London Irish. WHY???

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Not to mention that many decent rugby clubs have pitches that would be welcomed in most football stadiums. Twickers, for instance, has a superb lush pitch that Wembley would be proud of.

Twickenham is only used about 10 times year. It'd be shocking if it didn't have a good surface.

it isn't rugby, per se, that causes the problems; it is a mix of poor grass, possibly poor maintenance, and poor weather. At least it hasn't also been a drainage problem this year.

Normally rugby isn't a problem. Get a rugby match played after a prolonged period of very wet weather though, and it really knackers the pitch for weeks.

[Sun Tzu]

There is a potential nightmare situation in a couple of weeks time with LI playing on the Thursday night and us playing Sheff Utd on the Friday.

Heavy rain that week could be a real problem.....

[Muskrat]

Report on Sale V Gloucester from last March which illustrates my point about the colloquial use of the term "Cabbage Patch":

"A dreadful playing surface - the pitch resembled a cabbage patch - did not help matters but Sale fully deserved their victory against a Gloucester side decimated by injury and Six Nations call-ups".[/quote]

The quote actually illustrates how a bad playing surface is of no value to a rugby club. And there are plenty of football grounds (Old Trafford, Chelsea) where the descriptiion has been applied over the years. I don;t think the use of a cliche by a journalist gives much credence to a claim that London Irish have destroyed our pitch !

LOL like a poor pitch affects Rugby - a game where the ball is mostly played OFF the ground, as much as it does in football, where the ball is mostly played ON the ground.

As for evidence - take a look at the pitch!!

That is evidence that the pitch is patchy, not why it is patchy. Given there is a lot more football played than rugby the arguement would be stronger (if a bit daft) that the football is the problem.

LOL. Three words - cause and effect. Rugby damages pitches more than football. Many pitches used soley for football quite happily survive a season relatively intact compared to ours.

I would turn the argument around and say since we've been at the Madejski Stadium, there has always been rugby there, save for one brief spell when Richmond went under and rugby temporarily ceased on the hallowed turf.

So we don't know what the pitch would be like without them there -

But we do know that even with them there the pitch has been fine for a number of seasons. Which completely blows you arguement. You can;t have your cake and eat it. if the rugby causes the problem then how come it only does it some years ?

LOL. It's not just some years, the pitch has been consistently bad at the Madstad, even in our first season there - I remember in 1998 people saying that the state of the pitch was affecting performances.

.

It's no use just putting on the blinkers and being in continual denial about it, the Club needs to take a positive decision on what it values more - the income from the Rugby, or a decent playing surface.

But you are the one with blinkers becasue you have just assumed that the rugby is the cause, despite the lack of anything other than a prejudice to back it up. The rugby is obvioulsy part of the cause as has been acknowledged by everyone including the club. The choice of either a good pitch or rugby isn't relevant. Both are possible and people need to take the blinkers off and stop being anti rugby !

LOL I'm not assuming anything - the pitch has been relayed at least twice that I can remember, both times using the current "state of the art technology", yet it still ends up in poor condition every year. Taking some of the heaviest load off the pitch must help it fulfil its primary purpose as a football pitch. That's not being anti Rugby, that's just logic.

Unfortunately we both know that the one thing that would settle the argument - taking the Rugby load off the pitch, isn't going to happen.

[Wycombe Royal]

LOL. Three words - cause and effect. Rugby damages pitches more than football. Many pitches used soley for football quite happily survive a season relatively intact compared to ours.

And many don't. Just recently Plymouth and Doncaster are prime examples of that.

[Schards#2]

To suggest that scrumming doesn't have an adverse effect on a pitch is laughable. This is 16 big guys pushing against each other and digging their studded boots into the turf for traction.

I don't care what technology is used, that's going to damage a pitch, and visably does at the mad stad.

Whether the pro's of London Irish outweigh the cons is a seperate argument but the fact that the rugby adverely affects the pitch is surely indisputable?

[Sun Tzu]

LOL. Three words - cause and effect. Rugby damages pitches more than football. Many pitches used soley for football quite happily survive a season relatively intact compared to ours.

And many don't. Just recently Plymouth and Doncaster are prime examples of that.

Only if you ignore the fact that Doncaster does have rugby on it !

There are all sorts of permutations though.

The Millenium Stadium - used over the years for a bit of rugby, a bit of football, concerts and Monster Truck racing probably has less usage than many pitches and more expense and attention than most yet still has a bad surface.

[Sun Tzu]

To suggest that scrumming doesn't have an adverse effect on a pitch is laughable.

But that's not what has been said.

The point that has been disputed is that the one and only reason why the pitch is less than perfect is because it is used for rugby and the one and only solution is to 'kick' London Irish out.

Any use of the pitch is inevitably going to contribute to wear and tear. You only have to look at the damage caused by the keepers warming up before the game to see that.

The state of the pitch doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to damage that you'd expect from a few scrums once a fortnight. It's general wear right across the pitch rather than specific areas that have been churned up.

[Dirk Gently]

To suggest that scrumming doesn't have an adverse effect on a pitch is laughable.

But that's not what has been said.

The point that has been disputed is that the one and only reason why the pitch is less than perfect is because it is used for rugby and the one and only solution is to 'kick' London Irish out.

Any use of the pitch is inevitably going to contribute to wear and tear. You only have to look at the damage caused by the keepers warming up before the game to see that.

The state of the pitch doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to damage that you'd expect from a few scrums once a fortnight. It's general wear right across the pitch rather than specific areas that have been churned up.

It is noticably poorer about 5 yards in from both touchlines, though, which is entirely consistent with line-outs from the rugby.

Although in football terms that would only affect a team for whom wingers are an integral part of their play, though....... ah!

[West Stand Man]

It is noticably poorer about 5 yards in from both touchlines, though, which is entirely consistent with line-outs from the rugby.

Although in football terms that would only affect a team for whom wingers are an integral part of their play, though....... ah!

Not a rugby player are you. Line outs cause little significant damage. Any ruck or maul that formed would generally be further out than 5m. Cap that with thta distinct lack of an obvious line of damage at the 5m point and your case is looking a touch shaky.

Let's be honest. Any game played on grass will affect it, but a good pitch ought to be able to cope, if it also well maintained. The truth is that this pitch is the problem, and general overuse of it - not specifically rugby or football. With the power of hinsight it might well be argued that it is s elf inflicted wound for the football because of playing reserve matches at the stadium. Contractually the rugby has to be there, obviously the first team also has to play there, but if the pitch needed a rest then it would have been sensible to move reserve (and youth) games elsewhere.

[Sun Tzu]

The only youth games played at the stadium are the FA Youth Cup and i believe that the competition rules are that they have to be played at the club's main ground.

The reserve games are deliberately scheduled so we don't play any at home in the winter - this week's game was the first at the Mad Stad since about october.

I do agree that playing the reserve games elsewhere would make sense although of course that leads to complaints that STH can't then take advantage of their free entry and people generally can't get to games. There are also very few options for other venues (Didcot and Aldershot are about the only two)

[Dirk Gently]

It is noticably poorer about 5 yards in from both touchlines, though, which is entirely consistent with line-outs from the rugby.

Although in football terms that would only affect a team for whom wingers are an integral part of their play, though....... ah!

Not a rugby player are you. Line outs cause little significant damage. Any ruck or maul that formed would generally be further out than 5m. Cap that with thta distinct lack of an obvious line of damage at the 5m point and your case is looking a touch shaky.

Let's be honest. Any game played on grass will affect it, but a good pitch ought to be able to cope, if it also well maintained. The truth is that this pitch is the problem, and general overuse of it - not specifically rugby or football. With the power of hinsight it might well be argued that it is s elf inflicted wound for the football because of playing reserve matches at the stadium. Contractually the rugby has to be there, obviously the first team also has to play there, but if the pitch needed a rest then it would have been sensible to move reserve (and youth) games elsewhere.

Not a player, no, but i can't see the relevance of that.

Admittedly my 5m estimate was a bit out and the damage is somewhat closer to the touchlines themelves,

Lineouts concentrate play close to the wings, and the kicking for touch nature of Rugby Union mean that there are a lot of them. And the ludicrous business of being able to boost players who are jumping surely means a lot of weight and grip is applied to a particular piece of turf, and lineouts also often break down into loose mauls which won't be as damaging to a pitch than a formal scrum but will still still cause some damage if concentrated in an area.

But above all the general concentration of play close to the wings in RU shows, just as football tends to cause the most damage to the area in the goalmouth.

[West Stand Man]

Quite simply because if you were a player you'd understand the game and where it tends to be played (and hence where damage is likely to be caused).

Notwithstanding that, I am watching LI on Sky at the moment. The worst pitch damage isin the football goals areas. The next worst is along the side nerest the W stand - where (probably not a coincedence) the stand shades the pitch the most. Along the east side the grass is looking ok.

So what? Well it seems that the 2 major causes of pitch problems might not be the rugby.

[RoyalBlue]

Surely it doesn't matter which sport it is. Overuse a pitch during a winter like we have just experienced and you are bound to mess it up. Two games on the pitch over a wet weekend is asking for trouble.

So the question perhaps ought to be: Overusing the pitch. WHY???

[Sun Tzu]

The pitch isn't being over used.

So the question is irreleavnt

[Terminal Boardom]

Would Wenger sanction rugby at the Emirates? We all know the answer to that.

If excessive shade caused by the west stand roof is a problem why aren't translucent panels installed as at many other stadia?

Does the fact that the stadium is built on an old landfill site an issue with the nature of what lies beneath?

Sun Tzu makes a very valid comment regarding the warm ups by the goalkeepers. How often do Marcus and Fed practice their shotstopping on the East Stand side of the pitch?

The demands on the pitch for football and rugby are different. The preparation has to be different because of the nature of the games. However, what experience do the groundstaff have in preparing rugby pitches? Pitch management is a science and a complicated one at that. Are the people we have up to the required standard?

[Royalshow]

Would Wenger sanction rugby at the Emirates? We all know the answer to that.

If excessive shade caused by the west stand roof is a problem why aren't translucent panels installed as at many other stadia?

Does the fact that the stadium is built on an old landfill site an issue with the nature of what lies beneath?

Sun Tzu makes a very valid comment regarding the warm ups by the goalkeepers. How often do Marcus and Fed practice their shotstopping on the East Stand side of the pitch?

The demands on the pitch for football and rugby are different. The preparation has to be different because of the nature of the games. However, what experience do the groundstaff have in preparing rugby pitches? Pitch management is a science and a complicated one at that. Are the people we have up to the required standard?

The Arsenal Pitch is so immaculate because they use those mobile lighting rigs throughout the winter.Reading have one that covers about 5x5 squared which can only be in one place at a time.Perhaps spending the rugby income on multiple units would be the way forward.

[Sun Tzu]

Would Wenger sanction rugby at the Emirates? We all know the answer to that. ?

He didn't veto Springsteen playing a couple of home games there or Brazil making it their European home. With their Euro games and longer cup runs I suspect they play more games on the pitch than us and Irish combined anyway !!

If excessive shade caused by the west stand roof is a problem why aren't translucent panels installed as at many other stadia??

I'd guess the impact would be quite small as the sun doesn't get round to that side of the ground until late in the day.

Does the fact that the stadium is built on an old landfill site an issue with the nature of what lies beneath???

They do vent methane out of the landfill so you may have a point, although there is supposed to be an impearmeable membrane protecting the old tip.

Sun Tzu makes a very valid comment regarding the warm ups by the goalkeepers. How often do Marcus and Fed practice their shotstopping on the East Stand side of the pitch????

Never !

The demands on the pitch for football and rugby are different. The preparation has to be different because of the nature of the games. However, what experience do the groundstaff have in preparing rugby pitches? Pitch management is a science and a complicated one at that. Are the people we have up to the required standard?

The groundsman did a blog on the OS a while ago and in his view the real difference between the sports was the grass length, and he said that if there were two games clsoe togther the pitch was prepared to suit the football. He's an experienced guy though and AFAIK has all the scientific quls plus experience at a number of different grounds. I know he works closely wwith the Millenium Stadium groundstaff who have loads of experience of producing multi sport pitches although their system is rather different I think as they have a removable pitch (IIRC) - and of course they have produced some poor surfaces in the past so might not be that good themselves !

[Terminal Boardom]

The groundsman did a blog on the OS a while ago and in his view the real difference between the sports was the grass length, and he said that if there were two games clsoe togther the pitch was prepared to suit the football.

Therein lies a factor. If rugby is played BEFORE football, the pitch will be prepared with football in mind even though the first game is rugby. Thus, with rugby being played on a pitch more suited to football is it any wonder that the pitch quality deteriorates? Simplistic? Maybe. But something needs to be done. Reference to the Milennium Stadium is, perhaps, unfortunate. Are there any examples where both codes are played with little detrimental effect?

[Sun Tzu]

I think in general (and I haven't checked !) the rugby is played after the football, and it can't be played less than 48 hours before to allow for the pitch to be remown in between.

The football gets 'first pick' of dates and the rugby fixtures are changed to fit around the football, so if they have a Saturday home fixture when we also do they get shifted to the Sunday. That of course also means that the rugby game takes place on a pitch with shorter grass - however the difference in grass length is minimal so would it make a huge difference ?

Wycombe has football and rugby and I've not heard negative comments about the pitch (by that I mean I've not heard, rather than there have been none !). Watford have both, but their pitch was poor even when it just had football. Bristol Rovers have both, Northampton have both, Stockport have both.

[The 17 Bus]

Hudderfield as well, ppich seems fine there