe with not only rugby but hurling, gaelic football and soccer being played, even with the current weather conditions, questions have to asked. Were the pitches up to standard??
williams1 - the point you make is accurate from a basic spectator's point of view, but look at the design/location differences between the three stadia:
Croke Park - very wide and open, not enclosed all round, good air movement thru' the Ground (building)
Twickenham - tall and enclosed all around, shaded and stands configured such that shade is more severe than at Croke Park
Murrayfield - most northerly major stadium in UK & Eire, all enclosed as per Twickers, less daylight hours than elsewhere and more shadow cast than elsewhere thanks to its northerly latitude and shorter day-length.
In other words, you can't compare A with B with C on such a simlpistic level as how they look.
Montesa
I agree that the stadia design between the three is very different. Croke Park is open at the hill end allowing for better air movement but shading issues at the canal end have in the past caused major problems. The excellent work by the STRI - Richard Hayden and all the groundstaff have left the pitch the envy of a lot of groundsmen. Good grass coverage, consistent stud penetration etc. result in better playing conditions, less injuries and from a basic spectators point of view a better pitch. It's not a question of how it looks, its how it plays.
Should the pitches at Murrayfield and Twickenham been in better condition?
To a certain extent yes they should.
9 Feb 2010 by Mike Last edited 9 Feb 2010
I honestly don't know how anyone who doesn't work in these establishments can comment. It's always easy to criticise from an 'enlightened position' (armchair!). There's a reason that the people who look after these stadium pitches are given the huge responsibility of maintaining them, and putting their hard work on display to millions of people around the world, and that reason is because they are the best at managing those pitches in their given environments.
Maybe everyone should take a leaf out of Lee's book - see his comment above.
Ooooo Mr W.... you may have lit a bit of blue touch paper here....
There is no way any of the good persons here can openly, honestly or accurately comment on the quality of a stadia surface, there are so many variables such as micro climates, maintenance regimes/kit avaliable such as lights, usage, weather effects etc etc etc that unless you are actually there, knowing all the facts, then you are only seeing part of the picture.
Stadia surfaces are notoriously difficult with shade, air movement, timings and even luck... if they are relaid you get a slot and that is it regardless of conditions..
Comment only can be made when full facts are known..
Plastic.... it's The End I tell you... THE END!!!!
Wasn't impressed with the pitch at Twickenham, £3 for a foamy pint in a plastic beaker tends to make the eye rather critical. And the stupid flashing screens around the touchline advertising a fixture against the Barbars in July made it impossible to concentrate on the game.
It looked like they had applied protection or grow systems which had left bands across the pitch. The grass also looked far too thin and short - so very far from when the book used to say 2-3".
Having said all that, I'm not sure it affected the game. We seem to have gone back two decades.
Not trying to knock anyone here, same as when the new Wembley looked so poor. But it is fair to comment - even if the groundstaff have done the best in the circumstances, it still isn't good enough. The whole trade/profession gets devalued when our premier venues cannot present a world class image. If these are the best pitches possible, then the stadiums are not fit for purpose.
To be fair though, many of the premier pitches are looking sorry for themselves at the moment. Mostly down to bad weather and overuse i believe.
I thought the same about Twickers, but we do not know what has gone on before.
Back to Top - Go to Next Unread Message
This Message is closed, you may not post a reply at this time
